carbon sequestration

& avoidance potential

 

What is the impact of buying products that are ecologically and socially regenerative? By looking at food purchasing, we can begin to get a sense of this. While Appalachian State has not yet assessed the carbon impact of food services, we can derive a rough estimate by looking at other universities' dining carbon emission analysis’. Using this data and extremely conservative estimation, we can estimate that the annual GHG emissions of our food purchases are 20,000 tCO2e. Even with this conservative estimate, by adding food emissions to our own GHG accounting, we see that our actual emissions increase by 28%. Yet, by adopting purchasing habits and guidelines that promote ecological health, community resilience, and justice, these impacts can be mitigated significantly (Hoey & Jones 2020).

 

At the University of Michigan, their “Commission on Carbon Neutrality” found that they could reduce food emissions by 43.9% by substituting 100% of all meat and 50% of seafood purchases with plant-based protein. At Appalachian state, such a reduction in emissions would result in 8,780 tCO2e avoided. This initiative also resulted in a reduction of costs by 4.2%. A 50% reduction in all meat and seafood would result in a 24% GHG reduction (ibid.). This example of GHG reduction programs is impressive, yet fails to consider socially responsible initiatives such as local purchasing.

 

While Appalachian can make the most change in GHG emissions by changing what types of food are purchased, by purchasing food products from local farms, we can eat foods that are in-season (reducing storage and processing emissions), reduce transportation emissions (up to 5% reduction), and purchase food grown without large amounts of chemical inputs (which accounts for huge portions of agricultural emissions) (Ritchie, 2020).

 

Calculations:

Total Dining emissions at UofM = 60,867 tCO2e

UofM 44,042 students

App state fall 2020, 20,023 students

20,023/44,042= 0.454634213

0.454634213 X  60,867 tCO2e = 27,672.2206

Because this is likely not accurate, we could take a super conservative estimate at 20,000 tCO2e

 

Highlighting UofM 50% reduction in all meat and seafood, substituting plant based protein:

{-43.9% change in GHG emissions}

{-3.2% change in costs}

Translating this to ASU, it would mean a reduction of (20,000X0.439)= 8780 tCO2e

 

Emissions changes when considering food:

70,511 current

70,511+20,000= 90,511

90,511/70511= 1.2836 = 28% change

​

 

financial feasibility

 

While it is likely that ethical and ecologically regenerative products and services will typically be more costly, it is especially important to remember that this is because these products and services reject the externalization of costs. Environmental and social impacts of services and products can impart costs to taxpayers, workers, and consumers. These costs, often known as externalities, are often unaccounted for, allowing for cheap, harmful alternatives.

 

Due to the wide range of sectors, products, services, certifications, and suppliers, it is difficult to determine the cost of this initiative. 

 

However, it is important to note that these initiatives can still lead to profitable operation. The 2017 Supplier Diversity Study from The Hackett Group found that companies who dedicate 20% or more of their spend to diverse suppliers can attribute as much as 15% of their annual sales to supplier diversity programs. Depending on annual sales numbers, previous studies have put the ROI of a supplier diversity program as high as 133% (MSU 2020). In fact, a 2010 study by PwC and EcoVadis in collaboration with the INSEAD Social Innovation Center on the value of sustainable procurement practices revealed benefits in three key areas: cost reduction, risk reduction and revenue growth (Waylett n.d.).

 

Additionally, purchasing from a wide variety of suppliers promotes competition in the supply base, which can improve product quality and drive down costs (Bateman et al. 2020). A procurement strategy that includes smaller, diverse businesses has been shown to improve efficiency and drive innovation for large institutions (MSU 2020).

 

Lastly, it should be noted that public institutions benefit from increased local economic wealth through greater property, income, and sales taxes (Pringle 2013).

 

By purchasing creatively, sustainably, and socially-responsibly, it is possible that costs will be reduced, as we saw in the case above where changes in food purchases had the potential to reduce procurement costs by 4.2% (Hoey & Jones 2020). 

​

​

​

feasibility of implementation

 

While Appalachian State seemingly lacks formal policies that outline sustainable or socially responsible purchasing habits, there are some examples of ASU and the UNC system developing purchasing standards on a small scale. In 2010, UNC General Administration organized a task force to establish a range of computer configurations “meant to reflect the diverse administrative and academic needs of UNC System campuses”. Certain vendors were also selected through the program, and the task force negotiated best prices with these vendors. At Appalachian State, University Standards for computer purchasing adhered to EPEAT standards, a certification which ensures that products meet strict environmental criteria across their life cycles (Appalachian IT Support Services n.d.)

 

Additionally, in support of Appalachian States Zero Waste Commitment, The Materials Management division of Appalachian State introduced Environmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP) options for inks and toners. These products were made available to all university departments, though they are not required to purchase this option (Appalachian Materials n.d.).

 

We can look to Cornell University, where their Campus Sustainability Plan advocated for purchasing entirely from approved vendors that support sustainable business practices, social and economic equity, and diversity in business ownership, such as women, minority, and veteran owned businesses, local sustainable businesses, and B-corp certified by 2025. Their list of products ranges from lab equipment to computers, flooring, office supplies, paper products, and vehicle rentals. These products are available on the Cornell’s e-shop, where staff and faculty purchase supplies. The e-shop also highlights products that are certified by EPEAT, Green Seal, and Energy Star, in addition to showcasing local suppliers and minority, woman, and veteran-owned businesses (Cornell University n.d.)

 

The University of Michigan’s MConnect Program promotes a commitment throughout the university to maintain competitive procurement processes that include all segments of the business community and incorporate socially responsible and sustainable procurement practices. They give every reasonable business opportunity to minority-owned, women-owned, small disadvantaged, HUB Zones, and veteran (and service-disabled veteran)-owned businesses. They also provide UM staff involved in purchasing with tools and training to locate and use supplies who meet MConnect requirements. Additionally, the procurement department maintains a list of services and supplies with filters that allow staff to more easily support sustainable purchases, women-owned, minority-owned, Michigan-based, USA-based, and small businesses.

 

The University of Utah, Elon University, Harvard University, and likely hundreds of other universities have guidelines and policies that work towards minimizing externalities and negative impacts of purchases. Appalachian State could work with students and procurement experts to develop policies, requirements, and guidelines that support local, just, and ecologically sustainable purchasing. Products and services should be added to the universities website for staff purchasing, including details on carbon impact, and which certifications each product has earned. These products and metrics could be found and researched by student employees, in-class research groups, and university staff. These decisions should be reviewed by student, community and university groups focused on equity and sustainability. A detailed questionnaire can request information regarding packaging policies, delivery methods and the existence of relevant green accreditations.  In addition to flagging up the most sustainable suppliers, this process will also provide an opportunity to renegotiate contracts with suppliers, offering further opportunities for cost savings (Waylett 2020).

 

In order for this initiative to be successful, it is crucial that Appalachian maintains supply chain visibility and excellent purchasing control. There is no point in an organization creating a strong procurement strategy that reflects corporate sustainability goals if employees are able to circumvent procurement controls and the business has no way of tracking the benefits of sustainability (Waylett 2020). As such, these policies and guidelines should not only be recommendations, but should be required when appropriate and incentivized otherwise.

 

If Appalachian comes across industries lacking suppliers that meet our procurement needs and ethics, it is possible that this could be an opportunity rather than a barrier. Appalachian could seek out small, diverse suppliers that need support in certification processes and create mentoring and training programs to help them meet standards. Another approach is to partner with relevant councils and chambers of commerce that provide these support systems (Bateman et al. 2020).

​

​

​

potential justice impacts 

on community members

 

While the potential for doing justice through purchasing is immense, the extent of impact will ultimately be determined by the specific initiatives and procurement strategies used by Appalachian.  Broadly, data shows that sustainable and socially responsible purchasing policies can be impactful. The National Minority Supplier Diversity Council reports that certified MBEs generate $400 billion in economic output that lead to the creation or preservation of 2.2 million jobs and $49 billion in annual revenue for local, state, and federal tax authorities (Bateman et al. 2020). These practices also deliver broader social benefits as disadvantaged communities have greater access to economic opportunity and resources (ibid.). Sustainable procurement practices have also proven potential to improve health outcomes, deliver more skills, apprenticeships and training, even opportunities for small businesses (Waylett n.d.).

 

The impacts of social and ecological policies can also be ‘contagious’, as some large companies encourage, and in some cases, require their suppliers to create their own initiatives to broaden the impact (Bateman et al 2020). 

 

One way that many institutions are pursuing social and ecological sustainability in purchasing is by developing policies and practices for buying locally. While these practices would support and enliven the community of Boone, The High Country, and the entire Appalachian region, purchasing locally is more about developing supply chains that are short, transparent, controlled and ethical. Local purchasing practices also encourage procurement from small businesses rather than chains. By supporting small businesses, which employ more than 52% of the nation's employees, Appalachian would increase job opportunities and stabilize employment in the region (Robinson 2010).

 

Local spending also means that money is recirculated within the local economy more so than it would be if money was spent with larger chains or non-local companies. According to Robinson, in Grand Rapids, locally owned businesses spent 73% of their money locally compared to chain competitors which only spent 43% (ibid.). In British Columbia, a local business spent 33% of total revenue locally compared to 17% and 19% for multinational counterparts, and this spending represented a 77%-100% economic advantage for B.C. and an 80%-100% increase in jobs per million dollars spent (Pringle 2013)

 

Additionally, increased activity in local small businesses leads to greater community and political participation, smarter growth, greater public health, improved tourism attraction, and a stronger culture of entrepreneurship (ibid.). Local purchasing can also vitalize the economy by expanding local resources and capabilities (ibid.). 

 

With 21.2% of people in Watauga living in poverty, compared to the U.S. average of 10.5%, and a median household income of just $45,268 compared to the U.S. average of $60,293, our community is in need of policy and initiatives that uplift our local economy (US Census 2020).

 

Not only would we see greater support of underserved minorities, rural populations, and businesses regenerating our ecosystems, we can also consider the broader implications of these policies. Our current extractive economy creates conditions in which slavery, unlivable wages, unsafe working conditions, pollution of drinking water, farmed lands, and residential areas are all permissible and externalized. As such, by ensuring Appalachians procurement policies prevent the economic support of these businesses and practices, these injustices are avoided.

 

These dynamics can be understood as we look into the food industry.

 

Overall, the social impacts of these policies should be monitored through communication with the populations it aims to support. In a study analyzing the impact of a social procurement initiative in Australia, researchers found that the policies are culturally insensitive and fail to articulate adequately their social impact on the communities they are designed to benefit, presenting an overly optimistic view of success that does not align with Indigenous perspectives of social value (Denny-Smith & Loosemore 2018). 

 

​

​

potential impact on biodiversity

 

Preservation of Biodiversity is not only an ethical imperative, but healthy biodiversity is crucial to the wellbeing of our planet and society. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment asserts that biodiversity plays a critical role in providing ecosystem services, which are the ecological processes and functions that sustain and improve human well-being (Scherr & McNeely 2007). Ecosystem services can be divided into four categories: (i) provisioning services, or ecosystems that provide food, timber, medicines and other useful products, (ii) regulating services such as flood control and climate stabilization, (iii) supporting services such as pollination, soil formation and water purification, and (iv) cultural services, which are aesthetic, spiritual or recreational assets that provide both intangible benefits and tangible ones such as ecotourism attractions. Within each category, we can identify economic, psychological, sociological, biological and material benefits that are obtained from biodiversity (ibid.). The Blue Ridge Mountains contain the highest number of federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered terrestrial species in the Southern Appalachian region. This means that our economy and ecology are in a vulnerable state that is threatened by both direct human interaction as well as Climate Change.

 

The impacts of our purchases on biodiversity are widespread, such as: deforestation for wood products, mining that destroys ecosystems for electronics, and agricultural processes that pollute and degrade biodiversity for food and fiber products. Food production provides a good example of how ethical purchasing can lead to increased biodiversity.  

 

A landscape with relatively intact wild biodiversity is likely to provide a full complement of ecosystem services. However, many ecosystem services can also be provided by non-native species, or by combinations of native and non-native species in heavily managed settings such as permanent farms (Scherr & McNeely 2007). Biodiversity is preserved and improved in the agriculture sector through the minimization of waste and pollution, management of resources in ways that conserve water, soils, and wild flora and fauna, and use of crops, grass and tree combinations to mimic the ecological structure and function of natural habitats (ibid.).

 

As such, conventional agriculture systematically destroys and pollutes ecosystems and is a leading cause of biodiversity loss. 40-50% of terrestrial land is used for crops, planted pastures, and livestock grazing, of which 10-20% is used for extensive livestock grazing. Millions of hectares of forests and natural ecosystems have been cleared for agriculture, including half of the world’s wetlands. Overuse of pesticides and other agricultural inputs and livestock waste have become major pollutants of water systems. Among other impacts on human and ecosystem health, these pollutants are the principal cause of the biological “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Agriculture also breaks up the landscape, separating species populations and making them more vulnerable. Pesticides and herbicides often harm beneficial wild species such as pollinators, insect-eating birds, and other species that often prey on agricultural pests and sustain ecosystems. Up to 50% of the globe’s agricultural land and 60% of ecosystem services are now affected by degradation, primarily caused by agriculture. At the same time, some estimates suggest that more than half of all species exist outside protected areas, mostly in agricultural landscapes (ibid.). All of these factors point to a need to shift away from investment and support of conventional agriculture systems in order to preserve and protect global biodiversity. 

 

Agricultural practices that integrate conservation and rural livelihoods within a landscape is needed to promote biodiversity. These practices must maximize ecological, economic, and social synergies. When land is withdrawn from conventional production of crops, the number of birds, insects, spiders, and plants is 1-1.5 standard deviations higher. Biologically divers agricultural systems can help control pests and diseases, introduce novel crops for economic benefit, and buffer environmental changes and challenges. Sustainable farming practices that rehabilitate soil and water can enhance biodiversity. These practices include no-till farming, crop rotation, agroforestry, natural forest management, cover cropping, and ecosystem restoration (Gustin 2018)(Horn 2018)(Scherr & McNeely 2007). 

 

Local food purchasing can also aid in biodiversity enhancement; reduced transportation and packaging typically leads to reduced sprawl, congestion, habitat loss, and pollution. According to the National Resource Defense Council, buying locally would help reduce pollution and air quality, as well as overall human health (Robinson 2010). Additionally, many local producers are smaller farms that employ sustainable farming techniques such as those listed above. Support of these practices in this region also has potential to be highly effective at enhancing biodiversity, as areas where farms are already interspersed with hills, forests, and abandoned farms exhibit the highest levels of synergy between economic, ecological, and social dynamics and a lowest levels of trade offs (Scherr & McNeely 2007).

 

​

potential resilience impacts

 

The resilience aspects of sustainable purchasing methods are also highly visible when we consider local purchasing and food procurement practices.

 

A diversified supply chain that is more inclusive, especially of small businesses, can allow for greater adaptation, responsiveness, and flexibility (Bateman et al. 2020).  Due to smaller size, they are better able to adapt to market changes, climate changes, and social changes, such as those seen during the COVID-19 pandemic (MSU 2020). Spending money at local businesses also ensure economic wellbeing and diversity in the community. Supporting a diverse array of businesses in the region not only ensure greater resilience to change, but also preserves our communities uniqueness, and in turn maintains cultural resilience and character that draws in tourism (Robinson 2010)

 

The resilience of our food system and food security also has great potential to be increased through ethical, sustainable, and local purchasing. The US Department of Agriculture and the International Rice Research Institute have both concluded that with each 1°C increase in temperature during the growing season, the yields of rice, wheat and maize drop by 10% (Scherr & McNeely 2007). Shifting towards a more diverse supply chain and food sources will be crucial to adapt to these challenges. It is also imperative that we adopt new strategies of soil, water, and pest management as we anticipate a rising threat of increased pests, disease, and shifting growing conditions (ibid.). Crop, livestock, and forest systems are in close connection and greatly influence hydrological systems. Managing these landscapes in such a way that decreases runoff and encourages absorption is a crucial part in mitigating flood risks that plague Boone, and are expected to increase (ibid.). These techniques can also be seen in many small scale local farms in the area.

 

To adapt and brace ourselves for expected changes and threats, both economically and ecologically, it is imperative that we support and encourage the growth of ecological agricultural management locally and beyond.