Search

By Zach Bernstein

As 2014 reaches its final days, it’s worth looking back at what this year brought us. Not all of it was good – indeed, major priorities for sustainable business leaders stalled in Congress.

But when it came to the states, action on a pair of issues gained even more momentum. And a third which failed in Congress – and suffered a setback from the Supreme Court – still offers hope that a solution can be found. For a year that didn't exactly inspire confidence in policy-making generally, it was actually a better year for sustainable policy than one might think.

1. Minimum wage

While Congress dithered on raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, states and voters decided they were not going to wait. Every state that held a minimum wage ballot initiative – Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, as well as a nonbinding measure in Illinois – passed it. Another 10 states, plus Washington, D.C., passed increases through their legislatures, while nine more were in line to have their minimum wage floors increase due to indexed increases.

Despite concerns that minimum wage increases would be bad for business, national, scientific polling from the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and Business for a Fair Minimum Wage (BFMW) released earlier this year found that 61 percent of small business owners supported raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour (PDF). The reason for this is that increasing pay for workers spurs consumer demand, giving businesses increased revenue – and that’s before taking into account lower employee turnover and higher productivity.

And as evidenced by the range of states taking action on the minimum wage – a good mix of Democratic- and Republican-leaning states – this issue is far less partisan than Congress makes it out to be. Expect the states to keep moving forward with more victories like these in the months ahead.

2. Good workplace

Two pieces of federal legislation dealing with paid leave stalled in Congress this year. One was the FAMILY Act, sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), which would have provided paid time off to recover from pregnancy or spend time with an adopted child, or to care for a family member with a serious medical condition. Work also continued on the Healthy Families Act, sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), which would have given employees one hour of paid time off for every 30 hours worked.

Again, activities at the state and local level saw more success. All four ballot initiatives on paid leave passed – a statewide initiative in Massachusetts (which became the third state to require paid leave), and citywide initiatives in Trenton and Montclair, N.J.; and Oakland, Calif. These followed the passage of eight other laws earlier this year, including a statewide law in California.

As with the minimum wage, paid leave benefits businesses, leading to more productive employees who are less likely to seek jobs elsewhere. And, while 2014 was a good year for making that case – especially having forward-thinking business leaders join in – more work is needed for this narrative to prevail. Again, paralleling the minimum wage, though, the country appears to be far ahead of its representatives on paid leave.

3. Campaign finance reform

Here, the news was decidedly more mixed. On the one hand, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, eliminating the aggregate limits on campaign contributions. So, while contributions to individual candidates, committees or PACs are still capped, donors can now contribute the legal maximum to as many of them as they wish. Previously, election law limited how much donors could contribute in total.

However, the Senate also held a historic vote on a new amendment to the United States Constitution which would have overturned the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. While it failed to meet the 67-vote threshold needed to hold the vote, more than half of the Senate showed support for strong campaign finance regulations – something most Americans, and most small business owners (PDF), support.

Most small businesses don’t have the resources, or the desire, to spend huge sums of money on political campaigns. Those businesses that do often represent legacy industries with different policy opinions and desires than most Americans, or even American companies. Their contributions skew American policymaking – and in the process, contribute heavily to public disaffection with the political process.

The idea that businesses want this ability to spend without limits on elections might make for a good soundbite, but as with perceived opposition to paid leave and increasing the minimum wage, it just isn’t true. Once more, Congress lags behind – but not by much.

So, 2014 may not have been the best year for sustainable policy, but as these issues show, there could be more victories to come. Especially if sustainably-minded business leaders make their voices heard and build on the gains we’ve made.

Image (cropped): Flickr/danmoyle

Zach Bernstein is the Manager of Research and Social Media for the American Sustainable Business Council. Policy Points is produced by the American Sustainable Business Council. The editor is Richard Eidlin, Vice President – Public Policy and Business Engagement.

Supporters of the Keystone Pipeline and Canada’s tar sands development like to call their product “ethical oil,” but plenty of their opponents question whether digging up massive amounts of the earth’s surface is really “ethical.” Those who question whether churning tar sands into fuel, the most energy-intensive fossil fuel to refine, is a wise long-term policy will have more ammunition due to a report Fossil Free Indexes recently released. It could give potential investors in tar sands companies second thoughts about buying their equities.

According to this New York-based research group, which provides data to support ethical investing, the top 20 companies that have invested in the Canadian tar sands have increased their potential carbon dioxide emissions by more than five times the past 10 years. The FFI came up with this list based on its most recent Carbon Underground Tar Sands 20, which is comprised of the largest of the 200 public coal, oil and gas companies based on their reported reserves.

The companies with the five highest embedded carbon emissions, based on their total tar sands reserves, should not be surprising: ExxonMobil, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil, Canadian Natural and Shell top the list. And out of the total potential emissions the companies with the 20 largest tar sands reserves are holding, these top five are storing a whopping 57 percent of CO2 that could eventually be released into the earth’s atmosphere.

Furthermore, FFI’s methodology only counted potential CO2 emissions based on reserves these companies publicly disclose. They do not include emissions from other processes involved in the development of tar sands, including extraction, refining, transport and distribution. Consider the fact that 80 percent of Alberta’s tar sands are too deep to mine and therefore require steam to melt the ground containing the tar (or bitumen) that is eventually converted into oil. The long term environmental impact of harvesting these reserves goes beyond the carbon emitted once the resulting fuel is consumed.

So what is the point of FFI distributing this information? This organization is looking at it from a business point of view rather than from a political or environmental perspective. At a time when more investors are interested in companies with a strong record of corporate responsibility, environmental stewardship and ethics to include in their portfolios, FFI makes the case that its index of companies, which scrub out large carbon emitters from the S&P 500, reveals an overall performance virtually indistinguishable from the overall S&P 500. For foundations, universities and other organizations seeking to divest from companies involved in tar sands extraction, the FFI just offered them compelling data to help them make that decision.

After a year in the Middle East and Latin America, Leon Kaye is based in California again. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter. Other thoughts of his are on his site, greengopost.com.

Image credit:Wikipedia

Economic theory supports the allocation of capital and investments throughout the U.S. $17-trillion -- and global $75-trillion -- economy. Conventional economic theory is rife with assumptions that not only paint a narrow, inaccurate and vastly oversimplified view of the future prospects and actual overall impacts of investment decisions, but also justify investments that, over the long-term, can drive societies over the proverbial cliff.

Efforts to move beyond narrowly defined conventional economic theory -- and measures such as GDP -- stretch back decades. On Dec. 10, a globe-spanning initiative on the part of United Nations agencies, universities and research institutes released the 2014 Inclusive Wealth Report.

Measuring human and natural as well as produced capital, the Inclusive Wealth Index (IWI) offers a broader, more comprehensive -- and hence more useful more perspective than GDP -- regarding the economic performance of 140 nations. Moreover, comparisons of national economic performance from 1990 to 2010 as measured by Inclusive Wealth contrast starkly with those based on GDP.

A more inclusive measure of national wealth and well-being

Introduced in 2012, development of the Inclusive Wealth Index and production of biennial Inclusive Wealth Reports coincides with development of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The U.N. SDGs are to serve as the strategic blueprint that will guide policy and decision making across the U.N. organization in the post-Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) era.

Authored by 22 leading authorities from some of the world's most highly regarded universities and research organizations, IWI and IWR provide “an innovative yardstick [that] offers 140 countries a new perspective on their economic performance in recent decades, one that extends beyond Gross Domestic Product to help reflect sustainable development,” the IWI Project states in a press release.

Adding human and natural capital into the GDP equation

In addition to measuring produced capital, as is done in calculations of GDP, the Inclusive Wealth Report factors in measures of human and natural capital. As the IWI Project explains, human capital is measured in levels of education, skills and abilities.

The IWI Project's pioneering work reveals that human capital is the main source of worldwide wealth and accounts for 57 percent of total Inclusive Wealth. Natural capital seeks to measure the extent, health and integrity of “forests, sub-soil resources and other ecosystems.” Natural capital, according to the 2014 report, represents 23 percent of total Inclusive Wealth.

This year's second biennial global report highlights dramatic differences in economic performance for 140 nations over the 19-year period from 1992 to 2010, as measured by IWI and GDP. Whereas worldwide GDP rose 50 percent from 1992 to 2010, IWI rose a comparatively “anemic” 6 percent.

Small increases in human capital and “vast losses in natural capital largely explain the anemic overall growth in Inclusive Wealth worldwide despite enormous gains in produced capital,” Dr. Partha Dasgupta, chair of the 2014 report's science advisory group and professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge, was quoted as saying.

"This report on changes recorded in three key types of wealth-related capital challenges the narrow perspective presented by GDP. And it underscores the need for integrating sustainability into economic evaluation and policy planning.

"Looking beyond GDP and adopting an Inclusive Wealth Index internationally is central to the post-2015 sustainable development agenda being negotiated within the UN Sustainable Development Goals."

Comparing national economic performance across three of the world's largest economies, the 2014 report project team determined that GDP in China, India and the U.S. increased 523 percent, 155 percent and 33 percent respectively from 1990 to 2010. Adding human and natural capital into the equation, Inclusive Wealth rose 47 percent for China, 16 percent for India and 13 percent for the U.S.

More startling differences between GDP and Inclusive Wealth are apparent in other countries, the IWI Project highlights:

• Ecuador: 37 percent GDP vs. -17 percent IW


• Guyana: 97 percent GDP vs. -2 percent IW


• Qatar: 85 percent GDP vs. -53 percent IW


• Tanzania: 67 percent GDP vs. -37 percent IW


• Uganda: 95 percent GDP vs. -6 percent IW.

Data and charts of Inclusive Wealth spanning all 140 nations covered in the 2014 IWR are available here.

Published by Cambridge University Press, the full 2014 IWR is available here.

*Image credits: Inclusive Wealth Project

Last week Uber raised $1.2 billion in its latest round of funding, bringing the company's value to about $40 billion. The headline on TheStreet was: “Uber's $40 Billion Valuation Nears Facebook Territory as Sharing Economy Continues to Soar.”

I find this headline quite accurate except for one thing – Uber is not part of the sharing economy.

I know that it might sound a bit strange, as Uber is one of the more common examples of the sharing economy. But bear with me for a minute while I try to make the case as to why Uber, despite being a business success story, still shouldn’t be considered as part of the sharing economy.

Looking at definitions of the sharing economy, one might actually think there’s no problem with addressing Uber as part of it. For example, in a 2013 report prepared for the European Commission, The Sharing Economy Accessibility Based Business Models for Peer-to-Peer Markets, the authors define the sharing economy as a space including “companies that deploy accessibility-based business models for peer-to-peer markets and its user communities.” Another definition comes from Adam Werbach, co-founder of Yerdle: “With sharing economy there are activities that take underutilized resources bringing them to use through the application of technology and community.”

Both of these definitions could fit Uber, especially with regards to its UberX service, in which ‘regular’ drivers use their own cars to provide customers with rides.

However, I believe that there’s more to the sharing economy than just creating peer-to-peer marketplaces and making a better use of underutilized resources. Take for example the framework Rachel Botsman, the co-author of “What Mine is Yours,” offers. She describes the core values of the sharing economy (or the collaborative economy as she refers to this space) as empowerment, collaboration, openness and humanness. “In terms of the underlying philosophy, it’s about putting these values above the end goal of profit maximization,” she writes.

Now, this might sounds like a narrative taken from a hippie lexicon, but to me it puts the finger right on the spot. The economic viability of the sharing economy is important, but so are the human values it promotes. After all, the hope (at least mine) is that the sharing economy will provide us with the much-needed vision of how a more sustainable future or a more humanized way of living would look.

To me, enhancing humanness through the sharing economy is not limited to the interactions between the service provider and the user, where we learn to trust strangers or redefine our sense of community. It is also about the values the organizations involved in the sharing economy stand for – we can’t hope to create the change we want to see in the economic system and humanize it if the new players have the same values the the old ones have. Would it really make a difference, for example, if Lending Club will replace Bank of America as America’s top lender -- but will have the same values?

And this is where Uber fails.

While the company puts a lot of effort in the interactions between customers and drivers, creating seamless and frictionless user experiences, it seems to be failing time and again when it comes to ethics, governance and embedding human-based values into its core business. Recent examples include using aggressive, questionable tactics to undermine Lyft and other competitors, allegations of privacy violations of customer data, and the revelations that Senior Vice President Emil Michael suggested the company should consider investigating the private lives of journalists critical of Uber.

After looking at these examples I thought no story about Uber could surprise me, but one I read last week actually did: Profs. Zeynep Tufekci and Brayden King wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed about “a 2012 post on the company’s blog that boasted of how Uber had tracked the rides of users who went somewhere other than home on Friday or Saturday nights, and left from the same address the next morning. It identified these “rides of glory” as potential one-night stands. (The blog post was later removed.)”

While these stories didn’t seem to undermine investors’ trust in the future of Uber, the media seemed to explode with explanations on what’s wrong with the company. PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who is also an investor in Lyft, called Uber "the most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley." Prof. Arun Sundararajan compared Uber to Airbnb, explaining why the latter lacks the right “platform culture.” Robert Cyran suggested on DealBook that “Uber is one startup that needs to grow up fast.”

My two cents are that what we see is the result of a missing ingredient, humanness, which is required in every sharing economy recipe. Again, this is much more than just creating great interactions between service providers and users. It is best described by Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu, explaining the meaning of ubuntu -- the essence of being human:

“Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language. It speaks to the very essence of being human. When you want to give high praise to someone we say, “Yu, u nobuntu”; he or she has ubuntu. This means that they are generous, hospitable, friendly, caring and compassionate. They share what they have. It also means that my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in theirs. We belong in a bundle of Life. We say, “a person is a person through other people”. […] I am human because I belong, I participate, I share.”

So, while Uber’s recipe seems to include many right ingredients I believe it still needs to find the way to add a lot of humanness into it. Only when we could say on Uber “Yu, u nobuntu,” it will be rightfully considered part of the sharing economy. Until then it’s just a successful car service business.

Image credit: Adam Fagen, Flickr Creative Commons

Raz Godelnik is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Design and Management in the School of Design Strategies at Parsons The New School for Design. 

By Jona Jone

We are living in a crucial time in Earth’s history — a time in which over half of the world’s population is now living in cities. This number is continuously rising, and with it comes the rise of pollution. Reports indicate that half of the world’s biggest cities are severely polluted, and the forthcoming setting for each of these places is looking grim.

Pollution comes in many forms, all of which capable of causing serious damages to our health. However, there is one form of pollution that harms us the most, simply because it is in the air we breathe. Humans are constantly breathing, and it is only logical that the more polluted the air we breathe, the more damage it causes our lungs. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution is responsible for more than 6 million deaths per year. In fact, air pollution is even causing more deaths than AIDS and malaria combined.

A study released by the United Nations in 2011 examined outdoor air pollution in almost 1,600 cities in 91 countries. The study, which used fine particulate matter as a measure of the severity of air pollution, notes that half of the world’s urban population are living in cities that have 2.5 times more of the recommended levels of fine particulate matter indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines.

It is said that the current cities of the world are slowly killing us. Recent studies reveal exactly why.

The current cities, the future cigarettes

Smoking, the ultimate precursor of lung-related diseases around the world, is an old habit most people find very difficult to quit. They are paying the price for this dangerous vice, and it is for them to deal with — or so you think. These days, even a non-smoker is unknowingly smoking several cigarettes a week. How is this possible?

Experts have done the math: A day in some of the world’s most polluted cities is tantamount to smoking various amounts of cigarettes, depending on how much particulate matter is present.

Take, for example, the city of Beijing. It has been computed that, on an average day in this city, an average adult inhales a total of 1.8 milligrams of PM2.5 particles from air pollution, which is a sixth of that found in an average cigarette. This means that the mere act of walking around this city is forcing you to smoke. The most pressing concern here is that this severity of air pollution has been linked to an increased risk of lung and bladder cancers. In fact, it is the leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. This further justifies the claim that air pollution is continuously increasing death rates around the world.

This applies to numerous cities across various countries. A 2014 study conducted by the WHO even lists the 10 most air-polluted cities in the world, most of which are in India and Pakistan. Your city may not be on this list, but it is better to not be complacent. There are still multiple ways in which you can prevent converting your city into a giant cigarette.

Green living: The world’s most powerful cigarette filter

The sudden rise in urbanity has indeed caused a spike in air pollution levels around the world. It is a good thing though, that we are seeing substantial effort to combat and prevent air pollution. Green living, green architectural designs, and numerous other green innovations are setting the standard for future city trends. With energy-efficient home designs becoming one of the most proactive efforts, even condos buildings in key cities are now geared towards sustainability.

Calling the world’s cities “the new cigarettes” may be a loaded claim, but it really is not. The air we breathe has been polluted with a mixture of toxins and cancer-causing substances—which are the main ingredients of actual cigarettes. But hope is seen in many urban cities around the globe—and as mentioned earlier, people are gearing to more sustainable ways of living, and it is evident in the way they choose to build their homes.

Since construction holds the largest single share in the consumption of our global resources, it is also one of the main contributors to air pollution. This being said, it is only logical that to start rehabilitating our cities, we look at the very core of urbanity—which is the industrialized city setting. Charging the urban scene with green innovations may be just the filter we need for all these growing “cigarette cities.”

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Safia Osman 2) Flickr/hazara

Jona Jone has been a mortgage originator in Philadelphia, PA. She is also a Business and Property Specialist. She has been writing articles about real estate investment, business, parenting and living.

Eventually the truth, like cream, rises to the top, though it sometimes takes a long time. Perhaps it’s because we live in a world with so much technological capability that allows us to merely think of something and it becomes true -- which has led us to believe whatever we wish to be true is true. In other words, some of us appear to have lost the distinction between fact and fantasy.

Sadly, there are a number of things out there that, no matter how hard we might wish it otherwise, are facts. Death and taxes are two (though if you have enough money you might be able to avoid the second one). The fact that the massive amount of combustion products we’ve emitted over time has substantially altered our planetary climatic system is a third. It seems that the facts are on one side, while the money is on the other, which might explain the standoff we’ve been seeing in Washington.

There is a young man in Congress, a Republican named Chris Gibson, who has announced his intention to put forth a resolution that will help others “recognize the reality” of the situation. Gibson, who represents the 19th district in New York (Hudson Valley), is basing the move on what he has observed:

"My district has been hit with three 500-year floods in the last several years, so either you believe that we had a 1 in over 100 million probability that occurred, or you believe as I do that there's a new normal; and we have changing weather patterns, and we have climate change. This is the science."

Gibson, who was just re-elected in November, does not have a particularly strong environmental record. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave him a rating of 43 percent this year, though it has improved steadily since his 17 percent rating in 2011, which suggests that his position is evolving. Last year he voted against fracking, though he also voted to prioritize oil drilling on public lands. This year he voted against undermining the EPA and the ability to use sound science, while at the same time, voting for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Gibson stands in marked relief from fellow Republicans like Sen. James Inhofe, who are outright deniers. Gibson understands which side the facts are on.

"I hope that my party — that we will come to be comfortable with this, because we have to operate in the realm of knowledge and science, and I still think we can bring forward conservative solutions to this, absolutely. But we have to recognize the reality."

Gibson hopes the bill will, "harken us to our best sense, our ability to overcome hard challenges."

Specifics of the bill are not yet clear. Gibson acknowledges signing the Koch brothers pledge, but denies that the pledge was to “do nothing” about the problem. Instead, as he points out on his website, he merely pledged to “oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." 

That sounds like a matter of semantics, though it does leave open the idea of a carbon tax in which the funds collected are redistributed back to consumers, a popular option. As to why he felt the need to sign the Koch brothers pledge is another question, though it could have something to do with financial support. He claims it’s because he opposes raising energy prices.

Still, Gibson has voted in support of renewables and against subsidies for fossil fuels, making him a true rarity among Republicans. What remains to be seen is what kind of support he can garner among his Republican colleagues. Perhaps the time has come for a meaningful first step.

Image compilation by RP Siegel 

Children attending schools within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the largest school district in the nation, will soon be eating better meat. The LAUSD’s Board of Education recently approved the 2014 Good Food Procurement Resolution which calls for food procurement guidelines to include antibiotic- and hormone-free standards. The LAUSD is the largest food purchaser in Los Angeles, the second most populous city in the U.S., serving 650,000 meals a day.

The Resolution is part of the Good Food Purchasing Pledge. Developed by the LA Food Policy Council (LAFPC), it has been described as being Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) type standards for food. In October 2012, the City of Los Angeles signed the Good Food Purchasing Pledge, and few weeks later the LAUSD signed it. It consists of five key values: local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare and nutrition. It includes a tiered, points-based scoring system. It also features a baseline commitment: To be a Good Food Purchaser, a baseline for each value is required to be met.

"The passing of the resolution shows the bold steps school districts are taking to ensure the health and wellness of students," said Laura Benavidez, deputy food services director for LAUSD.  "Providing the best possible, highest quality food for students shouldn't be a privilege, it should be a standard."

The Urban School Food Alliance focuses on improving chicken served at cafeterias

The Urban School Food Alliance, a coalition of the nation’s largest school districts, which includes LAUSD, announced an antibiotic-free standard that companies can implement when supplying chicken products to schools. The alliance focuses on chicken because it is one of the most popular food dishes served at cafeterias.

The standard requires the following:

• Chickens must not be given any antibiotics, ever


• No animal by-products in the feed


• Chickens must be raised on an all-vegetarian diet


• Chickens must be humanely raised as outlined in the National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines

The alliance formed almost two years ago with the aim to use joint purchasing power and influence to bring costs down while setting better standards for the food served in member schools. Alliance members procure over $550 million in food and supplies a year, serving over 2.9 million students daily.

Why antibiotic free chicken is important

The majority of antibiotics sold in the U.S. (about 80 percent) are used on farm animals, including chickens, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). And most of the antibiotics given to farm animals are given routinely, mixing them daily into food and water, which contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that more than 2 million people in the U.S. become sick every year with antibiotic-resistance infections. At least 23,000 die as a result. The CDC states in a 2013 report that “up to half of antibiotic use in humans and much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe.” The World Health Organization (WHO) cites the “inappropriate use of antimicrobial drugs, including in animal husbandry” as a factor in the rise of antibiotic resistance.

Image credit: DC Central Kitchen

Millicom and Unicef have agreed to a three-year alliance to improve respect for children’s rights in the telecommunications sector.

The telecoms giant and the international children's charity plan to create standards for good practice in the telecommunication sector that protect children online and respect their right to privacy, freedom of thought, opinion, culture and safety. 

The alliance will develop and promote industry-specific guidance on how the telecommunication sector can improve respect for children’s rights, specifically through implementing the Children’s Rights and Business Principles.

The two organisations have been in discussions since 2012, when Millicom provided feedback on Unicef’s Children’s Rights and Business Principles tools for implementation. Millicom then piloted Unicef’s Children’s Rights Checklist at its operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Millicom’s executive vp of Strategic Operations and Partnerships, Rachel Samrén commented: “Companies have many strategic and direct ways to influence children’s lives positively, beyond charity work or fighting child labour. At Millicom, we always ‘demand more’ and so we are proud to be at the forefront of putting into action the great work with UNICEF that takes a wider perspective on business responsibility and children.”

"Unicef is committed to working with business to identify the shared value that can be created when improving child rights within each industry,” added Gérard Bocquenet, Unicef's director of Private Fundraising and Partnerships. “We are proud to join Millicom in identifying how children can be better protected online in this growing virtual world. It is truly an important issue that is increasingly relevant to children everywhere."
 

The Proclaimers don't know the half of it! When posed with the challenge – can you walk to Seoul, South Korea in 14 weeks? Over one hundred staff at Kia Motors UK head office immediately said yes! Armed with pedometers every step was counted in the walk to Seoul.

As a further incentive the company agreed to pay £1 for every mile walked in those 14 weeks. In total 39,397 miles – that’s 79,618,377 steps - were counted, which resulted in Kia donating £40,000 to its local charity – Walton Charity.

Since partnering with Walton Charity, staff at Kia Motors have helped in numerous ways – from spending time painting offices for local companies that were flooded at the start of the year, through to digging local allotments and donating food and toys for the Walton food banks and Burwood playgroup charity.

Jackie Lodge, chief executive at Walton Charity said of the support form Kia “The time that staff at Kia have committed to helping us in the last year has been such a positive experience for all involved. The Walton area is seen as an affluent area but there are many members of the community both young and old that need our help

“The £40,000 raised means that we can now combine this with the monies received from our recent merger with Thames Homeless Project to fund buying a residence for supported housing for people in difficulties. The additional £40,000 will buy us an extra bedroom, which in the long term will assist more homeless people in the borough.”

Gary Tomlinson, head of HR and facilities at Kia Motors who helped co-ordinated the Walk to Seoul added: “We never expected so many members of staff to take up the challenge – the levels of competitiveness shown has been a great surprise – the number of staff who would just get up and walk about just to get their steps up was a real incentive for everyone to get moving. The knowledge that we were all raising money for Walton Charity made everyone want to walk more”
 

This week a group of campaigners dressed as Santa Claus presented an over-sized Christmas card to the Department for Business, Industry and Skills (BIS) on behalf of the million people across Europe who had signed a petition calling for the end of controversial trade deals being pushed through between the EU and North America.

Over the course of 2014 the trade deals have become increasingly contested, with a wide array of politicians, trade unions and civil society groups articulating the threat that the trade deals would pose to vital public services. Critics have also pointed out that the trade deals would give more powers to multinational corporations to sue governments in secret courts for introducing legislation designed to benefit citizens, that might be harmful to the corporations’ profits.

Over a million people across Europe signed the petition calling for TTIP and CETA to be scrapped in the space of just two months.

Polly Jones, the head of campaigns and policy at the World Development Movement who attended the protest said: “More than a million people across Europe have voiced their opposition to TTIP because of the threat that it poses to vital public services and to legislation designed to protect labour and environmental standards. These secretive trade deals would deliver an unprecedented amount of power to corporate interests at the expense of taxpayers and of democratic process and they must be stopped.”

The event in London mirrored a parallel event in Brussels on the same day where around 100 campaigners in Brussels from the Stop TTIP coalition submitted a birthday card to Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on the occasion of his 60th birthday, which again symbolically represented the more than a million people across Europe who had signed the #noTTIP petition.