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.

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.

Results of NewReport Showing Economic Benefits of Strong MPG

Strong fuel efficiency/GHG standards would create nearly 700,000 jobsnationwide, including 63,000 jobs in auto sector; Consumers would save $152billion at the pump

BOSTON – As President Obama announces the nextround of a coordinated national program to improve fuel efficiency for model year2017-2025 cars and light-duty trucks, Ceres, a national coalition ofinvestors and public-interest organizations, today released “More Jobs PerGallon,” an economic analysis by the independent firm Management InformationServices, Inc. that quantifies what stronger fuel economy/GHG standards wouldmean for the U.S. economy.  

“We commend the Obama Administration on today’s importantstep to boost fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions, which will createjobs, drive innovation, save consumers money and reduce our dependence onforeign oil,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres. “Our report makes clearthat the stronger the standards, the greater the economic benefits, and we urgethe Administration to ensure a strong national program.”

Ceres’ new report, available at www.ceres.org, evaluated different regulatoryscenarios under consideration for CAFE mileage and GHG emissions improvements –specifically, improvements of three, four, five and six percent per year for modelyears 2017-25.

Among the report’s key findings:

·     The sixpercent scenario (roughly 60 MPG) would generate an estimated $152 billion infuel savings for consumers in 2030 compared to business as usual. Of the$152 billion saved at the pump, $59 billion would be expected to be spent inthe auto industry as drivers purchase cleaner, more efficient vehicles. Theremaining $93 billion will be spent across the rest of the economy, boostingconsumers’ discretionary income for everything from retail purchases to restauranttrips to increased spending on health care.

·     Nearly700,000 new full time jobs would be created under the six percent scenario, compared to only about 350,000 jobsunder the three percent (roughly 47 MPG) scenario.

·     63,000new, full-time domestic auto industry jobs would be created in 2030 under thesix percent scenario; more than double the 31,000 jobs under the threepercent scenario.

·     Statesseeing the biggest gains in terms of relative impact on their job markets alsohave some of the largest auto industry sectors.  Again, job growth would be significantly higher underthe six percent scenario.  The top12 states in terms of percentage job increases include Indiana, Michigan,Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon,New York and Missouri.

·     Net jobsgains in 49 states, and greatest job gains under strongest standards. Eachof the four regulatory scenarios analyzed would bring substantial economic andjob benefits for the U.S. economy in 2030.

·     Effectson state GDPs would be overwhelmingly positive. States seeing the biggestpercentage GDP gains under the strongest fuel efficiency standard have largeauto industry sectors. The biggest gainers would be Michigan and Indiana,followed by Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Alabamaand Oregon. Comparedto the three percent scenario, the six percent scenario would bring 382,000more jobs, a $15.7 billion increase in gross economic output (sales), $10.3billion more in personal income, and $9.5 billon more in tax revenue for cash strappedfederal, state and local governments.

For more details and to read the full report, visit: www.ceres.org/more-jobs-per-gallon