On a visit to China earlier this year, The Walt Disney Company’s Jay Rasulo inspected contract factories that make Disney-branded products.  He met with factory managers, walked factory floors, visited worker dormitories and spoke with Disney team members responsible for auditing labor conditions in the factories.  “It was an opportunity for me to see our extended supply chain first-hand,” he said.

Scrooge McDuck

A trip like that would not be unusual for an executive in charge of a company’s corporate citizenship program, as Mr. Rasulo is for Disney.  What was out of the ordinary is that Mr. Rasulo is also Disney’s chief financial officer (CFO) and a senior executive vice president, responsible for a worldwide finance organization that tracks and manages some $40 billion in annual revenue.

In a recent presentation to corporate responsibility executives at the BSR 2012 conference in New York, Mr. Rasulo explained that his two titles required qualities belonging to two very different Disney characters: Toy Story’s Woody (an amiable guy “who’s 100 percent committed to doing the right thing”) and the classic Scrooge McDuck (a guy who “strives to make every dollar count”).

“I do spend most of my time talking to investors and bankers,” Mr. Rasulo said. But wearing two executive hats – CFO as well as leader of the citizenship program - “allows us to integrate our work in citizenship with the other financial strengths of the company.  And if I’m successful in doing that, I believe I’ll actually create even more value for our shareholders.”

Shifting Responsibilities

While Disney’s structure for its citizenship program is more ambitious than that of most companies, a growing number of CFOs are increasingly involved in environmental and social initiatives (often called sustainability programs) that not long ago were totally divorced from their company’s income statements or balance sheets.

Traditionally, “CFOs ran the numbers, letting others handle soft issues such as social responsibility and corporate citizenship,” says a 2011 report by the consulting firm Ernst & Young. “But those job silos are crumbling. Investors, business customers and other stakeholders have shown a growing desire to connect a company’s financial performance to its social and environmental impact. “

As a result, “CFO involvement with sustainability is deepening,” concludes a 2012 survey of 250 CFOs in 14 countries by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL). Two-thirds (66%) of the CFOs surveyed said they were “always” or “frequently” involved with driving sustainability strategy in their organizations.  More than half (51%) said their involvement had increased over the last year.  More than three-fifths (61%) said they expected their involvement to increase over the next two years.

One big reason for the greater CFO involvement, the Deloitte survey concluded, is that “sustainability is being operationalized,” with accountability beginning to shift from an organization’s chief executive officer (CEO) or head of sustainability to its chief operating officer (COO) or CFO.  The percentage of CFOs and COOs accountable to their company’s boards for sustainability issues nearly doubled from 20% to 36% in the past year, the survey found.

Ernst & Young found that these trends are increasing responsibilities for CFOs across a range of activities. In investor relations, for example, “banks, insurance companies, private equity funds and other institutional investors are now considering the sustainability rankings of the companies in which they invest… As sustainability issues intertwine with business strategy, institutional investors are starting to view financial and non-financial performance as two sides of the same coin.”

That has increased pressure for sustainability reporting and new financial controls. “Among other things, customers increasingly want to know that a company’s distribution model has a low carbon footprint; that its procurement policies take “fair trade” issues into account; and that its supply chain uses alternative energy sources,” the E&Y report said.  "While concerns such as these have environmental or social benefits, “each one also has a potential financial impact. Evaluating the return on investment (ROI) of potential capital expenditures and reporting on their bottom-line impact requires the attention of the CFO’s finance team.”

Citizenship Dilemmas

Jay Rasulo, senior executive vice president and chief financial officer, The Walt Disney Company.

Disney’s Mr. Rasulo said that when it comes to making tough corporate decisions on environmental and social initiatives that involve trade-offs between short-term costs and long-term business benefit, “the CFO is well-positioned to do that.”

Disney’s commitment to corporate responsibility, he said, stems largely from what consumers expect of the brand: “More is expected of us.  If we don’t act in accordance with the stories we tell, the experiences we offer, and the images we project, we lose our authenticity. You can’t entertain a family on the one hand and totally disregard the world that that family lives in and the circumstances that they work in.  Acting responsibly is core to our brand.”

In speaking to an audience composed mostly of corporate responsibility executives from large companies, Mr. Rasulo cited three examples of “citizenship dilemmas” confronted by Disney in which he – as CFO – has played a critical role.

- A commitment to promote only “healthier” meals - sold at Disney parks, endorsed by its characters or advertised on its TV outlets – has taken about three years to fully implement and “turn into a win” financially. “We are (now) launching product lines that, frankly, we would not have imagined had we not decided to play a role in helping to create healthier generations,” he said.

- A commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions company-wide conflicted with plans to grow some highly-profitable businesses – such as Disney cruise ships – that are carbon intensive.   The company has imposed an internal “carbon tax” on individual business units to encourage technological innovation and “imagineering.”

- A commitment by Disney – the largest product licensor in the world – to maintain fair labor standards at over 25,000 factories in more than 100 countries, where Disney-branded products are made.  “It’s a very profitable business model, as you can imagine,” he said.  “It’s also a business model that creates immense challenges for implementing our Code of Conduct for manufacturers as well as our international labor standards that help ensure proper working conditions in this extended supply chain.”

In making decisions as a CFO or senior executive in situations such as this, Mr. Rasulo said, “you’re in the world of tradeoffs; you’re trading off the profitability against the risk…you want a hard and bright line, but most things are grey.”

Internally, he added, persuading business units to adopt more sustainable practices was frequently a challenge: “It’s not easy.  It takes a lot of work.  It takes a lot of cooperation.”   And he advised against using “moral high-ground” as a primary tool of persuasion in internal deliberations about sustainability strategy. “You’ve got to do your homework,” he said. “You have to approach it like every other business problem.”

One advantage of leading a corporate citizenship program as CFO, Mr. Rasulo added, is that it’s easier to make decisions when there are “tradeoffs among business units” or, when there is a “company good in general,” to decide how costs should be allocated to particular business units.

“As fantastical as it sounds,” he said, “as the CFO of Disney I am as committed to meeting the expectations of children and families on Main Street as I am to delivering results to Wall Street  - because what’s good for kids and families is good for Disney’s financial future too.”

Dear EarthTalk: What are the big delivery companies like FedEx and UPS doing to green their truck fleets and operations in general? -- Mitchell Glaser, Overland Park, KS

Package delivery companies like FedEx and UPS have come a long way in a relatively short time regarding sustainability, but they still have considerable room for improvement. While there is only so much these companies can do to reduce their huge carbon footprints—given their reliance on emissions-heavy air transport—they’ve made great strides in greening their ground fleets, optimizing their choices of modes and otherwise streamlining energy use.

For its part, UPS was an early adopter of cleaner vehicles, and today operates upwards of 2,500 low-emission vehicles that run on alternative fuels and technologies. The company is particularly jazzed about a new generation of hydraulic hybrid package delivery trucks unveiled in the fall of 2012 in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities program. These new trucks—which employ a diesel combustion engine along with a hydraulic high-pressure accumulator that stores energy captured during braking—get 35 percent better fuel economy and generate as much as 30 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the non-hybrid diesel-powered vehicles they are replacing. While these trucks may cost UPS $7,000 apiece more than their traditional counterparts, the company estimates the upgrade will save $50,000 or more, while substantially reducing emissions, over the lifetime of each vehicle.

UPS has also been blazing new trails in operational efficiency via intermodal shifting, e.g., using the most fuel-efficient transport mode (airplane, train, truck or ship) or combination of modes to meet customer needs. A concerted effort by the company to streamline its operations in 2011 led to savings of two million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by moving delivery volume from air (the most emissions-intensive mode by far) to ground, and another 800,000 metric tons by shifting volume from ground to rail.

Meanwhile, FedEx, with one of the largest hybrid-electric fleets in the industry and upwards of 2,000 alternative energy vehicles in service worldwide, is no slouch either when it comes to green streamlining. Back in 2008 the company worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in setting the ambitious goal of improving the fuel efficiency of its worldwide fleet of Express delivery vans and trucks by 20 percent within a dozen years. Then early in 2013 the company announced that it had already exceeded its goal seven years ahead of schedule (with an overall savings of 22 percent so far) but was also upping its goal to a 30 percent fleet-wide efficiency gain by 2020.

With a strong commitment to swapping out older vehicles with newer more efficient ones, the company is well on its way. It now operates 360 hybrid-electric trucks and 200 electric vehicles and is replacing many of its delivery trucks with “right-sized” Sprinter-type vans that are as much as 100 percent more fuel efficient than their predecessors. FedEx has also been upgrading its fleet of Express diesel trucks to cleaner-burning models, and is making similar upgrades in its Freight and Ground divisions as well. Likewise, the company is well on its way toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its airplanes by 30 percent by 2020.

Photo: Biofriendly, courtesy Flickr

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I heard that a number of beer brewing companies have banded together to support the Clean Water Act. Can you enlighten? -- Mitch Jenkins, Cincinnati, OH

In April 2013 the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought together two dozen nationally respected craft beer brewers to launch the Brewers for Clean Water Campaign, which aims to leverage the economic growth of the craft brewing sector into a powerful voice for bolstering clean water protection in the United States.

“Whether brewers are creating ales, pilsners, porters, wits or stouts, one ingredient must go into every batch: clean water,” says Karen Hobbs, a senior policy analyst at NRDC. “Craft brewers need clean water to make great beer.”

While hops, malt and the brewing process itself are also clearly important, water just may be the secret ingredient that gives a specific beer its distinctive flavor. “Beer is about 90 percent water, making local water supply quality and its characteristics, such as pH and mineral content, critical to beer brewing and the flavor of many classic brews,” reports NRDC. “For example, the unusually soft water of Pilsen, from the Czech Republic, helped create what is considered the original gold standard of pilsner beers. The clarity and hoppiness of England’s finest India Pale Ales, brewed since the 1700s in Burton-on-Trent, result from relatively high levels of calcium in local water.” Brewers can replicate the flavors of beers like these and others by sourcing freshwater with similar features or by starting with neutral water and adding minerals and salts accordingly to bring out certain desired characteristics.

Of course, clean water is essential to more than great-tasting beer. “It’s critical for public health and the health of a wide range of industries,” adds NRDC. “Now our streams, wetlands and water supply need our help. Without strong legal protections, they are under threat from pollution like sewage, agricultural waste, and oil spills.”

The popularity of craft brewers’ “microbrews” in recent years is another reason why NRDC has hitched its clean water wagon to the industry. “Craft brewers are closely tied to their communities with a very real understanding of the impacts bad policy can have on regional water sources,” reports the group. “While the participants in the campaign include brewing operations large and small, all have demonstrated a commitment to sustainability in their operations and beer development.”

By taking part in the campaign, New Belgium, Sierra Nevada, Allagash, Short's, Temperance, Arbor, DryHop, Finch's, Revolution, Flossmoor, Cranker’s, Wild Onion, Right Brain, Half Acre, Goose Island and other craft brewers are helping spread the word in a way that hits home with consumers. For its part, NRDC is urging beer lovers (and other concerned environmentalists) to use the form on its website to e-mail the White House encouraging President Obama to finalize guidelines recently created by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that call for greater protections for streams and wetlands in important headwaters regions from coast to coast. And consumers should be glad to know that for once drinking beer can actually be good for the environment. So bottoms up!

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I hear the term “greenwashing” a lot these days but am still not sure exactly what it means. Can you enlighten? --  Ruth Markell, Indianapolis, IN     

In essence, greenwashing involves falsely conveying to consumers that a given product, service, company or institution factors environmental responsibility into its offerings and/or operations. CorpWatch, a non-profit dedicated to keeping tabs on the social responsibility (or lack thereof) of U.S.-based companies, characterizes greenwashing as “the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment.”

One of the groups leading the charge against greenwashing is Greenpeace. “Corporations are falling all over themselves,” reports the group, “to demonstrate that they are environmentally conscious. The average citizen is finding it more and more difficult to tell the difference between those companies genuinely dedicated to making a difference and those that are using a green curtain to conceal dark motives.”

Greenpeace launched its Stop Greenwash campaign in 2009 to call out bad actors and help consumers make better choices. The most common greenwashing strategy, the group says, is when a company touts an environmental program or product while its core business is inherently polluting or unsustainable.

Another involves what Greenpeace calls “ad bluster”: using targeted advertising or public relations to exaggerate a green achievement so as to divert attention from actual environmental problems—or spending more money bragging about green behavior than on actual deeds. In some cases, companies may boast about corporate green commitments while lobbying behind the scenes against environmental laws.

Greenpeace also urges vigilance about green claims that brag about something the law already requires: “For example, if an industry or company has been forced to change a product, clean up its pollution or protect an endangered species, then uses PR campaigns to make such action look proactive or voluntary.”

For consumers, the best way to avoid getting “greenwashed” is to be educated about who is truly green and who is just trying to look that way to make more money. Look beyond advertising claims, read ingredient lists or ask employees about the real skinny on their company’s environmental commitment.

Also, look for labels that show a given offering has been vetted by a reliable third-party. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Certified Organic label can only go on products that meet the federal government’s organic standard. Just because a label says “made with organic ingredients” or “all-natural” does not mean the product qualifies as Certified Organic, so be sure to look beyond the hype.

Even some eco-labels are suspect. If you see one you don’t recognize, look it up on Ecolabel Index, a global directory tracking 400+ different eco-labels in 197 countries across 25 industry sectors. The free online resource provides information on which company or group is behind each certification and whether or not independent third-party assessments are required.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the "Production Tax Credit" and why is it so important to developing alternative renewable energy?  --  Sean Gallagher, Boston, MA

Environmentalists and wind energy boosters breathed a sigh of relief this past January when Congress voted to reinstate the Production Tax Credit (PTC), a federal tax incentive for companies that generate renewable energy from wind, geothermal or “closed-loop” biomass (dedicated energy crops) sources.

The credit, worth 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy produced, remains in effect for the first 10 years of a qualifying renewable energy facility’s operation. Other technologies such as “open-loop” biomass (using farm and forest wastes rather than dedicated energy crops), efficiency upgrades and capacity additions for existing hydro-electric, small irrigation, landfill gas and municipal solid waste systems qualify under the program for a lesser credit of 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour produced. The PTC, which had expired at the end of 2012, can in effect get wind and other qualifying renewable energy technologies down into the price range of conventional energy sources.

Available off and on again in one form or another since 1992, the PTC has been key to helping many small utility-grade alternative energy providers get their businesses off the ground, which in turn has created hundreds of thousands of green jobs. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the PTC has helped the U.S.wind industry grow by leaps and bounds. Thanks to the subsidy, the industry has attracted some $15 billion in investment during each of the past five years. Today some 500 wind farms operate across 44 states, providing as much as three percent of U.S.electricity needs. The increase in supply and demand has meant that the cost of wind has fallen by some 90 percent since 1980.

But Congress has let the PTC expire without renewal four times previously, leaving high and dry the alternative energy producers who depend upon it to make ends meet. Some argue that the “here today, gone tomorrow” nature of the PTC has actually hurt small providers who have not been able to count on what amounts to a subsidy for helping push the country in the right direction energy-wise: “This ‘on-again/off-again’ status contributes to a boom-bust cycle of development that plagues the wind industry,” reports the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit which puts independent science to work to solve the planet’s most pressing problems. “In the years following expiration, installations dropped between 73 and 93 percent, with corresponding job losses.”

This time around Congress has once again only extended the PTC for one more year, leaving the future uncertain still for qualifying producers and reducing the security of any investments in U.S.-based wind, geothermal and biomass projects. “Short-term extensions of the PTC are insufficient for sustaining the long-term growth of renewable energy,” reports UCS, adding that the planning and permitting process for new wind facilities can take two years or more to complete. “As a result, many renewable energy developers that depend on the PTC to improve a facility’s cost effectiveness may hesitate to start a new project due to the uncertainty that the credit will still be available to them when the project is completed.”

The shame of it is that wind energy is one ofAmerica’s most promising alternatives. AWEA points out that wind farms can produce as much as 20 percent of the nation’s electricity needs—but only if Congress can commit long-term to supporting them via extending the PTC for more than a year.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the theme of this year’s Earth Day festivities?   -- J. Worden, Austin, TX

Organizers from Earth Day Network (EDN), the non-profit group dedicated to diversifying and mobilizing the environmental movement through planning and coordinating Earth Day activities and events around the world, have chosen “The Face of Climate Change” as the theme for 2013’s celebration on April 22. According to the group, which works with 22,000 partners in 92 countries, more than a billion people will take part in Earth Day events this year.

Leading up to April 22, EDN is collecting images of people, animals and places directly affected or threatened by climate change, as well as images of people stepping up to do something about it. Anyone can upload a relevant picture for inclusion via EDN’s website. Then on and around Earth Day itself, an interactive digital display of all the images will be shown at thousands of events around the world—including next to federal government buildings in countries that produce the most carbon pollution. The resulting “global mosaic” display will also be available online—including an embedded live twitter feed.

The idea behind the theme is to personalize the challenge climate change presents by spreading the stories of those individuals, animals and places affected through imagery. Some of the images already part of the project include a man in the Maldives worried about relocating his family as sea levels rise, a polar bear in the melting arctic, a farmer in Kansas struggling to make ends meet as prolonged drought decimates crops, a tiger in India’s dwindling mangrove forests, a child in New Jersey who lost her home to Hurricane Sandy, an orangutan in Indonesian forests ravaged by bush fires and drought, and a woman in Bangladesh who can’t get fresh water due to more frequent flooding and cyclones.

EDN is also including many images of people doing their part to address climate change: green entrepreneurs, community activists, clean tech engineers, carbon-conscious policymakers and public officials, and Average Joes and Josephines committed to living sustainably.

“Together, we’ll highlight the solutions and showcase the collective power of individuals taking action across the world,” reports EDN. “In doing so, we hope to inspire our leaders to act and inspire ourselves to redouble our efforts in the fight against climate change.”

For those looking to organize an Earth Day event locally this year, Earth Day Network provides a wide range of useful resources—including basic guides for organizing events at schools and universities, in libraries and within faith communities, as well as posters, reading lists and so on. Teachers can also download Earth Day lesson plans and other curricula aids for their K-12 classrooms.

Beyond Earth Day itself, EDN runs the Billion Acts of Green campaign throughout the year with the goal of getting billions of people to take action on behalf of the environment, whether through encouraging policymakers to consider sustainability initiatives, recycling e-waste, planting trees, going solar, and much more. So far the group has tallied over a billion individual acts of green and is working on its second billion now. Anyone can register their own acts of green via the Earth Day Network website.

Photo: Earth Day Network

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that the “environmental justice” movement seeks to protect the poor and non-white communities from being unfairly targeted to host activities like sewage treatment plants, landfills and polluting factories. Have there been notable victories?  -- P. Silver, Peekskill, NY

An environmental justice rally in the Rogers-Eubanks community of North Carolina

The environmental justice movement was born in September 1982 when a group of poor residents of rural Warren County, North Carolina laid down in front of trucks transporting waste containing toxic PCBs to a nearby landfill. Those primarily African American activists eventually lost their battle to keep toxic waste out of the area, but their actions eventually led to an executive order by President Clinton in 1996 that institutionalized the U.S.government’s duty to identify and address “disproportionately high adverse health or environmental effects of its policies or programs on low-income people and people of color.” It also mandated that the federal government look for ways to prevent discrimination by race, color or national origin in any federally funded programs dealing with health or the environment.

In the time since, many other low income or minority groups—Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and others—have learned to raise their voices and stand up against the discriminatory locating of hazardous waste landfills and transfer stations, polluting factories and utilities, and other triggers for bad air quality and compromised waterways and soils across the U.S. and beyond.

Some of the better known environmental justice groups came to be out of specific struggles in their own local neighborhoods. Concerned Citizens of South Central LA (Los Angeles) was created to fight the now infamous LANCER incinerator in the late 1980s, and today provides leadership on environmental and other social justice issues throughout southern California. Likewise, Mothers of East LA, originally formed to stop the siting of a prison in an East Los Angeles community, has become a strong voice against incinerators and other waste processing and landfill facilities interested in moving to the area.

Elsewhere, West Harlem Environmental Action formed in 1998 to fight (unsuccessfully) the building of the North River Sewage Treatment Plant in West Harlem in New York City. Despite that defeat, the group is now a leader on environmental justice issues around New York State. And the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice began with humble activist roots but is now in high demand helping rural communities in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley” protect themselves from further degradation and harm at the hands of oil refineries and other heavy industry located there.

Several national organizations now devote significant resources to these issues. The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ), which emerged out of the 1970s Love Canal controversy when the U.S. government relocated 800 families from their polluted Niagara Falls, New York neighborhood, today functions as an activist clearinghouse for related issues. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has devoted significant resources to environmental justice efforts, including helping to identify cancer clusters in poor communities near heavy industry. Many Sierra Club local chapters battle environmental discrimination in their neighborhoods. And the federal government today provides millions of dollars to environmental justice projects through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies.

Photo:Mar is sea Y, courtesy Flickr

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Has the McDonald’s restaurant chain made significant improvements in recent years with regard to the environment? -- Max Andria, Laval University, Quebec

Long a poster child of environmental ills and health concerns, McDonald’s has worked steadily over the last two decades to clean up its act. The company will never win over vegetarians, who eschew meat for health, animal welfare and even world hunger concerns (we’d feed more people by using the land used to grow animal feed to grow food for people instead), but it has otherwise made some significant strides.

The company first came under fire from greens in the 1980s for sourcing beef for its hamburgers from ranches on newly cleared, former rainforest tracts throughout the Amazon basin. In response, the company committed in 1989 to refuse beef sourced from recently deforested rainforest areas.

Environmentalists were also on the company’s case about the waste it generates. So in 1990 McDonald’s partnered with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and began phasing out its polystyrene “clamshell” food containers and increasing the recycled content of the other food containers and boxes it uses. EDF and the fast food giant developed a waste reduction plan that eliminated 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled a million tons of corrugated boxes and reduced waste by 30 percent in the decade that followed.

More recently, Greenpeace exposed the fact that expanded soy farming in Brazil—which feeds chickens used by McDonald’s and other large food companies—had become a threat to the Amazon rainforest. In response, McDonald’s partnered with Greenpeace to develop a zero deforestation plan for all its products.

Likewise, McDonald’s beef purchasing executives have gotten in on things: In November 2010 the company was lead sponsor of the World Wildlife Fund’s first Global Conference on Sustainable Beef, an international meeting of stakeholders in the global beef system convened to discuss how to approach sustainable beef production in socially, environmentally and economically viable ways.

Another green highlight for McDonald’s is its commitment to matching 30 percent of the electricity used at its company-owned stores with renewable energy credits from American wind power providers. And several Japanese McDonald’s are participating in an energy-saving campaign employing 13 different green technologies with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 percent overall.

While McDonald’s is moving in the right direction, it is still widely criticized for the waste it generates and its contribution to health woes such as obesity. For its part, the company has limited control over the 80 percent of its stores that are run by independent franchisees, so change under the golden arches is slow.

This past spring, McD’s released its Global Best of Green report highlighting advances made in energy efficiency, sustainable packaging, anti-littering and greening the workplace at hundreds of its restaurants around the world, underscoring it’s commitment to sustainability moving forward. The company hopes the new report will serve as a catalyst for franchisees to make similar improvements in their businesses.

Photo: harry_nl, via Flickr

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

In a profile of him in the New Yorker magazine three years ago, John Mackey was described as a “right wing hippie” who is probably not well understood by most of the upscale shoppers at Whole Foods Market, the hugely successful business he co-founded and has headed since 1980.

Whole Foods Market practically created the large-scale market for organic foods in the U.S.  With some 342 stores, last year it boasted more than $11 billion in annual sales.  The company is often included in lists of most ethical/sustainable businesses.  It supports and distributes Fair Trade goods.  And it has a reputation as a responsible employer, one of only 13 companies included in FORTUNE magazine’s list of “100 Best Places to Work For” every year since the list was created in 1998.

Yet Mackey clearly doesn’t fit the typically progressive political stereotype of an executive focused on corporate social responsibility.  A self-described libertarian, he acknowledges having been heavily influenced by free-enterprise thinkers including Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.  Fiercely anti-union, he has successfully resisted labor organizers at Whole Foods Markets.  And just this month he amended a previous criticism of Barack Obama’s health care law, volunteering to an NPR interviewer that it was not “socialism” but, instead, more like “facism.” (Mackey later said his characterization was a “poor use of an emotionally charged word.”)

In a new book, Conscious Capitalism:  Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business, Mackey takes shots at multiple targets on the left and right.  While he worships free-market capitalism as “unquestionably the greatest system for innovation and social cooperation that has ever existed,” he also challenges the “myth of profit maximization” as espoused by Milton Friedman and embraced by many to justify short-term financial goals for American business.  While he opposes unnecessary regulation – a favored mantra of American business – he also attacks “the cancer of crony capitalism” in which “crony capitalists and governments have become locked in an unholy embrace, elevating the narrow, self-serving interests of the few over the well-being of the many.”

Whole Foods Market is Mackey’s day job, but for him conscious capitalism is a serious avocation.  He has been involved in several organizations dealing with related subjects and is a director of Conscious Capitalism Inc., a non-profit organization headed by his co-author, Raj Sisodia, who is also a professor at Bentley University.

According to the authors:

Conscious Capitalism is not about being virtuous or doing well by doing good.  It is a way of thinking about business that is more conscious of its higher purpose, its impact on the world, and the relationships it has with its various constituencies and stakeholders.  It reflects a deeper consciousness about why businesses exist and how they can create more value…

Our dream for the Conscious Capitalism movement is simple: one day, virtually every business will operate with a sense of higher purpose, integrate the interests of all stakeholders, elevate conscious leaders, and build a culture of trust, accountability and caring.

And the aspirations are enormously high:

Picture a business built on love and care rather than stress and fear…Think of a business that cares profoundly about the well-being of its customers…Envision a business that embraces outsiders as insiders, inviting its suppliers into the family circle…Imagine a business that exercises great care in whom it hires, where hardly anyone ever leaves once he or she joins…Imagine a business that exists in a virtuous cycle of multifaceted value creation, generating social, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, cultural, physical and ecological wealth and well-being for everyone it touches…”

In addition to Whole Foods Market, companies currently practicing conscious capitalism, according to the authors, are The Container Store, Patagonia, Eaton, the Tata Group, Google, Costco, Amazon.com, Panera Bread, Southwest Airlines, Bright Horizons, Starbucks, UPS, Wegmans, Nordstrom, Trader Joe’s, REI, Zappos, Twitter, POSCO (a South Korean steelmaker) and  “many others.”

Notably absent from that list are most Fortune 500 companies and a number of firms that regularly appear on lists of those exceling in sustainability and corporate responsibility.  In fact, Mackey and Sisodia include an Appendix to their narrative which attempts to explain how conscious capitalism is different – and, in their view, superior - to “corporate social responsibility,” the “triple bottom line,” “shared value,” and other popular terms used to describe most long-term corporate citizenship and corporate responsibility practices.

While the book’s narrative alternates between “I” and “we,” the voice heard most clearly is Mackey’s and the examples used are by far those of Whole Foods Market.   The tenets of conscious capitalism seem to suit new ventures and entrepreneurs far more than mature businesses with decades of corporate cultural baggage.  And it’s often difficult to sort out what’s critical to the practice of conscious capitalism and what’s particular to John Mackey.

For example, according to the book, in addition to contemplative practices such as meditation and Tai Chi, it is “imperative” for an executive interested in becoming a “conscious leader” to eat a wholesome diet which includes being “plant-strong,” eating “primarily foods such as raw and cooked vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and nuts and seeds, with no more than about 10 percent of calories coming from animal foods.”  (That would presumably eliminate many martini-drinking meat-loving candidates for CEO positions, even if they are skilled in strategies to save the planet.)

If you can filter out that kind of practical and philosophical arrogance, Conscious Capitalism contains a bold statement of optimism about the role of business in society in an age when cynicism often merits out-sized rewards. In fact, Mackey and Sisodia are certain their dream will come true. “One day,” they write,” Conscious Capitalism will no doubt become the dominant business paradigm for one simple reason: it is simply a better way to do business.  It just works better, and over the long term it will outcompete other business philosophies.”

Dear EarthTalk: Has recycling lived up to its promise to reduce waste and pollution, save energy and provide jobs in our ailing economy? -- Ian Atkinson, New York, NY

Americans still don’t recycle as much as they could. Nonetheless, the practice is already considered a huge success given that it keeps about a third of the solid waste we generate out of our quickly filling landfills and saves natural resources while generating much-needed revenue for struggling municipal governments. Recycling also helps us keep our carbon footprints down: According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recycling one ton of aluminum cans conserves more than 1,665 gallons of gasoline.

Of course that doesn’t mean the progression from virtually no recycling just 40 years ago to today’s U.S. average of 33.8 percent has always been smooth. Some types of materials, especially mixed plastics, have proven difficult and/or expensive to recycle, causing skeptics to question the overall value proposition. But well managed recycling systems that focus on profitable resources like glass, paper and metals have been a big success. And why wouldn’t they be, when recycling uses as little as five percent of the energy required for virgin production of materials such as aluminum?

Sara Brown of Presidio Graduate School reports that, while recycling has gained significant momentum during the last two decades, it has still not yet realized its potential. “Unfortunately, recycling pick-up services are not cheap and it is viewed as a redundant service; extra trucks mean extra cost. On top of that, single stream recycling requires investment in technology to sort the loads efficiently,” she says. “Trash, on the other hand, is far more indiscriminate because everything just goes to one place, the landfill.”

Brown says that the availability of curbside recycling programs varies throughout the country, as does their success. For example, New York City was a pioneer in recycling, but when the city became strapped for cash, recycling rates fell precipitously to just 15 percent and have not recovered. “New York City officials claim it is more expensive to recycle than to send trash to landfills and incinerators for disposal, and that they have to weigh those costs against environmental goals.”

On the other end of the spectrum is San Francisco, which has been steadily increasing its recycling and composting and is now up to over 77 percent. Even more incredibly, the city is aiming for zero waste by 2020. Brown lauds San Francisco for structuring its recycling program to promote the desired behavior. “Curbside fees are charged on a ‘pay as you throw’ basis for trash, while recycling and compost are free, creating a financial incentive for following the law and sorting your waste.” Brown adds that programs like San Francisco’s prove that recycling can be economically viable besides being good for the planet.

Brown acknowledges we’ve come a long way with recycling but that there is still great potential to do more. A November 2011 report entitled “More Jobs, Less Pollution” by a coalition of groups including the BlueGreen Alliance, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Recycling Works! advocates that the U.S. government mandate diverting 75 percent of our waste coast-to-coast by 2030. The result would be 1.5 million new jobs as well as significant pollution reduction and savings in water and other resources.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial