Published on July 20, 2009
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK CAPTURING OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE JULY 2009
GREEN PORTOLIO FRAMEWORK WELCOME & CONTENTS Welcome to the Green Portfolio Framework, a process & set of resources designed to enable managers to measure & improve business & environmental performance. The Green Portfolio Framework (GPF) was developed through Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) partnership with private equity industry leader Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and pilot tested with three portfolio companies in 2008. The pilot helped the three companies – U.S. Foodservice, PRIMEDIA and Sealy Corporation – together realize savings of $16 million per year and avoid 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, 3,000 tons of paper products and 650 tons of material waste annually. This presentation provides a working version of our Green Portfolio Framework Handbook and includes a number of resources to help you get started or continue tracking and improving business and environmental performance on an ongoing basis. Specific resources include: • Overview of the Green Portfolio Framework (p 4) – Summary of the steps for implementing the GPF. • Environmental Performance Metrics (p 5) – Table identifying the framework’s Key Environmental Performance Areas (KEPAs) and the related core (absolute) and management (productivity) metrics for tracking and improving performance. • Company Implementation Playbook (p 6) – Guide and timeline for implementing the GPF. • Company Example (p 7) – Illustrative example of a company implementation of the GPF. • Company Resources (p 12) – Worksheets and available tools and resources for assessing and improving your company’s environmental performance. • Materiality Assessment Table & Matrix (p 13) – Resources to help evaluate and prioritize the KEPAs based on what is most relevant to your organization. • Additional Resources (p 16)– List of tools and resources to help assess and improve your company’s environmental performance. • GHG Conversion Factors (p 17) – Common GHG conversion factors for determining GHG emissions. • Case Studies (p 18) – U.S. Foodservice, PRIMEDIA and Sealy case studies summarizing 2008 actions, results, and future plans. • Background on EDF (p 23) – Background on EDF’s history, accomplishments, approach, results and corporate partners. We believe this process is a meaningful way to build value for your organization, especially in difficult economic times, and hope that you find these resources useful. We look forward to hearing about your results and lessons learned. Environmental Defense Fund 2 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW The GPF is a four-step process designed to help companies assess, improve & track environmental performance. 1. 2. 3. 4. Kickoff Establish Metrics & Develop Goals Measure & Select KEPAs1 Baseline & Action Plan Report Results • Review current • Establish key metrics • Identify operational • Communicate action environmental practices (absolute & changes for improving plan, goals & timeline • Assess environmental & productivity) for performance against to broader organization business impacts across assessing performance selected metrics • Track & report on & progress • Develop action plan value chain performance against • Collect historical data & with goals, timeline & baseline & goals • Prioritize KEPAs based on materiality assessment establish baselines for incentives for (quarterly) results selected metrics improving performance • Reassess KEPAs & • Implement action plan amend action plan as needed -- Kickoff -- • Establish senior management commitment • Identify project lead/team • Review Green Portfolio Framework resources 1 Key Environmental Performance Area (KEPA). See Environmental Performance • Define objectives & timeline Metrics Table for additional detail (p 5). Environmental Defense Fund 4 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORANCE METRICS The GPF defines five Key Environmental Performance Areas (KEPAs) & related metrics for improving environmental & business performance. Core metrics Management metrics1 KEPAs (absolute) (productivity) Greenhouse gas •Energy use (BTUs) •Energy intensity (BTUs/$ revenue or unit) (GHG) emissions •Energy costs ($) •GHG intensity (GHG/$ revenue or unit) •GHG emissions (tons) Waste •Solid & haz waste produced (tons) •Waste intensity (tons/$ revenue or unit) •Solid & haz waste management costs ($) Water •Water use (gallons) •Water intensity (gallons/$ revenue or unit) •Water costs ($) Forest products •Paper, packaging &/or wood (tons) •Forest resource intensity (tons/$ revenue or unit) •Paper, packaging &/or wood costs ($) Priority chemicals •Inventory & management process (y/n) •Chemical intensity (tons/$ revenue or unit) •Priority chemical use (tons) •Priority chemical management costs ($) 1 Management metrics will vary by company and will be used to measure the impacts of specific operational changes intended to drive value and reduce environmental impacts. Environmental Defense Fund 5 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK COMPANY IMPLEMENTATION PLAYBOOK The Company Implementation Playbook is a guide & timeline for implementing the steps of the GPF. Green Portfolio Framework Sample Company Implementation Playbook % Complete Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Kickoff Estalish senior management commitment 100% Identify project lead & team 100% Review Green Portfolio Framework Resources 100% Define ojectives & timeline 100% 1 Select KEPAs Review current environmental practices 100% Assess environmental & business impacts across the value chain 50% Prioritize KEPAs based on materiality assesment results 50% 2 Establish Metrics & Baseline Establish key metrics (absolute & productivity) for assessing performance & progress Collect historical data & establish baselines for selected metrics 3 Develop Goals & Action Plan Identify operational changes for improving performance against selected metrics Develop action plan with goals, timeline & incentives for improving perfomance Implement action plan 4 Measure & Report Results Communicate action plan, goals & timeline to broader organization Track & report performance against baseline and goals (quarterly) Reassess KEPAs & amend action plan as needed Key: Recommended Duration Task Progress Environmental Defense Fund 6 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK COMPANY EXAMPLE
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK COMPANY EXAMPLE – SELECT KEPAS Prioritize the five KEPAs by assessing relative business & environmental impacts. 1. Kickoff Establish Metrics & Develop Goals Measure & Select KEPAs Baseline & Action Plan Report Results KEPA Review Materiality Assessment Prioritization GPF defines 5 KEPAs for KEPAs are evaluated based on Results from the materiality assessment are mapped measurement & management: environmental & business impacts on a matrix to determine highest priority KEPAs in across the organization’s value chain: corresponding value chain stages: Value Chain Stages KEPAs Supply Ops & Distribution Use & • Water (D&F) • Forest res (U&D) • GHGs (D&F) H • Forest res. (O&F) Chain Facilities & Fleet Disposal Business Impact 1. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) • Water (SC) • GHGs (U&D) • Waste (O&F) • Waste (U&D) • Water (O&F) L/M/H M 2. Water • Priority chem (SC) • Priority chem (D&F) 3. Waste Bus./Env. • Priority chem (O&F) • GHG (SC) L • GHGs (O&F) • Waste (SC) impact 4. Forest Products • Forest resources (SC) L M H 5. Priority Chemicals Environmental Impact Low impact High impact Environmental Defense Fund 8 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK COMPANY EXAMPLE – ESTABLISH BASELINE & METRICS Establish metrics (core & management) & baselines by collecting historical data for high priority KEPAs in relevant value chain stages. 2. Kickoff Establish Metrics & Develop Goals Measure & Select KEPAs Baseline & Action Plan Report Results Baseline Calculation Waste, Operations & Facilities Core & Management Forest Resources, Product Use & Disposal Metrics Each KEPA has “core” & GHG, Distribution & Fleet “management” metrics for measuring environmental & Metric (Unit) financial performance. Core Management Financial Management metrics are (M tons CO2) (Gals/stop) ($M fuel cost) Year company specific. Examples 32,350 0.55 12.3 2008 include: • lbs waste/unit Historical 31,400 0.54 11.8 2007 Data* • kWh/$ Rev 33,500 0.57 13.2 2006 • gal/stop 32,090 0.48 10.4 2005 • kWh/sq ft store 32,000 0.54 12.0 Core Management Financial Baseline Baseline Baseline *Historical data are illustrative Environmental Defense Fund 9 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK COMPANY EXAMPLE – DEVELOP GOALS & ACTION PLAN Develop a detailed action plan for improving performance against selected metrics, including business & environmental goals, timeline & incentives. 3. Kickoff Establish Metrics & Develop Goals Measure & Select KEPAs Baseline & Action Plan Report Results Goals for Improvement* Forest Priority GHG Water Waste Metric Products Chemicals 2% baseline decrease 3% baseline decrease 5% baseline decrease Core in total CO2 in solid waste in paper products 7% decrease in 8% decrease in lbs 15% decrease in Management gal/stops waste/unit paper/$ Rev Action Plan* Impact Proposed Operational Changes Environmental Financial Milestones 1. Extend speed governor to entire truck fleet 4% reduction in CO2 $8M in fuel costs Retrofits by 3/09 2. Improve recycling program to reuse materials 6% reduction in waste $7M in material costs Operational change by 9/09 *Goals & Action Plan data are illustrative Environmental Defense Fund 10 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK COMPANY EXAMPLE – MEASRUE & REPORT RESULTS Track & regularly report on performance against baselines & goals. 4. Kickoff Establish Metrics & Develop Goals Measure & Select KEPAs Baseline & Action Plan Report Results Measure & Report Progress Forest Priority Q1 Metric GHG Water Waste Q2 Products Chemicals Q3 Core 31,555 M tons, CO2 Q4 Management Financial Environmental Defense Fund 11 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK MATERIALITY ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS Use the Materiality Assessment Table & Matrix on the following slides to assess the impacts of your operations on the five KEPAs & the related business implications for your company. Use the following resources to assess the impact of your operations on each Key Environmental Performance Areas (KEPAs: GHG, waste, water, forest resources and priority chemicals) and the related business implications for your company. Evaluate the environmental and business impact (high, medium, or low) of each value chain stage (Supply Chain (S), Operations & Facilities (O), Distribution & Fleet (D), and Use & Disposal (U)) on the five KEPAs using considerations like the ones below and the table on the following page. Then plot the results according to their business and environmental impact on the Materiality Assessment Matrix. Sample Environmental Considerations: Do the organization’s activities impact or have the potential to impact the KEPA? (H – our core business impacts this issue, M – our non-core business impacts this issue, L – our business does not impact this issue) Does the organization have direct control or influence over the impact on the KEPA? (H – our choices directly affect our impact on this KEPA, M – we, along with our peers and other players in our industry, can affect our impact on this KEPA, L – we have no choices currently to change our impact on this KEPA) Are the current / potential impacts significant in comparison to other industries or peers in the same sector? (H – we are one of the top companies in our industry, which influences this issue, M – we are not a major player in our industry, which influences this issue, L – our industry does not influences this issue) Sample Business Considerations: Does this KEPA represent a cost to the organization? (H – this currently is or will be a significant cost, M – this represents a cost, but not significant, L – this does not represent a cost and we do not anticipate it will) Are there short- or long-term reputational risks or opportunities associated with the KEPA? (H – our influential stakeholders care significantly about this issue, M – the general public cares about this issue, L – few or no stakeholders care about this issue) Would addressing the risks / opportunities support the organization’s business strategy and objectives? (H – this issue directly supports our business and growth goals, M – this issue aligns with our business and growth goals, L – this issue does not relate to our business or growth goals) Environmental Defense Fund 13 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK MATERIALITY ASSESSMENT TABLE Capture your assessment of & relevant comments on the environmental & business impacts related to each KEPA. Value Chain Stage KEPA Supply chain Operations & Facilities Distribution & Fleet Use & Disposal GHG Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus •Ene y us (kW o BTUs & rg e hs r ) H / M/ L H/ M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L GHG e is io (m tricto ) Comments: m s ns e ns Comments: Comments: Comments: •Ene y c s ($ rg o ts ) Water Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus •W te us (g llo ) a r e a ns H / M/ L H/ M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L •W te c s ($ a r o ts ) Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: Waste Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus •So & ha rd usw s lid za o a te H / M/ L H/ M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L p d e (to ) ro uc d ns Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: •So & ha rd usw s lid za o a te m na e e & m te l c s a g m nt a ria o ts ($ ) Forest Resources Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus •P p r, p c g &/o w o a e a ka ing r od H / M/ L H/ M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L (to ) ns Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: •P p r, p c g &/o w o a e a ka ing r od c s ($ o ts ) Priority Chemicals Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus Env Bus •P rity c m a inve ry rio he ic ls nto H / M/ L H/ M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H / M/ L H/ M/ L H / M/ L (y/n) Comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: •P rity c m a us (to ) rio he ic ls e ns •Ma g m nt c s o p rity na e e o ts f rio c m a ($ he ic ls ) Environmental Defense Fund 14 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK MATERIALITY ASSESSMENT MATRIX Map your assessment of the environmental & business impacts related to each KEPA from the Materiality Assessment Table to determine their relative priority. H Business Impact M L L M H Environmental Impact Environmental Defense Fund 15 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Use the following resources to help measure & manage the five KEPAs & identify best practices for improving performance. EDF’s Innovation Exchange (http://innovation.edf.org/home.cfm) The Innovation Exchange is a dynamic online resource of tools and best practices aimed at helping companies make green business the new business as usual. In addition to giving businesses access to proven best practices that increase environmental performance and reduce costs, the site serves as a venue for information sharing where business leaders can exchange ideas and build on the power of collective innovation. GHG Protocol (http://www.ghgprotocol.org) The GHG Protocol serves as the foundation for most GHG standards and programs worldwide and is an international accounting tool to help businesses and governments understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. For standards and guidance preparing a GHG inventory, refer to GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard. GHG Protocol’s site also provides a list of cross-sector and sector-specific calculation tools for registered users. Water Planner (http://www.gemi.org/waterplanner) GEMI’s Collecting the Drops: A Water Sustainability Planner is a planning process to help users identify a facility’s relationship to water, challenges and opportunities, and other considerations related to water use. The planner takes users through three modules: facility water use and impacts; water management risk assessment; case examples and links for further examination. Paper Calculator (http://www.edf.org/papercalculator) EDF’s Paper Calculator is an online tool that helps companies and consumers make better paper and packaging choices. Based on research that examines the environmental impact of paper through its lifecycle, the calculator provides data on wood use, energy, GHG, wastewater, etc. based on quantity and post-consumer recycled content for selected papers. EPA WasteWise (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/wastewise/index.htm) Waste reduction program aimed at reducing municipal waste using prevention and recycling techniques that result in cost savings for participating entities. The WasteWise Endorser Program provides an educational component by engaging endorsers to educate members about the benefits of solid waste reduction and recruit new WasteWise partners. EDF 4Cs of Climate Action (www.edf.org/4cs) This online brochure provides an introduction to the hierarchy for corporate climate action: Conserve energy, convert to lower carbon energy, choose quality offsets and call for action. Outlines steps and suggests resources for managing corporate climate impact. Environmental Defense Fund 16 July 2009 – Working Draft
GREEN PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK ADDITIONAL RESOURCES – GHG FACTORS Common GHG conversion factors for determining GHG emissions performance based on energy use & travel. Air travel1 Short haul (<281 miles): 0.2897 kg CO2/passenger mile Medium haul (281-994 miles): 0.2028 kg CO2/passenger mile Long haul (>994 miles): 0.1770 kg CO2/passenger mile *disregard class of service Rail2 Intercity rail (Amtrak) 0.1909 kg CO2/ passenger mile Purchased electricity3 EPA region-specific factors http://cfpub.epa.gov/egridweb/ghg.cfm On-site combustion4 Natural gas (pipeline): 12.693 lbs CO2/ccf Propane: 12.669 lbs CO2/gallon Fuel oil No. 1, 2, 4: 22.384 lbs CO2/gallon Transportation fuels5 Gasoline: 19.564 lbs CO2/gallon Diesel: 22.384 lbs CO2/gallon Jet Fuel: 1.095 lbs CO2/gallon 1, 2W rld Re o e Ins o s urc s titute o Bus s Co il fo Sus ina leDe lo m nt GHG P to o Initia , Mobile Combustion CO2 Emissions Calculation Tool. January 2005. Version 1.3 /W rld ine s unc r ta b ve p e ro c l tive 3Fo o ing rthc m . 4 5De a e o Ene y, Ene y Info a n Ad inis tio Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program Fuel and Energy Source Codes and Emissions Coefficients. , p rtm nt f rg rg rm tio m tra n, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html. Accessed 10 April 2009.. Environmental Defense Fund 17 July 2009 – Working Draft
CASE STUDIES SUMMARY OF 2008 RESULTS At just three of KKR’s portfolio companies, the Green Portfolio Framework helped identify $16.4 M in annual savings & avoided 25,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions, 3,000 tons of paper & 650 tons of waste. Financial Impacts Company Environmental Impacts Annual Enterprise Value Added* Operational Savings • 4% fleet efficiency improvement (gal of fuel/ton of product) $8.2M $57.4M • 22,000 tons of CO2 emissions reduced (4,400 cars) • 22% increase in material efficiency (paper use/$ Rev) $2.9M $20.3M • 3,000 tons reduction in paper (40,000 trees) • 9% fleet efficiency improvement (gallons/stop) $1.2M $8.4M • 3,000 tons of CO2 emissions reduced (600 cars) • 16% reduction in material scrap (lbs waste/unit) $4M $28M • 650 tons of solid waste reduced (46 garbage trucks) TOTAL IMPACTS $16.4M $114.1M In 2009, five additional companies began participating in the program – Accellent, Biomet, Dollar General, HCA and SunGard.. *EVA = Operational savings * 7 (average EBITDA multiple) Environmental Defense Fund 19 July 2009 – Working Draft
CASE STUDY: US FOODSERVICE GREEN FLEET US Foodservice – a premier foodservice distributor – evaluated its impacts on its key environmental performance areas & is actively improving the efficiency of its truck fleet to decrease GHG emissions from product transport. Goal: To reduce GHG emissions from product delivery Actions: • Established a GHG baseline • Measured & managed fuel consumption per ton of product moved • Implemented targeted driver policies, including idling goals • Created business process improvements, such as efficient routing • Improved truck technologies, including the addition of speed governors Results: • Improved fleet efficiency 4% (gallons/ton of product moved) • Saved $8.2 million in fuel cost • Avoided over 22,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions (equivalent to 4,400 cars) Future Plans: • Established 2009 goals to further reduce fuel & emissions • To meet these goals, the U.S. Foodservice plans to scale up a number of successful, low-investment initiatives, including driver awareness programs, automatic idle shutoff & speed controls. USF is also assessing new initiatives, such as improving trailer cooling practices & other technology solutions. Environmental Defense Fund 20 July 2009 – Working Draft
CASE STUDY: SEALY GREEN FLEET & SOLID WASTE Sealy – the largest bedding manufacturer in North America – evaluated its impacts on its key environmental performance areas & is actively improving efficiency to reduce waste in product manufacturing & decrease GHG emissions from product transportation. Goal: To reduce solid waste from product manufacturing & reduce GHG emissions from product delivery Actions: • Established a GHG baseline for its fleet • Developed a baseline for facility solid waste management • Recycled raw materials • Improved manufacturing processes • Implemented targeted driver policies • Improved truck technologies Results: • Saved $1.2 M in annual fuel costs & more than $4 M in annual material costs • Avoided over 3,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions (equivalent to 600 cars) • Improved fleet efficiency (gallons/stop) by almost 9% compared to a 2007 baseline • Avoided 650 tons of solid waste, (equivalent to 46 garbage trucks) • Reduced scrap per bed (tons/unit) by 16% compared to a 2007 baseline Future Plans: • Further roll-out to improve fleet routing software, speed governor installation, idling time reduction & drivers’ incentives to improve fuel economy •Manufacturing process improvements & packaging reduction, in addition to energy efficiency programs Environmental Defense Fund 21 July 2009 – Working Draft
CASE STUDY: PRIMEDIA FOREST RESOURCES PRIMEDIA – a leading provider of print, Internet & mobile solutions designed to enable consumers to find a place to live – evaluated its impacts on its key environmental performance areas & is actively increasing online efforts & resizing its publications to reduce its use of forest resources. Goal: To reduce paper use in products Actions: • Established a baseline for paper use • Redesigned publications, such as resizing & use of lighter paper • Encouraged online access to resources Results: • Saved $2.9 M in material costs • Reduced more than 3,000 tons of paper use (equivalent to more than 40,000 trees) • Improved efficiency (paper use/revenue) by 22% compared to a 2007 baseline Future Plans: • A further 20% reduction in paper usage below the 2007 baseline through redesigning more publications & pursuing additional online strategies • Exploration of opportunities to expand publication recycling programs currently encouraged at all locations • Increased sales efficiency & delivery routing; consolidation of office & warehouse space Environmental Defense Fund 22 July 2009 – Working Draft
BACKGROUND ON EDF
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND (EDF) A leading national nonprofit organization representing 700,000 members. Since 1967, EDF has linked science, economics, law & innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems. Resources Offices Staff Budget • Austin, TX • Los Angeles, CA 350 total staff: • Total operating expenses for FY’08 • Beijing, China • Raleigh, NC • Scientists exceeded $100M • Bentonville, AR • Sacramento, CA • Economists • Budget fully funded • Boston, MA • San Francisco, CA • MBAs by foundations, • Boulder, CO • Washington, DC • Ph.D.s government & private donations • New York, NY • Attorneys • Stabilize the earth’s climate • Protect ocean ecosystems Goals • Protect & restore critical land & freshwater ecosystems • Preserve & enhance human health Environmental Defense Fund 24 July 2009 – Working Draft
BACKGROUND ON EDF ACCOMPLISHMENTS EDF has a long history of working with businesses, governments & communities to develop innovative environmental solutions. 1967 – A small group of scientists incorporates EDF after winning an historic battle against the pesticide DDT 1985 – EDF convinces federal regulators to phase out the use of leaded gasoline 1990 – New Clean Air Act uses our innovative market-based approach to reduce air pollution & acid rain 1991 – Partnership with McDonald’s eliminates over 300 M lbs of waste & saves millions of dollars 2000 – Worked with landowners to enroll 2 M acres in Safe Harbor programs to protect endangered wildlife 2004 – Partnership with FedEx brings the first hybrid delivery trucks to the streets of CA, NY & FL 2006 – Worked with fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to implement a “catch share” program to rebuild red snapper stocks, now a model for troubled fisheries nationwide 2006 – Helped win permanent protection of the world’s largest marine reserve in Hawaii, which is larger than all of America’s national parks combined 2007 – Collaborated with more than two dozen of the world’s leading corporations – Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, GE, PG&E & others – to support a U.S. market-based cap on carbon emissions 2008 – Teamed up with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) to develop tools & metrics to help portfolio companies measure & improve environmental performance Environmental Defense Fund 25 July 2009 – Working Draft
BACKGROUND ON EDF CORPORATE PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM APPROACH EDF partners with businesses to develop environmental improvements, financial benefits, & innovative approaches, which result in transformational industry change. Environmental Improvements • Pollution reduction Environmental • Ocean protection Improvements • Ecosystem restoration Financial Benefits • Health improvement • Profit growth • Risk reduction Industry • Brand enhancement Change Innovative Approaches • Investor attraction Financial Innovative Benefits Approaches • Analytical tools & metrics • Market-based solutions • Supply chain optimization • New products/services By working with industry leaders – our projects create industry-wide ripple effects Environmental Defense Fund 26 July 2009 – Working Draft
BACKRGROUND ON EDF CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP RESULTS EDF’s unique approach drives measurable environmental & financial results. Estimated Corporate Environmental Business Partner Improvements Benefits Replaced Styrofoam “clamshell” packaging & cut 300 million $120 M since 1990 pounds of solid waste over ten years Increased the efficiency of over 60,000 fleet vehicles & cut CO2 $12 M since 2008 emissions by 14% Reduced packaging, improved fleet & building energy $100M* since 2005 efficiency, created supply chain efficiencies Redesigned overnight packaging to reduce waste, water $12 M since 1997 energy & air emissions by 15% * EDF works as part of a consortium with Wal-Mart. Financial benefits include building & fleet efficiency improvements. We are focused on action, not advice. EDF helps companies identify, create & implement best practices that create business & environmental benefits. Environmental Defense Fund 27 July 2009 – Working Draft
BACKGROUND ON EDF PARTNERS EDF has a 20 year track record of success in partnering with leading businesses. To maintain its independence and credibility, EDF does not accept funding from its corporate partners. Environmental Defense Fund 28 July 2009 – Working Draft
Les changements sur le marché du distressed aux Etats-Unis et en Europe
Main Sections of the Report 1) Nifty Technical View 2) 4 Large Cap Trade Ide...
This presentation consits the yearly results of Kinepolis Group
Portfolio Selection. ... List of eligible projects in the Green Bond Portfolio. Name of project: Country: Total project cost ... 7 266 688: Topics ...
ENVIRONMENT 92 South Africa is a ... (SOCs) under his portfolio. The framework is to ... emissions and development of the green economy without
Financial Analysis The Price of Risk ... –Mr Blue choses portfolio B and Mrs. Green choses portfolio G ... Financial Analysis The risk/return framework
WRC RESEARCH PORTFOLIO 2011/2012 1 ... 1904 Nutrient and organic carbon fluxes from small-scale agriculture UKZN 1/7/09 ... Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd 1/4 ...
... My name is Jeff Alan Greenback. ... Worked in Unity3D and it’s Framework, ... Dropbox, and Adobe Photoshop, Windows 7. Title Screen. In Game 01. zd4.JPG.
KfW issued Green Bonds worth around EUR 3.7 ... 280 million in its green bond portfolio ... the Green Bonds “Harmonized Framework for ...
Advertising Programmes Business Solutions +Google About Google Google.com © 2016 - Privacy - Terms. Search; Images; Maps; Play; YouTube; News; Gmail ...
... the total yearly green bond issuance has expanded to $36.6 billion for ... their chief framework, ... 7 comments on “ Green Bonds: What’s Right, ...
Knowsley Report Knowsley MBC June 2011. 2 ... Published Draft Methodology 09.12.09 ... • Local Development Framework ...