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'

Sweden's Prostitution Solution: Why Hasn't Anyone Tried This Before? | Solutions

Sweden's Prostitution Solution: Why Hasn't Anyone Tried This Before? | Solutions:

Here is an novel approach to prostitution. Who do you put in jail/prison, the John or the Jane.

This Swedish approach didn't decriminalize prostitution, which apparently has it's own problems. It totally decriminalized for the prostitute, but criminalized for the John. Read the logic and how surprisingly well it has worked since 1999. Also, what it took to support this change in mindset. And how it virtually eliminates human sex trafficking.

When you take this change in mindset into the laws against drugs, where half of the US prison population is non-violent drug offenders.  Lots of implications for lots of old school crime and punishment.

Hmmm...

'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'

Social Good Summit 2013 - Social Good Summit

Social Good Summit 2013 - Social Good Summit:

Here's a video of the conference on United Nations Foundation, Gates Foundation and more. on Social Good Summit 2013... Conference runs from Sept 22 - 24, New York, NY.

Al Gore is in this too.

Hash tag I guess is #2030now

Check out the LP Recharge game, Kuuluu.com. Part of the UN movement to have affordable, renewable energy for all. 1.3B people do not have access to energy. Maybe 3B don't really have safe and affordable energy.

Very interesting.

Not quite the balance of the business and economic engine for development and wealth creation that we would like to see. But some very good stuff here.

'via Blog this'

Holding back the oceans... The Cost of Energy... Compounding and getting worse.

Holding back the ocean (via The Cost of Energy)

The inevitability of sea level rise (emphasis added): Small numbers can imply big things. Global sea level rose by a little less than 0.2 metres during the 20th century – mainly in response to the 0.8 °C of warming humans have caused through greenhouse…

---

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'

UPS Decision Green Technology Forum presentation - UPS Pressroom

Highlights - UPS Corporate Responsibility:

Just got a REALLY COOL UPS letter today.

The envelope does a folding Origami-type thing and you can reuse it!. So very cool.

Here's a pix of the label which says: reduce, reuse it and THEN recycle!...

Decision Green(sm) is a service mark of UPS.

100% recycled with 80% post consumer.

I love it!

'via Blog this'

Bonian Golmohammadi: Why We Need a Global Environmental Organization

Bonian Golmohammadi: Why We Need a Global Environmental Organization:

This article seems to do a good job of organizing the current research. It builds a good case for global action.

The global organization is needed, yes. But that is part of the problem. The dysfunction of individual governments is amplified many, many times when it comes to global organizations such as the UN. I think that a big part of the denier ideology is the fear of the following logic train:

1) Global warming (yes)

2) Human caused (debate mainly over how much)

If yes to 1 & 2, then we have a moral and fiduciary responsibility to:

3) start taking action, at least prudent action.

4) Global coordination and cooperation are required.

5) The UN is the logical place to start...

Sooo, what if the global and UN involvement is an unacceptable alternative?

It's hard for those of us who have thought about the outcomes and the possible ramification of climate change to get our heads around the likely results. The ideas of taking huge sums of money, giving it to an organ of the UN, and having them giving it to climate refugees is ugly in all the ways you look at it.

To the extent that we all can have non-government solutions, the better all around. It will certainly help get people on board as they try to work themselves past #1 and #2 above.

So, I'll come back and check the article and its links to see how well they did.

Thanks. EH

'via Blog this'

Bloomberg News Adds Its Two Cents to Sustainability Debate

Bloomberg News Adds Its Two Cents to Sustainability Debate: "“If you don’t have a sustainability plan, you don’t have a business plan” is the note on which the media company"

If that's the case, and I believe it is, there are very few companies out there who really have a Business Plan.

The very first order of business is doing an energy/water/carbon audit. I should think that ever few smaller companies/organization have done that.

Way to go Bloomberg! http://www.bloomberg.com/sustainability/

'via Blog this'