Nestlé Waters North America, PepsiCo and the Coca-Cola Company have all received a “B-” letter grade for their recycling efforts in a new report, which criticized the beverage industry’s pace in improving recycling.

“Waste & Opportunity: U.S. Beverage Container Recycling Scorecard and Report” by As You Sow is the shareholder advocacy group’s third review of the beverage industry since 2006.

The report gave Nestlé Waters North America the highest rank out of the major companies. In particular, the firm received the highest score on container recovery for establishing better recovery goals than its peers and having stated tactical strategies for attaining those goals, the report said.

As You Sow said the beverage industry has made slow progress on recycling since the last edition of the report in 2008. But the 2011 report does contain some signs that the industry may increase its commitments to recycling soon.

The Coca-Cola Company, which As You Says has been historically opposed to container deposit systems, indicated it is now “neutral” on a deposit system administered by an independent third party, an apparent softening of its position, according to the advocacy group.

Several survey respondents also said that in developing a recycling program, they are most likely to support programs that set recycling fees that are paid by producers or importers, included in the price of the product and administered by industry.

However, brewing companies were largely absent from the survey participants, with Anheuser Busch refusing to participate. As You Grow says this suggests the company’s transparency policies are getting worse. The firm received the second highest score in the report’s 2008 edition.

NEW YORK – Target is having labor pains.

Until recently, the Minneapolis discounter largely had avoided the labor disputes and public relations challenges that have plagued Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer. But now Target could face the same union opposition as its much bigger rival.

Target had its first union election in two decades in June amid allegations by workers of skimpy wages and reduced hours at a Valley Stream, N.Y., store. The measure ultimately failed after Target suggested to workers that the store might not survive if they vote to unionize.

But the labor dispute – and Target’s handling of it – is widely seen as a precursor to a bubbling national battle between Target and labor groups similar to the one Wal-Mart has been locked in for at least a decade.

“There is no question that this is becoming a hostile, caustic battle of wills,” says Don Schroeder, a Mintz Levin labor attorney who has represented corporations in labor battles for 18 years.

While Wal-Mart Stores Inc. remains the biggest target for labor groups as the largest U.S. private employer, unions are increasingly setting their sights on the nation’s No. 3 retailer as it adds locations across the country and aggressively expands into the heavily unionized grocery business.

In addition to New York, more labor disputes are expected in big cities such as San Francisco, Seattle and Minneapolis – where Target is based and remains the second-largest employer behind the Mayo Clinic.

The opposition is coming at a particularly vulnerable time for Target, which is grappling with slack sales growth as shoppers are pulling back amid the painfully slow economic recovery.

Already, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union’s Local 1500 New York chapter, which organized the election in the Valley Stream store, intends to contest the election results and ask the government to order a new one because it says Target intimidated workers. It also plans to fight to get all 26 stores in the New York area unionized.

And the UFCW’s local 1189 in St. Paul, near Minneapolis, is using the New York election as an impetus to recharge its campaign, which failed a couple of years because it didn’t collect enough votes.

The chapter is organizing a group of people to go door-to-door to almost 2,000 Target workers in four stores. It’s also planning to reach out to UFCW’s local Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle chapters to enlist them to join the battle.

“I was inspired. Once we heard that Local 1500 had been building toward an election, we thought we better ramp it up,” said Bernie Hesse, director of special projects at UFCW’s St. Paul chapter. “We have been intrigued with what a national campaign may look like.”

Target Corp. declined to comment on its strategies to counter an escalating labor fight, but spokeswoman Molly Snyder said the company does not intimidate workers or have any “companywide efforts to restructure or reduce hours.”

“Our emphasis is on creating a workplace environment where our team members don’t want or need union representation,” Snyder said.

Labor disputes new

Labor disputes are new for Target, which has used its marketing prowess to become the discount industry’s darling by offering trendy products while Wal-Mart built its no-frills business by offering everyday low prices.

The companies started in the same year: 1962. And analysts say they pay workers similar wages of between $9 and $11. But the similarities end there.

Wal-Mart., which has 1.4 million U.S. workers, for years has been battling labor unions and politicians seeking to block it from opening stores in big cities amid allegations of poor treatment of workers, among other concerns.

By contrast, Target has faced little to no opposition and at times has even had the red carpet rolled out for it – literally.

For instance, Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., so far has not been able to penetrate New York City after fighting for years to get its stores there, but Target has opened 10 stores in the five boroughs without any union protests. And when Target’s Harlem location opened last year, there was a red carpet event attended by New York politicians and celebrities such as Jerry Seinfeld and Moby.

As union opposition against Wal-Mart grew across the country, the retailer began employing hardball tactics to discourage workers from organizing.

In 2004, for instance, the company shuttered a Canadian store after it became the first in North America to win union certification, for instance. In 2000, 11 workers in the meatpacking department at a store in Jacksonville, Texas, voted to join the UFCW. Soon after, Wal-Mart began stocking only pre-wrapped meats, effectively eliminating the positions.

The moves hurt Wal-Mart’s public image, and anti-Wal-Mart sentiment spread among labor groups. So, the retailer beefed up its public relations staff, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits alleging that its workers were denied breaks and rolled out lower-priced health insurance to its employees, among other changes.

Wal-Mart acts

Analysts say Wal-Mart’s efforts to repair its battered reputation worked and deflected the attention at least partly over to Target, which is a fifth of the size of Wal-Mart with annual revenue of $65.7 billion in its latest fiscal year.

To be sure, some of the increased focus Target is experiencing from labor unions is simply a growing pain of being a bigger employer. Target now employs 355,000 workers and operates more than 1,700 stores, up from about 280,000 workers and 1,050 stores ten years ago.

But there is another big reason unions are beginning to scrutinize Target. The company is aggressively expanding its grocery business, which threatens to shrink market share of unionized supermarket chains. The UFCW says 80 percent of its 1.3 million members are grocery workers.

How Target handles the new scrutiny will be critical, analysts say.

So far, they say, the union battle in Valley Stream, N.Y., exposed how a still-harsh economy has pushed Target to compete better with Wal-Mart and copy the retailer on all fronts – including wages and benefits.

Over the past year, Target has followed Wal-Mart by shifting more of its workers to part-time, analysts say. Some employees say their hours have been cut from 30 per week to less than 10. Part-timers must bank at least 20 hours a week, on average, to qualify for benefits.

Tashawna Green, 21, who started working at Target’s Valley Stream, N.Y., store a little more than a year ago, said she voted in favor of organizing because her weekly hours have been cut from 30 to just over 20 in the past year. She recently got an 8-cent raise added to her $8 per hour pay – an increase she says isn’t satisfactory.

“I can’t live off this,” said Green, who has a 6-year old daughter and lives with her aunt in Queens. “We’re just looking for more respect.”

When addressing workers’ concerns, analysts say Target should look closely at what worked – and didn’t work – for Wal-Mart. They say one of the biggest mistakes Wal-Mart made was to not respond quickly enough.

Schroeder, the Mintz Levin labor attorney, says Target should get ahead of the attacks by making sure managers are sensitive to workers’ needs.

It also should hone a message that’s conciliatory, not arrogant, he says, and communicate better with workers.

“You have to think how you’re going to change,” he says. “If you don’t change, it will come back to you.”

Read more here.

As You Sow, a group that seeks corporate accountability through shareholder advocacy, has announced the results of some its recent campaigns.

Among the large companies AYS filed resolutions with was Target. The resolution requested that the retail giant expand electronics recycling for its customers and disclose information on its disposal policies, including whether or not it exports e-waste to developing countries. The resolution failed, but mustered an impressive 30.8 percent of the company's investors.

AYS also filed a resolution calling on McDonald's to stop using polystyrene coffee cups, which got 29.3 percent support. A third resolution asking Starbucks to develop a more comprehensive recycling scheme for its beverage containers got 8.1 percent. Specifically, the resolution urged Starbucks to set more concrete goals for the use of recycled content in its containers and to better track how many customers bring reusable mugs into its stores.

In the past, AYS has persuaded Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to recycle 50 percent of their bottles and cans by 2015 and 2018 respectively. It's also gotten Nestle Waters NA to agree to an industry recycling goal of 60 percent of PET bottles by 2018.

AYS also filed a resolution with Proctor & Gamble and General Mills in support of extended producer responsibility, which will be voted on in October.

 

A new report by As You Sow lays out the financial risks of continued reliance on coal for electricity generation.

The online case studies demonstrate how the financial risks highlighted in the white paper are manifested in individual electric utilities.

CMS Energy Dominion Duke Energy Corp FirstEnergy Corp

As You Sow has identified three primary risks for investors who have utility and mining companies in their portfolios:

The unprecedented level of regulatory uncertainty. Existing regulations are being more strictly enforced as a result of litigation and the change of administration in Washington. New regulations in the pipeline will impart significant, unpredictable individual and cumulative costs on coal-reliant industries. Commodity risk due to volatile and rising coal prices and low natural gas prices. The changing nature of domestic coal markets and the prospect of future increases in the price of coal make its uncertainty as an inexpensive fuel for electricity production a new piece of the energy calculus in the U.S. Abundant supply and rapid price decline of natural gas in the U.S. has driven down power prices nationwide. This market condition is expected to persist for the foreseeable future. Increasing construction costs. Global price increases for construction materials due to new power plant construction in China and India have established a new floor for coal price construction. Domestic regulatory mandates, the age of the nation's coal fleet, and low power prices are driving decisions to replace the existing fleet of coal plants with other sources of power generation.

The clearest signal that the utility industry acknowledges these risks is the cancellation by public utility commissions and utilities of 153 new coal plants.i The plant cancellations amounted to $243 billion in investment decisions being reversed, or disinvested, from coal in the past four years.ii In 2010, a growing list of utility announcements carrying the message of existing coal plant closures and plans for new natural gas plants and alternative energy projects continued the trend.

This white paper demonstrates that these risks combine to make current and future investments in coal-dependent utilities and coal mining companies exceedingly precarious.