Check out our range at CHOOSE.

From grist:

“The New York Times breaks down the cost of two home-cooked meals, relative to McDonald’s. It’s no surprise the homemade stuff is healthier, but as this graphic shows, it’s also cheaper. Sometimes a lot cheaper.

“Of course, this doesn’t factor in the cost of time. And it doesn’t really deal with the fact that the up-front costs for a cart of groceries – assuming you have transportation to get to a store and time to shop in – are a lot higher for an individual meal. (You can’t actually buy 5 cents’ worth of salt or two cups of rice.) But it’s a nice illustration of the fact that it is possible to eat well on a budget, even if challenges remain.”

From The New York Times:

Personally, I’ve been trying to get back to cooking, because it’s fun and also because I have serious issues about bad food. Don’t get me started on the “restaurants” serving food fit for no one, while charging enough to finance their bosses’ Porsche. I blame Mummy, whom I love.

Ecopoint works with professionals from around the region, locals and expats, to build bridges and identify new opportunities. This site is here to help you cut across social and cultural boundaries, and progress your new green deal. It’s about forming a multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural “virtual” team of some of the best minds in the space. Find the right firm to get things done; locate the right technology for the job.

Start browsing the Ecopoint Business Directory today, or add your business to the database.

From Justmeans:

“It has generally been believed that as an economy suffers, the general public would prefer companies put their money into their employees, rather than philanthropic causes. A new white paper from the Global Monitor finds that the opposite is actually true.

“The white paper has shown that consumers want more CSR during these tough times and companies should not use the economy as an excuse for cutting back on CSR. The companies that continue or even step up their CSR ventures during a bad economy tend to be more successful than those that cut back.

“The study surveyed 27,000 people in 20 countries about global consumer trends and new growth platforms. In essence, CSR is good business, regardless of the economic situation. When people see a company helping the unfortunate, they are more likely to see it as a worthwhile brand.”

From a consumer/economist/business owner point of view, it’s easy to assume that CSR is low on many expnditure-priority-lists. After all, when you can’t collect enough revenue to pay your interest/utilities/wages, it would seem natural to push CSR expenditure to the bottom of the pile.

Obviously, my assumed understanding of the human condition isn’t quite spot on, which makes me feel very good.

So, Mr. MNC’s CEO/COO/CSO/C-something-O, think twice before cutting the CSR budget. Show your board this article. I’m sure they’ll be convinced.

From Triple Pundit:

“Ethical Consumer, the UK’s leading alternative consumer organisation since 1989 recently released a report by Bryony Moore. The report entitled ‘Style over Substance‘ covers 15 designer fashion companies. Many of the high-street brands like H&M and Primark have CSR initiatives in place that ensure proper working conditions for their workers apart from supply chain accountability. However designer brands face little pressure to invest in CSR. The report calls ‘for the luxury sector to take responsibility and start reporting on its social and environmental impacts.

“According to the report, the reason why luxury brands have gotten away with the lack of CSR initiatives is that they have ‘been riding high on a reputation established years ago around high quality, crafted items.’ However, a designer item is more likely to be made in China than hand-crafted in Italy. Campaigns usually target only middle-of-the-road brands which leaves luxury brands scot-free. In 2007, WWF reported that luxury goods companies do not engage in CSR and this report shows that nothing has changed.”

So, ladies and gentlemen, fancy a branded product? Maybe a shiny new ring with more precious stones than I have facial hair?

“Many luxury brands also offer jewelry and most of them do not know where their gold and gemstones come from.”

Think twice. The cost of that branded belt or handbag isn’t just hefty on your bank account, it’s detrimental to many other people as well.

We hear this alot. Big businesses get away with murder. They cheat on taxes, manufacture sub-standard produce, use leaded paint, make 1000% profit margins on their goods, false advertising, low wages, poor working conditions, ridiculous bonuses for the top brass, the works.

We get away with things to. It’s just human nature. We speed when there aren’t speed traps, we jaywalk when the pedestrian crossing’s a little too far away, we steal toiletries from hotels, things like that.

While jaywalking and missing toiletries might always exist, someone’s doing something about pharmaceuticals and the deeds that they are getting away with.

I have nothing against big pharma. I think that they are responsible for many great things – vaccines, cures, treatments, things like that. They have done a lot towards the extension of human life.

However, their business practices (what with the civil lawsuits and what not) have been found wanting. Transparency especially. Couple that with rumours and other such conspiracies, us folks without a medical degree can’t possibly keep up. And I need my sinus medicine!

From Fast Company:

Here comes AdverseEvents, “a California-based startup, is pushing the debate out into the open with a centralised database of how many side effects are happening from what drugs and what the patient outcomes are – and according to cofounder Brian Overstreet, ‘it scares the crap out of the pharmaceutical companies.’ “

How does it work?

“AdverseEvents’ propietary algorithm, which took 18 months to build, takes into account data from the FDA, direct patient reporting, and even information from social media sites (AdverseEvents analysts are alerted to side effect discussions on patient discussion boards, for example, and try to extract data).”

“Pharmaceutical companies are, as you might imagine, not thrilled that AdverseEvents exists; they’re used to controlling side effect information.”

Genius. I’ve bookmarked the site. I’ll also be on the lookout for the mobile app. Please offer it to BlackBerry users.

In our journey through Singapore offering services to companies in terms of sustainability reporting, we often get asked the question: So what?

Well, first of all, it’s great to do a sustainability report, even for internal circulation, because it affords you a clear indication of inefficiencies in the company; the figures are simply reported through a carbon emission number. Conducting a sustainability report is the first step towards reducing your carbon footprint; reducing your carbon footprint is good for your bottom-line.

Proof? From TreeHugger:

“As documented by the referenced CDP findings, a number of Fortune-listed firms with no government regs driving the decision and no special tax incentives offered, are investing their own money in carbon reductions and getting fast returns. Stockholders are beginnning to realise that cutting carbon emissions means greater operating efficiency and lower operating margins: i.e. greater profit.”

The next thing we get asked as well is if we do carbon offsetting. Often we tell them that it’s not wise to look at “buying” your way out of your carbon footprint. Finding sustainable measures in reducing ones’ footprint is much better for the company in terms of environmental performance AND profit margins.

Just because I can, here are some case studies from Ethical Corportation that are more than a little disconcerting:

“Companies and organisations must properly investigate carbon offset investments.

“It may sound like the opening line to a corny joke, but Disney, the Pope, Fiji Water and Chevrolet share a common trait: they’ve all fallen foul of carbon offset standards and have been pulled up for it.

“(Fiji Water) has claimed to offset 120% of its emissions, but when a California resident queried this, the company was shown to be basing its claim on the use of forward accounting: claiming credit for future emissions savings that have not and might not manifest themselves.

“Even the Pope has been challenged on carbon claims… and found wanting. The Holy See had good intentions when it established its own Vatican Climate Forest, to be planted in Hungary, believing that the forest would enable them to become the world’s first carbon neutral state.

“The Vatican’s trees were never in fact planted. The offset retailer offering them, KlimaFa, went bust, despite having received the land free of charge from the Hungarian government.

“(Disney) had invested $15.5m in offsets, including $3.5m on HFC-23 gas destruction, and $7 on reforestation and avoided deforestation – both of which are widely regarded as flawed. Indeed, the EU has banned European industries from using HFC-23 project credits, whilst forestry projects continue to attract controversy due to the difficulties in measuring and verifying their effects on greenhouse gases.”

The thing is carbon offsetting is the way we USED to do things. Buying our way out of problems we find ourselves in. Throw that mindset away my friends. It’s 2011. Time to get with the times.

-

WHAT: Moving Planet is a worldwide rally to demand solutions to the climate crisis. Come on bike, on skates, on a board, or just on foot.

WHERE: Youth Park, Orchard

WHEN: 24th – 25th September 2011

TIME: 10am – 10pm

-

More Information here.

See you there!