Search Results

Blog | Wednesday June 14, 2017

Impact Sourcing and Inclusive Supply Chains: A Conversation with Microsoft’s Tim Hopper

Preview

Recently, BSR’s Global Impact Sourcing Coalition (GISC)—which seeks to create more inclusive supply chains through procurement—published “The Autism Empowerment Kit,” which offers recommendations and resources for employers to provide workplace accommodations that empower employees with autism. Microsoft, one of the sponsors of this kit, recently shared this resource with its suppliers at an event on disability inclusion. We spoke with Tim Hopper, Microsoft’s manager of responsible sourcing initiatives, about this initiative and the company’s wider commitment to Impact Sourcing.

Sara Enright: Microsoft has been working with its suppliers on Impact Sourcing for several years. Why does this work matter to Microsoft?

Tim Hopper: We have been working on Impact Sourcing for several years together with our suppliers to encourage inclusive employment. For Microsoft, Impact Sourcing is about knocking down artificial barriers to employment and allowing high-potential individuals to bring their strengths to the marketplace. By partnering with our suppliers, we can bring people in who would not otherwise have an opportunity and support their success in the workplace. It’s a business model that strongly aligns with the company’s mission to empower every person and every organization to achieve more.

It’s important to note that the benefits of Impact Sourcing extend to the business as well. As we see in the case studies presented in the autism empowerment kit, together with other case studies on Impact Sourcing that have been developed over time, there are clear business drivers for inclusive employment, including less attrition in work that is at similar quality or higher than that done by traditional workers. This has been consistently demonstrated across all the different categories of Impact Sourcing.

Enright: For the past year, you’ve been leading a working group on disability inclusion in the workplace, leading to the development of this report and other engagement with Microsoft’s global suppliers. Tell us more about this initiative.

Hopper: Recently, we launched a special focus on inclusion of people with disabilities. The clear majority of these people are under- or unemployed.   

We encourage suppliers to partner with us in two ways. First, we include Impact Sourcing as an evaluation criteria in our strategic requests for proposals, offering providers that have inclusive employment programs higher points in the procurement evaluation. Second, we run an annual awards competition to recognize the good work of suppliers who are doing Impact Sourcing. This year’s competition focused on suppliers who empower people with disabilities.

It’s exciting to see how much this work has already caught on within the company and with our suppliers. At Microsoft, we see disability as a strength and encourage individuals to come as they are. 

Enright: The GISC is initially focused on Impact Sourcing in the business process outsourcing industry. What additional categories of supplier do you believe may be a good fit for Impact Sourcing?

Hopper: We believe that Impact Sourcing can work across all supplier categories, from call centers, to facilities management, all the way up to application development. If you think about the variety of people who are long-term unemployed or informally employed, there are opportunities for them to enter the workforce through all industries. Every industry can make an impact.

Enright: As a member of GISC, what opportunities do you see through a collaborative approach to advancing Impact Sourcing?

Hopper: The most challenging thing for Impact Sourcing has been getting to a common definition of what it is, and how to measure it consistently. I think GISC is delivering on that need with the development of an Impact Sourcing standard and measurement toolkit, which will help to ensure that our suppliers are doing impact souring in a way that is measurable, and that offers assurance that they are having a real impact. Coming to a common definition and agreement on a standard is key.

In the long run, we could see Impact Sourcing growing in many exciting directions. Can we create a certification that allows suppliers to register as certified Impact Sourcing providers, so that we can prioritize them in the same way that we do minority-owned, women-owned, and disability-owned businesses? That would be a big deal, allowing companies like ours to offer beneficial procurement contracts to companies that are committed to workforce inclusion. 

Primers | Tuesday June 13, 2017

10 Human Rights Priorities for the Financial Sector

Preview

Human rights are inherent to all human beings. They are defined and established in more than 80 international legal instruments¹ and define the fundamental protections of human dignity, needs, and freedoms, such as food, housing, privacy, personal security, and democratic participation.

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, the responsibility to protect human rights has primarily fallen on governments. Beginning in the early 2000s, however, it became increasingly clear that the freedoms enshrined in the framework could also be violated—and promoted—by the private sector.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles), the first international instrument to assign companies the responsibility to respect human rights. The Guiding Principles state that governments must put in place good policies, laws, and enforcement measures to prevent companies from violating rights; that companies must refrain from negatively impacting rights even when governments are failing to create or enforce necessary laws; and that victims of corporate abuses must have access to effective remedy. As part of this responsibility, the Guiding Principles require companies to undertake due diligence to identify and manage their negative human rights impacts.

This primer identifies the 10 most relevant, urgent, and probable human rights impacts for businesses operating in the financial sector. The information here is gathered from BSR’s direct engagement with financial sector companies, as well as our 25 years of experience helping companies in all sectors manage their human rights risks.

The financial sector comprises a wide range of businesses and activities, from asset owners and managers to private equity, venture capital, and commercial banking. While each of these sub-sectors will have its own human rights profile and challenges, this brief highlights universal risks for companies operating in finance.

Blog | Tuesday June 13, 2017

What Are the 10 Most Urgent Human Rights Risks for Your Industry?

Preview

Last year, we discovered that human rights is still the most urgent sustainability priority for companies. While the obligations of human rights due diligence are relevant across all companies, the approach varies based on the industry, sizes and types of business, locations, and varieties of operations. These include such things as providing decent working conditions, consulting affected communities, and establishing grievance mechanisms. 

To help all companies assume their mantle as responsible human rights actors, BSR’s global human rights team is developing a series of primers describing the key human rights issues in various industries. The first, released this month, is on the financial sector. Later this year, we will release primers on power and utilities, transport and logistics, information and communications technology (ICT), and extractives. In 2018, we will release primers on healthcare, heavy manufacturing, food and agriculture, and fashion and beauty.     

For every company, carrying out the responsibility to respect human rights must begin with mapping the characteristics, activities, and geographies that will give rise to the greatest negative impacts.

The universal responsibilities of companies to address human rights cannot be implemented without a robust understanding of the contexts in which they take place. For a mining company operating in Africa, for example, providing decent working conditions will require particular attention to personal protective equipment, noise levels, and the stresses of working in remote areas. For a pharmaceutical company operating in northern Europe, the priority issues may be family leave, racial discrimination, and the use of temporary employees.

This approach also applies to identifying vulnerable groups. Watching and safeguarding the people who will suffer the harm from private-sector activities is one of the basic tenets of a human rights approach. For an internet company, the group at greatest risk may be bloggers who are seen as politically threatening by the host government. In contrast, the typical vulnerable population for a manufacturing company might be local women whose personal security is threatened by the male security forces guarding the factory premises.

Companies in different sectors also must be aware of how they may be connected to human rights abuses through their business relationships. For example, a typical apparel company will need to watch the supply chain for things like exploitative labor conditions for a workforce consisting largely of underprivileged young women. While a bank can be connected to human rights abuses by financing a large dam that forcibly relocates populations without compensation or provision for future livelihoods. In contrast, a technology company could be connected to violations through a government buyer, which uses its products to violate the privacy of political opposition leaders. 

BSR’s primers identify the 10 most urgent negative human rights impacts in each industry, considering all the dimensions described above, including impacts of core operations, business relationships, and products and services. We produced these primers based on lessons from BSR's 200-plus human rights projects with a variety of sectors and organizations around the world.

But we don't just want to identify risks. Each primer also includes three ideas for positive human rights impacts for each sector. These, like due diligence obligations, are dependent on the companies carrying them out. For example, extractive companies with 30-year project spans for mines in remote regions have unique opportunities to promote economic, social, and cultural rights. ICT companies have opportunities to support civil and political rights like freedom of expression.

While companies must first and foremost ensure that they take all reasonable measures to avoid human rights harms, we also hope to provide information that will help companies champion and defend human rights. Human rights, after all, are not just an obligation, but also an opportunity. 

Read BSR’s first business and human rights primer, on financial services.  

Blog | Wednesday June 7, 2017

Business Steps Up Leadership on Climate Action as U.S. Administration Withdraws

Preview

In the midst of political opposition from the Trump administration, which announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change on June 1, a cohesive and powerful voice has emerged: Business favors climate ambition for a shift to a low-carbon economy.

While consensus on climate action has long been elusive, companies from diverse sectors of the economy have stepped up to protect the standards of the Paris Agreement, which they see as a vital pillar for future growth, employment, competitiveness, and innovation.

An Ongoing Trend Grows Bigger

In the months leading up to COP21, where the Paris Agreement was written, the private sector mobilized to demonstrate its leadership on climate. Through initiatives such as We Mean Business, the Science-Based Targets initiative, or the UN’s Nazca platform, companies have showcased their ambition and commitment to contributing to the decarbonizaton of the economy, and they have voiced their demand for strong and stable regulation on emissions reductions.

Since then, the momentum has grown, even as real threats to American leadership have risen from the executive branch. Indeed, the past few months have seen support from the highest levels of business:

• Full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and New York Post organized by C2ES supporting the agreement, with signatures from Adobe, Apple, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Danfoss, Dignity Health, Facebook, Gap, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Ingersoll Rand, Intel, Johnson Controls, Levi Strauss & Co., Mars, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, National Grid, PG&E, Royal DSM, Salesforce, Schneider Electric, Tiffany & Co., Unilever, and VF Corporation.
• An ad in the Wall Street Journal urging the president to stay in the Paris Agreement, signed by the 30 CEOs: 3M, Allianz SE, Bank of America, BROAD Group, Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, Citigroup, Coca-Cola Company, Corning, Cummins, Dana Incorporated, Dow, DuPont, GE, Goldman Sachs, Harris Corporation, Johnson and Johnson, JP Morgan Chase, Kering, Morgan Stanley, Newell Brands, PG&E, Proctor and Gamble, Royal DSM, Salesforce, Solvay, Tesla, Unilever, Virgin Group, and Walt Disney Company.
• More than 1,000 companies signed the “Business Backs a Low-Carbon USA” letter, which supports U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, including DuPont, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Hilton, HP, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, NRG Energy, PG&E, Schneider Electric, The Hartford, and Unilever.
• CEOs and spokespersons from companies such as ConocoPhillips, BP, Cheniere Energy, Cloud Peak Energy, Exxon, GE, Peabody and Arch Coal, and Shell have all expressed strong support for remaining in the Paris Agreement.

These public announcements have presented the business case for climate action and have demonstrated the need for strong and stable policies in order to meet investor, consumer, employee, and business demands. Privately, many more executives and senior leaders have contacted the Trump administration, emphasizing that a low-carbon economy is the backbone of American prosperity.

Business Is Drawing the Line

Within minutes of the White House Paris statement, business leaders expressed their opposition using the president’s favorite medium. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein dedicated his very first tweet to the issue: “Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S. leadership position in the world.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger used the social media platform to announce they would step down from the President’s Business Council.

GE CEO Jeff Immelt tweeted that climate was now in the hands of business and ruled out the current government as a partner. Google CEO Sundhar Pichar renewed the company’s commitment to working toward a more prosperous and cleaner future, as did Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff. Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith and Apple CEO Tim Cook also strengthened their resolve to contribute to the fight against climate change. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced his discontent on the platform. On his company’s platform, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a public statement in favor of continuing to act in favor of climate in a way that makes business sense.  

Amazon, Dell, and Intel weighed in via Buzzfeed, insisting that not only is there is no contradiction between a low-carbon economy and a prosperous America, the opposite is true. HP issued a press release, saying the longevity of its business was at stake. IBM did the same.

The business voice is not only shaped by global tech companies: Ford and General Motors were also quick to respond to the president’s decision, stating that their commitments to emissions reductions would not change.

And just days after the withdrawal announcement from the White House, more than 900 businesses and investors have joined hundreds of cities, states, and universities in signing the We Are Still In statement to declare their continued support for climate action to meet the Paris Agreement, using the hashtag #WeAreStillIn.

How Business Leads

Leaders of some of the world’s most successful companies clearly see that remaining in the Paris Agreement and maintaining policies that favor emissions reductions is good for their bottom line as well as for the country. Companies have already seen significant cost savings, better supply chain management, and they have spurred innovation and employment by tackling climate change while responding to investor and consumer demands.

Business is leading opposing the federal government and marching on with its own climate commitments, which are consistent with business imperatives. And business can count on the support of local and global politics. Even though the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement at the national level, 30 mayors, three governors, and 80 university presidents in U.S. cities and states have shored up climate action in line with the requirements of the international accord. And globally the 195 parties to the Paris Agreement remain staunch in their determination to make good on their goals. While the White House’s withdrawal from Paris is a major mistake, it has also served to underscore the broad and deep support for climate action in the United States. In our judgment, this will prove to be longer-lasting than the foolish, regressive approach taken by the president.

In this context, business can be assured that its ambition will be met and enabled at both the local and global levels—and we can be assured that the world’s business leaders will work to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C.

Blog | Tuesday June 6, 2017

Three Actions to Promote Women’s Economic Empowerment in the Apparel Sector

Preview

To realize the ambitions of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the UN High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment says there is a “pressing need to step up actions to close gender gaps and ensure the full economic empowerment of women.” The private sector has an important role to play in this ambition—particularly in sectors, like apparel, that employ large numbers of women all over the world.

Over the last decade, many apparel companies, industry coalitions, supplier groups, NGOs, unions, governments, and international coalitions have collaborated to create promising initiatives designed to improve working conditions, build skills, and promote the well-being of women workers in the supply chain. These efforts have built a collective understanding of what makes (and importantly, what doesn’t) for a decent employment opportunity. While these advances should be recognized, more needs to be done to remove barriers to women’s economic empowerment, which is the ability women have to access and control their economic resources, assets, and opportunities, including jobs.

Companies should continue investments and innovation, with the recognition that apparel supply chains, and the demographics and everyday realities of workers within them, are changing. While the apparel sector cannot act alone—government initiatives and international development work will remain important—business has both an opportunity and a responsibility to drive lasting, meaningful improvements that enable female workers to fulfill their potential and maximize the returns of their participation in the global apparel sector.

In a new BSR business brief, “Empowering Female Workers in the Apparel Industry: Three Areas for Business Action,” we highlight key findings from in-depth research conducted by the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and supported by C&A Foundation and the Levi Strauss Foundation. We propose three areas where apparel companies can take action to promote women workers’ well-being and economic empowerment:

• Address informality: For many women in the apparel sector, that job represents their first formal job and income—both of which are key ingredients to women’s economic empowerment. Unfortunately, the global apparel industry relies heavily on informal operations, and ICRW’s research affirmed the need for concerted action on informal work. Global companies should expand current initiatives into more informal parts of the supply chain where the needs are greater. It is also time to come together in constructive dialogue to support policies that favor and promote formality in the workplace.
• Go further to end violence: Economic empowerment is impossible in the face of gender-based violence at work and at home. A recent CARE report found that nearly one in three female garment factory workers in Cambodia said they experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the past year, which cost companies US$89 million in lost productivity. Efforts to address violence should consider not only workplace interventions, but also ways to align with and strengthen public systems to address vulnerabilities and patterns of harassment and violence outside of the workplace.
• Recognize childcare needs: Around the world, women take on a disproportionate amount of unpaid care work. Given that apparel workers are predominantly women in their reproductive years, lack of access to affordable, quality childcare remains a barrier for effective, long-term participation at work. While business should support the wider intention of SDG 5 to provide women with equal access to and representation in all economic and political spheres, supporting access to high-quality, family-centered childcare is an important first step that apparel sector companies can take immediately.

These three interconnected opportunities represent meaningful actions apparel companies can take now to support women’s economic empowerment. Companies can adopt policies; make investments; and participate in partnerships with NGOs, community organizations, and others to promote women’s economic empowerment. Business can also exert positive influence by sharing data, conducting research, and engaging in advocacy to increase awareness of the factors that promote equity and gender equality.

Read our business brief, which is based on research by ICRW and supported by C&A Foundation and the Levi Strauss Foundation. 

Blog | Thursday June 1, 2017

BSR Statement on U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

Preview

BSR regrets that the United States has announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Paris Agreement is supported by an unprecedented consensus of nations—only Syria and Nicaragua have not signed it. The overwhelming majority of businesses and investors believe that the Paris Agreement is essential to ensuring innovation, competitiveness, and job creation, in addition to the evident benefits with respect to combatting climate change. Furthermore, evidence suggests that a strong majority of the American public believes the same thing. 

In spite of counterproductive policies coming from the U.S. administration, we are confident that the business community will continue to lead on climate action. BSR will continue its work with businesses, nonprofit partners, and other stakeholders to accelerate the transition to the resilient low-carbon economy. We will work with companies to set and implement science-based emission reduction targets, to help remove emissions from their supply chains, to invest in a low-carbon future, and to become resilient to climate risks. We will maintain our sharing of best practices in climate leadership. Our BSR collaborative initiatives on climate change will continue to help companies collectively promote low-carbon shipping and trucking, renewable energy for data centers, climate resilience, and climate finance. Along with our partners in the We Mean Business coalition, we will keep uniting the business community in taking climate action.

The resilient, low-carbon economy that the Paris Agreement envisions offers the innovation, jobs, and security Americans need. We urge the United States to reconsider withdrawal from the agreement and from the policies which implement it.

“U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a major mistake that will serve as a setback for climate action, global cooperation, and business, which overwhelmingly supports Paris. This decision not only damages the global consensus on how to address climate change, but also the innovation, competitiveness, and job creation that can flow from the steps outlined in Paris. Despite this deeply regrettable decision, I am confident that business—very much including American companies—will remain resolute in showing how the transition to low-carbon prosperity can be achieved and can improve livelihoods. BSR will continue to work with businesses that understand this and that are leading the way to 21st-century business models.” —Aron Cramer, President and CEO, BSR

Blog | Wednesday May 31, 2017

Can Marketers Change the World?

Preview

We have reached a tipping point for sustainability marketing.

For years, consumers said they were interested in buying more sustainable products and services, but sales of green products remained a niche market. This indicated a “value-action gap,” with consumers saying they would make values-driven purchases in surveys but failing to follow through in reality. 

Today’s headlines tell a different story.

Tesla is now more valuable then Ford and GM, brands under Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan are growing 50 percent faster than the rest of the portfolio, and Nike is making more than a billion from shoes that are radically more resource-efficient. These brands and others have put sustainability at the forefront of their marketing—and are reaping the rewards. That’s good news for their bottom lines and good news for the planet.

How have some companies cracked the code to convert consumer aspirations for a better world into sales?

A group of brands from BSR’s Sustainable Lifestyles Frontier Group—AT&T, eBay, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JJCI), McDonald’s, and Walmart, with guidance from BSR, Futerra, and Stanford University—set out to explore this question. Following initial research, the group tested insights in the marketplace, moving beyond theory and into action. Each brand identified a sustainable behavior they could influence and a method to explore the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.

The Value of Sustainability

The results, along with lessons and advice, are captured in our latest study “Big Brands Big Impact: A Marketer’s Guide to Behavior Change,” including these highlights:

Sustainability is a value add, not the only value. When testing messages to promote a digital home security and energy automation system, AT&T found that the most effective messaging focused on benefits like security and control over one’s home, rather than carbon footprint reduction. However, in surveys, consumers said they were interested in energy conservation. This suggests that even if using a product delivers environmental benefits, those benefits should not necessarily be the primary focus of marketing efforts. When it comes to purchasing, these AT&T customers were influenced more by the perceived value of the product and its functionality. 

“Consumers are looking for companies to be more and more environmentally and socially conscious,” said AT&T Director of Sustainability Integration Roman Smith. “It’s important for companies to understand how to best tap into that trend as we market and communicate our offerings. Being a part of the Sustainable Lifestyles Frontier Group has helped us do that.”

Making sustainability fun can drive engagement. When testing out different recycling signage at a San Francisco restaurant, McDonald’s found that playful imagery with vibrant colors captured customers’ attention and provided an unexpected moment of joy. By getting their attention in a whimsical, engaging way, it was easier to get the customers to focus on the “task” of recycling. These signs were much more effective than the “control scenario” sign, which lacked color and provided basic instructions.

“Being part of the Sustainable Lifestyles Frontier Group gave us the opportunity to extend our promise to bring delicious feel good moments to everyone, even at the recycling bin. The partnership of sustainability and marketing influenced sustainable behavior change and 'scaled for good' both the customer experience and landfill diversion,”  said Victoria Zimmerman, Global Supply Chain and Sustainability Manager, McDonald's.

Helping people become more sustainable can improve brand reputation. Both eBay and JJCI found that when their communications helped consumers be more sustainable, these messages also improved consumers’ perception of the brands as environmentally responsible. JJCI tested social media posts that encouraged consumers to recycle by explaining how recycling can reduce landfill waste and by giving them do-it-yourself ideas such as using empty containers as planters. These posts improved participants’ perception of the brand as environmentally responsible, which could give the brand a competitive advantage when other factors such as price and performance are equal.

The bottom line?

It’s not about green marketing; it’s about great marketing.

Just as selling a drink isn’t all about selling the taste, selling sustainability isn’t all about saving the planet. For some brands, marketing sustainability might mean capturing attention by creating moments of joy; for others, it might mean using sustainability as an additional benefit to strengthen the value proposition; and for still others, sustainability can provide valuable storytelling opportunities.

As more and more mainstream consumers continue to shift toward buying sustainable products and experimenting with sustainable behaviors, marketers must believe that they can change the world—but they need to bring the same thorough, subtle approach to marketing sustainability as they would to marketing any product.

To learn more about marketing for sustainability, read the insights and case studies in “Big Brands, Big Impact,” and consider hosting a meeting with your marketing and sustainability colleagues to explore how your brand can use marketing to influence social or environmental behaviors. 

Blog | Tuesday May 30, 2017

Despite U.S. Uncertainty on Paris, Business Momentum for Climate Action Remains Strong

Preview

At the G7 Summit concluded this past weekend, the United States was unable to join consensus on the Paris Agreement on climate change, with a decision postponed to this week. BSR urges the United States to remain in the Paris Agreement on climate change. In this we are joined by the CEOs of major American companies, by some of the largest companies operating in the United States, and by more than 1,000 companies that employ 1.85 million Americans who have reaffirmed their commitment to American participation in the Paris Agreement.

We are confident that the business community will continue to lead on climate action, following the vision of the Paris Agreement, informed by climate science, and driven by the business imperative for innovation, jobs, and growth. U.S. participation in and implementation of the Paris Agreement would speed our transition to a resilient, low-carbon economy, enable American and global businesses to face the future with confidence, and spark innovation that will create shared prosperity.

Although the U.S. administration is pulling back from its leadership at home and abroad, incredible momentum on climate action remains. The business community is increasingly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resilience in line with the Paris Agreement. We anticipate that this leadership will accelerate, as companies set and implement targets for their own operations and throughout the vast global footprint of their value chains, and protect workers in these value chains from inevitable climate impacts.

For example, Walmart’s Project Gigaton aims to remove one billion tons of emissions from its supply chain by 2030—equal to the annual emissions of Germany. And last week HPE launched a supply chain program based on climate science to remove 100 million tons of emissions—equal to the annual emissions of Greece. 266 companies have now committed to setting science-based targets which represent their share of keeping warming well below 2°C. General Mills has committed to a 28 percent reduction by 2025 across its value chain, from farm to fork to landfill.

The low-carbon economy will take the lion’s share of finance in coming years. Annual renewable energy investment has grown from US$45 billion to more than US$270 billion over the last decade—by a factor of six. Through 2040, US$7.8 trillion out of the US$11.4 trillion invested in power generation will go toward renewable energy.

The low-carbon economy will also generate innovation and jobs. For instance, Goldman Sachs predicts that electric vehicles will experience a compound annual growth rate of 32 percent in the next 10 years, and Tesla aims to produce battery cells by 2020 that are 30-35 percent cheaper than they are today. The solar and wind industries are both creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy. Smart policy incentives will accelerate this low-carbon innovation, bringing wide economic benefits.

Together, we’re building a resilient, low-carbon economy that enables growth, good jobs, security, strong communities, and a healthy planet. We believe the business community understands the inevitability of the low-carbon transition and recognizes the opportunity it represents. U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and the withdrawal of domestic policies which implement the agreement, are major errors which would weaken our economy, our health, and our environment.  

Blog | Wednesday May 17, 2017

Registration Now Open for the BSR Conference 2017: How Business Leads

Preview

BSR’s 25th annual Conference—taking place October 24-26 in Huntington Beach, California—is happening during a critical time in the field of sustainability, with disruptive change affecting every dimension of business.

Our 2017 theme of “How Business Leads” will set the stage for three days of vital conversation, collaboration, and action. We are excited to gather our community together to explore how business can take the lead during this crucial moment.

I’m pleased to announce that registration is now open, and our best rates are available through June 30.

As we finalize the Conference agenda over the next several months, we will look to our theme to explore business leadership in its many forms. We will present topical examples of business leading on climate change, human rights, inclusive economy, supply chain sustainability, sustainability management, and women’s empowerment. Our 30 breakout sessions will dive deep into today’s most important issues, from achieving the vision of the Sustainable Development Goals to using climate resilience to build strong and inclusive supply chains. In recognition of our anniversary, our “Fast Forward 25” sessions will look at the future of sustainable business, with vibrant conversations on topics such as generating quality livelihoods in the era of automation and the ethics of artificial intelligence. 

Our trailblazing plenary sessions are the most talked-about parts of the Conference, and the conversations this year promise to be more thought-provoking and motivating than ever. We are thrilled to share a quick preview of our plenary lineup to date: Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, will highlight her work leading a movement to build a healthier and safer world for women and teens. And Google.org President Jaquelline Fuller, Mercy Corps CEO Neal Keny-Guyer, and TripAdvisor CEO Stephen Kaufer will engage in a candid discussion about the business response to the refugee crisis.

From our unrivaled content to our integrated networking events, #BSR17 will be the place to be this October. And did we mention our new location? On the beach? You can’t beat fresh air, conference rooms with natural sunlight, and immersive experiences taking advantage of the incredible Huntington Beach. We hope you will join us and our global community to take business leadership to the next level. We can’t wait to see you this October!

Register for BSR17 by June 30 to receive the best rates. Check the BSR Conference website often for more exciting announcements, including additional plenary speakers.

Blog | Monday May 15, 2017

How to Increase Your Company’s Renewables Portfolio

Preview

Renewable energy is now one of the primary ways companies are making progress to meet their business and climate goals and decrease their dependency on fossil fuels. The RE100 program, through which companies commit to source 100 percent of their energy use from renewable sources, now includes 87 companies.

Not all companies may be ready for a 100 percent renewables commitment, but many firms have begun incorporating renewable energy procurement into their business and sustainability strategies. Here’s how to assess your options for procuring renewable energy and how to collaborate to increase your portfolio more quickly.

Assessing Your Options

The first step in procuring more renewables is understanding the menu of procurement options that will meet your company’s renewable energy needs. 

There are several different ways to procure renewable energy, and most companies opt to combine a few methods:  

• Onsite installation: Through this approach, your company invests in and builds renewable energy infrastructure on corporate property. This requires both capital and available space for installation. Costs for energy are typically higher than other options.
• Power purchase agreements (PPAs): PPAs are contracts with energy producers that allow your company, the energy consumer, to access an agreed upon portion of the renewable project’s future energy production at a favorable price. While some of these can be developed on corporate property, many of these projects are built off site and require up-front capital or contracts for 12 years or more.
• Renewable energy certificates (RECs) or guarantees of origin (GOs): RECs, used in the United States, and GOs, used in Europe, give companies certificates that represent the environmental attributes of the generation of one unit of renewable energy (typically megawatt-hours). Companies can purchase these certificates and use them to offset electricity emissions when local options are not available. While these are cost-effective and widely available, they do not generate as many strategic benefits for companies as other options.
• Renewable energy (green) tariffs: This approach is a service that allows utilities to supply businesses with renewable energy from their local grid, typically at a fixed rate, which can meet the full energy demand. Renewable energy can be supplied by projects owned by the utility. Though renewable energy tariffs are still an emerging procurement option, the number of options available to companies has increased in recent years. Increased use of this procurement option allows companies to demonstrate a robust market to utility companies and increase the amount of renewable energy available on local grids.

Companies can use any combination of these options and should consider the capital expense involved in the complete portfolio. For example, Microsoft and Google used PPAs and on-site investments for much of their renewable energy procurement, primarily because these options are available in the markets where the companies operate and they meet the companies’ large energy demands. Similarly, Iron Mountain uses onsite solar and a 15-year wind PPA to cover the full energy demand of its data center and portions of its office buildings. Equinix, on the other hand, has a renewables portfolio that includes certified green power, PPAs, RECs, and onsite generation from solar and fuel cells. 

To select the appropriate renewable energy portfolio, companies should consider their internal renewable energy target, the availability of procurement options, and the costs involved. When it is not possible to meet the renewable energy demand through these options, companies can use RECs or other carbon offset programs to cover the desired amount of the remaining energy demand.  

Collaborating to Create Markets and Reduce Costs

Companies can move further, faster—and create more benefit for themselves—by collaborating with others. Below are four groups that can help companies collectively address barriers to progress and establish a larger corporate market for renewable energy. Each collaboration provides excellent resources and should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. 

• BSR’s Future of Internet Power: Our group brings together companies with a large cloud and online footprint to address challenges and collaborate on solutions that will increase renewable energy to power data centers.
• Business Renewables Center (BRC): Run by Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), the BRC helps its 187 member companies navigate the procurement landscape through tools, primers, guides, and semi-annual conferences.
• Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles: The 65 signatories to the principles aim to showcase the demand for corporate renewables to utilities and outline six criteria that can help them meet their aspirations. World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) manage this commitment.
• Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance (REBA): Run by BSR in partnership with RMI, WRI, and WWF, REBA works with its 80 corporate members to increase corporate demand and utility supply for renewable energy by creating new opportunities and recruiting more participants to purchase renewables. Companies participate by joining BSR’s Future of Internet Power, the BRC, or Buyers’ Principles.

RE100 and/or taking other actions through We Mean Business initiatives, such as setting a science-based target and improving energy productivity through EP100, which complements RE100. Individually or paired, these commitments put companies on track with the global transformation to a low-carbon economy.

Renewable energy should be on the near-term agenda for all companies so the global community can work toward a low-carbon future. Leading companies understand that their efforts can be used to enhance long-term business viability, develop or execute a robust sustainability strategy, and increase business competitiveness. At BSR, we hope to see more companies take a leading role in advancing their business by supporting a thriving, low-carbon economy.

Editor's note: This blog has been updated due to a factual error. It previously stated that companies commit to "procure" 100 percent of their energy use from renewable sources through RE100. It now reads that companies commit to "source" 100 percent of their energy use from renewable sources. The number of members of RE100 has also increased from 87 to 95 since publication.