As reported by Procurement Leaders earlier this week, an investigation by a leading English newspaper has once again exposed the pitfalls of sourcing from countries where child labour is viewed as routine.

And it’s ironic that many of us would have read the findings of The Observer’s  expose of child cotton pickers on Sunday in bed – under cotton sheets purchased from retailers on whom the spotlight will undoubtedly fall after this damning investigation.

According to the report, children as young as six were found to be spending up to 10 hours a day in Egypt’s cotton fields, earning as little as 20 pence an hour.

Despite a law banning those under the age of 14  from working – and a high profile campaign aimed at  eradicating child labour at the African Nation’s Cup held in Egypt in 2006 -  the problem persists and is likely to do so for as long as NGO’s claim that dealing with the problem is “impossible” (they claim that it is often simply an issue between families).

But while many companies who source cotton from Egypt claim (rather lamely) that their suppliers are required to meet certain standards solely within the factories that produce their products, they appear unprepared to look beyond those four walls and into the fields which, the Observer estimates, employ of one million young Egyptians.

“I think they (the companies) would be horrified,” said Juliette Williams, a spokeswomen for the Environmental Justice Foundation, before pointing out that Egyptian cotton is the only cotton sold with the country of origin as a selling point.

Unless action is taken, the label may soon develop altogether different connotations.

The green revolution is in full swing, and nowhere is this more in evidence than in the IT industry, as a recent report from Forrester Research has amply illustrated.
According to the group’s study ‘More Green Progress in Enterprise IT’, environmental concerns are now “very important” to over 40 per cent of respondents, a figure that just 12 months ago would have unthinkable.
Of course, as with all studies of this nature, this only offers a snapshot of a company’s intent, but there are growing signs that firms are beginning to back up their thoughts with action.
For example the report, which involved over 700 firms companies found that four out of five now have fully-fledged IT equipment recycling programmes in places, many of whom use a third party recycling provider.

It’s not just the private sector that has caught the green bug, however, the study also suggests that the public sector is simultaneously embracing and belting out the green message.

So is this sea change motivated by a mix of plain old economics and a genuine desire to adopt a more responsible approach? Who knows, but an industry that often likes to think of itself as a market leader appears, once more, to be one step ahead of the opposition.  

Ethical sourcing has moved on. Earlier this week we covered a story concerning the ditching of Tetley by McDonalds because the tea-giant wasn’t a member of the Rainforest Alliance.

An entirely understandable decision in the modern era you would think, until it transpires that although Tetley (owned by Indian company Tata) isn’t a member of McDonald’s preferred sourcing programme it is a member of the ethical tea parternship – one of the UK’s three recognised tea sourcing initiatives.

All of which suggests that McDonalds has set a dangerous precedent, given that it no longer seems enough to simply source your product according to ethical guidelines (the conclusion in this case appears to be that some guidelines are more ethical than others).

Tetley themselves brushed off the decision, with Percy Siganporia, managing director at Tata Tea, describing the decision as “disappointing”, before reiterating that Tetley retained its “commitment” to the Ethical Tea Partnership.

But whilst every ethical sourcing programme has a distinct set of priorities - the tea partnership, for example, was set up to improve the lives of the millions of people working in tea plantations around the world – it’s their shared goals that really make a difference.

Decisions such as the one seen by McDonalds this week could, in the long-term, prove counter-productive.

A s reported by Procurement Leaders, the sourcing policies of one of the world’s biggest companies – despite its protestations to the contrary – have been influenced by a well-financed, but highly effective, ‘viral’ marketing campaign by a leading pressure group.

Greenpeace’s objective was to ensure that Unilever checked the environmental credentials of its palm oil suppliers as part of an ongoing campaign to prevent deforestation.

And although Unilever insisted that their rapid about-turn was already under discussion, the move merely serves to illustrate the power of new media such as the internet, and seems to suggest that the more savvy pressure groups are looking beyond the normal means of protest to achieve their aims.

Another high profile company, Marks and Spencer, has also recently felt the wrath of these new ‘viral’ campaigns after the union, Unite, (somewhat unsuccessfully) attempted to use Google AdWords to highlight what it perceived to be poor employment practices within the company’s supply chain.

This particular campaign failed to achieve its aim, but the growth of viral marketing is likely to spread – and, if companies have anything to hide then, like Unilever, they had better be prepared to have their dirty linen washed in public.

The EU has not been shy at trumpeting its plans to drastically reduce carbon emissions across Europe. One leading figure, however, remains distinctly unimpressed.

Nigel Lawson, who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1983 and 1989, is one of a growing number of sceptics who believes that the headlong rush to a low carbon economy is likely to cause irreparable harm to businesses across Europe, and this week he’s publishing his feelings on the subject.

An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, is unlikely to find its way onto Al Gore’s birthday wish list, but Lord Lawson clearly believes that he has something worthwhile to say and won’t wait any longer to say it.

“Over the past five years I have become increasingly concerned at the scaremongering of the climate alarmists, which has led the governments of Europe to commit themselves to a drastic reduction in carbon emissions, regardless of the economic cost of doing so,” he tells readers – painting a picture almost as cataclysmic as the one so eloquently punted by those who believe that the world is on the verge of the climatic equivalent of a mental breakdown.

Lord Lawson, who was never renowned for his sentimentality whilst in office next door to Mrs Thatcher, goes on to say that although man has undoubtedly played a part in the temperature rises seen in the recent past, the full reasons behind global warming remain unclear.

He gives short shrift to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, labelling their estimates “grossly inflated”, and even claiming that the benefits of warming could balance the costs.

His major fear though, is that the recent moves by the European Union, including the possible implementation of trade barriers against those who go against their emission cuts plans, will do far more damage than climate change ever could.

“A lurch into protectionism, and the rolling back of globalisation, would do far more damage to the world economy in general and to the developing nations in particular than could conceivably result from the projected resumption of global warming,” he warns.

According to Lord Lawson, the book itself is “short” – the debate will run well after the final page has been turned.

What I know about baseball would probably fill the back of postage stamp – ask most Washington National fans to commit their thoughts on sustainability to paper and that same stamp still wouldn’t look overly congested.

However, when those same fans take a stroll into their brand new $311 million stadium on Sunday they can expect to bowled over by a ballpark which is setting new environmental standards.

Sport is often a fairly accurate barometer of the importance a global issue is assuming, and with their energy efficient lighting, low-flush toilets, recycling bins, and reserved parking spaces for high-mileage cars, the Nationals have clearly left their rivals on first base when it comes to lowering their environmental footprint.

Can they play Baseball? You're asking the wrong chap.

The Luddites were a group of British workers who rioted at the start of the 19^th century opposing the introduction of automated textile machinery in the belief that it would diminish employment – since then the term has become synonymous with those who are opposed to the introduction of new technology. So why is this relevant to the sustainability debate? Well, check out the new Tata car, the Nano; it’s got one windscreen wiper, no air conditioning, and doesn’t need a gearbox. Best of all it only costs $2,500. Surely it must be a real step backwards as far automotive technology is concerned? Or is it…?

Well, excuse if you will for a moment the allegedly less than green credentials of its petrol driven engine, but what Tata have inadvertently done, (or even advertently for that matter) is driven a coach and horses through the innovate or die concept; they have in effect de-specified their product (or de-innovated), and reverted back to tried, tested and very simple technology, specifically focused for the markets that they are targeting.

Sophisticated? No. Cheap? Yes.

And fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with the product; it takes people, and their things, from A to B at a sensible speed of no more that 43 mph. Now excuse me if I state the obvious, but I would argue that this points a rather large arrow in the direction of a potentially critical sustainability management strategy. The bottom line is this, simpler products have simpler sustainability profiles. They have easier supply chains to manage, and their carbon footprints will be smaller than the all singing and dancing versions. Ok, so comfy western consumers may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to Nano showrooms, but that’s only because of the belief that our lives will be so much better if we drive a car with two windscreen wipers, and a gearbox. The reality is that we have all grown far too used to buying products with features that we don’t necessarily need, or potentially understand. Too much choice is a bad thing; not only is it confusing – I now have four remote controls in the lounge and I still can’t have a one–push change channel experience – but it’s bad for the environment.

Tata are boldly taking the car where no marketing team would ever dream of driving it; now what’s needed is the courage to embrace a broader agenda for product simplification, coupled with marketing strategies to promote its importance. We as members of the global procurement community have an obligation to look closely at this further and test its application within our own organisations. May be the Luddites had something useful to say after all.

At a time when procurement operations across Europe are coming under increasing pressure to cut costs, the last thing most companies need right now is the launch of the largest urban environmental control zone in the world.

But, yesterday in London, that’s exactly what they got.

The capital’s ‘low emission zone’ means that any lorries that fail to meet the European Category Three standard for airborne pollutants and nitrogen oxides will have to cough up £200 for the privilege of entering London’s streets.

Fortunately for the majority of businesses, most vehicles do now meet this standard although the Freight Transport Association estimate that up to 10,000 lorries may not.

Still it’s not all bad news - as an introductory offer the fine is being “waived” for the first month. This, however, will offer scant consolation to those companies who will be hit by the additional costs, and those in procurement who will feel the knock-on effect.

It’s not just the world’s largest companies that are leading the rush to become carbon neutral - the past week has seen the world’s biggest sporting event get in on the act too.

According to Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper, the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver are pushing to be the first carbon neutral games in history.

Achieving the aim isn’t going to be cheap – a report by the David Suzuki Foundation estimates that it will cost the organising committee at least $5m to make the necessary cuts to the carbon emissions associated with the games – but making the Olympics carbon neutral is undoubtedly one of the biggest opportunities to highlight environmental issues to the widest possible audience.

“The 2010 Winter Games will be one of the highest-profile international events in the world and with an effective climate-change strategy the Games can significantly advance public understanding of global-warming solutions,” the report concludes.

Let’s just hope that global warming holds off long enough to leave the Canada will sufficient snow for the games to take place.

A recent study will make interesting reading for any procurement organisation pointing to its corporate responsibility credentials as a means of attracting and recruiting high quality candidates.

According to PR firm Hill & Knowlton, a company’s record on the environment (followed closely by issues such as corporate ethics, social responsibility and community involvement) came last in the factors that MBAs are using to select employers.

In a rather old-fashioned twist, career opportunities, corporate culture and working environment, and benefits came out on top, with employers who enabled their staff to maintain a healthy work life balance also getting the green light from prospective employees.

Just 34 per cent of the 527 MBA students placed the same importance on a company’s environmental or green policies, although - much to the delight of the green lobby closer to home – 42 per cent of respondents from Europe said they would turn down a job offer from a company with a poor record on the environment.

Stephen Greyser, a Harvard Business School professor of marketing and communication, summed up the report’s findings by saying: “What the company stands for is important, but only once salary and corporate culture have been addressed.”

The message from the MBA’s does though, appear to be clear – show us the money first, and let’s worry about the environment later.