Corps report on sustainability, kinda

Good news corporations are reporting on sustainability-related issues, especially those risks associated with operating a business that does not account or consider the areas where they are not sustainable. Operations in the UnSustainable Zone have lots of risks such as, for example, the company may not really be profitable. Cheap coal, is not nearly so cheap when you figure in all the negative externalities: pollution, health, CO2, coal ash...

Check out this WSJ article about the reporting, or lack thereof, of sustainability by large companies. First, 81% of companies report something, but 52% of those reporting used "boilerplate language to flag the risks without articulating management response strategies."  That would mean, if I understand it correctly, that only 42% of big firms report meaningful information on sustainability and the risks to the organization. But using Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB, would give the reader/investor meaningful information about the true profitability (economic profit) and the underlying risks. (See wikipedia on SASB or SASB.org.)

I know what you are thinking... These area the same types of risks that Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to address. If the risks are real, and material, then they must be meaningfully assessed and reported. Right?

Top Companies Are Disclosing Sustainability Risks, But Not The Way Investors Want
By 

TATYANA SHUMSKY, 

Dec 1, 2016 6:02 am ET

A Call for Civility and Values-Based Leadership | Starbucks Newsroom

A Call for Civility and Values-Based Leadership | Starbucks Newsroom:

About March 20, there was a full-page add in the Wall Street Journal that had a heading of Howard Schultz calls for Civility and Value-Based Leadership and two column of words, 15 pairs. They were generally antonyms:

Division  < ==>  Unity

Cynicism  < ==>   Optimism

Limits < ==>  Opportunity

Isolation < ==>  Community

Apathy < ==>  Passion

Exclusion  < ==>  Inclusion

Partisanship < ==>  Leadership

Blame < ==>  Responsibility

Status Quo < ==>  Daring

Vitriol < ==>  Respect

Cowardice < ==>  Courage

Nostalgia < ==>  Vision

Fear < ==>  Love

Indifference < ==>  Compassion

Bystander < ==>  Upstander

... every day, we have a choice.

The next full page is essentially an open letter to America. Essentially a challenge from Schultz and Starbucks. It says when negative news every day ('cause only bad news is news) and the viscous political environment (including the next presidential cycle), "You could easily mistake America as a nation, lost. A people who have severed the common bonds that hold us together -- compassion, respect, shared responsibility, a belief in service, a willingness to unite despite our differences.

The add asks us to put aside hatred, vitriol and negativity and look at all the good. We are 300m plus people who mentor kids, help neighbors, and nurse the sick.

This positive story is the one that Schultz and all partners (employees) believe in; and they think every American should too.

The letter/add finishes with:

"This is not about the choice we make every four years. This is about the choice we make every single day."

Visit the newsroom to see the ads: Howard-Schultz-on-role-and-responsibility-of-citizens

There's an 8 min video where Schultz makes this same discussion to shareholders. Two years ago he make a challenge to corporations to be more socially responsible; this year he challenges all citizens.

The whole be-good-and-responsible effort caught a lot of attention from many media sources and the whole twitter scene. A lot of twitter love, but ironically, a lot of hate going on by people who were offended (trying to push individual values and virtues on them is just not right for a company).

Fox News took up the kinder-gentler America story. Ironically, after a rather fare and civil discussion about the civility campaign, they concluded that the left column was actually referring to only one American: Donald Trump. Hmmm? No one else has been throwing mud? Super PAC ads are measured in Pinocchio; a nose that grows with every second of airtime.

It seems that many people/groups need to get together, have a cup of Starbucks coffee, and listen. Notice, the word wasn't "talk". Lots of people talk, but almost no one listens.
.'via Blog this'

The State of Green Business, 2016 | GreenBiz

The State of Green Business, 2016 | GreenBiz:

The latest report by GreenBiz (and Trucost) on the State of Green Business is great. Optimistic, but no green-colored glasses. There was a lot of progress in Paris (COP21) in December, but the progress from businesses is were major progress seems to be forming.

It is great to see businesses taking more control and starting to shape sustainability arguments and the form the solutions. We at SustainZine are not great proponents of big government efforts coming to "help" solve all the world's sustainability issues; businesses can avoid this help by being proactive (and no, proactive does not mean and army of K-street lobbyists protect smoke-stack industries and to inhibit all forms of progress).

More and more companies are offering more transparency about social and environmental impacts. More companies are stepping forward with transparency on the labels (Campbell's "non-GMO" labeling, for example) and more transparency on the footprint of the supply chain, and cradle-to-cradle efforts. Management should monitor their full impact on the environment, and investors should care about progress in the most critical areas of the business. Employees are critical to any and every sustainability effort, on corporate facilities, in transit, or in their personal lives.

It is possible to develop new business models. The sharing economy is kicking huge industries in the rears.  The sharing economy is causing massive and dynamic reallocated of time and resources of homes, cars, crowd funding and innovation on a time-share basis. The old economies of taxis and hotels are going to have to scramble to stay relevant, often sending them to court and to congress to try to stop the renegades from tipping over the ship. The time and resources savings from a sharing economy, often have profound savings to the environment. Many of these improvements in performance will go unmeasured by the traditional metrics of performance (like GDP).

On a leadership level. Just saying it out loud, seems to be the GIANT step: measurement, forming initiatives and the monitoring progress toward goals. As of 2014, about half of the companies had Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. That percentage seems to be increasing at about 2-4% per year since this reporting was started a decade or so ago.

The current targets by companies represents only about 28% of what is needed in reductions by about 2030 of about 3 gigatons of GHG emissions reduction per year. With the magic of compounding geometric growth, the required reductions per year would need to be about 32 gigatons each year if we wait until 2050. (Or 51 gigatons reduction per year if we continue business as usual until 2100; obviously far too late to consider seriously since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for about 100 years.)

Sidebar on GHGs. In terms of greenhouse gasses, this year has blasted through the 400 ppm level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Look at the Keening Curve on this. January 2016 was 402.5 ppm. We may never be below 400 ppm again. Since this is an El Nino year, the September-to-September increase should be about +4 ppm, not the current trend of +2.2ppm per year base on the lowest month of the year (September in Mauna Loa, Hawaii). Paul Keening developed this curve starting with observatory data starting in 1958 when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was below 320 ppm. At that time the annual increase was about +0.75 ppm but quickly jumped during the global industrialization to the current average increase of +2.2 ppm each year. Many (rapidly becoming most) scientist believe that we need to get down below the 350 ppm level to avoid massive impacts from warming and climate change.

A decent percentage of companies are reporting on water, about 20% in the US and 15% globally. This seems unnecessary for many companies.

There is an interesting discussion and presentation related to natural capital (R&D, investments, profits and savings).  Natural capital costs are the unpaid costs to the economy from pollution, natural resource depletion and related health costs (see the Natural Capital Project and at Stanford). Natural capital takes into consideration factors that tends to elude normal accounting and finance. A company's financials may show profits, but when all costs are considered -- including externalities -- those profits might evaporate. In fact, the S&P 500 have natural costs of about $1T per year and overall natural costs have escalated about 22% since the great recession. If all costs were considered, about 115% (to 153%) of corporate accounting profits would be wiped out in the US (and globally). (Even if you question the cost assignments for natural costing, the general methodology is sound; and this is not a pretty picture of corporate sustainability in terms of true profits.)

So, in the real world, with full costing, corporations, on average, are not profitable. And, if the company is not sustainable, then the true costs and profits are not real. Right?

Innovation and patents: Lot's of CleanTech patents, but the number is way down. The measure of Clean Tech patents is fuzzy and getting fuzzier. Electronic and auto companies (Toyota & Honda) are at the top of the list of patents. But IBM is not listed.

GreenBiz and Trucost have a wonderful 2016 report; and lots of progress is being made, in large and small ways. But keep in mind that too much reporting is, well, too much. We don't want businesses to adopt (or have forced on them) the same approach from education where testing and reporting has replaced much (most) of the teaching/learning!:-(

But, for the 50% of business that is not reporting (may not be monitoring at all), no metrics and no reporting has multiple implications. First, you obviously don't have a business plan, if you don't also have a sustainability plan in it. Second, you definitely don't know your true costs if you don't assess externalities and supply chain. Third, you have no idea what all your risks are, so you have no ability to manage or mitigate them. Even Sarbains-Oxley would have to kick in at some point when it becomes "material" to the company. Lastly, you don't know if you are actually, and truly profitable, your accounting system misrepresents the business.

If you like Sarbains-Oxley, then you will have no end of joy if/when governments starts requiring more environmental or natural capital reporting. Seems like businesses should take initiatives voluntarily, and on their own terms. A sustainable leader would insist on knowing a fully sustainable path forward. Investors, business partners and employees would want to know.

Note that this report is based on a Trucost database of 12,000 global companies that represents 93% of the world markets by market cap.

'via Blog this'

Don’t Confuse Sustainability with CSR | Ivey Business Journal

Don’t Confuse Sustainability with CSR | Ivey Business Journal:

Definition of sustainability -- essentially not imposing additional costs on the future -- is quite different from Corporate Social Responsibility, which looks at balancing the needs of all current constituents.

This is a very cool article that addresses the key issues that differentiate sustainability from CSR. Even though sustainability is overused and frequently missuses, it is a better term to use and a better utopia to aim for.

"It is time for organizational leaders to stop confusing responsibility with sustainability, which hinders businesses from thinking deeply enough about the inequities created by their actions over time. Simply put, some activities are either responsible or they are sustainable, not both."

The article talks about resources, but does not frame things in terms of the process of resource depletion, like the consumption of fossil fuels. Sustainability identifies the issue. CSR aims to offer some restitution, kind of. Neither really addresses the issues of non-sustainable natural resource consumption well.

Unintended consequences happen with CSR, with sustainability, and especially with non-sustainable activities. Lot's of unintended consequences happen with non-sustainable actions.

'via Blog this'

Green, But Mostly White: The Lack Of Diversity In Enviro Movement, 5 parts - JustMeans

Green, But Mostly White: The Lack Of Diversity In The Environmental Movement, Part 1 of 5—Future 500 | Justmeans:

There are 5 parts to this series. It's talking about who is evolved int the Environmental movement, and why there isn't more diversity. And why that is starting to change?

This is a very interesting 5 part series by several authors.

Part 1: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-1 by Danna Pfahl

Part 2: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-2-of-5-future by Marvin Smith

Part 3: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-3-of-5 by Shilpi Chhatray

Part 4: http://3blmedia.com/News/Green-Mostly-White-Lack-Diversity-Environmental-Movement-Part-4-5-Future-500 by Brandon Steele

Part 5: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-5-of-5-future by Nick Sorrentio

The last one, by Sorrentio, talks about engaging businesses to help address environmental issues. SustainZine has long promoted serious action by business (and all organizations) in areas where the payback is obvious and near-term. Conservation, as in reducing energy, improved logistics (so less shipping), and telecommuting (so no travel) are all areas that have rapid payback to business and to the environment. So not only area companies making money in doing this, they are helping out the environment in doing this. Plus, it can become a perpetuity of savings, if properly monitored and maintained.

This is something we call in the triple bottom-line business, a win-win-win... and a perpetuity of savings.

'via Blog this'

Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change

Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?

This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.

Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.

Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.

Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.

(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)

There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.

This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:

Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".

When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?

This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.

This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)

So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.

What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.

We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)

Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?

'via Blog this'

Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability | Talk Video | TED

Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability | Talk Video | TED:

Chris McKnett gives a wonderful talk on investing and the idea that all investors should start looking at ESG (economic, social and governance). The economic is obvious, profits. Social is the impact to people in general, and governance is corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Generally the research shows that there is no downside to being socially (and environmentally) sustainable. But in the long term, some of these companies that are irresponsible can be expected to lag behind.

Chris implies that as an investor it could be (?is?) irresponsible to invest in companies that are and continue to be non-sustainable. The point is that the downside risk is dramatically increased for non-sustainable companies and those that don't aggressively plan related to their non-sustainable ways.

Maybe an example would be having a lumber-based business where you are chopping down the trees. A sustainable plan would be to replant at the rate of usage. At a minimum, you should find another country with too many trees, so you can get past the inevitable lumber crunch on the horizon...

One of the beauties of this talk is that it focuses on just the financials of the sustainability issue. If big institutional investors started seriously considering the sustainability of their investors, then it would become front and center to all investments everywhere.

The problem with non-sustainable business practices is that they always, always, have negative externalities associated with them. And we all bear the costs of their negligence.

'via Blog this'

Dell Wants Employees To Work From Home - Business Insider

Dell Wants Employees To Work From Home - Business Insider:

Dell is following a "Do Good" plan for 2020. Remote work, packaging and shipping. Working with supply chain and customers as well. Looks pretty GOOD!:-)

As it pertains to telecommuting... Dell seems to be saving a lot and doing "Good" as well. Telecommuting and other initiatives are outlined in Dell 2020 Legacy of Good Plan.

Here's a calc and additional info on Telecommuting savings: http://www.globalworkplaceanalytics.com/calculator

So Dell is saving lots of money. $14m last year, and reducing impact on the environment, including almost 7 thousands barrels of oil/gas reduction.

Sounds like a Good Plan, pun intended.:-)

'via Blog this'

Sustainability Business Success Hinges on CEO Mindset Change · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader

Sustainability Business Success Hinges on CEO Mindset Change · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader:

"Some 67 percent of CEOs in the study believed business is not doing enough to address global sustainability challenges. . .  While 84 percent believed business should lead the way in addressing those challenges"

Sustainable Leaders... Seems like something that Hall and Knab were talking about in their 2012 article/chapter.

For businesses and business leaders (CEOs) not to take an active roll in sustainability would be, well, irresponsible (Hall & Knab, 2012).

Reference

Hall, E., & Knab, E.F. (2012, July). Social irresponsibility provides opportunity for the win-win-win of Sustainable Leadership. In C. A. Lentz (Ed.), The refractive thinker: Vol. 7. Social responsibility (pp. 197-220). Las Vegas, NV: The Refractive Thinker® Press.
(Available from www.RefractiveThinker.com, ISBN: 978-0-9840054-2-0) 

'via Blog this'

WME Honorees | World's most ethical Companies.

WME Honorees | Ethisphere™ Institute:

Check it out.

This is the list of the world's most ethical companies.

There is a huge presence of US firms. One reason would be because there simply are so many US firms. It seemed that all were publicly traded, so they already are doing a lot of reporting and now are probably doing social responsibility reporting.

But it is interesting to see.

Look at the companies in the various sectors.

The several that I thought should be one the list turned out to be there. In a couple cases in different areas than I original thought.

Now it would be interesting to cross-reference these companies with their sustainability reporting/commitment.

Very cool.

'via Blog this'

Pres Obama steps out to wave down the run-a-way climate train!

It was a little bit of a surprise that Obama stepped up as forcefully about taking on climate change as he did.

Check out this post by Peterman at Huffington:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-peterman/state-of-the-union_b_2674448.html

Many environmentalists are going to complain that this is not enough, but it really is better to start late than even much much later.

As Peterman shows, it looks like we are aiming for 6+ degrees C, not the 2+C that many people were hoping to achieve. At that rate, sea-level rise would be measured in yards, not feet.

Not much on details. Federal government can take some action for government buildings and transportation,

Reduce energy consumption by 50% in 20 years should be, surprisingly, far easier than most people think. 25-30% could be achieved in buildings within a couple years, with a payback of months... And a gigantic Return on investment.

Easier said then done, though.

But to continue doing "business as usual" would be, well, irresponsible.

A Sustainable Walmart...

Check out the Corporate Responsibility Report by Walmart for 2012. http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/responsibility-report/2012/pdf/wmt_2012_grr.pdf

This is very impressive. It not only includes such things as Energy and Carbon Footprint from all of Walmart's stores, it also addresses the impact of the products and foods from suppliers and how sustainable they are.

Walmart's goals of renewable energy are pretty impressive, but they step up and state the long-term obvious: the long-term goal is 100% renewable energy.

They are moving toward more local suppliers (for foods) which also means they will have a lot more suppliers. They are moving toward all suppliers reporting on their carbon footprint (and water footprint).

One of the things I really like it that they focus on 10 areas that they think are the most important. Some should help the bottom-line directly, others only long-term or indirectly. Still, they seem to be an impressive, yet target-able  set of objectives. This fits very well into the Triple Bottom-Line of Sustainability.

Note the need for reporting all along the value chain.

Note the need for education & training all along the value chain.

[With all that Walmart does well/right, there are still some who complain and criticize. More on this view in another post.]

'via Blog this'

Ikea starts generating solar power at Tampa store... If Idea can do it...?

Ikea starts generating solar power at Tampa store | TBO.com:

Well, if Ikea can do it, why can the rest of us.

Solar on the roof-tops of buildings (stores and homes) seems like a great way to start cutting back on traditional electricity (~45% coal).

It shouldn't take a Swedish company to tell us (show us, really) what we should be doing to become more sustainable.

Check out their 2011 Sustainability Report.  They are doing energy efficiency and renewable energy, of course. But they also use huge amounts of fabric and wood. See what they are doing with certified wood and sustainable cotton.!:-)


Way to go Ikea!.


'via Blog this'

DOW's Solutionism. !:-)

Dow Solutionism:
This is a very cool concept from DOW.

Solutionism... Kinda a cure for consumerism, where it's all about how much you can consume in your lifetime.

Maybe this should be one of the cures for consumerism, one of the great Social Irresponsibilities?

Interesting idea. Work backwards from each problem -- and the associated solutions to them -- into helping address the root cause of the original problem.

Generally we tend to symptom solutions, not real solutions.

Pretty cool ads for greening up the Olympics as well.:-)

Solutionism. I like it.
www.DOW.com/Solutionism/
'via Blog this'

Social Irresponsibility: Energy and the cost of carbon

These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.


There are three things that are prominently in the news about carbon emissions and addressing them in June of 2012. These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.

1. Australia is opening up a Carbon Tax at $23 per ton. They are adjusting from the mistakes of Europe when they started cap and trade at too low a price. Undermining the whole process.
2. In the meanwhile, Texas is opening a market for carbon. The Oil capital of the US is also the largest Wind producer of electricity.
3. California credit allowances jump in price dramatically.

Generally there are three ways to address the issues associated with externalities caused by carbon emission (and greenhouse gas emissions)

1. Voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR). Look at Shaklee corporation and Microsoft. Shaklee, a health and nutrition company, is the first company to be certified climate neutral in April 2010. In the meanwhile, Microsoft intends to be carbon neutral by the end of 2013.

2. Cap and Trade exchanges. Texas and California.

a.   Texas is opening a market for carbon. “Bad joke, or perhaps an oxymoron”, right?  Nope, it is the Texas Climate & Carbon Exchange. The Oil capital of the US that produces about 1m barrels of oil per year is also the largest Wind producer of electricity (producing about 6.5m GHw/hr in 2010, nearly twice as much as Kansas). This is one of several exchanges, with the most notable one in the us operating in California.

b.   This headline from Reuters: “California carbon allowances (CCAs) for delivery in 2013 closed at $16.75 per tonne on Thursday, up $1.10 from one week ago on a growing belief that the shutdown of a California nuclear power plant will boost carbon emissions due to higher fossil fuel use.” A 7% jump was followed by $20+ call options that anticipated future CCAs rising aggressively in the future.

3. Tax Mechanism.
“The carbon pricing scheme will impose costs on big polluters, which will result in higher end prices for certain products. Treasury estimates that an average family will pay $9.90 more per week in the first year of the scheme’s introduction.” But 9 out of 10 households will get some level of reimbursements “ through personal income tax cuts and increases in pensions and allowances, as well as other measures”. This will already take effect from May-June 2012. Check out the Household Carbon tax estimator for Australia:  

a.   What is the Carbon Tax? (Australia):  http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/what-is-the-carbon-tax/ A $23 per ton initial tax on heavy polluters.

b.   How will this Carbon Tax affect me? (Australia): http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/how-will-the-carbon-tax-affect-me/

c.   Discussion (Australia). Australia is one of the worst (developed countries) for carbon footprint per capita. Unlike Canada (cold) this is partially because of the sprawl of the country and the abundance of fossil fuels. The tax is directly on the producers of carbon (starting with coal) and this tax is applied directly to those impacted. Those households impacted can spend the money any way they want.  The more accurate costs of dirtier energy (coal and oil) will serve to shift prices to cleaner energy.

So, what does this mean? It means that in lots of places and within lots of organizations (and governments) there is a movement toward addressing carbon emissions. Even the glacial movements in the US are starting gain speed, much like the melting glaciers themselves are.


A market mechanism like Australia's seems like an good approach. There is not a massive initial gift of credits to the coal-burning companies. The government doesn't take all the money and run. The market is given an opportunity to improve the costing to accommodate the externalities of fossil fuels.


Let's see how that plays forward? 


Coming soon to an eBook store near you: Social Responsibility by the www.RefractiveThinker.com.