|
Investors Oppose SEC’s restriction on shareholder rights |
WASHINGTON, DC (Feb. 5, 2020) – As of Monday’s deadline for public comments on the SEC’s proposed restriction on shareholder rights, a broad group of investors has weighed in strongly against the SEC’s proposal to limit shareholders’ rights to file proposals for shareholders to consider and vote on at annual shareholders meetings.
Commenters opposing the new restrictions on shareholder rights include large investment funds, pension funds, religious institutions, foundations, investment managers, university endowments, individual investors and the SEC’s own Investor Advisory Committee. These investor letters describe in detail the immense benefits from many important ideas that originated with shareholder proposals that would not have been allowed if the SEC’s new restrictions had been in effect.
Criticism On SEC's Proposed Restrictions On Shareholder Rights
Many of these investors also criticized the SEC’s companion proposal to require independent proxy advisors to clear their advice with the subject companies before providing it to their investor clients. These investors lamented that corporate involvement in proxy advice will jeopardize the independence and reliability of a critical resource for investors to hold management accountable for delivering long-term shareholder value.
“Investors’ comments on the SEC proposals staunchly defended their rights to continue to file and vote on shareholder proposals, as well as to continue to obtain independent proxy voting advice,” said Sanford Lewis, Director of the Shareholder Rights Group. “The current changes, proposed by SEC Chair Jay Clayton and adopted on a 3-2 party-line vote, were not asked for by any investors. They are the result of an intense, multi-year lobbying campaign funded by corporate trade associations led by the Chamber and the Business Roundtable.”
Comments on SEC proposals
As of the February 3 deadline, more than 14,000 comment letters have been filed and listed on the SEC’s website on the SEC’s proposed amendments to restrict shareholder proposals, including from more than 31 asset managers, 7 pension funds, 73 faith-based groups, 60 prominent scholars, 9 state or local government officials, 2 unions and several thousand individual investors. Numerous investor groups also filed letters opposing the SEC proposals to place "restrictions on shareholder rights", including:
- the Council of Institutional Investors (a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of U.S. public, corporate and union employee benefit funds, other employee benefit plans, state and local entities charged with investing public assets, and foundations and endowments with combined assets under management of approximately $4 trillion),
- US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (with members comprised of investment management and advisory firms, mutual fund companies, asset owners, research firms, financial planners, advisors and broker-dealers, represent more than $3 trillion in assets under management or advisement),
- the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (a coalition of more than 300 faith-based institutional investors collectively representing more than $500 billion in invested capital),
- the U.N. Principles of Responsible Investing (an international network of 2,800 investor signatories that manage more than $90 trillion in assets, including more than 500 U.S. signatories managing more than $45 trillion in assets),
- the Shareholder Rights Group (an association of investors formed in 2016 to strengthen and support shareowners’ rights to engage with public companies on governance and long-term value creation).
Comments were also filed by several civil society groups, including Public Citizen, Green America, Oxfam and the Thirty Percent Coalition. More than 500 individual investors filed their own comment letters, and 13,000 additional individuals weighed in through petitions organized by As You Sow, Public Citizen and the Friends of the Earth.
SEC's Proposals Placing "Restrictions On Shareholder Rights" Reflect A Disturbing Anti-Investor Bias?
Tim Smith of Boston Trust Walden, a member of the Shareholder Rights Group, stated, “We have seen an outpouring of investor opposition to these new restrictive rules coming from a significant cross-section of investors. The SEC’s role is to be the investor’s advocate, protecting investor interests. The message from these comments is clear that the SEC should put aside these two proposals that reflect a disturbing anti-investor bias.”
Since the 1940s, shareholder proposals have been a critical tool for investors to raise issues of concern at annual shareholders meetings and hold corporate CEOs and boards accountable to their owners. Proposals allow shareholders to speak to, inform and test the waters on an issue with their fellow shareholders. Over the last 50-plus years, shareholder resolutions have spurred numerous changes in corporate governance, policy and disclosure.
The investor comments filed in opposition to the SEC’s proposal reflect deep research, analysis and experience, and reveal serious flaws in the SEC’s analysis and economic justification.
The Shareholder Rights Group (SRG) is distributing this information on behalf of its members as well as numerous other investment organizations affected by the rulemaking proposals.
For more information visit www.investorrightsforum.com.
|
|
People and Planet Winners: Local Community Action |
Since 2012, Green America's People and Planet Award has recognized outstanding small businesses with deep commitments to social justice and environmental sustainability. This project has been made possible thanks to a special donor committed to giving a boost to innovative entrepreneurs. The People and Planet Award has bestowed over $300,000 on green businesses since its inception.
The three winners of the first award cycle were Green Kid Crafts, Raleigh City Farm, and Sonoma Compost Company.
Penny Bauder of Green Kid Crafts holding a craft box
Volunteers with Raleigh City Farm
Where are they now?
At the conclusion of the People and Planet Award, we reached out to the winners to learn how the prize helped their business. Below are their answers. Sonoma Compost Company did not respond.
How did the People and Planet Award money help your business?
Penny of Green Kid Crafts: Thanks to the People and Planet Award, Green Kid Crafts has grown from a boot-strapped company operating out of my garage to an award-winning, multi-million-dollar company. Motivated by a passion to raise a generation of environmental leaders, in 2010 I founded Green Kid Crafts, a children’s media company that provides kids around the world with convenient and sustainable STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and math) activities. Today, it’s become a leader in the subscription industry, with over 1 million packages shipped worldwide.
Every month’s package is packed with up to 6 science and art kits designed by teachers and STEAM experts to foster a child’s creativity and confidence while helping to raise the nation's next generation of creative leaders. Each package includes a 12-page STEAM activity magazine and achievement badges. Each month brings a new theme; past themes have included Botany Nocturnal Animals, Green Energy, Around the World, and Volcanoes.
My company mission to foster the next generation of creative, environmental leaders by engaging kids with the planet in hands-on, creative ways has exposed over one million kids to think about and take a leadership role in sustainability. Winning the People and Planet Award money helped to take us to the next level by providing us with financial resources during a particular cash-strapped time.
Raleigh City Farm: In the spring of 2012, the first group of volunteers gathered on the site of Raleigh City Farm with shovels in hand to begin the transformation of a largely abandoned one-acre site. This groundbreaking was the result of three years of planning and dreaming and fundraising by the founding board members whose vision was to “create a place where anyone can learn about farming.” Early donations, including prize money from the “People and Planet Award” fueled the continued growth, change and evolution of Raleigh City Farm.
What did you use the prize money for?
Penny of GKC: When we applied for the People and Planet Award grant, we were limping by on a pretty inefficient website that had many problems. We put the grant money towards the strategy, design, construction and launch of a new mobile-optimized website, with sophisticated marketing, e-commerce and website management tools. The launch of our new website a few months later resulted in the immediate growth and long-term success of Green Kid Crafts.
Raleigh City Farm: Our current mission is to grow the next generation of farmers by connecting our community to sustainable agriculture and we’ve partnered and helped incubate many farmers including Farmers’ Collective, Endless Sun Farms, High Country Firs, Farmer James and Infinity Hundred Farms. Our Impact can be broken down into three strategies: grow, connect and dig. We grow farmers by providing the site, marketing and volunteer infrastructure and resources necessary to support their success. We connect the community by leading workdays and tours, hosting special events and providing a variety of educational programming. The "dig" strategy ties to the many benefits of urban farms to support more healthy eating habits and lifestyles while protecting the environment.
What is your business up to now?
Penny of GKC: Now that we’ve reached our goal of selling our one millionth kit this past August, we are now focusing on selling our two millionth kit! Also, in the next month we will be releasing many new STEM and STEAM kits. Green Kid Crafts' themes generally fall within four categories: Ecosystem Science, Environmental Activism, Wildlife Science, and Earth Science. Past kits have included Outer Space, Save our Oceans, Green Energy, Rocket Science, and Arctic Science. Our new packs will follow along these thematic lines and will include an Ecosystem Pack, an Environmental Activist Pack, an Animal Science Pack, a Chemistry Pack, and an Ultimate STEM pack. We are also working on the launch of a Climate Change Box and a Save our Bees Box. These and current STEM and STEAM boxes are available for purchase here.
The next year will see Green Kid Crafts building out our international program and shipping to more counties. My passions include environmental and youth advocacy, STEAM education, and international connections so it makes sense that Green Kid Crafts’ STEM and STEAM kids become available around the world! We are also working on a new program that will connect kids all over the world to learn from each other, help the environment, and develop the skills to make the world a better place. Through online and offline opportunities, kids around the world will be connected through monthly STEM and STEAM activities linked to international conservation projects, so stay tuned! In this age of global divide, I believe that art and science are the most powerful unifying force we have at our disposal, and I want to do what I can to put these skills in the hands of the world’s youth.
Raleigh City Farm: The impact of Raleigh CIty Farm is far-reaching: our nonprofit farm is nestled in a very busy expanding urban area with over 15,000 cars passing by each day and over 20,000 eyeballs following us on social media (11K Instagram, and 5K/5K Fbook and Twitter). In many respects, we can be considered a "billboard" for farming and farmers - an important reminder that food is grown in the ground by human beings (as opposed to being sold in a supermarket) and that it is both nourishing for the body and pleasing to the eyes! We collaborate with a variety of partners to host fun events and educational programming that celebrates sustainability and urban agriculture. The success of the nonprofit has been overseen by a dedicated board of directors with widespread support from the community. We enter into 2020 with a new vision to donate over 50% of our produce to nonprofits increasing food access and addressing food insecurity. We’re excited about envisioning our community more deeply rooted in appreciation and cultivation of local food and horticulture and taking the lead in connecting them through Raleigh City Farm.
|
|
Advocacy Groups Charge SEC With Limiting Shareholder Votes |
A coalition of environmental and advocacy groups is petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission asking that it not adopt changes to its regulations that would reduce the number of shareholders who can present resolutions to a corporation.
The coalition claims the regulation changes would “muzzle” many smaller groups of shareholders that are trying to change corporate policies involving such things as environmental, social and governance issues, as well as executive compensation. The coalition is made up of Green America, Americans for Financial Reform, As You Sow and Public Citizen. The groups on Monday delivered petitions with more than 18,000 signatures to the SEC.
The groups oppose the changes because they would “bar many investors from pushing corporations for action on major issues, including greenhouse gas reduction goals, lobbying and election spending discussion, human rights abuses and discrimination,” according to a statement they put out. “The proposed changes will weaken the ability of investors to raise important concerns and thereby give corporations more unchecked power, including the ability to essentially ignore the views of shareholders and other stakeholders.”
One proposed change would increase the stock ownership level needed to submit a resolution to a public corporation from $2,000 to $25,000. Increasing the percentage of support a shareholder resolution needs to get in one year in order for it to be resubmitted in a subsequent year is another proposal, as is limiting investors or their representatives to one shareholder resolution per shareholder meeting.
The SEC does not comment on petitions that are submitted to it.
Shareholders can present resolutions proposing changes in corporate policies at shareholder meetings to be voted on. If the resolution passes, it becomes corporation policy. Resolutions can cover a range of policies and practices for a corporation from the handling of supply chains for materials to transparency in corporate actions to executive compensation.
The petition says, “We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the need to build an economy that will be successful over the long term. This means we need to ensure that social, environmental, and corporate governance issues facing corporations are effectively addressed.
“Investors, including small investors, have an important role to play in identifying for corporations a number of risks and corporate impacts … that may damage specific companies and the larger economy,” the petition continued.
Green America executive co-director Fran Teplitz said, “There is no democracy for shareholders in America unless they have a right to engage in meaningful shareholder advocacy and to be heard. The SEC is contemplating locking many shareholders out of the process.”
|
|
Opposition to SEC Proxy Proposals Grows |
On the final day of public comment on two related proposals by the Securities and Exchange Commission on proxy voting rules, a petition signed by more than 18,000 individuals opposing the policy change was submitted to the SEC, which was also the subject of a protest by some of the signatories.
Green America, a not-for-profit membership organization focused on the economic power of consumers, investors and businesses to create a environmentally sustainable economy, along with Americans for Financial Reform and As You Sow, delivered the petition.
Both SEC proposals, if finalized, would make it harder for investors to challenge corporate management on environmental, social and governance issues.
In one proposal, a shareholder would have to own at least $2,000 worth of stock for three years to sponsor a first-time proxy proposal, up from one year currently. A $25,000 stake would be required if they owned the stock for one year and $15,000 if they owned it for two years.
The rule also raises the minimum vote percentage required to resubmit a proxy proposal for the first time from 3% to 5%. For the second and third resubmissions, the requirement moves from 6% and 10%, respectively, to 15% and 25%, and it restricts the activities of proxy advisor firms.
In the related proposal, proxy advisory firms would be required to give a company a chance to comment on its recommendations and include a link to those companies in its distributions to clients and disclose any conflicts of interest. In recommending a vote against management, for example, a proxy advisory firm would need to include management’s opinion in their final report to shareholders.
SEC Jay Clayton has said that the amendments are long overdue and were “carefully crafted to more appropriately balance the benefits and burdens to all shareholders.”
The Green America petitioners don’t agree.
They are “deeply concerned about the need to build an economy that will be successful over the long term,” which requires “that social, environmental, and corporate governance issues facing corporations are effectively addressed, “according to the petition.
The shareholder proposal process, known as Rule 14a-8, has worked well since 1934 and “should certainly not be weakened.”
“There is no democracy for shareholders in America unless they have a right to engage in meaningful shareholder advocacy and to be heard,” said Green America Executive Co-Director Fran Teplitz. “Many of the major advances of recent corporate history — going back to the rejection of racist apartheid South Africa and as recently as action on climate change — owe their success to shareholder advocacy.“
Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, said, “With this vote, the SEC has apparently inverted its mandate of protecting shareholders to that of protecting companies from shareholder input — even where company action creates increasing risk to shareholders, people, or the environment.”
Behar said the proposal to limit shareholder proxies “has the potential to increase shareholder and company risk, particularly regarding growing climate concerns” and is unlikely to face “public or legal scrutiny.”
In its comment letter filed Monday, the PRI, which represents the world’s largest institutional investors that support the UN’s Principles for Responsible Investment, wrote that the SEC shareholder proxy proposal would block hundreds of shareholder proposals and lock out smaller and medium-size investors from influencing outcomes of votes.
“By erecting hurdles to the resubmission of proposals, the SEC will effectively hamper U.S. companies’ ability to make progress on ESG goals,” said Fiona Reynolds, CEO of Principles for Responsible Investment. “U.S. corporations will inevitably fall behind on sustainable business practices compared to their competitors in the global market, losing out on both a competitive advantage and changes necessary for a more sustainable marketplace.”
PRI noted in its press release that the proposed rule on proxy advisor firms” would impose prohibitive costs on proxy advisory firms,” which many institutional investors use to supplement their own research and understanding of proxies for their portfolio.
The SEC will first review public comments before proceeding with the proposal. It could potentially revise the proposal, which would involve additional public comments. No meetings on the current proposals have been scheduled yet.
|
|
Green America: 18,000 Signatures Delivered Urging SEC Not to Muzzle Voice of Shareholders |
Vital Shareholder Proposal Process Has Allowed Investors to Raise Important Social, Environmental and Governance Issues with Corporate America.
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Concerned citizens delivered over 18,000 signatures to the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) in a major show of opposition to a SEC rule proposal that would bar many investors from pushing corporations for action on major issues, including greenhouse gas reduction goals, lobbying and election spending discussion, human rights abuses and discrimination.
The proposed changes will weaken the ability of investors to raise important concerns and thereby give corporations more unchecked power, including the ability to essentially ignore the views of shareholders and other stakeholders.
Green America, Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) and As You Sow delivered the signatures today to the SEC at its Washington, D.C., offices at 100 F Street NE. Signatures also were gathered by Public Citizen.
The Green America petition states: “We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the need to build an economy that will be successful over the long term. This means we need to ensure that social, environmental, and corporate governance issues facing corporations are effectively addressed. As we know, significant improvement across these issues is needed if our economy and society are to thrive for generations to come.
“Investors, including small investors, have an important role to play in identifying for corporations a number of risks and corporate impacts of which they may not be aware. These risks and impacts may damage specific companies and the larger economy.
“Since 1934, the shareholder proposal process (Rule 14a-8) has been a positive tool that enables investors to share important information with fellow investors and with corporate management. It is working well and should certainly not be weakened.”
Green America Executive Co-Director Fran Teplitz said: “There is no democracy for shareholders in America unless they have a right to engage in meaningful shareholder advocacy and to be heard. The SEC is contemplating locking many shareholders out of the process. Many of the major advances of recent corporate history – going back to the rejection of racist apartheid South Africa and as recently as action on climate change – owe their success to shareholder advocacy. Today, we are fighting for democracy and against a world that is run even more than it is today by corporations that can ignore the public. We are pleased that over 10,000 Green America members signed our petition to the SEC.”
Along with Green America, several groups also urged the SEC to uphold the current shareholder resolution process:
Marcus Stanley, policy director at AFR, said, “This administration has consistently weakened regulations that foster corporate accountability. Now the SEC is weakening even the mechanisms by which the majority of shareholders can advocate for responsible corporate governance and corporate social responsibility.”
Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate, Public Citizen said, “Shareholder activists serve on the front line with whistleblowers, unions and even the police to keep American corporations honest. It’s not quantum physics to figure why big business through its U.S. Chamber front wants to stifle these agents of reform.”
Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, said, “With this vote, the SEC has apparently inverted its mandate of protecting shareholders to that of protecting companies from shareholder input — even where company action creates increasing risk to shareholders, people, or the environment. This proposal flies in the face of the SEC’s mandate of ensuring transparency, open discussion, and company responsiveness to shareholder concerns; it has the potential to increase shareholder and company risk, particularly regarding growing climate concerns. We don’t believe that it will withstand public or legal scrutiny.”
Josh Zinner, CEO of Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), said, “The current proxy process offers shareholders of all sizes a straightforward channel to company management, board, and other investors to provide constructive feedback and, when needed, raise concerns about critical ESG risks. This important give and take process has been demonstrably beneficial for the long value of companies and investors and should be safeguarded by the SEC."
Sanford Lewis, director of the Shareholder Rights Group (a group of leading proponents of shareholder proposals), said: “The SEC rule change proposals are fatally flawed. The SEC failed to conduct the needed research prior to issuing the proposals, and therefore they lacked the necessary legal and economic foundation for a rule proposal. The proposals undermine the rights of investors to file proposals, hire representatives, and to aggregate stock with other concerned shareholders.”
ABOUT GREEN AMERICA
Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org
|
|
Advocates Say SEC Proxy Change Limits Corporate Owners' Oversight |
|
|
Thank you for signing up! |
Thank you for signing up!
|
|
Press Release: Child Labor Has Always Been Here, Now It's on the Rise |
On this World Social Justice Day, the Campaign to End US Child Labor calls for justice for the hundreds of thousands of children across the United States who are forced to work, often in hazardous conditions.
|
|
How To Be a Sustainable Apparel Business |
Green businesses adopt principles, policies, and practices that improve the quality of life for its customers, employees, communities, and planet. But just because a business claims it is “green” doesn’t mean it upholds the standards of social responsibility and sustainability. So how can you determine what is in fact a sustainable business, or how can your business achieve that high standard?
That’s where third-party certifications come in. A third-party certification serves to verify a business’s claims against their independently developed criterion. Such certifications reduce conflicts of interest and provide accountability to a business’s claims. Studies show that customers look for such things from businesses and are willing to pay more for high-quality products with safety and sustainability standards.
Green America's Green Business Certification is the leading trust mark for true green business practices. Our program recognizes businesses that excel in social and environmental responsibility, and the businesses found in our Green Pages directory have met or exceeded our certification standards to become leaders in the green economy.
The Green Business Network at Green America recommends businesses consider both environmental and social justice issues when making decisions. To earn our certification, businesses must meet both standards of social and environmental responsibility. If you are interested in becoming a green business, we’ve highlighted a few important steps—and if you’ve reached these steps, check out the full requirements of our Apparel certification. You may be ready to apply.
Environmental Responsibility
"Green" or sustainable business make planet health a core part of their mission. The following steps are ways your apparel business can account for environmental responsibility in its operations.
Certified organic, reclaimed and recycled fibers, or other sustainable materials.
Organic and sustainable materials are a requirement of our apparel businesses. That includes no genetically-modified cotton, which poses threats to the surrounding ecosystem through pesticides and a disruption of natural processes through a monoculture. Conversely, organic cotton greatly decreases the amount of harmful chemicals that workers and their communities are exposed to during the farming level of the supply chain. Additional fabrics made from post or pre-consumer recycled fibers are acceptable if the process does not result in toxic waste, and if the materials can be recycled or composted. There must be transparency around animal derivatives if there are animals in your supply chain.
Packaging and transportation.
We expect green apparel businesses to have environmentally and socially positive packaging. It must be from recycled sources and must be recyclable or compostable. We love to see businesses take back packaging for reuse, too.
Your business must have a program in place to reduce emissions from company vehicles and work with your distributors to take steps to reduce emissions from transportation and shipping. Since transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions in the US, it’s very important that your business does its part!
Educating consumers.
Conscious consumers are what keep sustainable businesses running. Therefore, we require apparel companies to educate consumers on the life cycle of their product, such as how to properly dispose of the product when it is no longer usable. We love to see established take back programs, too. To be an industry leader, we expect your business to advocate for green practices in your field and be open to feedback from internal and external stakeholders.
Green office or facility.
Not only do we count the steps in the supply chain, we are also interested in your business’s operational and administrative fronts. Our definition of a green office or facility includes reusing resources, recyclability, and maximum water and energy efficiency. Your office space must divert its waste appropriately, including using a certified E-Steward for electronics and composting all food waste. Your office must be energy efficient and must be taking action on clean energy, such as purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) or using on-site clean energy.
Your business must also use 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper and have procedures in place to maximize office resources. Using non-toxic cleaning supplies and pest control products is important in-house, too. A green office is a testament to your business’s values—not only do you care about people and the planet in your products, but also in the treatment of your employees.
Social Responsibility
Triple bottom line businesses are not only kind to the planet, but kind to people—hence, social responsibility. The following points are a handful of ways your business can be an ethical one.
Safe and fair manufacturing.
Whether you partner with workers in the US or abroad, we expect you to offer your workers safe and healthy working conditions, a living wage, and transparency. Offshore factories are okay if the factory has an established worker representation mechanism, a code of conduct with an enforcement mechanism is in place, and your business has long-term contracts with the manufacturers. Many of our businesses are certified fair trade and work with unions to help demonstrate this.
Safe and quality company employment.
Your company’s workplace culture should reflect the values of your mission. Employees should have access to quality benefits and be paid wages that ensure well-being. Your company culture should encourage work/life balance, inclusivity, and have non-discrimination and whistle blower protection policies in place. Your business is only as good as its people, so having a thriving workplace will help your employees be the best they can be.
Uphold transparency.
Transparency is weaker in the apparel industry than it should be—which is why we make it a requirement of our certification. Your business must share its social and environmental mission on its website. For each individual product, the country of manufacture should be clearly visible. If all products come from the same country, that should be disclosed on the front page. Your business must also be transparent in its supply chain, including sub-contracting, and be committed to the continuous improvement of sustainable labor practices.
Customers are increasingly interested in the people behind the product. According to Harvard Business Review, customers prefer products that are handmade or can see the person behind the product; compared to mass automation, the presence of a human signals intent, meaning, and effort.
Why Certify?
In a sea of businesses claiming to be “conscious" or "natura," it’s hard for the average consumer to weed out the green from the greenwashed. Third-party certifications demonstrate that your business has withstood the vetting of an outside body and come out as a truly socially and environmentally responsible business. With certification, your customers will know your business has the credentials to back up claims of environmental and social responsibility—and they’ll wear your values on their sleeves.
While these requirements are comprehensive, they are not definite. We love seeing businesses exceed these standards and take steps beyond certification to be even greener. In addition, our certification analyzes business practices and not individual products. We believe a sustainable future is also an ethical one and ensure the businesses that earn our certification reflect that.
If you believe you meet these criteria, you can view the full requirements for Apparel businesses at our Apparel certification standard and begin the process of becoming a member and official sustainable business.
Join Today
|
|
When it comes to bills and receipts, are you Team Paper or Team Digital? |
Like many soon-to-be empty-nesters, Vered DeLeeuw and her husband have been thinking about downsizing. Surveying her garage, DeLeeuw noticed boxes of documents, pay stubs, bills, credit card statements — 20 years worth — and realized the harsh truth: She was a paper pack rat.
Using a paper shredder, it took her two months to trash everything. “I don’t want to do this again in 20 years,” she says. “That’s why when a business asks if I want to go paperless or receive a receipt by email, I think, ‘Why not?’ ”
There was a time when your only checkout decision was paper or plastic bag. Now, the question is “paper or digital receipt?” We must decide whether we want to collect all the receipts we need — for tax purposes, warranties, insurance benefits, mail-in rebates and more — in paper or virtual file folders. And we need to make the same choice about bills and all kinds of statements — credit card, bank, investment and insurance — as well as health records.
“The world is changing into an expectation of convenience, what I call ‘B-To-Me’ (business to me). Thanks to technology, not only can we bank through our smartphones, but receive bills and receipts digitally,” says Alice Frazier, president and chief executive of Bank of Charles Town in West Virginia.
Digital bills, statements and receipts alleviate the costs of handling and processing for businesses. For customers, digital receipts save space and allow them to quickly look things up. And overall, digital bills, statements and receipts are friendlier for the environment, because they waste less money and require no physical delivery. The use of paper receipts consumes more than 3 million trees, 9 billion gallons of water and generates more than 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide and 302 million pounds of solid waste during production, according to the 2019 report from Green America, a nonprofit group focused on environmental issues related to consumerism.
Roberto Castaneda, program director for Walden University’s online master’s in finance degree, says: “As we move into a digital world, we will see more retailers, medical offices, businesses and a host of venues taking advantage of digital processing of transactions.”
Still, many of us grew up with paper, and it’s hard to let go. You shouldn’t beat yourself up if you like paper, says Eileen Roth, co-author of “Organizing For Dummies.” “For bills that change monthly, like credit cards, I like the paper version to match to my paper receipts from the store. I could print a digital bill, but why do I want to spend my ink, my computer space and my time when the company will mail me the bill for free?”
Whether you prefer paper or digital, you need an organizational system that works, especially for receipts. Otherwise, you risk turning your disorganized receipt-stuffed cardboard shoe box into a digital one. Here’s a look at both options.
Team Paper
●Provides a sense of security because the process has been in place for a long time.
●Accurate paper trail at your fingertips.
●No need for computer or smartphone.
●Printed bill is a reminder when bills are due.
●You’re more likely to look at it.
●May make it difficult to find a specific receipt.
●Receipt may deteriorate over time.
●Not environmentally friendly.
●Slower response time between payment and confirmation of receipt.
●Could get lost in the mail.
Tips for handling paper receipts, bills, statements:
Roth suggests a two-pronged approach: one for bills and statements (bank, brokerage, credit card), and one for receipts. Label one large plastic file folder “To Pay” in which to sort all incoming bills. Once a week, open this file. Mark each bill with the date paid. Sort paid bills into paper file folders labeled by category, such as utilities, insurance, medical, donations and warranties. Place statements in appropriately labeled folders for future reference.
For your receipts, buy a 12-month check file folder. This is where you will temporarily store all your small paper receipts. Sort by categories such as groceries, restaurants, office, gasoline, hardware stores, hobby/craft. Each month, when your credit card statement arrives, match the receipts to your statement. After matching, you can pitch grocery, restaurant, carwash, gasoline and similar receipts. Pull out any receipt for warranties and place it into the appropriate folder. Staple the remaining receipts to your credit card statement. After a year, shred or destroy the statement and attached receipts.
You can toss warranties when you no longer have the product or the warranty expires. Hang onto bank statements for one year until you file your taxes. However, says Roth, if you have no write-offs, there is no need to keep them more than two months once you have balanced your statements.
Castaneda advises keeping investment and brokerage statements until six years after you’ve sold your stocks or bonds. Likewise, retain physical receipts of the purchase of your home and remodeling costs for, at minimum, six years after selling your home and filing your taxes.
Though Castaneda prefers digital records, he does print and store tax return documents in a large envelope marked “Tax Return” and the year. “Many organizations provide digital copies of tax documents such as W-2s, brokerage and mortgage statements, and real estate taxes, which I also print and store in my tax return file,” he says. “Keeping tax documents in one folder eliminates the hassle of trying to gather them later if the IRS calls.”
Team Digital
●Eliminates the need for shredding.
●Environmentally friendly.
●Searchable from your computer
●Can file and store receipts in multiple categories.
●Can confirm your payment was submitted properly and received on time.
●Easier to overlook or miss a bill payment.
●Requires general technology skills.
●Often requires signing into a website to view.
●May require a scanner to digitize receipts.
●Risks someone compromising your data.
●Could lose data in case of a computer crash, unless you store your data in the cloud.
●May require an online storage service or external hard drive large enough to hold your data.
Tips for handling digital receipts, bills statements:
Robert Berger, deputy editor of Forbes Money Advisor and author of “Retire Before Mom and Dad,” figured converting from paper to digital was as simple as buying a scanner to digitize his receipts and bills, giving each a unique name, then putting them all into an online folder. “Because I was selling my house and moving into a new one, I became super-focused on decluttering and finding an organizational method that worked,” he says. What sounded good in theory didn’t pan out. “My paper mess became a digital mess,” he says.
His solution: Create an online filing system involving Dropbox for storage and several Google docs organized by topic, such as “house” or “medical.” Invoices, receipts for large purchases and bills that come as attachments instead of embedded within an email get scanned and converted to a PDF, as do any important paper receipts such as his home inspection and deed. Either the email or PDF is saved to Dropbox. A link for each is copied and pasted into the appropriate Google doc.
“I can see every service call for home repairs by looking at one master document. If I need the receipt, it’s one click away,” says Berger, who adds that you can even give your master document with embedded links to receipts and statements to your accountant come tax season. There’s no need to send credit card statements or similar documentation unless your tax preparer asks for it.
For those who prefer what Frazier calls “a virtual file cabinet,” consider downloading statements and/or investment reports to your online storage. Categorize them into labeled folders such as “retirement” or “Visa card.” Another option is to use a free online financial management tool — for example, Mint, which can automatically connect to and import your financial data, including credit cards, bank and retirement accounts, into one easily accessible place.
DeLeeuw’s two-month shredding slog was worth it. Now she stores all her bills and receipts on an external hard drive in folders sorted by topic and year. “It was amazingly scary to shred all that paper,” she says, “but once I got started I realized, ‘Who needs a 20-year-old utility bill?’ ”
|
|
As Valentine's Approaches, Major Retailers Rated on Whether Chocolate Products Address Child Labor, Deforestation and Fair Trade |
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 8, 2020 – Green America released a chocolate scorecard for retailers ahead of Valentine’s Day, rating top US grocery stores and pharmacies on how well their product offerings address child labor conditions and sustainability, which are major problems in the chocolate industry. Aldi, Food Lion and Kroger received the best grades, while Trader’s Joe and CVS got the lowest marks.
“For decades the chocolate industry, including retailers, has known about child labor in chocolate production, but we are still seeing major retailers, like Trader Joe’s, doing relatively little to address this issue,” said Charlotte Tate, manager, Labor Justice Campaigns, Green America. “Complex problems like child labor and deforestation need holistic solutions, and if retailers do not prioritize human and environmental rights, those needed holistic solutions will remain out of reach.”
Aldi, Food Lion and Kroger were the top-ranking retailers on the Scorecard for addressing child labor, poverty and deforestation. Walmart, Whole Foods, Safeway, Target, Costco and Walgreens received middle scores. Trader’s Joe and CVS were the worst-ranking retailers. See the detailed chart here.
It is estimated that retailers take more than 40 percent of the profits from the annual billions of dollars in chocolate sales in the US, while cocoa farmers in West Africa, where 60 percent of the world’s cocoa is produced, earn around a dollar a day. The US Department of Labor estimates that two million children in West Africa are engaged in hazardous work in cocoa fields.
“Retailers control what chocolate brands the public sees and eventually buys, and they should take a leading role in promoting products that benefit cocoa farmers and the environment,” said Todd Larsen, executive co-director, Consumer and Corporate Engagement, Green America. “The unfair division of chocolate profits must change. Farmers must be paid fairly, or we have no hope of ending child labor in the cocoa industry.”
While solving the child labor problem in cocoa and addressing deforestation involves working with the entire supply chain, paying farmers a living wage is a necessary part of the solution, and retailers can play a major role by selling chocolate with higher labor and environmental standards. If retailers and chocolate companies remain unwilling to ensure farmers are paid fairly, then poverty, child labor and deforestation will continue to grow.
The new Chocolate Retailer Scorecard is a tool that allows consumers to make more informed choices about where they shop for their chocolate. In addition, annually, Green America maintains a scorecard that examines the chocolate brands’ efforts to address child labor in their chocolate supply chain.
About Green America
Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org
Media Contact: Max Karlin for Green America, (703) 276-3255, or mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.
|
|
Chocolate Retailer Scorecard |
Child labor in the chocolate industry has been a well-known problem for decades, and despite numerous stakeholders pressuring big chocolate companies to address the issue, child labor remains prevalent in West Africa’s cocoa industry. In addition to our annual Chocolate Scorecard rating major US chocolate companies, this scorecard rates stores carrying chocolates.
Why a retailer scorecard?
Green America issues an annual Chocolate Scorecard, which rates major US chocolate companies on its efforts to address child labor. Building on that scorecard, we think it is important to highlight the role that grocery stores and pharmacies have in perpetuating child labor issues in cocoa. Store brand or ‘own brand’ chocolate is gaining a bigger and bigger market share, but grocery stores or retailers have not received the same kind of consumer and civil society pressure that chocolate companies, like Godiva, have received.
Retailers make billions of dollars on chocolate sales, taking up to 44% of the profits while cocoa farmers earn a measly 6.6%, according to the Cocoa Barometer.
This unfair division of chocolate profits must change. Farmers need to be paid more, or we have no hope of ending child labor in the cocoa industry.
One of the results of consumer, civil society, and government pressure on the chocolate industry is big chocolate brands developing sustainability initiatives. This pressure has also led to greater transparency about what chocolate brands are doing to address social and environmental harms, including child labor and deforestation.
But, it is retailers that control what chocolates the public sees, and likely buys. And, since these retailers make the bulk of the profit off of chocolate, they should take the lead in promoting products that benefit farmers and the environment.
Grocery stores and chocolate companies’ commitments to fair trade chocolate vary widely. Many chocolate companies have made time-bound commitments to fair trade chocolate, but as you can see in the scorecard, far fewer grocery stores have a fair trade option of chocolate for their store brand, let alone commitment to 100% fair trade chocolate – and this must change!
What can you do?
- If your favorite retailer received a low score, you can reach out to its customer service team to let them know this is an issue you care about and that you hope they will make advances in addressing child labor and deforestation in chocolate production in 2020.
- If your favorite retailer did well, you can also let them know! It is important that companies know what their consumers care about and keep prioritizing the issue.
- If you have the option, you can also use your purchasing power to shop with local stores with a wide variety of fair trade chocolate options or shop from some of the higher scoring retailers, like Aldi.
- You can also buy your Valentine's Day chocolates directly from these A-rated chocolate companies!
How we determined the ratings:
We chose some of the largest US retailers to look at its efforts to address child labor in cocoa; we also included Trader Joe’s, as after the release of the 2019 Chocolate Scorecard, we had numerous members reach out with questions about Trader Joe’s chocolate. Food Lion is owned by Ahold Delhaize, and we used Ahold’s reporting information for this scorecard; similarly, Safeway is owned by Albertsons, so we used Albertsons' reporting information for this scorecard. Only publicly available information was used for the scorecard (sustainability information from company websites and products listed on company websites or found in stores).
For grading, a mix of colors and thumbs up, down, or sideways was used. For the overall company ratings, green is the highest rating, while there is likely room for improvement, the retailers in green came out on top; yellow indicates that the retailer should be doing more; and red indicates that much more needs to be done in addressing child labor and deforestation in chocolate production.
For each category, thumbs up is the highest rating; a sideways thumb indicates that the retailer should be doing more; and thumbs down indicates that the retailer is either doing nothing or very little.
Companies receiving one or more thumbs down ratings in any category were not eligible for an overall green rating. The categories all carried the same weight. For this scorecard, only chocolate candy and chocolate baking products were considered.
Categories:
- Addressing child labor in the store's brand(s) of chocolate:
 = Offers at least one fair trade option.
 = Offers at least one organic option.
 = No fair trade or organic option.
- Has a commitment to no deforestation:
= There is a commitment to zero deforestation.
= There is a deforestation policy, but the company does not commit to zero deforestation.
= There was no public deforestation policy.
- Beyond fair trade:
= The retailer notes that child labor or poverty are an issue in the cocoa industry, and it is doing something to address it.
= The retailer mentions the connection between cocoa and child labor or poverty but is not clearly doing something to specifically address it, or if a company had a strong no child labor policy across multiple commodities.
= There was no mention of child labor and cocoa, and/or a weak child labor policy.
- Note, nearly every retailer did have a no child labor policy, though we believe it is important that all companies publicly recognize those goods that are at a higher risk for child labor.
- Fair trade options:
= The retailer offers 11 or more fair trade certified chocolate brands.
= The retailer offers between 6-10 different brands.
= The retailer offered 5 or less fair trade options of chocolate brands.
- This category consisted of estimates, and retailers' inventory can vary by location and may differ online versus in-store. We looked at information available online in most cases. In the case of Trader Joe’s, we visited a few store locations in the DC area. As Albertsons owns multiple grocery store chains, we looked at Safeway for this category; Ahold Delhaize also owns multiple grocery store chains, and we looked at Food Lion for this category. In the case of Aldi, since it sells very few other brands of chocolate and as its own brand is fair trade certified, we made an exception for this category, and Aldi received a sideways thumb.
- If a retailer's own brand is fair trade, it was not counted in this category as they already received credit for this in the first category. Only chocolate candy was included for this category.
|
|
mobile popup bg |
|
|
popupv3-1 |
|
|
popupv3 |
|
|
popupv2-2 |
|
|
popupv2-1 |
|
|
Popupv2 |
|
|
Senior Director, Climate & Agriculture Networks |
Senior Director, Climate and Agriculture Network
Hours: Full-time (4-days, 32 hours/week)
Salary: $70,000 - $80,000
Benefits: medical, dental, sick days, holidays
Supervisor: CEO
Green America is a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a just and sustainable society by harnessing economic power for positive change. Our unique approach involves working with consumers, investors and businesses to create a world that works for all. We deploy marketplace solutions to solve the most pressing social and environmental problems facing society today.
The Center of Sustainability Solutions builds on Green America’s work over the years, where we’ve brought together industry groups across supply chains to create major shifts in such areas as solar, community investing, sustainable agriculture and fair labor. The Center supports Innovation Networks, focused working groups of stakeholders with the objective of making significant, industry-wide system change.
The Climate and Agriculture Network is a multi-stakeholder, cross- industry working group supporting initiatives that focus on improving agricultural and food system outcomes in the areas of carbon sequestration, soil health, water quality, and ecosystem impacts (the “network”).
The Senior Director will provide leadership and team support in all facets of the network including: strategic direction, fundraising, stakeholder engagement, Network and team management, facilitation and operations management. Working with network managers, project managers, as well as senior Center staff, the Senior Director will help to ensure progress against project objectives, timelines, and targets.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Participant Vetting and Cultivation and Fundraising -30%
- Work closely with network manager, design team and CEO to identify qualified, collaborative participants and support processes for stakeholder outreach, engagement and recruitment across all working groups and initiatives.
-
       Senior Director is responsible for ensuring revenue targets are attained for both the network and the initiatives. Revenue sources include: participant fees, corporate and foundation grants, major donors, and special project funding from private entities. Support includes development of proposals and partnership agreements. Senior Director will work closely with the network manager and CEO
Strategy, Planning and Networks Management – 20%
- In concert with senior Center staff, develop and implement strategy of the network including working groups and initiatives, and work to oversee and support network directors and their teams as they implement project strategy.
- In collaboration with agriculture team, identify priorities, coordinate team work plans, assess capacity, monitor and evaluate progress to ensure the Networks is effective, meaningful, and timely.
- Work with CEO to coordinate the work of the network with other Green America priorities.
- Work closely with senior Center staff on budget and operating plan development
- Track working group and initiative progress against goals and timelines using work management software.
- Lead efforts to successfully launch, maintain, and evaluate initiatives within the Agriculture and Food Network.
- Attend and contribute to network meetings.
- Ensure team produces accurate, high-quality project deliverables in a timely manner, including: meeting reports, special research projects, and other outputs.
- Coordinate team in producing communications materials for variety of audiences
- Ensure knowledge gained is converted into “knowledge capital” for Center and Green America teams, including how to launch and manage working groups successfully and shift markets toward sustainability.
Soil Carbon Initiative Management – 50%
- Provide direction, oversight and coordination for the continued development of the Soil Carbon Initiative. In 2020 this work will developing a go to market plan for the standard including identifying the technical development partners needed for the full launch, the supply chain partners needed for the pilot phase, and the funding resources needed
- The Senior Director will work closely with the CEO and Design Team to develop a strategic work plan for SCI that covers the next 12 month.
The position involves domestic travel for Network meetings, conferences and business cultivation meetings, staff training, and other purposes. Position has direct supervisory responsibility for agricultural Network Manager, the Climate and Agriculture Program Manager, and some contract positions as applicable.
 Qualified Candidates should have the following skills and qualities:
- Strong interpersonal skills, including the ability to develop trusting relationships with senior executives and high-level leaders across the food and agriculture sector.
- A strong knowledge of food and agriculture issues, including GMOs, food supply chains, local foods, and organics.
- The ability to understand and converse competently about complex supply chain issues with a broad range of stakeholders, and to provide useful frameworks for analysis and action on key supply chain issues.
- Strong project management skills, with 5+ years of experience managing multiple projects simultaneously.
- Negotiating experience and the ability to move groups both quickly and collaboratively on key priorities. Experience facilitating large and small group discussions.
- Proven experience with business and client development (5-10 years)
- Strong research and writing skills.
- Strong speaking skills.
- MBA or equivalent strongly preferred.
How to apply: Please email your cover letter and resume/CV to CenterAgHire@greenamerica.org. No phone calls.
**********************************************************************************
Green America is an equal opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without discrimination regarding: actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, breastfeeding, or reproductive health disorders), age (18 years of age or older), marital status (including domestic partnership and parenthood), personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, citizenship status, credit information or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local laws. Harassment on the basis of a protected characteristic is included as a form of discrimination and is strictly prohibited.
|
|
Goldman Sachs to End Oil & Gas Financing in the Arctic |
33 banks have funneled 1.9 trillion into fossil fuels since 2016. Of these banks, Goldman Sachs ranks number 12 in the biggest financiers of fossil fuels, pouring approximately $59.26 billion dollars over the last three years. Yet in December of 2019, the US firm announced its decision to end the financing of new oil drilling and exploration projects in the Arctic, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Goldman Sachs’ decision includes a ban on funding new thermal coal mines worldwide.
The megabank acknowledged the scientific consensus behind climate change and stated that “climate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century” in its revised environmental policy framework. It also stated to more effectively help its clients manage climate impacts, including through the sale of weather-related catastrophe bonds. The revisions were reportedly a result of meetings between leaders of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, the Sierra Club, and representatives from Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs is the first US megabank to end financing of Arctic oil and gas projects, as well as cite the climate crisis as a reason for its decision. This is a good sign for environmentalists and Arctic indigenous groups, who hope other banks will follow suit. However, the Goldman Sachs announcement doesn’t completely sever ties with the fossil fuel industry since it has not mentioned any commitments to end the financing of fracking projects.
There is a financial incentive to sever investments to the fossil fuel industry. Over the last decade, BlackRock has lost an estimated $90 billion by ignoring the risks of investing in fossil fuel companies instead of renewable energy. With solar photovoltaic installers and wind turbine service technicians as the two fastest-growing occupations in the US as of 2018, clean energy alternatives have increased accessibility and competitiveness.
While Goldman Sachs is the first US megabank to draw a red line over oil and gas projects, other major financial institutions are still pouring billions of dollars into the climate crisis. JPMorgan Chase is the single largest funder of fossil fuels in the world—it has financed a total of $195 billion over the last three years. As a green business leader, your voice matters in pressuring JPMorgan Chase to stop funding fossil fuels and invest in clean energy. Take action with us today.
|
|
DC Concepts, LLC |
DC Concepts, LLC strives to reduce our carbon footprint by using 100% recycled materials to manufacture our products. We enourage Fair Trade by having honest and transparent dialogues with international distributors in an effort to establish an equitable relationship. We outsource our production and fulfillment to companies who share our practices. We provide free or low-cost products to persons, organizations, and countries in need. In addition, we volunteer our time in educational and service settings nationally and internationally on an as needed basis. |
|
When Will Verizon Plug into Clean Energy? |
A lot can happen in a year…except at Verizon.
One year ago, the telecom giant quietly released its first major commitment to clean energy. After years of using a feeble amount of renewable power in its massive network, Verizon had finally set a goal to reach 50 percent clean energy by 2025.
Unfortunately, Verizon hasn’t announced any progress, meanwhile its competitors have made strides in clean energy.
This year, T-Mobile announced new wind and solar purchases that will bring the company to 95 percent of its 100 percent clean energy goal. AT&T announced two new deals and stated that its clean energy usage is equal to removing 690,000 cars off the road each year. Sprint also announced its first clean energy project this year, which will provide 30 percent of the company’s energy.
Verizon has not announced any new clean energy contracts, despite obtaining a $1 billion Green Bond in February 2019. These funds could be used for renewable energy, energy efficiency, conservation efforts, and more.
But Verizon reported that renewables were a mere 1% of its total energy use in 2018. Since it hasn’t announced any new contracts, it doesn’t seem promising that Verizon will reach its goal anytime soon.
The clock is ticking to act on the climate crisis. Every year, impacts escalate and grow more intense, threatening communities worldwide. We need industries to take aggressive steps to address their impacts.
The four largest telecom companies collectively use over 30 million MWh of electric power annually, which could power all the households in New York City. That’s why we’re urging Verizon to Hang Up on Fossil Fuels and plug into clean energy.
Join us by signing and sharing our petition today!
|
|
Green and Eco-friendly Trends: Reflecting on 2019 |
By Guest Blogger: Kurt Whitt, Green Business Network Member and Founder/Chief Visionary Architect of EcoPlanetMedia
As an earth-friendly creative agency, Eco Planet Media gets a firsthand look at the green trends occurring across business sectors. Concern about the environment continues unabated, but researchers and everyday citizens of the earth are waking up to new ideas and technologies to counter the growing problems with climate change and pollution. In 2019, these eco-friendly trends hit the front page of environmental consciousness and green living.
Youth Climate Change Movement - Youth Climate Activists Ramp Up the Pressure
From school strikes to the global stage, young climate activists are making their voices heard and are increasingly politically engaged. You can't browse social media without seeing the name Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish environmental activist whose campaigning has gained international recognition. Businesses are responding by including younger generations in the conversation, ranging from messaging and marketing to product development and sponsoring young brilliant minds to come up with innovative technological or political solutions.
An End to Plastic? Alternate Materials
As off-shore recycling takes a hit, companies looking for alternatives to plastic have a greater impetus to find a solution. Biodegradable packaging and products are the response to the tons of plastic dumped into the ocean every year. Companies are creating alternate materials from waste products like grape skins, natural polyesters, corn starches, and even fungi. Industries are restructuring their messaging to get consumers on board with these alternate materials and play a key role in educating the public on what is possible.
Renewable and Alternative Energy
Countries across the globe are going green with alternative energy. With more affordable options in solar and wind energy production, people are taking control of their own systems and local microgrids are gaining popularity. These pioneers in energy industries are up against monopolies and entrenched systems; they must have solid social media influence and powerful marketing to gain and maintain momentum that will change the energy marketplace in a meaningful way.
Minimalism and Anti-Consumerism Mindset
Excessive consumption leads to larger houses, latest model cars, trendier clothes, unnecessary new smartphone technology, and overfilled drawers. People are turning away from over-consumerism and toward a simpler and more environmentally-friendly lifestyle. Buying less, living in smaller homes, and generating less waste become the consumer’s goals. This expands into the desire for less packaging and support for companies that waste less. Companies and businesses are driving attention to these practices in an effort to raise awareness among consumers through smart marketing campaigns and meaningful and transparent business practices.
Smart Buildings and Construction
Smart homes and the Internet of Things continue to grow in popularity. Green construction materials and increased efficiency in HVAC and other systems means cleaner indoor air and less post-construction waste. To counter the ecological effect of increases in new electronics prevalent in smart homes, more construction companies and technology developers turn to ecologically sound building techniques, including developing new materials with fewer potential pollutants. This deviation from ‘business as usual’ requires educating the public about these eco-friendly innovative practices through strong marketing and social awareness.
Eco-Tourism and Low-Impact Travel
Besides vacationing in environmentally interesting areas, more travelers in 2019 took into account what impact their visits have on the local ecology. A recent survey found that 86% of respondents would adopt green protocols or even volunteer for eco-friendly activities while on vacation. Businesses in the tourist industry are increasing awareness amongst travelers through eco-friendly advertising and partnering with local environmental efforts to create such opportunities.
Electric and Self-Driving Vehicles
Driverless cars consume less fuel, wear out more slowly, and decrease overall pollution. Combine them with electric or alternative fuel vehicles, and you have one of the great eco-friendly trends for 2019 and beyond. Businesses in this industry face the obstacle of educating a potentially reluctant public through strategic campaigns showcasing the benefits of turning over the wheel to a computer in order to save the planet.
Organic Foods - The Certified Organic Label
Consumers are aware that organically raised produce or livestock have not been touched by growth hormones nor have they been genetically altered. The yield for the organic grower is much smaller than that of growers using conventional techniques, resulting in higher prices. But for many consumers, the expense is worth it. Brands are driving social awareness of the real health effects of conventional agricultural practices on our personal and collective ecosystems through powerful advertising and positioning
Buying Green
To sustain our natural resources, we need to consume less by thinking about what we buy and how we use the products we buy. The less consumers consume, the smaller their footprint. So, what is a green product? Simply, it is a product that has very little, if any, negative effect on the environment. Consumers can identify green products easily by the labels. And more and more green products are showing up on store shelves. Currently, it is these businesses that are responsible for bringing awareness of consumerism and footprints by changing the language consumers identify with when making purchases.
Buying Local
Produce at the local grocery store is sourced from all over the world; it has been picked unripe and has been sitting in trucks and ships for many days or weeks, and it’s impossible to ascertain if they’ve been grown in a healthy, sustainable environment. When we buy locally, we can be certain our food is fresh and lessens the carbon footprint of transportation and storage costs. Local producers require targeted marketing to make their presence known in their communities, by closely identifying with their specific populations and providing solutions to problems their neighbors have.
Businesses and corporations are learning that globalization includes fair arrangements with their trading partners. Fair Trade Certified labels are becoming more visible. It is up to true, eco-friendly brands to think about every aspect of their business, including who they partner with to handle their marketing. The weight of informing the public of eco-friendly alternatives to traditional business practices rests on these pioneers.
At Eco Planet Media, we do our part to ensure consumers know how these businesses are changing the world. We help innovative companies achieve their online potential through branding, website design, ecommerce and digital marketing. As partners with Green America, we donate a percentage of every client project to One Tree Planted towards reforestation projects around the world.
Ultimately, if consumers make well-considered choices in their purchases, and adopt eco-friendly trends, we will have a healthier, happier world.
Along with helping you live green, for over 40 years, Green America has been working for safe food, a healthy climate, fair labor, responsible finance, and social justice.
|
|
Winter Popup |
|
|
winter mobile pop |
|
|
wintter popup |
|
|
Your Green Life |
|
|
Issue #116, Green American Magazine - Unraveling the Fashion Industry (Winter 2019) |
|
|
Censuswide Receipt Survey Results |
|
|
10 Ways Amazon Violates Human Rights |
As the world’s largest company, Amazon has a huge affect on the global economy. It also employs between 500,000 and 1 million individuals, and the way it treats those employees matters. Here are some of the worst human rights abuses that Amazon has either directly or indirectly contributed to.
10 Ways Amazon Violates Human Rights
- Amazon risks the health of workers in US. During the pandemic, nearly 20,000 Amazon employees have contracted COVID-19. Additionally throughout the pandemic, warehouse workers have voiced concerns of Amazon not taking enough precautions, which was supported by lawmakers when they made a surprise visit to an Amazon facility. Additionally, injury records analyzed by Reveal at the Center for Investigative Reporting demonstrate that injury rates within Amazon warehouses are more than DOUBLE the industry average; this is attributed in part to high production quotas.
- Amazon risks the health of workers in their supply chain. While Amazon does have a Restricted Substances List (RSL) of restricted or banned chemicals to protect consumers of some products from toxic exposures, it does not apply to electronics or apparel. Amazon does not share which harmful chemicals are and are not allowed in their electronics or apparel supply chain; this means workers and consumers could be exposed to harmful chemicals with potentially lasting negative health consequences. Amazon does not have an MRSL (a list of chemicals that are restricted or banned from the manufacturing process) for any product and is therefore failing to protect workers.
- Amazon is STILL selling dangerous electronics and electronics accessories to consumers. CNN reports: “Since 2016, at least 1,500 reviews, covering more than 70 items, have described products exploding, catching on fire, smoking, melting, causing electrical malfunctions or otherwise posing risks, according to an analysis of Amazon Basics electronics and appliances listed on its website.”
- Amazon tries to silence workers. The National Labor Relations Board is accusing Amazon of illegally firing a warehouse worker who spoke out for safer working conditions. During the pandemic, Amazon has fired several other employees who were organizing for safer working condition. All workers have the right to a safe and healthy workplace – silencing and firing workers only makes the problem worse.
- In some Amazon Ring call centers, workers have ‘no choice’ but to sleep at work. NBC News reported that in the Philippines, after speaking up about their terrible working conditions, such as having no choice but to sleep at work, the conditions got even worse afterwards. During the pandemic, requests to work from home have been denied, resulting in workers coming to the call center with flu-like symptoms. "People are scared because we don't know who has it and who doesn't have it," an Amazon Ring contractor said. "But people don't have a choice, because it's either you will be infected or you will die of starvation."
- Amazon sells clothing from a factory blacklisted for its poor safety conditions. The Wall Street Journal found that sellers on Amazon have been listing clothing from a factory so dangerous that most other major retailers will not buy from it. This factory has no fire alarms and doors that lock from the outside to keep workers trapped inside.
- Facilitates the human rights crisis on the US-Mexico border. The Guardian reported that Amazon Web Services hosts the Department of Homeland Security's databases which allows "the department and its agencies to track and apprehend immigrants.” Amazon also works with Palantir, which has over $150 million in contracts with US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE).
- Fights unions, resisting workers' right to freedom of association. Amazon is known for pushing back against unionization. Amazon reportedly has Whole Foods managers watch anti-union training videos and has fired numerous workers who were organizing their coworkers during the time of firing. And Amazon doesn’t stop there – Vice reported that, along with surveilling worker and union organizing, “Amazon uses social media to track environmental activism and social movements in Europe—including Greenpeace and Fridays For Future, environmental activist Greta Thunberg's global climate strike movement—and perceives such groups as a threat to its operations.”
- Amazon’s Ring allows police to access your video footage. Forbes reports that you can opt out of allowing police access to your data, but “they can request the footage directly from Amazon if it has been uploaded to the cloud and the request is sent within 60 days of recording - even if you deny police access to that footage.” Though a similar video doorbell service, Nest, has stated that it would not share footage directly with police, experts do have privacy concerns about both services.
- Amazon is listening to your private conversations. Amazon hires thousands of people to listen to your conversations. CBS reported individuals that are hired to review recordings from Alexa and noted that sometimes they review private conversations.
Learn more about Amazon's worker's rights issues at home and abroad. If you're ready to make the switch, here are sustainable alternatives to Amazon. Amazon’s profits are only possible due to the work of individuals around the world, from apparel supply chains to delivery drivers – Join us in calling on Amazon to step it up on workers’ rights!
|
|
Wcp popup mobile 12/5 |
|
|
WCP-Popup (12/5) |
|
|
Green Bee |
Green Businesses:
Entrepreneurs who have to compete with large corporations on a daily basis will be connected to the system. Those, who need help and support to reach their customers directly:
- Farmers who work in agritourism and do not use GMOs or chemical fertilizers
- Small hotels that use only environmentally-friendly and recycled materials for their accommodation
- Cafes, restaurants, coffee shops that serve “clean” natural food
- Environmentally- friendly cleaning services
Green thinking people:
Tourists and travelers, residents of metropolitan areas and their suburbs. People who want to contribute to saving the planet through conscious consumption.
Social Organizations:
WORLD-RENOWNED ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS |
|
Badger |
Badger is family-owned company in New Hampshire that produces self-care products that focus on health throughout the supply chain, benefiting soil and ingredient sources, the customer, and everything and everyone in between.
The company’s origin story starts in 1994, when Bill Whyte created a balm made from organic beeswax and olive oil to soothe his rough carpenter hands. Bill had owned a small contracting business that built non-toxic houses. Like many other carpenters, the harsh winters were tough on his hands, and the average healing products were not strong enough to repair his damaged hands. This balm became the first Badger product.
“Since the beginning, Badger has been devoted to and built around the principles of kindness, compassion, and environmental stewardship. We have always been a mission-driven business that seeks to make healing products through a healthy business model in order to make a difference in the world” says Jess Baum, Badger’s sustainability manager.
Baum also mentions that “Badger became a B Corporation in 2011 to codify, increase, and verify the company’s social and environmental impact. In 2015, we wrote our mission into the DNA of our company by becoming a New Hampshire Benefit Corporation, which is a legal corporate status that shifts our purpose to include public benefit for people and planet.”
In addition to their impressive certifications, Badger has been recognized as ‘Best For The World’ and ‘Best For The Environment’ by B Corporation several years in a row, an honor bestowed to only the top ten percent of companies that are significantly beneficial for the consumers and environment. Badger’s products are all certified gluten free and cruelty free, with many organic, fair trade, biodynamic, wild crafted, and ecologically harvested ingredients.
Badger products are all about healing, both for their customers and the soils that produce their ingredients. And, they don’t see these as different goals.
“Soil is inextricably linked to human and ecological health” says Baum. Badger gathers their healthy organic ingredients from farms all over the world. Two popular ingredients used are:
- Olive oil: Grown in Andalusia, Spain on the Soler Romero orchard, where they use cover cropping, conservation tillage, compost, and intercropping to regenerate soil health and resilience.
- Sunflower oil: Made with organic and Demeter-certified biodynamic sunflower oil on farms that manage for soil fertility and treat farms as living organisms, with practices like crop rotation and cover cropping to increase carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and overall soil health.
Badger recently began a project to regenerate and draw down carbon at their own headquarters. Here, Badger employees gain first-hand regenerative agriculture experience. The company hopes to restore healthier soils through cover cropping and composting with their new on-site Climate Victory Garden and Johnson-Su composting bioreactor.
Baum states that “While there is no ‘silver bullet’ for swiftly resolving the global catastrophes we find ourselves in, we believe in the power of soil management to reverse some of the most pressing threats to humanity. We believe it is essential to broaden the climate crisis conversation far beyond mitigating harm and reducing negative impacts to look to a holistic, broad-reaching solution that actively heals harms done.” |
|
5 Reasons Not to Buy Amazon Electronics |
A multitude of concerns around devices like Alexa or Ring might make you reconsider purchasing Amazon electronics. Check out Green America’s five reasons to skip Amazon electronics before letting Amazon into your home.
- In some Amazon Ring call centers, workers have ‘no choice’ but to sleep at work. NBC News reported that in the Philippines, after speaking up about their terrible working conditions, such as having no choice but to sleep at work, the conditions getting even worse afterwards. During the pandemic, requests to work from home have been denied, resulting in workers coming to the call center with flu-like symptoms. "People are scared because we don't know who has it and who doesn't have it," an Amazon Ring contractor said. "But people don't have a choice, because it's either you will be infected or you will die of starvation."
- Amazon’s Ring allows police to access your video footage. Forbes reports that you can opt out of allowing police access to your data, but “they can request the footage directly from Amazon if it has been uploaded to the cloud and the request is sent within 60 days of recording - even if you deny police access to that footage.” Though a similar video doorbell service, Nest, has stated that it would not share footage directly with police, experts do have privacy concerns about both services.
While Amazon was trying to generate positive PR with its statement on police brutality and “standing with the Black community”, it was busy firming up 29 new partnerships with police departments for the use of Ring as a tool of surveillance, which includes a police department just miles away from where George Floyd was murdered.
- Amazon has no public Restricted Substance List (RSL) or Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL) for electronics. Amazon does not share which harmful chemicals are and are not allowed in their supply chain; this means workers and consumers could be exposed to harmful chemicals with potentially lasting negative health consequences, and if the chemicals are improperly disposed of, it poses a big risk for communities surrounding production facilities and to our environment.
An RSL is a list of chemicals that are restricted or banned from the final consumer product, and an MRSL is a list of chemicals that are restricted or banned from the manufacturing process. Amazon has neither a public RSL or MRSL.
- Amazon hires thousands of people to listen to your conversations. Bloomberg reported individuals that are hired to review recordings from Alexa noted that sometimes they review “everything the speaker (Alexa) picks up, including background conversations—even when children are speaking. Sometimes listeners hear users discussing private details such as names or bank details…”
- Amazon is a huge polluter! This year, Amazon’s carbon emissions increased by 15%. In 2019, Bloomberg reported that “Amazon’s emissions exceed the reported totals of United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. as well as Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent company), Microsoft Corp. and Target Corp. Learn more and take Green America’s action here.
Bonus: Amazon is STILL selling dangerous electronics and electronics accessories to consumers! CNN reports: “Since 2016, at least 1,500 reviews, covering more than 70 items, have described products exploding, catching on fire, smoking, melting, causing electrical malfunctions or otherwise posing risks, according to an analysis of Amazon Basics electronics and appliances listed on its website.”
|
|
WCP Mobile Popup |
|
|
wcp 2019 mobile popup |
|
|
WCP 2019 Pop-up |
|
|
WCP 2019 Pop-up |
|
|
WCP 2019 Pop-up |
|
|
WCP 2019 Pop-up |
|
|
Meet the massive coalition vowing to end Amazon’s ‘powerful grip over our society’ |
It’s official: Amazon is mammoth, at over 750,000 employees, and growing swiftly. Nearly 100,000 workers were hired in the third quarter alone. For comparison, fellow behemoths Google, Apple, and Microsoft all employ 100,000 to 145,000 workers.
Now a resistance is forming. “We are joining together to stop Amazon’s growing, powerful grip over our society and economy,” says the website of Athena, a broad new coalition of activist, pro-labor, and social-justice groups aimed at ensuring that “no corporation is above the law or too big to govern.”
Their concerns are backed by the release of a new report from the Economic Roundtable, which is coincidentally titled “Too Big To Govern.” It outlines Amazon’s many negative impacts on communities, workers, and the environment. For example, every day, 21,5000 diesel truckloads of Amazon goods enter Los Angeles, creating “an estimated $642 million in uncompensated public costs for noise, road wear, accidents and harmful emissions.”
The report calls its warehouse jobs “grueling and high stress” and chastises Amazon for not paying $20 minimum wage along with full health benefits. (Amazon pays $15 minimum wage, and many employees enroll in publicly subsidized health insurance.) “The only benefits that cities are receiving from Amazon’s warehouses are from construction jobs and fees, and employment of residents in low-wage jobs, along with modest, trickle-down multiplier effects as they spend their sparse earnings. Cities do not receive sales tax revenue from the sale of goods in these warehouses.”
An Amazon spokeswoman called detractors like Athena “self-interested critics” and “unions and groups funded by our competitors that have a vested interest in spreading misinformation about Amazon.” She highlighted the 400,000 U.S. jobs Amazon has created over eight years, an upcoming $700 million investment in upskilling 100,000 employees, and the launch of The Climate Pledge to reach net zero carbon by 2040.
“Amazon is a force for good in communities where we operate,” she said in an email. “It’s no coincidence to us that this group would emerge now, because large shopping events have become an opportunity for our critics, including unions, to raise awareness for their cause—in this case, increased membership dues. These groups are conjuring misinformation to work in their favor, when in fact we already offer the things they claim to be able to provide.”
Athena comprises four dozen organizations, including Green America, the Partnership for Working Families, the Transit Riders Union, and New York Communities for Change. If you’re curious about the group’s efforts, you can signup for the Athena email list here.
|
|
U.S. Facility Solutions |
We are scheduling beach cleanings at least 4 times per year. As a company we meet on a beach and we encourage our clients to do it also, we offer free drinks and having fun by cleaning the areas |
|
Paper or paperless receipts: Should we say so long to long receipts and go digital? |
Would you like a receipt? That's usually a simple question to answer. Most people want to make sure their purchases were rung up correctly or make returns easier.
The tougher question these days is this one: paper or digital?
Digital receipts – electronic versions sent via email, text or app – are growing in popularity and can be handy to track purchases, make returns, keep to a budget or prepare for tax season. Paperless proponents also argue that printed receipts are environmentally wasteful.
On the flip side, digital detractors raise privacy concerns. And recent surveys show consumers still prefer old-fashioned physical receipts more than 3 to 1.
But experts say we may be nearing a tipping point.
They expect momentum for paperless receipts will grow at cash registers and with consumers, driven by the habits of millennials, who tend to spurn paper.
Even CVS, whose receipts are so epically long they've spawned scores of internet memes and Halloween costumes, has moved into the post-paper age and offers a digital option.
"Unlike paper receipts, digital receipts won't fade, get crumpled or lost," said Regina Conway, a consumer expert at Slickdeals.net. "This is especially helpful during the holiday season when it comes time to return unused or unwanted items."
But there's more to weigh before chucking paper forever. Here's what to consider and when you should still walk away with printed paper in your hand.
First, the basics
Every year in the United States, receipt use consumes more than 3 million trees and 9 billion gallons of water, according to Green America's Skip the Slip report, which also notes that generating receipts produces more than 4 billion pounds of carbon dioxide and 302 million pounds of solid waste during production.
Any receipt is better than no receipt for proof of purchases, and they're crucial for warranty issues, especially on big-ticket items like appliances and electronics. Having an original or gift receipt in whatever available format should make the return process go more smoothly, improving your chances of getting a full refund.
Choose Paper, a global campaign supported by the paper industry, did a survey in April and found 62% of consumers are concerned that their personal information held electronically is at risk of being hacked, stolen, lost or damaged.
The survey also found 62% of U.S. consumers are concerned they'll receive unsolicited marketing if their transaction history is stored.
Nearly seven out of 10 Americans say they prefer getting a paper receipt, compared with 19% who'd rather get an electronic receipt and 8% none at all, according to an August 2018 YouGov survey of close to 24,000 people.
Personal preference
Just like picking up a book or an e-book, it sometimes boils down to preferences.
Beth Porter, one of the authors of Skip the Slip and Green America's climate campaigns, said the nonprofit recommends businesses ask customers their preference to reduce automatic printing of receipts. Earlier this year, California lawmakers considered a bill to require businesses to offer a digital receipt option and provide a paper receipt upon customer request, but the measure failed.
Matt Schulz, chief industry analyst at CompareCards.com, travels a lot for business and says digital receipts are easier to keep organized "rather than having to keep track of a ton of paper receipts that are easy to misplace.”
When will we ditch paper receipts?
Similar to the cashless movement, there's a long way to go before total conversion.
“I can foresee a day when we make it so easy that consumers get comfortable with it as an alternative to that actual paper receipt,” said Rod Sides, vice chairman and retail leader of consulting firm Deloitte. “I think in the next three to five years, we’ll find more and more people accept it.”
Where can I get a digital receipt?
Apple started the digital receipt movement in 2005. Now the early adopter is joined by Best Buy, CVS, GNC, Kmart, Kohl's, Lowe's, Macy's, Nordstrom, Publix, Sam's Club and Walmart with its mobile payment program Walmart Pay.
At Target, if you pay for an in-store purchase with a card associated to your Target account or by using the Wallet in the Target app, you can access a return barcode and print a gift receipt from the retailer's website.
Some stores that don't have digital receipts also can look up purchases with a credit card or loyalty program.
Avoiding e-receipt overload
If you’re worried about a security breach and looking to keep your inbox less cluttered, consider setting up a separate receipt email account.
Schulz suggests moving digital receipts into a designated folder in your email to help keep track. "It’s simple to do and it can save you some time if you go looking for that receipt in the future," Schulz said. "Also, consider saving the digital receipt as a PDF and saving them in a folder on your computer. It never hurts to have extra copies of these things."
Kimberly Palmer, a personal finance expert at NerdWallet, recommends using an email management service like unroll.me "so all those types of marketing and shopping emails go into a separate folder and not your inbox."
Tips and strategies
Make money: Saving receipts also can net you some money whether it's on cashback apps like Ibotta or Shopkick, both available for in-store and online purchases, or grocery rebate apps like Fetch Rewards or SavingStar. You also have higher odds at larger payouts with class action lawsuits that pay more with proof of purchase like receipts.
Double up: Take both receipts when offered, especially for major purchases, said Sara Skirboll, RetailMeNot shopping and trends expert. “If I'm only offered a paper receipt, and there's a small chance I may return the item or I'm giving it as a gift, I will always take a photo with my phone,” she said.
Digitize receipts: In addition to taking photos, if a store doesn't offer digital receipts, you can use apps including Receipt Hog and ReceiptPal, which both reward consumers for uploading receipts. When using a phone's camera, consider making an album of receipts. For the highly organized, make an album per store.
Holiday return tips
Gift receipts: Always ask for gift receipts and then keep it with the gift. Also save all of your original receipts (physical or digital) to ensure your friends and family receive the full price you paid if they need to return or exchange your gift. At Target, returning an item with a gift receipt often means the person returning item will get a merchandise return card, which unlike a regular gift card can be used only in-store.
"A gift receipt is actually somewhat of a gift itself. It means that if the person doesn’t like what you got them, they don’t have to just stash it in a closet or put it on the curb on bulky-trash-pickup day," Schulz said. "They can easily swap the item out for something they’d like more."
Know the policies, deadlines: Read policies at store websites, on store signs or on the back of receipts.
No receipts? Returns without a receipt usually result in a merchandise credit for the lowest recent sale price or possibly no refund or exchange at all, depending on the store's policy.
Exchange it: Like the gift but want it in another color or size? Look for the item or ask for help, and if it’s not in stock, ask a store associate if it’s available online or at another store location.
Bring your ID: Even if you have a receipt, some stores require a government-issued ID.
Mail in rebates: If giving a rebate item as a gift, something to consider is whether you feel comfortable cutting off the UPC from a package. Some of the items are good deals because of the rebate.
Extra fees: If you are returning any electronics or an item that has been opened, be prepared to pay a restocking fee of up to 15 percent.
Talk to a manager: If you have a problem returning a gift, contact the store manager or the retailer's customer service department.
Sell or donate it: If you can't return or exchange gifts, consider selling them on eBay or similar apps and websites. Or donate them.
|
|
We can’t send plastic to China anymore. What happens to our recyclables now? |
Americans are good at a lot of things: making cheese, sending astronauts to space, playing football. But we’re bad at recycling. We recycle only 34 percent of the paper, glass, plastic and other stuff that we could, according to Beth Porter. She’s the climate and recycling director for Green America, a nonprofit organization that supports sustainability.
In January 2018, the United States got a little worse at recycling. China used to buy 700,000 tons of plastic alone from us every year, to make into new products. Then the country stopped buying almost all our recyclables. Suddenly, our bottles, cans and newspapers had nowhere to go.
How did this happen?
“We were lazy and didn’t keep up with the latest technology to sort paper from plastic and aluminum at recovery facilities,” says Randy Hartmann. He is senior director of affiliate operations for an organization called Keep America Beautiful. We sent everything all mixed up to China. The country couldn’t use our “contaminated” trash. China updated its standards. Then, says Hartmann, “we couldn’t meet them.”
Some cities, such as Eugene, Oregon, couldn’t afford to collect certain types of plastic anymore. Other cities, including Phoenix, Arizona, saw an opportunity. Hartmann says Phoenix has created a “circular economy” of its own. It now collects its community’s plastic trash and turns it into fuel.
Some businesses have stepped up, too. An Australian paper company called Pratt Industries built a paper mill in Ohio to take mixed-paper recyclables. That includes junk mail fliers that “got hit hardest when China changed their rules,” according to Hartmann.
A company called TerraCycle sends out special “zero waste” boxes for collecting lots of products, including plastic bottle caps, action figures or art supplies. After you fill the box, you send it back to the company to recycle everything inside.
Still other companies are turning plastic grocery bags, juice cartons and even cigarette filters into plastic “lumber.” Local governments are helping by getting better at teaching people what can and cannot be tossed in the recycling bin.
“They’ll come out and look in your cart and say, ‘Oops, your gardening hose and holiday lights shouldn’t be in here!’ ” Hartmann says.
Recycling facilities are also starting to update their equipment. Instead of using humans to sort paper, plastic, glass and metal by hand, they are buying machines that can sort things robotically, or even optically — that is, with a camera that can tell the difference between materials.
It’s going to take a year or two to get this new equipment up and running. But, says Hartmann, “It’s a great time to reset, and a lot of innovative things are happening out there.”
We still have a way to go before we are doing recycling just right, Porter says. “Companies must learn from recyclers how to make products and packaging that are recyclable. And they also need to use more recycled materials in making their products,” she says.
We need local governments to develop pro-recycling policies, too. And most of all, says Porter, “we need to practice the three R’s in order: reduce first, then reuse and lastly recycle.”
Recycling tips
1. Learn what can be recycled in your own community and stick to it. No “wish-cycling.”
2. Learn recycling best practices. Rinse bottles and cans, and cut the super-oily spot from the pizza box before recycling the rest. Learn more from the Recycling Raccoon Squad at recyclingraccoons.org.
3. Print out your local recycling rules and paste them on the bins. That way, everyone in your family can do it correctly.
4. Away from home? Find a recycling bin for your empty water bottle. Better yet, take a reusable water bottle.
5. Get your teachers involved. Have them take your class on a field trip to a local recycling facility. Write letters to local politicians asking them to support the “three R’s.”
|
|
Big Banks Leaving the Private Prison Business |
At the US’ Southern border, immigrant families are held for unknown amounts of time in facilities that are often grossly overcrowded and understaffed. Across the country, citizens in prison face similar conditions. What these facilities have in common is that they’re both private prisons. Private prisons hold about nine percent of the nation’s total prison population and about 73 percent of immigrant detainees, reports the New York Times.
This year, banks responded to wide-spread pressure from social justice groups, corporate responsibility organizations (including Green America REAL GREEN Investing and our ally the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility), and shareholders. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, SunTrust, JPMorgan Chase, PNC, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, Barclays, and U.S. Bancorp all announced that they will no longer issue loans to the two largest private prison operators, CoreCivic and GEO Group.
By funding their operations, big banks have been complicit in the human crises that continue to unfold in private prisons. By the end of 2016, just four of those megabanks had $2.6 billion in lines of credit and loans invested in CoreCivic and GEO Group, according to In The Public Interest. That these banks will no longer be issuing new loans or lines of credit to private prison companies is a huge win for activists and organizations that have been pushing for banks to take accountability.
GEO Group and CoreCivic are contracted by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the US Marshals Service to run facilities that hold immigrants. Private prison operators earn substantial profits from detention as the number of detainees increases.
There are a growing number of reports of inhumane conditions in these facilities, especially as such a high percentage of immigrants are placed there. Some of these conditions are violations of human, civil, and political rights outlined by the United Nations. There is now a class action lawsuit that was filed in Los Angeles this August on behalf of 55,000 people in ICE detention centers, alleging severe mistreatment, including in facilities run by GEO Group. Twenty-four people have died in ICE facilities since Donald Trump became president, according to an NBC News analysis of federal data.
Though eight banks have bowed to pressure from justice reform groups and concerned investors, five smaller banks have not yet made the commitment: Regions Financial Corporation, Citizens Financial Group, Pinnacle Financial Partners, First Tennessee Partners, and Synovus Bank.
Following the momentum of the megabanks’ announcements, Green America joined a coalitional letter to urge these five banks to thoroughly review the human rights impacts of their financial ties to private prisons.
Companies Profit from Prison & Detention Centers
Private prisons hold roughly nine percent of the US incarcerated population, but almost three quarters of people detained by ICE are held in privately funded facilities. Of those, most are run by CoreCivic and GEO Group, showing the companies’ dominance in the private prison sector and their reliance
on tough immigration policies.
“In memos to their shareholders, both companies [GEO Group and CoreCivic] acknowledge that policies with the potential to reduce the US detainee population constitute potential risk factors to their business model,” according to an August 2019 report from the Center for American Progress.
“Over the last 5 years, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has been putting together a map of the prison industry as a whole, which is not just the companies that operate private prisons but all of the companies that profit from mass incarceration,” says Dalit Baum, director of economic activism at the AFSC. “Despite the fact that the majority of US prisons are publicly run, the entire system is deeply privatized, from bail bonds, to telecoms, to food services.”
The AFSC built a free online divestment platform called Investigate, which allows people to scan their investments for companies with ties to the mass incarceration and detention industries, and take action. You can find it online.
Banks Change Policy, An Important First Step
In response to organized campaigns, public outcry, and banks’ own risk assessments, more financial institutions are stopping new investment in for-profit private prisons. All banks that have committed to this have also agreed to fulfill their current contracts, some of which won’t expire until 2024 or 2025.
“It’s hard to describe this in terms of divestment because what the banks have said is that they will no longer extend credit,” says Nadira Narine, senior program director at the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR).“On the asset management side, all of these companies still invest their clients in GEO Group and CoreCivic, so in terms of equities they’re still very much invested.”
The private prison sector is already feeling the impact of the eight banks’ decision to stop issuing future loans. In October 2019, TruthOut reported that GEO Group had officially run out of banks to borrow from, representing an 87 percent drop in funding.
Move Your Money
As the megabanks continue to fulfill their current contracts to prison companies, one big way concerned investors and activists can take action to end the private prison system is to use Green America’s Get a Better Bank directory to find community development financial institutions that do not support for-profit prisons.
Some CDFIs, like Self-Help Credit Union, even work to have a positive impact in the justice system, instead of simply not having a negative one. One way they do that is by working with legislators to end the cash bail system.
“Much like payday lending, cash bail results in creating a cycle of poverty among those with the least financial means,” says Jennifer Marsh, executive staff at Self-Help Credit Union. “Being incarcerated for as little as 24 hours can lead to job loss, lost custody of children, and increases the chances a person will have future involvement with the criminal justice system.”
For more information on divestment from for-profit prisons and fossil fuels, read our article “Taking Stock of Divestment Movements." Individually and collectively, our economic actions make a difference every day and can bring us closer to the kind of world we need in which all communities are healthy and safe.
|
|
Worker Tested, Worker Approved Social Responsibility |
Sixteen Million. That’s how many people globally are trapped in forced labor in the private sector, according to a 2016 report from the International Labour Organization. Besides these 16 million, untold others are subjected to labor abuses in global supply chains daily, such as forced overtime, harassment, withheld wages, exposure to toxic chemicals, and other abuses.
You don’t have to look hard to find a news story reporting recent cases of workplace abuses in the supply chains of major fashion brands. It is confusing that so many fashion brands have corporate social responsibility programs (CSR) and regularly use audits to check workplaces for abuses, yet we still face an enormous human rights crisis in global supply chains.
While it is important that corporations make commitments and progress to address supply chain issues, the truth is they vary widely in their effectiveness. Some companies have made progress through CSR programs (as noted in our Toxic Textiles report, Nike and Target are improving their chemical management policies at the factory level). Unfortunately, a vast majority of CSR initiatives have not resulted in the needed changes. CSR programs around environmental concerns are often more successful than those addressing labor issues.
Environmental impacts are often easier for corporations to monitor and measure, and energy efficiency, clean energy, and packaging reduction projects save companies money. Therefore, environmental CSR programs are easier to implement and often pay for themselves, while programs impacting workers are often more costly.
However, there is a different model that has proven successful in multiple industries: worker-driven social responsibility (WSR) programs. These which place workers at the center of the designing and implementing the solutions. It makes sense, as workers are the ones who know what conditions are on the ground in their industries.
Unfortunately, top-down CSR efforts often impose challenging standards onto suppliers that are often already struggling to keep prices low and meet high product demands.
“The worker-driven social responsibility model puts the power to set and enforce safety standards with market consequences in the hands of workers,” says Sarah Newell, director of outreach and communications for the Worker-driven Social Responsibility Network (WSRN).
The Differences Between CSR and WSR
Enforceability: CSR efforts are voluntary, which means there is no one effective enforcement mechanism to ensure that companies uphold their commitments; whereas WSR is legally binding between worker representatives and the brands. This holds brands accountable that are profiting off workplace abuses.
Workplace Monitoring: CSR monitoring is conducted by auditors who are often rushed, have limited training, and are paid by brands. The results of these audits are rarely shared with workers or shoppers. WSR provides thorough workplace monitoring conducted by independent, well-trained individuals. WSR also places greater emphasis on worker interviews. Through WSR, the results of the monitoring are shared with the workers.
Complaints: In CSR, complaints often go to the employer, brand, or a brand-contracted organization; this structure does not put the workers’ needs at the center, rather it puts workers at risk for retaliation if they speak up. The WSR model has an independent body responsible for complaints, so workers are not at risk for retaliation, resulting in the mechanism actually being used and workplace issues being resolved.
Supplier Support: Due to the structure of global supply chains, corporations seek the lowest price for their products, which puts pressure on suppliers to cut costs—often labor costs—ultimately harming the people who make the products. With WSR, brands are required to provide financial support to suppliers so that the suppliers can comply with labor laws and standards without going out of business.
Specificity: CSR standards often do not account for risks or dangers specific to an industry and do not reflect an understanding of the issues facing workers. Through WSR models, worker organizations create codes of conduct specific to their industries and workplaces; the people with the greatest understanding of the issues develop the standard.
Transparency: CSR initiatives usually don’t share the names and locations of their suppliers, whereas WSR efforts are public and transparent.
Worker Success After Rana Plaza
In April 2013, the Rana Plaza factory collapsed in Bangladesh, killing over 1,100 workers and injuring over 2,500 more. The Bangladesh Accord, an agreement that was created in the aftermath, is one successful example of WSR.
“Before its collapse, two of the factories in the [Rana Plaza] building were inspected and certified as ‘safe’ by CSR-style monitoring programs,” Newell says. “In May of [2013], the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety launched; unlike existing, previous corporate social responsibility programs, the Accord is a legally binding and enforceable agreement, in which brands are obligated to implement their commitments under the program.”
Under pressure from groups like Green America and labor-minded consumers, over 200 brands signed on to the Accord, covering 1600 factories and two million workers.
Since its inception, Accord inspectors have identified more than 122,000 safety violations at covered factories; 90 percent of original safety hazards found have been fixed; over 300 safety committees have been created and trained to monitor safety conditions on an ongoing basis; and the Accord’s complaint mechanism has resolved 375 safety complaints from workers and their representatives.
Gender Justice in Lesotho
A legally binding, worker-driven approach is now also being tried in Lesotho, in which 85 percent of clothing exports come to the US. The Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) released a report in August 2019, documenting pervasive workplace sexual abuse in Lesotho’s garment industry. The supplier involved in this report and the new agreement employs roughly 10,000 people. The report found that managers and supervisors coerced workers into sexual relations; female workers experienced sexual harassment from managers and coworkers; this was coupled with management often not taking disciplinary action against the offenders; and the tolerance of said harassment created a culture of acceptance in the factories.
“Many supervisors demand sexual favors and bribes from prospective employees. They promise jobs to the workers who are still on probationary contracts. […] All of the women in my department have slept with the supervisor,” said an anonymous Lesotho employee of the company Nien Hsing Textiles to the WRC. “For the women, this is about survival and nothing else… If you say no, you won’t get the job, or your contract will not be renewed.”
Together, international brands, a major apparel supplier, unions, and women’s rights advocates will work to address gender-based violence occurring in the Lesotho garment sector. The agreement establishes an independent body to investigate complaints and punish or dismiss managers that are abusing workers.
A Way Forward
The WSR model has proven successful in industries outside of the apparel sector too, such as with the Fair Food Program in the US agriculture industry. While CSR has advanced transparency and other qualities of supply chains, and WSR may not always be possible in countries that severely limit the civil society space, the challenges of CSR combined with successes of WSR should make us consider what will bring change to the conditions that workers around the world face on a daily basis. When workers have power in the workplace, they are in the position to create solutions and positive change.
The continued exploitation of people and the environment demonstrates a need for change. If workers, NGOs, consumers, and corporations can come together, we can alter the current unjust power dynamics in supply chains.
|
|
Bringing More Color to Green Fashion |
The fashion industry's relationship with marginalized groups is complicated. For decades, people from communities often subjected to inequality and stigma have found fellowship in an industry where art, creativity, and individuality reign. The careers of designers and influencers like Jason Wu, Carolina Herrera, Andre Leon Talley, Vera Wang, and Willow Smith are just a few that exemplify what’s possible in the modern fashion industry in terms of representation.
Unfortunately, major fashion brands too often create designs appropriated from Black, Brown, and Indigenous cultures, or worse, invoke painful history. For example, in 2012, the Navajo Nation unsuccessfully sued the apparel company Urban Outfitters for using the word “Navajo” on various products, including shirts and underwear that featured “tribal” prints. In 2018, an H&M ad showed a Black child wearing a sweatshirt bearing the words “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle,” shocking consumers with how oblivious the company could be to the hurtful evocations of racist imagery. In 2019, Gucci debuted a now-infamous black sweater featuring a large collar with bright red lips worn over the chin and nose, which prompted shoppers to call out the design’s blackface resemblance.
The issue is not only with racism in design but internal homogeneity and inequality. Only three percent of the members on the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) are Black, and when the organization released its 2019 Insider/Outsider report, only about 40 percent of fashion executives felt their company’s commitment to inclusivity was important to the success of the company.
A truly green fashion movement addresses the harm caused by conventional clothing production, especially in respect to race. Thankfully, leaders in this work are willing to share what they’ve learned.
To Brooklyn and Beyond
Dominique Drakeford is the founder of Melanin And Sustainable Style (shortened to MelaninASS)—an online community dedicated to celebrating the successes of people of color in sustainable fashion and beauty movements. MelaninASS elevates the work of designers and craftspeople of color, whom Drakeford calls vanguards. Drakeford and collaborator Whitney McGuire are co-founders of Sustainable Brooklyn, which organizes educational events, workshops, and curricula to promote them to communities targeted by systemic racism via harmful education systems, public policy, and toxic marketing. For Drakeford, affirming the place of people of color in sustainability movements is just as important as speaking about oppressive systems.
“Black, Indigenous, and people of color [BIPOC] have been conditioned to not think of themselves as important figures and change agents in the sustainability space. That has to do with who is controlling the narrative,” says Drakeford. “MelaninASS, Sustainable Brooklyn, and myself are always stressing the importance of reclaiming our environmental heritage and what that may look like in today’s landscape.”
Drakeford, who holds a master’s in sustainable entrepreneurship and fashion from New York University, says her work is about putting the money generated from the fashion industry in the hands of the often Black and Brown communities that produce clothing and inspire their designs.
Drakeford has been pursuing this goal through the educational events hosted by Sustainable Brooklyn and her other speaking engagements.
“We have to look at the regions of the world where communities are struggling with apparel pollution and where fashion waste is exported, such as Africa and India,” says Drakeford. “We tend to focus on garment workers in regions like Bangladesh, but this also effects farmers, dyers, and every aspect of production globally.”
One action people can take to promote racial equity in sustainable fashion is to simply buy from clothesmakers of color. Like MelaninASS, the Instagram account @BuyfromBIPOC, founded by teacher and sustainable fashion influencer Emi Ito, focuses on highlighting the works of sustainable designers of color and is one such place where consumers can find people to support. Other action items include hiring people of color for executive creative positions at fashion companies, pursuing BIPOC ownership throughout a company’s supply chain, rewriting trade agreements like NAFTA, which have shown to lead to unlivable wages and unsafe working conditions in developing countries, and advocating for fair media representation.
In 2019, Drakeford and McGuire hosted Sustainable Brooklyn’s “EARTH” symposium which focused on fashion, food and wellness. The duo are planning to bring Sustainable Brooklyn’s educational symposiums to more cities in the US and are set to debut two more, dubbed “FIRE” and “WATER” in 2020.
The Diversity Ethos
Raj and Akhil Shah of Ably and other fashion ventures.
Brothers Raj and Akhil Shah know something about harnessing creative and economic power for good. Coming from an entrepreneurial family that sold textiles in the coastal city of Mombasa, Kenya, the Shahs immigrated to the US in the ’70s, and started their first apparel company, Shah Safari, in Seattle.
Since then, Raj and Akhil have founded several other apparel companies affiliated with Shah Safari, including International News, AW Outfitters, Zebra Club, and Mecca USA, and have donated to over 33 charities including in India and Kenya where they still maintain some of their business operations. The brothers have also become well known for their knack for celebrating cultural trends in an authentic and non-appropriating way. Shah Safari, inspired by Indian culture, and bold, baggy, Mecca USA apparel targeted to the hip-hop community, are a couple of examples.
“You have to ask whether a brand intends to celebrate a certain culture or simply piggyback on a market trend and profit from that,” says Raj Shah. “It pays to inspect the purity of the brand’s intention and whether the brand supports nonprofits and other groups that seek
to empower and better the lives of those whose cultures they are emulating.”
The brothers’ newest venture, Ably, explores adding a coating called Filium (patent pending) to fabrics made from natural materials to repel liquids, stains, and odors, in an effort to reduce the number of times garments must be washed. The Filium coating is produced according to bluesign® standards.
The Shahs’ marketing efforts for Ably set a positive example for other sustainable apparel companies. Shah says Ably targets its clothing design and messaging to Gen Z, 48 percent of whom identify as non-Caucasian, according to the Pew Research Center.
“A big part of our ethos is diversity and inclusion—from how and where we manufacture our clothing, to the personnel we employ throughout our operations, to how we treat our employees and vendors around the world,” says Raj Shah.
Why Green Fashion Matters
Green America’s 2019 Toxic Textiles report addresses the disproportionate burden carried by the communities that host clothing factories around the world.
When consumers use their money to support green fashion companies and designers, they’re not only investing in environmental sustainability, but environmental justice as well. Supporting minority-owned businesses also helps to close historic racial wealth gaps and boost representation in the green economy.
Being intentional with our purchases can slow, and even end wastefulness, pollution, and inequality perpetuated by the apparel industry by pressuring companies to do better. Fashion has always followed the lead of the people and we have the power to make every thread we wear count for a greater purpose.
|
|
Unraveling the Fashion Industry |
For many of us, fashion is fun. It’s a chance to show the world who we are. For others, getting dressed might be a chore. However you look at your closet, it’s affecting the Earth—the fashion industry has a bigger climate impact than air travel and maritime shipping combined.
According to Elizabeth Cline (author of Overdressed, a book that helped document fast fashion and bring new attention to the ethical fashion movement), Americans buy one out of five garments made in the world. The number of garments purchased each year by the average consumer increased by 60 percent just from 2000 to 2014, and shoppers kept them half as long (Read the full interview with Cline here).
For over 30 years, Green America has been active in greening the apparel industry by putting pressure on the largest companies including Nike, Hanes, and Gap, to address sweatshop labor in their supply chains. Our latest work on the issue is our Toxic Textiles Report, which focuses on the fashion industry’s influence on climate, the environment, and worker health. Our report found that the industry uses around 43 million tons of chemicals to turn raw materials into textiles this year.
Toxic chemicals abound in the industry—they’re added in agriculture, dyeing, and finishing textiles. For products like polyester, nylon, and other manmade materials, chemicals are part of production from the start, too. Workers who interact with these chemicals are not always provided with safety information or protective equipment.
But there is much progress to report. The 2013 tragedy at the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh sparked anew a global interest in fair wages and safe workplaces. One victory that came from the disaster was the creation of the Bangladesh Accord, in which brands work with labor groups to create safer factories. Under pressure from groups like Green America and labor-minded consumers, over 200 brands signed on, covering 1600 factories and two million workers. Read more about worker-led social responsibility projects like the Accord in “Worker Tested, Worker Approved Social Responsibility."
The Rana Plaza tragedy also engaged millions of consumers in the fight for safer workplaces, even those across the globe. Fashion Revolution, the world’s largest fashion activism movement, has teams operating in over 100 countries and promotes the hashtags #whomademyclothes and #imadeyourclothes to bring greater transparency into the industry.
“Amongst the brands and retailers we have reviewed over the past three years, we have seen a nine percent increase in their average score,” says Carry Somers, co-founder of Fashion Revolution. “We see transparency as a means to change, not the endgame. Transparency helps to reveal the structures in place so we can better understand how to change them.”
As always, the green economy is pushed ever forward by small, innovative, green businesses, like the leaders in our Green Business Network— read the stories of businesses on the front lines of sustainable fashion in “Bringing More Color to Green Fashion" and “From Fast to Fair Fashion."
|
|
Unpacking Toxic Textiles |
If you go to a Forever 21 location two months in a row, odds are that practically nothing about the clothing selection will look the same. Forever 21 played a massive role in popularizing fast fashion, and as Green America’s Toxic Textiles report recently found, workers and the Earth pay a massive price for these seasonal looks, exposing workers to hazardous conditions and polluting our water, soil, and air.
Between 2000 and 2015, clothing production almost doubled, from about 50 billion pieces a year to over 100 billion pieces a year. In addition, the amount of clothing Americans dispose of annually has almost tripled during that time. Green America recently investigated sustainability practices in the clothing industry, revealing how the push towards fast fashion has resulted in significant carbon emissions and environmental degradation. Green America’s labor justice campaigns manager Charlotte Tate says it is crucial for individuals to know exactly what toxic chemicals could be in their clothing, especially given the lack of transparency in the industry.
“Currently, companies are deciding what chemicals are okay for consumers to be exposed to and at what levels, and companies are making those same decisions for workers,” says Tate. “Information about what chemicals are being used at all tiers of the supply chains must be made public, so that the deciding power is not only with companies trying to maximize profits.”
Textile producers and clothing companies not only largely fail to commit to environmental sustainability, their increased activity threatens the water supply and soil quality, while also using materials that present dangers for their labor force.
Further, less than one percent of the resources used to make clothing are captured and reused to create new clothing. Although many people donate their unwanted clothing, many of those clothes go unused after donation, eventually also becoming trash. This failure to create a cyclical system of clothing reuse means that most textile sales are of new products, accelerating the release of chemicals.
Water Use and Pollution
Water pollution is the most notable impact of clothing production, with around 20 percent of global industrial water pollution traceable directly back to the textiles industry. The pollution is multifaceted and affects all aspects of water ecosystems, from chemical contamination of drinking water to the spread
of microplastics into waterways around the world.
Target, VF (which owns The North Face and Jansport), Nike, and Gap have all introduced Manufacturing Restricted Substances Lists (MRSL) and Restricted Substances Lists (RSL) to eliminate the use of some chemicals that harm workers and consumers. These lists are an excellent first step, with a MRSL restraining what can be used in the manufacturing process and a RSL dictating what can be in the final product. The reality is that the vast majority of chemical exposure is to workers—some exposure occurs when consumers get the clothes, but much more to the worker.
“Companies need to work with their suppliers to ensure that the MRSL is being implemented appropriately,” Tate notes. “Companies need to be paying enough for their products so that the supplier is able to implement the MRSL, and all apparel companies should come together and agree on one complete and holistic MRSL and RSL—raising industry standards across the board.”
The impacts of chemicals banned in the final product but allowed in the manufacturing process, like dyes, polyfluorinated chemicals, and flame retardants, are striking. In China, 70 percent of the rivers and lakes are polluted, and in Bangladesh, the Buriganga River is so polluted with toxic chemicals and heavy metals prevalent in the leather tanning industry that it can no longer sustain aquatic life.
Even alternatives to conventional textile production cause environmental degradation. Organic cotton is grown without toxic chemicals, but unless the clothes are certified under GOTS, bluesign®, or Oeko-Tex certifications, toxic chemicals may be added in the textile production process.
Green America’s Toxic Textiles report also found that the bamboo used in some shirts involves a more chemical-intensive process to make the material soft. Like bamboo, rayon fabric (and its variant, lyocell) is derived from raw materials in wood pulp, which go through energy- and chemical-intensive processes with to become a semi-synthetic material. The chemicals used generally aren’t recaptured but instead are released into waterways.
Cotton is among the most water intensive crops and both organic and conventional clothing manufacturers consume enormous amounts in both farming and textile production. An astonishing 2,700 liters of water are required to grow the cotton needed to make a single t-shirt. These watering practices are especially harmful in the primary cotton-growing countries as they often face water scarcity but need to continue cotton production to maintain their economy. In Kyrgyzstan, where water is both contaminated and scarce, many civilians have no access to clean drinking water, even as cotton producers use thousands of liters.
Microplastics
Unfortunately, chemicals aren’t the only harmful substances polluting water as a result of the textile industry. At every step of the manufacturing process, including after the product reaches the consumer, microplastics can be released into our waterways. When synthetic fibers like polyester, nylon, and acrylic break down, they release microfibers, another form of microplastic.
The global spread of microplastics was discovered relatively recently but is a cause for major concern, both for the uncertain health effects on humans and the deaths of aquatic animals that have consumed these microfibers.
When washing clothes using materials prone to shedding microfibers, each load releases as many as 700,000 microfibers into the water. These tiny plastics spread quickly, and when they accumulate in the digestive systems of oceanic animals, they can be fatal. With their health effects largely unknown but potentially hazardous, this spread is concerning.
“You and I and everybody else on earth is drinking and bleeding microfibers,” says Dimitri Deheyn, a marine biology researcher at University of California in San Diego, who spoke about microfibers at the Unveiling Fashion conference in Washington, DC, in September 2019. “There are no studies whatsoever on the effect of microfibers made of plastic on public health, […] we’re just starting to look at this toxic aspect of microfibers.”
But contamination is not the only negative effect on water that occurs during the textile manufacturing process.
Air, Soil and Agriculture
Many of the same chemicals that contaminate water end up in the soil as well, affecting agriculture as more land becomes less arable. Additionally, irresponsible sourcing practices for the raw materials also threatens endangered ecosystems, including rainforests and heavily deforested areas.
This impacts even supposedly sustainable materials, including rayon, a common silk substitute. Rayon is made with wood pulp, which is regularly sourced from endangered or protected forests. Worse, 60 to 70 percent of the wood pulp is lost in the process. As a result, rayon production fuels the deforestation crisis and requires vast amounts of wood for relatively little fabric.
Wood pulp harvesting, particularly when done in endangered forests, accelerates deforestation, which has wide-reaching effects on biodiversity. It is unfortunately part of the production process for rayon, viscose, and lyocell. Removed trees can no longer enrich the soil and air, negatively affecting the forest ecology. Degradation also occurs at the manufacturing stage; Rayon manufacturing factories in China contribute to severe air and water pollution, and residential areas near factories have reported dangerous levels of carbon disulfide, a chemical that can cause insanity, Parkinsonism, and birth defects.
Conventional cotton is very likely to be grown from genetically modified seeds, which often increase the use of pesticides on the crop. Cotton production has also increased over the past few years, as an increase in clothing demand drives farmers to extreme measures to keep up. The scale means farmers are prevented from planting a more diverse set of crops, which could help maintain the integrity of the soil and which also require less water. See our story on regenerative cotton to read more about regenerative and conventional cotton.
Exposing Workers to Toxic Chemicals
With sweatshop labor notably prominent in the textile industry, worker safety is rarely a priority in textile factories. However, increased textile production and the widespread use of chemicals in many developed countries also threatens these workers.
Polyester textiles, used in 55 percent of all clothing production, rely on the use of heavy metals, like antimony, a possible carcinogen, as well as known carcinogens, like cadmium and lead. Research from the National Institutes of Health shows that occupational exposure to antimony can cause respiratory, skin, and gastrointestinal symptoms, and may even cause cancer. Too often, factory workers who may encounter such toxic materials are not notified about safety procedures or given proper equipment to reduce exposure.
It’s not only polyester—nearly every textile material undergoes the wet processing phase of production, where dyeing and chemical processing takes place. Too often, workers lack proper protection. In countries with these wet processing factories, like China and Bangladesh, officials don’t enforce the need to inform workers about the dangers of the chemicals or provide them adequate safety equipment. Wet processing plants are far down the supply chain from the companies and get less attention as a result.
Companies can help protect their workers by restricting the types of chemicals used in their clothing, but until that occurs, workers are threatened at every step of the process. This starts with the field workers, endangered by the cocktail of pesticides sprayed on conventional cotton crops.
“Chemicals used to produce clothing can disrupt hormone systems, harm liver health, or cause cancer,” says Tate. “Brands have a responsibility to ensure that workers in their supply chain have a safe and healthy workplace and that their basic right to health is not violated by the chemicals used to make clothes.”
Consumer Activism as a Solution
For three decades, Green America has been active in greening the apparel industry, by pushing companies like Nike, Hanes, and Gap, to address sweatshop labor in their supply chains.
Transparency is the first step in creating a safer textile industry. As consumers learn about key issues, they can begin to protect themselves, workers, and the environment from extreme pollution. The first and most important thing for people to do is reduce their consumption of new clothes. Even the alternatives to conventional textiles aren’t without their own concerns. As Green America’s report makes clear, there are no true leaders in this field, only relative successes.
“Brands are great at making big, vague commitments that don’t deliver the implied impact,” says Tate. “And on top of this, a majority of the commitments are voluntary, meaning there are no repercussions if the company does not meet its commitment.”
Green America and our members have a large role to play. With workers often unable to advocate for themselves in factories, consumer pressure may be the best way to advocate for ethical and environmentally sustainable textile production.
Other organizations have also joined the push for more responsible textile production, as our ally Stand.earth pressures Levi’s to put in place firm climate commitments for their overseas production facilities.
“Consumers have a lot of power with the textile industry. Millennial and Gen Z consumers especially are shifting their purchasing to companies that treat their workers well, use fewer toxic chemicals, and create durable clothes,” says Todd Larsen, Green America’s executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement. “This shift in purchasing has drastically reduced sales at fast fashion companies like Forever 21, which just declared bankruptcy.”
Kids clothier Carter’s (which also owns OshKosh B’gosh), is a major polluter, but their defensive response to questions about their process shows how these companies want to be seen as environmentally friendly and how they will fight to protect their image. Since the launch of Green America’s campaign to pressure Carter’s into improving their supply chain, almost 7,000 concerned people have signed on.
The systematic failure of textile producers and clothing companies to protect their workers and the environment outlined in the Green America report shows the necessity of this action. And as Larsen notes, customers can make their voices heard.
“This is the same approach we used to address toxins in the electronics sector, and it works.”
|
