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