marc marc
marc
marc marc
blog about books journalism speaking contact

Posts Tagged ‘Starbucks’

Rwanda’s bold power play

Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Lake Kivu

Lake Kivu

As natural disasters go, the limnic eruption — an explosion of gas from beneath a lake  — of Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986 ranks among the most horrifying and bizarre:  About 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock were suffocated when a large cloud of CO2 descended silently on their villages.

Lake Kivu, one of Africa’s great lakes, which lies on the border of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, poses a similar danger because vast amounts of methane gas and CO2 are buried in its depths. At the same time, rural Rwanda desperately needs more electricity–only about 6 percent of the nation’s 9.7 million people are connected to the electricity grid, according to the government.

To Contour Global, a private company that specializes in power-generation projects in the global south, this is a business opportunity. The company has embarked on an ambitious $325 million plan to extract the methane gas from the lake to provide about 100 megawatts of gas-fired electricity to Rwanda.

To put that in context, total generating capacity in Rwanda is now just 69 megawatts — about 10% of the capacity of a single coal-fired power plant in the U.S.

Recently, I spoke will Bill Fox, senior vice president of Contour Global, who is overseeing the Lake Kivu project. The company, he told me, was founded in 2005 by Joe Brandt, a former executive with the global power generation company AES, and funded by Reservoir Capital, a $4 billion investment fund. Contour Global and Reservoir Capital are based in New York.

Fox, who is 62, spent most of his career in the U.S. before joining Contour Global two years ago. Since then, he has managed a hydroelectric project in Brazil and made four trips to Lake Kivu.

“The country, under President Kagame, has a very ambitious goal to increase the electrification rate,” Fox told me. “They’re going about it in a major way, building transmission and generation.”

The technology behind the Lake Kivu project is a bit of a mystery to me but, as Fox explained it, Contour Global will build a gas extraction facility that will be mounted on a big barge. It will then siphon gases to the surface from a depth of about 350 meters.

Profile_William Fox[1]

Bill Fox

“If you can picture a champagne bottle that’s open, where the bubbles rise to the surface and they drag the liquid with it, that’s what’s happening in the lake,” Fox said.

The barge will process the liquid, separate out methane gas (CH4), which is the principal component of natural gas, and return the CO2 safely to the lake. The gas will then be sent by pipeline to a power plant in lakeside town of Kibuye. Methane emitted from coal mines and landfills is often burned to make electricity.

In fact, as Fox explained, the technology behind the Lake Kivu power plan isn’t that complex. What’s harder is getting the project built in landlocked nation with limited infrastructure. “We’re 1900 kilometers from the closest seaport. The logistics of the job are going to be more challenging than the project itself,” he said.

Then again, getting the job done could literally be a matter of life and death. “In the next 200 years, if nothing is done, the lake could erupt,” Fox said.

Just as crucial are the potential economic benefits. I’ve followed the Rwanda story since visiting the country in 2005 with Rick Warren, the evangelical minister, and seeing first-hand the aftermath of the genocide there. In recent years, U.S. corporations, including Starbucks, Costco and Google, have taken an special interest in the country known as the Land of a Thousand Hills (see Why CEOs Love Rwanda). Rwanda’s business-friendly president, Paul Kagame, even spoke at a Starbucks annual meeting. A can-do spirit animates their efforts, As Rob Glaser, the tech entrepreneur, once told me: “If you make a Rwanda a better place, you haven’t solved all the world’s problems but you have demonstrated that the problems can be solved.”

But there are troubling reports coming out of Rwanda, too. The Kagame administration has repressed Rwandan journalists, advocacy groups and opposition leaders, according to Amnesty International. Just this month, Human Rights Watch said that the regime’s opponents face increasing threats, attacks, and harassment in advance of Rwanda’s August 2010 presidential election. Some of this reflects the lingering effects of the 1994 genocide which killed an estimated 800,000 people in about 100 days.

In that context, the Contour Global project is particularly important because economic growth and democracy often go hand-in-hand.The relationship between economic growth and democracy isn’t simple but there’s considerable evidence that “countries are likely to become democratic if economic growth succeeds in raising their average incomes to high enough levels,” according to this analysis by economist Gary Becker.

And, of course,a growing economy needs access to electricity. Google, for example, has a partnership with Rwanda’s schools and ministries that will have more if Internet access becomes widespread. As I write this blogpost on my laptop in a coffee shop with free wi-fi in Bethesda, Md., it’s easy to forget that one-quarter of the world’s population lacks access to electricity.

Making an on-off switch part of their lives is transformative. That’s why Bill Fox, who has been in the power business for 30 years, is so jazzed about his work.

“This is a great opportunity for us as Contour Global,” Fox said. “Obviously, we’re getting paid but it’s almost like a mission to be benefiting countries like Rwanda.”

In search of the perfect (Coke) bottle

Monday, November 30th, 2009

plantbottle1Since joining The Coca-Cola Co. in 1997, Scott Vitters has gone to work most days with one question on his mind:

“How do we get to our vision of a 100% renewable, 100% recyclable bottle?”

It’s a simple question, with anything but a  simple answer—getting to a renewable, zero-waste bottle requires technology breakthroughs, favorable economics that will drive recycling, changes in human behavior and supporting policy from governments around the country, if not around the world.

This winter, though, Coca-Cola is taking a meaningful  step towards its goal with the introduction of what it calls a PlantBottle – a bottle made of PET plastic, 30% of which is sourced from Brazilian sugar cane and molasses.

That puts Coke on the road to 100% renewable.

PET, meanwhile, is 100% recyclable—although actual recycling rates are far lower.

It’s a start.

“It’s incredibly exciting for us to be able to see a route forward to zero waste,” says Vitters, who is head of global sustainable packaging for Coca-Cola. (more…)

Exposed! Starbucks goes undercover

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

Seattle surely has more coffee shops per capita than any American city, so the arrival of another one would ordinarily not get much attention. But a newly-renovated coffee shop called 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood is attracting interest—because it’s a Starbucks in disguise.

YOUR neighborhood coffeeshop is a Starbucks!

YOUR neighborhood coffeeshop is a Starbucks!

Crazy as it sounds, Starbucks, which has its headquarters in Seattle, operates 16,000 stores around the world and has spent countless millions to build its brand, is going undercover.

(more…)

Can a company care?

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Fly the Friendly Skies. You’re in good hands with Allstate. Talk to Chuck.  You have a friend at Chase Manhattan. (I know, I’m dating myself with that last one.)

For a long time, companies have sought to be our friends, neighbors and companions. Many tell their workers that they are all part of the family. Or at a minimum playing on the same team.

Is this all marketing b.s. or can companies care? I believe they can. My 2004 book, Faith and Fortune: How Compassionate Capitalism is Transforming American Business argued that smart companies (Herman Miller, Timberland, UPS, Southwest Airlines and Starbucks, among others) are driven by an ethic of service—to their employees, their customers and their shareholders, frequently in that order. This ethic of service generates loyalty and creates a powerful competitive advantage: Happier and more fulfilled employees mean satisfied customers, and satisfied customers generate long-term value for shareholders. Caring is good business.

The thing is, companies that say they care need to behave that way.  In tough times, that’s tough: Starbucks eliminated more than 6,000 jobs when its business went south last year. This doesn’t make Starbucks hypocritical when it cames to be a good employer, but, at the least, it puts a burden on the company to treat people well on the way out.

A provocative and lively book I’ve been reading, called Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, explores these question in a chapter called The Cost of Social Norms: Why We Are Happy to Do Things, but Not When We Are Paid to Them. The author, Dan Ariely, argues that we live simultaneously in two worlds, one characterized by social exchanges and the other characterized by market exchanges. The first is the world of family, friends, neighbors and community, the second the world of business, wages, prices and rents. “When we keep social norms and market norms on their separate paths,” Ariely writes, “life hums along pretty well.” But when they collide, look out. Think about what happens when a guy tries to persuade his wife or girlfriend to have sex with him because he just bought her an expensive dinner—Ariely’s example, not mine.

Businesses gain when they bring social norms to the marketplace, Ariely says:

If customers and a company are family, then the company gets several benefits. Loyalty is paramount. Minor infractions—screwing up your bill or even imposing a modest hike in your insurance rates—are accommodated. Relationships of course have ups and downs but of course they are a pretty good thing.

I’m willing to bet that Southwest customers are less grumpy about flight delays than those on United or Delta because they have a sense that the company wants to treat them right. When I buy something at Nordstrom or L.L. Bean and something’s amiss, I’m okay with that because I know they’ll happily take the merchandise back.

Trouble arises when companies don’t deliver what they promise. We know that we can’t literally “talk to Chuck” but Charles Schwab had better make sure that the people who answer its phones are friendly, responsive and knowledgeable. State Farm has to act like a neighbor when a customer submits a claim. As Ariely writes:

If you’re a company, my advice is to remember that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t treat your customers like family one moment, and then treat them impersonally—or even worse as a nuisance or a competitor—a moment later when this becomes more convenient or profitable.

Just to be clear, Ariely isn’t saying that companies should only operate by market norms. He believes in the power of social norms, and his experiments in behavioral economics back him up.

“Cash will only take you so far,” he writes. “Social norms are the forces that can make a difference in the long run.” Money, he goes on to say, is “very often the most expensive way to motivate people. Social norms are not only cheaper, but more effective.”

Put simply, we’ll all work hard for a cause – or a company – that we believe in. Look at the success of open-source software or Wikipedia, where creators don’t get paid at all.

Much of this dovetails (pun intended) with the work of one of my writing/consulting clients, Dov Seidman, the founder and CEO of a company called LRN and author of a book, HOW: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything in Business (and in Life). Dov talks about how companies need to inspire, rather than coerce or motivate, their workforce. He also says that the best businesses need to “out-behave” their competition. I agree, but Ariely reminds us that this is a risky way of doing business.

Those who say that they care create high expectations that they had better meet.

images16

The anatomy of a latte

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

Have you ever wondered how much water it takes to make a Starbucks grande latte? I hadn’t until I met Jason Clay.

Jason is a Missouri farm boy who earned a Phd in anthropology from Cornell, wrote a definitive book on agriculture and the environment and is now senior vice president for market transformation at the World Wildlife Fund. (I wrote this column about him last year for fortune.com.) He’s one of those people who is always bursting with both facts and ideas, so I was pleased to run into him today in Atlanta, where we had both been invited to speak to senior executives of Coca Cola Enterprises, the big bottler of Coke products and a FORTUNE 500 company in its own right. CCE is doing great work on sustainability, but that’s another story.

Jason’s presentation was mind-expanding, as usual, but my favorite part came when he analyzed the “embedded water” in a Starbucks latte. There’s a terrific video about this at the WWF website; view it by clicking on the coffee cup.

Here’s the breakdown, by liters, of the water needed to make that latte:

0.1 for the water itself
2.5 to make the plastic lid
5.5 to make the paper cup and sleeve
7.5 to grow the sugar
49.5 to feed the cows that make the milk
143 to grow the coffee

That adds up to more than 200 liters of water to make a latte.

Now, this doesn’t mean we should stop drinking lattes. The water to grow coffee, after all, comes in the form of tropical rainstorms, which are abundant. And a bowl of Rice Krispies with milk has a much bigger water footprint: According to Jason, roughly 58% of all the water on the planet used by people for any purpose—farming, manufacturing, cooling nuclear power plants, swimming pools, showers—is used to grow rice. His point is that we, collectively, need to better understand the full environmental impacts of all that we consume. Then we need to make and grow things more efficiently, and consume less of them.

That not as simple as it may sound. One common mistake in the world of business and sustainability is to optimize for a single outcome—sell more organic cotton, say, or wild-caught fish, or fair trade tea—without understanding the overall impact of  products on water, energy, soil, land use, even poverty alleviation. Favoring organics might, for example, limit the development of genetically modified foods that require less water and fewer fertilizers. Clay’s open to the idea of GMOs as tools to grow more calories on less land. “Let’s be a little more neutral on the technology,” he says, “and a little more focused on the results.”

The need for clear thinking about such matters is urgent because population and, more important, consumption are growing fast.

“We’re beginning to wake up to the fact that we live in a finite world,” Clay says. “Business as usual is not going to set things right.”

“The average cat in Europe has a larger environmental footprint than the average African over a lifetime because of the fish it eats,” he says. [I’m going ask Jason for the data to back up that claim next time we meet.]

So what’s he doing to provoke change? He’s working with big companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart, urging them to take a thorough, science-driven approach to their supply chains, so they use less water, produce fewer greenhouse gases, make less waste and protecting forests. That’s because these companies have scale and clout.

“Working with 300 to 500 companies is easier than working with 6.7 billion consumers,” he says.

Of course, consumers should be urged to reduce, reuse and recycle, but Clay argues that it’s unrealistic to expect even committed and well-informed consumers to drink their coffee black or switch from Rice Krispies to oatmeal.

“Consumers shouldn’t be asked to make those choices,” Clay says. “We think they ought to have only good choices on the shelves.”

Greening skiing

Sunday, February 1st, 2009

This may come under the category of Too Much Information, but I relieved myself the other day into a waterless urinal near the summit of the Park City Mountain Resort. A plaque informed me that each environmentally-friendly urinal at the ski resort saves about 40,000 gallons of fresh water a year.

This is part of what the Park City calls its “Environmental Commitment.” Right on every trail map, the resort says it “recognizes that the environment is one of our most valuable assets.” Now there’s a bold statement. It might be more attention-grabbing to say that  if we don’t do something about global warming soon, Park City will have the climate of, say, Phoenix, before too many decades go by.

But what does it mean for the ski industry to make an environmental commitment? Skiing requires chopping down big trees on beautiful mountains to make way for ski runs and slope-side second homes. It’s an utterly unnecessary pursuit that usually takes place far from population centers, requiring air travel or long car trips. It’s energy-intensive, too. Think of artificial snow-making, and all those steaming hot tubs.

Still, I love to ski. Just being in the mountains makes me happy. And skiing has been a great way for me to spend time over the years with my brothers and my daughters (that’s my older daughter, Sarah, who came with me this time.)

As a tree-hugging (not literally) skier hoping for insight into this conundrum, I have been reading an advance copy of Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution, by Auden Schendler. Schendler is executive director of community and environmental responsibility at Aspen Skiing Company, a business known for its sustainability efforts.

I’m halfway through the book, and I’m enjoying it a great deal. Right up front, Schendler takes on those who tell him that the best thing that the Aspen ski resort and, for the matter, the entire town of Aspen could do for sustainability would be to shut down:

Certainly Aspen’s lifestyle is lavish. But then, so is the entire U.S. lifestyle. You’ve heard the stations before: we’re 5 percent of the world’s population, and we use 25 percent of the planet’s resources. Americans burn more fossil fuel per capita than any nation on earth…

So what do we do? Close down Aspen, then close down the United States? The U.S. is hugely wasteful compared to Europe…and actually, Europe is pretty bad compared to India…Do we shut down Paris?

In short there’s no way to draw the moral energy line in the sand showing which activities are OK and which are not.

Fair enough. So the more reasonable question for Aspen, Park City and every other business is: Are you doing as much as you can to be environmentally responsible?

Park City’s record is mixed in that regard. The resort says that it offsets 100% of its power consumption from renewable energy sources—a claim that is hard to verify, without knowing more detail, but let’s assume that it’s true. The resort’s fleet of snowcats is “powered entirely by biodiesel fuel.” One of the best things about staying in Park City area is the free, well-run public bus system which shuttles people around resorts, lodging and restaurants. Then there are those waterless urinals. You can read more at www.saveoursnow.net.

But much of this appears to be for show. On the mountain, you can eat chili in a paper bowl that is 100% compostable, but the bowls get thrown in with other trash, making the claim worthless. There’s lots of self-congratulation on the website, but no mention (that I could find) of the resort’s overall carbon footprint, or its goals.

And, as Schendler argues in his book, the most important measures of a company’s environmental commitment may be well its actions in the policy arena, because that’s where the climate change problem will be solved, or not. He writes:

Before businesses can effectively lobby for government action on climate, they need to have done something themselves or they lose their credibility and appear to be hypocrites. This may be the single most important reason businesses and individuals should implement policy reductions: so that their political case-making has more power and credibility.

This is a great point. Aspen measures up well in this regard—it filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in a lawsuit requiring EPA to regulate GHG emissions. It also joined a Greenpeace campaign against Kimberly Clark, the forest products firm. I’ve never heard of Park City doing anything like that.

More to the point, why don’t we hear more from the entire ski industry on the climate-change issue? They have databases of skiers—why not enlist their customers to support federal action? The same could be said for the travel industry. It’s not just ski areas, but beaches that are threatened by climate disruptions. Where are Marriott, Hilton, Starwood and the airlines when it comes to global warming policy? Actually, I know where the airlines are—they don’t want their emissions to be regulated. Marriott, by contrast, is taking steps to help preserve rainforests.

Unfortunately, only a handful of progressive companies, including Nike and Starbucks, have taken bold positions on the climate change issue. They’re part of a coalition called Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, or BICEP.) Only when a lot more companies join them will the odds get better than we can truly save our snow.