WASHINGTON, D.C., Sep. 01 /CSRwire/ - Two leading sustainable business organizations representing 5,000 small businesses today sent a letter calling on President Obama to reject the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and, instead, invest in clean energy technologies.  

The pipeline would deliver oil from the tar sands in Canada to the Gulf of Mexico across the United States.

In their letter, Green America’s Green Business Network and The Green Chamber of Commercesaid the pipeline would further United States addiction to oil and risk disastrous new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. Global warming and oil spills have been seen to have an extremely detrimental effect on the economy, which affects the well-being of their businesses.

In addition to these risks, production of the 700,000 barrels of heavy crude that would travel from the tar sands every day creates a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Both the potential for environmentally harmful oils spills and increase in GHG emissions would be harmful to the environment, in addition to the harm to business in the United States.

The text of the letter to President Obama follows:

“We write to you on behalf of thousands of small businesses in the United States that are deeply concerned about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The well-being of our businesses and the economy in the United States are tied to the health of our environment. The Keystone XL pipeline will have an immensely negative impact on the environment. It would bring 700,000 barrels of heavy crude from Canadian tar sands to the US every day, furthering the US addiction to oil, and risking new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. The production of oil from tar sands would generate enormous greenhouse gas emissions, and create greater impacts from global warming.

The impacts of global warming -- from droughts, to floods, to extreme weather -- are bad for business in the United States. As we saw in the Gulf, oil spills also have a devastating impact on the economy. The failure to shift America away from its dependence on oil to cleaner fuels will further imperil our economy and reduce the number of green jobs we need for sustainable economic growth.

Your administration has taken bold and necessary steps to increase the green energy economy in the US. Now, we urge you to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, and further invest in clean energy technologies. It is the right decision for the US, and it is the right decision for business.”

Today’s shareholder vote at the Smucker’s annual meeting marked an important step towards getting the company to report on climate risks associated with their coffee business and supply chain. The proposal received roughly 30% support (based on preliminary numbers). While 30% might not sound notable, a recent report on the 2011 proxy season puts the vote in perspective: the report found that investor support for shareholder resolutions on environmental and social issues rose to a 20.5% average approval rate (the first time support has ever reached the 20% mark). 30% sure sounds like a lot when measuring against that baseline. Analysts at Trillium Asset Management and Calvert Investment Management also report that first year resolutions generally garner far less support as investors are initially introduced to the proposals.

This vote sends a clear signal to Smucker’s leadership that shareholders are raising legitimate concerns around disclosure of social and environmental risks in their coffee supply chain. Trillium and Calvert will engage with company representatives in the fall pressing them to respond meaningfully to investor concerns about coffee and climate change. While the two investment firms hope to make progress with the company over the course of the next year, they will reserve the right to re-file the resolution in 2012 if necessary.

Oxfam will help keep the pressure on Smucker’s to adequately respond and we’ll keep you updated on opportunities to engage.

When you think of Smucker’s, jelly and jams typically come to mind, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. The J.M. Smucker Company is actually a leading distributor of Folgers and Dunkin’ Donuts coffee brands (who knew?), with coffee accounting for 40% of the company’s net sales and nearly half of its profits. That’s a whole lot of coffee, considering that the company sells and manufactures many other widely-used household brands like Crisco, Jif, and Pillsbury.

Coffee crops are highly sensitive to weather and temperature fluctuations making it particularly vulnerable to climate change. This past year the cost of coffee skyrocketed following increased demand and poor harvests in high-producing countries like Colombia and Brazil. In 2010 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new guidance for publicly traded companies, requiring companies to disclose climate change risks, such as physical risks to a company’s assets and supply chains.

Disclosing these risks will create much needed transparency to help investors understand how companies’ supply chains, and the communities that support them, could be impacted by increasingly extreme weather and other likely results of climate change.

This disclosure is essential because community risks are business risks. As climate change increasingly threatens coffee harvests, the impacts are being felt first and worst in the communities where coffee farming is a way of life. But those threats echo all the way up the supply chain. Understanding these risks, and ensuring that companies like Smucker’s are adequately managing the anticipated hazards, is critical to investors and farmers alike.

Reporting in response to the SEC guidance has generally been weak, and Smucker’s is no exception. Very few companies have increased their reporting on material climate risk save for a few sentences added to their annual sustainability reports. This is a bad sign for shareholders who are already feeling the impacts of climate-related risks on their investments.

For example, record high food and commodity prices this year, owing at least in part to increased temperatures and lower crop yields, have led to social unrest in some countries where companies do business and to financial instability in companies unable to pass higher costs onto consumers. Consumers too have felt the pressure, since May 2010, Smucker’s has jacked up prices 34% just to try to stay a step ahead of the commodities market. Smucker’s competitors are responding by making public commitments to sustainability that will help their bottom line.

Already jittery investors are starting to perk up. Two socially responsible investment firms, Trillium Asset Management and Calvert Investment Management, Inc., have filed a shareholder resolution requesting that the Board of Directors provide a report to stockholders describing how the company will manage the social and environmental risks and opportunities connected to the company’s coffee business and supply chain. Shareholders will have a chance to vote for this proposal at tomorrow’s annual meeting at Smucker’s headquarters in Ohio.

Smucker’s has tried to block the resolution and are nervous that disclosing the risks could rattle investors. But if the resolution passes, Smucker’s will be on-the-hook to conduct a detailed risk assessment of climate change on their coffee supply chain and publicly disclose the findings.

Public disclosure of risks is the first step towards ensuring communities in Smucker’s supply chain are adequately protected from impending climate risks such as floods, droughts and extreme weather events. It is critical that small-scale farmers gain access to adequate resources to prepare for and respond to these threats. Not only will such resources will protect communities, they will surely benefit global companies who rely on a stable supply of high-quality coffee beans.

Government policies in support of small farmers are critical to their long term productivity, but this must go hand-in-hand with sound, sustainable corporate practice. This resolution will help multi-national corporations such as Smucker’s to wake up and smell the coffee. As they say, “with a name like Smucker’s, it’s got to be good”. We agree.

Read the original article here.

ORRVILLE, Ohio - The J.M. Smucker Co. perked up coffee-lovers by announcing that after four straight price hikes in little over a year, the company was cutting prices by an average of 6 percent.

The Orrville food company, which is holding its annual shareholders meeting today, said Tuesday's news applies to the prices on a majority of its coffee products sold in the U.S., including top-selling Folgers Coffee, Folgers Gourmet Selections and Dunkin' Donuts packaged coffee sold in supermarkets.

Smucker cut prices in response to declines in the price of raw green coffee futures, which slipped to $2.10 per pound in July, down 9 percent from a 34-year-high of $2.31 per pound in April.

That's still 65 percent higher than the $1.27-per-pound price in April 2010, but represents the third-straight monthly decline after more than a year of steadily climbing prices, according to the International Coffee Organization.

Those rising prices, on top of higher fuel and other production costs, prompted Smucker to increase its own coffee prices four times:

• 4 percent on May 18, 2010;

• 9 percent on Aug. 3, 2010;

• 10 percent on Feb. 8, 2011;

• and 11 percent on May 24.

Smucker's rivals, including Starbucks, Maxwell House, Peet's Coffee & Tea and Green Mountain Coffee have raised their coffee prices over the past year, too, but have not yet responded to Tuesday's announcement.

Dominic Caruso, vice president of Caruso's Coffee Inc., a specialty coffee roaster in Brecksville, said that while prices for some kinds of raw beans have fallen, they remain significantly higher than they were a year ago.

He said that while mass-produced coffee blends like Folgers and Dunkin' Donuts can compensate for more expensive beans by increasing the amount of cheaper robusta beans, coffee houses that specialize in premium beans or single-source coffees have less wiggle room to lower prices.

"On certain coffees, like breakfast blends and doughnut shop blends, we're going to try to pass along that savings to the customer," he said. "But on other coffees, like African coffees or Indonesian Sumatras and Javas, we're stuck" with higher prices.

Caruso doesn't expect many coffee house regulars to switch to brewing at home, however, because coffee is still an affordable indulgence. "The customer who's going to the coffee shop is going there for a lot of reasons besides price," he said.

The price cut news also came a day before Smucker's annual shareholders meeting, where two shareholder groups that advise investors on responsible and sustainable companies are seeking more information about the company's long-term coffee strategy.

Calvert Investment Management Inc. of Bethesda, Md., and Trillium Asset Management LLC of Boston want shareholders to approve their Proposal 5, requiring Smucker to provide a report to shareholders about how the company plans to deal with possible climate changes and threats to family coffee farms within six months of the annual meeting.

Because coffee makes up 40 percent of Smucker's net sales and 48.6 percent of its profit, the groups wrote a letter to shareholders saying that they want to know how the company plans to respond to climate changes like global warming, changes in rainfall patterns, and its "responsibility for its impact on the coffee farming families in its supply chain."

Rebecca Henson, Calvert's sustainability analyst, said: "The proposal is meant to encourage the company to take more meaningful steps" to protect shareholders, because so much of its business depends on coffee. "We just think there's more they can do to manage this risk."

Calvert, a mutual fund which offers advice to more than 400,000 individual and institutional investors, owns 4,269 shares of Smucker stock.

Trillium, the oldest and largest independent adviser devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing, advises several hundred clients who own about 90,000 shares of Smucker.

Both groups say Smucker has provided "woefully inadequate" guidance on these topics and that it "lags significantly behind" its global peers Nestle, Sara Lee and Kraft in providing that information.

Sara Lee, for example, aims to have 20 percent of its coffee volume certified sustainable by 2015, while Nescafe will distribute 220 million disease-resistant coffee plantlets to coffee farmers around the world by 2020.

Smucker declined to answer questions Tuesday about the price cut or Proposal 5, saying that it was in its quiet period prior to Thursday's earnings conference call.

In an Aug. 9 letter to shareholders, however, Co-Chief Executives Tim and Richard Smucker responded that the company had already answered those requests.

They said that "in making the decision and expending time and resources to voluntarily publish a corporate responsibility report, it has taken appropriate action to address shareholder concerns" and that adopting Proposal 5 would be "unnecessary, duplicative and inappropriate."

Read the original article here.

Majority of Kenyans have been forced to change what they eat due to increasing prices of food, a new survey shows. The survey by Oxfam says 76 per cent of Kenyans, the highest percentage recorded worldwide, have been forced to change their diet on account of skyrocketing prices.

Another 57 per cent of Kenyans do not always have enough to eat, the survey released yesterday says. "People across the world are changing what they eat because of the rising cost of food," Oxfam says.

The public opinion poll surveyed over 16,000 people in Kenya, Tanzania, and 15 other countries including Australia, Brazil, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Spain, UK and the USA. In Kenya it surveyed over 2,000 people in eight urban and rural regions of the country.

The figures for Kenya follow the same trends as other countries - but the numbers are staggeringly high and well above the global average. Globally 54 per cent of people said they are not eating the same food as they did two years ago - the period before the current food price crisis began - and 39 per cent of those blamed rising food prices.

In Western Kenya, 95 per cent of people surveyed said that rising costs are their biggest food concern. Oxfam says many people in developing countries are either eating less food, eating cheaper items or enjoying less diversity in their diets as a result of rising food prices.

"Women tend to be disproportionately affected by rising food prices because they are responsible for feeding their families," Oxfam says.

The survey asked people what they think influences the availability and cost of food. In Kenya the majority identified fuel prices and government policies, while 23 per cent said changes in climate and weather patterns.

Yesterday, the Central Bank of Kenya expressed hope that food inflation would be easing soon "We have a duty to fight inflation and to stabilize domestic prices. With fuel prices responding, we are sure food prices will follow and the volatility in the foreign exchange market will cease and we will be back to pre-crises price levels," CBK governor Njuguna Ndung'u was quoted by Reuters.