Search

Robust corporate climate action can boost financial gains, according to a report EY released yesterday. Nearly 70 percent of companies surveyed saw higher than expected financial gains from their ESG (environmental, social and governance) initiatives, and companies that incorporated financial metrics, employee wellbeing and customer benefits in holistic ESG programs saw increased environmental gains as well. 

The EY report also delivered stark news for global emissions reduction plans. While 93 percent of companies surveyed have made public climate change commitments, the overwhelming majority of those companies fall short of targets that align with the Paris Agreement and will limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, global emissions must peak immediately and fall 45 percent by 2030. However, out of the 506 companies surveyed, only 42 percent have committed to reducing their emissions by 45 percent, and only 35 percent of the companies committed to those reductions have set a timeline of completion by 2030. Only 11 percent of responding companies have committed to a net-zero plan.

Why climate leaders are more successful 

While small, incremental plans to address environmental concerns may seem more manageable for companies new to climate action, the report found that companies that take fewer climate actions struggle more in implementation than companies that take more robust approaches. Based on the breadth and depth of responding companies' climate work to date, the report divided the corporations into three groups: pacesetters, explorers and observers. Companies in the pacesetters group, the group reporting the highest number of sustainability actions, were 2.4 times more likely than companies within the “observers” group to report significantly higher financial value than expected from climate initiatives. Additionally, companies in the observers group struggled the most to implement climate initiatives, even though they took the fewest and simplest actions. 

While financial gains are an important factor for businesses when considering sustainability programs, the majority of companies surveyed found that their sustainability plans also helped their organization capture social value, too. Robust sustainability programs help organizations recruit and retain employees and create positive brand perception and purchasing behavior with clients and customers. 

Overcoming barriers to ESG and sustainability success

As certain barriers threaten to slow the pace of corporate climate initiatives, companies risk being accused of greenwashing when their climate actions do not align with public commitments. 

Internal barriers to addressing climate change are more common than external barriers, and 62 percent of survey participants reported disagreements amongst board members and management when evaluating initiatives. Additionally, 61 percent reported that progress is impeded by the sheer number of groups involved in developing climate initiatives. 

A smaller percentage of companies reported facing specific external barriers to implementing climate programs. Some of the most commonly cited external barriers included concerns that climate actions would reduce their company’s ability to compete in the short-term, lack of data and technology to reduce and offset emissions, and difficulty securing financing for climate projects. However, to address these hurdles, over half of the companies in the pacesetters group created strategic partnerships to overcome barriers to implementation and collaboratively address climate change, compared with only 6 percent in the observers group. Partnerships included agreements with direct competitors, governments, academic institutions, suppliers and non-profit organizations. 

The report concludes that companies must also invest more in their employees that contribute to sustainability and ESG plans. Thirty-five percent of survey respondents said that retaining and training talent was reported as a top barrier to activating their climate goals, and 31 percent said that the lack of climate expertise at their board and management levels created impediments to accomplishing more ambitious climate goals. To meet sustainability and climate commitments, companies need to invest in employee education and training to build sustainability proficiency and capacity across operations.

All companies must boost their climate ambitions

While pacesetting companies are leading their corporate peers in climate actions, even the best-performing organizations must increase their climate ambitions in order to make the emissions reductions necessary to limit planetary warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Commitments must be accompanied by measurable, well-managed and accountable action plans. Reducing emissions is complex work, but the companies that are investing in the talent and mechanisms to implement climate plans and accurately track progress are already seeing financial, environmental and social gains.

Image credit: Wance Paleri via Unsplash

Corporations did their part to educate and encourage voters in the run-up to Election Day 2020, only to find their efforts undercut by the false cries of election fraud issued from former U.S. President Donald Trump along with other Republican Party leaders and their allies. Two years later, CEOs have a chance to stop the lies cold, reaffirm that every vote counts equally in U.S. elections, and take on any lies about what's become known as the "voter mirage."

What is the voter mirage?

During the 2020 election cycle, former President Trump launched an unprecedented attack on U.S. elections. His nonstop braying about voter fraud went far beyond general fear-mongering. It had a specific purpose.

The voter fraud canard dovetails with Republican-instigated efforts to make it more difficult for Democratic-leaning voters to vote on Election Day. To help counteract those efforts, Democratic campaigns encouraged their voters to use early voting and vote-by-mail wherever available to cast their vote in 2020. 

Meanwhile, though, Republican leadership encouraged their voters to vote in person on Election Day.

The result was the “Red Mirage” effect. Votes on the Republican side added up as soon as the polls closed on Election Day 2020, as voting machine tallies were quickly recorded. In contrast, it takes days to count mail-in ballots. President Joe Biden’s winning tally was not confirmed until the following Saturday. 

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

The emphasis on Election Day voting provided former President Trump and his allies with all the more ammunition to scream about voter fraud, because the tally on Election Eve 2020 seemed to indicate a Republican victory that was just a mirage.

The real winners emerged days later, after all votes were counted equally. However, by then the damage was done. The official tally provided President Biden with a wide margin of victory over his opponent, but that only fed into the cacophony of lies about voter fraud and claims about the voter mirage, culminating in the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021.

Get ready for more violence in 2022

If corporate leaders thought January 6 marked the end of the threat to the peaceful transfer of power, they were badly mistaken. The voter mirage canard continues to grow in force, and so have Republican efforts to discourage early voting in favor of a large, partisan turnout on Election Day.

In fact, the effort has reached a new level of intensity. Republican strategists are now encouraging their electorate to vote only on Election Day. They are also encouraging Republican voters to vote later on Election Day. The emphasis on late-day voting will all but certainly create longer-than-normal lines as Election Day draws to a close. That will feed anger and confusion, raising the potential for disruption and violence at polling places. 

Last week, the organization Maryland Matters reported on one such effort:

Campaigns usually encourage supporters to vote early. Not Michael Peroutka, the Republican candidate for state attorney general.

In a video that surfaced over the weekend, a top Peroutka aide encouraged supporters to arrive two hours before the polls close on Tuesday, Nov. 8.

“Vote on November 8th as late in the day as possible,” said campaign coordinator Macky Stafford. “If everyone could stand in long, long lines at 6 o’clock, that would actually help us.”

“In an email to supporters — whom she dubbed ‘Freedom Lovers, Truth Warriors & Soon-to-be-Winners’ — on Monday, Stafford cautioned against using the state’s 96 early voting centers,” Maryland Matters observed, adding that the email attributed to Stafford also advised voters that “the attorneys helping us have advised us all to vote as late in the day on Tuesday the 8th as possible.”

The Stafford email also exhorted late-day voters to use paper ballots instead of voting machines, further adding to the potential for longer-than-normal lines as the polls close on Election Day, fostering even more chaos and confusion.

“Let’s all pray we wait in historically long lines and while we are standing in line, inform fellow voters to only vote on paper once in the polls: no touch screens!” Stafford wrote, as further reported by Maryland Matters.

One more chance to prove corporations really do care

Adding fuel to the Election Day fire in 2022 is the historic pattern of midterm elections, in which the party holding the White House typically loses control of Congress. Over and above any nefarious attempts to game the system, the Democratic Party would naturally be assumed to lose control of Congress in this election cycle (the most recent exception to this rule occurred in 2002).

That certainly seemed to be the case earlier this year, as indicated by public opinion polls. However, the 2022 election cycle has been anything but natural. If the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Democratic turnout efforts add up to defeat for Republican candidates, their voters will remain unconvinced that the election was free and fair, and they will be more primed for violence than ever before.

If preventing illegal voter suppression and forestalling violence is more difficult in 2022 than in 2020, corporate leaders are in for their share of the blame. In 2020, they failed to follow through on the central messages of their get-out-the-vote campaigns after Election Day: that every vote counts, equally. 

In addition, the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has already thrown the American workforce into chaos through its decision in the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, which overturned Roe, and that is just a hint of the potential for damage to the economy if the Republican Party wins control of Congress.

The midterm elections offer another chance to get it right – that is, if it’s not too late.

If the Democratic Party does retain control of Congress after all the votes are counted, corporate leaders need to be ready with public service announcements, ad campaigns, employee outreach, civic engagement and every tool at their disposal to affirm the outcome of a free and fair election. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option.

Image credit: Edmond Dantès via Pexels

With Veterans Day just over a week away, there is some good news about how U.S. veterans are faring within the jobs market. On one hand, the unemployment gap between veterans and the rest of the population has narrowed somewhat: Only the 18 to 34 age group has unemployment rates higher than the non-veteran population, according to RecruitMilitary, a job site focused on getting veterans hired. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also recently painted a rosy employment picture for veterans in the workplace. But the Bureau's macroeconomic numbers never accurately portray what many U.S. workers face: underemployment. That’s especially true for veterans today.

In recent years, underemployment has remained as a stubborn problem that is affecting veterans of all ages. Based on data from Penn State’s Veterans Metrics Initiative, almost two-thirds of veterans say their largest challenge in transitioning to post-military life is underemployment, whether they work in jobs that don't match their skills or are forced to work more than one job to keep a roof over their heads.

One ongoing problem is that while many companies may say they are keen on hiring veterans, the reality is that their human resources departments all too often still seek out “corporate types” — and veterans and other talented employees often don’t fit in that box. A story about a friend of mine, “Aaron,” sums up what too many veterans face once they continue their journey into civilian life.

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

Aaron served in the U.S. Marines. As he told me: “I’m not a former Marine or ex-military. Once you’re a Marine, you’re always a Marine.” What to us may seem like innocuous greetings aren’t his thing, either: “I really don’t want to hear, ‘Thank you for your service,’" he said. "I signed up for that; I served; the end.’” Aaron has served in Afghanistan and had many experiences that were undoubtedly traumatic, but he keeps them to himself.

To say he’s articulate is an understatement. Aaron pays attention to details at a rate that would make most of our eyeballs roll back and then fall out of our heads. He is brilliant at explaining any issue, and he’s a fantastic writer. Aaron also has PTSD (not an assumption, he has said so), struggles containing his anger and has his fair share of anti-social tendencies. Nevertheless, his brilliance at getting into the weeds and minutiae of it all would make him an exceptional coder or attorney or any number of highly skilled roles. 

But in a corporate environment that runs on collaboration, synergy, agility and alignment (which, to be fair, no corporate employee who has blurted out those terms has ever been able to explain what those four words really mean), Aaron would not be a fit in a corporate office. He could, however, be fantastic as a remote employee, where he could work on his terms (he has trouble sleeping and his best writing is done late at night); whether the projects involve writing long, highly-detailed reports, crunching those financial numbers or parsing through code, he’d be an asset.

Bottom line: The private sector is failing Aaron and other veterans. They’re failing him and his peers at one of the most valuable traits of veterans: loyalty. Veterans clearly feel loyal to the U.S. — obviously that is why many of them say they served in the first place — but it’s clear that loyalty isn’t returned once they start working within companies. Companies and their HR departments generally are not equipped to work with veterans on their transition back into civilian life. Even though many employers may describe veterans as high performers or assets to the company, something is getting lost in translation. One survey revealed that 44 percent of them stayed at their first post-military job less than year; 20 percent said they left that first job before they hit six months. To put the onus of those statistics on veterans and their character traits is unfair.

Aaron sums up the challenge younger military veterans face: A 2019 Pew Research study reported that post-9/11 veterans are having a more difficult time adjusting to civilian life, which isn't surprising considering what occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan and, for some American soldiers, now in Ukraine.

True, the U.S. government could do more to tackle this underemployment problem. “If you take what the entire U.S. government spends [for veterans services], which is about $300 billion, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that spending ... goes to employment, which is kind of crazy for a lot of reasons,” Dan Goldenberg, executive director of the Call of Duty Endowment Program, explained to a San Antonio TV station this summer. “It’s a force multiplier if we can … spend a little bit of money, if we doubled it to two-tenths of 1 percent of the federal veterans’ fund, we would double the amount of support we could give veterans in landing those high-quality jobs.”

Public-private partnerships can certainly help bridge the veterans’ underemployment gap. One of them is between the Veterans Administration and Galvanize, which runs technical bootcamps that retrain members of the U.S. military so they can find jobs as software engineers — careers they can take just about anywhere, including working from home as they ease into employment within the private sector.

Image credit: Joel Rivera-Camacho via Unsplash

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a horrific human tragedy in Eastern Europe and no shortage of misery abroad. The war provoked an energy crisis that has led to skyrocketing power costs for European families and businesses, inflation across the globe, and a rise in poverty worldwide. While some nations including the U.S. and U.K. are now reacting by pulling out the stops to extract more fossil fuels, there’s a counterintuitive trend going on: Across the world, investments in renewables are on the upswing.

The result could be a boom in clean energy by the end of the decade, according to a report the International Energy Agency (IEA) released late last week.

Let’s set the context. The IEA pointed out that since 2015, global investments in renewables have either increased year-to-year or, at a minimum, flatlined. Such has been the worldwide trajectory despite the relentless influence of the fossil fuel industry, the dismissive attitude toward renewables on behalf of many policymakers and massive shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, recent policy shifts such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, Japan’s Green Transformation (GX) program and the European Union’s climate crisis package all pave the way for more deployment of renewables. China, India and South Korea have also launched policies that will boost spending on renewables and other cleaner forms of energy this decade as well.

If all goes to plan, spending on clean energy investments worldwide could reach $2 trillion by 2030, a 50 percent increase from current spending. 

Further, global consumptions of fossil fuels could peak in 2025 at 37 gigatons, decreasing slightly annually through 2025. 

Granted, this surge may not be enough to avert all chaos that could come with climate change. The IEA tempers its latest round of news with an assessment that global investments in renewables would have to tally up to $4 billion by 2030 if the world will be able to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Then again, the news isn’t as dire as believed a few short years ago.

“While 5 degrees of warming once seemed possible, scientists now estimate that the Earth is on track to warm by 2 to 3 degrees. That difference might not seem huge, but it translates to fewer record-breaking floods, storms, droughts and heat waves and potentially thousands or millions of lives saved in the coming decades,” German Lopez wrote in a New York Times newsletter sent to subscribers on Oct. 27.

Of course, “fewer” catastrophic climate change-related events is relative, especially for lower-income nations. The fact that the world’s richest nations have not yet followed through on their 2009 commitments to fund climate change mitigation and adaptation projects for poor nations lies behind what could be contentious COP27 meetings this month. Finance ministers from the “V20,” i.e. the nations that are most vulnerable to climate change risks, have floated the idea of not paying off their debt obligations if the nations that have contributed to climate change the most don’t start paying for climate adaptation.

The IEA’s numbers reinforce the case that it behooves the world’s wealthiest countries to launch and fund those programs if they are serious about limiting climate change’s impacts on poorer citizens. Though the current high prices of conventional energy may turn out to be a short-term shock, the outcome could generate more emissions in the long run. For example, the IEA concludes that  as many as 75 million people globally who recently gained access to electricity will soon no longer be able to afford it due to rising costs. In addition, about 100 million people could return to using conventional biomass sources for cooking — hence another kneecapping for the plan to reduce global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by mid-century.

“The environmental case for clean energy needed no reinforcement, but the economic arguments in favor of cost-competitive and affordable clean technologies are now stronger – and so too is the energy security case,” the IEA concluded. “The journey to a more secure and sustainable energy system may not be a smooth one. But today’s crisis makes it crystal clear why we need to press ahead.”

Image credit: Alexander Schimmeck via Unsplash

Of course bicycle tours are still a thing, whether they are in Medellín or Bogotá, Colombia, or any other city worldwide. While we’re on the topic of Medellín, if huffing, puffing and pedaling isn’t your idea of fun, be easy on yourself: Consider booking an electric bicycle tour, as such trips across the city via e-bikes are a bit more relaxing, and offer a great way to experience the city that’s home to 3 million.

Cycling has long been a part of life in Colombia, starting with the weekend ciclovías that are a regular event in the country's cities — several miles of city streets are closed on Sundays, allowing locals and visitors open space to walk, skateboard, roller skate and, of course, cycle. As cycling has long been a vivid part of the nation’s culture, Colombians were justifiably beside themselves when one of their own, Egan Bernal, won the Tour de France in 2019. In the iconic cycling race dominated for decades by the Belgians, Spanish, Italians and, yes, the French, Bernal was the first Latin American to win the 2,200-mile (3,500 kilometers) race.

But Bernal’s victory should hardly be a surprise. Colombia has a proud legacy of cyclists, with names like Winner Anacona, Esteban Chaves, Fernando Gaviria, Nairo Quintana and Rigoberto Urán. That legacy is one reason the country has emerged as a cycling tourism destination. Now, e-bikes are gaining a foothold in the country, giving adventures another (and easier) outdoors option.

Among the difference visitors will note between pre-pandemic Colombia and the country today (way more co-working places, more vegan dining options and, as with the rest of the world, higher prices and an increase in poverty), e-bikes are a much more common sight in Colombia’s larger cities. For the advocates of electric cars who believe they can do much to slash emissions, don’t expect that trend to take off in Colombia any time soon: Among reasons including the country’s massive income inequality, it’ll be a while before Teslas, BYDs or Leafs in large numbers will roam the roads. The infrastructure for electric vehicles isn’t quite there yet.

Until then, e-bikes are a step toward decarbonization in the country’s urban centers, in part because they are emerging as an affordable option for Colombians. They’re practical, too. In Medellín, for example, cyclists have an impressive amount of bike lanes: It’s just that much of the city is located in a valley, and many residents live in the hills and mountains that surround Medellín’s central neighborhoods and downtown.

For visitors to the city who may be considering choosing among the various brands of e-bikes once they return home, taking a test ride can help them make that decision. One local company in Medellín that offers such a tour is Turibike.

The company’s guides offer a city tour, but a far more compelling option is Turibike’s food tour. The nine-mile (15 km) tour gives visitors a chance to sample 10 different local foods, from arepas (corn cakes) to pasteles de guayaba (guava pastries) to picada, an indulgent, artery-clogging sampling of sausages and other cuts of meat popular across Colombia.

Turibike provides a rain jacket, helmet, water and, for gringos who may feel intimidated by their limited high-school Spanish, the company’s guides are bilingual. The e-bikes offer a safe, fast and low-carbon way to get around town. Toward the end of the tour, you’ll even reach a safe area where the guide will allow you to go full throttle and test out your bike’s maximum speed. And after the tour, Turibike sends you a link where you can view photos of the experience and watch a video allowing you to relive your tour from an aerial view — along with a graph that shows your elevation through the adventure.

Image credits via Leon Kaye and Turibike

Let’s face the facts. Global water issues are a national security priority.  

Too much water causes flooding, destruction and waves of refugees. Not enough water causes drought, famine and even more refugees. Water contamination and lack of proper sanitation cause sickness and death on a massive scale around the globe. 

Access to water and sanitation are recognized by the United Nations as human rights, yet more than 2 billion people live in countries experiencing high water stress. More than half of the global population could face water shortages by 2050, while 1.6 billion could be at risk from floods, according to the U.N. 

No less an authority than the U.S. military believes these issues will cause not just misery but increasing political instability and even war worldwide. Just look at Russia and Ukraine, where access to water in Crimea is a major factor in the ongoing conflict. As political commentator Thomas Friedman has noted, the drought in Syria nearly two decades ago was an important element in the rise of the Islamic State. All this contributes to the worldwide refugee crisis, further increasing instability. 

Water problems, exacerbated by climate change, threaten security at home as well. Rising sea levels, water scarcity and extreme rainfall increase inequality, weaken infrastructure and consume valuable resources. We already observe the effects of historic droughts in the West, potentially damaging agriculture, industry, real estate and economic growth in addition to health and wellbeing. Soon, we could see “climate refugees” within our own nation looking for a climate haven with plenty of freshwater, such as the Great Lakes region. 

That’s why it’s encouraging to see the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. State Department release the 2022-2027 U.S. Global Water Strategy. This follows Vice President Kamala Harris unveiling the first-ever White House Action Plan on Global Water Security earlier this year.

The strategy aims to meet four objectives: strengthen sector governance, financing, institutions and markets; increase equitable access to safe, sustainable and climate-resilient water and sanitation services, and the adoption of key hygiene behaviors; improve climate-resilient conservation and management of freshwater resources and associated ecosystems; and, anticipate and reduce conflict and fragility related to water.

But words on paper are just that, and these challenges require urgent action. 

Here’s one example of what action looks like. The U.S. Army has created an innovative program, modeled after the successful “Monuments Men” concept from World War II, enlisting water industry professionals to serve in the Army Reserve, using their expertise to bolster the military’s ability to solve water problems in the U.S. and abroad. These specialists will serve in a public water and sanitation specialty unit to advise and assist on worldwide water crises, helping people avoid misery and conflict to live healthier, more stable lives. 

Critical to the global water security effort is support for water technology innovation in the private sector. This offers opportunity not only for the U.S. to dominate the global marketplace for water resiliency solutions but also a potential economic boon in industrial towns clustered around the Great Lakes. 

For example, Milwaukee has parlayed its history of water-related industry into its current position as “an undisputed global water hub,” according to the Brookings Institution. The hub encompasses industry giants such as A. O. Smith Corporation and Badger Meter to exciting startups such as Rapid Radicals Technology, whose technology reduces the time needed for wastewater treatment from eight hours to 30 minutes. The White House and Congress should direct economic development resources to encourage this type of innovation.

Finally, the government needs to leverage its legislative capabilities, power of the purse and bully pulpit to promote corporate water stewardship at home and abroad. All businesses use water, so all face some risk of job loss, economic breakdown and, in some cases, security issues triggered by water problems.

Worldwide, only 11 percent of freshwater is used by households, while the rest goes to agriculture, industry and thermoelectric power. We already are watching tensions grow on the West Coast among businesses, farms and communities as they debate who should receive rapidly dwindling stores of usable water. 

Businesses of all types need to adopt practices that use less water and treat and replenish the water they use. They also need to cooperate with all stakeholders in a given watershed, including those that cross international boundaries, to promote the long-term health of the water source. Just as with carbon emissions, developing nations will no doubt need assistance from wealthier nations to steward freshwater resources.

Bottom line: We need all hands on deck to solve water scarcity, flooding, contamination and other thorny water problems. The White House says the U.S. government needs to work in partnership with the private sector and nongovernmental organizations to advance progress toward global water security goals, and we wholeheartedly agree. Now is the time for bold action to ensure the U.S. is a leader in water security and climate resiliency.

Interested in having your voice heard on 3p? Contact us at editorial@3BLMedia.com and pitch your idea for a guest article to us.

Image credit: Justin Wilkens via Unsplash

A survey of more than 1,300 U.S.-based CEOs by the professional services network KPMG revealed that an overwhelming majority of corporate leaders expect the economy to slide into a recession over the next year — and they’re planning to preemptively lay off employees and make cuts to environmental, social and governance (ESG) programs in response. Of course, none of this should come as a surprise considering that the Federal Reserve’s recent rate hike was inspired by its insistence that curbing “red-hot demand” — and not corporate greed — is the key to cooling record-high inflation.

And, while the Fed appears fine with unemployment reaching 4.4 percent in the process, its manufactured recession completely ignores the fact that continued increases in consumer spending likely have more to do with the artificially inflated cost of basic goods than excessive demand. If anything, the move is a corporate giveaway — allowing CEOs to take back the measly increases they were forced to accede in order to attract workers during the 2021 rebound all the while keeping their skyrocketing profits.

The disconnect between narratives is palatable at this point. Over the summer, economist and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called for painful levels of joblessness. At the same time, employers and conservative pundits alike continue to spout off about how “no one wants to work anymore.” But how can Americans be refusing to work at the same time that the economy needs fewer of them to take home a paycheck? How can both of these contradictions be true at once? 

Simply put, they can’t be. Of course, lamentations about lack of work ethic are really just code for employers who don’t want to pay a competitive wage. After all, the COVID-19 pandemic sparked an actual labor shortage, leaving many without enough staff. A mere 6 million workers were available to fill 10 million vacancies in August of this year. Through this lens, layoffs and hiring freezes make sense: If there are fewer jobs available, it is easier to put workers back in their place, giving employers back the upper hand. Naturally many CEOs appear to be all-in on such a plan, with 51 percent already aiming to cut labor (additionally, 59 percent are gunning for ESG). As Business Insider reported, executives have essentially made it clear that 2023 is going to be pretty awful.

But will sacrificing working families to a recession really bring inflation down? It’s unlikely considering the source of rising prices. Wage gains made by in demand workers have already been eaten up by what the AFL-CIO union federation coined “Greedflation,” leading to an overall 2.4 percent drop in real wages. According to the Economic Policy Institute, less than 8 percent of recent inflation is due to rising labor costs. For reference, that is a miniscule amount compared to the historical rate of 61.8 percent. Rather, the biggest recent driver has been runaway corporate profits at 53.9 percent. To put just how explosive these increases have been into context, normally corporate profits are responsible for just 11.4 percent of inflation. 

At least one expert is warning corporate leaders not to proceed as planned. KPMG’s CEO Paul Knopp is concerned that employers who lay off too heavily now will be in a bad position to rehire when the economy ticks back up again — especially considering that 92 percent of the CEOs surveyed also expect an overall increase in their total labor force within three years. Of course, the fact that his concern lies with the possibility of workers regaining similar bargaining power to what they found in 2021 only reiterates the point of the Fed’s manufactured recession — to lower real wages even further while entrenching sky-high corporate profits. 

Image credits: Nicola Barts via Pexels
 

Both Starbucks and Taco Bell recently announced an expansion of meatless meat options on their menus. Vegan chicken and meatless carne asada will be coming to select stores. Partners Beyond Meat and Daring have made these vegan alternatives possible. 

More than avocado toast or tofurky, plant-based proteins aim to make vegetarianism and veganism more appealing to a broader population. It’s almost as though they’re telling meat-lovers who want to do better for the climate, "You can leave your meat and have it too!"

It’s a well-rehearsed fact that conventional cattle ranching is resource intensive. It takes the cake as the highest agricultural emitter of greenhouse gases. Worldwide, cattle are responsible for about 60 percent of agricultural emissions, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). In an era of climate change mitigation, resource use has become a high priority in consumer decision-making. 

Plant-based proteins are a growing market

In a 2021 Deloitte survey, 23 percent of consumers across six countries said they would switch loyalty to a brand that shares their values on environmental issues, and 42 percent had already changed their consumption habits because of their stance on the environment. Another comprehensive study from 2021 found that 85 percent of global consumers have been making more environmentally-friendly purchasing decisions in recent years.

It’s no wonder plant-based proteins are a growing market. Plant-based meat is more land and water efficient than conventional meat and is associated with far fewer greenhouse emissions, according to the Good Food Institute, a nonprofit think tank that focuses on alternative proteins.

The plant-based protein market, currently valued at $12 billion, is projected to reach $17 billion by 2027. Even mycoprotein, the fungus-based protein found in brands like Quorn, is expected to grow to a $1 billion market by 2032. And price parity between meatless meats and conventional meats may be coming as soon as 2035. 

Achieving price parity between animal and plant-based proteins

“The growth of the plant-based industry is amazing … but the major challenge of today’s industry is cost of production,” Gil Shalev, CEO and founder of food tech company Equinom, told TriplePundit. “If the cost of ingredients of the plant-based industry is not going to be the same or lower than the alternatives, we are wasting our time. [The industry is] not going to be sustained,” he said. The Good Food Institute placed 2019 prices of meat alternatives at about double the cost of beef and more than four times the cost of chicken. 

Bringing together biochemistry know-how and a platform powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, called Manna, Equinom is one of the companies helping to actually bring down the cost of plant-based proteins. 

Part of current industry costs are the techniques that ingredient and food companies use to achieve the right consistencies, textures, flavors and colors in their products. These characteristics are often created through processing and additives, sometimes binders and sodium, Shalev said.

He places no judgement on that process, saying it's simply the fastest way the industry has determined it’s able to reach its goals. But Equinom has a different idea.  

Introducing precision to cross-breeding 

Equinom is bringing a novel method of ingredient manufacturing to the plant-based food industry. Equipped with a vault of 250,000 seed varieties (and Manna), the startup is able to crossbreed the right plant varieties to achieve a client’s desired result.

Shalev describes the process as designing an ingredient to do the right thing from the outset. It should come as no surprise that less processing also leads to an even lower carbon footprint for a supply chain. 

Once Equinom's team and clients have a goal in mind, the Manna system combs the database for the right biochemical properties. Informing this process are hands-on tests that include making burger after burger — or hummus after hummus, as was the case with popular hummus brand Sabra and its search for the right sesame seed to turn to paste. Companies often come to Equinom hoping for a few main outcomes, Shalev said: higher quality ingredients, lower sodium, lower costs and a smaller environmental footprint. 

“I’m not saying I’m a magician. I can’t solve everything,” Shalev said. But he agreed that the potential for scaling this approach to developing plant-based ingredients and proteins is nearly unlimited.  

Images courtesy of Equinom

While plastic production is increasing globally at alarming rates, plastic recycling is plummeting in the United States, according to a recent report from Greenpeace. The report confirms what to many of us has long been obvious: The vast majority of plastic is not accepted at U.S. recycling facilities, and plastic that is accepted is often dumped as there are not enough companies willing to purchase recycled plastic. New plastic is cheaper to produce and higher quality than recycled plastic, making it a more appealing choice for many manufacturers. Hence circular plastic is turning out to be a myth as the plastics industry is actually on track to triple production of new plastic by 2050.

Your plastic is probably not being recycled

Current estimates indicate that plastic recycling rates hover between 5 percent and 6 percent in the U.S. Recycling rates for paper, cardboard and certain metals are much higher, leading experts to acknowledge that the recycling system is not at fault for lack of plastic recycling, but rather the plastic materials themselves. Plastic is more often incinerated than recycled, and the report found that, by and large, only two types of plastic bottles and jugs are actually accepted at most municipal recycling facilities: PET (polyethylene terephthalate, or Plastic No. 1, which is typically used for beverage bottles) and HDPE (high-density polyethylene, or Plastic No. 2, which is often used for milk jugs and personal care packaging). Plastic recycling rates for PET are estimated to be 20.9 percent and 10.3 percent for HDPE. All other plastic types have a recycling rate of less than 5 percent. 

While other plastic products such as yogurt tubs and produce bags may display a recycling symbol, they are not actually recyclable under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) definition of the term. The FTC requires that products that are labeled as recyclable must have recycling facilities available to accept that product for over 60 percent of U.S. residents. Only PET and HDPE bottles and jugs presently meet the FTC’s definition of recyclable. 

Additionally, just because a recycling facility accepts certain plastics does not mean that they are actually recycled. For example, in Knoxville, Tennessee, the city’s recycling facility accepts yogurt tubs, produce bags and other less-commonly accepted plastic products, but the items are disposed of and not recycled, due to the lack of available buyers of recycled plastic. 

The problems with talk about circular plastic

Greenpeace cites several fundamental reasons that plastics are not recycled: They are extremely difficult to collect and sort, environmentally damaging to reprocess, and not economical to recycle. They also include toxic materials. 

There are over a thousand varieties of plastic, but mixed plastic waste cannot be recycled together. Each type of plastic is made up of different chemical compounds with different physical properties and melting points, so even if every scrap of plastic waste was collected, the sheer quantity of plastic types makes sorting and the scaling up of circular plastic virtually impossible. 

The process of recycling plastic also creates pollution. During the recycling process, plastic products shed microplastics, which are removed through washing and discharged into the environment. The Greenpeace report notes that plastic recycling processes expose workers and adjacent communities to toxic chemicals, and globally, communities of color are more likely to suffer negative health impacts from plastic manufacturing, processing, disposal and pollution. 

What is the solution if circular plastic can become a reality?

The report argues that by pushing recycling as a solution to the plastic problem, large corporations have misled the public and created an environmental catastrophe. In 2021, the U.S. produced 51 million tons of plastic waste but only recycled 2.4 million tons. Lisa Ramsden, plastics campaigner at Greenpeace, specifically called out companies the NGO views as among the worst corporate offenders. “Corporations like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, and Unilever have worked with industry front groups to promote plastic recycling as the solution to plastic waste for decades," she said. "But the data is clear: Practically speaking, most plastic is just not recyclable. The real solution is to switch to systems of reuse and refill.”

The report calls upon companies to work together to create and adopt international standards for phasing out single-use plastic. 

Image credit: Roberto Sorin via Unsplash

Although 90 percent of U.S.-based companies claim to prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), only 4 percent consider disability as part of those initiatives. With more than 1 billion people globally living with a disability, that’s a costly disconnect, argues Dannie Lynn Fountain, an author, DEI expert and human resources staffer at Google.

“Companies are incentivized by financial outcomes, and research shows that the more diverse a workforce is, the more innovative the ideas are, the better the financial outcomes are for the company,” Fountain told TriplePundit. “Plain and simple, it makes business sense.”

For employees, increased diversity helps generate a more positive and productive workplace. “If you only have one employee who identifies as a particular marginalized identity, there's a tremendous amount of tokenization and burden that happens for that employee,” Fountain said. “By having a good cohort of individuals who come from each marginalized background, there’s a sense of community that gets created, there’s better employee engagement and there’s likely to be higher retention.”

Fountain’s latest book, Ending Checkbox Diversity: Rewriting the Story of Performative Allyship in Corporate America, explores the absence of disability in diversity priorities and how businesses can better support people with disabilities.

“Performative allyship,” Fountain told TriplePundit, is when companies and individuals support or seek to ally themselves with marginalized identities “purely for the way it appears, purely for the performance of it.” 

From Fountain’s perspective, announcing diversity programs or internal resources for people with disabilities isn’t going far enough.

“It can be a company having a disability employee resource group or having a program specifically for higher autistic individuals or something like that, but their interview processes are not inclusive and their accommodation process requires more documentation than the [Americans with Disabilities Act] actually legally requires,” she added. 

Companies looking to attract people with disabilities can start by reexamining their outreach to potential job candidates, Fountain advised. “So many organizations, when they get an application in or even when they are cold sourcing for candidates, the first step is to jump on the phone with the recruiter, let's have a quick 15-minute chat,” she said. “First of all, even if you're not neurodiverse, if you're introverted, if you get nervous, if you get anxious, that phone call isn't going to be the best way to sell yourself.” 

It’s better to offer different ways to engage, she said, perhaps by sharing a few questions by email that candidates can reply to, or simply asking the candidates to share a little bit about themselves. “Basically, offering anything other than the default, 15-minute phone call is a great start,” Fountain explained.

Current interview processes are biased toward candidates who can think on their feet, quickly synthesize information, and provide a well-thought-out response within 30 to 60 seconds of hearing a question, she claimed. “There’s nothing wrong with that," she said. "There certainly is something to be said for the talent of being able to synthesize data quickly and articulate a response."

However, the majority of neurodiverse candidates are not able to highlight their best selves in a setting like that. Providing those initial questions in advance helps neurodiverse candidates present themselves better. Follow-up questions will also help to determine whether a candidate got improper assistance help or cheated, Fountain noted.

Whatever the setting in which she speaks or is making a presentation, Fountain makes a point of revealing her contributing identities as a queer, plus-sized Latina with ADHD to underscore that hers is not the perspective of a straight, white, neurotypical person. “I find myself often in conversations where people are unaware of the marginalized identities I hold and they say things that, were they aware of those identities, they probably would have kept in their minds instead of speaking out loud,” she said. 

She considers how and when in the conversation she reveals her identities to allow for things to be said “to actually uncover what's really going on.” 

“When I speak up, there is often an assumption that I'm speaking from the perspective of an ally,” she told us. “Allyship is powerful. Allyship is phenomenal, but companies, unfortunately, often don't value an ally voice as much as they do the actual marginalized person’s voice.” 

Revealing her contributing identities forces people to listen to what she’s saying more closely, because she’s just said, ‘Hey, I hold this identity, fight me,” which she told us puts more weight behind what she is saying.

Fountain recognizes that how and when someone reveals their identities is a difficult, highly personal decision that weighs how much someone knows about a company, what they think the reaction might be, and how much of someone’s invisible marginalized identity will show in the interview process or at work. 

Depending upon where someone lives and the industry they work in, they may choose not to disclose invisible marginalized identities for the sake of getting a job, Fountain said. Then they have to decide, once they’ve been hired, whether to identify them.

“If, for example, it’s ADHD or autism or chronic illness, are you factoring in how your performance is going to be measured without the knowledge of how you’re actually starting four steps behind everyone,” Fountain explained. “That individual choice has economic considerations, mental health considerations, because the reality is, at the end of the day, we all need a job. We all need money to live.”

Image credit: Alexander Grey via Unsplash