Strategic CSR - Coffee

This week's newsletters will focus on the coffee industry. Today's newsletter addresses the sustainability (or lack of) of drinking coffee. Specifically, the article in the url below opens with the staggering number of cups we drink every day:

"World-wide, coffee drinkers consume some 2 billion cups of coffee every day; Americans alone drink close to 150 billion cups a year."

What is important about this, however, is the strain coffee puts on our supplies of fresh water:

"According to the Water Footprint Network, which measures fresh water used to produce consumer goods, each cup of coffee requires the equivalent of a 16-minute shower to produce, farm to cup."

As a result, the article argues that there is a greater push for coffee companies to advertise the sustainable nature of their particular coffee beans, and a greater demand among consumers for such coffee. The trouble is that there is also a lot of greenwashing in the industry, particularly around the use of the organic label, which is difficult to obtain and not particularly related to sustainable coffee:

"Many green-minded farmers don't have the time or resources to obtain organic certification. And that certification doesn't cover critical issues such as deforestation and habitat protection. Farming practices vary widely across the 50 or so coffee-growing countries, and unpredictable weather forces farmers to pivot to survive."

Instead, the article offers a more detailed definition of sustainable coffee, but without a clear understanding of how that can be certified and conveyed to consumers willing to pay for the assurance:

"If you want to buy conscientiously, it helps to understand sustainability as a cycle. For farmers to invest in best practices and equipment, they need long-term buy-in from companies willing to pay more for a planet-friendly bean. Money needs to go back into their communities to foster health and education. Roasters, too, need to reduce carbon output. And resources need to go to scientific research."

As a start, the article offers four coffee companies that cover one or more components of this process using benchmark practices.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Cool Beans

By Aleksandra Crapanzano

September 25-26, 2021

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

D7

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-coffee-beans-to-buyin-more-ways-than-one-11632419332

 

Strategic CSR - Organic funerals

The article in the url below expands upon an issue I first wrote about back in 2015 (Strategic CSR – Compost) and followed-up on in 2019 (Strategic CSR – Compost II) – biodegradable burials. Rather than encouraging the natural decomposition of bodies, converting them directly into compost, however, this latest idea introduces the organic coffin:

"After months of testing, the first funeral has taken place in the Netherlands using a fast-composting 'living coffin' made of mycelium, the mat of fibres that forms the underground part of fungi."

The material, mycelium, is central to producing what the company Loop is calling a "Living Cocoon":

"Mycelium is 'nature's recycler,' [Bob Hendrikx, the founder of Loop] said. Not only does it neutralise toxins and provide fresh food to everything growing above ground, but its fibres can be used to make anything from food to clothes and packaging – including coffins. 'Mycelium is constantly looking for waste products – oil, plastic, metals, other pollutants – and converting them into nutrients for the environment,' he said. 'This coffin means we actually feed the earth with our bodies. We are nutrients, not waste.'"

The process is as efficient as it is sustainable:

"Hendrikx said the process by which a human body in a traditional coffin becomes compost can often take a decade or more, slowed by the varnished wood and metals of the casket and synthetic clothing, which can take even longer to disintegrate. A mycelium coffin will be absorbed back into the soil within a month or six weeks, he said, actively contributing to the full decomposition of the body it contains and enriching the surrounding soil quality – all within a period of two to three years."

The ultimate goal is to use our leftovers to begin reclaiming land we have already polluted:

"Loop is working with scientists to measure the impact of human bodies on soil quality, with a view, Hendrikx said, to 'convincing policymakers to convert polluted areas into healthy forests – with our bodies as nutrients.'"

The challenge will be how to scale the process, while keeping it affordable:

"Each Living Cocoon takes several weeks to form as the mycelium mat grows in the shape of a coffin and is then allowed to dry naturally. As soon as it is exposed to damp soil again it comes back to life and begins the decomposition process."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

First funeral held using 'living coffin' made of mushroom fibre

By Jon Henley

September 15, 2020

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/15/first-funeral-living-coffin-made-mushroom-fibre-netherlands

Strategic CSR - Beyond meat ...

I like the passive-aggressive nature of an advertisement by Lightlife Foods, which appeared in today's national papers here in the U.S. (NYT + WSJ, hyperlinked):

 

 

According to its website (https://lightlife.com/our-story/), Lightlife declares:

 

"We're proud of our roots. For over forty years, we've been committed to sharing our love for plant-based food and leading a balanced life. That's why you'll find our food is delicious and nutritious. Plus, we're always looking for ways to improve our food and the impact we have on the planet. We will always be open and honest with you—ask us anything."

Today's ad is an indication of that honesty and the firm's commitment to creating healthy food. Specifically, the letter is aimed directly at Lightlife's competitors, Beyond Meat (https://www.beyondmeat.com/) and Impossible Foods (https://impossiblefoods.com/). The opening salvo of the letter gives you a sense of the overall tone:

 

"Enough. Enough with the hyper-processed ingredients, GMOs, unnecessary additives and fillers, and fake blood."

 

In contrast to their portrayal of the products manufactured by the "food tech companies," Lightlife presents its own products (and governing philosophy) in a very different light:

 

"People deserve plant-based protein that is developed in a kitchen, not a lab. Our burger has only 11 ingredients. That's it – not 18 or 20. Our ingredients are clean, recognizable, and simple to pronounce. There are no fillers, GMOS, additives like synthetically produced 'soy leghemoglobin' for flavor and color. These just aren't necessary."

 

For more information on Lightlife's commitment to make a "clean break from the 'food tech' companies," see https://lightlife.com/cleanbreak/. And, for more on the firm's history of confronting Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, see https://www.adweek.com/agencies/hollywood-fun-loving-couple-dax-shepard-kristen-bell-kids-lightlife/.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

An Open Letter to Beyond Meat & Impossible Foods

By Dan Curtin (President, Lightlife Foods)

August 25, 2020

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A5

For additional commentary on the ad, see: https://vegconomist.com/marketing-and-media/lightlife-launches-campaign-against-impossible-foods-beyond-meat-enough-with-the-hyper-processed-ingredients-and-fake-blood/

 

Strategic CSR - Clif Bar

I like the passive-aggressive tone of the open letter in the url below from the co-CEOs of Clif Bar (Gary Erickson and Kit Crawford) to the CEO of KIND Bar (Daniel Lubetzky). The letter appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times on March 6, 2019:

 

"Dear Daniel, We would like to issue a challenge: do a truly kind thing and make an investment in the future of the planet and our children's children by going organic. To make it easier, we at Clif Bar & Company will help you. We know how strange this offer sounds coming from a competitor, but more than ever we believe that making the world better means making it organic."

 

In reality, of course, the letter is a way for Clif Bar to emphasize the move they made to 100% organic ingredients a number of years ago and differentiate that from KIND Bar's reluctance to do so today:

 

"Going organic isn't easy, we know. But in 2003, we broke with conventional business wisdom and decided to take what initially seemed to be a huge risk. The investment required more people, time and money. Despite those challenges, this year we celebrated the purchase of our billionth pound of organic ingredients and continue our relentless quest to move from our current 76% organic ingredients to 100%."

 

As they continue to gloat:

 

"So much more still needs to be done. Despite our success, organic food represents only about 5% of retail food sales in the U.S. It's become a mission for us to champion the power of organic and move that needle, and not by a little. That's why we're also the largest private funder of organic research in the country and why we're issuing this challenge—we can't do it alone."

 

The passive-aggressive approach continues:

 

"If Clif Bar and KIND—the two largest nutrition bar companies in the country—joined hands, the impact would be that much more powerful. And if we then got RXBAR (Kellogg's), LÄRABAR (General Mills), and all the other non-organic brands to go organic, the benefits to people and planet would be exponential. Maybe a move to organic would even inspire your part-owner Mars to take its entire line of candy organic. Stranger things have happened."

 

It seems the feud between the two firms is long-standing and only escalating:

 

https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/kind-escalates-clif-bar-feud-as-companies-fight-over-ingredients/

 

Of course, the key point to understand is why these other bars have not yet gone to all organic ingredients. Could it be because they are not progressive enough to understand the (largely perceived) nutritional value of doing so? Or, could it be that their stakeholders are not willing to pay the higher costs to reduce the damage large agricultural companies do to the planet? In this light, is Clif Bar's exhortation as philanthropic as they suggest or a somewhat desperate attempt to raise the costs of their competitors?

 

"If you commit to this challenge, we will share our expertise, including all the things we have learned about going organic. Think of it as 'Open Source Organic.' To sweeten the deal, we will even throw in 10 tons of organic ingredients. Are you in?"

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

An Open Invitation to KIND Bar from Clif Bar

By Gary Erickson & Kit Crawford (Founder and co-CEOs of Clif Bar & Company)

March 6, 2019

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A24

https://www.clifbar.com/article/an-open-invitation-to-kind-bar-from-clif-bar

 

Strategic CSR - GMOs

The article in the url below details an ironic situation. In last November’s election in the U.S., there was a ballot initiative in California (Proposition 37) that was designed to force food companies to disclose any GMO ingredients in a product on the product’s label. Food companies are not currently required to do this anywhere in the U.S.—unfortunately, the issue is a low priority for many consumers, and that was not promising to change any time soon in a country where it is estimated that “75 percent of grocery products contain a genetically modified ingredient.”

 

In an effort to defeat Prop 37, corporations spent “more than $40 million” on lobbying and advertising during the election campaign and, as a result, the proposition failed to win a majority of votes. Another victory for the corporate lobby, right? Except that it did not work out that way:

 

“Instead of quelling the demand for labeling, the defeat of the California measure has spawned a ballot initiative in Washington State and legislative proposals in Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico and Missouri, and a swelling consumer boycott of some organic or ‘natural’ brands owned by major food companies. … [today, there are] roughly 20 states considering labeling requirements.”

 

Ultimately, the actions taken by the food companies converted a local issue that no one was paying attention to into a national issue that is being hotly-debated:

 

“‘They spent a lot of money, got a lot of bad press that propelled the issue into the national debate and alienated some of their customer base, as well as raising issues with some trading partners,’ said Mr. Benbrook, who does work on sustainable agriculture.”

 

Now, forced to backtrack, the companies have joined the discussion with a wide-range of stakeholders to work out a more effective solution:

 

“Executives from PepsiCo, ConAgra and about 20 other major food companies, as well as Wal-Mart and advocacy groups that favor labeling, attended a meeting in January in Washington convened by the Meridian Institute, which organizes discussions of major issues.”

 

A strategic CSR perspective would have got them to this place a lot sooner and saved them $40 million in the process.

 

Take care

David

 

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

 

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

 

Companies Weigh Federal Labels for Gene-Engineered Ingredients

By Stephanie Strom

February 1, 2013

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

B1

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/food-companies-meet-to-weigh-federal-label-for-gene-engineered-ingredients.html

 

Strategic CSR - Waste

The National Public Radio story in the url below demonstrates how a regional airport (Charlotte Douglas International in North Carolina) is dealing with a persistent problem—the “half a pound of garbage” that the average traveler leaves after every visit:

“But instead of just sending all that trash to the landfill, Charlotte has taken a different approach. It's the first airport to put worms to work dealing with trash.”

In short, the airport is trying to process internally all the twenty-five tons of daily waste generated by operations, rather than paying others to take it away for them:

“A dozen employees pluck out recyclables and sort through aluminum, plastic and more, so passengers don't have to do the sorting in the terminal. … Recyclables are crushed, baled and sold for cash. There are shirts sorted and laundered and donated, and plastic cups collected. (The shirts come from people who toss clothing when they suddenly discover their suitcases are too heavy.) The organic stuff — waste from airport restaurants, food scraps off planes, and the half-eaten Cinnabon that a traveler has tossed out — mixes in a big tank for a few days to start the composting process. Then it's time for the stars of this show to take over.”

The “stars” are 1.9 million worms that “eat half their weight a day” and process the organic material into compost that is then used to fertilize the flower beds on the airport’s grounds. Overall, the results are impressive:

“In the four months since this operation got under way, trash going from the Charlotte airport to the landfill is down an impressive 70 percent.”

The worms are central players:

“Worm poop. Go ahead and giggle. Charlotte officials sure did as they debated the $1.2 million it cost to launch the program. But they're not laughing now: The airport expects to be making money off its trash in five years.”

Have a good weekend

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

One Airport's Trash Is 2 Million Worms' Treasure

By Julie Rose

December 18, 2012

National Public Radio

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/12/18/167529920/one-airports-trash-is-2-million-worms-treasure

Strategic CSR - Organic food

This will be the last CSR Newsletter of the Fall semester. Have a great holiday season and I will see you in 2013!

The article in the url below charts the evolution of the organic food industry in the U.S. from the perspective of one of its founders—Michael Potter, founder of Eden Foods (http://www.edenfoods.com/). The article reports that, in many respects, the terms “organic” and “big food” are becoming synonymous:

“The fact is, organic food has become a wildly lucrative business for Big Food and a premium-price-means-premium-profit section of the grocery store. The industry’s image — contented cows grazing on the green hills of family-owned farms — is mostly pure fantasy. Or rather, pure marketing. Big Food, it turns out, has spawned what might be called Big Organic.”

Many of the small and local brands, which many consumers probably believe remain ‘small and local,’ are now ‘big and remote’:

“Bear Naked, Wholesome & Hearty, Kashi: all three and more actually belong to the cereals giant Kellogg. Naked Juice? That would be PepsiCo of Pepsi and Fritos fame. And behind the pastoral-sounding Walnut Acres, Health Valley and Spectrum Organics is none other than Hain Celestial, once affiliated with Heinz, the grand old name in ketchup. Over the last decade, since federal organic standards have come to the fore, giant agri-food corporations like these and others — Coca-Cola, Cargill, ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft and M&M Mars among them — have gobbled up most of the nation’s organic food industry. Pure, locally produced ingredients from small family farms? Not so much anymore.”

The result of all this consolidation and commercial interest, according to Potter, is the dilution of the meaning associated with the organic label and all the health benefits that he believes stem from good, wholesome food. One example of how the influence of agri-business is affecting the final product is in the compilation of the National Organic Standards Board (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOSB) (increasingly corporate) and the Board’s list of what substances can be included in organic foods and still continue to call the final product ‘organic’ (increasingly long):

“As corporate membership on the board has increased, so, too, has the number of nonorganic materials approved for organic foods on what is called the National List. At first, the list was largely made up of things like baking soda, which is nonorganic but essential to making things like organic bread. Today, more than 250 nonorganic substances are on the list, up from 77 in 2002.”

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Has ‘Organic’ Been Oversized?

By Stephanie Strom

July 8, 2012

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

BU1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html

Strategic CSR - Organic food

The article in the url below covers the recent controversial meta-analysis by Stanford University researchers who analyzed more than four decades of research on the relative merits (health, nutrition, etc.) of organic over conventional foods. Some summary quotes:

“They concluded that fruits and vegetables labeled organic were, on average, no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, which tend to be far less expensive. Nor were they any less likely to be contaminated by dangerous bacteria like E. coli.”

“The researchers also found no obvious health advantages to organic meats.”

“Conventional fruits and vegetables did have more pesticide residue, but the levels were almost always under the allowed safety limits, the scientists said. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits at levels that it says do not harm humans.”

Judging by the robustness of the organic food market and the strength of the backlash this report generated, these data are unlikely to change any consumption habits any time soon:

“The organic produce market in the United States has grown quickly, up 12 percent last year, to $12.4 billion, compared with 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association. Organic meat has a smaller share of the American market, at $538 million last year, the trade group said.”

Have a good weekend.

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce

By Kenneth Chang

The New York Times

September 4, 2012

A20

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/earth/study-questions-advantages-of-organic-meat-and-produce.html

Strategic CSR - Monsanto

I am no defender of Monsanto, but the article in the url below presents some data that are hard to ignore. In particular, the article focuses on crop yields in different countries. In the U.S., where Monsanto has had a large and controversial influence on the agribusiness industry, crop yields are far superior to countries with less-developed agribusiness industries:

“Typical corn yields, in bushels per acre:

• U.S. - 150
• Argentina - 129
• Mexico - 126
• EU - 119
• Brazil - 98
• China - 84
• South Africa - 68
• E. Europe - 56
• India - 37”

While mass-produced agriculture is far from ideal for the ecosystem, certainly not for everyone, and criticized by many (e.g., http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15783), it is hard to ignore the data. Some of Monsanto’s innovations can add value in developing economies with agricultural sectors routinely decimated by difficult weather patterns, low access to fertilizers, and overall inefficiency:

“India gets as many bushels of corn per acre as the U.S. did 70 years ago.”

There is insufficient land in the world to satisfy our food demands solely via organic production methods. While national governments play a huge role in policing food production (making sure it is safe and sustainable), it is hard to escape the conclusion that firms like Monsanto need to be included as part of the solution to satisfying the nutritional needs of the world’s growing population.

Have a good weekend.

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

More Monsanto Magic Likely to Be Reaped

By Spencer Jakab

April 4, 2012

The Wall Street Journal

C1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304750404577322042307002620.html

Strategic CSR - Walmart

As part of its escalating efforts to better understand the multiple dimensions of CSR, reduce costs, and also educate its customers, Walmart recently released a new ‘Great For You’ label that it will put on its range of ‘healthy’ foods:

The article in the url below explains Walmart’s goals in introducing the new label, as well as detailing the other work the firm is doing in terms of defining ‘healthy food options’ for its customers:

“Walmart has also been working with suppliers of national brands and private label products to reduce sodium, added sugar and trans fats in some 165 products it sells. Sodium, from a solution that is standard in meatpacking, for example, has been cut by more than 70 percent in fresh steaks, roasts and other muscle cuts of beef.”

Importantly, the criteria the firm will use to define ‘healthy’ are recognized in the article as rigorous:

“Experts on nutrition and health generally commended the standards the company established for the Great for You label. ‘The criteria are pretty strict, I’ll give them credit for that,’ said Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. ‘The label will only go on to about one-fifth of their products.’”

Equally importantly, both for Walmart and for those who advocate emphasizing the business case for CSR, these policy decisions fit well within the firm’s overarching business strategy:

“[The firm also] said customers who bought fruits and vegetables at Walmart last year would have spent $1 billion more buying similar products at competing stores. “We’ve been very focused on cutting costs in supply chain to help us achieve this,” said Andrea Thomas, senior vice president for sustainability at Walmart.”

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

To Promote Healthier Food Choices, Walmart Adds Labels

By Stephanie Strom

The New York Times

February 8, 2012

B2

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/business/walmart-to-add-great-for-you-label-to-healthy-foods.html

Strategic CSR - Walmart

There are three aspects of the article in the url below that I find interesting. First, is that Walmart is changing its grocery supply chain to purchase more locally-grown foods. The move carries the advantage of meeting consumers’ growing demand for local food, but is primarily an attempt to reduce transportation costs:

“This summer, Wal-Mart has lined up farmers to grow jalapeño peppers in 30 states, twice as many as last summer. A decade ago, almost all of the chain's hot peppers came from Florida, California and Mexico. "We can get chili peppers from Florida all day long, but at the end of the day that is not necessarily the best model for us," says Darrin Robbins, Wal-Mart's senior manager for produce. "I'm going to pay a higher price in Ohio for peppers, but if I don't have to ship them halfway across the country to a store, it's a better deal."”

Second, is that loose definitions of sustainability-related terms (such as “organic,” “natural,” and “local”) allow firms to maximize the PR value they get by presenting foods in ways to which consumers respond positively. It also, of course, raises the possibility of greenwash (Chapter 4, p108):

“At most large retailers, fruits and vegetables harvested hundreds of miles away can be touted as locally grown. Such loose definitions have sparked criticism from small farmers and organic-food advocates that the chains are merely adjusting their marketing to capitalize on the latest food trend, rather than making real changes in their procurement practices. Wal-Mart … encourages its managers to buy produce grown within 450 miles of its distribution centers, even if local peaches, for example, cost more than those produced across the country in California.”

And, third, is that, although Walmart changed its logo in the summer of 2008 in a chain-wide re-branding effort, newspapers continue to refer to the firm as Wal-Mart with a hyphen (rather than Walmart). I find the inertia fascinating and can imagine it drives Walmart’s executives nuts. In relation to CSR, it brings to mind firms like Nike, which many people still think of as a non-socially responsible firm, even though (like Walmart) it is now leading best practice in many aspects related to CSR.

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

‘Local’ Grows on Wal-Mart

By Miguel Bustillo and David Kesmodel

1 August, 2011

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition - Final

B1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304223804576448491782467316.html

Strategic CSR - Organic Food

The article in the url link below reports 2007 agriculture census data on the distribution of organic farms across the U.S.:

“The map of organic farms in the United States is clustered into a few geographic centers, a strikingly different pattern than the map of all farms, which spreads densely over many regions, breaking only for the Rockies and Western deserts.”

The article notes that, while there are large numbers of small organic farms in both the NW and NE of the U.S. that sell direct to consumers, large organic farms are located mostly in California. Overall, organic sales in the U.S. have been rising in recent years:

“Organic vegetables now account for 5 percent of all vegetable sales; organic dairies, which are the fastest-growing sector, now produce 1 percent of the nation's milk.”

There is a lag, however, between consumer demand and the ability of farmers to increase their supply of organic products:

“… the Agriculture Department requires a three-year waiting period for farms to win organic certification.”

The graphics that accompany this article can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/05/03/business/03metrics.graf01.ready.html

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility

© Sage Publications, 2006

http://www.sagepub.com/Werther/

The Hot Spots for Organic Food

By HANNAH FAIRFIELD

214 words

3 May 2009

The New York Times

Late Edition - Final

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/business/03metrics.html

Strategic CSR - Home Depot

In the absence of regulated standards in many areas of CSR-related products, the article in the url link below describes the steps firms are taking to ensure their progress on this issue is not lost on their customers (Issues: Advertising, p151; Brands, p153):

“It's all part of a new trend spinning out from the current wave of eco-chic. Perhaps taking a cue from the U.S. Agriculture Dept.'s eye-catching, consumer-friendly, official labels for organic food, increasing numbers of non-food related stores and brands are introducing official-looking symbols and signs to promote their products. Their strategy is clear: To market their eco-friendliness, and to quickly and effectively communicate how socially responsible they are.”

Home Depot’s new “earth-friendly products” icon is below as an example:

http://images.businessweek.com/story/07/popup/0501_green_labeling_1.jpg

“Already, the label is associated with more than 2,500 products, ranging from compact fluorescent light bulbs to organic plants in biodegradable pots. Many, but not all, are verified by Scientific Certification Systems, an independent standards development and certification company.”

The sudden increase in various forms of environmental and social responsibility-type labels is designed to benefit from a growing consumer market:

“Each of these companies are looking to tap the growing numbers of socially responsible consumers. They have realized the power that the nearly five-year-old, USDA organic label wields among customers (products bearing the "organic" label represented a healthy $14.6 billion in total annual U.S. sales in 2005, the latest figures available from industry group Organic Trade Assn., up 17% from the year before).”

The problem, of course, is that the increased variety of symbols, marks, and icons, not to mention the huge variance in standards that underpin what is deemed to be ‘sustainable,’ ‘ethical,’ or ‘responsible,’ leads to further confusion. More important is the potential for abuse of consumer interest in CSR and products that support a responsible and sustainable business model, and also the dilution of meaning of what official labels (where they exist) mean over time:

“… while graphic designers, brand strategists, and consumer advocates alike agree that a proliferation of socially responsible corporations is healthy news for the environment, they're also cautioning that shoppers be wary or at least well-informed of the claims that each new, brand-specific eco-label conveys.”

Take care
Dave

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther

Business Week Online
Insider Newsletter
Saturday, May 5, 2007
********************
READING THE NEW ECO LABELS
Retailers and manufacturers of non-food items are creating their own seals of approval for earth-friendly goods
by Reena Jana
Marketing May 2, 2007
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-02/reading-the-new-eco-labelsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Strategic CSR - Green Collar Jobs

Welcome back to the Strategic CSR Newsletter!

The first Newsletter of this semester is below. As always, your comments and ideas are welcome.

The article in the url below profiles the efforts of an one man’s attempts to marry the growing green economy with the social needs of depressed U.S. communities (Issues: Community, p215):

"What is considered green is usually for the eco-elite. … But if we are actually going to meet the challenge of global warming, we are going to have to weatherize millions of homes and install millions of solar panels. That's millions of new jobs. We need to connect the people who most need the work with the work that most needs to be done."

The man featured in the article, Van Jones, has big plans in his effort to “link the green movement with issues of race and class”:

“Last year, Jones led a coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups that persuaded the Oakland City Council to provide $250,000 in seed money for the country's first green-collar-jobs corps, which will train low-income youth in the renewable-energy, organic-food, and green-construction industries. The organization he founded and heads, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, also helped draft the Pathways out of Poverty legislation for the federal Green Jobs Act of 2007, which pledged $125 million to train 35,000 people a year in green-collar jobs. And in February, Jones launched Green for All, a national advocacy organization whose goal is to procure $1 billion in federal funding by 2012 for green-collar programs, and lift as many as 250,000 Americans out of poverty.”

In spite of the attention he is receiving, Jones remains focused on the immediate reality:

“Jones attacks conventional environmental appeals -- bemoaning the plight of polar bears and other "charismatic megafauna," as he puts it -- because they don't speak to poor urban dwellers who have more pressing needs, like scraping together bus fare or keeping their kids out of gangs.”

Have a good semester.
Dave

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther

“I’m Bad! I’m Slick!”
Oakland activist Van Jones is on a mission to bring green-collar jobs to the urban poor. His mightiest weapon: His mouth.
Fast Company Magazine
From: Issue 125 | May 2008 | Page 103 | By: Linda Baker
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/im-bad-im-slick.html

Strategic CSR - Chipotle

The article in the url below profiles a fast-food company that is edging towards sustainability and profiting as a result (Issues: Environmental Sustainability, p171; Special Cases of CSR: Fast-food Industry, p283):

“Good food wrapped in a socially responsible message has created legions of Chipotle fans -- and a superhot business. … by year's end, it will have 840 stores and top $1 billion in annual sales.”

In spite of the firm’s questionable parentage (the chain was bought by McDonald’s in 1998, but is independent again now), Chipotle is claiming a market niche for itself by focusing on high quality products:

“The chain now serves only rBGH-free dairy products, and all of its pork meets its standards for hormone- and antibiotic-free, humanely raised meat, as does 80% of its chicken and 50% of its beef. That makes Chipotle the largest restaurant buyer of humanely raised meat.”

Chipotle’s founder and CEO, Steve Ells, is committed to the humane treatment of animals throughout the food industry as a means of enhancing the “dining experience” for consumers:

“Ells's vision -- "We want to influence the supply chain in the United States," he says -- comes at a cost. … Chipotle has to pay a premium for Ells's passion, and so do his customers (the average burrito is now $6 to $7).”

Chipotle’s success is being noted by the competition:

“Burger King and Wendy's, the No. 2 and No. 5 U.S. chains, respectively, recently began to explore humane-pork options.”

Take care
Dave

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther

Ode To A Burrito
It's a dilemma for investors who want hefty returns and a clean green conscience: Can you own Big Oil and still feel good in the morning?
Fast Company Magazine
From: Issue 124 | April 2008 | Pages 54-56 | By: Arianne Cohen
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/ode-to-a-burrito.html

Strategic CSR - Meat

The article in the url link below details the processes associated with industrial meat production. The scale and numbers are staggering. According to the article, global meat consumption has quadrupled in the past 50 years, growing fastest in the developing world, and is expected to double again over the next 50 years. The environmental impact is equally staggering:

“These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests.”

The article reports that:

“… an estimated 30 percent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases -- more than transportation.”

With rising demand comes rising prices, which are projected to have further social consequences as agricultural land is increasingly dedicated to producing cattle feed, rather than other, more calorie efficient, crops. The enormity of the environmental, health, and social consequences of producing and consuming beef on such a scale (presented in great detail in the article), however, make it clear that basic transparency and accountability are yet to make it to this subsection of the agribusiness industry:

“If price spikes don't change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.”

Take care
Dave

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
By MARK BITTMAN
2231 words
27 January 2008
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html