Search

Freshwater ecosystems like marshes, streams and lakes cover just a sliver of our planet, but they’re powerhouses of diversity. Nearly 10 percent of all animal species are found in these blue oases — a charismatic group of freshwater mammals that includes charging hippopotami, curious platypuses and frolicking otters.

Unfortunately, freshwater systems are one of the most threatened places on Earth. Over two-thirds of our wetlands have vanished since 1900. Similarly, nearly a third of freshwater mammals are threatened, and their numbers are declining faster than other furred and lactating creatures. 

However, we can help the beavers, minks and river dolphins of the world with changes in an unexpected area: agriculture. Even in an industry that often harms freshwater systems, mitigating the impacts of the agriculture sector on our planet’s tranquil pools and bubbling waterways is possible. 

Threats to freshwater mammals

Agriculture harms freshwater mammals in multiple ways. While hunting, fishing and logging weigh in as the main risks to freshwater mammals, agriculture is a close second.

An obvious impact of agriculture is habitat destruction. In fact, a major driver of wetland conversion is food production. Besides outright habitat destruction, agriculture also degrades freshwater habitats.

“A big thing we're still dealing with is the sins of the past where wetland loss occurred throughout the history of agriculture,” said Brian Jennings, a fish and wildlife biologist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Back in the '50s and the '60s, they were going in and ditching and draining wetlands and then actively farming them. In Delaware and other places on the coastal plain, the problem was you didn't have enough elevation to get the water off the field. So, they started channelizing streams to lower the elevation and drain the [agricultural] lands. But they didn't take into consideration the natural channel function, so you get a lot of sediment issues and bank erosion from these channelized streams.”

In addition to these issues, runoff from agriculture is a main source of pollution for rivers, lakes and wetlands. Excess nutrients from fields can be washed into nearby waterways, potentially fueling dead zones, fish kills and algal blooms. Finally, agriculture is also the largest consumer of freshwater globally, competing directly with these ecosystems.

Besides the threats across the crop world, urban development, invasive species, pollution, climate change, dams and water management systems menace freshwater mammals. It’s no wonder 44 percent of their species are declining. 

The benefits of buffer zones 

Fortunately, there are many ways to reduce the harmful effects of agriculture. First of all, maintaining buffer zones — or strips of land and vegetation along the banks of water bodies, also called riparian areas — is important for wildlife. 

“The whole riparian area acts as travel corridors for different species, whether it's birds, mammals, amphibians or reptiles,” Jennings said.

Buffers with native vegetation improve habitat for animals by filtering and cleaning the water, stabilizing stream banks, mitigating floods, reducing and regulating water temperatures, and uptaking carbon. 

Yet agricultural livestock prefer riparian areas because they provide abundant food, water and shade. They can degrade these sensitive areas — changing stream channels, trampling banks, increasing erosion, and reducing plant and animal diversity. 

A simple solution to this problem is keeping livestock away from these areas. Fencing can protect riparian areas, while supplying alternative water sources can attract livestock away from streams. This can lead to dramatic habitat improvements. For example, excluding livestock from riparian areas in Oregon substantially improved the diversity and abundance of native vegetation. 

While buffers are good for the environment, farmers may oppose giving up otherwise usable land, Jennings explained. A forested buffer can also interfere with irrigation systems, and shading may affect nearby crops. However, incentive payments, like those offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program, can encourage farmers to adopt conservation practices on their land.

Improving water quality

Buffers aren't the only way farmers can help protect freshwater habitats and their furred inhabitants. For instance, farmers can reduce pollution from their farms by adopting best management practices for nutrients. These involve applying the correct type of fertilizer at the right time, place and amount. 

Planting cover and perennial crops to reduce soil erosion can also be helpful. Another method is conservation drainage techniques, which involves filtering water through trenches filled with wood chips to remove nutrients and modifying ditches and drainage systems.

For instance, best management practices on agricultural lands in Florida reduced phosphorus pollution entering the Everglades by an average of 55 percent. These practices included leveling fields to reduce soil erosion, constructing berms (or raised banks) along ditches and canals to reduce runoff, and cleaning sediments out of canals, among other actions. 

Reducing water use

Tamping down on water use is another way to shrink the oversized reach of agriculture into freshwater ecosystems. For example, drip irrigation, where tubing is placed on or under the soil, reduces evaporation, as does scheduling irrigation for cooler parts of the day. Sensors that detect soil moisture can reduce unnecessary water use on farms, too. 

In addition, cover crops and mulch cool the soil, reducing evaporation. They also lock up nutrients in the soil and allow for reduced fertilizer use, saving farmers money, Jennings explained. 

Along with no-till practices (or not plowing the soil) and compost, these methods increase organic matter in the soil, and in turn, improves its ability to hold water.  However, no-till practices may require spraying herbicides since mechanical treatments to suppress weeds aren’t an option.

A similar problem exists with organic production. “The big problem with organic farming is you have to turn the soil over since that's your weed control,” Jennings said. “There are no approved organic herbicides that are really effective on weed control.”

In the quest for more sustainable agriculture and healthier ecosystems, some tradeoffs are inevitable.

Safeguarding freshwater mammals

All this effort may sound laborious, but after all, freshwater mammals are a valuable group. For instance, the industrious beaver creates wetlands, improves water quality, reduces erosion, increases plant and animal diversity, and minimizes the risk of flooding. Hippos, perhaps better known for their aggression, also transfer silicon into rivers and lakes. Silicon, in turn, is a vital nutrient for diatoms (or algae) that make up the base of the food chain feeding aquatic insects and fish.

While the threats to freshwater mammals are numerous, there are nearly as many ways to protect them. Changing agricultural practices is one major step forward. 

In case you missed it, TriplePundit relaunched last week with a focus on solutions journalism. Since then, we've taken a look back at some of the environmental, social and economic solutions we covered in the past — and if they became "the next big thing" as once promised or eventually faded away. Now, we're looking ahead at some of the most promising solutions the science tells us can have a measurable impact on the environmental, social and economic challenges we face. 

When it comes to the environment — and climate change in particular — we don't need to wait for yet-to-be-invented technologies or multi-trillion-dollar investments in order to make progress. Proven climate solutions that are scalable today can get us most of the way toward capping global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius this century and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. 

Reduce food waste

Cutting food waste in half globally by 2050 would amount to 88.5 gigatons in avoided carbon equivalent emissions, according to the nonprofit Project Drawdown, which pulls from peer-reviewed research and projections to quantify the potential of various climate solutions. That's around 15 percent of the estimated 570 gigatons of avoided emissions necessary to cap global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius. Of the 90 potential climate solutions in Project Drawdown's tracker, reducing food waste has the greatest projected potential to cut emissions. 

That may come as a surprise: Most people think about renewable energy, electric vehicles or battery storage first when it comes to fighting climate change. It turns out wasting nearly a third of the food we produce globally is not only terrible for people, but it's also a major greenhouse gas emitter. Food waste accounts for around half of all emissions associated with the global food system, according to a 2023 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Food. 

In lower-income countries, most food is wasted accidentally at the field level or during storage. In wealthier countries, it's more likely to go to waste at retailers and restaurants or in people's homes. Evidence-based solutions exist to address food waste along the value chain. A landmark 2019 effort from the World Resources Institute's Champions 12.3 initiative helped 114 restaurants across 12 countries cut food waste by half or more, while saving $7 for every $1 invested, using methods that are easily replicable. On the field, crops typically considered waste can be diverted for other uses, such as through "ugly" produce companies or alternative products like cosmetics or fuels. 

But vast untapped potential still exists — for example, countries and companies leveraging climate finance to help farmers in developing markets invest in mechanical harvesting equipment and food storage, or local stakeholders working to address some of the social causes of food waste at the consumer level (which can include things like long walks to the nearest grocery store). Keep an eye on TriplePundit for more coverage of food waste and climate solutions like these. If you have a tip, please send it here! 

Adopt a more plant-based diet

We know, we know. The mere suggestion of cutting out animal products can be polarizing, eliciting cheers or gasps depending on your circles. But adopting a more climate-friendly diet doesn't have to mean cutting out meat entirely. Even eating less meat and dairy can carry major benefits in the fight against climate change. 

If half of the global population ate a more "plant-rich" diet — specifically limiting red meat to 57 grams per day, which amounts to a burger or steak a couple times a week — we'd avoid 78.3 gigatons of carbon equivalent emissions, according to estimates from Project Drawdown. Other recent research came to similar conclusions. 

That means eating a bit less meat and throwing out half the food we do now could get us nearly a third of the way toward avoiding the 1.5-degree threshold scientists agree is critical. That's some pretty serious — and if you ask us, seriously exciting — stuff.

The boom in plant-based meat options could serve to convince the uninitiated they may not need meat at every meal. But a lot of this will likely boil down to education and access — in other words, high-quality, local animal products and produce being accessible at affordable prices and people feeling confident using it in their kitchens. This will be top on our coverage list with our new solutions focus, too. Please share any tips here. 

Tropical reforestation

Globally, forests act as a carbon sink, with trees and plants sucking carbon from the air and storing it in the soil. Tropical forests in particular are estimated to store around a quarter of the world's carbon. But degradation and rising temperatures mean tropical forests aren't able to suck up as much carbon as they once did, so restoration is critical. 

Adopted by U.N. member states and civil society stakeholders in 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests calls for stopping global forest loss and restoring 350 million hectares of forest by 2030. The latest progress report, published this week, indicates the world is far off track.

Global stakeholders need to cut forest loss by 10 percent per year to halt deforestation by 2030, but rates of deforestation are still increasing and backslid last year after modest gains in 2021. Global gross deforestation is 21 percent higher than needed to reach the goal, and the state of primary tropical forests is even worse, with losses 33 percent higher than what's needed to halt tropical deforestation by 2030.

But all hope is not lost. Tropical Asia is the closest of all global regions to halting deforestation, with Indonesia and Malaysia achieving sustained reductions in tropical forest loss, according to the assessment. Further, restoring 350 million hectares by 2030 was always a stretch, and making even some progress toward that aim can have significant benefits in reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

Restoring around 161 million hectares of tropical forest by 2050 could avoid nearly 55 gigatons of carbon equivalent emissions, and restoring 230 million hectares could avoid more than 85 gigatons, according to estimates from Project Drawdown. But forest restoration isn't just about tree-planting, and recent research indicates that widespread tree-planting programs aren't having the level of impact organizers would like. Some forestry experts are calling for a new approach, called forest landscape restoration, that provides for overall ecosystem health and community well-being. Climate solutions like this will be central to TriplePundit's ongoing coverage of forest protection and reforestation. If you have tips to share, please do so here! 

The rise of renewables 

Renewable energy is what most people think about when they consider the fight against climate change, and it certainly has the potential to play a major role. Together, wind and solar accounted for 12 percent of global electricity generation in 2022, according to a recent analysis from the U.K. think tank Ember Climate. Electricity generation from wind and solar increased by 19 percent from 2021, while global coal generation increased by just over 1 percent and gas declined by .02 percent. 

The signs that fossil fuel power generation may have peaked are encouraging, and keeping the momentum up will have outsized impacts on fighting climate change. Increasing onshore wind power to 20 percent of global electricity generation by 2050 — fairly modest progress from around 7.5 percent today — could result in nearly 47 gigatons of avoided carbon equivalent emissions, according to estimates from Project Drawdown. Going further, to 27 percent, could amount to nearly 144 gigatons of emissions avoided. Meanwhile, meeting 21 percent to 25 percent of global power needs with utility-scale solar could avoid around 41 to 111 gigatons of emissions by 2050. Further gains — up to around 64 gigatons — could come from scaling up rooftop and home solar. 

That means, even on the low end of these estimates, continuing to scale up renewables at an aggressive pace could bring the world a fifth of the way toward avoiding the 1.5-degree threshold. On the higher end, we'd be over halfway there. And that doesn't even take into account other fast-developing renewable technologies like offshore wind and green hydrogen made from water, which is on pace to surpass price-parity with hydrogen made from natural gas within a decade. Of course renewable energy — from the standards like onshore wind and utility-scale solar to emerging models — will continue to be central to TriplePundit's coverage of climate solutions. Please share any tips here! 

Beyond climate solutions: Evidence-based ways to improve the environment

Okay, let's break out the calculators: Even on the lower end of these estimates, these four climate solutions could get the world over halfway toward avoiding the 1.5-degree threshold. On the higher end, we'd be there with these solutions alone.

Importantly, all of these targets are attainable based on where we are now and the technologies we already have at hand. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything else, but we also don't need to wait around to crack the code. We can do more now, and millions around the world already are.

And the global carbon budget isn't the only area where proven solutions can make a massive impact on the challenges we face. When it comes to biodiversity, interventions like protected wildlife corridors have been shown to combat extinction and safeguard at-risk species. Considering that around 80 percent of the plastic waste that enters the ocean comes from rivers, river-based interventions have vast potential stem the tide and give the world more time to fight the problem. 

TriplePundit is keeping a close eye on environmental and climate solutions like these, and we look forward to exploring them further through the lens of solutions journalism. Please share any and all feedback with us, and we're excited to have you on this journey! 

Investors are responding to new incentives under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 with a flood of big, multi-megawatt commercial clean energy projects. That has grabbed the media spotlight, but the clean energy impact of the legislation can also be seen in provisions that support energy-efficiency improvements for small businesses, too.

It was always about the clean energy

The name Inflation Reduction Act is something of a misnomer. The key provisions of the IRA support projects that foster a low-carbon economy. The Joe Biden administration’s official guidebook on the IRA begins with this observation: “On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, marking the most significant action Congress has taken on clean energy and climate change in the nation’s history.”

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office assessed that the IRA would have little to no effect on inflation through 2023, though inflation did cool down this year due to other factors. 

In contrast, there is clear evidence that the tax credits and domestic manufacturing provisions of the IRA have sparked a clean energy boom that includes overseas investors as well as U.S. firms.

In August, for example, the sustainable business organization E2 counted 210 new clean energy projects announced since August 2022, spread among 38 U.S. states. About half of the projects are credited to overseas firms, indicating that the international business community is more motivated to create new manufacturing jobs in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. 

E2 also observed that the law benefited Republican districts by a wide margin, even though the IRA passed along party lines with no Republican votes. “Republican districts accounted for 72 percent of the jobs estimated to be created and 86 percent of the new investments,” E2 assessed. 

E2 updated its list in September to add 13 new projects, spread over 11 states. As with the earlier announcements, the new additions indicate that investors have been politically agnostic in their choice of location, with Republican and Democratic districts benefiting alike.

Together, the 13 new projects flagged by E2 are expected to drive a total of $2.7 billion in private investment. They range in size from an $8.4 million shipyard expansion planned by the U.S. firm Loyd Shipyard to serve the offshore wind industry in Virginia, to a $2 billion electric vehicle battery factory announced by the Chinese company Gotion in Illinois.

Beyond the private sector

In addition to spurring private-sector investment, the clean energy provisions in the IRA unlock the benefits of tax credits for tax-exempt entities, including the nation’s sprawling, and influential, network of rural electric cooperatives.

The National Association of Electric Cooperatives takes credit for helping to shape the Department of Agriculture’s New ERA (Empowering Rural America) program within the IRA. The program covers a wide range of proposals including carbon capture, renewable energy, energy storage, and nuclear energy as well as generation and transmission efficiency improvements.

“Electric cooperatives flooded the U.S. Department of Agriculture with interest in a new $9.7 billion clean energy program, submitting proposals for hundreds of projects that would require at least twice that amount and launch $93 billion in new investment across rural America,” NRECA announced on September 23.

New review reveals untapped potential around energy efficiency

While high-dollar investments and new manufacturing jobs are key parts of the IRA, the provisions that enable ordinary businesses to partake in the low-carbon economy are equally important.

On Friday, the U.S. Treasury Department released a review of tax provisions in the IRA that help ease the financial path for households and small businesses to invest in energy-efficiency upgrades.

For commercial properties, the IRA expands the existing Energy-Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction to directly reward energy-efficiency improvements. Under the new rules, a property owner’s deductions will increase in coordination with the cost savings resulting from their energy-efficiency investments.

The critical importance of energy efficiency

It is difficult to overstate the importance of energy-efficiency improvements in buildings. Energy efficiency has been called the low-hanging fruit of climate action because the technology is accessible and relatively inexpensive, and the timeline for implementation is relatively short. 

“Energy efficiency is one of the easiest and most cost-effective ways to combat climate change, reduce energy costs for consumers, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. businesses,” the U.S. Department of Energy's website reads. 

According to the Energy Department, commercial buildings consume 35 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. and produce 16 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

“Reducing energy use in commercial buildings would have tremendous positive impact in our environment and energy security, and would save money that can be used to help grow U.S. businesses,” according to the department. “In addition, energy efficiency in commercial buildings creates good, skilled and needed jobs in construction and technology, such as engineers, commissioning agents, energy managers, and building operators.

The bottom-line benefits of energy-efficiency upgrades

The Energy Department notes that an average of 30 percent of the energy used in commercial buildings goes to waste. On the bright side, that means the average building stands to gain considerable bottom-line benefits by improving their energy profile. 

The new IRA provisions for commercial efficiency upgrades provide additional support for the Energy Department’s Better Buildings initiative. Launched during the Barack Obama administration in 2011, Better Buildings is a major public-private program that incentivizes building efficiency improvements across all sectors, including government, utilities, Tribal entities and other agencies.

Partnering in the program are almost a third of Fortune 100 companies and almost 40 percent of the top 50 U.S. employers. The program also encompasses about 14 percent of the nation’s manufacturing energy footprint and 13 percent of total commercial building space.

The Energy Department issued a progress report on the program on Monday. The 900 program participants have collectively saved more than $18.5 billion in energy costs since 2011. The upgrades they implemented reduced carbon emissions by almost 190 million metric tons, equivalent to the annual emissions of 24 million homes.

Who’s afraid of the ESG?

As a whole, the IRA provides strong support for the ESG (environment, social and governance) principles that have become mainstream guidelines for responsible businesses and investors. The law includes provisions for social equity and environmental justice along with bottom-line benefits.    

Public officials in Republican-dominated states continue to rail against ESG principles and something called “woke capitalism.” However, so far their efforts have met with mixed, if any, success. Surveys indicate that asset managers continue to tune out the anti-ESG rhetoric, though some may parse their words more carefully when discussing ESG.

After all, money talks, and the IRA has plenty to say. 

TriplePundit relaunched last week with a focus on solutions journalism, but we've highlighted environmental, social and economic solutions on the site for years. As we look toward our next step, we couldn't help but think about some of the ideas and innovations touted as "the next big thing" in years past. Here we take a look at some of the social solutions we thought could make our communities stronger and more equitable in the 2010s. Which ones took off, and which ones faded away? Read on to find out. 

"Fight for $15" takes on big business in support of pay equity 

The U.S. minimum wage increased from $5.85 to $7.25 per hour in 2009, but entry-level workers still struggled to make ends meet. Particularly after the 2008 financial crisis, frontline workers at some of the country's largest companies relied on public assistance to stay fed and housed. 

"According to a 2013 study sponsored by the University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center and the University of Illinois, the cost of public assistance to families of fast-food workers is roughly $7 billion a year," TriplePundit contributor Michael Kourabas reported in February 2014. "More than half (52 percent) of families of fast-food workers are enrolled in one or more public programs (compared to 25 percent of the total workforce)." 

Beyond the fast-food industry, public awareness around how taxpayers subsidized poor wages was growing. The living wage, or "fight for $15," movement kicked off with a 2012 walkout at a New York City McDonald's and aimed to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 to ensure it could meet workers' basic expenses. Within two years, the movement was global, with fast-food workers and other entry-level employees around the world striking in solidarity for better wages. 

So, what happened? Well, the U.S. minimum wage is still the same at $7.25 — and the spending power behind that paltry sum has only plummeted. You'll now need more than four times that amount to live comfortably in most major U.S. cities.

But it's not all bad news. Wages climbed across the pond in Europe and the U.K. over the past decade. And although the feds haven't budged, many U.S. cities and states opted to increase their minimums — including 13 states that either already mandate employers pay $15 an hour or plan to do so within the next five years. In response to consumer pressure, individual employers including Target and Walmart also moved to increase their starting wages above $15. 

Businesses get into hard questions around social and racial justice

In July 2013, after George Zimmerman was acquitted for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin based on Florida's dubious "stand your ground" law, social justice advocate Alicia Garza wrote a post on Facebook. She called the post "a love letter ... to people who look like me," and it featured the now famous phrase, "Black lives matter." 

The post birthed a movement that took the form of protests, community organizing, and crucial conversations across the U.S. and around the world. And business seemed keen to be part of those conversations. In 2016, the software company Symantec partnered with TriplePundit on an editorial series entitled, "Black Lives Matter and Beyond: Corporate Leaders Respond." Business leaders including former Symantec corporate responsibility lead Cecily Joseph and executives from companies like NextDoor and Kapor Capital spoke with us about important topics like talking about race and police violence at work and how companies can be allies on racial issues. 

"If you feel a little uncomfortable, good. We do too," former TriplePundit managing editor Jen Boynton wrote in the opening to the series in 2016. "Our hope in convening this conversation is to show how social inequality is a material issue for corporate social responsibility practitioners, so that we can all work together to make things better." 

So, what happened? After America's latest racial reckoning, another slew of companies pledged to get involved in promoting equity and justice, but the results have been mixed. Since 2020, analysts counted at least $340 billion in corporate funds committed toward aims like improving diversity in hiring, supporting Black-owned small businesses and closing the racial wealth gap. But much of those funds remained unallocated as of this year. 

Corporate statements around social issues like racial justice and police brutality have also slowed, partly due to the polarizing "anti-woke" rhetoric taking hold across the U.S. While many in big business may have backed down, those on the front lines are still keeping it up — from the boom in Black-owned businesses, to the movement's steady support of frontline workers, to the consistent push for diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace and public life. Still, "until companies make the investment and give it the time that it takes, we’ll never see change," Emerald-Jane "EJ" Hunter, founder of the DEI-focused integrated marketing firm myWHY Agency, told TriplePundit earlier this year. 

"Slow" fashion movement aims to counter the ugly side of apparel

In April 2013, an eight-story factory called Rana Plaza collapsed in Bangladesh's capital city of Dhaka. The footage from the scene was harrowing, as neighbors and loved ones worked alongside emergency workers to pull people from the rubble in a rescue effort that lasted three weeks. More than 2,000 people were ultimately rescued, but 1,134 perished in the collapse — most of them low-paid garment workers for well-known global brands, which did business in the complex despite the fact that it did not meet safety codes. 

The disaster rocked public perception of the fashion sector in the first half of the 2010s, with outraged consumers calling for reform and pledging to stop shopping at retailers that didn't address human rights and labor abuses in their supply chains. As the conversations took hold, many began to question fast fashion — an apparel production model marked by trend-driven releases dropped every few weeks, as opposed to the four-season fashion cycle of generations past.  

Fast fashion was a relatively new term back then, but already people noticed how quickly the cheaply made garments wore out (or went out of style) and questioned how it was possible to price items so cheaply while shipping them thousands of miles around the world. While the top fast fashion brands made new commitments to safety after Rana Plaza, many shoppers were still looking for alternatives. The slow fashion movement aimed to provide them — with an eye toward timeless and long-lasting garments, produced less frequently, that customers could wear again and again. 

So, what happened? Even back then, slow fashion was a tough sell. In a 2015 piece entitled "Why is Slow Fashion So Slow to Catch On?," TriplePundit contributor Nayelli Gonzalez observed, "Positioning slow fashion against fast fashion is like pitting David against Goliath." In the years since, the fast fashion Goliath has only grown in market share, although some evidence suggests consumers are ready for change. Secondhand shopping is at an all-time high. Sustainable labels like Reformation reached cult status. And who can forget the runaway success of "The Menswear Guy" on Twitter and the drumbeat of his feed reminding consumers about how much garments really cost to make. 

Cities look to reduce homelessness by ... giving people housing

Around 630,000 people across the U.S. were estimated to be unhoused in the years following the 2008 financial crisis. The last major global survey, conducted by the U.N. in 2005, indicated more than 100 million people were unhoused globally. 

Most governments approach homelessness by looking to get people "housing ready" by compelling them to receive treatment for things like substance abuse, mental health challenges, or chronic illness before being eligible to receive free or subsidized housing. The "housing first" model takes the opposite approach — getting people into housing as soon as possible, with no strings attached, while making treatment resources and counseling readily available if and when people want them. Studies show Housing First is more effective at getting people into housing and is actually cheaper for governments than leaving people unhoused.

In the U.S., the state of Utah became the first to adopt the housing first approach in 2005, and the model began to take off across the country and around the world into the 2010s. U.S. cities including New Orleans, Phoenix, Austin and Nashville looked toward housing first to eliminate homelessness, TriplePundit reported in 2015. In Europe, cities including Austria's capital Vienna and Finland's capital Helsinki did the same. 

So, what happened? Housing first is still known as one of the most effective ways to combat homelessness, and many cities that adopted this model have seen success. The model helped New Orleans reduce homelessness by 90 percent from 2007 to 2019, for example. Across the pond, Helsinki and Vienna also saw homelessness rates drop significantly, at costs lower than the public expenses associated with people being unhoused.

But the model hasn't worked everywhere that's tried it. For example, a 2020 analysis by the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at Arizona State University found highly different results across two cities — Houston and San Diego — due to different ways the model was implemented. 

Business leaders across the globe increasingly understand that time is of the essence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone can see and feel the effects of climate change, from record-setting heat to intensified wildfires, so the need to prioritize pledges like reaching net-zero is not just a matter of meeting government regulations. Businesses can leverage collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders to achieve better and faster results, and those that do are finding success.

The sheer magnitude of the problem, coupled with pressures from governments, consumers and shareholders, often results in confusion for companies about where to focus their efforts. However, since most organizations have collaborative activities in place for their business operations, those foundations can be leveraged to deliver improvements not only on emissions, but other ESG (environmental, social and governance) concerns as well.

How? It starts with some basic internal decision-making and buy-in via improved approaches to collaboration.

Pathways for internal collaboration on climate action

“Many organizations are now required to have a formal sustainability program,” said Rajiv Jalim, director of ESG solutions engineering at FigBytes, a sustainability software company. That often begins with deciding who will lead — or perhaps more accurately, champion — the initiatives.

“Is this a chief risk officer's responsibility? A chief financial officer's duty? The CEO's? Or should I hire a chief sustainability officer? Those are questions we are asked all the time,” Jalim said. “Internal collaboration is often the way organizations find a pathway that works for them.”

That direction requires internal stakeholders to be on board with a project, from the executives holding the purse strings to the subject-matter experts who sign off on implementation, as well as those who collect data and the frontline employees who will make the project a reality.

“We don't all have to agree immediately out the gate, but we all have to at least be committed to solving this problem that we have,” Jalim said.

FigBytes works with companies to conduct materiality assessments that can help them uncover which projects to pursue. The quest to reduce emissions can also overlap with other ESG concerns that stakeholders may have, whether those are health and safety issues seen by employees, less plastic packaging desired by consumers or greater transparency about ESG efforts demanded by investors.

Further, units within a company may want to emphasize eliminating emissions that best reduce costs or risks to the organization. The assessments not only reveal priorities and these kinds of impacts to a company, but also opportunities and current positive effects.

Collaboration helps turn seemingly competing interests from various departments across a company into complementary ones by finding the overlap of priorities and impacts that often accomplish more than one goal. For example, instead of a company-employee clash over remote versus in-office work, data shared through the collaborative process may reveal a hybrid strategy that can support both employee well-being and reduce carbon emissions through cutting commutes. If such an arrangement yields higher employee retention, the data can show the productivity or financial boost gained by not losing time and dollars to workforce churn.

Managing the implementation of priorities and projects once they are identified also gets easier with collaboration. Organizations are already familiar with tools such as Microsoft Teams, Asana and Slack, to name a few. Leveraging connective technologies already at play in a company is easier today than it once was.

Jalim explained how this works in the sustainability world. “Data often resides across the company in multiple different places — a health and safety system, water and electricity bills, waste manifests, a desktop, an HR system. The FigBytes platform gathers that data and aggregates it from wherever it lives and puts it into our sustainability dashboard,” he said. “Once the data is in the FigBytes platform, it’s easy to use it, track it, and share it…wherever it’s required.”

That enables whoever wants to track progress against goals to do so in real time — not unlike a block party where everyone brings a potluck dish to share. And FigBytes’ aggregated information can be fed into the company’s collaboration software like Microsoft Teams, Jalim said. This layer on top of the organization’s existing systems is a boon to productivity and decision-making, especially as the real-time data reduces time spent developing static reports.

The two-way street of external collaboration

Internal collaboration can help greatly with Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the intersectionality with other ESG issues for an organization. External collaboration — from suppliers in the value chain and implementation partners, to regulators, investors, consumers and media — can bring forward new pathways to reduce supply chain emissions (Scope 3) and accomplish other ESG objectives.

Anywhere from 50 percent to 70 percent or more of business emissions come from the supply chain, depending on the industry. As regulators around the world move to make Scope 3 emissions reporting mandatory, many business leaders are unsure of how to track progress. 

Various frameworks already in use provide valuable guidance for what’s ahead, Jalim told us. “If your organisation is reporting against a framework like CDP [formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project], your stakeholders will be tracking the differences between your 2022 and your 2023 reports for example. An investor, a shareholder, a stakeholder could see you're doing something in your company that's clearly improving your CDP score (or not), and then they can dig into and provide feedback on it.”

Developing partnerships along the supply chain can also help cut through the data-gathering and reporting maze. “As larger businesses make commitments to track, disclose and reduce their environmental impacts — particularly their Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions — they also have a responsibility to source from more sustainable suppliers and to work with their suppliers to change their practices if needed,” TriplePundit’s Amy Brown reported earlier in this series. “An approach that emphasizes collaboration and partnership — rather than top-down edicts and demands for data without context or time to prepare — will be far more successful in winning over most suppliers.”

The bottom line: We need to act together

While leaders around the world have moved to reduce emissions, their individual efforts fall short of what’s needed to cap global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius — which scientists say crucial to avoid the worst impacts, according to the most recent report from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Coupling human initiative with hard numbers through collaboration has never been more urgent.

For those companies struggling with how to be part of the solution, Jalim offered some reassurance. “Just start somewhere,” he said. “When some of our most successful clients started out, their programs weren’t perfect, but because they took action early on, they've been able to make some very strong business decisions and business cases along the way for change. They're seeing a lot of success today even though their program had gaps. There will always be room for improvement.”

One adage says it takes a village to raise a child. But it also takes a planet to protect a planet. Innovations in collaboration now make it easier for companies to get the world on board.

This article series is sponsored by FigBytes and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image credit: Jason Blackeye/Unsplash

This story is part of an investigative solutions journalism series exploring the hidden human rights costs of the low-carbon transition and how local stakeholders, governments and the mining sector can respond. Follow along with the series here. 

As the energy transition progresses, some are concerned about the effect it might have on human rights. Minerals like cobalt, nickel and lithium are vital to renewable energy and battery technologies. However, the mining processes that extract these minerals have a serious human rights problem.

Documented issues at mines range from killings and sexual abuse to land degradation and lack of free, prior and informed consent, mostly stemming from disputes between mining companies and the communities near mine sites.

The issue is not isolated to the mining sector. Similar concerns have been raised in agriculture, oil and gas, and forestry, but the severity and frequency of allegations from mining has prompted calls for change.

Human rights due diligence reporting requires companies in all sectors to examine their supply chains to see if any business relationships are contributing to human rights abuses.

How does human rights due diligence work?

Human rights due diligence practices are based on the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, released in 2011. The principles outline the state duty, as well as the corporate duty, to protect human rights.

To simplify things, let’s suppose you run a successful lemonade stand. Doing your human rights due diligence would mean that you have to run a check on each of your suppliers. What store do you buy your lemons from? Which lemon distributor does the store use? Which hands do the lemons pass through as they move from farm to store? Finally, which farms are growing your lemons? 

It would be your duty to engage with all of these suppliers and conduct risk-based assessments to determine the likelihood and severity of adverse impacts. Where the likelihood and severity are high, further investigation would be required. Obviously, this could result in a massive workload, and this is just for a hypothetical lemonade stand. 

International businesses with much more extensive and complex supply chains will be forced to explore hundreds or thousands of companies. However, it isn’t expected that companies will investigate every single case. Rather, companies are expected to prioritize cases and work through the highest-priority cases first, before moving on to lower-priority cases if time and resources allow for it.

For minerals, the supply chains under scrutiny track back all the way to the source: mines and mining companies. Where human rights abuses are found, companies must take steps to try to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts. If the steps yield no results, or the abuses are severe, companies are expected to disengage from that business relationship.

Mining companies are also expected to conduct their own due diligence assessments to assess not only their supply chains, but also the various ways in which their activities could contribute to human rights abuses by engaging with employees, community members, and other relevant stakeholders. 

Why does human rights due diligence matter?

Global supply chains tend to conceal human rights abuses from public knowledge, and human rights due diligence assessments are an attempt to ensure that business activities are not contributing to worsened human conditions.

The human rights due diligence process is not a guarantee that there are no human rights abuses in supply chains, but rather it is a mechanism to ensure that human rights issues are managed responsibly each step of the way. If abuses are found, due diligence provides confidence that the appropriate steps will be taken to mitigate and prevent future problems. 

While still largely a voluntary initiative, momentum is picking up that would make due diligence processes mandatory for large businesses, increasing the scrutiny of global supply chains.

Human rights due diligence is currently a legal requirement for large companies in Germany, France and Norway. The European Union is actively negotiating details on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which would bring due diligence requirements to the whole of Europe, affecting some 16,000 companies.

Global practices and standard procedure for due diligence assessments is provided by the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, the most widely recognized set of standards for human rights due diligence.

How can businesses responsibly align their supply chains?

The Responsible Minerals Initiative, part of the Responsible Business Alliance, has developed a way for businesses to minimize the possibility that their supply chains contribute to human rights abuses. It’s called the Responsible Minerals Assurance Process (RMAP), and it is rooted in the human rights due diligence process.

“The assessments are focused at the ‘pinch points,’ so typically the mineral processing part of the supply chain,” says Jennifer Peyser, executive director of the Responsible Minerals Initiative. “We deploy accredited third-party assessors to apply our standards at those facilities, and then we publish a conformant list of facilities that meet those standards.”

Peyser likes to use a bow tie analogy. On the left side of the proverbial bow tie, you have all of the mines and mineral extraction points, and on the right side are all the businesses selling the end products. These represent a massive number of facilities. However, after minerals are mined, they go to a smelter or refinery to be processed before being sent down the supply chain to manufacturers. There are far fewer smelters than there are mines, and the smelters represent the small knot in the center of the bow tie, or the “pinch point.” 

“When a smelter is assessed, what we’re saying is that its management systems as a facility meet the expectations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance,” Peyser explains. “It’s not a guarantee or certified sticker on every mineral that leaves this facility, but rather an acknowledgement that the facility is managing risks responsibly.”

Much like the human rights due diligence process, RMAP is not a guarantee that supply chain processes are free from human rights abuses, but rather an investigation to assure that responsible governance mechanisms are in place to deal with human rights claims should they arise.

“The whole concept of due diligence is not perfection. You might find risks and problems, but it’s more about what you do if and when you find those problems,” Peyser says. “Our assessments are such that if a smelter finds problems, they have demonstrated that they have systems in place to appropriately manage those problems.”

The Responsible Minerals Initiative publishes a list of smelters that meet the RMAP standards. Currently, 310 facilities appear on the conformant list.

“Downstream companies can consult RMAP standards and conformant lists as they make their supply chain decisions,” Peyser says. With growing consumer expectations for responsible business practices and incoming legislation that will require due diligence assessments, businesses can use the RMAP to support responsible mineral sourcing in their supply chains.

How does human rights due diligence affect the mining sector?

Representatives for the International Council on Mining and Metals, a member organization that represents about 30 percent of the global mining industry, told TriplePundit it fully recognizes the need for change in the mining sector, and that work remains across key challenges including human rights. The council says it proposes its own measures to improve the sustainability performance of mining companies and also welcomes the initiatives from other concerned organizations.

The council published its first human rights due diligence guidance in 2012, which was most recently updated earlier this year. The guidance is tailored to help mining companies conduct human rights due diligence assessments with industry-specific language and guidance. The council also provides training to member organizations to help them implement the guidance.

“The human rights due diligence process really takes the cover off of the potential and actual issues right across the supply chain,” says Danielle Martin, director of social performance at the council. “Human rights due diligence implements the structure for good risk management and better decision-making.”

While the primary goal of conducting human rights due diligence assessments is to prevent and mitigate human rights abuses, there is also a business case to be made for implementing the process across supply chains.

“Having those good practices in place avoids potential operational disruptions and legal action,” Martin says. “As well, investors and consumers are increasingly looking to companies that are better performing in these areas in which to invest their money. They want to be sure that businesses are reputable on human rights.”

Sustainability performance is an increasingly important driver for consumers and investors when selecting a product or business. Starting to conduct human rights due diligence assessments across business supply chains is not only a way to carve out a competitive advantage, but it also prepares businesses for the incoming wave of due diligence regulations.

The International Council on Mining and Metals says it aims to move the mining sector in a more sustainable direction. Its member companies must adhere to a set of 10 Mining Principles, which promote responsible conduct and sustainable practices. One of the principles is human rights. 

Member companies are required to report on their performance for each of the Mining Principles. However, there is less clarity on the consequences for companies that do not adhere to the principles. Some members of the council, like Glencore, are still the subject of severe human rights allegations.

Human rights due diligence in practice

The Australian mining company South32 provides an example of what companies can do if and when they discover human rights issues in their supply chains. The company identified issues with its inbound and outbound shipping practices through a 2023 human rights due diligence assessment. While it does not own any ships directly, it conducted due diligence on the vessels that load or discharge cargo at South32-operated ports.

Of the 297 vessels that were vetted in the previous fiscal year, 20 were subject to further investigation, and three were selected for a full modern slavery audit. After the audits, the use of two of those vessels was restricted due to "substandard labor and unsafe work conditions.”

While the mining industry still has a long way to go, human rights due diligence requires an intimate examination of supply chains and pushes the needle toward better and more just practices as the demand for minerals grows and the energy transition accelerates.

TriplePundit relaunched this week with a focus on solutions journalism, but we've highlighted environmental, social and economic solutions on the site for years. As we look toward our next step, we couldn't help but think about some of the ideas and innovations touted as "the next big thing" in years past. Which ones took off, and which ones faded away? Read on for the details. 

Stakeholder capitalism 

“The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” This headline of a 1970 New York Times article by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman effectively defined capitalism for decades, with two generations of business leaders believing that earning the maximum possible profit for shareholders was their most sacred duty above all else.

R. Edward Freeman, a professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, developed the concept of stakeholder capitalism in the late 1970s to challenge Friedman's philosophy. But the concept really started to pick up steam in the mainstream business lexicon in the 2000s, and particularly after the 2008 financial crisis. 

"The challenges with this line of thinking, of course, is that single-minded focus on profit maximization is what led to the creation of bundled mortgage-backed securities that led to the housing bubble that virtually melted down the global economy (and realistically, to pretty much every speculative bubble in economic history)," TriplePundit contributor Scott Cooney noted in 2012. 

So, what happened? Stakeholder capitalism has moved firmly into the mainstream. In 2019, the Business Roundtable — which includes CEOs from more than 180 large public companies  — issued a statement revising the “purpose of a corporation” as a duty to serve all stakeholders. Ahead of its annual meeting in Davos in January 2020, the World Economic Forum updated the Davos Manifesto, the first of which was published in the 1970s, calling for a “better kind of capitalism” in which companies serve all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

As cause marketing pioneer Carol Cone of Carol Cone on Purpose, observed on TriplePundit: "Today, that Milton Friedman viewpoint is considered unsound and unwise for the modern corporation."

The sharing economy 

The 2010s was arguably the decade of the sharing economy. Silicon Valley startup founders started talking about a future where everyone shared their cars, their spare rooms and their time — reducing wasted resources and allowing everyday people to earn and save money.

TriplePundit ran editorial series and hosted events aiming to assess the future of the sharing economy. Particularly as companies like Airbnb, Uber and WeWork started to gobble up market share, some started to wonder if they were really living up to their promised vision. Or, as TriplePundit's former social media director Marissa Rosen asked in 2014: "Is 'sharing' really the right word to describe these new companies?"

So, what happened? The sharing economy changed the course of commerce as we know it, but likely not in the way early proponents hoped. Ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft have taken over city streets. Travelers are just as likely to use house-sharing companies like Airbnb and Vrbo as they are hotels. And workers around the world use apps like TaskRabbit and Fiverr for flexible ways to make money.

But the sharing economy was once envisioned as a utopia where everyone owned less, earned more, and effectively transferred economic power from the hands of the few into the hands of the many. And in that sense, it hasn't exactly delivered. Now more appropriately called the "gig economy," this mode transformed the way goods and services change hands, but it's still mostly corporate executives and wealthy property owners — rather than workers and the general public — who benefit most. 

"The promised benefits for workers and consumers have failed to materialize in many cases, while tech investors have made a killing," technology journalist Joan Westenberg observed this year. "Behind the feel-good sheen of 'sharing,' the sharing economy looks more and more like a circus trick to enrich Silicon Valley."

The one-for-one model

Of course we all know about buy-one, get-one sales and how they trick us into buying more stuff. But as you may or may not remember, an alternative dubbed "one-for-one" (or buy-one, give-one) was having a major moment in the 2010s.

Early pioneers like Toms shoes, Bombas socks and Warby Parker glasses pledged to give a product to someone in need for every product sold — a pair of shoes for a child in need, a pair of socks for someone experiencing homelessness and so on. Customers loved it. Toms rose to cult status on the back of the one-for-one concept, and companies like Bombas and Warby Parker donated thousands of items in their first years in business. 

So, what happened? Potential problems with the one-for-one model emerged early on. TriplePundit contributor Gina-Marie Cheeseman published a story under the headline "The Problem with the Toms Shoes Charity Model" back in 2012. In particular, since Toms and many one-for-one companies donated items in developing markets abroad, some questioned whether their goodwill was dampening the growth of those local consumer economies. Some even likened one-for-one to colonialism, arguing it forced solutions on communities without asking them what they really need. 

It took some time, but one-for-one businesses have since adapted to this feedback. Toms ditched the one-for-one model altogether and now invests a third of the profits from each purchase into grassroots nonprofit organizations around the world. Some companies like Bombas still use one-for-one, but the donations are targeted toward groups like overnight shelters, street outreach programs, and transitional housing facilities to ensure they're needed and can be put to good use.  

Strategic degrowth

The financial crisis of 2008 left many questioning how the economy functions and who really benefits from it. Occupy Wall Street and the living wage movement are just two examples of this collective frustration come to life. As more information about climate change and resource degradation came into view, many also started to wonder if the planet could really sustain the growth companies pursue every quarter.   

"Infinite growth is a fantasy," Joel Solomon of the impacting investing firm Renewal Funds wrote in his book, "The Clean Money Revolution," which TriplePundit excerpted in 2017. "The Earth can no longer support our species in blindly expanding, dominating and accumulating." Solomon was among the early voices exploring the concept of "degrowth" and rebalancing the world's priorities so as to produce and consume only what the planet can sustain. 

So, what happened? Clearly degrowth hasn't gone very far, but people seeking a better form of capitalism still talk about it often. “An innocent 2 or 3 percent per year, it’s an enormous amount of growth — cumulative growth, compound growth — over time. I don’t see it being compatible with the physical reality of the planet,” Giorgos Kallis, a top degrowth scholar based at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, told CNN Business earlier this year. Felipe Milanez, a degrowth scholar from Brazil, told the outlet that the endless pursuit of growth is “extremely violent and racist, and it’s just been reproducing local forms of colonialism.” Meanwhile, Jennifer Wilkins, a researcher on emerging business sustainability issues, told Reuters that degrowth is about “true sustainability."

Non-financial reporting 

The idea that companies should publicly report their impacts on people and the environment was downright revolutionary in the 2010s.  The European Union threw down the gauntlet in 2015 when it mandated some public companies include their environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts in their annual financial reports.

The voluntary Integrated Reporting Framework, which set guidelines for reporting ESG alongside financial data, had been developed two years earlier, but forcing around 7,000 companies to do it was unheard of. At the time, TriplePundit contributor Michael Kourabas called it "the most significant corporate social responsibility measure, anywhere, to date." 

So, what happened? In short, a lot: 96 percent of the world's largest companies reported on their sustainability or ESG data last year. Smaller and private companies are less likely to report, and most governments still do not require it. Beyond the EU, the U.K., Malaysia and the Philippines are among those that mandate ESG disclosure. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is weighing mandates for climate reporting in particular, while a new climate reporting mandate in California is expected to force the issue. 

Even on a voluntary basis, the prevalence of reporting increased awareness and compelled businesses to clean up their act. But it also created a brand new problem. Companies use a ton of frameworks to report their impacts and progress, including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards, and the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations.

As you'd imagine, this can get confusing, and it makes it harder for stakeholders like investors to compare one company with another. Launched in 2021, the International Sustainability Standards Board aims to bring uniformity to the varied frameworks, based on the existing ones companies already use. 

For all the strategies, frameworks, and tools that companies adopt to improve diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in their workplaces, success often comes down to conversation. The employers doing DEI the best are those creating intentional spaces that allow people to share their authentic selves safely and openly.

That something this simple should be so powerful — people of diverse backgrounds sitting around a discussion circle, or members of a group with similar backgrounds finding support in shared experiences — can be surprising. Yet making the time for DEI within the regular workday is one of the most effective solutions to truly change company culture.

Corporate culture, after all, is essentially the way employees interact with each other, the spaces they feel empowered to occupy at work, and the way they feel they’re given permission to spend their time and energy. Conversations among colleagues, especially around what makes us different and what connects us, are a way to enhance belonging, and to attract and retain talent. 

People are less likely to stick around if they don’t feel welcomed and included or worry a situation is stacked against them based on some aspect of their identity or background. In fact, a 2022 study published in the MIT Sloan Management Review found that a toxic corporate culture is by far the strongest predictor of industry-adjusted attrition and is 10 times more important than compensation in predicting turnover.

Confronting bias in a comfortable setting


Research bears out that it is the day-to-day interactions among colleagues that spur greater feelings of inclusion, especially when the organization creates dedicated time and space for people to come together under the lens of DEI. In a 2021 survey of 1,115 North American organizational leaders conducted by the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), 82 percent of respondents from leader companies facilitated the shift to a more equitable and inclusive culture by encouraging and supporting open conversations about DEI among employees, compared with 47 percent of laggards. 

Research also shows that allyship — or support from people outside a marginalized group — is key to creating inclusive workplaces. Poornima Luthra, diversity expert, associate professor at the Copenhagen Business School and author of "The Art of Active Allyship,” championed allyship in corporate culture in a 2022 article for the Harvard Business Review. In particular, she recommended companies host “bias compass circles” that bring together trusted colleagues who are equally committed to inclusion to be vulnerable with one another about checking their biases.

“What we need to make our workplaces truly inclusive is a clear set of practical behaviors that we can embed into our day-to-day working lives,” she wrote. "Allyship is active, not passive. It’s about lifting others and creating platforms for them so that their voices are heard.”

DEI discussion circles foster belonging

The intelligent power management company Eaton is among those embracing allyship groups. In the company’s Ally Advocacy Circles, groups of about 10 people get together to talk about bias, how it shows up in the workplace and what to do about it. The conversations take place over about a month, held twice a year. 

“We support these spaces by providing talking points and scenarios, but most importantly, it allows people to have a common language around diversity and inclusion, to see where they may have had a blind spot,” said Nicole Crews, director of global inclusion and diversity at Eaton.

“We are not afraid to ask the question: ‘What about our culture is getting in the way of everyone feeling like they belong?’ It is then up to us as an organization to listen to the answers, and to do the work to implement the practices to achieve a more inclusive workplace.”

One example is Women Adding Value at Eaton (WAVE), which takes the form of small, gender-balanced conversations intended to raise awareness about the most common types of bias against women, moderated by a woman and a man. At the end of the sessions, which last only an hour, a moderator will ask, “What commitment will you make to mitigate bias?” WAVE has held more than 300 such sessions involving over 2,000 colleagues, Eaton shared in the Profiles in Diversity Journal earlier this year.

“Through Ally Advocacy Circles, we’ve seen men and women discuss concrete ways they can support and advocate for each other in the workplace,” Crews said. “Participation keeps growing as we continue to provide more equitable access to these experiences.”

One piece sign that the approach may be working are the results of the company’s employee inclusion index score. Eaton is committed to achieve a score of 80 percent or higher in the biannual survey. The company conducted a pulse survey in 2022, an in-between year, and over half of the approximately 85,000 global workforce participated. The score rose from 74.8 percent to 75.6 percent in 2022, and 84 percent of employees said they’re proud to work at Eaton. 

Shared spaces as a springboard for impact

Along with the power of allyship and advocacy, affinity groups designed as shared spaces for colleagues from marginalized communities can create opportunities for connection where none existed before.

For consulting and investing firm Evolution, this takes the form of Gay Men’s Leadership Circles, a peer group of directors, managers, and C-suite leaders who meet to support one other and share ideas about how to make their organizations more inclusive, TriplePundit reported earlier this year.

“We find it feels safer and more comfortable for members of these circles to have these conversations among people with whom they share a common identity,” said Peter Gandolfo, partner at Evolution and one of the co-creators of the Gay Men’s Leadership Circles. “What's really powerful is to see that when they get to access their own inner strength — and in particular, get to bring more of themselves to work — it then helps that experience they're having springboard into all these other things they're getting to do to support diversity, equity and inclusion throughout their organizations.” 

Many organizations also host employee resource groups (ERGs), voluntary, employee-led groups dedicated to fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace.

Establishing groups and activities such as ERGs also help to create space for DEI within organizations, as the groups implicitly give employees permission to spend working hours participating in activities tied to DEI — with the understanding that the company values these activities just as much as they do productivity goals and other aspects of operating a business.

In particular, ERGs can “create a sense of community that helps people feel less alone,” said Stuart McCalla, an Evolution managing partner. “People are then better able to focus on their work and on building relationships. Organizations who do this well see a significant reduction in regrettable attrition,” which is when people leave by choice rather than being fired or laid off.

The key is in how one defines “doing it well.” When there’s a gap between what ERGs deliver and what employees actually want, people can feel less included at work, according to research by McKinsey. When employees feel well served by these groups, they experience greater feelings of inclusion, McKinsey’s data showed. 

Another limitation to the effectiveness of intentional spaces like ERGs is when it falls on marginalized groups to lead them, which can be seen as the company pressuring people to do work for free just because they fall into a particular group such as a person of color or someone who is LGBTQ, as 3p has reported.


An invitation, not a mandate

When companies are aware of the possible missteps and continually check in on the effectiveness of these small spaces, it can foster a sense of community that no single corporate policy, workshop or training can do on its own.

“Imagine going to work each day to a place where each part of you is welcome. I think it’s really powerful for a lot of folks,” said McCalla of Evolution.

With an invitation to show up authentically as oneself, courageous conversations can follow, allowing for greater empathy, compassion and understanding. That in itself can become the strongest foundation for an approach to diversity, equity and inclusion that goes beyond the surface and becomes the living expression of a healthy corporate culture.
 

New waves of book bans have surged into libraries across the United States in recent months, raising concerns among free speech advocates. They are not alone. Stakeholders in the book industry are fighting back in an effort that unites publishers and book sellers with authors, students, teachers, librarians and parents to reclaim the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Libraries are under attack…

The American Library Association is among those tracking the rise in book ban activity impacting libraries across the nation. Last month, the ALA released preliminary data for 2023 — which tracks bans and censorship affecting public libraries, grade school libraries, and other academic libraries from January 1 through August 31.
 
In all, it counted a total of 695 attempts to censor library materials and services, covering 1,915 unique titles, a sharp jump up from the same period last year.

“The number of unique titles challenged has increased by 20 percent from the same reporting period in 2022," the ALA reported. "Most of the challenges were to books written by or about a person of color or a member of the LGBTQIA+ community."

The organization PEN America noted a similar spike in book bans. During the 2022-2023 school year, PEN tracked 3,362 book banning incidents in grade school libraries, an increase of 33 percent from the previous school year.

As with the ALA and other organizations, PEN found that the vast majority of the challenges “target books on race or racism or featuring characters of color, as well as books with LGBTQ+ characters,” and that much of the new activity can be traced to a limited number of partisan right-wing organizations and Republican lawmakers. 

…and now the whole book industry is at risk

As PEN and ALA noted, most library book bans focus on LGBTQ+ and minority authors. However, PEN also observed a more concerning trend during the 2022-23 school year: The focus expanded to include books that address the difficulties and challenges of growing up.

“This year, banned books also include books on physical abuse, health and well-being, and themes of grief and death,” PEN explained. “Notably, most instances of book bans affect young adult books, middle grade books, chapter books, or picture books — books specifically written and selected for younger audiences.”

That expanded focus should be raising alarm bells throughout the publishing industry, even though the impact of book bans on overall sales has yet to emerge. Publishers Weekly recently reported that the book industry is still running ahead of pre-pandemic sales, despite a slump in recent months. “In taking the longer view back to prepandemic times, units were up 12 percent in the first half of this year compared to 2019,” they observed.

Despite the apparent strength of the industry today, signs of a more direct and damaging assault on book sellers emerged in Texas this year with the passage of House Bill 900, signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbot this summer. The new law requires book sellers to enforce state censorship laws, without compensation.

“HB 900 … requires school library vendors to rate all their books and materials for appropriateness before selling them to schools based on the presence of sex depictions or references,” the Texas Tribune reported. “It also requires vendors to rank materials previously sold to schools and issue a recall for those that are deemed sexually explicit and are in active use by a school.”

Book sellers face an uphill fight in Texas…

In July, two independent Texas book retailers, BookPeople of Austin and Blue Willow of Houston, filed a lawsuit over HB 900, joined by the American Booksellers Association, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

In their official filing, the groups argued that the new law “violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because it is an overbroad and vague content-based law that targets protected speech and is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”

“The Book Ban compels Plaintiffs to express the government’s views, even if they do not agree, and operates as a prior restraint, two of the most egregious constitutional infringements,” they added.

Federal judge Alan D. Allbright agreed. He granted a permanent injunction against the law last month, issuing a “blistering opinion” that excoriated lawmakers for outsourcing a deeply flawed ratings system to private vendors. Texas appealed the decision, and the injunction was lifted pending a hearing the in 5th Circuit later this year, leaving Texas book sellers vulnerable to prosecution.

… But they win a victory in Illinois.

The fight against HB 900 is one compelling indication that book sellers cannot depend on the courts to win the anti-censorship fight. The real power rests with state legislatures that can either support book bans or prevent them. In June, for example, Illinois claimed the title of the first state in the nation to pass a law that prohibits libraries from banning books.

Other signs of a backlash against the book bans have emerged elsewhere around the country, as highlighted by media attention around the annual Banned Book Week event. Hosted by the ALA since 1982, this year’s event took place in the first week of October.

ABC News was among those coordinating with the event. “Student-led banned book clubs and anti-censorship groups have been popping up in states where a conservative-led movement to remove certain books or lessons has led to boisterous board meetings, protests, and more," ABC reporter Kiara Alfonseca observed on October 2.

Teen Vogue reporter Marilyn La Jeunesse took note of the same youth-led backlash against book bans. In an article posted on October 2, she led off with the phrase, “Ban bigotry not books.”

“This is the rallying cry of Gen Z students and teachers who are standing up against book bans and curriculum censorship laws across the United States,” she continued.

New leaders are emerging in the fight against book bans

Libraries and individual book sellers crafted special displays to coordinate with Banned Book Week, helping to draw local attention to the issue. On a broader level, a growing base of guidance can help book sellers and other stakeholders raise the profile of anti-censorship efforts.

The organization Every Library, for example, lists action steps for book stores and student groups with an emphasis on using social media, traditional media, postcards and other means of communication to help raise public awareness. Another organization, Unite Against Book Bans, assembled a toolkit that includes specific talking points and constructive guidance for engaging in person with individuals who seek to ban books.

Penguin Random House is among the publishers to draw attention to the issue, with an online news and resource repository focusing on collaborative efforts. In a recent article for Penguin Random House, Florida book seller Michael Kaplan describes how the book industry has united to fight censorship in his home state, in alliance with local groups like Moms 4 Libros and Families Against Banned Books and other organizations.

The fight will be a long one, but Kaplan is among those pointing out that the U.S. book industry has fought waves of censorship before, most recently in the 1980s. 

“Leaders are emerging,” Kaplan concluded. “Our community is galvanized and I’m as confident as ever that, just as has happened in the past, the right to read will reassert itself and we will never ever allow anyone to be left in the darkness brought on by the menace of censorship.”

Image credit: Kabiur Rahman Riyad/Unsplash

TriplePundit relaunched this week with a focus on solutions journalism. We'll now embed this style of reporting across all of our coverage for the first time, but we've highlighted social, economic and environmental solutions on the site for years. As we look toward our next step, we couldn't help but think about some of the ideas and innovations touted as "the next big thing" in years past. Which ones took off, and which ones faded away? Read on for the details. 

The SunShot initiative: Driving down the cost of solar energy

Electricity sourced from solar cost about 36 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2010, compared to less than 15 cents for energy produced from fossil fuels. Launched in 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy's SunShot Initiative — inspired by President John F. Kennedy and his legendary Moonshot program — aimed to leverage public and private investment to dramatically drive down the cost of solar within a decade. 

"Specifically, the SunShot goal is a 75 percent reduction in the total cost of solar energy by 2020," TriplePundit contributor Tina Casey reported in 2012. "At that price point, DOE predicts that solar power would flood into the mass market and account for up to 18 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2030."

So, what happened? Thanks to SunShot and similar efforts around the world, the International Energy Agency deemed solar the "cheapest electricity in history" in 2020. On average, utility-scale solar now costs less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour worldwide. Still, a "flood into the mass market" is a stretch — solar photovoltaics account for 3.4 percent of electricity generation in the U.S. and about 4.5 percent globally — but analysts now see this decade as the tipping point. 

"Solar PV’s installed power capacity is poised to surpass that of coal by 2027, becoming the largest in the world," according to 2023 projections from the International Energy Agency. "Cumulative solar PV capacity almost triples in our forecast, growing by almost 1,500 gigawatts over the period, exceeding natural gas by 2026 and coal by 2027."

Edible food packaging: Water in membranes and cookie coffee cups

As the waste created by our addiction to convenience became more visible, innovators started looking around for alternatives to single-use packaging. Some of the boldest dared to ask: What if the packaging became part of the product?

Student designers developed the “Ooho” water container in 2014, aiming to replace plastic bottles with an edible membrane. "Because the Ooho is made from natural ingredients, the water sphere is completely biodegradable — or edible — after its useful life," TriplePundit contributor Alexis Petru reported. Soon after, Stonyfield Organic launched frozen yogurt capsules packaged in an edible outer layer made from fruit, and Seattle's Best Coffee teamed up with KFC in the U.K. to create edible coffee cups made from cookies. 

So, what happened? Needless to say, edible food packaging never really caught on. The concept comes with a number of unanswered questions — namely how to ship it and store it without the outer, supposedly edible layer becoming dirty. Most now consider other alternatives like packaging reuse and refill systems to be a more viable way to reduce waste. But edible packaging innovators haven't lost hope. The food tech company Foodberry, for example, says it has more than 20 patents for food products packaged in edible, plant-based shells — including hummus, ice cream and coffee. 

Hyperloop: Solving our transit woes with magnets and capsule cars

Elon Musk first shared his idea for a high-speed ground transport system called the Hyperloop back in 2013. The futuristic concept envisioned passengers traveling in magnet-propelled capsules at more than 750 miles per hour. Musk open-sourced the early plans, and several startups took up the mantle. 

Early test trips in California and Nevada were underwhelming — one "lasted a few seconds before ending in a massive plume of sand," former TriplePundit executive editor Leon Kaye reported — but people still seemed convinced the technology could reshape mobility as we know it. 

So, what happened? Progress on the Hyperloop never matched the hype, but the dream lives on. The startup Hyperloop One merged with Virgin in 2017 and completed its first passenger test in Nevada in 2020. Though the two test passengers only reached speeds of 100 miles per hour (slower than some commuter trains), the company considered it a major milestone. Other companies including Hyperloop Transportation Technologies and Musk’s Boring Company also continue to pursue the technology.

Algae-based biofuel: From cars to airplanes

"Algae-based biofuel is a new energy source that has been getting a lot of attention lately," TriplePundit contributor RP Siegel reported in 2012. "Certain types of algae contain natural oils that can be readily distilled into a vegetable oil or a number of petroleum-like products that could serve as drop-in replacements for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel."

Airlines including United and Continental made headlines for flying with sustainable aviation fuel made from algae in 2011. As the decade wore on, stakeholders like the U.S. Departments of Energy, Agriculture and Defense started testing algae-based biodiesel for use in trucks, while consumer companies including Unilever looked to algae oil to replace petroleum-derived ingredients in personal care products.

So, what happened? Large oil firms including ExxonMobil were among the early investors in algae-based biofuel. In the years since, they've largely cut and run, and algae biofuels are hardly the norm. The global algae biofuel market was valued at around $5 billion in 2020, compared to more than $4 trillion for the fossil fuel sector. But investors still see the potential, particularly in aviation, and algal oils are now fairly commonplace across the personal care sector. 

Offshore renewables: Seeking more power at sea

As the early wind industry got off the ground, innovators began to look offshore for the promise of greater efficiency and more consistent wind speeds to drive costs down. The London Array, at time the largest offshore wind farm ever built, went online in 2013, producing "enough electricity for half a million homes," TriplePundit founder Nick Aster reported. Two years later came the 700-megawatt Borssele wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Electricity from Borssele cost around 8 cents per kilowatt-hour, making it the cheapest offshore wind farm ever seen, and the sky seemed the limit for the technology. 

Meanwhile, the growing solar sector was also looking to the seas to overcome some key limitations. Namely, solar installations require a lot of land — even more so 10 years ago when solar panels were about half as efficient as they are today. High temperatures further reduce the output of solar panels, meaning not all sunny locations were economical sites for solar in the early years. 

Floating solar installations showed promise in addressing these challenges, allowing for solar development in areas where land is scarce and leveraging the cooling effect of water to counteract efficiency losses tied to heat. Floating arrays also come with a side benefit of reducing water evaporation from at-risk lakes and reservoirs. Following early prototypes in Japan, California and Italy, the world's largest floating solar test bed came online in Singapore in 2016, TriplePundit contributor Nithin Coca reported.

So, what happened? Only around 7 percent of global wind power capacity is installed offshore today, according to the International Energy Agency. But the IEA expects the offshore wind sector to turn a major corner and "grow rapidly in the coming years." The potential is certainly there, with the U.S. Department of Energy estimating at least 1.5 terawatts in offshore wind power is technically available for development off the contiguous U.S. alone. 

It's a similar story with floating solar. Around 3 gigawatts worth was installed worldwide as of last year, compared to more than 700 gigawatts of land-based solar. But people still talk about it and say the opportunity is vast. For its part, Singapore never gave up. It installed the world's largest utility-scale floating solar array atop a reservoir in 2021, with two more in the works. One recent piece of research estimated 35,000 terawatt-hours of floating solar power potential off the coast of Indonesia alone, which is more than all the energy currently produced on Earth. And the island nation is paying attention, powering on its largest floating solar array earlier this year — expected to be the first of many. 

Live and learn

Not everything we try will work, and especially not right away. But these innovations and ideas walked so those of tomorrow can run. Check out our coverage of the next generation of environmental solutions to learn more.