Search

By Anum Yoon

If you run a gigantic, multinational corporation that sells poison, what do you do when you wear out your welcome in the world’s developed countries?

One option is to cut your losses and find a new product to sell. But that’s not the path being chosen by the tobacco industry. Now that the American people have caught on to the whole “smoking kills people” thing, these firms are pulling up roots and targeting poorer, less developed countries instead, trying to start the whole cycle over again.

Let’s take a look at what’s going on, and the implications it has not just on public health, but on the environment itself.

What’s going on?

A recent study published by the World Health Organization indicated that tobacco marketing has spread like wildfire across 16 countries and a whopping 462 individual communities. But apart from the numbers, the study also indicated something else: “People living in poor countries are exposed to more intense and aggressive tobacco marketing than those living in affluent countries.”

There's little doubt as to why developing countries are targeted by tobacco marketing.

In the United States, just to name one such “affluent country,” our economic wealth, and the availability of basic education, has elevated into the public consciousness a keen awareness of smoking’s battery of negative effects. Poorer countries are made prime targets for Big Tobacco’s predatory practices because of their general lack of quality education, and in some cases, the absence of an assertive central government.

The popularity of tobacco reached its peak in America back in 1982; in that year alone, we bought a total of 624 billion cigarettes. From there on out, the U.S. government has been in a long and painful battle of attrition, the ultimate goal of which is to disentangle ourselves entirely from the tobacco industry and the damage it inflicts simply by existing.

Unfortunately, it’s now come time for the populations of poorer countries to have a reckoning with the long arm of Big Tobacco. The countries most aggressively being targeted by advertising include India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, where tobacco marketing is 81 times as common as it is in Canada, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates.

The effects of tobacco marketing

All of that is pretty startling on its own, but what we’re missing so far is a better understanding of just how effective tobacco marketing is. Sure, Big Tobacco might be pouring money into these countries in the form of aggressive advertisements, but does it work?

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. The accumulated evidence seems to suggest that tobacco marketing does tend to drive increases in the use of tobacco, particularly among the world’s young people. And consider this: In the years before the Soviet Union opened its doors, and its lungs, to the sale of tobacco products, extraordinarily few Russian women smoked. But within 10 years of Big Tobacco gaining a foothold there, the rate of smoking among females had fully doubled.

How smoking impacts the environment

Neither you nor I should doubt by now that tobacco use is linked to dozens of significant health problems. The research, tirelessly compiled over many decades, has confirmed this many times over, and the latest figures indicate that roughly half of the world’s population of smokers will eventually die as a result of health complications brought on by smoking.

But even that terrible statistic doesn’t give us a complete picture of the damage wrought by Big Tobacco. It turns out that there can be significant environmental impacts as well.

The WHO estimates that about 200,000 hectares of woodlands and forests are destroyed each year to make way for tobacco farming. Studies as far back as 1999 indicated that almost 5 percent of global deforestation can be attributed to the cultivation of tobacco.

And like most other kinds of farming, the tobacco plant itself has a tendency to leach important nutrients from the surrounding soil, making it unsuitable for growing food crops, and the widespread use of aggressive pesticides and fertilizers has been linked to severe health problems when farmers aren’t properly trained in their use — a situation much more likely in the world’s developing countries.

Finally, tobacco products have been linked to an incredible amount of manufacturing and chemical waste: 2.3 billion kilograms of the former and 209 million kilograms of the latter, according to 1995 numbers. And that’s to say nothing of cigarette butts — a very common variety of litter — which aren’t biodegradable.

It’s time to take a stand

In 2003, the World Health Assembly adopted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which provided evidence-based measures to control the proliferation of tobacco marketing and sales in participating countries; 180 nations signed the treaty.

And yet, more than 10 years later, the FCTC’s tobacco marketing bans are still one of the least-adopted measures featured in the treaty. The developed world could do much more than it is, whether it’s imposing sanctions on countries that deny there’s a problem, or pledging economic assistance to countries that take a stand against Big Tobacco. Nearly anything is better than our current strategy, which is, more-or-less, doing nothing at all.

Image credit: LibreShot

Anum Yoon is a writer who is passionate about personal finance and sustainability. She often looks for ways she can incorporate money management with environmental awareness. You can read her updates on Current on Currency.

By Phil Clark

Creating your core values is one of the most important, and most overlooked, practices in business. In particular, core values are important because they guide decision-making and help you clarify, articulate and enhance your employee culture. Core values are especially critical for growing companies because they provide a common framework (or decision-making lens) that can help employees respond to new opportunities and challenges in a way that is more consistent with your company’s overall mission.

I have found that there are three broad categories of how companies approach their core values:

1. Informal. Many businesses do not have a defined set of core values at all. These companies may have strong beliefs and values -- it’s just that they are not written down. If this is you, don’t worry. We were in the same boat up until the summer of 2015.

2. Superficial. If you have core values, do they actually mean anything? For example, the core values of “communication,” “respect,” “integrity” and “excellence” sound pretty good. The problem is that these were Enron’s values. Enron was caught in a massive accounting scandal and self-imploded -- causing the largest bankruptcy in American history at the time.

3. Resonant. When your core values resonate with your employees and your company’s larger purpose, they become useful tools to help guide decision-making. Resonant core values are everyday tools that support your company’s larger purpose.

How we did it at Exygy

Here are the steps we took at Exygy to create and define our core values:

Get the whole team together. Give everyone post-it notes and allow them to write out words that express their core values. Don’t edit at this stage -- go for volume.

Organize into groups. Start to group the words into general topics and edit them down based on importance. Over time, you will find that the most resonant values will rise to the top. We were able to determine what really mattered to us the most.

Take the time necessary to do it right. Creating your core values the right way may take a long time. We had a group of people meeting once per week for several months to clarify and articulate our core values. I recommend putting core values up on the wall and testing them out for a period of time before making a final decision. If a prospective core value doesn’t resonate a few weeks later, feel free to iterate on it based on feedback from your team.

Be aware of how different people learn

For core values to be resonant and enduring, the process of arriving at those core values has to intersect with how people learn. For example, some people learn by analyzing, some people learn from watching, and others learn from doing.

If you are an analyzer, you are going to be asking a lot of questions and processing out loud. Facilitators should recognize this type of learning style and be happy to answer as many questions as needed.

If you learn from observation, you might have to see the core values modeled in practice. Role playing in a group is a great way to help the observer feel more comfortable and confident.

For the doer, an intellectual discussion about core values isn’t enough. It’s critical for people with this learning style to get out there and test the core values in the real world. They then enjoy learning from any mistakes, iterating on the core value, and trying it out again.

Tips on creating your core values

Finally, here are some tips to help you maximize your chances of success:

Don’t just write the word. It’s extremely helpful to list actions, habits, and behaviors that show this core value in practice. Put up posters on the wall with the idea that people would record the way people live and enact the core values. These actions and habits are critical for everyone to see.

Recognize and reinforce your core values. If you want your core values to stick around, make it a practice to recognize folks who are doing a great job. One way to test this is you feel very excited when you see someone modeling a core value. If you aren’t excited, then you might have the wrong core values.

Tweak the wording as necessary. If done right, core values have an element of timelessness. However, it’s important to balance this characteristic with recognizing change. Things will inevitable change in your company. Keep working with your team to update, tweak, and refine your core values as necessary.

Image credit: Exygy

Phil Clark is Chief Creative Officer at Exygy--a digital agency and Certified B Corporation based in San Francisco. Phil leads Exygy's product design and helps direct the overall strategy, vision, and operations of the company. You can write him at phil@exygy.com or follow him on Twitter: @philipwc

World leaders convened in Paris last week to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The goal is to keep global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, at maximum, with many stakeholders calling for an even stronger goal of 1.5 degrees. One way to achieve that goal is through the mass deployment of renewable energy.

A recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found that achieving a 36 percent share of renewable energy by 2030 would provide half of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to stay within the 2-degrees threshold.

The U.S. has a chance to be a leader in renewable energy deployment given its sheer size and resources. And some states are leading the way. Olivet Nazarene University’s engineering department ranked the top 10 green states in terms of renewable energy.

How does your state stack up? Did it make the list? Read on to find out.

1. Maine

The state makes the top spot because it is able to produce more wind energy than all of New England combined. The state has over 200 turbines that are constructed and under contract, with a total investment in Maine-based projects of over $1 billion. In 2013, Maine’s wind turbines generated 431 megawatts (MW) of capacity, enough to power about 61,000 homes for a year.

Maine wind farms will reduce carbon emissions by 2.5 million tons in 2020, equal to removing pollution from 400,000 cars. That same year, the state’s wind power output is expected to reach 1,700 MW of capacity, enough to power 276,000 homes for a year.

2. Rhode Island

The growing solar sector in Rhode Island helps put it in the second spot. In 2013, its solar sector increased by 62 percent. The state is the second-lowest emitter of carbon among all states, and doesn’t have any coal-fired electricity generation.

Although less than 4 percent of Rhode Island’s net electricity generation comes from renewable energy, most of it from landfill gas, it is really growing. The state has a renewable energy standard (RES) requiring electricity providers to get 16 percent of power sold in the state from renewable sources by 2019.

3. Idaho

The northwestern state’s main renewable energy source is hydropower, but it has sufficient geothermal sources for electricity production. In 2014, a whopping 82 percent of Idaho’s net electricity generation came from renewable energy sources, and it has the fifth lowest average electricity prices in the U.S. Hydropower supplied 60 percent of net electricity generation in 2014, making Idaho the second largest hydropower user, after Washington state.

4. Delaware

Although in 2014 Delaware generated 82 percent of its electricity from natural gas and 11 percent from coal, it has a renewable portfolio standard requiring electricity suppliers to generate 25 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2026.

5. Hawaii

Hawaii’s main source of renewable energy is biomass, followed by solar and wind. However, it has geothermal capacity. It is one of seven states with installed geothermal capacity, and in 2014, 19 percent of its renewable net electricity generation came from geothermal energy.

Its utility-scale electricity generation from solar energy more than doubled in 2014. It is also the first state to set a goal of producing 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, a goal it plans to reach by 2045.

6. Oregon

In 2014, 73 percent of the state’s generated electricity was from hydroelectric plants and other renewable sources. Its geothermal potential is ranked third in the U.S. after Nevada and California.

7. Nevada

Although 90 percent of the state’s energy is imported, it is ranked second in the U.S. for geothermal energy potential.  It was ranked second in the U.S. in utility-scale net electricity generation from geothermal energy and third in utility-scale net generation from solar energy in 2014.

8. South Dakota

The state has vast wind power potential as 88 percent of its land area is suitable for the development of wind power. South Dakota had more net electricity generation from hydroelectric power than any other source in 2013.

9. Washington

The northwestern state is the nation’s hydroelectric leader, producing 30 percent of America’s hydropower. It is home to the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River, the largest single producer of hydroelectric power in the country. In 2014, Washington ranked 10th in the U.S. in net generation of electricity from wind energy.

10. Iowa

In 2013, 27 percent of the state’s energy came from wind power, and it was ranked third in the production of non-hydroelectric renewable energy. Wind in 2013 was second to coal as a source for electricity generation. Iowa is second, after Texas, in electricity generation from wind turbines.

Image credit: Flickr/steve p2008

By Marianne Smallwood

As consumers, we are well familiar with nasty headlines decrying corporate scandals: Ikea using forced prison labor to make furniture; Patagonia sourcing wool from animal-cruel ranches; Volkswagen deliberately cheating U.S. diesel emissions tests. And this week's egregious corporate crime: Nestle's seafood supply chains use trafficked and child laborers.

After commissioning an independent study with nonprofit Verite, Swiss multinational Nestle S.A. announced that Verite had found indicators of forced labor, trafficking and child labor within Nestle's seafood value chain in Thailand. The $140 billion global seafood industry is no stranger to controversy and has come under intense scrutiny in the past year, with numerous news outlets highlighting the industry's abuses in human trafficking and slave labor. In Thailand alone, the country's fishing industry faces an annual approximate shortage of 50,000 sailors, a gap typically filled by Cambodian and Myanmar migrants whose poverty and unregistered status leave them especially vulnerable to traffickers.

Verite lauded Nestle for its initiative in undertaking the study and revealing its findings, and the company has quickly committed to eliminating forced labor in its Thai supply chains and has urged others to do the same. Given that the spotlight still hovers on the seafood industry and Nestle, that reaction is expected. But what happens once media attention shifts, as it always does, to a different industry and corporate culprit?

How a company internalizes this responsibility and who leads its vision for change is a significant factor in determining the longevity of the company's sustainability strategy. One notable success story is that of outdoor clothing company Patagonia. Founder, rock climber and environmentalist Yvon Chouinard engrained into the company the value of sourcing products using fair labor and paying living wages. The company has an internal Social and Environmental Responsibility team and works with reputable external auditors who monitor Patagonia's overseas facilities and supply chain.

The costs from sourcing fair trade supplies, paying fair wages and training its production workers are reflected in higher retail prices for Patagonia's products. Despite these higher prices, the company's target and loyal consumer base is willing to pay a premium for the quality behind the brand. Patagonia's permanent integration of responsible business as core to its company ethos and operations has made it the gold standard for corporate responsibility. If Nestle internalizes the results from the Verite study and can successfully integrate traceability measures and associated costs into prices that consumers accept, it will succeed in some measure.

External factors such as time and politics, however, can impact the progress of a company's well-intended commitments; the global palm oil industry is a prime example of this. Palm oil is an ingredient found in 50 percent of all supermarket products and is a critical export for Indonesia, the world's largest palm oil producer. In September 2014, several global palm oil giants (including Minnesota-based Cargill) signed the Indonesian Palm Oil Pledge, or IPOP, following intense global pressure from consumers and environmental groups to improve their practices within an industry that drives deforestation.

One year later, and at the behest of a new Indonesian government, a second group and agreement has been established to alter and replace the deforestation commitments made under IPOP. Previous pledges made by the IPOP company signatories to preserve forests are now in conflict with new land concessions proposed by the Indonesian government, a situation that has proved contentious and remains unresolved. Particularly in Southeast Asia, the unpredictable dynamics of government can halt even the best laid plans.

Like the garment and palm oil industries, the seafood value chain of which Nestle is a part includes national and local governments and an immense network of individual farms, boats, boat captains, brokers and other intermediaries. Many of these smaller parties operate using casual and informal contracts or agreements. The complicated nature does not excuse the human rights abuses, nor does it give Nestle and other companies a reason to claim ignorance. It does attest to the difficulty in ensuring a completely sustainable, accountable and abuse-free supply chain.

No matter how big the multinational or beloved the brand, a company's value can plummet when scandal breaks. Volkswagen is testament to that. In initiating the public examination of its flaws, and in working with an organization like Verite, Nestle has already gone a more honorable and transparent route than other companies have done. But while it has taken the first step toward being a more responsible company, Nestle's commitment to funding a long-term strategy -- and how it pushes beyond the inevitable roadblocks ahead -- will determine its ultimate footprint and legacy.

Image credit: Flickr/Pedro Angelini

Marianne Smallwood is a diplomat for the U.S. Agency for International Development and freelance writer based in Bangkok, Thailand. She focuses on international affairs, poverty, social impact, and sustainability. She is a graduate of The University of Minnesota and earned her master’s degree from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Marianne tweets at @marianne_is and writes on her blog The Outsidist.

For two weeks, world leaders met in Paris to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Reducing deforestation is one key way to reduce carbon emissions. Over 60 heads of state put an emphasis on forest conservation at COP21, the New York Times reports. And that is important as forests cover 31 percent of the earth’s land area, providing oxygen and absorbing carbon. However, some of the world’s forests are threatened. About 46,000 to 58,000 square miles of forest are lost every year. That is equivalent to 36 football fields being lost every minute.

Deforestation is also the second largest source of carbon emissions. Cutting carbon emissions from deforestation in half by 2020 could get us closer to the 2-degree Celsius increase in global temperature rise that experts set as the threshold, a recent study published in the journal Nature Geoscience found.

“Achieving the target will therefore be challenging, even though it is in the self-interest of the international community,” the study's authors state. An economic development shift is required to go from cutting down tropical forests to conserving them. A shift away from “dependence on natural resource depletion toward recognition of the dependence of human societies on the natural capital that tropical forests represent, and the goods and services they provide” is also needed, according to the report.

If nothing is done, tropical forest deforestation will only get worse. A tropical forest area the size of India will be deforested in the next 35 years without carbon pricing, a study that came out in the spring warned. If that occurs, it will create over a sixth of the remaining carbon that can be emitted if we are to keep global temperature rise below the 2-degrees threshold.

Researchers looked at the future of tropical deforestation from 2016 to 2050 with and without carbon-pricing policies. They based their predictions on 18 million observations of historical forest loss in 101 tropical countries. If there are no new forest conservation policies, 289 million hectares of tropical forest will be cleared from 2016 to 2050, an area that is over 14 percent of earth’s tropical forests in 2000 and about the size of India. Tropical deforestation of that size will release about 169 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2) into the atmosphere during the same time period. However, if a carbon price of $20 per ton of carbon is applied universally, 77 GtCO2 would be avoided.

Just how much emissions occur from tropical deforestation? A joint study by Winrock International and the Woods Hole Research Center found that tropical deforestation is responsible for 3 billion tons of carbon emissions a year. To put that amount in perspective, consider that the average U.S. car emits about 5 tons of carbon a year from its tailpipe, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Or consider that 3 billion tons of carbon emissions is equivalent to about 13 million railcars filled with coal stretching about 125,000 miles. It’s also equal to the total emissions from Western Europe.

There is some good news. U.N. estimates released in the spring found that total carbon emissions from forests decreased by over 25 percent between 2001 and 2015, and attributed it to a slow-down in deforestation.

A lower-cost way to reduce emissions

Halting deforestation is a lower-cost way to reduce emissions, as a 2006 study commissioned by the U.K. Treasury found. In the eight countries responsible for 70 percent of emissions from land use changes, one hectare of forest land might be worth as much as $25,000 in terms of its carbon sequestration properties at a carbon price of $35 to $50. However, if there is no action taken to reduce emissions, every ton of carbon emitted will cause $85 worth of damage to the global economy.

Two climate researchers, Brent Sohngen and Robert H. Beach, found that with an average price of $27.25 per ton of carbon, “Deforestation can be potentially be virtually eliminated.” Reducing global deforestation could sequester 76 billion tons of carbon. In other words, reducing deforestation would be good for the planet, its citizens and the global economy.

Image credit: Flickr/Erin Resso

Many companies post copious amounts of words stating how they are committed to sustainability and strive to prevent the risks of climate change. But in the end, it is action that shows true commitment to sustainability. For better or worse, the 24/7 news cycle and the explosion of social media show that when companies make claims about their social and environmental sustainability, they need to back them up — and that includes the trade organizations to which companies belong.

To that end, Volvo announced last week that it is leaving the National Mining Association (NMA). According to a letter to Greenpeace and reports in the Swedish press, Volvo’s executives decided to leave the NMA over the lobbying group’s opposition to President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. One United Kingdom nonprofit, InfluenceMap, sums up the NMA’s stance on climate change in one letter: F.

Despite Volvo’s claims that it is committed to sustainability, and is making continued progress on energy efficiency and alternative fuels, critics insisted its membership in the NMA raised plenty of questions. After the Swedish broadcasting network SVT pointed out that the NMA had spent over $100 million the past five years attacking the reliability of clean energy while touting the benefits of coal, an email exchange with Volvo led to the automaker announcing that it would rescind its NMA membership. It was a quite a turnaround from earlier in the week, when Volvo’s leadership, attending the COP21 talks in Paris, admitted that the company was a member of NMA for three or four years, but threw in a caveat that it did not support the lobbying group’s stance on climate change.

Volvo’s announcement is a victory for environmental advocacy groups including Greenpeace, which has been relentless in its attacks against “climate deniers.” The organization has kept tabs on other companies and professional services firms that are NMA members, including PwC and EY. Meanwhile another Swedish manufacturing firm, SKF, also announced it was quitting its NMA membership.

Global events such as COP21 often bring the knives out: Greenpeace and its peers are quick to highlight inconsistencies in what a company says as opposed to what trade organizations or lobbying groups it supports. Whether a company is a member of NMA or ALEC, Volvo’s recent announcement shows that it is not enough to simply announce a more responsible policy or trumpet a drop in emissions. The old adage, “be careful of the company you keep,” certainly applied here.

Image credit: Volvo

Printing boarding passes is sooooo 2005. Seriously, does anyone still print? My handy HP all-in-one printer collects more dust than print jobs. While it is true that most paper comes from managed forests, most of us just do not really have the need to print — a trend the paper industry, including the Paper and Packaging Board, whines about endlessly.

But sometimes we do need to print — for example, editing is easier for me to do on paper than staring at that laptop screen. And as an office tactic, distributing handouts at a meeting is a way to keep those rude colleagues’ eyes on the whiteboard and hands off their smartphones.

So, what if the office had printers that recycled shredded paper into new 8x10 or A4 sheets, creating a closed-loop recycling system within the office?

Epson, one of the world’s most popular printer manufacturers, is doing just that.

The venerable hardware manufacturer has developed what it describes as the “world’s first compact office papermaking system capable of producing new paper from securely shredded waste paper.” Christened the PaperLab, this new contraption, if successful, will replace the water cooler or Nespresso machine as the cool office place to hang out. The machines will start production in Japan next year.

Among the PaperLab’s selling points is the reduction in energy consumption and confidentiality. Yes, recycling is about as low-hanging fruit as sustainability gets, but all that paper still has to be hauled from location to location as it evolves from waste to raw material to paper once again. Plus, while one would hope those confidential documents are shredded, you never know what can happen once those revealing and, in some cases, salacious, papers leave the office. PaperLab starts reprocessing those shredded documents immediately, so we have no scenarios like what occurred in the Oscar-winning "Argo," or, in the "The Office."

The technology, as articulated by Epson, is relatively simple. Waste paper is broken down into fibers without water, using a proprietary process Epson calls 'dry fiber technology.' Those fibers are then bound together so that they are strong enough, and the user has the option to add tint, or, heaven forbid, fragrance -- or in the interest of security and public safety, flame retardants. New sheets are then formed in whatever thickness the office manager desires, and viola! The printing process can resume again.

No word on how many times the process can be repeated, but at a time when “innovation” has become so overused that it can cure insomnia, this is, quite frankly, true innovation. Plus, this PaperLab will be an awesome recruiting bait. There was a time, as many of us dot-com refugees remember, when Foozball and espresso machines were key tools to lure talent to companies. But these days, more of us want to work for a company that is socially and environmentally responsible. And quite frankly, Epson’s invention is a sustainability gem that just about any of us can relate to — provided, of course, it’s scalable and affordable.

Image credit: Epson

By Sarah McKinney

People are living longer than ever before: By 2050 the average life expectancy is 89 years old, and today there’s a woman living in the United States that’s 116 years old. The average age of retirement, however, is remaining relatively stagnant at 65. This means that older adults are now planning for more years without a paycheck, which can be stressful. Social Security helps, but typically only covers a portion of income lost, and reserves are expected to run out by 2034. Pension plans that used to be popular among employers, and that promised retirees a set monthly payment in the future, have been replaced with 401(k) offerings. This has transferred market risk and longevity risk from companies to individuals. The result? Many Americans are at risk of outliving their retirement savings.

Meet Matt Carey, CEO and co-founder of Abaris – a finance-tech startup that’s on a mission to make sure this doesn’t happen by increasing transparency in the annuities market and empowering 50- to 75-year-olds – through unbiased educational tools and personalized support – to decide whether or not it makes sense to include annuities in their retirement plan. Say what? If you think of annuities like a private market version of Social Security, you’re pretty close to understanding how they work – the amount you pay now is based on how much you want your set monthly payments to be in the future, kicking in at a pre-determined age and taking your other sources of future income (e.g., IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.) into consideration.

Launched in July of 2015, Abaris is the first direct-to-consumer online marketplace for annuity products, and the company is already seeing tens of thousands of monthly visitors. It partnered with eight of the 15 insurance providers that offer the annuity product it sells, and it's generating revenue through taking a 3- to 4-percent cut of insurance company profit – no additional fees are passed along to consumers.

I first crossed paths with Carey at the Kairos Global Summit, which took place in Los Angeles on Oct. 13 and brought together over 200 young entrepreneurs and 100 investors for a day of networking, roundtable conversations and keynote presentations. The 50 startups selected for this year’s K50 – a cohort of companies (with at least one founder under age 25) that are actively addressing complex challenges – each had a designated area where founders spent the morning giving demos and answering questions asked by passersby. The Abaris booth caught my eye given its focus on retirement and my interest in this segment of the population. After Carey explained what Abaris does – with zero reliance on unnecessarily confusing financial jargon – we scheduled time to speak by phone later in the week.

The idea for Abaris came when Carey was working on retirement policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and trying to figure out what they should do now that fewer people have pension plans. His “a-ha” moment came after in-depth research revealed how stuck the current system was in an old paradigm due to its lack of transparency. Carey envisioned the technology needed to solve the problem. He started talking with his parents about their retirement planning, and began to realize how big the opportunity was to help people: There are currently 74.9 million baby boomers living in America, and by 2017 almost half of the U.S. adult population will be 50 or older. He left the Treasury to attend Wharton, where he met Abaris’ other two founders: Nimish Shukla (chief operating officer) and Adam Colombo (chief technology officer). He dropped out three-quarters of the way through to launch Abaris.

For naysayers wanting to argue that Abaris is doomed to fail given its reliance on baby boomers being tech-savvy, think again. A recent study by Pew Research Center reports that social media use among those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2010. Today, 35 percent of those 65+ use social media. A 2014 study by Nielsen found that, among baby boomers with at least $250,000 in liquid assets, 92 percent indicate online banking as their preferred channel for paying bills and 87 percent check their bank balances online. In 2012, people 66 and older spent an average of 25 hours a week online (WSL/Strategic Retail). In 2013, eMarketer reported that 9 in 10 baby boomers have made an online purchase.

Carey says his team spends a lot of time talking on the phone with users, and stresses the importance of education going both ways. “The psychological benefits of being able to count on an annuity payment in the future are huge,” Carey said, “and we learn so much from the older adults we speak with – about what their needs are, and their financial goals.”

Getting the remaining seven insurance companies on Abaris’ site is a near-term objective, but Carey says the company will also likely begin partnering with insurers to develop new, more flexible products. When asked what his vision of the future is, Carey said he wants everyone in their 30s and 40s to be aware of the option to purchase annuities when they get older, and for annuities to be an efficient asset class, just as stocks and bonds are. This, he said, will allow more people to make better-informed financial decisions when preparing for retirement, and ensure fewer people outlive their money.

Image credit: Abaris

Sarah McKinney is a freelance writer and Innovation Fellow at Encore.org. Follow her @sarahmck

More than half (52%) of UK adults assume well-known businesses that sell greetings cards offer sustainable products made from well managed forests, a YouGov poll for WWF has revealed.

The British are the biggest card senders in the EU, and almost 2 in 5 (39%) buycards from specialist card retailers, but in WWF’s timber scorecard only one of the reviewed card sellers, Hallmark, scored highly on its sustainability policy and transparency for consumers. Card sellers like Paperchase and Clintons Cards received the lowest marks.

WWF highlights that despite the industry being worth an estimated £1.6bn at Christmas time alone, greetings cards are among the products not covered by the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR), which is designed to keep illegally sourced timber out of the marketplace.

The regulation is currently under review by the European Commission in Brussels, and WWF has been campaigning to have ‘loopy loopholes’ closed, so that all goods that contain wood but are currently exempt from the EUTR, like books, cards, chairs and toys, are included. 

Julia Young, WWF’s adviser on sustainable and legal timber trade, commented: “Consumers have told us time and again they want businesses to act responsibly and help them buy sustainably.

“Thousands of our supporters tweeted Paperchase and Clintons last week to try and persuade them to up their game. Clintons tweeted back that they are complying with the EU Timber Regulation, but say nothing about sustainability.

“Paperchase tweeted that they are sourcing from sustainable wood sources but we still can’t find any policy about this on their website, and they are not responding to our direct enquiries about this. For such well-known brands, they should be demonstrating leadership on this issue."

 

I'm over Greenland headed home to San Francisco and just got the news that a strong climate agreement has been reached back in Paris. Peeking out the window to see ice caps brought a tear to my eyes, when I realized they don't actually have to melt.

We will share details on the agreement in the coming days. In the mean time here are some reactions from some NGOs who were official observers at the talks:

Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International: "The wheel of climate action turns slowly, but in Paris it has turned. This deal puts the fossil fuel industry on the wrong side of history."

Jennifer Morgan, Global Director, Climate Program, World Resources Institute:

“It took hard work, grit and guts, but countries have finally united around a historic agreement that marks a turning point on the climate crisis. The Paris Agreement marks a new form of international cooperation – one where developed and developing countries are united by a common and fair framework. The agreement is both ambitious and powered by the voices of the most vulnerable."

Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club:
“The Paris agreement is a turning point for humanity. For the first time in history, the global community agreed to action that sets the foundation to help prevent the worst consequences of the climate crisis while embracing the opportunity to exponentially grow our clean energy economy.  Decisive leadership and action from President Obama and other world leaders, an increasingly powerful climate movement, and strong progress in the U.S. and globally to move off coal cleared the way for every nation to come to the table.”

Of course the text isn't perfect (we'll have details on that on Monday) and implementation will be the real challenge and there are many uncertainties to be sorted out. But for now let's all enjoy a little hope and optimism.

Thank you, TriplePundit readers, and for supporting us! Your interest in topic of sustainability and business, and your ability to learn and share with your communities made a real impact in these talks. It was truly a global effort and we all deserve a pat on the back. Huzzah!

I'm off to hug my baby and think good thoughts about her future.

Image credit: John W. Schulze, Flickr