• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании66
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы8
      Разное3
Golden Agri-Resources
Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 21:08

A Fully Traceable And Ethical Palm Oil Supply Chain by 2020: Reality Or Bluster?

Golden Agri-Resources, the world’s second largest palm oil producer, announced this week that aimed for a fully traceable palm oil supply chain in four years. But its ambition reveals that companies are still struggling to ensure an ethical supply of this useful but morally troubling commodity.

13 августа 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks higher at close of trade; FTSE Straits Times Singapore up 1.24%

Singapore stocks were higher after the close on Thursday, as gains in the Telecoms, Financials and Oil&Gas sectors led shares higher. At the close in Singapore, the FTSE Straits Times Singapore added 1.24%. The best performers of the session on the FTSE Straits Times Singapore were Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR), which rose 4.92% or 0.015 points to trade at 0.320 at the close. Meanwhile, Capitaland Limited (SIN:CATL) added 4.26% or 0.13 points to end at 3.18 and City Developments Limited (SIN:CTDM) was up 3.18% or 0.28 points to 9.08 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Genting Singapore Plc (SIN:GENS), which fell 2.48% or 0.020 points to trade at 0.785 at the close. Thai Beverage Public Co Ltd (SIN:TBEV) declined 1.31% or 0.010 points to end at 0.755 and Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG) was down 0.99% or 0.005 points to 0.500. Rising stocks outnumbered declining ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 246 to 194 and 41 ended unchanged. Shares in Genting Singapore Plc (SIN:GENS) fell to 5-year lows; losing 2.48% or 0.020 to 0.785. Crude oil for September delivery was up 0.38% or 0.17 to $43.47 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in October rose 0.98% or 0.49 to hit $50.67 a barrel, while the December Gold contract fell 0.59% or 6.60 to trade at $1117.00 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was unchanged 0.00% to 1.3988, while EUR/SGD fell 0.40% to 1.5545. The US Dollar Index was up 0.31% at 96.58.

06 августа 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks higher at close of trade; FTSE Straits Times Singapore up 0.03%

Singapore stocks were higher after the close on Thursday, as gains in the Utilities, Consumer Goods and Industrials sectors led shares higher. At the close in Singapore, the FTSE Straits Times Singapore added 0.03%. The best performers of the session on the FTSE Straits Times Singapore were Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR), which rose 3.08% or 0.010 points to trade at 0.335 at the close. Meanwhile, Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG) added 2.65% or 0.015 points to end at 0.580 and Starhub Ltd (SIN:STAR) was up 2.13% or 0.08 points to 3.83 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Olam International Limited (SIN:OLAM), which fell 2.17% or 0.040 points to trade at 1.800 at the close. Hongkong Land Holdings Limited (SIN:HKLD) declined 1.39% or 0.11 points to end at 7.79 and Keppel Corporation Limited (SIN:KPLM) was down 1.31% or 0.10 points to 7.52. Falling stocks outnumbered advancing ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 267 to 186 and 40 ended unchanged. Crude oil for September delivery was down 0.58% or 0.26 to $44.89 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in September fell 0.05% or 0.03 to hit $49.56 a barrel, while the December Gold contract fell 0.11% or 1.20 to trade at $1084.40 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was up 0.20% to 1.3866, while EUR/SGD rose 0.08% to 1.5108. The US Dollar Index was up 0.05% at 98.02.

04 августа 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks lower at close of trade; FTSE Straits Times Singapore down 0.21%

Singapore stocks were lower after the close on Tuesday, as losses in the Technology, Industrials and Consumer Goods sectors led shares lower. At the close in Singapore, the FTSE Straits Times Singapore declined 0.21% to hit a new 6-months low. The best performers of the session on the FTSE Straits Times Singapore were Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG), which rose 27.66% or 0.130 points to trade at 0.600 at the close. Meanwhile, Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) added 3.23% or 0.010 points to end at 0.320 and Sembcorp Industries Ltd (SIN:SCIL) was up 2.98% or 0.10 points to 3.46 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Jardine Matheson Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JARD), which fell 4.55% or 2.46 points to trade at 51.59 at the close. Jardine Strategic Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JSH) declined 2.28% or 0.69 points to end at 29.61 and Capitaland Limited (SIN:CATL) was down 1.85% or 0.06 points to 3.18. Rising stocks outnumbered declining ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 223 to 220 and 36 ended unchanged. Shares in Jardine Matheson Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JARD) fell to 52-week lows; losing 4.55% or 2.46 to 51.59. Shares in Jardine Strategic Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JSH) fell to 3-years lows; falling 2.28% or 0.69 to 29.61. Crude oil for September delivery was up 1.65% or 0.74 to $45.91 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in September rose 1.66% or 0.82 to hit $50.34 a barrel, while the December Gold contract rose 0.28% or 3.00 to trade at $1092.40 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was down 0.15% to 1.3762, while EUR/SGD rose 0.12% to 1.5110. The US Dollar Index was down 0.21% at 97.39.

28 июля 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks lower at close of trade; Singapore Straits Time down 0.82%

Singapore stocks were lower after the close on Tuesday, as losses in the Oil&Gas, Real Estate Holdings&Development and Industrials sectors led shares lower. At the close in Singapore, the Singapore Straits Time declined 0.82%. The best performers of the session on the Singapore Straits Time were Wilmar International Limited (SIN:WLIL), which rose 0.31% or 0.01 points to trade at 3.20 at the close. Meanwhile, Jardine Matheson Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JARD) fell 0.09% or 0.05 points to end at 55.00 and Singapore Press Hldgs Ltd (SIN:SPRM) was down 0.24% or 0.01 points to 4.20 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR), which fell 5.56% or 0.020 points to trade at 0.340 at the close. Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG) declined 4.03% or 0.025 points to end at 0.595 and CapitaMall Trust (SIN:CMLT) was down 2.34% or 0.050 points to 2.090. Falling stocks outnumbered advancing ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 296 to 160 and 36 ended unchanged. Shares in Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) fell to 5-year lows; down 5.56% or 0.020 to 0.340. Shares in Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG) fell to 5-year lows; losing 4.03% or 0.025 to 0.595. Crude oil for September delivery was down 0.75% or 0.35 to $47.03 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in September fell 1.35% or 0.72 to hit $52.75 a barrel, while the December Gold contract fell 0.36% or 3.90 to trade at $1093.00 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was down 0.13% to 1.3671, while EUR/SGD fell 0.63% to 1.5085. The US Dollar Index was up 0.36% at 96.98.

16 июля 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks higher at close of trade; Singapore Straits Time up 0.41%

Singapore stocks were higher after the close on Thursday, as gains in the Healthcare, Basic Materials and Real Estate Holdings&Development sectors led shares higher. At the close in Singapore, the Singapore Straits Time added 0.41% to hit a new 1-month high. The best performers of the session on the Singapore Straits Time were Singapore Exchange Ltd (SIN:SGXL), which rose 2.08% or 0.17 points to trade at 8.35 at the close. Meanwhile, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp (SIN:OCBC) added 1.27% or 0.13 points to end at 10.33 and Capitaland Limited (SIN:CATL) was up 1.18% or 0.04 points to 3.44 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG), which fell 1.47% or 0.010 points to trade at 0.670 at the close. Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) declined 1.32% or 0.005 points to end at 0.375 and Jardine Matheson Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JARD) was down 1.17% or 0.66 points to 55.82. Rising stocks outnumbered declining ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 232 to 186 and 52 ended unchanged. Shares in Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) fell to 5-year lows; down 1.32% or 0.005 to 0.375. Crude oil for August delivery was up 0.92% or 0.47 to $51.88 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in September rose 1.02% or 0.58 to hit $57.70 a barrel, while the August Gold contract fell 0.34% or 3.90 to trade at $1143.50 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was up 0.13% to 1.3674, while EUR/SGD fell 0.35% to 1.4898. The US Dollar Index was up 0.37% at 97.65.

03 июля 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks higher at close of trade; Singapore Straits Time up 0.31%

Singapore stocks were higher after the close on Friday, as gains in the Real Estate Investments, Financials and Consumer Services sectors led shares higher. At the close in Singapore, the Singapore Straits Time gained 0.31%. The best performers of the session on the Singapore Straits Time were CapitaMall Trust (SIN:CMLT), which rose 2.36% or 0.050 points to trade at 2.170 at the close. Meanwhile, Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIN:SIAL) added 2.19% or 0.24 points to end at 11.19 and DBS Group Holdings Ltd (SIN:DBSM) was up 2.00% or 0.41 points to 20.91 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Jardine Cycle&Carriage Ltd (SIN:JCYC), which fell 1.61% or 0.52 points to trade at 31.68 at the close. Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) declined 1.20% or 0.005 points to end at 0.415 and Jardine Matheson Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JARD) was down 1.08% or 0.61 points to 55.96. Falling stocks outnumbered advancing ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 266 to 168 and 48 ended unchanged. Shares in Jardine Cycle&Carriage Ltd (SIN:JCYC) fell to 52-week lows; falling 1.61% or 0.52 to 31.68. Crude oil for August delivery was down 0.65% or 0.37 to $56.56 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in August fell 0.71% or 0.44 to hit $61.63 a barrel, while the August Gold contract rose 0.35% or 4.10 to trade at $1167.60 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was up 0.02% to 1.3483, while EUR/SGD rose 0.27% to 1.4981. The US Dollar Index was down 0.20% at 96.09.

01 июля 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks higher at close of trade; Singapore Straits Time up 0.18%

Singapore stocks were higher after the close on Wednesday, as gains in the Real Estate Holdings&Development, Telecoms and Real Estate sectors led shares higher. At the close in Singapore, the Singapore Straits Time gained 0.18%. The best performers of the session on the Singapore Straits Time were Singapore Exchange Ltd (SIN:SGXL), which rose 4.47% or 0.35 points to trade at 8.18 at the close. Meanwhile, Jardine Strategic Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JSH) added 2.64% or 0.80 points to end at 31.07 and Hongkong Land Holdings Limited (SIN:HKLD) was up 2.32% or 0.19 points to 8.39 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Jardine Cycle&Carriage Ltd (SIN:JCYC), which fell 2.84% or 0.94 points to trade at 32.16 at the close. Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) declined 1.22% or 0.005 points to end at 0.405 and DBS Group Holdings Ltd (SIN:DBSM) was down 0.92% or 0.19 points to 20.50. Rising stocks outnumbered declining ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 213 to 207 and 53 ended unchanged. Shares in Jardine Cycle&Carriage Ltd (SIN:JCYC) fell to 3-years lows; falling 2.84% or 0.94 to 32.16. Crude oil for August delivery was down 1.30% or 0.78 to $58.70 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in August fell 0.69% or 0.44 to hit $63.15 a barrel, while the August Gold contract fell 0.03% or 0.40 to trade at $1171.40 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was up 0.06% to 1.3482, while EUR/SGD fell 0.07% to 1.4996. The US Dollar Index was up 0.20% at 95.94.

25 июня 2015, 13:15

Singapore stocks higher at close of trade; Singapore Straits Time up 0.09%

Singapore stocks were higher after the close on Thursday, as gains in the Financials, Real Estate Holdings&Development and Real Estate sectors led shares higher. At the close in Singapore, the Singapore Straits Time gained 0.09%. The best performers of the session on the Singapore Straits Time were Noble Group Limited (SIN:NOBG), which rose 2.80% or 0.020 points to trade at 0.735 at the close. Meanwhile, Singapore Exchange Ltd (SIN:SGXL) added 1.28% or 0.10 points to end at 7.94 and Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (SIN:GAGR) was up 1.22% or 0.005 points to 0.415 in late trade. The worst performers of the session were Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIN:SIAL), which fell 1.58% or 0.17 points to trade at 10.62 at the close. Thai Beverage Public Co Ltd (SIN:TBEV) declined 1.29% or 0.010 points to end at 0.765 and Jardine Matheson Hldgs Ltd (SIN:JARD) was down 0.99% or 0.57 points to 56.89. Falling stocks outnumbered advancing ones on the Singapore Stock Exchange by 47 to 29 and 5 ended unchanged. Crude oil for August delivery was down 0.27% or 0.17 to $60.10 a barrel. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Brent oil for delivery in August rose 0.28% or 0.18 to hit $63.67 a barrel, while the August Gold contract rose 0.07% or 0.80 to trade at $1173.70 a troy ounce. USD/SGD was down 0.08% to 1.3421, while EUR/SGD fell 0.30% to 1.5008. The US Dollar Index was up 0.10% at 95.55.

09 июня 2015, 19:38

Why Would a Paper Company Finally Agree to Stop Destroying Forests?

A showy, aggressive Greenpeace campaign forced the Indonesian pulp industry to incorporate environmental conservation into its bottom-line calculations.

02 декабря 2014, 17:03

Memo to McDonald's: The Climate Deserves a Break Today

  In the fall of 1960, my parents took my little brother and me to the first McDonald's in the Cleveland area. It looked like a spaceship, with bright yellow arches on either side of a gleaming white building adorned with red, horizontal stripes. In front was the chain's signature sign topped by Speedee the Chef -- Ronald McDonald's predecessor -- holding a neon placard emblazoned with "15¢," the price of a hamburger. Needless to say, my brother and I were very excited. Sure, we'd been to Royal Castle and Manners Big Boy, but McDonald's seemed a lot cooler. After sampling one of those flash-frozen, 15-cent burgers, however, I wasn't lovin' it. On the way out of the parking lot, I distinctly remember saying to my parents, "That place is never going to make it." Boy, was I wrong. A half century and untold billions of burgers later, McDonald's is the world's most profitable fast-food chain. In 2012, its 12,600 U.S.-based restaurants alone boasted $35.6 billion in sales -- nearly three times more than its nearest competitor, Subway, which has twice the number of U.S. outlets. Meanwhile, McDonald's 18,700 restaurants in more than 100 other countries grossed nearly $45 billion. The chain now serves more than 70 million people every day. It's no secret that McDonald's global reach has had a huge impact on diet, prompting more than 3,000 health professionals and institutions worldwide to sign on to a letter urging the company to stop marketing junk food to children. Less known, however, is Mickey D's supersized impact on the environment, especially when it comes to global warming. Besides the fact that the chain sells a lot of beef, which is by far the worst meat for the climate, it's one of the top 10 largest users of palm oil, the world's most popular vegetable oil -- and a major source of carbon emissions. Palm Oil Plantations Are Destroying Tropical Forests Americans are likely more familiar with canola, olive and other vegetable oils, but palm oil -- which comes from the flesh of the oil palm tree's fruit -- is ubiquitous. Along with palm kernel oil -- which comes from the fruit's seeds -- it turns up in baked goods, packaged foods, personal care products and cleansing agents. In addition, it's a common cooking oil in developing countries, and used to make biodiesel fuel worldwide. In and of itself, palm oil is not a bad choice. It's cheap, largely because growers can produce five to 10 times more vegetable oil per acre than from any other commercial oil seed. It is also one of the few naturally saturated vegetable oils, which makes it solid at room temperature and affords it a long shelf life. And it contains no trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease. That's the good news. The bad news is oil palm trees only grow in the wet tropics and, all too often, producers destroy tropical forests to plant them. Most of these plantations -- about 85 percent -- are in Indonesia and Malaysia. Clearing tropical forests, which contain enormous amounts of carbon, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some Southeast Asian palm oil plantations also devastate critical habitat for elephants, orangutans, rhinoceros and tigers. Still others grab land from local communities or exploit child labor. And if that weren't bad enough, some palm oil plantations wipe out peatlands, which are wetlands topped with a thick water-logged layer of dead and decaying plant material. Peat soils store 18 to 28 times more carbon than tropical forests, and they can be as much as 60 feet deep. Dry peat is extremely flammable, and one of the ways producers clear land is by burning it, which sends tons of carbon dioxide and toxic pollutants into the atmosphere.  Palm oil plantations deforested some 6,100 square miles in Indonesian Borneo between 2000 and 2010, according to a 2012 study in Nature Climate Change. International Efforts Are Beginning to Pay Off In 2004, palm growers, processors, traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, investors, and environmental and social justice organizations established the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to develop voluntary standards to protect tropical forests. The organization now has more than 1,600 members, which represent 40 percent of the palm oil industry. RSPO standards address a number of key issues, such as pesticide use and labor conditions, but don't go far enough to protect the climate. RSPO certification, for example, still allows producers to clear forests and peatland to create or expand plantations. Only pristine, or "primary," forests are off-limits. The standards also don't restrict carbon emissions from plantation development. They only offer guidelines for reporting emissions from forest conversion. Equally problematic, RSPO standards allow companies to buy inexpensive credits, called "GreenPalm" certificates, in lieu of buying RSPO-certified oil. The proceeds from the sale of those credits go to RSPO-certified palm oil producers, but the revenue generated doesn't remotely cover the true cost of ensuring that the palm oil is produced responsibly. In other words, GreenPalm certificates -- which may have made sense 10 years ago -- allow companies to claim they're doing something when they're still buying palm oil that may very well come from plantations that destroyed forests. Over the last decade, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund and others have been shining a light on unethical palm oil production and pressuring producers and consumers -- which include some of the world's largest food and cosmetic companies -- to commit to ending forest destruction and social abuses. In November 2012, scientists from leading academic and research institutions worldwide weighed in, issuing a statement calling on the RSPO to strengthen its standards. Ultimately signed by more than 200 scientists, the statement urged the organization to completely ban palm oil development on peatland and "high carbon stock forests," including "secondary forests," which are forests that have recovered after being logged. A year later, four RSPO producers -- Agropalma in Brazil, Daabon in Colombia, New Britain Palm Oil in Papua New Guinea, and Golden Agri-Resources, Indonesia's largest palm oil producer -- joined with a handful of environmental and social justice groups to launch the Palm Oil Innovation Group to promote "ambitious standards that stretch" RSPO guidelines. "We are building a strong case that palm oil does not need to be linked to forest destruction and exploitation," POIG said in a November 13, 2013, statement. "From producers and traders, through to palm oil consumers, we are creating an approach that can be replicated across the industry, and which will increase demand for responsible palm oil." These efforts, coupled with pressure from millions of people around the world, have spurred a dramatic turnaround. Last December, the world's largest palm oil trader, the Singapore-based Wilmar International, pledged to stop selling palm oil linked to deforestation or peatland development. Following Wilmar's announcement, vegetable oil giants Bunge and Cargill fell in line. Add Golden Agri-Resources, and they represent more than half of the global palm oil trade. Public pressure also has prompted L'Oréal, Nestlé, Unilever and other major corporate palm oil consumers to commit to completely eliminating deforestation from their supply chains. And in September of this year, 34 corporations joined national governments, indigenous peoples and nonprofit advocacy organizations to sign the nonbinding New York Declaration on Forests at the U.N. Climate Summit, vowing to cut deforestation in half by 2020 and ending it in 2030. McDonald's Do-Nothing Palm Oil Policy This rush to embrace climate-friendly principles was hastened by a March 2014 Union of Concerned Scientists report analyzing top U.S. brands' palm oil policies. UCS rated the 30 largest companies in the packaged-food, personal-care and fast-food sectors on their commitments to use deforestation-free, peat-destruction-free palm oil that is traceably and transparently sourced. Packaged-food companies had the strongest commitments. Fast-food companies, on the other hand, had the weakest. And that brings us back to McDonald's. McDonald's, an RSPO member and a signatory to the New York Declaration on Forests, received the second highest score among the 10 fast-food chains in UCS's survey, just behind Subway. But that's not saying much. McDonald's earned only 21 points out of a possible 100, a failing grade no matter how you slice it. The other eight, including Burger King, Wendy's and Yum! Brands -- parent company of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell -- all rated a zero. According to the most recent report McDonald's filed with the RSPO, the company used 103,336 metric tons of palm oil in 2012. Less than 13 percent of that oil --13,000 metric tons -- was RSPO-certified, and the company claimed nearly a quarter of that oil -- 3,000 metric tons -- by purchasing GreenPalm certificates. McDonald's goal, as the company explains on its U.S. website, is for 100 percent of its palm oil to be "verified as supporting sustainable production by 2020." How does it plan to do that? By buying more RSPO-certified palm oil, which is not guaranteed to be deforestation-free, or purchasing more GreenPalm certificates, which at most provide a fig leaf for continuing to buy palm oil associated with deforestation. Contrast McDonald's do-nothing policy with that of Dunkin' Brands, the parent company of Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins. The company was one of the eight fast-food chains that scored zero in UCS's review of U.S. corporate palm oil commitments, but since then it has taken a 180-degree turn. In September, Dunkin' Brands announced it would buy only 100 percent deforestation-free palm oil by 2016, which goes way beyond McDonald's support for inadequate, outdated RSPO standards. Among other things, Dunkin' said it would ensure that its suppliers protect forests and peatland as well as cut carbon emissions from existing plantations. "Sourcing even limited amounts of palm oil irresponsibly can contribute to deforestation, loss of natural habitats, and other environmental and human rights concerns," said Christine Riley Miller, Dunkin' Brands' senior director for corporate social responsibility, in a September 16 press release. "Therefore, Dunkin' Brands has created clear guidelines for our suppliers, and to ensure independent verification that our principles are being met, so that by 2016 we can meet our targets of sourcing only responsibly produced palm oil." Besides Dunkin' Brands, eight other companies -- ConAgra, Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, General Mills, Kao, Kellogg's, PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble -- either initiated or strengthened their palm oil policies after UCS called them out in its scorecard. Those conversions, however, wouldn't have happened without a great deal of nudging. Take Dunkin' Brands' change of heart, for example. UCS and other groups, including Forest Heroes and SumOfUs, inspired tens of thousands of people to contact the company, and Forest Heroes even staged a demonstration outside of its annual shareholder meeting in May. Dunkin' Brands took note, and just a day after its mid-September announcement, one of its main competitors, Krispy Kreme, announced it also would upgrade its palm oil policy. If those corporate Goliaths can make the switch, surely public pressure can persuade McDonald's -- as well as Burger King and Yum! Brands -- to do the right thing, too. Want to help? You can join UCS's campaign by sending a message to McDonald's and other fast-food laggards by clicking here. Tell McDonald's the climate deserves a break today. Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is an RSPO member and a signatory to the New York Declaration on Forests.

02 декабря 2014, 17:03

Memo to McDonald's: The Climate Deserves a Break Today

  In the fall of 1960, my parents took my little brother and me to the first McDonald's in the Cleveland area. It looked like a spaceship, with bright yellow arches on either side of a gleaming white building adorned with red, horizontal stripes. In front was the chain's signature sign topped by Speedee the Chef -- Ronald McDonald's predecessor -- holding a neon placard emblazoned with "15¢," the price of a hamburger. Needless to say, my brother and I were very excited. Sure, we'd been to Royal Castle and Manners Big Boy, but McDonald's seemed a lot cooler. After sampling one of those flash-frozen, 15-cent burgers, however, I wasn't lovin' it. On the way out of the parking lot, I distinctly remember saying to my parents, "That place is never going to make it." Boy, was I wrong. A half century and untold billions of burgers later, McDonald's is the world's most profitable fast-food chain. In 2012, its 12,600 U.S.-based restaurants alone boasted $35.6 billion in sales -- nearly three times more than its nearest competitor, Subway, which has twice the number of U.S. outlets. Meanwhile, McDonald's 18,700 restaurants in more than 100 other countries grossed nearly $45 billion. The chain now serves more than 70 million people every day. It's no secret that McDonald's global reach has had a huge impact on diet, prompting more than 3,000 health professionals and institutions worldwide to sign on to a letter urging the company to stop marketing junk food to children. Less known, however, is Mickey D's supersized impact on the environment, especially when it comes to global warming. Besides the fact that the chain sells a lot of beef, which is by far the worst meat for the climate, it's one of the top 10 largest users of palm oil, the world's most popular vegetable oil -- and a major source of carbon emissions. Palm Oil Plantations Are Destroying Tropical Forests Americans are likely more familiar with canola, olive and other vegetable oils, but palm oil -- which comes from the flesh of the oil palm tree's fruit -- is ubiquitous. Along with palm kernel oil -- which comes from the fruit's seeds -- it turns up in baked goods, packaged foods, personal care products and cleansing agents. In addition, it's a common cooking oil in developing countries, and used to make biodiesel fuel worldwide. In and of itself, palm oil is not a bad choice. It's cheap, largely because growers can produce five to 10 times more vegetable oil per acre than from any other commercial oil seed. It is also one of the few naturally saturated vegetable oils, which makes it solid at room temperature and affords it a long shelf life. And it contains no trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease. That's the good news. The bad news is oil palm trees only grow in the wet tropics and, all too often, producers destroy tropical forests to plant them. Most of these plantations -- about 85 percent -- are in Indonesia and Malaysia. Clearing tropical forests, which contain enormous amounts of carbon, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some Southeast Asian palm oil plantations also devastate critical habitat for elephants, orangutans, rhinoceros and tigers. Still others grab land from local communities or exploit child labor. And if that weren't bad enough, some palm oil plantations wipe out peatlands, which are wetlands topped with a thick water-logged layer of dead and decaying plant material. Peat soils store 18 to 28 times more carbon than tropical forests, and they can be as much as 60 feet deep. Dry peat is extremely flammable, and one of the ways producers clear land is by burning it, which sends tons of carbon dioxide and toxic pollutants into the atmosphere.  Palm oil plantations deforested some 6,100 square miles in Indonesian Borneo between 2000 and 2010, according to a 2012 study in Nature Climate Change. International Efforts Are Beginning to Pay Off In 2004, palm growers, processors, traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, investors, and environmental and social justice organizations established the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to develop voluntary standards to protect tropical forests. The organization now has more than 1,600 members, which represent 40 percent of the palm oil industry. RSPO standards address a number of key issues, such as pesticide use and labor conditions, but don't go far enough to protect the climate. RSPO certification, for example, still allows producers to clear forests and peatland to create or expand plantations. Only pristine, or "primary," forests are off-limits. The standards also don't restrict carbon emissions from plantation development. They only offer guidelines for reporting emissions from forest conversion. Equally problematic, RSPO standards allow companies to buy inexpensive credits, called "GreenPalm" certificates, in lieu of buying RSPO-certified oil. The proceeds from the sale of those credits go to RSPO-certified palm oil producers, but the revenue generated doesn't remotely cover the true cost of ensuring that the palm oil is produced responsibly. In other words, GreenPalm certificates -- which may have made sense 10 years ago -- allow companies to claim they're doing something when they're still buying palm oil that may very well come from plantations that destroyed forests. Over the last decade, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, the Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund and others have been shining a light on unethical palm oil production and pressuring producers and consumers -- which include some of the world's largest food and cosmetic companies -- to commit to ending forest destruction and social abuses. In November 2012, scientists from leading academic and research institutions worldwide weighed in, issuing a statement calling on the RSPO to strengthen its standards. Ultimately signed by more than 200 scientists, the statement urged the organization to completely ban palm oil development on peatland and "high carbon stock forests," including "secondary forests," which are forests that have recovered after being logged. A year later, four RSPO producers -- Agropalma in Brazil, Daabon in Colombia, New Britain Palm Oil in Papua New Guinea, and Golden Agri-Resources, Indonesia's largest palm oil producer -- joined with a handful of environmental and social justice groups to launch the Palm Oil Innovation Group to promote "ambitious standards that stretch" RSPO guidelines. "We are building a strong case that palm oil does not need to be linked to forest destruction and exploitation," POIG said in a November 13, 2013, statement. "From producers and traders, through to palm oil consumers, we are creating an approach that can be replicated across the industry, and which will increase demand for responsible palm oil." These efforts, coupled with pressure from millions of people around the world, have spurred a dramatic turnaround. Last December, the world's largest palm oil trader, the Singapore-based Wilmar International, pledged to stop selling palm oil linked to deforestation or peatland development. Following Wilmar's announcement, vegetable oil giants Bunge and Cargill fell in line. Add Golden Agri-Resources, and they represent more than half of the global palm oil trade. Public pressure also has prompted L'Oréal, Nestlé, Unilever and other major corporate palm oil consumers to commit to completely eliminating deforestation from their supply chains. And in September of this year, 34 corporations joined national governments, indigenous peoples and nonprofit advocacy organizations to sign the nonbinding New York Declaration on Forests at the U.N. Climate Summit, vowing to cut deforestation in half by 2020 and ending it in 2030. McDonald's Do-Nothing Palm Oil Policy This rush to embrace climate-friendly principles was hastened by a March 2014 Union of Concerned Scientists report analyzing top U.S. brands' palm oil policies. UCS rated the 30 largest companies in the packaged-food, personal-care and fast-food sectors on their commitments to use deforestation-free, peat-destruction-free palm oil that is traceably and transparently sourced. Packaged-food companies had the strongest commitments. Fast-food companies, on the other hand, had the weakest. And that brings us back to McDonald's. McDonald's, an RSPO member and a signatory to the New York Declaration on Forests, received the second highest score among the 10 fast-food chains in UCS's survey, just behind Subway. But that's not saying much. McDonald's earned only 21 points out of a possible 100, a failing grade no matter how you slice it. The other eight, including Burger King, Wendy's and Yum! Brands -- parent company of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell -- all rated a zero. According to the most recent report McDonald's filed with the RSPO, the company used 103,336 metric tons of palm oil in 2012. Less than 13 percent of that oil --13,000 metric tons -- was RSPO-certified, and the company claimed nearly a quarter of that oil -- 3,000 metric tons -- by purchasing GreenPalm certificates. McDonald's goal, as the company explains on its U.S. website, is for 100 percent of its palm oil to be "verified as supporting sustainable production by 2020." How does it plan to do that? By buying more RSPO-certified palm oil, which is not guaranteed to be deforestation-free, or purchasing more GreenPalm certificates, which at most provide a fig leaf for continuing to buy palm oil associated with deforestation. Contrast McDonald's do-nothing policy with that of Dunkin' Brands, the parent company of Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins. The company was one of the eight fast-food chains that scored zero in UCS's review of U.S. corporate palm oil commitments, but since then it has taken a 180-degree turn. In September, Dunkin' Brands announced it would buy only 100 percent deforestation-free palm oil by 2016, which goes way beyond McDonald's support for inadequate, outdated RSPO standards. Among other things, Dunkin' said it would ensure that its suppliers protect forests and peatland as well as cut carbon emissions from existing plantations. "Sourcing even limited amounts of palm oil irresponsibly can contribute to deforestation, loss of natural habitats, and other environmental and human rights concerns," said Christine Riley Miller, Dunkin' Brands' senior director for corporate social responsibility, in a September 16 press release. "Therefore, Dunkin' Brands has created clear guidelines for our suppliers, and to ensure independent verification that our principles are being met, so that by 2016 we can meet our targets of sourcing only responsibly produced palm oil." Besides Dunkin' Brands, eight other companies -- ConAgra, Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, General Mills, Kao, Kellogg's, PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble -- either initiated or strengthened their palm oil policies after UCS called them out in its scorecard. Those conversions, however, wouldn't have happened without a great deal of nudging. Take Dunkin' Brands' change of heart, for example. UCS and other groups, including Forest Heroes and SumOfUs, inspired tens of thousands of people to contact the company, and Forest Heroes even staged a demonstration outside of its annual shareholder meeting in May. Dunkin' Brands took note, and just a day after its mid-September announcement, one of its main competitors, Krispy Kreme, announced it also would upgrade its palm oil policy. If those corporate Goliaths can make the switch, surely public pressure can persuade McDonald's -- as well as Burger King and Yum! Brands -- to do the right thing, too. Want to help? You can join UCS's campaign by sending a message to McDonald's and other fast-food laggards by clicking here. Tell McDonald's the climate deserves a break today. Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is an RSPO member and a signatory to the New York Declaration on Forests.

Выбор редакции
13 мая 2013, 19:53

Glenn Hurowitz: The Death of "Sustainability"

Can destroying a tropical rainforest be "sustainable"? Well, according to a decision taken yesterday by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the major industry-NGO body, this greatest of environmental crimes is now officially "green." Palm oil plantations have driven the destruction of more than 30,000 square miles of tropical forest in Indonesia and Malaysia alone, pushing species like orangutans and Sumatran rhinoceroses and elephants to the edge of extinction. It's the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Southeast Asia, and has propelled Indonesia to be the world's third largest climate polluter behind only China and the United States. Nonetheless, at its Extraordinary General Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the RSPO formally rejected longstanding calls from member companies, scientists and nonprofit organizations to stop certifying as "sustainable" palm oil produced through deforestation and other environmentally damaging practices like destruction of ultra carbon-rich peatland and use of highly poisonous chemicals like the notorious paraquat, which is linked to kidney failure, respiratory failure, skin cancer, and Parkinson's disease. On one level, of course, the RSPO's action is an exercise in patently absurd Orwellian PR: If something produced through wholesale destruction of tropical rainforests is considered "sustainable," the word has lost any meaning at all. But the decision is sadly symptomatic of broader challenges faced by sustainability certification efforts across a variety of different industries. These persistent challenges have led some to question the value or applicability of the fundamental model many companies have relied on to prove their environmental bona fides -- and develop a new model based more on industry transformation than green niche production. Indeed, the palm oil decision leaves dozens of major companies including Unilever, Kellogg's, Dunkin Donuts, Colgate-Palmolive, Walmart, Carrefour, Cadbury, and others facing something of a supply chain and image crisis. These companies have all pledged to source RSPO-certified palm oil out of an understandable desire to ensure that their products weren't driving destruction of the Earth's tropical rainforests and other hyper-valuable ecosystems -- and respond to demands from their customers and NGO campaigns that they take the very basic step of ending links to deforestation. Large banks Credit Suisse, Rabobank, Citibank, HSBC, and Standard Chartered also have policies aimed at channeling investment towards RSPO companies. The RSPO's action was such a blatant affront to basic environmental values that even the organization's cofounder World Wildlife Fund, which has always defended RSPO even in the face of withering criticism, issued a formal statement saying that while it intends to continue engaging with the RSPO, it no longer considers RSPO certification sufficient for responsible companies. "Because the review failed to accept strong, tough and clear performance standards within the P&Cs [RSPO Principles & Criteria] on issues like GHGs and pesticides, it is, unfortunately, no longer possible for producers or users of palm oil to ensure that they are acting responsibly simply by producing or using Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO). Therefore WWF is now asking progressive companies to set and report on particular performance standards within the framework set by the new RSPO P&Cs. Responsible growers are those that... -- for new oil palm developments: full implementation of the RSPO New Plantings Procedure and zero‐net land use emissions over a single rotation, which will exclude cultivation on peat--soils and clearance of high carbon stock areas;-- for existing plantations and mills: significant annual GHG emissions reduction targets-- an end to the use of pesticides that are categorized as World Health Organization Class 1A or 1B, or that are listed by the Stockholm or Rotterdam Conventions, and paraquat...;" WWF's statement surprised many long-time palm oil watchers, but the organization deserves enormous credit for sticking to its principles and making clear that companies cannot claim sustainability just by sticking an RSPO label on their product while continuing to destroy the Earth's forests.So what are responsible companies to do? Dozens have dived into the RSPO's sustainability vat, only to float up saturated in palm oil and stinking of deforestation.The good news is that RSPO is far from the only game in town; there are many options for sourcing deforestation free vegetable oil -- and it's now time for companies to take advantage of them.Of course, coconut, soybean, canola and other vegetable oils generally have far fewer issues with deforestation, though responsible companies should investigate the specific supply chain for any of the commodities they use.And the Rainforest Alliance's Sustainable Agriculture Network standards not only go well beyond RSPO, but also create incentives for ecosystem restoration -- and have been adopted by the Colombian organic palm oil producer Daabon. The Brazilian company Agropalma and New Britain Palm Oil are also considered leaders on reducing deforestation.But perhaps most exciting is the commitment by Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), the world's largest private sector palm oil producer, to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain following efforts by Greenpeace, The Forest Trust and other groups (full disclosure: I do some consulting work for TFT, though this article is my own).As the grower of approximately five percent of the world's palm oil, GAR can be an immediate large-scale source for deforestation free palm oil, period. Companies that buy from GAR or other responsible producers and traders are sending a signal that there is a demand for truly deforestation free palm oil, which will encourage other palm oil companies to raise their own standards.The important point here is that what GAR and its fellow vegetable oil industry leaders are doing doesn't rely on an amorphous term like sustainability that can be easily corrupted by cynical PR agents looking to greenwash wholesale ecological destruction. They're saying something very simple: We don't destroy forests, we don't destroy peatland, and we don't abuse human rights or community rights.It's very easy for the public, forest communities, journalists, civil society organizations and others to scrutinize them by that standard, and when they fall short, hold them accountable. There's really not much room for fudging it.This commitment that is simple and affordable to implement: most of the additional cost of RSPO-style certification comes from segregating the "sustainable" product from the "mainstream" product in processing, shipping, and sales -- not from changing production practices. Indeed, a recent study by Timothy Fairhurst and David McLaughlin found that planting on degraded lands actually costs several hundred dollars less than planting on cleared secondary forests. With six to ten million hectares of available degraded land in Indonesia and 60 million available in Brazil, there are massive opportunities for affordable, deforestation free production: companies just have to seize them. Certification can be a tool to help ensure that they're meeting their commitments, but it's no substitute for action.In short, companies should stop proclaiming their commitment to "sustainability" from the stump, and just stop buying the products of ecological destruction. That's what their customers demand, and what the Earth needs.

11 марта 2013, 13:59

Если ГМО продвигают, значит это кому-нибудь нужно. Аналитический обзор.

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/JrhHsZFE7cg     http://www.youtube.com/embed/SUAQEDuRwIA   После публикаций французских ученых о вреде генномодифицированной кукурузы Роспотребнадзор запретил  ее ввоз до получения результатов проверки от Российской Академии медицинских наук. Аналогичные меры приняты в некоторых европейских странах. На пропаганду безопасности генетически модифицированных продуктов тратятся огромные деньги. Больше всех старается разработчик и продавец генномодифицированных семян компания  Монсанто. Она боится потерять баснословные прибыли от такого выгодного бизнеса.   Проблема трансгенных организмов, ввиду неоднозначности их влияния на человека, не перестает тревожить умы как ученых, так и простых обывателей. Компании-производители ГМО достаточно навязчиво предлагают к реализации продукты генной инженерии, объясняя свои действия благородным побуждением спасти человечество от голода в кратчайшие сроки. Однако так ли бескорыстна и благородна цель разработчиков ГМО? В подборке материалов, собранных из открытых литературных источников и проанализированных научной редакцией проекта GMO.RU, представлены некоторые аспекты указанной проблемы.     Генно-модифицированные организмы (ГМО) – это настоящее доказательство превосходства человека над природой. Возможность получения организмов, которые не встречаются в природе, с набором генов, выбранных по прихоти человека, позволяют ученым проводить фактически эволюцию растений и животных в лабораторных условиях. Причем, если раньше выведение нового вида ГМО с заданным набором генов, а, следовательно, ожидаемыми фенотипическими и биологическими свойствами, занимало десятилетие, то современный уровень развития науки позволяет выводить новые культуры за 2-3 года.     Наряду с целым набором преимуществ, которыми обладают ГМО (в частности, ГМ-сельскохозяйственные культуры могут обладать высокой урожайностью, повышенной морозо- и засухоустойчивостью, способностью не подвергаться многим болезням, увеличенным порогом чувствительности к гербицидам, устойчивостью к вредителям и пр.), существует также ряд нерешенных на настоящий момент проблем, связанных с ГМО. Отсутствие четкой нормативно-правовой базы, регламентирующей контроль распространения ГМО, систем оценки безопасности ГМО, невозможность определения последствий распространения ГМО для природы и человека, и при этом незаявленное производителями присутствие ГМО в ежедневно потребляемых нами продуктах питания, – всё это приводит к тому, что проблема генетической безопасности выходит на первое место в мире. Производство ГМ-культур в 2008 году     Несмотря на недоказанную на настоящий момент безопасность применения ГМО для человека и природы, площади мировых сельскохозяйственных угодий, занимаемые трансгенными культурами, увеличиваются с фантастической скоростью. Согласно обзору «Глобальное состояние коммерциализированных биотехнологических/генетически модифицированных сельскохозяйственных культур: 2008 год», представленному организацией Международная служба по применению агро-биотехнологий (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BiotechApplications) [1], в 2008 году генетически модифицированными сельскохозяйственными культурами в мире было засеяно 125 млн. га земли (см. табл.), в том числе 110 тыс га. в Европе. Число стран, занимающихся выращиванием ГМ-культур, выросло с 6 в 1996 г. (первый год коммерциализации ГМО) до 18 в 2003 г., а в 2008 г. достигло уже 25. Ожидается, что к 2015 г. не менее 40 стран будут производить ГМО. Между тем, такое стремительное развитие этой отрасли при отсутствии систематических фундаментальных исследований в области безопасности продуктов генной инженерии, по меньшей мере, вызывает ряд вопросов. Таблица 1. Распределение посевных площадей ГМ-культур по государствам в порядке убывания по состоянию на 2008 год (млн. га).   Страна Посевная площадь, млн. га ГМ-культуры 1 США 62,5 Соя, кукуруза, хлопчатник, рапс, кабачок, папайя, люцерна, сахарная свекла 2 Аргентина 21,0 Соя, кукуруза, хлопчатник 3 Бразилия 15,8 Соя, кукуруза, хлопчатник 4 Индия 7,6 Хлопчатник 5 Канада 7,6 Рапс, кукуруза, соя, сахарная свекла 6 Китай 3,8 Хлопчатник, помидоры, тополь, петуния, папайя, сладкий перец 7 Парагвай 2,7 Соя 8 Южно-Африканская Республика 1,8 Кукуруза, соя, хлопчатник 9 Уругвай 0,7 Соя, кукуруза 10 Боливия 0,6 Соя 11 Филиппины 0,4 Кукуруза 12 Австралия 0,2 Хлопчатник, рапс, гвоздика 13 Мексика 0,1 Хлопчатник, соя 14 Испания 0,1 Кукуруза 15 Чили

13 февраля 2013, 22:00

Why the World Needs Tri-Sector Leaders

The critical challenges society faces — such as water scarcity, access to education, and the rising cost of healthcare — increasingly require the business, government and nonprofit sectors to work together to create lasting solutions. But this is only possible if the senior executives of our leading institutions are what Dominic Barton, Worldwide Managing Director of McKinsey & Company, refers to as "tri-sector athletes" — leaders able to engage and collaborate across all three sectors. Our research at Tri-Sector Forum shows that these leaders often have prior experiences in each sector and a unique ability to navigate different cultures, align incentives and draw on the particular strengths of a wide range of actors to solve large-scale problems. Take water scarcity. A potential 40% gap between global freshwater demand and supply by 2030 puts billions of lives — and dollars — at stake. And all three sectors have skin in the game. For agri-food and beverage businesses, fresh water is an essential ingredient in their production process. Governments are often the stewards of water and regulate its use. Nonprofits work to ensure access to clean water and conservation of watersheds and the environment. The Coca-Cola Company has a deep interest in creating sustainable sources of fresh water, as it takes over two liters of water to make one liter of product. Muhtar Kent, the company's Chairman and CEO, recently wrote on the company's blog: "It's challenging for one business — even one industry — to make a material difference on its own. Instead, we must rely on partnerships that connect across what I call the 'Golden Triangle' of business, government and civil society. Water is [a] Golden Triangle focus for us, as we work with our partners to become water-neutral by 2020." Coca-Cola understands the tri-sector approach better than many. A decade ago, a lack of collaboration adversely affected its business in South India, when the Indian government and several NGOs protested the company's level of water usage and banned production in the region. Senior management at Coca-Cola recognized the need for the company to create a strategy for sustainable water stewardship, and hired an outsider — Jeff Seabright — who could help them craft a practical response and engage with partners across sectors. Seabright was a relative newcomer to the private sector, having had extensive experience in the U.S. Foreign Service, U.S. Senate, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the White House Task Force on Climate Change. "To help gain alignment of my new colleagues," Seabright told us, "I combined skills I learned from my days at the U.S. Senate and USAID to collaborate when making a case for change." He started by translating a non-financial issue like water scarcity into the kind of business language his colleagues understood. By overlaying a water stress map with Coca-Cola's operational plants, Seabright found that almost half of their global volume was in high stress and high growth areas. In other words, as Seabright told us, "margins are going to expand exactly where water pressures are going to be most intense. So we either act now, or limit our growth." Coca-Cola's leaders had not seen such a disciplined piece of work on non-financial aspects of the business — and gave him the budget to fund several water sustainability initiatives. Today Coca-Cola is 35% of the way to meeting its 2020 target for water neutrality and is regarded as an industry leader in this area. Seabright also built highly effective partnerships with government and nonprofit organizations. He used his knowledge of USAID's Global Development Alliance to create a $20 million partnership that addresses community water needs in developing countries, and he fostered trust with World Wildlife Foundation leaders by making a "consistent effort to sit down with country heads and compare notes, just to talk. No agenda." Since joining Coca-Cola in 2003, Seabright has helped facilitate hundreds of community water projects across the world. Jeff Seabright is a model tri-sector athlete but they come in many forms. Some start in business, others in government; some operate at the highest of global organizations, others in their local communities; and some are starting to build tri-sector careers at a much younger age than previous generations. Regardless of their backgrounds, we have identified six characteristics these leaders have: Balanced motivations. A desire to create public value no matter where they work, combining their motivations to wield influence (often in government), have social impact (often in nonprofits) and generate wealth (often in business) Transferable skills. A set of distinctive skills valued across sectors, such as quantitative analytics, strategic planning and stakeholder management Contextual intelligence. A deep empathy of the differences within and between sectors, especially those of language, culture and key performance indicators Integrated networks. A set of relationships across sectors to draw on when advancing their careers, building top teams, or convening decision-makers on a particular issue Prepared mind. A willingness to pursue an unconventional career that zigzags across sectors, and the financial readiness to take potential pay cuts from time to time Intellectual thread. Holistic subject matter expertise on a particular tri-sector issue by understanding it from the perspective of each sector So how can you become a tri-sector athlete? First identify a tri-sector issue of interest and cultivate a network across sectors to learn from and meet your counterparts. We've noticed there are no shortage of major conferences (e.g., Concordia Summit), hackathons (e.g., Random Hacks of Kindness) and city building organizations (e.g., Toronto's CivicAction) where tri-sector issues are discussed — and acted on — by representatives from all three sectors. Or consider joining a growing number of cross-sector fellowship programs — such as Fuse Corps, Code for America, White House Presidential Innovation Fellows, Coro Fellows, and Bloomberg Innovation Delivery Teams — that pair top innovators with mayors, governors and federal officials to address pressing public challenges. But most importantly, follow your passions and seek to leave the world a better place than how you received it. Before you know it, you'll be working with leaders and organizations across sectors to see your vision realized. Follow the Scaling Social Impact insight center on Twitter @ScalingSocial and register to stay informed and give us feedback. Scaling Social ImpactInsights from HBR and The Bridgespan Group Build Your Bench Strength Without Breaking the Bank Have a Real Impact; Keep Your Day Job Lessons From a Failed Social Entrepreneur Give Us Feedback and Get a Free HBR Article