I recently had the opportunity to listen to a representative from Tyson Chicken, the largest poultry producer in the nation, speak about his company’s view on sustainability. There were a few things from the conversation that caught my attention. The first of those was just how sustainable chickens really are. Tyson’s processes use 100% of the chicken to some capacity – there is no waste from the chicken itself (pork and beef are also 100% utilized). Among the most interesting points made was that chicken fat is now being used for a renewable and very clean-burning bio-fuel which is set to hit the open market later this year. Tyson is targeting production to be at 250 million gallons within the next three to four years. A few other “sustainable” facts were also offered:

o 94% of the packaging materials for products that go to the largest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart, are recyclable
o There is an initiative to reduce water usage by 10% between 2008 and 2010 (note Tyson used approximately 25.5 billion gallons of water in 2009)
o Tyson has donated over 73 million points since year 2000
o Tyson donates approx. 10% of its pre-tax income

I applaud Tyson’s efforts to reduce their energy consumption and also their engagement in philanthropy. It was a major step forward for Tyson to make an effort to think sustainable, where they define sustainability as, “doing the right thing.” With this definition in mind, I was taken aback a little when I heard a representative mutter the words, “business first and get to the rest later” in the middle of his presentation. Those eight little words represented to me the kind of attitude taken by large corporations that has contributed to the detrimental climate change issue at the forefront of international attention. Tyson, like so many other firms (they are not unique in this respect), uses terms like transparency and triple-bottom line (i.e., focus on economic, environmental, and social benefits) to explain their “do the right thing” view on sustainability. If they are to fulfill this definition, put simply, the realization that there are stakeholders other than shareholders – the neighborhoods next to the over 300 production facilities around the country, the line workers at these facilities, the millions who eat their products on a daily basis, etc. – is needed.

Not until companies integrate sustainability into the very core of their business model and culture - and not only when it is “convenient” - will fulfilling the environmental and social aspects of the triple-bottom line philosophy become a reality. While GRI standards and reporting is a great thing, to truly be transparent companies need to pull the "real" environmental reports out of the locked desk drawer and start a dialogue with the people they are impacting – a group that casts a larger net than people who own stock – and work toward a solution TOGETHER. As long as there is a business first, Me V. You, let everyone else do the right thing while we make money mentality in the corporate world, the environmental and social aspects of the triple-bottom line will likely only continue to exist in theory.

Christopher A. Craig, MBA

Please contact me with questions or comments at: ccraig@ecovativeideas.com