Ben Manning of Utopian Creations

Adelaide, birth place and home of Utopian Creations founder Ben Manning, sits in the driest state in the driest inhabited continent on earth—the perfect place to inspire progressive, sustainable lifestyles. And, with its challenging environment and vibrant artistic community, Adelaide inspires Ben in many important ways.

After completing his Bachelors degree in Design with a jewelry specialty, Ben took his budding interest in sustainable living abroad. He traveled for over two years, living in London and spending time in many other countries. Everywhere he turned, he saw the negative environmental effects of careless human behaviors. Returning to Adelaide, Ben determined to live an eco-friendly personal and work life. This responsible decision led Ben to experiment with sustainability within the jewelry industry. And, as the saying goes, “from little things big things grow.” Ben’s idea became a passion and soon Utopian Creations was born.

Ben approaches his Utopian Creations design and metal-smithing with the same philosophy he applies to his life, namely that “humans can and should live and work sustainably and in harmony with the planet.” Indeed, Ben’s belief informs every aspect of Utopian Creations, from the recycled silver and rubber cord used in the jewelry to the rainwater collected in the office and studio.

As Ben points out, without strict self-regulation, even the simple art of jewelry-making can produce damaging waste that ends up in our rivers and soil. So Ben makes all of Utopian Creations’ jewelry and packaging from 99-100% recycled or organic animal-free products, which reduces the need for mining, pesticides and dangerous chemical waste.

Utopian Creations’ silver and rubber cord are “upcycled” from the refuse of the photographic, computing and telecommunications industries, which means less landfill, mining and refining. Ben also uses biodegradable, animal-free polishing compounds and organic cotton buffs instead of noxious chemicals and acids. And Ben designs each piece with sustainability in mind: only 30% of the company’s products contain solder joints, which increases the purity of the jewelry while providing a healthier work environment.

The quest for environmental responsibility does not end with the jewelry itself. Utopian Creations uses Origin green energy in its workshop and office and is working to increase native forest regeneration to offset CO2 emissions. Ben also transports Utopian Creations’ wholesale goods in recycled packaging and he carefully scrutinizes all materials for sustainability, with most being sourced locally.

Utopian Creations truly lives up to its name in its every aspect, from its designs, to its materials selections, to its carefully chosen processes for accomplishing its pursuit of beauty, to the very operation of its facilities.

We applaud Utopian Creations for striving toward zero emissions while creating beautiful jewelry that is also a healthy choice for people and planet.

By the way -- making a $25 loan on Kiva.org is really easy, fun and connects you to the world, one person at a time. ElegRoo just loaned $25 to Fady, a carpenter in Beirut, Lebanon known for fine work.]

Anyway, Ms. Ritchey reports that most of the people living in Ulaanbaatar (the capital of Mongolia) live in gers (a yurt-type abode) heated by a central stove burning coal and/or wood. Pollution is especially horrific in winter (check out the image from Kiva.org) when temperatures are frigid and extra coal and wood are burned to keep the gers warm. According to the World Bank, 60% of Ulaanbaatar’s pollution in winter arises from coal burning in ger stoves.

In winter, most families have to cut food spending in order to heat their gers. The Eco Products Team at XacBank in Mongolia, a Kiva lending affiliate, addresses both the poverty and pollution issues at once by offering 3 new types of personal consumption “green loans”:

* Energy Efficient Stoves
* Ger (yurt) covers
* Energy efficient fuel


GTZ, a German government run sustainable development enterprise, developed and tested the energy efficient stoves, which are lined with kiln-type bricks that circulate and retain heat more efficiently. That reduces fuel consumption by more than 60%, reduces fuel costs, and reduces air pollution.

Ger covers, designed by the United Nations Development Program and produced locally in Mongolia, are insulating blankets that cover the entire ger. Specialized insulation retains heat within the ger, reducing fuel use by 50%.

Last but not least, XacBank makes Eco loans for energy efficient fuel created from compacted sawdust and gasified coal. While the efficient fuels are more expensive, the price difference is offset by the need to burn less fuel. The impact on the environment is striking.

XacBank has so far posted 22 green loans on Kiva and plans to do more. I was out on Kiva.org yesterday and none were posted, but keep checking back — new eco-loans are coming soon!

Visit Kiva and get in on the good work that the good people of Kiva.org are doing. And Kiva makes a great gift — allowing your gift recipient to choose to help fill the loan request of a particular person somewhere in the world.

This story was originally posted on “Kiva Stories from the Field” on February 23, 2010. All images from Kiva.org.

Later.

Many urbanites dream of leaving the hustle and bustle behind for a quieter life in the country, but few actually fulfill the dream. Gary and Rebecca Rosenberg are two of the lucky ones. In 1998, they sold their San Francisco advertising agency and catalog company and moved to their property in Northern California’s Sonoma County, long known for great wine, tart apples, and other fine agricultural delicasies.

With a goal to be home with their two kids as much as possible, the Rosenbergs focused on what they could do with the land to provide a livelihood. Tucked between the Pacific Ocean and the Mayacamas Mountain range, the Sonoma Valley mimics the elevation, climate and soil of the Mediterranean and provides ideal growing conditions. Many options were tossed around, including growing grapes and making wine, but they eventually settled on planting lavender.

More than ten years later, Sonoma Lavender grows and manufactures hundreds of lavender products and is the single largest provider of lavender products in the US. Even still, the company remains family-owned and operated in the true sense, working together to plant, tend, harvest and dry the crop each season on their five-acre farm.

We commend the Rosenberg Family for their natural, eco-friendly and “go local” approach. Local artisans handcraft all of Sonoma Lavender’s products, which benefits the local economy and the environment by avoiding transport and outsourcing to keep the company’s environmental footprint small. The Rosenbergs also practice environmentally friendly growing and manufacturing techniques, and every product is grown, designed and made in Santa Rosa, California.

In keeping with their eco-friendly philosophy, Sonoma Lavender uses recycled cotton and organic ingredients whenever possible. We particularly love the booties and wrap in the Natural Tranquility Spa Set, which are handcrafted from a remarkably breathable fabric woven from recycled yarns.

What a terrific way to keep an estimated 5 billion pounds of waste out of landfills! The naturally healthful lotions, gels and soy candleshttp://www.elegantroots.com/Organic-Lavender-Spa-Set-by-Sonoma-Lavender-p-67.html feature organic herbal blends and therapeutic-grade essential oils. Soothing and spicy.

Used throughout history for its therapeutic balancing properties, lavender has shown to be energizing, calming and revitalizing. To celebrate the fragrant, magical plant, each June Rebecca and Gary open their farm, which is otherwise closed to the public, for the Sonoma Lavender Festival. The festival features lavender cooking demonstrations, farm tours, a barn store and a lavender day spa.

I salute Gary and Rebecca for the vision to have conceived a robust business based on natural products and the commitment to operate it in ways that give back to the community and respect the earth. Sonoma Lavender is truly an inspiring American Dream.

The dresses are made from re-used, or repurposed, materials and they’re pretty stunning in that certain runway sort of way.

Check out the one that looks like the model sat down on a park bench somewhere and emerged with a mass of crinkled newspapers. Not the best look — but funny and eye-catching and it makes a point about reusing materials — I’m just not sure what point exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5z1PYFPdM0

Alternative Consumer has a good article on this: http://bit.ly/9r4MHL

Kudos to Mr. Harvey and GreenShows.

Motivation 3.0 covers what intrinsically motivates us where there are no external rewards, no concrete personal “carrots.” For example, people spend much time and effort on Wikipedia; or people stop to help a stranger; or someone who spends hours practicing violin with no interest in a professional career.

Ironically, when someone does something for its intrinsic motivation — say, for interest or fun — the application of an extrinsic reward can often ruin it, “transform[ing] an interesting task into a drudge. [Extrinisic rewards] can turn play into work. And by diminishing intrinsic motivation, they can send performance, creativity, and even upstanding behavior toppling like dominoes.”

With Drive in mind, I read about Whole Foods’ new Team Member Healthy Discount Incentive Program as reported by Jezebel.com. This program offers employee discounts beyond the normal 20% for non-smoking employees who opt-in and demonstrate qualifying
cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and body weight as measured by BMI.

Applying extrinsic rewards and punishments (like a discount) to what is otherwise intrinsically motivated (like healthy lifestyle pursuit) — that’s a motivation killer. Maybe that’ll be no problem for those who already score at a 30% discount, but for those who have been struggling with weight, this program is a motivation killer.

What were they thinking?

But perhaps John Mackey and the other execs at Whole Foods did consider the studies of Motivation 3.0 in designing this program. Maybe this program is NOT intended to motivate weight loss, etc.; perhaps it’s intended to accomplish something else entirely. Warning: Whole Foods employees beware.

The incentive discounts slide on a scale, greater for those with better scores. The scale begins with a 22% discount for someone whose blood pressure is less than 140/90, cholesterol below 195 or LDL below 110, and whose BMI is below 30. The scale tops out at a 30% discount offered to one whose blood pressure is below 110/70, cholesterol is below 150 or LDL below 80, AND whose BMI is below 24.

If your BMI is 30 or above, you still get your regular 20% discount, which means the 30-somethings will get paid less than their thinner co-workers. “Because (as Jezebel.com brilliantly observes) if public health research has taught us anything, it’s that reducing people’s buying power totally makes them healthier. Stay classy, Whole Foods.”

But, you say, Whole Foods is spending lots of money to motivate weight loss, and cholesterol lowering, etc. Maybe not so much. The program’s rules state that one’s discount is dictated by where one’s weakest score falls on the program chart. For example, you can have a BMI below 24 (30% discount level) and blood pressure below 110/70 (30% level), but if your cholesterol is say 180, your discount is limited to 25%. The 30% discount level for cholesterol is below 150.

I’m sure there are some few people out there who have genes that allow a below-150 cholesterol score without drugs, but I’ve never met one. For most, genetics precludes a 30% discount without the taking of a prescription drug — every day. Thus, very few will ever qualify for the 30% or even the 27% discounts.

This genetic roadblock seems unfair — and a sense of unfairness is a force-multiplier for external rewards/punishments destroying intrinsic motivation.

Encouraging widespread use of prescriptions also seems contrary to Mr. Mackey’s stated purpose for the program — to lower Whole Foods’ employee health care costs.

If the program seems ill-designed for its stated purpose, what other (unstated) purpose might it be serving?

To what other uses can Whole Foods put this private health information? Well, what would stop Whole Foods from creating a regular compensation structure based on weight and cholesterol? A discount is clearly a form of compensation — and this one based on weight.

What would stop Whole Foods from using this info in deciding who to promote? The union would stop that, right? Wait … never mind. (Mackey reportedly said having unions is like having herpes.)

If Whole Foods were able to demonstrate that lower weight, cholesterol and blood pressure could lower health insurance costs for the company, could it use the data to design a hiring practice based on weight, cholesterol and blood pressure? But where would he get the data to support such a claim?

I’ll try not to be paranoid, but this looks like a slippery slope to me. And if John Mackey’s political philosophy has taught us anything, it’s that we must rely upon ourselves in this world. Anything else smacks of socialism.

So, what limits does the program place on Whole Foods’ use of the personal health information? Well, while the program poster announces that “the privacy of your personal health information is important to us”, the poster makes no actual promise of privacy, confidentiality, or limitations on use of the data. One must apparently look to the fine print of the program materials to discover what, if any, limits there may be on Whole Foods’ use of the information.

Since very few people will ever qualify for the 27% or 30% discount, Mr. Mackey may have come up with a very cheap way (a 2 to 5% discount) to get employees to voluntarily disclose highly private data.

Since the program violates motivation theory and is highly unlikely to work to lower employees weight, etc., let me ask again —

What were they thinking?

Later,
Rob Favole

What does it mean to receive Green America’s application approval? “Members of Green Business Network™ at Green America* have made extraordinary commitments to fair treatment of their employees and workers in their supply chain, promoting healthy communities where they do business, preserving the environment, and delivering quality products to their costumers. To recognize [these] commitments and accomplishments as a green business, Green America has created our Green Business Seal of Approval. This seal signals that [ElegRoo] ha[s] passed Green America’s screening process and ha[s] been admitted as an approved green business to our Green Business Network™.”

Elegant Roots now proudly displays the Green Business Seal of Approval.

And Elegant Roots listing now appears at Greenpages.org and in the 2011 National Green Pages (due out in the fall of 2010).

Green America’s Review Committee “commend[ed] Elegant Roots on the quality of information [it] share[s] with customers on ElegantRoots.com! From a committee reviewing hundreds of businesses, such recognition of ElegRoo’s practice of transparency and “our four Ws” is particularly gratifying.

The members of the committee have encouraged ElegRoo to create two additional categories: Fair Trade products and Made in the USA products. “Often consumers are looking for or give priority to these products.”

We have taken their advice and have created a Made in USA category. While we were at it, we created Made in Africa and Made in Israel categories. We’d love to hear what our customers think about the appeal and usefulness of a Fair Trade category and of other geographical categories: Made in Latin America; Made in Asia, etc. Please let us know what you think by leaving a comment below.

Thanks,
Rob Favole

To “refresh your recollection” (I am a former lawyer, after all), let me take you back. Good Guide is a beta site that rates products on three scales: environmental, nutritional, and social justice (my terms, not theirs). They reduce a product and its producer to three numerical scores, with 10 being the top score. Then they combine the three scores to a single score purporting to rate a product/producer overall.

More than a month ago, I wrote to Good Guide through its website asking for help in understanding how it could rate a commercial “lite” yogurt (Yoplait) with all its additives, so much higher than an organic, plain whole milk (Straus) made from nothing more than organic whole milk and live yogurt cultures, and higher than an organic nonfat plain (Nancy’s) made from nothing more than organic nonfat milk and live yogurt cultures.

Good Guide never responded — so, last Tuesday’s Tract, Radical Transparency: Lost in Translation set out my view that those particular ratings are unsustainable, drawing questions upon their other ratings, and casting doubt on the notion that issues as complex as nutritional value and social justice can be reduced to a single score. I questioned whether such “laser focus” transparency doesn’t simply create a new opacity.

I must admit that in having some fun in the writing and some passion for the subject, my tone may have crossed the snarky line just a bit. Good Guide submitted a comment to my blog — which, I venture to say, maybe also got a little close to the snarky line.

Here’s the Good Guide response, delivered by Jodie — I have taken the liberty to interlineate some comments in brackets and italics.

From Good Guide: “Thanks for your thoughtful reflection on Ecological Intelligence and Good Guide. We would be happy to address your questions line by line if you are interested in better understanding our methodology.”

[My imagination, or was the "if you are really interested" a snide response to my snarkiness?]

In short, the nutritional ratings are partially based on a RRR score (Ration of Restricted to Recommended Nutrients), calculated by our staff nutritionist and scientific rating team. We rate based on the RRR score, ingredients banned or on track to be banned in the U.S., Europe, or Australia, as well as known additives and preservatives. We match the ingredients of products we rate against international studies, reports, and ban lists.

[So, the nutrition score is based on another score, the RRR score, which measures your ration of restricted nutrients. And it accounts for banned, or likely to be banned ingredients. Well, that saves us from known poisons, but doesn't say much about positive nutrition. Okay, I'm toning back the tone. All this is brought to you by scientists, one of which I am clearly not; I get the point: all hail he keepers of the RRR.]

“We launched the food category in April, and we continue to iterate, improve, and apply the most current science to our food ratings. It is a priority to display our ratings at the most granular level possible, so that consumers can drill down into the data behind the number score. Transparency is our goal for the marketplace, as well as for our own efforts, as we ultimately wish to arm consumers with information to improve their purchasing decisions.”

[Laudable goal, transparency and data to drill down into -- but the fact is, if you provide a single score that is the average of 3 numerical scores, consumers will rely on it -- they won't drill down into the data. Scientists do that, not many consumers.]

“Feel free to contact us with your questions, suggestions, concerns, and advice. We apply all feedback to making GoodGuide a more accurate and useful resource.”

“Thank you,
Jodie (GoodGuide.com)”

I emailed right back, saying I would love to be walked through the ratings “line-by-line” and I made a sub silentio peace offering for my snarkiness, though I couldn’t resist referring to my “lay person’s reaction” — lowly though it might be.

Jodie from Good Guide wrote right back saying, in effect, that she would throw it over to the ratings committee. That was Tuesday or Wednesday last week. I’m waiting.

But this whole episode raises a bigger question: Good Guide and Elegant Roots have similar values — transparency to inform consumers so they may align their purchases with their values — and maybe change what is made by what people will buy.

Given our alignment of end-purpose, what’s the best way to pose a criticism? Out in public with bluntness? Or quietly, back channel. You know, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. On the other hand, do you turn away from public controversy when you perceive missteps, be they purposeful or not? What serves transparency? Transparency?

What’s your take?

I’ll keep you posted about the actions of the ratings committee.

Later.

Ecological Intelligence should really have been titled “Radical Transparency”. The central theme of Ecological Intelligence is how radical transparency can and will change everything. When consumers can know the footprint of a product — not merely the carbon footprint — but the full enviro-footprint of every stage from extraction of materials, to converging of materials to production to packaging to shipping through use and disposal for every component of every product (at least for mass produced products) than consumers will begin choosing the better choices from an environmental perspective. Companies, to survive and thrive, will begin to respond to the consumer clatter and make better products. Hence, less impact on the environment.

Goleman suggests the same will be true on other values — social justice like labor practices. And health issues.

This process, Goleman argues persuasively, is not only the best, most effective, most powerful way to effect change — it’s the only way to real change.

Goleman holds up as perhaps the most promising example of Radical Transparency at work, the Good Guide, a beta site accumulating an impressive amount of data about many products — though it’s just a beginning — and assigning to a product an overall Good Guide rating based on three composite scores: Health, Environment and Society — roughly translated to Nutrition/Health, Environment, and Social Justice. All the issues of what is “Good” are reduced to three numerical scores on a scale of 100.

Good Guide has done an impressive amount of work which yields impressive results, especially given it’s self-proclaimed “beta” status. And it envisions even more: Imagine strolling the supermarket aisles, using a phone app that scans a product bar code and instantly retreives these three simple scores — or simpler yet, one overall score that tells you which is Good, which is Better, which Best.

Sounds simple? Too Good to be true? My take: this is too much information funneled to such a fine laser point that one is blinded by the light.

With regard to the eco-issue like Life Cycle Assessments of a product, I defer to the scientists in an almost religious way. When it comes to the Social Justice issues, they are so complex in the ways that human interactions, institutions, emotions, and behavior can be, that they are nearly imponderable. Policies versus practices. Good intentions versus unforeseen consequences.

But with regard to health and nutrition issues, the science is nearly counterproductive and what remains is largely political. On the issue of nutrition and health, I’m an amateur, but I try to follow it — personal interest, you might say. But following the science as filtered through the media is a little Alice in Wonderland. There’s the slow food movement, the whole foods movement, vegans, traditional medicine (which, after years of warning us against the evil Saturated Fats is showing a chink in even that claim.)

It’s not hard to eat a clean, healthy diet, once you decide what you believe in.

Reducing all the issues to a single 2-digit number really becomes absurd — wool-over-the-eyes stuff. Here’s an example.

I wrote to Good Guide with a query. Here’s the gist of what I wrote, with bracketed phrases newly added:

“When I learned of your service in Ecological Intelligence, I was really excited because it sounded like the scientific version of what we try to do anecdotally at Elegant Roots. But when I went on your site today, I was disappointed at how some of the ratings. [case in point -- the Yogurt ratings]

“You’ve given Silk [soy] Yogurt a 9.5 on nutrition though it has ingredients that include Cane Juice (read “sugar”), Unmodified Tapioca Starch, Dextrose (which the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says to cut back on. Tricalcium Phosphate, and ??Natural Flavors?? [whatever they are].

“You’ve given Yoplait Lite Smoothie an 8.4 on nutrition with ingredients including Fructose (per CSIP: ‘large amounts increase triglyceride (fat) levels in blood and, thereby, increase the risk of heart disease. Large amounts consumed on a regular basis also may affect levels of such hormones as insulin, leptin, and ghrelin, that regulate appetite, thereby contributing to weight gain and obesity.’), Modified Cornstarch, Gellan Gum, Potassium Sorbate, Added To Maintain Freshness, and !!Artificial Flavor!!, Tricalcium Phosphate, and Sucralose.

“Meanwhile Nancy’s Nonfat Organic Plain Yogurt gets only a 7.0 for nutrition when all it is made from is nonfat milk and yogurt cultures. That’s it.

“And Straus Whole Milk Yogurt, made only of Pasteurized Organic Whole Milk and Living Yogurt Cultures, gets only a 4.8!

“Merely because it is whole milk and has some saturated fat? It’s organic [from pastured cows]! And it’s a clean whole food. [Still, Good Guide scored it only Medium on sugars despite that it has no sugar except that which occurs naturally in milk. [Naturally occurring Sugar, bad. Saturated fat, bad. Modified cornstarch, fine. added fructose, no prob.]

“Obviously these ratings are full of subjective judgments not based on conclusive science. It casts doubt on all the ratings. Please help me understand.”

I never received any response.

Maybe this simple is too simple. Not all these issues are reducible to quantification despite the best efforts of talented scientists.

One kind of transparency leads to a new kind of opacity. The tyranny of too much information simplification.

Right now I’m diving into a plain, organic yogurt despite the obvious health risks.

Later.

Apparently, having been burned repeatedly by criticism of the “pricey-ness” of some green products, Sami felt compelled to an anticipatory rant in response using, as her subject, our $69 handmade, organic stuffed Penguin. Penguin by Dwelling.

Sami concludes: “It seems to me that if someone is going to spend $60 on toys, then buying one or two well-made, safe and sustainable items beats filling up the toy chest with lead paint and plastic crap. (Not to mention there are plenty of ‘luxury’ toys out there that don’t carry such green credentials…)”

We, at ElegantRoots.com, agree wholeheartedly and appreciate greatly Sami’s endorsement. And we agree emphatically that people should Buy Less But Buy Better. As she suggests, there may be some “green” alternatives in a lower price range. But there are other issues at play here.

Social Justice and soulfulness. We offer things that are handmade — touched by the hand and spirit of the artisan. No machine-turned-out toy can match the feel. And, unlike the Wal-Mart ilk, ElegantRoots.com does not squeeze price concessions from the artisans. A fair price for a handmade item is what we’re all about. If a handmade, organic stuffed animal were to sell for half the price, who would bite it on that transaction? The artisan.

I guarantee a “similar” toy can be made in a sweatshop factory in China for a lower price. And who bites it on that transaction. The sweatshop indentured servant.

ElegantRoots.com exists to help create and sustain a market for artisan products that use traditional skills to create marketable designs (Penguins are not a traditional subject in Kenya). If there is no market for these products, traditional skills become economically nonviable. Traditional lifestyles are lost as people are forced to overcrowded cities to join the ranks of the displaced, dependent on sweatshops.

So, when people complain about the prices, what do they really want? Do they want social enterprises like ElegantRoots.com not to exist? Do they want the artisans in developing economies to get squeezed to the bone on prices in order to try to compete with sweatshops? Do they want only “cheap” plastic stuff that winds up in the dump?

Bottom line, you get what you pay for. If you want a product created by hand by some one person with pride and care, working in a joyful community of women receiving fair trade prices, a Penguin from the Critter Knitters of rural Kenya is the perfect choice. Penguin from Critter Knitters

The same applies within the borders of the US. If you want a limited edition Kimochi “emotions” doll made by hand in the US by a noted doll artist, Cody Thompson, shop at ElegantRoots.com.

You’ll be glad you did. So will the artisan somewhere (and we tell you where) who, because a market exists, can pursue his/her art and be independent.

And it all comes wrapped in our nonpareil, signature, and COMPLIMENTARY, eco-conscious gift wrap.

Later.

Some people are blessed with a bounty of energy and intellectual verve. Ellen Dorsch is clearly one of the lucky. At 60, Ellen changed careers from the non-profit public health sector to starting her own international business. She tackled a steep learning curve and overcame some interesting bumps along the way. Now, Ellen’s Creative Women, a member of the Fair Trade Federation sells wonderful Ethiopian, Swazi and Afghan textiles throughout the USA and Canada.

Ellen has a Masters in public health, planning and developing. Her work with a non-profit public health organization took Ellen to Africa. In Ethiopia she found an economy wracked by years of instability. She quickly recognized that the wonderful people she met needed medical support but also a better means of earning a living. Ellen saw that many talented women were economically marginalized and that Ethiopia’s exquisite hand-embroidered textiles were under-marketed internationally.

Ellen’s business and humanitarian idea sprang to full life when she met Menbere Alemayehu, a fashion designer who owned an established dress-making business, Menby’s Designs. Both women knew that they could make a positive difference if they were able to create more employment opportunities for Ethiopian women. To meet that goal, Ellen partnered with Menbere to launch Creative Women. ” I founded Creative Women because I love beautiful things; I want to make a real difference in women’s lives; and I’m fascinated by travel. Creative Women allows me to do all three…by buying directly from women-owned businesses, by expanding markets for hand-woven textiles, and by paying fair prices for our goods.”

The heart of Creative Women remains Ellen’s well-founded conviction that long-lasting improvement in people’s lives results from commerce—job creation through viable business. Since its beginning, Ellen, with the support of her husband Bill, has used that humanitarian principle to grow Creative Women and its positive impact on the economic lives of African and now Afghan, women by forming additional partnerships in Ethiopia, Swaziland, and Kabul.

As an example, Ellen works closely with Kathy Marshall, of Sabahar, to obtain top quality silk. Kathy previously worked in Ethiopia through Oxfam Canada and shares Ellen’s belief in the benefits of commerce. As part of her business, Kathy provides training and jobs for otherwise unemployable Ethiopian women. Eschewing imported commercial silk, Kathy employs more than 60 women under excellent pay and working conditions to tend cocoons and spin raw silk into wonderful cloth.

Ellen found yet another partner in Swaziland. Murrae Stephens operates a family-run mohair business (named Coral Stephens), employing 60 women weavers who are given excellent pay and working conditions, including daycare and other benefits. And Ellen has added and hopes to continue adding new, socially responsible African partners as Creative Women expands.

Providing wonderful new jobs for economically-needy African women is but half the Creative Women success equation. Ellen knows that economic gains cannot be sustained unless Creative Women is producing commercially viable products. So Ellen and her partners work hard to design fresh and beautiful textiles handcrafted with the highest quality, eco-friendly materials. The result is nothing short of fantastic. Creative Women has become known for its hand-woven, vibrantly-colored mohair and hand-spun silk, all made with natural dyes from flowers, roots, berries and bark.

Ellen Dorsch “founded Creative Women as a way to create jobs in Ethiopia and sustain an ancient art form by introducing the West to the beauty of Ethiopian textiles.” Every day she proves that everyone from producer to consumer benefits from commercial viability conducted within a “respectful relationship” that is fostered by “a socially responsible link”.

Ellen’s success stories abound. We particularly liked the story of an artisan who used her Sabahar income to have long-needed dental work. Her joy and pride is plainly visible in her “success smile.”

We salute Ellen and her Creative Women partners for their humanitarian work and extraordinarily beautiful Ethiopian, Swazi and Afghan textiles! Creative Women’s hand work, high fashion designs and natural and sustainable materials combine to produce unsurpassed quality with a certain soulful, personal touch.

Hasta martes