February 15, 2011 - "Is the Bottom-line Still the Bottom-line?" 

A century after the Industrial Revolution indelibly changed the entire landscape of U.S. and international business for the 20^th Century, a new paradigm is emerging in today’s commercial environment. Whether out of necessity or freewill, the concept of incorporating a triple-bottom line approach to a business strategy is rapidly gaining popularity throughout the world.

     Historically, the bottom-line has referred to the single most important criteria for a successful corporation – net profit. After expenses are subtracted from sales, this has been the sole calculation that shareholders and investors deem relevant. Today, however, with increasing social-consciousness and a desire to be eco-friendly, more factors are coming into play to determine success and the triple-bottom line concept has transpired.

     The three components of the triple-bottom line, as defined by John Elkington in his 1997 paper, Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, are Economic Sustainability, Ecological Sustainability, and Social Sustainability. Business strategies are now encompassing all three of these factors as they focus not only current profit and loss maintenance, but on the future sustainability of the corporation, its assets, and employees.

     Still, the debate continues – can a corporation survive and in fact, thrive with this new approach? After all, what good is a business that goes out of business, regardless of its policy on social and environmental responsibility? A growing number of studies suggest that yes, it’s very possible and perhaps probable, that a positive correlation exists between the level of CSP (Corporate Social/Environmental Performance) and it’s resulting CFP (Corporate Financial Performance), depending on the success of management at implementing its strategy.

     With the country’s economy still floundering, and an extremely competitive job-market, perhaps a shift in the way we do business will result in a more stable and sustainable economic future. After all, with the rise of “green” businesses and the demand for people to work them, tens of thousands of job opportunities are being created every day.   Not to mention, the preservation of finite resources and materials will result in lower future costs of goods, as the supply chain will more readily maintain itself. Finally, by providing a business culture focused on social consciousness, employee well-being, and environmental conservation, shareholders, business owners, and employees can all feel better about being a part of a new global economy.

Article submitted by David Neubert - General Manager, Olive Fine Organic Living

December 23, 2010 - "Olympics Go Greener"

Major Changes to Make Olympics Environmentally Sound

Many have begun to speculate about which country will win the bid to host the 2022 Winter Olympics. Many believe that the United States is a serious contender to win the bid. If they do indeed, not only is the United States Olympic Committee USOC looking to further athletic achievements, but there is also major talk about the change that will be made to make the event more environmentally sound. This began with naming Andrew Liveris and Dow Chemical the worldwide partner in the Olympics for the next decade.

As fantastic and unifying as the Olympics are, it's quite a carbon-rich event. So while these changes may only seem minor, they're actually a huge deal. It has been estimated that over 2/3 of the carbon emissions from the event is a result of some of the 1.5+ million attendees traveling (mostly via airplane) to and from the event.

USOC members and Andrew Liveris are looking to do more by following the lead of the 2008 Summer Games that were held in Beijing. The 2008 summer Olympics made great efforts to showcase conservation practices and sustainable energy sources. So exactly what environmentally friendly services did the Olympic facilities feature?

• Solar power - Used to light lawns, courtyards and streets at several venues, including the Olympic Village. A 130 KW photovoltaic system illuminated The National Stadium, where events such as athletics and football were held.
• Water Conservation - Waste water collected from the Qinghe sewage treatment plant was filtered and used for the various heating and cooling needs throughout the Olympics site, yielding a 60% savings in electricity. Rainwater was collected from around the grounds, collecting over 75,000 gallons by using water permeable bricks, pipes and wells installed on roofs, roads and green areas.
• Natural Light - Remember the famous 'Water Cube' where the aquatic events were held? The walls of the National Aquatics Centre provided natural light, and for the interior of the building, specially designed 'beam-pipes' funneled sunlight into corridors, toilets and car parks at venues, including the Olympic Green.
• Recycling - The 2008 Olympic hosts aimed for a 50 per cent recycling of waste including paper, metals and plastics at venues. A modest expectation, considering that a test run carried out during the 11th World Softball Championships held in 2007, achieved a nearly 90 per cent recycling rate.

While the Olympics in 2008 had great new ways of filtration and insulation for the events. That vision has progressed to include dozens of other products which will help reduce waste and promote conservation. You can expect these products to appear at the coming events over the next decade and be a part of the USOC recommendations.

October 1, 2010 - "GLOBAL HEALTH"

This weeks Question: Why do politicians insist on debating "Global Warming" when it comes to drafting legislature on environmental issues, when a more relevant discussion would address the immediate impact that everyday pollution has on the current health of all of us?

Mickey:  I have long thought that labeling our environmental problems under the terms “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” was trivializing and misleading when discussing the real reason why we need to take immediate action toward living more sustainably.  To me, the most compelling reason to become more eco-friendly is to protect the health and vitality of human beings, not only in the future, but just as importantly, for those of us currently living.  I read a lot of articles about the environment and what pollution is doing to us as a species. Pollution in the environment and in our food is slowly but surely killing us.  Environmental pollution is a leading factor/cause of a wide range of diseases, all of which are on the rise, such as Cancer, Autism, Asthma, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, developmental disorders like ADHD or ADD, and Diabetes to name just a few.  There are countless books and numerous scientific studies that show that pollution, whether in the environment or in our food, is causing significant adverse health effects in a majority of all people. So why does the mainstream media continuously label the environmental movement as a response to “Global Warming or Climate Change”? This just enables people to joke, “Hooray! It's finally going to get warmer in Wisconsin!” These misleading terms simply allow politicians to stall progress that would ultimately change the way we live to a more sustainable, healthier lifestyle.  Isn’t it time to correctly label the environmental movement as one dedicated to the health and well being of ALL people and that of the planet we live?  It's not just a bunch of tree-huggers trying to save a Spotted Owl or a rare species of fish, but rather saving animals and plants is just a symptom of our more widespread problem.  All species, including humans, are a product of Mother Earth and the more that we pollute and destroy our planet, the more we do to harm ourselves and disrupt our food-chain.  So, how do we talk about eco-friendly, sustainable, organic living in a way that conveys the true motivation for living this lifestyle, which is to make the planet and therefore the people living on it healthier?  We are a country of talking points: short, quick, easily remembered labels for things.  Let’s put our heads together and come up with a better talking point for the environmental movement.  I think “Global Health” conveys the idea that we are worried about the health of the planet and its ability to sustain us as a species. The more toxic and unhealthy the planet becomes, the more toxic and unhealthy we become as a species.  Isn't it more accurate to refer to this massive issue as “Global Health”?