Can big business do good in the world? Can corporations contribute to a healthier planet while still turning a profit? With each new headline about bad corporate behavior, it would be easy to assume that the answer to both questions is decidedly 'no'.

But in fact, a global army is hard at work every day to answer those questions in the affirmative. They are Corporate Idealists: people who believe that business can make the world a better place and are working from within to put their beliefs into action.

Where are these Corporate Idealists? They're in China's industrial zones, working with factory owners to make sure employees are paid and treated properly. They're in Silicon Valley, collaborating with product developers to protect privacy on the internet. They're in Africa, sitting on dirt floors with village elders to make sure that mining is done without disrupting indigenous traditions. They're in executive suites in London and New York, convincing their colleagues that protecting human rights and the environment is good for business.

Why should we care about them? Corporate Idealists are the change agents we must recognize and support if we are to tackle the biggest challenges facing our world today: climate change, food and water shortages, economic disparity. Big business can either solve or exacerbate those problems; Corporate Idealists are working to make it the former, not the latter.

I know that Corporate Idealists exist because I am one of them. I've been a Corporate Idealist since my first Students for Responsible Business (now Net Impact) conference as an MBA student in 1998. I then joined BP and worked in Indonesia and China for three years, consulting with people living near company sites and setting up social programs to make sure that BP's presence didn't harm local communities.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster last year challenged my belief that companies can be good, as I watched the company I supported for so long wreak havoc on communities around the Gulf of Mexico. But while that tragedy tested my faith, it affirmed to me that we need Corporate Idealists now more than ever: My experience with BP in Asia showed me that a company can do good and operate successfully given the right staff and resources -- but that work then needs to replicated throughout a company, and beyond.

Last year more than 5,500 companies around the world issued sustainability reports, up from about 800 ten years ago. An increasing number of companies are working with nongovernmental organizations to assess their socioeconomic impacts (see Oxfam's assessment of Coca-Cola and SABMiller, done in partnership with those companies) and to tackle particular issues, from supporting factory workers to protecting free expression and privacy on the internet.

The real question is this: How do we get the efforts of individual Corporate Idealists to add up to more than the sum of their parts? In other words, how can the work of committed individuals amount to the sweeping changes that we need?

To start, we need to state our shared values. We need a Manifesto for the Corporate Idealist: an outline of the principles and actions that will help us better align the interests of business and society.

Here's my proposed starting point for such a manifesto, based on my ten-plus years working in and with big business and the experience of other Corporate Idealists I've gotten to know over the years:

1. Renounce the carbon offset model. If a company doesn't pay a decent wage and refrain from polluting, it can't redeem itself by sponsoring youth soccer teams or museum exhibits -- or even by creating beautiful, innovative products. (Apple, I'm talking to you.)

2. Learn and improve the tools of business. I didn't need the finance or accounting I learned in business school to speak with those villagers in Indonesia, but I did need those skills to translate their needs into actions for the company. We also need better models of calculating risks, costs, and benefits, that take externalities into account.

3. Listen. Perhaps it's so obvious that a company should listen to its stakeholders that executives assume someone else is doing it. When I started working for BP in China in 2002, local staff were still calling the company by its former name -- British Petroleum -- because "B" in Mandarin can sound like slang for "vagina", and "P" for "fart". Perhaps a trivial (if memorable) example, but if a company fails to heed its own employees' warnings on something as basic as the company name, will it hear concerns about human rights and the environment?

4. Build community. If you're the only one in a company fighting for better practices, it can be a lonely job. Initiatives like the Global Business Initiative on Human Rights bring together Corporate Idealists from different companies to develop tools to support their work and connect with others facing similar challenges.

5. Share stories. Spreadsheets are important, but at the end of the day we're talking about people, not numbers. We have to keep reminding ourselves that every decision we make affects a worldwide supply chain of real human beings.

To be sure, simply following these five steps won't solve the world's problems: Regulators, consumers, and investors need to demand better company behavior. But we need Corporate Idealists and we need to help them succeed. Consider this Manifesto for the Corporate Idealist the beginning of a conversation we must all have, about how to align the needs of business with the needs of society.

Are you a Corporate Idealist? What's your Manifesto? Tell Christine Bader on Twitter: @christinebader.

Christine Bader is a Nonresident Senior Fellow at The Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University.  This article was first published on The Huffington Post and is republished with permission.

Watch Christine's TEDx talk, Manifesto for the Corporate Idealist.

On October 9, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law competing bills that create two new corporate forms in California — a “flexible purpose corporation” and a “benefit corporation” — intended to allow entrepreneurs and investors the choice of organizing companies that can pursue both economic and social objectives. The new corporate forms differ from traditional for-profit corporations that are organized to pursue profit (and not social purposes) and non-profit corporations that must be used solely to promote social benefits. These laws will take effect on January 1, 2012.

The flexible purpose corporation is created by California Senate Bill 201 (“SB 201″), which adds Division 1.5 to Title 1 of the California Corporations Code (the “Code”) and amends other related sections of the Code, and the benefit corporation is created by California Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361″), which adds Part 13 to Division 3 of Title 1 of the Code. State Senator Mark DeSaulnier authored SB 201, and a full copy is available here. AB 361 was authored by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, and a full copy is available here. Both new laws take effect January 1, 2012.

Background

The new laws offer two versions of a solution to an identified gap in the Code and the corporate laws of many states. Existing law in California permits formation of for-profit corporations that operate within a construct that places interests of shareholders, and specifically return to shareholders, as the primary, if not sole, objective of the corporation and its various agents. A corporation might engage in philanthropy, act in an environmentally conscious manner and promote employee- or community-friendly policies, to name a few, but such pursuits ultimately are rationalized in the corporate governance context as being acts taken to promote long-term value growth for shareholders, and directors of a corporation could face exposure if they lean too far in favor of social objectives at the expense of shareholder returns. In contrast, a non-profit corporation in California is mandated to serve public interests and is specifically prohibited from pursuing private gain. A non-profit corporation that strays too far toward profit-producing activities risks action by the State Attorney General and loss of tax-exempt status (if applicable). This has left a gap for some entrepreneurs and investors that desire a business vehicle which can pursue both profits and social objectives.

SB 201 and AB 361 are the result of efforts by two groups working over the last two years to introduce a new “hybrid” corporate form in California. SB 201 originally was written by a group of corporate attorneys from major law firms in California, including this firm, who sought to create a new “flexible” form of corporation in California that would allow shareholders to devise their own mix of economic and social corporate objectives, ensure that future investors would have adequate notice of the purposes pursued, and provide protections to ensure that the new corporate form is not easily foisted upon shareholders of traditional corporations. AB 361 resulted from efforts of B Lab, a non-profit organization that offers certification of corporations as “B corporations” (which B Lab describes as “a new type of corporation which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental purposes”) and promotes adoption of benefit corporation legislation in states across the country. Enactment of AB 361 follows the adoption of similar benefit corporation legislation in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont and Virginia. The fact that both SB 201 and AB 361 were enacted is likely to create confusion going forward among entrepreneurs, investors and lawyers as they try to understand differences among the new entities and traditional for-profit and non-profit corporations (as well as limited liability companies and limited partnerships). Both of the new entities will be taxed the same as for-profit corporations under current tax law.

Flexible Purpose Corporations

A flexible purpose corporation will be set up much like a traditional for-profit corporation, with shareholders and a board of directors, but its articles of incorporation and share certificates must state that it is organized as a flexible purpose corporation, and its articles must identify a “special purpose” from the following list:

(1) One or more charitable or public purpose activities that a nonprofit public benefit corporation is authorized to carry out; or

(2) The purpose of promoting positive short-term or long-term effects of, or minimizing adverse short-term or long-term effects of, the flexible purpose corporation’s activities upon any of the following:

(a) The flexible purpose corporation’s employees, suppliers, customers, and creditors;
(b) The community and society; or
(c) The environment.

The obvious breadth of potential purposes was intended by the drafters of SB 201 — to allow shareholders to define their desired special purposes without regard to what third parties might deem to be valid or desirable societal objectives.

A flexible purpose corporation can amend its “special purpose” by amending its articles of incorporation. If the amendment would materially alter any special purpose stated in the articles, such amendment must be approved by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each class of the corporation’s stock, or a greater vote if required in the articles, regardless of whether a class is entitled to vote, and a majority of the outstanding shares of all classes entitled to vote. A similar vote is required for a flexible purpose corporation to amend its articles to convert into a traditional California corporation (which can be done by amending the articles to eliminate the special purpose provisions). A unanimous vote of all shareholders, regardless of whether shares are entitled to vote, is required to amend a flexible purpose corporation’s articles to convert it into a non-profit corporation.

In discharging his or her duties, a director of a flexible purpose corporation “may consider those factors, and give weight to those factors, as the director deems relevant, including the short-term and long-term prospects of the flexible purpose corporation, the best interests of the flexible purpose corporation and its shareholders, and the purposes of the flexible purpose corporation as set forth in its articles.” SB 201 specifically states that there shall be no private right of action created for members of the public to sue a flexible purpose corporation for failure to pursue or achieve its special purposes, and directors are not responsible to any parties other than the flexible purpose corporation and its shareholders.

A flexible purpose corporation’s board of directors is required to send an annual report to shareholders each year that includes a management discussion and analysis (MD&A) concerning the short-term and long-term objectives of the entity relating to its special purpose or purposes, the material actions taken during such year to achieve such objectives, the impact of such actions, and the causal relationships between the actions and outcomes, future material actions expected to be taken in the short-term and long-term to achieve the entity’s special purpose objectives, the measures used to evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving its special purpose objectives, and any expenditures incurred in achieving these objectives. The entity’s board of directors also must make the annual flexible purpose MD&A publicly available by posting it on the entity’s website or providing it through similar electronic means. Flexible purpose corporations also must send to shareholders and make publicly available current reports summarizing (i) any expenditure or group of expenditures that are likely to have a material adverse impact on the entity’s results of operations or financial condition for a quarterly or annual fiscal period or (ii) any decision by the board or action by management to (a) withhold expenditures that were to have been made in furtherance of the entity’s special purpose where the planned expenditures were likely to have a material positive impact on the entity’s impact in furtherance of its special purpose objectives or (b) determine that the special purpose has been satisfied or should no longer be pursued. The shareholders of a flexible purpose corporation with fewer than 100 shareholders can elect to waive the requirement for the entity to send and publish annual and current reports, and the disclosure requirements are deemed satisfied for any corporation with securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 if the corporation includes the required disclosure in its periodic reports.

A flexible purpose corporation can merge with any other California or non-California entity in the same manner as for-profit corporations, except that if the disappearing corporation in a merger is a flexible purpose corporation and the surviving corporation is not, or the surviving corporation in a merger is a flexible purpose corporation with materially different special purposes than a disappearing flexible purpose corporation, then in addition to other approvals typically required the merger must be approved by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each class of stock of the disappearing flexible purpose corporation, or a greater vote if required in the articles, regardless of whether a class is entitled to vote. If the disappearing corporation in a merger is a California for-profit corporation and the surviving corporation is a flexible purpose corporation, the merger must be approved by at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each class of stock of the disappearing corporation, or a greater vote if required in the articles, and all shareholders of the disappearing corporation not voting in favor of the merger must be afforded the opportunity to sell their shares to the surviving corporation for cash at their fair market value (i.e., exercise dissenters’ rights). Essentially the same requirements apply if a California for-profit corporation chooses to convert to a flexible purpose corporation. If a flexible purpose corporation merges with a non-profit corporation and the surviving entity in the merger is the non-profit corporation, the merger must be approved by all shareholders of the disappearing flexible purpose corporation, regardless of whether shares are entitled to vote.

Benefit Corporations

A benefit corporation also will be set up much like a traditional for-profit corporation, but its articles of incorporation must state that it is a “benefit corporation” and it must be organized to pursue a “general public benefit” and, if it chooses, one or more other “specific public benefits.” A general public benefit is defined as a “material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a third-party standard.” The optional specific public benefits can include any of the following:

(1) Providing low-income or underserved individuals or communities with beneficial products or services.
(2) Promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs in the ordinary course of business.
(3) Preserving the environment.
(4) Improving human health.
(5) Promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge.
(6) Increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose.
(7) The accomplishment of any other particular benefit for society or the environment.

The “third-party standard” utilized by a benefit corporation refers to a “standard for defining, reporting, and assessing overall corporate social and environmental performance to which all” of a long list of requirements apply. B Lab, the original proponent of AB 361, reportedly has developed such a standard and offers its certification services at fees ranging up to $25,000 per corporation per year.

Any traditional for-profit corporation can become a benefit corporation simply by amending its articles to state that the entity is a benefit corporation, and likewise a benefit corporation can terminate its status as a benefit corporation simply by amending its articles to delete such statement. In either case, the amendment requires approval of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each class or series of stock of the corporation, regardless of any limitation stated in the articles or bylaws on the voting rights of any class or series. In addition, the corporation changing its status must provide dissenters’ rights to all shareholders not voting in favor of the proposed change. A benefit corporation may amend, add or delete any additional, specific public benefits identified in its articles by amending its articles with approval of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each class or series of its stock (or higher threshold if specified in its articles).

In discharging their respective duties, the board of directors, committees of the board and individual directors of a benefit corporation are required to “consider the impacts of any action or proposed action upon all of the following”:

(1) The shareholders of the benefit corporation;
(2) The employees and workforce of the benefit corporation and its subsidiaries and suppliers;
(3) The interests of customers of the benefit corporation as beneficiaries of the general or specific public benefit purposes of the benefit corporation;
(4) Community and societal considerations, including those of any community in which offices or facilities of the benefit corporation or its subsidiaries or suppliers are located;
(5) The local and global environment;
(6) The short-term and long-term interests of the benefit corporation, including benefits that may accrue to the benefit corporation from its long-term plans and the possibility that these interests may be best served by retaining control of the benefit corporation rather than selling or transferring control to another entity; and
(7) The ability of the benefit corporation to accomplish its general, and any specific, public benefit purpose.

Having to consider all these factors for every issue that comes before a board of directors may be a tall order. AB 361 specifically provides that directors are not required to give particular weight to these specific factors or interests unless the corporation’s articles of incorporation state a preference for particular factors or interests. While this approach provides much flexibility, the new law does not make clear what standards directors should follow in making decisions, resulting in some commentators expressing concern that directors of benefit corporations may have too much discretion and lack accountability to shareholders.

AB 361 limits directors’ liability for monetary damages for failure of a benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit and states that directors shall owe no fiduciary duties to beneficiaries of the benefit corporation’s general or specific public benefit purposes. Nevertheless, AB 361 expressly contemplates that a “benefit enforcement proceeding” may be brought against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers by the corporation itself or derivatively by shareholders, directors, persons who hold more than 5% of the equity of a parent entity or other persons specified in the articles or bylaws of the corporation. AB 361 also specifically requires an officer of a benefit corporation to consider the same interests and factors that board members must consider (as described above) whenever an officer has discretion to act and an action may materially impact such interests or factors, and the officer shall be deemed not to have violated his duties when he or she so acts.

Similar to the reporting regime required for flexible purpose corporations, a benefit corporation is required to deliver to each shareholder and make publicly available on its website (if it has one) an annual benefit report that (i) details for the applicable year the process and rationale for selecting a third-party standard used to prepare the report, the ways in which it pursued a general public benefit and any specific public benefits and any circumstances that have hindered the creation of such public benefit purposes, (ii) assesses the social and environmental performance of the benefit corporation according to the third-party standard, (iii) identifies any person that owns five percent or more of the corporation, (iv) includes a statement of the corporation’s board of directors regarding whether the corporation failed to pursue its public benefit purposes in all material respects during such year, and (v) identifies any connections between the corporation (or its directors, officers or material owners) and the entity (or its directors, officers or material owners) that created the third-party standard used by the corporation to assess its pursuit of its benefit purposes, in any case that might “materially affect the credibility of the objective assessment of the third-party standard.” There is no mechanism for a benefit corporation or its shareholders to opt out of these annual reporting and disclosure requirements.

Anticipated Usage

It remains to be seen whether entrepreneurs and investors will embrace these new forms of corporate entity in California. Organizing a flexible purpose corporation or benefit corporation will require more initial thought and work than forming a traditional for-profit corporation, particularly in 2012 as practitioners come up to speed on the requirements for the new entities. As between the two forms, the flexible purpose corporation offers greater flexibility in terms of defining the special purposes to be pursued by the corporation and less onerous governance requirements, while the benefit corporation offers the advantage of being used and recognized in a handful of other states.

David Hernand, Stewart McDowell and Colin Richard are attorneys with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the latest in regard to putting limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.? Is there any hope that Obama can get something done? -- Bradley Johnson, Helena, MT

Our best hope to date was 2009’s American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a bill that called for the implementation of a “cap-and-trade” system to limit carbon dioxide emissions by capping overall emissions and allowing polluters to buy or sell greenhouse gas pollution credits—similar to what the European Union has been doing since 2005 to successfully reduce its own emissions—depending upon whether they were exceeding established limits or had succeeded in coming in below them.

According to the bill, U.S. businesses needing to pollute more could buy emissions credits on the open market; those able to reduce emissions could sell their pollution credits on the same trading floor. Thus there is a built-in incentive to reduce emissions: If you exceed pollution limits you have to keep buying costly credits; and if you can get below limits you can profit from the sale of credits for the difference.

Among the bill’s key provisions was a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020, with a mid-century goal of an 80 percent reduction. Also, billions of dollars would have gone to initiatives bolstering green transportation, energy efficiency and related research and development. The bill was approved by the House in June 2009 by a narrow 219-212 vote. But Senate Democrats decided they didn’t have enough votes to get a version of the bill passed, and tabled the discussion.

While ACES may not have made it into the law books, its passage by the House was significant as it represented the first time the legislative branch called for sweeping climate legislation. Also, the bill’s provisions served as a guideline for U.S. negotiators heading to Denmark later in 2009 for the COP15 international climate talks (although in the end nothing binding was agreed upon there).

Then, in May 2010 Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled their own cap-and-trade climate bill for the Senate. Dubbed the American Power Act, it aimed to reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by similar amounts as ACES. But with the nation still reeling from the effects of BP’s Gulf oil spill—the American Power Act include provisions for offshore drilling—and Senate Republicans leery of any climate legislation, the bill failed to make it to a floor vote. Some point the finger at a handful of Democratic Senators from coal-producing states for not supporting their party colleagues. Others say Obama wasn’t advocating strongly enough despite his campaign rhetoric on the topic.

“The best one could plausibly hope for in the next Congress, assuming only modest Republican gains, is some sort of weak cap on utility emissions, possibly with some weak oil saving measures, though that would still require Obama to do what he refused to do under more favorable political circumstances—push hard for a bill,” writes commentator Joe Romm of Think Progress, a liberal political blog. Romm adds that it’s inconceivable to think the next Congress would even contemplate strong climate or clean energy legislation “without Obama undergoing a major strategy change and taking a very strong leadership role in crafting the bill and lobbying for the bill and selling it to the public.”

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.

Social and environmental impact is increasingly being integrated into the curricula of leading international MBA programs, according to the latest Beyond Grey Pinstripes survey by Aspen Institute’s Business and Society Program.

“The core curriculum is changing,” reports the biennial survey. “There is a striking increase in content on social, ethical and environmental issues in required courses across departments.”

Between the 2009 and 2011 survey cycles, Aspen said, there was a 38 percent increase in the number of relevant core courses in finance departments across schools, a 41 percent increase in marketing departments, a 22 percent increase in Accounting departments, 57 percent increase in Operations and Productions Management offerings, and a 22 percent increase in relevant core IT / MIS offerings.

The survey also ranked the top 100 MBA programs for their focus on environmental and social impact.  Here’s the top 10:

1.    Stanford Graduate School of Business

2.    York University, Schulich School of Business (Canada)

3.    IE University (Spain)

4.    Notre Dame, Mendoza College of Business

5.    Yale School of Management

6.    Northwestern, Kellogg School of Management

7.    University of Michigan, Ross School of Business

8.    Cornell University, Johnson

9.    University of North Carolina, Kenan-Flagler

10.  UC Berkeley, Haas School of Business

Aspen said its rankings were based on “blind” ratings by a team of Ph.D. candidates who examined data submitted by 149 schools regarding courses, faculty research and institutional support. Nearly 600 schools were invited to participate in the survey.

Among other findings, Aspen noted an increase in the percentage of schools requiring students to take a course “dedicated to business & society issues.” The percent of schools surveyed requiring students to take a course on business & society issues: 34% in 2001, 63% in 2007, 69% in 2009, 79% in 2011

Courses on social entrepreneurship are also gaining far greater prominence across MBA programs, the survey found. “Importantly, most of these courses focus NOT on non-profit, mission based organizations BUT on how business models can be adapted in ways that produce companies that intentionally strive to achieve positive financial, social and environmental results,” Aspen said.  “Between 2007 and 2011, we saw 60% more schools in the survey offering courses being on social entrepreneurship.”

Photo by Yanec, via Flickr

Dear EarthTalk: Some friends of mine were talking about a book called “Plan B” that proposes a plan for rescuing the environment and ending poverty around the world. Is it a realistic plan or just some utopian pipe dream? -- Robin Jackson, Richmond, VA

What started as a book has grown into a movement known as “Plan B” which presents a roadmap for achieving worldwide goals of stabilizing both population and climate. According to Lester Brown, author of the 2003 book, Plan B (and three subsequent updates) and founder of the non-profit environmental think tank, Earth Policy Institute, the plan is based on replacing the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy with a new economic model powered by abundant sources of renewable energy.

Brown argues for transportation systems that are diverse and aim to maximize mobility, widely employing light rail, buses and bicycles. “A Plan B economy comprehensively reuses and recycles materials,” he says. “Consumer products from cars to computers are designed to be disassembled into their component parts and completely recycled.”

Brown even proposes a budget for eradicating poverty, educating the world’s youth and delivering better health care for everyone. “It also presents ways to restore our natural world by planting trees, conserving topsoil, stabilizing water tables, and protecting biological diversity,” says Brown. “With each new wind farm, rooftop solar water heater, paper recycling facility, bicycle path, marine park, rural school, public health facility, and reforestation program, we move closer to a Plan B economy.”

Plan B is an integrated program with four interdependent goals: cutting net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020, stabilizing population at eight billion or lower, eradicating poverty, and restoring the Earth’s natural systems. Where Plan B really hits home is in the numbers: Brown puts realistic dollar values on the various aspects of his plan, and compares these costs with current military spending. Needless to say, restoring the environment and economy looks like a bargain when viewed against what the developed nations of the world spend on being ready for battle.

The beauty of Plan B is that it is feasible with current technologies and could well be achieved by 2020 with a concerted international effort. Brown reportedly wrote the latest incarnation of Plan B as a warning call for leaders of the world to begin “mobilizing to save civilization” given that time is more than ever of the essence. Luminaries from Bill Clinton to E.O. Wilson to Ted Turner have spoken highly of Plan B, and at least one university (Cal State at Chico) has made the latest version of the book (Plan B 4.0) required reading for all incoming freshmen.

Those looking for more up-to-date information on the evolution of the Plan B model and progress toward its goals should tune into the website of the Earth Policy Institute, the think tank started by Brown in 2001 and currently used as a central node in the growing network of thousands of entities and individuals around the globe supportive of making Plan B into reality. Prior to founding Earth Policy Institute, Brown was well known in environmental and policy circles for his work with the Worldwatch Institute, a pioneering environmental think tank he launched back in 1974.

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 was the BULB Act pertaining to light bulb energy efficiency that just failed to pass in the House of Representatives? ­-- Betsy Edgerton, Columbus, OH

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (H.R. 2417) was a failed attempt in July 2011 by some Republicans in the House to repeal a 2007 law mandating increased efficiency for light bulbs sold anywhere in the U.S. Sponsors of the bill cited the 2007 bulb efficiency requirements—whereby light bulbs must be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and then as much as 60 percent more efficient by 2020—as a key example of how government overreaches its authority.

“The 2010 elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with government intrusion,” said Representative Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who proposed the repeal. “The federal government has crept so deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what kind of light bulbs the American people are allowed to purchase.” It’s ironic that the new standards were put in place by Republican President George W. Bush as part of his Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping update of the country’s energy policy. At the time, the bill, including the provisions about light bulb efficiency, enjoyed widespread bi-partisan support.

The fact that the BULB Act couldn’t muster enough votes in the Republican-controlled House to pass by the required two-thirds majority shows that even many conservative lawmakers would rather have the country save money and energy than waste it unnecessarily on inefficient lighting. The repeal effort did garner 233 votes, but the 193 opposed were more than enough to override it given House rules.

Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip in the House, derided the sponsors of the repeal attempt for focusing on the wrong priorities in these dire economic times. “By bringing misguided bills like this one to the floor instead of a comprehensive jobs plan, it is clear that House Republicans are still in the dark.”

Even the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and General Electric came out against repealing the increased efficiency standards, given the strides industry has made in recent years to roll with the punches and design more efficient bulbs, fixtures and electricity distribution methods.

Analysts wonder if the 2007 efficiency requirements will sound the death knell for incandescent bulbs, which have not changed significantly since first invented by Thomas Edison in 1879. While newer, more efficient styles of bulbs—from compact fluorescents (CFLs) to halogens to light-emitting diodes (LEDs)—may be significantly more expensive than their incandescent counterparts (by as much as a factor of 50!), consumers will likely make up the difference and then some over the long term as energy savings accrue. The Department of Energy estimates that the switchover to newer, more efficient bulbs will save American households upwards of $50 per year by 2015, or some $6 billion in the aggregate.

Besides saving money, the new standards will save the amount of electricity generated by more than 30 large power plants, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). As for global warming, the new standards promise to save carbon emissions equaling the removal of 14 million cars off the road.

Photo: Hemera Collection

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 don’t hear much about the environmental impacts of our consumer culture any more, but it seems to me that our “buy, buy, buy” mentality is a major contributor to our overuse of energy and resources. Are any organizations addressing this issue today? – M. Oakes, Miami, FL

A "Buy Nothing Day" activist leaflets in San Francisco.

There is no doubt that our overly consumerist culture is contributing to our addiction to oil and other natural resources and the pollution of the planet and its atmosphere.

Unfortunately the tendency to acquire and even horde valuable goods may be coded into our DNA. Researchers contend that humans are subconsciously driven by an impulse for survival, domination and expansion which finds expression in the idea that economic growth will solve all individual and worldly ills. Advertising plays on those impulses, turning material items into objects of great desire imparting intelligence, status and success.

William Rees of the University of British Columbia reports that human society is in a “global overshoot,” consuming 30 percent more material than is sustainable from the world’s resources. He adds that 85 countries are exceeding their domestic “bio-capacities” and compensate for their lack of local material by depleting the stocks of other countries.

Of course, every one of us can do our part by limiting our purchases to only what we need and to make responsible choices when we do buy something. But those who might need a little inspiration to get started should look to the Adbusters Media Foundation, a self-described “global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age.”

Among the foundation’s most successful campaigns is Buy Nothing Day, an international day of protest typically “celebrated” the Friday after Thanksgiving in North America (so-called Black Friday, one of the year’s busiest shopping days) and the following Saturday in some 60 other countries. The idea is that for one day a year we commit to not purchase anything, and to help spread the anti-consumerist message to anyone who will listen, with the hope of inspiring people to consume less and generate less waste the other 364 days of the year. The first Buy Nothing Day took place in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1992 with a few dozen participants, but today hundreds of thousands of people all over the world take part.

In recent years some anti-consumerists have added Buy Nothing Christmas to their agendas as well. Some ideas for how to leverage Buy Nothing Christmas sentiment without looking too much like Scrooge include giving friends and family “gift exemption” cards and asking shoppers in line at a big box store, “What would Jesus buy?”

Beyond Buy Nothing Day and Buy Nothing Christmas, the Adbusters Media Foundation stokes the fire of anti-consumerism throughout the year via its bi-monthly publication, Adbusters, an ad-free magazine with an international circulation topping 120,000. Do yourself a favor and subscribe...and cancel all those catalogs stuffing up your mailbox in the meantime.

Photo: Steve Rhodes

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’ve been hearing more and more references to the need to clean up our agricultural practices for reasons pertaining to health, food quality, even global warming. What are the major environmental issues today associated with agriculture? -- Tony Grayson, Newark, NJ

A crop duster in Tennessee

What amazes many environmental advocates to this day is how the widespread adoption of synthetic chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers for use in agriculture was dubbed the “Green Revolution,” when in fact this post-World War II paradigm shift in the way we produce food has wreaked untold havoc on the environment, food quality and human health.

Agricultural output has certainly increased as a result of these changes, but with the vast majority of the world’s farms now relying on petroleum-derived synthetic chemicals to grow crops and petroleum-derived fuels to drive the engines of production—modern agriculture has become overwhelmingly toxic to the atmosphere and is hastening global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that agricultural land use contributes 12 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions; here in the U.S. almost 20 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions come from agricultural sources.

Intensive use of chemicals isn’t good for our nutrition intake, either. Overworked, depleted agricultural soils generate fruits and vegetables with fewer nutrients and minerals than those produced by farmers decades ago. And much of the food we eat is laced with chemicals that end up in our bloodstreams.

Beyond its effect on the food we put in our bodies, modern agriculture generates large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and other fertilizers running off into our streams, rivers and oceans, compromising not only the quality of our drinking water and the health of riparian ecosystems, but also causing those huge oxygen-depleted ocean dead zones we hear about in coastal areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Yet another issue with modern farming is the amount of animal waste generated and concentrated in small areas, which creates unsanitary and potentially dangerous conditions for the animals and humans alike. And the widespread use of antibiotics on farm animals to keep disease in check results in the development of stronger strains of bacteria that resist the antibiotics used by humans to ward off infection and sickness.

Also, many worry about the potential impacts of the widespread use of genetic engineering, whereby genes in plants, animals and microorganisms are manipulated to select for specific traits. These genetically modified organisms, reports Greenpeace, “can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms,” thus contaminating the natural environment in unforeseeable and uncontrollable ways.

The good news is that rapidly increasing consumer demand for healthier food is forcing agribusiness to see the wisdom of moving away from business-as-usual. Organic farming, which eschews chemical fertilizers and pesticides in favor of more natural choices, holds considerable promise for greening up our agricultural systems. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, organic cropland acreage averaged 15 percent increases between 2002 and 2008, although certified organic cropland and pasture accounted for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. total farmland in 2008. So we still have along way to go.

Photo: Roger Smith, 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'm looking for the best places to search for green jobs but am having trouble locating them on traditional job search sites. Where should I look? -- H. Jenkins, Biloxi, MS

With the environment now high atop the public agenda, green jobs are more popular than ever. Defined by eco.org (a leading green jobs website) as any job in any company where the primary focus is on reducing the impacts of our activities or products on the environment, green jobs serve to maximize efficient use of resources while minimizing degradation of the planet from pollution and waste. “Eco-jobs can range from engineering a photovoltaic solar cell to designing a building for more energy efficiency to landscaping a yard to minimize erosion to finding more sustainable forestry techniques,” reports eco.org.

While you may be hard pressed to find environmental job opportunities on general employment search websites, sites like eco.org that specialize in green job listings can make your search easy. Also, many general environmental sites have employment sub-sections. Green job seekers and employers alike use these websites to find each other and get their work done, whether in the non-profit or for-profit worlds.

Eco.org prides itself on hosting a wide range of listings from colleges, environmental and other nonprofit groups, media outlets and government agencies. With Google and Bing listing the site first for the search term “eco,” the website generates hundreds of thousands of page visits per month from thousands of green job seekers and employers, and also keeps its audience engaged through social networking.

Another leader in the field is the nonprofit Green Jobs Network, which provides online services including a green job board and a 20,000 member group on the professional networking site LinkedIn. The group also uses its GreenJobs.net website as a platform for webinars, and is the home of the frequently updated Green Collar Blog, which provides career resources and information on the green jobs sector.

Environmental Career Opportunities (ecojobs.com) is another tried and true source for green job listings. Some 50,000 targeted job seekers subscribe to the company’s bi-weekly newsletter that contains unique green job opportunities. Still other places to look for green jobs include EcoEmploy.com and the Environmental Career Center.

Another site, Greenjobs.com, focuses on job opportunities specifically in the renewable energy sector. Jobseekers can use the website to apply for jobs, post their resume, obtain guidance on finding and applying for jobs, gain background information on the renewable energy sector, and access a directory of relevant companies and organizations. Employers can take advantage of the firm’s recruitment services.

Browsing job listings at other more general environmental websites could also turn up that perfect opportunity. SustainableBusiness.com and the U.S. Green Building Council feature extensive green job listings as sub-sections of their websites. And yet another way to find a green job is to sniff around the website of a company, organization or institution in your field of interest for specific job listings—or better yet, call them on the phone to find out if there are any openings.

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.

No, I don't mean green as in money.  I mean green as in environment. At Kimberly-Clark, sustainability is not only discussed in the C-suite; it's also on the board of directors' agenda. At the Corporate Eco Forum (CEF) annual meeting held last week, Kimberly-Clark announced its Sustainability 2015 goals built on a framework of People, Planet and Products. Suhas Apte, Vice President, Global Sustainability, shared with me his experience in presenting the plan to the K-C board of directors and their feedback.

K-C's 2015 plan "commits to reducing the company's environmental footprint, building healthy work environments, innovating products and business models to reach new consumers globally, focusing K-C's social programs on global issues and in the company's communities, and addressing broader global commitments such as the U.N Millenium Development goals." The company has also released metrics that the company will measure and track related to these goals.

Apte told me that not only did the board endorse the plan, but the board asked how the plan could be accelerated. Under the leadership of K-C Chairman and CEO Thomas J. Falk, the board asked Apte for an annual review including discussions of longer-term aspirations, impediments, and ways in which the board can help. K-C also has an external advisory board for sustainability that meets with the company's C-suite executives twice a year to ensure that K-C is fully engaged in current thinking and discuss "what K-C should be worried about."

Apte defines the full scope of the company's interests in terms of sustainability. "K-C is not only looking at the supply chain - looking backwards at sourcing, procurement, design, and manufacturing," explained Apte, "but we are also interested in matters of safety and environment after our goods are produced. We define the entire continuum as the 'value chain,' thereby including marketing/selling and also disposal."

The business case

"Our tissues and paper towels are manufactured from trees and water, and our super absorbent materials are made from oil based polymers. It's in our company's interest to make sure that essential resources are available to the company well beyond 2015," explained Apte.

Furthermore, the younger generation of employees understand sustainability, so in order to attract the best talent, and engage the people who will be our future leaders, our company needs to be at the forefront.

Apte said that Sustainability 2015 is the "Right to Play" plan, ensuring that K-C has an opportunity to stay in the game with the resources it will need. The next sustainability plan for the board will be the "Right to Win," defining how K-C will gain the long-term advantage.

When the board of directors recognizes that sustainability is not only essential to the company's future, but also the key to the company's competitive advantage, then the company wins. So does the world.

Alice Korngold is CEO of Korngold Consulting LLC and a blogger for Fast Company, where this article was first published.  She has been a consultant to global corporations on CSR, training and the placement of business executives on nonprofit boards for 20 years. She also consults to nonprofit/NGO boards.