Search

Last year, Land Rover shared how pioneering technology could be used to develop a ‘transparent’ bonnet, writes Laura Vickery, global CSR manager at the car maker.

A concept car, revealed at the New York International Auto Show, used cameras located in the grille to feed into a display on the bonnet, creating a ‘see-through’ view of the terrain underneath. The development represents safer, smarter driving and is particularly useful for drivers climbing steep inclines, or dealing with the tight confines of urban car parks.

Six months later, the business revealed its ‘360 virtual urban windscreen’ concept, which uses transparent roof pillars to give the driver a clear 360 degree view outside the car, covering blind spot angles and helping make pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles visible around the car.

Faced with these technological innovations, few would question the positive value that improving transparency can bring when applied smartly. So beyond these rather literal examples, how can improved transparency be applied to those of us working to progress the responsible business agenda?

Improved transparency does not necessarily mean more facts and figures; rather, providing more meaningful, timely and relevant information.

In 2013, I helped transform how Jaguar Land Rover measures its impact of CSR projects. Joining forces with the London Benchmarking Group (LBG), we used its measurement framework as a basis for measuring the real value and impact of corporate community investment to both business and society. The methodology also allows us to rate the depth of impact of community activities, from making a connection, a change or a transformation to an individual, and to benchmark ourselves against other companies. It underpins the working of our global CSR programme, through which we aim to help 12m people by 2020.

Businesses are increasingly aligning their CSR and sustainability projects to their core business and purpose. As well as helping accommodate issues of materiality, this can help businesses find niche or unique interventions, where they can excel using the expertise of their people and the products and services of their sector.

Improving transparency can create challenges. Culturally, some organisations find it deeply uncomfortable to share any information that isn’t wholly positive. But improving transparency is a key vehicle to increase trust with ever-more sceptical audiences.
In a world where demand for information is accelerating and customers use social and digital media to share their opinions, there is also likely to be a disconnect between people who demand immediate updates from organisations that are traditionally used to reporting retrospectively at certain times of year.

There are some exciting trends around the corner though, not least the advent of ‘Big Data’, which has the potential to radically disrupt the CSR landscape.

Transparency of ‘data for good’ is vital for any responsible business and it’s what customers and other stakeholders will increasingly expect.

The challenge we face is how we transform traditional corporate reporting and communications to meet the daily needs of empowered consumers in the digital age.

Laura Vickery is global CSR manager at Jaguar Land Rover, writing here in a personal capacity. She will be speaking at the CSR Summit in 2016. 

Recently, Europe has been witnessing major changes in terms of mass media consumption. This has led to a significant transformation in the purchasing behaviour of consumers, writes Andrea Henao.

Parameters such as sustainability, respect for environmental laws and fairer working conditions influence consumers’ decisions more than ever.

Consumers are no longer loyal to a brand for decades just because of an image; they have become loyalty switchers, basing their purchase on a combination of factors such as the price, the promotions and the image. However, we are seeing a new consumer mutation that does not take into consideration any of the three last factors but instead considers new parameters. This new audience can be called ‘sustainable consumers,’ concentrating their attention on the structural factors that make a product and a brand, such as its provenance, CSR policies and environmental impact.

Given this development, it is now time for companies to re-align their communication. It is interesting to note that in this new way of consumption, the marketing mechanism cannot work independently. It cannot, as in the past, create an image that is far from what the brand or product stands for. For once, the production has to be perfectly aligned with the communication. Nowadays information can spread virally too, at a speed never experienced before, and the brands which do not respect ethical engagements can be strongly sanctioned by consumers. We have recently seen groups of consumers effectively and offensively apply structured boycotts of selected brands with notable success, eg Monsanto.

It is also important to note that the rise of global consciousness is not only increasing in Europe and the US, but is rapidly spreading in the major emerging national economies.

360 Agency Berlin aims to help developing advertising sustainable initiatives not only in Europe but also in emerging markets, in order to incentivise emerging countries to produce in a more sustainable way. We recently visited LDCs (Least Developed Countries) in Asia, invited by the chambers of commerce in Vietnam and Mongolia to discuss the changes in global advertising and the European Commission initiative named GSP+.

GSP+ helps the least developed markets to export to Europe for free if they can prove that they are respecting international labour rights and global environmental laws. The second steps of the workshop actively linked sustainability to advertising by demonstrating to the companies that they would be then enabled to promote their goods in a much more impactful way.

When talking about sustainability and advertising, audit processes cannot be ignored. If we want consumers to trust and invest in sustainable products we need to prove that it is truly worthwhile. In view of this, 360 Agency Berlin decided to approach advertising in this totally different way by promoting only sustainable and eco-friendly brands, reviewing the chains of productions and CSR terms when possible.

A few global brands have already taken this new turn and we are certain that by consuming and advertising responsibly we can change the lives of thousands. It seems inevitable that these new ways of communicating, advertising and producing will not just be a trend but be part of a “sustainable” and structural change.

Andrea Henao is a partner at 360 Agency Berlin 

Around the globe, desperate and poor people are still being sold or forced into slavery. Whether in fishing, agriculture, construction or other work, these men, women and children are ending up in the supply chains of major global companies but out of the gaze of the consumer or shareholder, writes Meggin Thwing Eastman, vp, ESG Research at MSCI ESG Research.

In well over half the cases where MSCI ESG Research has tracked companies involved in controversy over slave labour, the allegations centre on the supply chain below the first tier, away from the assembly line or factory. It is hidden too in some industries away from recent media attention that has centered on agriculture and fishing. In a recent report ‘Slaving Away: Shining a light on forced labour in the global value chain’, analysis by myself and MSCI colleagues Jackie Daitchman and Valerie Sioson, reveals that electronic goods and other items, such as clothes and the toys, may be linked to forced labour somewhere in the course of their transformation from raw material to finished products.

Our study analysed data on a total of nearly 8,500 companies. Of the approximately 2,500 companies in the MSCI ACWI Index - a global equity index consisting of developed and emerging market countries - we found that 62.4% of them are subject to either the new UK anti-slavery law or proposed transparency laws in the US.

In the past two years alone, a total of 88 companies have faced allegations by NGOs and the media linking them with forced labour, either in their own operations or somewhere in their supply chain. When we widened our scope to the broader MSCI ACWI Investible Market Index, which includes another 6,000 or so smaller cap companies, we found another 30 had faced similar allegations between 2013 and 2015. They range from emerging market companies close to the labour source to major global brands.

Of the companies that faced allegations, 42 percent were from the global agriculture sector, primarily palm oil production and fishing companies. Another notable cluster (14%) is large-scale construction projects, primarily in the Middle East. In general, most of the allegations centre on South East Asia and the Middle East.

However it does not end there. When we analysed data from the US Bureau of International Labor Affairs, we found that much forced labour occurs in manufacturing, specifically in the supply chains of the electronics and consumer goods industries. We identified nine raw materials and eight finished goods as presenting the greatest risk of implicating their users or producers in forced labour. We estimate that at least 25% of the global supply of these items comes from countries where there is a potential problem.

We were then able to identify the 10 industries with the greatest dependence on goods most often produced with forced labour. While it is not possible to tie individual companies directly to the use of slave labour without outside evidence, the largest companies in those industries likely face the greatest potential exposure.

So what can be done to eradicate the use of slave labour? Given the new laws on transparency both in the UK and the US, it appears that company actions so far may not do enough. We estimate that global brands selling electronics, toys, clothes - as well as those in the food business – will likely need to adopt, or be forced to adopt, stricter compliance policies and procedures all the way down their supply chains.

Meggin Thwing Eastman is vp, ESG Research at MSCI ESG Research
 

Tackling air pollution isn’t solely a legislative issue, people have to be encouraged into new behaviours, argues Lord Drayson

Air pollution is getting a lot of air-time. In the last few months, there has been the VW corporate scandal, a report by Defra on the serious health impacts of vehicle emissions and a raft of proposals prepared by central and local governments to tackle it.

But the news agenda moves fast and, even now, I think the health effects of air pollution are still relatively under-appreciated. Louise Francis from University College London’s Mapping for Change initiative summed up the perception deficit on BBC News recently: “The fact is, this is a public health emergency. It’s up there with alcohol; it’s up there with smoking, but it’s just not discussed.”
In London, new regulations are coming in response to the growing concerns. In 2018 all new taxis will have to be zero emission capable. In 2020 City Hall plans to introduce an ultra low emission zone, so only the cleanest vehicles will be able to enter central London without paying a charge.

Of course these initiatives should be welcomed, and yes government has an important role to play, but tackling air pollution isn’t solely a legislative issue. Legislation and regulations that seek to change individuals’ behaviour take an extraordinary amount of time and support to justify and enact, no matter how strong the argument. I believe that the most effective way of changing behaviour is to encourage it from the bottom up, not just the top down. And that requires information that people can readily understand, that relates the issue to their everyday lives and concerns.

If you look back to the 1950s, when medical opinion first began to realise the harmful effects of smoking, legislation to ban smoking in public would have been completely impossible. It would not have had the public’s support. It took just over half a century of campaigning, educating and debating for the public to become aware of the effects of smoking on both the smoker and to those around them and to create the space within which it was possible for politicians to take action and for legislation banning smoking in enclosed public spaces to be passed.

Today, with the tools of social media at our disposal, we have much more instant, personal and effective ways of communicating our message to people and we are seeing this being used now to improve everyone’s understanding of the importance of air quality to our health. As the medical evidence mounts up, the need for change becomes more pressing. Modern technology, the use of smartphones and wireless sensor networks all have an important role in providing people with better information, relevant to how they live their lives.

This September we launched CleanSpace, a new wireless sensor network to provide people with better information about the quality of the air they are breathing using connected personal air sensors that they carry with them. The CleanSpace app and sensor are designed to work together to provide people with relevant, actionable information on pollution exposure and to inspire them to help improve air quality themselves by making cleaner travel choices – like walking or using a bicycle.

While CleanSpace is first and foremost about providing up to the minute information on your personal exposure to air pollution, it also uses that information to build a better map of air pollution for everyone. CleanSpace is about helping everyone to see the collective impact of their own individual efforts.

Available now is the CleanSpace Tag, a world-first personal air pollution sensor. It works by continuously monitoring air pollution data to show people exactly what they’re breathing, wherever they are – while commuting, exercising or taking the kids to school – and presenting that information on an easy to read screen on your smartphone via the free CleanSpace app.

Powered by revolutionary Freevolt technology, which means you never have to charge it or change its battery, it shows people exactly what they’re breathing, wherever they are. It works alongside the CleanSpace app which shows users the cleanest routes and areas available, records when they are making clean travel choices and provides them with rewards for doing so; helping to reduce the personal health risks of air pollution exposure, and helping to reduce emissions from travel at the same time.

With widespread adoption of the CleanSpace Tag and app, we can build the world’s most detailed map of air pollution and use that data to effect real change. It will not only provide users with more personal pollution exposure data, but also give a reading of air pollution at the height at which we breathe, improving our computer models for predicting and estimating air pollution.

Our role is to provide everyone with the information they need to understand and avoid air pollution and to help reduce it. While we expect our politicians to regulate to improve air quality, it is also down to each and every one to take action too. In this age of hyper-connectivity, armed with the right technology, we can collectively make a real difference. Air pollution is man-made – so is the solution. 

 

Lord Drayson is a former Science Minister and founder and CEO of Drayson Technologies

The San Francisco Bay Area's housing problem is no secret. In fact, it's been around for so long that organizations created to incentivize housing options for low-income or impoverished residents more than 30 years ago have become an essential part of the fabric that supports incoming, idealistic new arrivals -- even ones with solid jobs.

These days, the challenge of finding housing in the Bay Area's nine counties isn't limited to the low-income family, the elderly resident on Social Security or the homeless, disabled veteran. It extends across all economic sectors and most neighborhoods of the Bay Area's burgeoning cities and suburbs. It includes the restaurant staff that services San Francisco's mid-city tech industry, the front office workers in Oakland and the part-time office cleaners throughout the area. It even includes those entry-level to mid-income salaried tech employees who don't earn enough to snag one of the few houses on the market each month.

And it isn't just in those communities where the tech industry is booming. As is so often the case in geographic areas where a growing industry has forced demand to outpace supply, the shortage is almost everywhere. The deficiency in affordable housing is even felt in East Bay suburbs an hour's drive away from the city. In places like Lafayette, the market demand for houses has pushed the median price above $1 million, far out of reach for the average worker. And it's done one more thing, says Sonya Trauss: It's eroded the rental market.

Trauss is the founder of the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (SFBARF) -- an organization that, up until recently, received more attention for its odd acronym than its answers to the area's rental woes. But earlier this month, SFBARF did what many figured was the unthinkable: It announced it would sue Lafayette for allegedly going against its word and not building enough affordable housing. And it would go after others that it felt fell short on their commitment as well.

The way that Trauss sees the problem: Cities don't want to have affordable housing in their backyards.

"There's not enough political will to build," Trauss said earlier this month in an interview with TriplePundit. "Suburbs have the idea that housing doesn't pay."

It's easy to see why. In neighborhoods like Palo Alto and Mountain View, where the average two-bedroom, modestly-sized house can range as high as $3 million, rental neighborhoods are an endangered species. They figure large in Mountain View's North Shore Precise Plan, but are hard to find on its development map. 

SFBARF's answer for the region's housing dilemma has raised some eyebrows as well. It isn't, well, the kind of thing that residents expect to hear in the Bay Area, where stories of rush-hour gridlock extend back into the 1960s and the population already tops 7 million. But it speaks to the heart of the problem in counties like Solano and Marin, where single detached homes comprise as much as 70 percent of the existing real estate market.

More population density

There's room in the suburbs, Trauss argues. "I do understand that there are people in the that like the suburban form, and I think there is enough room in the Bay Area for there to be suburban sprawl -- for a while at least." But she feels there's also room for more density that would meet the needs of those who like city life and need better options for housing. And, contrary to many who move to outlying areas like Lafayette and Walnut Creek, she says she likes density. It affords more opportunities, cuts down on commutes and interconnects communities.

Gloria Bruce agrees that "suburban sprawl" offers at least part of the answer to fixing the Bay Area's housing crunch. She serves as the executive director for the East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO), which advocates for improved housing options in places like Oakland, a city that doesn't have the sprawl but often tries to address its housing shortages. These days, Bruce says, mindset isn't a predominate problem in Oakland when it comes to building affordable housing. Money and resources are.

"It's not -- overall -- a NIMBY [not in my backyard] city," says Bruce, although she admits that there are "pockets of resistance" when it comes to building low-income housing. "The problem Oakland has now is that it just doesn't have sufficient money to build much more affordable housing."

But that doesn't mean other cities can't do more. "I do think it's important to shine a light on other places -- from Pleasanton to Mountain View to communities in Marin -- that have new jobs in various sectors but are generally resistant to building more housing."

She says EBHO has tried to work with outlying counties where lower-income individuals work and can't afford to rent, but it is difficult. "There is huge resistance to building more homes in many of these places; there's a feeling that it's a threat to a certain way of life. But when your traffic is snarled, and your adult kids or your aging parents can no longer afford to live in your hometown, and your first responders and your domestic workers are commuting two hours to get to work. What kind of quality of life is that anyway?"

Still, says Bruce, local governments aren't without tools to reduce the housing crunch. Impact fees, in which employers pay a small fee each time one of its newly hired staff rented a unit could help defray cost of building more affordable housing. So could "inclusionary zoning" laws that help ensure that low-cost housing is factored into the neighborhoods. But so far, it's been difficult getting support at city council meetings. She says cities "sometimes even fight the allocation given to them by the Association of Bay Area Government," a state-mandated allocation that ensures every city is taking affordable housing needs into consideration.

Jackie Jenks, who runs the Hospitality House across the bay from Oakland in San Francisco's densely-populated Tenderloin District, offers a similar take on what is fueling the crisis. And she doesn't beat around the bush when it comes to assessing the reasons that housing costs are unattainable by a growing sector of the population:

"Economic inequality and greed. Market forces and greed are driving up the costs of housing everywhere, and many property owners are interested only in how much they can get on a rental or a sale and not in how their actions impact others who are just trying to make it," Jenks says. Like Bruce, she has watched her neighborhood become transformed by the growth of companies like Yelp, Airbnb and Pinterest, with older, lower-income neighborhoods "being fixed up, priced up and marketed to tech workers who are willing to live in very small spaces with limited facilities because everything they need is provided at their workplace."

But Jenks says she isn't sure that imposing fees to pay for new housing in San Francisco isn't entirely the answer. With limited land mass, "impact fees can only do so much ... [We] need for developers to be part of the solution, to be exceptional, and to go beyond the letter of the law when it comes to inclusionary housing."

Trauss, Bruce and Jenks all agree, however, when it comes to private-sector options. "The tech industry could do more to build truly affordable housing," Jenks says.

And, adds Bruce, "They should engage positively with local government and advocates to find shared solutions, rather than just finding ways to work around local ordinances or throwing tons of money at ballot measures they don't like."

Trauss says her answer is "more of a long-term one ... The longer I’ve been here, the more I’ve realized there’s a lot of crossing paths of each other because people have different time frames for their solutions." She says she thinks cities, developers and the tech industry that invests in the area should look at the present housing shortage as an opportunity. "Money is interested in this place. It wants to do stuff here,” including build more housing. “And people need housing and people want housing."

As for Lafayette and other suburban areas with room to grow, Trauss says the city has the wrong message. "We’re not asking the government for a handout. We don’t want them to do anything for us. We just want them to let developers, private developers with their own money, ... build something so we can spend money to buy it.”

But affordable housing also won't happen until employers take an active roll in fixing the problem, says Bruce. "It isn't fair, healthy or sustainable to reap the benefits of high-tech office development without also building some homes for local workers. We all deserve to live where we work and work where we live, if we choose to."

Image credit: Brooke Anderson and Steve Rhodes via Flickr

In the last few years, consumer awareness of food waste has grown considerably. Now nearly two-thirds of U.S. grocery shoppers say they are concerned or very concerned about the issue, according to a recent poll commissioned by Sealed Air, a global manufacturer of food and consumer goods packaging.

Despite growing awareness, many misconceptions prevail that hinder effective action. Most American grocery shoppers don't think their households are wasteful or part of the problem. There is also a mistaken belief that food packaging contributes to food waste, instead of appreciating its role in preserving food. Such misconceptions are important to reduce the estimated one-third of all food that is wasted globally.

As part of a company vision to cut food waste and promote food security, Sealed Air is engaging its 24,000 employees as 'ambassadors to food waste prevention.'  Sealed Air teamed up with Love Food, Hate Waste, with the goal to reach all employees in all regions by the end of 2016. The initiative includes training employees on purchasing, planning, storing and preparing foods – ideally shifting wasteful behaviors and sharing useful information with customers and communities.

The program includes two main components. An interactive global online tool with blog posts, podcasts, recorded webinars, competitions, food-waste journals, recipes and quizzes helps the company spread its wealth of knowledge on the topic with employees, and employees share insights with each other, while taking advantage of support materials from Love Food, Hate Waste. Local food waste educational workshops are offered at sites with more than 100 employees and are tailored to the needs of employees in specific countries.

As highlighted in its 2014 Sustainability Report, Sealed Air is embedding sustainability throughout the company, not just in its operations. The employee food waste prevention program is a tangible result, and the first undertaking of this type for Sealed Air. If successful, it has the potential to engage the employees in Sealed Air values around food security and enhancing lives. This can engage employees behind the potential of Sealed Air's products themselves, which prevent food waste, thus mitigating food scarcity.

“Grocery shoppers have troubling misperceptions about food packaging, and mistakenly view it as a contributor to food waste rather than correctly acknowledging its role as food preserver,” said Ron Cotterman, vice president of sustainability for Sealed Air. “We believe that by better understanding where and why food is wasted, we can generate increased awareness and identify opportunities to help change consumer behavior and prevent food waste.”

Engaging its 24,000 employees on this issue not only has the potential to cut food waste, but can also benefit the bottom line and help attract talent, especially if employees see how their jobs can benefit the environment and enhance lives. More than half of recent college graduates across the globe report seeking companies that have strong corporate social responsibility values that align with their own values, and 56 percent would consider leaving a company that didn’t have the values they expected, according to a recent PwC study.

Numerous studies also show a strong relationship between employees’ workplace engagement and a company’s overall performance. A 2013 Gallup poll estimates that a mere 13 percent of workers worldwide are engaged, resulting in $300 billion in lost productivity annually in the U.S. alone, as well as higher rates of absenteeism, safety incidents and turnover. Disengaged employees erode the bottom line, while effective corporate social responsibility initiatives are a powerful tool in attracting and retaining talent.

Food waste is likely to be a cause that has wide appeal, as food is an important element in all of our lives and its waste has broad social and environmental costs.

“Food binds us to the best times of our lives – think birthday parties, weddings, lunch-time dates, dinner with families and friends, eating out," Lubna Edwards, director of global sustainability and partnerships for Sealed Air, told TriplePundit. "But there's an awful reality – too much food is being wasted with devastating social, environmental and economic impacts.”

Image credit: Flickr/jbloom

One of the best ways to see the world is by backpacking. “Backpacking,” of course, can mean just about anything. It can mean taking those overnight trains throughout Europe, arriving bleary-eyed at the next town and stumbling into a hostel. It can also involve trekking along remote rural areas in countries from Bolivia to Nepal. Whatever your budget is and however you prefer to spend your time — as in, city and nightlife versus national parks and outdoor activities — setting off on a long trip abroad will allow you to bring home lessons on living and working sustainably for when you eventually return home — a timely lesson at the moment considering all the holiday shopping messages currently bombarding us.

I recently completed a long trip through Chile and Argentina, a region through which I had traveled before, but this time my trip was geared more toward the outdoors in Patagonia. I had a place to stay, which meant it was tempting to pack a huge suitcase since I wasn’t spending every day on a bus. Of course, the mantra, “if you pack it, you carry it,” stuck with me, and I ended up packing only enough clothes to fill up my 20-plus-year-old Millet backpack.

And packing light is just the start. “If you want to truly enjoy the great outdoors, or any trip for that matter, focus more on experience and forget the excess,” said Suzi Wortman, who, along with her husband Claudio Retamal, owns Summit Chile, an adventure tourism company in Pucón, Chile. “Bottom line: If you want to travel responsibly, then you really need to be even more conscious about your social and environmental impact,” Wortman added as we spoke one afternoon in her company’s office.

In addition to ensuring Summit Chile’s customers have a fantastic time while they are visiting the Pucón area’s volcanoes, lakes and alpine forests, Wortman and Retamal’s venture also gives them the opportunity to share their values with visitors.

Summit Chile, founded five years ago, was the result of the couple's desire to be together after having jobs that required them to often spend time away from their now-teenaged children. Retamal is one of only three mountaineering guides certified by the International Federation of Mountain Guides Associations (IFMGA/UIAGM). Wortman spent years organizing excursions for tourists who were taking cruise ships around Tierra del Fuego with stops at Punta Arenas and Puerto Montt: an exciting time and great way to meet people, but also a reminder of how these massive ships can have an impact on the local environment.

“When you lead a group of 75 people on an expedition to see the glaciers or penguins, it’s hard to instill the need for acting responsibly and sustainably,” said Wortman, “but our agency’s day-trips rarely have more than a dozen people. So, we can teach our guests about how to respect the land and local people in a constructive way, without sounding [like we're] lecturing.”

For example, Summit Chile follows the principle of Leave No Trace, an NGO that aspires to teach people of all ages how to to enjoy the outdoors responsibly. When I joined the agency for a walk up Volcan Quetrupillan (as Villarrica, the real draw to Pucón, did not re-open after an eruption until Nov. 12), Retamal and his guides were quick to remind our group of what to do, and what not to do, to respect the park’s grounds. Those orange peels and apple cores? Sure, they are biodegradable, but they are not native to the local environment, so take them back to town with you, along with every bit of trash you create — carry, don’t bury. That kila (indigenous bamboo) walking stick or chunk of obsidian are nice keepsakes from the climb, but they stay behind. And it doesn’t matter if what appear to be a few footsteps make for a nice short cut — stay on the trail.

These are all simple steps that one may think are common sense, but Wortman and Retamal have carried that to their home life. Their custom-built home outside of town, replete with adobe walls and reclaimed wood, is certainly comfortable, but Wortman noted how different her life is now compared to her upbringing in Vancouver — and the same goes for Retamal, whose parents are successful entrepreneurs who reside outside of Santiago. As I was helping Wortman prepare dinner, there was no need to ask which bowl to use for salad — there was only one.

“Not having all this stuff is liberating,” she said, as she gingerly opened her refrigerator, which is probably a third the size of what is found within most North American homes. “I know our kids will have a laugh when they reminisce about their childhood, as in, ‘Remember that janky fridge mom always had to open carefully so the freezer door wouldn’t crash onto the floor?’,” Wortman said. “But if it works, why replace it? I’ve got my family, my clean water, fresh air and view of the volcano — and that makes me feel far richer than most folks I know.

Those four weeks I spent in Patagonia left me feeling the same way: surrounded by abundance yet free and unencumbered of things that I have accumulated in my own two-bedroom condo in California. Sure, I had name-brand clothing stuffed into my backpack, most of it from brands that reflect my values: The North Face, no-to-Black-Friday REI and, of course, Patagonia. But even then, my jacket had been scored at a thrift shop, one pair of pants was an e-Bay find and the hiking pants were bought on clearance. I had left a walk-in closet full of clothes behind and was happy for it. “Oh man, the last thing you should do is go on a shopping spree before a trip, especially to a region like this where your clothes will get trashed from trekking,” Wortman advised.

We were reminded of that as she saw me off at the bus station for a week in Argentina. We eyed a young good-looking North American couple as they were pushing a young baby in the Ferrari of baby strollers. She was in a smart, spotless Patagonia jacket, while he was lugging a brand new The North Face duffle bag with nary a crease. “Those new outfits won’t stay neat long, and never mind the fact that catalogue look makes them walking targets,” said Wortman, noting that theft was one risk people had to mind when visiting the region.

In the end, we end up possessed by our possessions, whether we are traveling abroad or living the daily grind in our home or office. The less things around us, the less stress we feel.

So, what should you pack for a backpacking trip?

I asked Wortman, who traveled extensively before she called Chile home, about her thoughts on what to take on a backpacking trip. The reality is: After your money, tickets and passport, most things can be purchased abroad, so forgetting that necessary clothing item or favorite product is hardly a tragedy. If you have an affinity for a particular brand of personal item, bring it, Wortman advised — as in: necessities such as tampons or even condoms. Common sense applies, as in photocopies of your credit and debit cards, prescriptions, and all forms of identification.

But for clothing, keep it simple. “Stick to moisture-wicking materials,” said Wortman, “as you can handwash them at night, and [they] will be dry the next morning.” Forget the jeans, as they are heavy. “A nice pair of hiking pants will not only serve you well when backpacking, but can look more than nice enough if you’re going out in the evening — plus most are made by companies that reflect your values.” And no matter where you are going, most equipment can be rented — keep those crampons at home.

Men: Two pairs of hiking pants; one pair of hiking shorts; two long-sleeved shirts; two short-sleeved shirts; one pair of thermals; one lightweight sweater (merino wool works well); one polar fleece; two tank tops; three pairs of high-performance socks; one or two pairs of athletic socks; four pairs of undies; one pair of workout shorts or pajama bottoms for sleeping. That heavy jacket, of course, can be worn on the plane and be rolled up and tied to your backpack. Don’t forget the hiking shoes and a pair of flip-flops for lounging or in case you need to shower at any lodging where cleanliness may be suspect.

Women: Two pairs of hiking pants; one pair of hiking shorts; two long-sleeved shirts; two short-sleeved shirts; one pair of thermals; one lightweight sweater; one polar fleece; two tank tops; three pairs of high-performance socks; one or two pairs of athletic socks; four pairs of undies; that comfy T-shirt, shorts or pajamas for sleeping; three sports bras. Ditto on the jacket and footwear, and remember: Everything should be moisture-wicking.

Image credits: Leon Kaye

“Oh really? There’s debate about open-source hardware? I’m going to keep shipping open-source hardware while you all argue about it.” – Limor Fried

One of the many highlights of the Next:Economy summit in San Francisco this month (Nov. 12-13) was a virtual tour of Adafruit Industries given by founder Limor Fried, or “Ladyada” as she is known to her many fans. (“Ada” is a reference to Ada Lovelace, the 19-century mathematician widely considered to be the world’s first computer programmer.) Fried has built a $30 million, open-source hardware business in just 10 years using no venture capital (and no cell phone either – it’s a time-waster – in fact, she designed a cell phone/GPS/Wi-Fi jammer as part of her thesis at MIT). Adafruit is now on track to grow to $40 million next year. Fried has achieved this impressive growth by giving away tutorials and instructions on how to create your own cool electronic gadgetry and IoT (Internet of Things) projects at home, and by selling the pieces of hardware you need to do it. “It’s an IoT tutorial company with a gift shop at the end,” Fried likes to say. But, you don’t have to buy Adafruit hardware in order to make Adafruit DIY projects. You can make them with anything you happen to have. So, what can you do with IoT at home? To name just a few things, you could create a Secret Knock Activated Door Lock (because, why wouldn’t you?), or a color-sensing, fiber optic, illuminated ballerina dress, or you could build your own watch with an LED scrolling marquee with time and date, a binary watch display, and a moon phase display. Incredibly fun. Or, you can design your own Raspberry Pi (a single-board computer). In my view, there is a seriously important aspect to Fried’s enterprise as our built environment becomes increasingly driven by sensor technology and IoT. That is, there is some delightful subversiveness in challenging the dominance of companies that have traditionally owned the hardware landscape. Instead of standing in line to buy the next new thing, we get to make the next new thing ourselves, and we decide what that thing is. As Tim O’Reilly, who kicked off the Maker movement 10 years ago, told me in a recent interview: It’s “a vision of people who make rather than just people who consume as a key to our future economy.” So, what does the success of Adafruit mean in the context of the next economy? Why is it important to know how IoT technology works? I corresponded with Fried right after the Next:Economy summit to find out she thought about these questions, and about the future of her business. Julie Noblitt for TriplePundit (3p): The description of your panel session says, "We are entering a world of smart stuff (and dumb stuff built with smart tools)." Do you think the "dumb stuff" that people build for fun is a gateway drug to building things that have wider significance in the future? Do you see Adafruit as having a role in nudging people to use their creative powers for good in the next economy? Limor Fried: The things makers, hackers, artists and engineers build on the weekends are what we'll all be using in our daily lives in a few years. It's a good business and a good idea to pay attention to this.  Adafruit is the starting place for many people getting started on their journey of learning electronics and engineering. 3p: Make and Adafruit started at about the same time in 2005. Why do you think that was the right moment for the beginning of a Maker movement? LF: The late ‘80s and ‘90s really focused on what you could consume, but eventually all the stuff is purchased and everything gets cheaper and not as special. With the Internet, videos and ease of publishing, everything became really shareable, really take-apart-able, and hardware became more like code – easier to put together. It was terminal mass and terminal velocity. Something had to happen, and the maker movement did. 3p: With IoT poised to become an integral part of our built environment (as with smart buildings that know who and where you are), how important do you think it is for the average person to know how this technology works? LF: If you can't take it apart, inspect the code, make it better, you're going to end up being in a very "smart" cage. 3p: I see that you are partnering with Microsoft to offer a Starter Kit designed to help people learn how to use Windows 10 IoT Core. Do you see Adafruit entering into more such partnerships, with Microsoft or with others? LF: Microsoft is smart by jumping feet-first in to the maker market. The IoT pack we worked on together, and many of their developer and maker-friendly efforts, demonstrate their new direction to get more people using their tools and products. After we "helped" open up the Kinect [see the TechCrunch article about this], Microsoft started completely new business units to embrace and extend what the open-source communities started. This is the new normal for businesses looking to be part of the trends in our fast-paced tech landscape. 3p: I read that you are interested in promoting pre-school STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education. Can you say more about what you are doing in service of that goal? LF: The pre-5-year-olds of today are totally better and smarter than we all were when we were that age. They use phones, tablets – everything lights up and is a touch screen, and they want to learn how it works. We decided to do a series of shows called Circuit Playground. We explore each letter of the alphabet with a concept – A is for ampere, B is for battery, C is for capacitor – you get the point. It's been called "Sesame Street 2.0" – we'll see how that goes! We also have two coloring books, "R is for Robots" and "E is for Electronics." This is all in addition to our learning system – educator packs, curriculum, discounts AND weekly live shows on YouTube, Periscope, Twitch.TV, Ustream and more. 3p: Where do you see the Maker movement going over the next five years? LF: More biohacking and IoT. Lots of drone regulations getting worked out and then more products and services around that. A lot of people who are makers are frustrated by the lack of interoperability for their smart home products and services and are building their own to make them work for them. Google, Amazon and Apple are fighting for your home real estate. Just wait until more and more sensors, fitness trackers, and health gadgets are affixed to us. Makers will do what they always do: bend and hack the technology to make it work the way they want it to and have control over who and how the data is used. 3p: You have taken no venture capital funding. My favorite quote from one of the interviews with you: "We have savings -- we can do math." Do you think Adafruit is unique in this regard, or do you see this approach being adopted by more new entrepreneurs? LF: Historically we're not unique, VC [venture capital] and loans were not as celebrated or as common for businesses in the way are now. We're not against investment or loans, we just have not needed them and not having multiple entities telling us what to do, with who and why, has allowed us to take risks, build product lines that were interesting to us and our customers and not have the daily pressures of an exit or the stock market. It's tough at times not having a "net" but maybe that makes us consider things more carefully and make better decisions. We'll see how it all works out long term – so far so good. 3p: What market forces will be driving Adafruit in 2020? LF: I think we'll see some AI [artificial intelligence] and agents [think Siri] driving (literally) a lot of the home automation and smart homes. I've been experimenting with our Adafruit.io services + IFTTT [if-this-then-that – a web-based service that creates “recipes” of conditional statements that allow different web services to talk to each other], and it's getting really interesting. That is still in beta – for more, see The Past, Present, and Future of Adafruit IO. Image credits: Photo used with permission of Limor Fried.

Growing evidence suggests that the best way to help poor people is to give them cold hard cash. GiveDirectly has been providing extremely poor households in Kenya and Uganda with about $1,000 in cash via mobile cash transfers since its launch in 2011. The nonprofit’s unorthodox giving model re-positions the impact of aid, eliminating the need for the traditional bureaucratic processes and regulations that charities and foundations abide by. Instead, cash is given without restriction. Most of all, it appears that GiveDirectly’s approach is working.

Launched by four graduate students at MIT and Harvard, GiveDirectly tapped into the growing trend of mobile banking technologies being tested in developing countries. To date, GiveDirectly has enrolled 25,000 households with an estimated reach of 125,000 individuals. Roughly 90 percent of each dollar is transferred to the recipient. The organization maintains $50 million in financial support with contributions from young Silicon Valley tech and finance executives.  

What powers the concept is much more than warm stories and donors with deep pockets; it's data-driven science that provides a measure of accountability. GiveDirectly collaborates with a team of independent researchers to measure impact, A/B test methodologies, and experiment against assumptions about poverty and long-term behavioral changes.

Model for accountability

After teaming up with researchers at Innovations for Poverty Action at Yale, GiveDirectly found large positive impacts on assets, earnings, nutrition, mental health and women's status, among others, as a result of direct cash donations provided to recipient households.

"There is this growing realization that being poor is really stressful, and that that can make it hard to organize your life and plan and make good decisions," Paul Niehaus, co-founder and president of GiveDirectly, told NPR. "If one of the things that giving people wealth is doing is enabling them to feel more sane and more in control of their life, that could ultimately be one of the more important things."

The GiveDirectly model, and its dogged commitment to results transparency and data collection, thwart donors' misconceptions about giving directly to individuals.

Despite popular opinion, beneficiaries aren’t mismanaging the free cash, nor are they spending it on alcohol or gambling. A 2013 investigative report on the impact of GiveDirectly’s cash transfer program in Kenya revealed that recipients increased their assets (livestock and housing upgrades) by 52 percent, and earnings by 34 percent.

Alternatively, they’re launching businesses, providing much-needed food for their children and even replacing thatch roofs with metal ones.

The future of aid

Local knowledge matters in the work to evaluate return on investment, Niehaus said. With a new roof, families can sleep better, collect clean drinking water, prevent malaria-carrying mosquitos from entering the home. In short, poor people know what they need. Providing them with the resources to make their lives a bit easier can produce long-term positive impacts and opportunities.

Globally, billions of dollars are donated through a myriad of organizations and foundations each year, with little to no evaluation of impact or transparency on how much of the aid is give directly to the individuals that are being helped.

Armed with data, research and a blog to communicate outcomes and experiments directly with donors, GiveDirectly’s model is both disruptive and threatening, calling on charitable organizations to create transparency in the way in which they measure impact, whilst also improving processes for other cash transfer businesses to replicate.

Image credit: GiveDirectly Facebook

In the mid 20th century, corporate CEOs and board members often described themselves as the custodians of a public trust. Like statesmen, their job was to balance competing interests in ways that were wise and fair. Milton Friedman (1912-2006), the son of immigrant shopkeepers, saw that they were lying, and he hated their elitism. He attacked it like a bare-knuckle fighter.

Friedman led a group of economists at the University of Chicago who argued that corporations should be managed only for the benefit of shareholders, and that stakeholders — employees, suppliers, customers and neighbors — should be rewarded only if it also puts more money into shareholders' pockets. Friedman and his pals said that a corporation is not a government or a charity, and its social responsibility is simply to increase shareholder profits.

The "shareholders first" argument was radical when it was introduced in the 1960s, and Friedman did not pull any punches. In 1970, he wrote in the New York Times that executives who believe they should serve the broader community are playing around with their investors' money. They are guilty of "hypocritical window-dressing," he said, and have a "schizophrenic character."

Friedman won the Nobel Prize in 1976, advised President Ronald Reagan on economic policy in the 1980s and wrote several blockbusters, including "Free To Choose" (1980). Thirty-five years later, greedy people still use his writing to justify their immoral acts. But if you go back and read that 1970 article, it's also clear that he would not have objected to the idea of a corporation whose charter directs it to pursue both profits and social benefits. Friedman wrote:

 "In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose – for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.

"In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them."

Friedman understood that corporations are just social and legal organizations, and that they can have any goals they are chartered to pursue. He insisted that shareholder profits should be a corporation's only goal merely because an alternative had not yet been devised. He was the uber-capitalist, so he probably would not have invested in a benefit corporation — but he wouldn't have objected to it, either. It was honest. People should be free to choose.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons