SKAN TALK

McD's Explores Cage-Free Eggs

Crain's Chicago Business

McD’s explores 'cage-free' eggs

By: David Sterrett May 21, 2009

(Crain’s) — McDonald’s Corp. announced Thursday that it will participate in a study of alternatives to caging egg-laying hens. But the Humane Society of the United States, which criticizes McDonald’s for using only eggs from hens kept in small cages, claims the company is initiating the study to delay reforming its practices. The Human Society is encouraging McDonald’s shareholders to vote next week in favor of its resolution calling for the company’s U.S. stores to start using eggs from cage-free hens. The group notes that Burger King started using cage-free eggs two years ago, and chains such as Denny’s also use them.

McDonald’s says it will participate in a study with academics, Minnesota-based Cargill Inc., the American Veterinary Medical Assn. and several other groups to determine the sustainability of alternative hen housing and its effects on animal health, safe and affordable food, the environment and worker welfare. “This is a welcome initiative for egg purchasers like McDonald’s who want to consider all of the sustainability impacts when it comes to buying eggs — not just animal welfare, but environmental, food safety and economic factors,” Dan Gorsky, McDonald’s senior vice-president of North American supply chain management, said in a statement. “It is our intention for eggs produced as part of this study, including cage-free eggs, to partially supply McDonald’s USA by 2011.”

The Missing Ingredient in Proposed Soda Tax

Economic Scene

Sodas a Tempting Tax Target

By DAVID LEONHARDT

Published: May 19, 2009

 

Click on the title of the NYT article above, read the story and then c'mon back.

[If you have trouble accessing the article, you can view it here.]

 

All done?

 

There's something seriously missing here...and it's not sugar.  Any guesses?  It's a disease that has made the swine flu debacle look like a common cold.  In fact, it is the cause for many ailments (and not just obesity) suffered by folks all around the world.  A whole host of health problems can be blamed on it.  And while we're at it, we can blame our current economic crisis on it as well.  Yep, the same thing that causes all sorts of health issues also causes economic disaster.   And why stop there...let's pin global climate change (and an array of other environmental disorders) and social injustices of every sort on it as well.

 

So what the heck am I talking about?  I'm talking about something that we lost many, many moons ago and have just now realized that it has gone missing.  We've lived without it for years and like an old toy, completely forgot that we ever had it.  Now it's time to crawl up into the attic and sort through the trunks so that we can pull it out again and remember the good 'ol days.

 

I'm talking about "ACCOUNTABILITY."  Those that know me are all too aware of the fact that I hold accountability as the single most important element relative to our place on this Earth.  Accountability to ourselves, to the planet and to its constituents drives all that I do and all that I design in my firm's sustainability initiatives.  People (and especially businesses) in industrialized nations have given up on each other as well as on the land that we occupy; we disregard the employee, the consumer, the vendor, the animals, the forests, the seas (and now even space -- we need some recycling bins up there!).  We take what we do and how we do it for granted.  We assume that we are with infinite resources (see The Story of Stuff) and can spare infinite lives.  We shift responsibility, burden and obligation, while seeking to reap all the gain.  How many of us, and how many businesses, can say to themselves that through every part of their being, they have attempted to stay conscious enough so as to consider and respect every other human, animal, plant and the general space that we occupy?  Is it too far fetched to believe that everyone could measure (or at least identify) their own impact on the the rest of us (as well as themselves) and in the event the impact is negative, do something about it?  Let's break it down simply...when you leave behind a piece of trash on the street...who do we assume is going to pick it up?  Why do we spend so much time contemplating where to throw and how to reuse the trash instead of addressing the act of creating the trash in the first place?

 

And so we turn to sugary drinks, obesity and the proposed tax.  What and who do we serve with a sugary soda tax?  I profess that we only serve the government, who will collect the tax to run the government (I certainly don't want to turn this into a debate about taxation, so let's more simply assume that the consumer isn't getting the money directly). So can it be said that we've addressed the problem?  Is it the production of the soda that's the problem?  If you believe so, then ask yourself this simple question: Why do the producers of the soda continue to produce it?  Easy.  Because we buy it.  They are in the business of selling soda and the more they sell, the more money they make (generally speaking, of course).  So why do we fault the producer for doing nothing more than answering the call?  If we didn't want the drink, they wouldn't make it!  Plain and simple. 

 

So the problem is us.  We consume the beverage and they keep making it.  We consume more, they make more.  We want value, they make the bottle bigger...we drink more...they make more...and on and on.  And when we drink gobs and gobs of soda, we get fat and sick (and run-up the costs of healthcare, which itself has additional economic and social implications).  The soda tax is just another way for us to put the blame on someone else for what we do to ourselves.  STOP DRINKING THE STUFF and we'll stop getting sick.  The tax is only going to give the producers reason to blame the government for their own lack of accountability.

 

Let's take ownership of our own problems.  Let's get educated and help others that have a tough time doing so.  Let's take a look behind (or down at our tummies) as we walk (or run) and see what we've done.  Is the view pretty?  If not, let's do something about it...for ourselves, which in turn will be doing something for the rest of us as well.

 

 

What's Wrong with this Picture?

 

So I'm at a Spheres of Influence reception this evening featuring Yosef Abramowitz of Arava Power in Israel.  Fascinating progress towards development of the first solar-based power company in Israel,   First 5MW plant (photovoltaic) to go on-line sometime with the next 18 months (interesting company and story, though not the point of this post).

While talking to a salesmen for a distributor of plug-in charging stations, he asked what I do.  I said that I'm a "sustainability strategist."  He said "What's that?"  To which I replied "I design sustainability initiatives for companies that drive value to the bottom line through environmental and social responsibility."  He then queried "Is your background finance?"  I then asked the following questions to offer-up as an illustration:

• Who makes your charging stations? 
• What are the employee benefit and related HR programs in place for the workers in the manufacturing facility?
• What materials make-up the charging station and from where are they obtained?
• How are the stations transported, installed, warehoused?
• What are the energy, water, air and waste programs at the manufacturer's facility and offices?
• For that matter, what are the distributor's?
• What NGOs have you partnered with?
• How do you report, market and advertise your environmental and social stewardship?

I could go on and on...get the point?  He finally did, because he didn't have an answer to any of these questions. 

So what's wrong with this picture, beyond the obvious fact that he didn't have answers to my questions?

See a related blog with a video clip on Culligan and let's sum-up how we can aim to paint a better picture.

Sustainability: It's Not the "What" but Rather the "How!"

 

My analysis of Culligan offers a great illustration of the distinction between the products a company manufactures and how it manufactures them in terms of sustainability.

Watch this short video from the Beyond Green segment on CLTV, Chicago's largest cable news network.

Human Capital as a Component of Sustainability

I'm working with a group of F500 CPG (consumer packaged goods) companies on developing new metrics for the assessment, reporting and targeting of environment and social impact.  In the mission/impact statement, we referenced the concept of Human Capital.  One member asked for clarification.  Here's my response:

Along with the environmental component of the three-pronged model of sustainability (whether "triple bottom line" or ESG), we are experiencing a very strong up-tick in focus on social responsibility, both internally and externally.  Internally, human capital of course refers to the relationship between labor and economic value (I believe that Adam Smith considered human capital one of the four elements of fixed capital, the other three being machines, buildings and other improvements on land -- though I digress).  The attention to labor has taken new directions, with sites set on significantly higher levels of healthy, productivity and engagement.  Just look at the new craze in published lists relative to "best places to work." 

Concurrently, focus is also on the impact that companies have on the public outside of the company (read: society as a whole and not just a direct customer, i.e. society's human capital).  By way of example, CSR departments are trending away from the "big checks for top billings" type philanthropy and towards direct contact with social organizations, NGOs  and communities (e.g. thousands of people from many large corporations are out building homes with Habitat for Humanity or planting gardens in public schools, etc.).  

So what's this got to do with the supply chain?  Well if you want to assess/measure sustainability along the supply chain, then a measurement of the impact upon human capital is a necessary component.  Doing so will not only allow for the setting of targets towards increased health and productivity (for employee and community), but will attract new talent and add value to the products being manufactured.   

At a recent conference, a single mother employee (non-management) from a highly sustainable company stood up and was practically in tears talking about how much she loves working for her employer.  I'm not sure that I'd need any form of metric to show the value in having such a happy and committed workforce, though they do exist.  Employees have responded most favorably to an employer's commitment to both the environment and the employee's personal well being.  

The bar has been raised relative to the impact companies have on people as it has been raised relative to the environment.  I believe that embracing both in a supply chain analysis is critical.