Search

Yesterday, TriplePundit launched a discussion with Pam Yang, an executive coach, speaker and a founder of Agency DEI, about her ongoing work and determination to reframe how companies address challenges related to diversity, equity and inclusion. From Yang’s perspective, companies need to approach their DEI efforts as a progression issue instead of focusing on a "pipeline" of talent, especially when it comes to rewarding and acknowledging the efforts of Asian American women within corporate America.

But going beyond securing the best possible data in order to ensure that DEI efforts can actually succeed, 3p asked Yang what employers can do now to ensure that their Asian American employees, especially women, feel valued and welcomed in the workplace. (Employers interested in disclosing such diversity data can do so here.)

Yang's high-level response at first comes across as simple and plain-spoken: “Take more time.”

But that investment in time requires a three-step approach, she continued. “The strategy for making Asian employees feel valued should be the same as any employee. Take time to center their humanity and their experience; take time to understand the history and context in which their experience exists; and take time to speak with them to learn about their needs and challenges so companies have accurate information to ideate what they can do."

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

It’s also time, says Yang, to move away from the catch-all phrase, “Asian,” as that does not fully explain the experience of this widely diverse group of individuals, and that is particularly true of Asian American women. “To start, taking time to break down the definition of Asian is critical as it refers to 60 percent of the world’s population on the Asian continent,” Yang added. “South Asian culture is very different from East Asian culture, and the challenges those groups experience will differ. Plus, treating Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders as an independent group — we’re one of the few countries to group them together — with unique concerns is necessary as their needs disappear in the broader umbrella grouping.”

That “umbrella grouping” is among the reasons why stereotypes and assumptions of Asian American women often persist in U.S. society and within far too many workplaces. “One of the greatest challenges for Asian talent — and others who grew up in cultures or environments that value different leadership and relational qualities — is the wide acceptance of a standardized prototype of leadership in corporate America… i.e., aggressive, assertive, dominant [usually white] men,” Yang continued.

Redefining what “leadership” means in the first place is needed if U.S. companies will ever attain a truly inclusive work environment. Again, this is where investment in time is crucial. “For many women, especially Asian women due to the added biased stereotype of their docility, embodying this prototype can hurt them since it runs counter to how women have been traditionally expected to behave," Yang said. "For everyone’s sake, we need to take time to diversify the definition of what makes a good leader and take time to recognize the value in each person’s varied style and approach."

How companies could actually take the time to understand the complexities of their employee’s backgrounds will vary. What is often consistent across the varied experiences of Asian American women is that they not only confront the “glass ceiling,” but what some observers call a ”bamboo ceiling" as well. Underlying factors such as their immigrant upbringing, a legacy of hypersexualization, as well as unfair stereotypes such as “timidity,” add to the challenges that all women face at work, explaining why Asian American women often rank among the least likely group to be promoted to senior leadership roles.

“Taking time to understand how those dynamics and stereotypes show up at your specific workplace, then proactively taking time to identify systemic changes to combat them, is the hard work that needs to be done,” Yang told 3p.

The challenge in presenting this approach to companies, however, is whether from a human resources or public relations perspective, it is more expedient to simply spend money on yet another “pipeline of talent” program rather than investing time and resources into fully understanding the challenges that many Asian American women confront in offices across the U.S. Yang acknowledged this dilemma herself: “The question is: How many companies actually want to take the time to do this kind of hard work, vs. 'investing” X amount of dollars in a talent development program for first-generation students to learn about the biotech industry?'”

Image credit: Adobe Stock

Discussions about corporate purpose are now having their moment, and for a good reason: It’s clear that companies that enable employees to fulfill their personal purpose through their work reap proven and measurable benefits. These results come in the form of a boost in loyalty and employee retention, higher levels of engagement and productivity, and improved employee health and personal resilience. That’s according to a 2021 McKinsey study on the role of purpose in the employee experience. 

Research from Gallup gets even more granular, finding that improving employees’ connection to purpose by just 10 percent delivers an 8 percent decrease in turnover and a more than 4 percent increase in corporate profits. If those numbers surrounding corporate purpose sound like a stretch, consider research from PwC, which found that a huge majority of consumers — 76 percent — would not hesitate to vote with their wallets and cease doing business with a company that treats its people, the environment or the communities in which it operates poorly. 
 
Corporate purpose, however, still gets the short shrift within many C-suites, which is why the topic is front and center at the upcoming 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands, taking place on Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at New York City’s Pier Sixty, where we’ll learn more from more than 60 executives at leading purpose-driven companies.

Candid discussions about the role of purpose within an organization, and whether the continued headwinds many professionals in this space are confronting now will cause brands to abandon their purposes, are among the discussions that are on tap at 3BL Forum. 

The Forum is unlike any other conference. Attendees will leave Pier Sixty with more than inspiration: As you can see in the program planned for the day, you’ll learn how to deploy meaningful change, operationalize ESG and sustainability within your organization, and drive effective, intentional and impactful corporate strategies. A program of high-octane panels and one-on-one executive interviews keenly focused on the how and why, as well as opportunities to network with peer leaders, are what have kept attendees coming back over the past several years. Join us and register today.

For those who wish to attend, we’re still offering a discount of 35 percent off for TriplePundit readers. Purchase your ticket using the discount code 35FORUM2022 when you register.

Image credit: Max Harlynking via Unsplash

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 50-year abortion rights precedent in the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, the 6-3 majority ignored ample evidence of economic harm to women. That may seem shocking. However, it simply reflects the fact-free thinking that has supported conservative policymaking and punditry for decades. With the Dobbs decision, fact-free thinking now ripples into the very bedrock principles of corporate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Smoking, climate science and fact-free policy

The tobacco industry is a notorious, early example of fact-free policymaking in support of special interests. Led by the conservative organization Heartland Institute, lobbyists have waged a decades-long campaign of denial, confusion and deflection, if not outright lying, in order to undermine trust in public health experts and medical science.

It took decades of work and multiple lawsuits for health experts and their allies to undo the damage to public trust. Meanwhile, Heartland Institute has already moved on to lobbying on behalf of e-cigarettes.

Heartland has also been a leading force behind the decades-long movement to undermine trust in climate science as well as public health experts as two sides of the same coin. Alongside ExxonMobil and others, Heartland is well known for deploying the tobacco playbook in support of the fossil energy industry.

If the aim is to undermine trust in experts who have training, professional credentials and hands-on experience, science is not the only target. During the Barack Obama administration, future President Donald Trump played the anti-expert card to great effect. He launched a loud, long campaign to raise doubts about President Obama’s country of birth. Years later, the relentless braying over a simple, provable fact set the stage for the Trump-led election denial movement, culminating in the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021 and the ongoing series of attacks on experienced election administrators.

The stage is set for violent attacks on women, girls and other pregnancy-capable people

Against this backdrop, it is not shocking that the 6-3 supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court, cemented with three appointments by Trump, ignored the experts on public health when they overruled 50 years of abortion rights precedent in the Dobbs case last June.

The impact of the Dobbs decision is still rippling out, but it is already clear that business leaders will have to revise their diversity, equity and inclusion policies to accommodate the fact that in many U.S. states, women, girls, and other pregnancy-capable people are now classified as secondary citizens who are not protected by the same laws that protect others.

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

Denial of prompt, appropriate treatment while pregnant is not “pro-life.” It is an act of legally sanctioned, government enforced violence against pregnancy-capable people. Regardless of whether or not their pregnancy is a wanted one, all of them are now enrolled in a police state centered around control of the uterus.

Also caught up in the violent aftermath of the Dobbs case are people of all ages who rely on pregnancy-suppressing drugs to treat other health conditions. To cite just one recent example, a 14-year-old girl was suddenly denied a longstanding prescription for her lifesaving medication two days after Arizona reinstated an abortion ban that became a law more than 150 years ago when Arizona was still a territory.

The impact of Dobbs on DEI was predictable

All of this pain and suffering was preventable if the six conservative justices had taken expert knowledge under consideration in the Dobbs case. 

Yet to be seen are the long-term impacts on the corporate social responsibility movement in general and DEI programs in particular. However, the experts who weighed in on Dobbs provide a hint of things to come.
 
As described by Shadi Bushra of the highly regarded academic rating firm OnlineU (formerly Guide to Online Schools), the plaintiff in Dobbs prevailed in part by arguing, without evidence, that there was “no way to gauge the impact of abortion access on economic factors such as gender-based inequities in hiring, pay, and labor force participation.”

That line of argument was not only free of facts. It was patently false.

Bushra noted that over 150 economists filed an amicus brief in favor of the defense in Dobbs. The brief demonstrated that there actually is a strong, longstanding body of expert knowledge on the impact of abortion access on the well-being of women.

“’[T]here is a substantial body of well-developed and credible research that shows that abortion legalization and access in the United States has had — and continues to have — a significant effect on birth rates as well as broad downstream social and economic effects, including on women’s educational attainment and job opportunities,’” Bushra wrote.

“Among other points, the brief argued that access to abortion had a bigger impact on women’s labor force participation than access to birth control, leading to increased wages," Bushra added. "The economists found that reproductive rights access was especially beneficial for Black women, who currently earn 63 cents for each dollar a white man earns."

Bushra also cited a New York Times interview with Rosalind Petchesky, the researcher cited in the 1992 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. “There’s no question that legal abortion makes it possible for women in all classes and races to have some control over their economic lives and ability to work outside the home,” Petchesky told the Times.

What now, corporate leaders?

It is too late to undo the suffering and trauma of the months since Dobbs, and the months to follow. However, corporate leaders who profess to support DEI should take a closer look at that amicus brief, reassess their support for office holders or candidates who simply make up their own facts to gain and keep power, and work toward the restoration of a legal framework for abortion that respects the living, breathing people who happen to be born with a uterus.

That’s going to take some doing, but it has to be done. The poison of fact-free policymaking has already spread from an insurrection-fostering former president to members of the U.S. Congress over the past two years, and from there into state legislation. 

Don’t be fooled by the black robes and the aura of legitimacy. The Dobbs decision is simply the latest manifestation of an authoritarian power grab, now cloaked in the trappings of constitutional law with none of the substance. Corporate leadership has been asleep at the wheel, but it’s not too late to wake up.

Image credit: Sarah Penney via Unsplash

When perusing through the raw numbers, Asian American women certainly appear to be a rising force across corporate America. But while they may be visible within U.S. offices, their accomplishments and contributions largely go unacknowledged and unappreciated by many companies. That’s the finding of a McKinsey report, which last month concluded that Asian American women comprise less than 1 percent of any promotions from the senior vice president level to the C-suite.

Asian Americans are often viewed as a monolith when their reality is vastly different. In fact, Asian American women currently experience some of the most drastic income inequality in the U.S. For example, more than 20 percent of South Asian women who are not permanent U.S. residents earn less than $30,000 a year. Further, several “Asian” ethnicities, among them Chinese, Hmong, Laotians, Nepalese and Pakistanis, have higher poverty rates than the overall U.S. average of 12 percent. Chinese Americans account for approximately one-third of all Asian Americans who live in poverty.

In addition to the tropes and stereotypes that linger within the workplace, part of the challenge is understanding the experience of Asian American women in the workplace day after day. Enter Pam Yang, an executive coach, speaker and a founder of Agency DEI, her ongoing work, and determination to reframe how companies approach diversity, equity and inclusion.

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

The goals of Yang and Agency DEI include moving U.S. corporate culture toward more transparency around workforce data. Such information is crucial, says Yang, so that employees, customers and other stakeholders have the information they need so that they can trust the companies for which they work and from which they buy goods and services. In order to cement that trust, Yang says it’s important to hold companies accountable to their DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) efforts while offering prospective employees the best possible information to make informed employment decisions. From Yang’s point of view, such disclosure should be a requirement, not cherry-picked information released solely on a company’s terms. (Employers interested in disclosing such diversity data can do so here.)

To do that, Yang says workforce data needs to be in one centralized place. She and the team at Agency DEI are starting with the advertising industry, in which she has more than 15 years of experience. Centralized and standardized data, insists Yang, will enable workers to make those “apples to apples” comparisons. In the long run, this increase in transparency, and consistency, will allow all stakeholders to see how DEI is progressing across companies, as well as view where ongoing problems on this front need to be addressed.

Companies have long framed their DEI efforts as important to their “pipeline of talent.” But from Yang’s perspective, companies need to take on their DEI efforts as a progression issue, not a pipeline one.

“Since the Civil Rights Act ‘banned’ employment discrimination in 1964, the rationale for why there’s a lack of diversity in almost every arena —work, education, military, etc. — has centered around there not being enough ‘qualified’ diverse people," Yang told 3p. "As a result, the most common solutions have focused on ‘expanding’ the pool through recruitment efforts often at the junior levels, generating interest in particular pursuits and fields often at younger ages, early-stage talent development, etc."

“But, discrimination has never been a consequence of age or inexperience," she continued. "It is a feature of human behavior regardless of age, gender, race, creed and can impact people at every stage of their development. So, it makes zero sense that we have focused the supermajority of our time and resources on pipeline programs, except for the fact that they’re easier to [act on] and [publicize] and thus virtue signal that ‘we’re doing something.'”

One result of this dynamic, says Yang, is that diversity in corporate leadership is actually decreasing, not increasing. “We see decreases in representation for every non-white, non-men group from the professional levels to the C-Suite, i.e. there’s an inverse correlation between the increasing representation of men and white people compared to the decreasing representation for women and non-white people,” said Yang, adding that Agency DEI’s research has backed up her conclusion.

“If diverse recruitment and development programs were really the answer and they’ve been around for as long as the issue of diversity has existed, surely, we wouldn’t be having the same conversation six decades after the Civil Rights Act passed," Yang added. “If we don’t solve the problem of progressing the endless stream of ‘qualified’ diverse people, we will never get away from the red herring of the seemingly unsolvable, six-decade-long problem of ‘not enough diverse talent.'” 

Tomorrow, we’ll discuss with Yang the specifics of how companies can truly recruit, welcome, retain and acknowledge the accomplishments and achievements of Asian Americans, especially Asian American women, who remain underrepresented in leadership positions across corporate America.

Image credit: Adobe Stock

Energy companies have long turned to gas flaring to dispose of excess natural gas, largely because it was thought to eliminate methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide, depending on the source cited. The practice of flaring has continued with the rationale that it’s impossible to capture all natural gas at any extraction site, even though the technology exists to capture methane at its source. 

The surging demand for energy, therefore, means that companies within this sector will do what is most expedient: flaring when necessary to dispose of excessive natural gas that cannot be trapped. It all seems logical enough, considering that the sector has claimed that the process destroys methane at a rate of 98 percent — an impressive number at any level.

But there’s a problem: A team of researchers at the University of Michigan recently concluded that flaring eliminates methane at a lesser ratio, specifically a tad over 91 percent. That may not seem like a huge discrepancy, but when considering the potency of methane, this team of researchers says the gap results in a five-fold increase of methane emissions above current assumptions. “Therefore, flaring is often not as efficient as presumed — or methane plumes simply are not combusted at all,” the researchers wrote in their report.

To put it another way: Flaring isn’t a tool to mitigate climate change. Actually, it could be fueling it far more than previously believed.

The University of Michigan team reached their conclusions by sampling flaring data across three basins in the U.S. that host the lion’s share of gas flaring. Two of those basins are in Texas while another is located in North Dakota. Combined, they account for about 80 percent of all gas flaring within the U.S. energy sector.

So, while energy companies may have been stating the case for flaring logically and with confidence, there’s been one problem, says this research team: such data was outdated, and in fact, some of it dated as far back as the 1980s.

“Most flare studies have been conducted in laboratory or testing facility settings such that sensitivities to various parameters (e.g. flare tip design, fuel composition, etc.) can be assessed under controlled conditions,” Genevieve Plant, the lead author of the study, told Gizmodo’s Molly Taft in an email. “There have been limited studies of ‘real-world’ flares such that it was not known if these controlled experiments captured flare performance under field operating conditions and over the lifetime of a flare.”

In other words, what may be tested and verified in a laboratory isn’t necessarily going to work in the field — and is often not even reported in the first place — with rather dubious results for meaningful climate action.

This research doesn’t only result in a black eye for energy companies and the government regulators tasked with ensuring they stay compliant. It’s a setback for public health as well. In a study published the same day as the University of Michigan team’s findings, another set of researchers from Brown University and the University of Arizona pointed out that around 500,000 people live within three miles of these three basins, and they are exposed to a “cocktail of co-pollutants that present risks of acute and/or chronic health impacts.”

Image credit: Pexels

It has become clear that more people want to do what they can to shop, drive, eat and live more sustainably. One roadblock, however, is finding information about certain sustainability data points like carbon emissions to make the best possible day-to-day decisions.

While we are more dependent than ever on our smartphones, the size of the screen doesn’t always make gleaning this information the most seamless process, and toggling between tabs on a device can still be a hassle. Plus, there are lingering questions over the reliability and veracity of the various sources of sustainability data that are readily available at our fingertips. Google, however, says users will have access to more of this data, quickly and easily.

During the company’s annual Search On event last week, the company revealed that certain Google searches will soon pair results with relevant sustainability data. For now, such information will fall within three pillars: clothing, food and transportation.

Focusing on secondhand clothing certainly makes sense, though the proliferation of “pre-owned” clothing on thrifting apps that originate from fast fashion brands are complicating the appeal of buying used apparel for younger consumers. Nevertheless, Google has promised that consumers on the hunt for new additions to their wardrobe will be able to see what used clothing options are available within Google Search later this year — a solid effort when considering estimates suggest the global garment industry generates about 10 percent of the planet’s total emissions.

When it comes to making food choices, Google’s plans for sustainability data appear to be more robust. Soon (a timeframe that so far Google has not defined exactly), when searching for recipes like “chicken curry,” or “lentil tacos,” the company has promised that consumers will be able to quickly compare the emissions per pound of food with data from the United Nations.

Finally, the comparison of vehicles is where the upcoming sustainability features within Google’s search function could shine. Consumers researching leading automakers’ cars and trucks, including electric vehicles (EVs), will be able to quickly sort out information such as fuel and electricity costs per year. In the case of EVs, buyers will be able to compare range and charging speeds. Meanwhile, Google says it has improved its maps and navigation features so that drivers can find the most fuel-efficient routes for getting from points A to B.

“Search interest in terms like electric vehicles, solar energy and thrift stores reached new highs globally over the past year — suggesting that people are looking for ways to practice sustainability in their daily lives,” Hema Budaraju, the director of Google Search, wrote on the company's blog, explaining what is driving these upcoming changes.

Other changes Google has made to reflect its users’ increased interest in sustainability include filters for flights and hotels so users can book more responsible options for their travel plans.

Image credit: Solen Feyissa via Unsplash

Sustainability isn’t just about doing good for the environment or society at large — it’s also good for business. Here are just a few reasons to operate a more sustainable business:

Reputation: Millennial business buyers and talent consider a company’s commitment to environmental sustainability as an important factor in deciding to move forward with business deals and job offers, according to research by organizations like Deloitte.

Regulatory frameworks: Governments and industries are implementing regulations to address dwindling natural resources and growing greenhouse gas emissions.

Cultural shifts: The world is working in a new way. With the shift to hybrid work, organizations are reimagining their workplaces. Also consumers have become more conscious of how their behaviors impact climate change and we believe that may influence their spending and investment behaviors.

Efficiency: Sustainable practices often help reduce the use of energy and other resources, which can lead to cost savings.
All of this has led to more organizations committing to sustainable practices — such as using renewable energy, reusing and recycling equipment, and making carbon reduction pledges. Setting a goal is one thing, but achieving that goal is what matters. For most organizations — even though sustainability cracked Gartner’s CEO survey top-ten list of priorities for 2022-2023 — it is still one of many priorities, and the path to getting there isn’t always clear.

We believe the path to mitigating the disruptions of climate change and achieving zero net emissions is going to include technology and innovation. We can see evidence of this across different industries — automotive with electric cars, the public sector’s push for clean energy infrastructure, carbon capture, and the growth of lab-grown meats in the food industry, to name a few examples.

A Cloud-managed network can help provide a path to sustainability for any organization. Organizations across different industries are relying on advanced technologies to drive digital transformation and accelerate innovation. At the backbone of this is cloud-based internet infrastructure. Cloud technology enables industries to leverage global networks, seamlessly connecting hardware and software. This provides the on-demand processing power, data storage, and analytics needed to scale computing — delivering the innovations needed to drive productivity and efficiency.

Cisco Meraki has a culture of pushing boundaries and innovating to make IT more intuitive, faster, and smarter for our customers. We believe applying these same principles can enable our customers to leverage digital innovations that are good for business and for the environment.

Smart spaces

By using Cloud native and AI technology to intelligently manage spaces, Cisco Meraki and our technology partner ecosystem can help customers create and maintain smart, healthy, and sustainable spaces that can help improve business productivity and performance. When cloud-first solutions enable building controls to be automated, efficiency may go up, while energy use and operating costs may go down, due to better management of functions like heating, cooling, and lighting.

Our intuitive IoT solutions can automatically adjust workspace conditions, for example by switching off WiFi and other Power over Ethernet devices outside of business hours, or by preventing water leaks and goods spoilage with temperature and humidity sensors. Cloud technology makes it easier to gather data across different devices, platforms and geographically dispersed areas to conduct cross domain analysis. The more an organization can access insights from their own data, the more overall value they can derive to manage costs, maximize resources, and improve customer and employee experiences.

Embracing hybrid work

Our new way of working has created an opportunity for organizations and their employees to reduce the carbon footprint of day-to-day business. Consolidating office space and equipment, lowering energy and water usage, and reducing the number of vehicles on the road through less commuting time can all help the environment. But making that work seamless for organizations struggling with dated technology and talent shortages isn’t easy. The Meraki Cloud Platform enables zero touch deployment that works in concert with smart cameras and IoT sensors to provide a unified experience that extends the capabilities of IT, security, facilities, and operations teams.

Building a sustainable future for all

As more organizations voluntarily make climate action pledges and move toward sustainable practices, they can look to Cloud managed technology to help them meet their goals. Whether the motivation is out of concern for the climate or a company’s bottom line, there is an opportunity for Cloud technology to help lead the way with a unified experience. When everything is connected and you have end-to-end visibility across devices and domains, your IT, facilities, physical security and operations departments can all leverage efficiencies and take small actions that can make a positive impact on the environment.

Previously published on the Cisco Corporate Social Responsibility Blog and in the 3BL Media newsroom.

Image credit: Sigmund via Unsplash

When Sheryl Lee Ralph won an Emmy this year for her role as Barbara Howard in Abbott Elementary, she lifted her voice in triumph, singing a verse from Dianne Reeves’ “Endangered Species.” She sang, “I am an endangered species/ But I sing no victim's song/ I am a woman; I am an artist/ And I know where my voice belongs.” During her post-win interview, she encouraged young artists, “Find your voice, and put it where it belongs.”

Anyone who watched Ralph’s win can attest that it was one of the truly inspiring moments of the show, and not only because Ralph is only the second Black woman to win an Emmy for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series. (Jackée Harry won two Emmys for that category in the ‘80s for her performance in NBC's 227.) Ralph was truly shocked to win — so shocked that she didn’t get out of her seat until she was helped up by those at her table.

Quinta Brunson, creator and star of Abbott Elementary, for which she also writes and directs, told Seth Meyers that Ralph had been satisfied with her nomination and didn’t expect to win. Brunson speculates that as Ralph remained in her seat, she may have even thought the win was a dream. Yet, standing on that stage, she expressed one of the most inspiring and polished speeches of the night. “I could cry right now, because it was beautiful seeing her be the most herself in that moment too,” Brunson said.

Being seen by Hollywood, 45 years later

Ralph’s ability to wow an audience at the drop of a hat is a testament to her prowess as an actress. She has played Rita in Oliver & Company, Dee Mitchell in Moesha and Deena Jones in Broadway’s Dreamgirls, for which she received a Tony nomination. In an interview with People before the Emmys, Ralph recounted how, while working alongside Robert De Niro, he recognized her talent. And he advised her that Hollywood is not looking for the Black girls, so she had better wave that red flag and let them know she’s here, because she deserves to be seen. Ralph said, 30 years later, with an Emmy nomination, she felt seen.

Even through the industry’s gatekeeping, this year's Emmy night included some notable triumphs for Black women. Lizzo won her first Emmy for best competition series. Zendaya won a second Emmy for lead actress in a drama series. And Brunson won the Emmy for best writing for a comedy series. She is only the second Black woman to win an Emmy in this category, and the first to win it without a writing partner.  

Firsts and seconds like these carry with them a shadow of disappointment, as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) expert Kim Crowder told TriplePundit in an email. The fact that other Black women have not been recognized is a failure of the system. “Sheryl Lee Ralph had her acting debut 45 years ago, and only now has been recognized by the Emmys and is only the second Black woman to win in this category,” Crowder told us. “Her moment was beautiful, and she stood in her power during her acceptance speech. Sadly, this lack of recognition from Hollywood's most prestigious award entities is not uncommon.”

The state of DEI in film and TV

A report from McKinsey & Co. dives into the entertainment industry’s troubles representing Black women, and Black creators in general. “A complex, interdependent value chain filled with dozens of hidden barriers and other pain points reinforces the racial status quo in the industry," the report reads. It identifies about 40 pain points that Black professionals face as they navigate their careers in film and television. 

Black off-screen talent has, for the most part, been responsible for creating opportunities for other Black off-screen talent. In film, those projects tend to have smaller budgets, even though they secure higher earnings per dollar of budget. McKinsey calculates a $10 billion lost revenue opportunity if film and TV don’t correct their racial inequities — a 7 percent increase to the assessed baseline. 

The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, the group that puts on the annual Emmy Awards, has at least taken one notable step toward inclusion. In 2021, the Academy engaged a third party to conduct a DEI-related survey of the organization. The results are staggering. While 92 percent of white male respondents said they felt positive about the academy’s diversity, only 46 percent of Black women and women of color did. The scores for “belonging and inclusion” were similar among Black women and women of color in the industry. 

The analysts were blunt in their assessment. “There appears to be a deep-seated resistance in the Academy’s culture to moving forward, changing the way things have always been done, and creating a new future for television," they wrote.  

Building checks and balances into the entertainment industry’s DEI efforts

Crowder emphasized the significance of simple actions and behaviors. Jimmy Kimmel’s joke, for example, where he was lying on stage during Brunson’s acceptance speech, crossed a line. “It demonstrated how those with privilege through race, gender and socioeconomic status miss why it is important not to center attention on themselves,” she told us.

McKinsey offers some steps of accountability for the entertainment industry. Within these recommendations are checks and balances, such as public transparency about goals, ties to executive bonuses and establishing an independent organization to promote diversity. Beyond the massive revenue boost, McKinsey notes that investing in change will help advance racial equity in broader society. If $10 billion isn’t a motivator, the potential of those externalities certainly should get the engines revving. 

Image credit: Jake Blucker/Unsplash

Physicians prescribe medication and design treatment and therapy plans for their patients based on the most recent clinical trial research available, much of which is utilized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to evaluate safety and efficacy. But how can a provider create equitable, evidence-driven patient plans when large subsets of the population — namely women and people of color — are not equitably represented in clinical research trials?

Across the healthcare landscape in the United States, the quality of care for diverse populations is severely hindered when those same diverse populations are excluded from clinical trials. This absence of representation can create major gaps in treatment. Clinical trials that disproportionately test their products on white males, for example, run the risk of creating a product that may not serve the rest of the patient population as effectively. 

Medical technology company Boston Scientific is among the organizations working to reverse the under-representation of women and people of color, specifically Black patients, in clinical trials. Its aptly named Close the Gap program aims to level the medical playing field. The holistic program touches many pain points to address health inequities, but Boston Scientific Medical Director Dr. Paul Underwood said proper representation in clinical trials is not to be overlooked.

“By promoting clinical research in diverse communities, you’re promoting a higher quality of care in those communities as well,” Dr. Underwood told TriplePundit. “Clinical research allows us to look at practice patterns and understand who’s being treated and who’s not being treated.”

The Phoenix-based clinical physician-turned-medical director said understanding the demographics and epidemiology of patients in a particular ZIP code, for example, can prove to be an extremely useful tool to monitor if the patients enrolling in clinical trials are representative of the populations in that location. 

The approach Boston Scientific has taken through Close the Gap has evolved as the team builds on nearly 20 years of progress. Close the Gap’s team of medical professionals and health equity experts now work directly with clinical teams with the aim of creating a roadmap for achieving diversity in clinical trials, Dr. Underwood said. They’ve built dashboards and datasets with fields for demographic information. As patients are enrolled into trials, Boston Scientific researchers can see this data in real time to understand how sites are progressing with enrolling diverse populations. 

The company is not starting from scratch. Back in 2017, the Boston Scientific-sponsored Platinum Diversity Trial sought to better understand how social, clinical, behavioral, and economic determinants affect quality of care and health outcomes for patients with coronary artery disease. Whereas clinical trials in cardiology have a track record of featuring disproportionately low numbers of women and people of color, the first-of-its-kind Platinum Diversity exclusively studied women and people of color. The study monitored 1,501 patients across 52 sites representing understudied populations, with initial findings released in 2017. "The most vulnerable populations who are at the greatest risk of heart disease are the ones who are being studied in clinical trials the least,” Dr. Underwood, who was part of the study team, said at the time — and despite recent progress, the overall sentiment remains true today. 

More recently, the company launched the ELEGANCE study, an international patient registry and post-market clinical study aiming to enroll no less than 40 percent women and 40 percent underrepresented minorities — specifically Black and Hispanic patients — diagnosed with peripheral artery disease.

Barriers to equity in clinical trials

Medical companies working toward FDA approval of therapies may point to longer trials due to lengthy recruitment periods to assure diversity in the research. But the Platinum Diversity trial myth-busts the notion that recruiting diverse patients prolongs the research process, Dr. Underwood said. On the contrary, he mentioned the thoughtful investigators participating in the trial led to faster recruitment of patients. 

Plainly, diverse populations are often omitted from clinical trials because they are not asked to participate. Whether it’s explicit or implicit bias, women and people of color are too often kept on the sidelines. For example, studies show that when both white and Black patients are asked to participate in a trial, each group’s acceptance rate stands at roughly 50 percent. The difference, of course, is that Black patients are less likely to be asked to join in the first place, Dr. Carmen Guerra, vice chair of diversity and inclusion in the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medicine, recently told Clinical Trials Arena.

In the medical field, bias can also be a two-way street — in other words, participation from Black people and other people of color may be lower because of distrust in the medical system stemming from historic and modern-day racism and inequities seen in the industry. Close the Gap seeks to ameliorate that distrust through everyday awareness raising. Further, the program’s team of medical professionals and health equity experts seek to diversify not only their patient populations, but also the physicians they partner with, the investigators they recruit, and ancillary services like steering committees and core labs. Diversity at every step can help promote a comfortable space for people of color to participate in trials. 

A changing tide: “More eyes looking”

Despite wreaking worldwide devastation, the COVID-19 pandemic was most sharply felt in the United States by communities of color. Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) highlight that Black or African American, Latino, American Indian and Alaska Native people experienced higher rates of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death compared with white populations. This revelation is yet another reminder that health inequities remain prominent today — and thankfully it is attracting more attention.

For his part, Dr. Underwood said he’s seen a “tremendous amount of progress” made in closing the health disparity gap — and he hopes the disparities revealed through the pandemic can help spur more urgent change.

“Now that we have more eyes looking at it and more heads thinking about it, we have a much greater chance of having a meaningful impact than perhaps in the past,” he said.

If companies remain unconvinced of the medical benefits clinical trial diversity can reap for all populations, the financial incentives should grab their attention. Beyond providing more equitable care and treatment options it’s just good business, Dr. Underwood said. “Everybody sees that having diversity is an advantage,” he told us. “Companies that are successful at figuring this out will have a greater impact on the marketplace than those that don’t.”

After all, the FDA through the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) has signaled its prioritization of clinical trial diversity (though the law recommends diversity as opposed to requiring it). If a company can devise a strategy to promote and enhance diverse enrollment, the FDA may be less likely to delay product approval due to inadequate data representation. 

Though Dr. Underwood said he misses caring for patients one-on-one, he calls his transition from practicing cardiologist to medical director “fantastic.” He feels that he, and his company, have a responsibility for people “anywhere in the world,” not just those in his waiting room. “We must challenge ourselves to always be mindful of what can we do as a company to improve diversity, so we can reach all of the people who may have the illness,” he said.  

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

Image courtesy of Boston Scientific

This week the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) launched what it's calling the world's first emissions targets standard for farming, forestry and other kinds of land use. Companies in the forest, land and agriculture sectors must pledge to end deforestation by 2025 to have their targets certified as science-based under the new guidance. They must also commit to reducing their overall emissions and using land-based solutions to sequester carbon. These sectors are responsible for 22 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, the largest sector emitter after energy. 
 
Until now, few companies accounted for land-based emissions in their science-based targets or climate disclosures, largely due to the lack of available guidance. The new SBTi guidance provides land-intensive businesses with the carbon accounting tools necessary to help prevent some of the catastrophic impacts of climate change. 

TriplePundit spoke with Martha Stevenson, senior director of strategy and research at World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and senior advisor for the SBTi, about what makes up the new standard and what business leaders can expect.

“We break down the emissions into two categories: land use change and land management," she explained. "Land use change includes clearing forests and grasslands for new pasture or plantations, and that accounts for 11 percent of emissions globally. Land management, on the other hand, includes the management of livestock, feed, methane, manure, fertilizer application and runoff. It also includes tractors and other farm and forestry equipment.”

Stopping deforestation and land-use change is critical to reducing emissions and slowing climate change, Stevenson said. “Soils could be storing carbons based on a number of things, like how regenerative the land management practices are or releasing carbon if you have significant fire or disease, and those numbers can shift year over year," she told us. 

Christa Anderson, director at WWF and co-lead of the SBTi land-use project, agreed. “The next few years are critical in our efforts to address the climate crisis, and this guidance addresses 22 percent of global emissions that have largely been ignored to date," she told us. "The food, land and agriculture sector has the potential to both cut emissions and enhance carbon sinks at the pace to keep the goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach.”

Certain land-intensive companies that have already committed to science-based targets will be required by SBTi to comply with the new land-use guidelines. Companies that have set emissions reduction targets with SBTi that are also within land-intensive sectors (e.g., food and forestry) or those with land-related emissions that contribute 20 percent or more of their overall emissions will now be required to set targets in accordance with the new standard. 

When asked about the tangible practices that can be immediately implemented to slow emissions, Stevenson said: “The most important thing is to stop land use change. This is what we need most immediately to achieve a 1.5-degree increase in global temperatures. We have to do this rapidly.”

There's also a compelling business case for players in land-intensive sectors to account for their impacts and begin to reduce them. “This is the first time that the companies will be required to set targets from forestry and ag, but a lot of the practices are good for soil health anyway. A lot of the practices are win-wins," Stevenson said. 

The new guidelines provide users with a number of mitigation pathways, most of which are related to deforestation. Additionally, companies are required to both reduce and remove carbon. The removals do not function as offsets, because the companies must also significantly reduce carbon emissions and improve their land-based carbon sinks. The guidance is not prescriptive of how a company removes and reduces carbon, but it does provide strict guidelines regarding how carbon removals can be counted. Stevenson noted that it is critical that carbon accounting is transparent and fair for farmers, foresters and other land-based business operators, and that their rights and opportunities are respected. 


Through the new guidance, SBTi is providing land-intensive companies tools with which to implement climate-smart practices and offering these companies science-based pathways for cutting emissions to ensure that global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.