Search

In my first year on the job as Vice President of Operations at U.S. Rubber, I’ve seen many former felons brought on through our second-chance hiring program blossom. One found new success after an internal reorganization gave him more responsibility — now he’s aiming for the CEO’s job. I’ve watched another flourish in his first job ever and exceed everyone’s expectations, including his own. A third is rising to the trust we’ve placed in him by doing whatever it takes to meet his production goals every day.

These employees and others — formerly incarcerated people make up about 50 percent of our workforce — helped us grow our sustainable fitness flooring and acoustical underlayment business more than 100 percent during the first two years of the pandemic. Based on what we’ve learned through our Bounce Back! program for second-chance hires, I’m convinced other companies could achieve similar results.

What it takes is hiring the right second-chance employees and helping them thrive, and that requires resourcefulness, getting the right human resources help and building strong relationships with institutional partners. 

Be resourceful to find the right people

Second-chance job fairs through local churches, your county office, parole associations or nonprofits are great sources for potential employees. Get to know the staff at local halfway houses, too, as they can help you identify strong candidates among their residents. Goodwill also has great job training and placement resources for people leaving prison.

Government programs may offer tax breaks and other financial incentives. If we hire someone through San Bernardino County’s Prison to Employment (P2E) On the Job training program, for example, the county reimburses us 50 percent of the employee’s salary for their first 90 days of employment.

Once you find a good candidate, act fast. While it’s important to be deliberate about your selection, the rules of a competitive labor market still apply: You must have a sense of urgency and be ready to extend an offer when a good candidate crops up.

Your second-chance hires deserve specialized human resources help

I strongly recommend that every company building a second-chance employment program hire someone with a psychology background who has experience working with justice-involved populations. Our human resources manager, a psychiatric rehabilitation counselor with over 30 years’ experience, has been an invaluable asset.

She screens all candidates before I interview them. Thanks to her prior work with incarcerated people, she knows the right questions to ask to learn what motivates them and whether they have a strong work ethic, which can be hard to discern if they’re applying for their first job.

These screenings are essential to avoid setting ourselves — and candidates who aren’t a good fit — up for failure. It can take 40 days to train someone to operate our machinery, so unsuccessful hires are costly.

Retention is half the battle — relationships with outside partners can help

Strong relationships with institutional partners and outside service providers are a lifeline for formerly incarcerated people, who often leave prison without basic necessities, and for the companies that hire them.

Many of these individuals lack the documentation needed to start a job. They may only have their prison ID because everything else — driver’s license, state ID, social security card, birth certificate — is lost, stolen or expired. In California, CalJOBS can help employees of in-state businesses access their documents.

Most crucial is building a relationship with employees’ probation officers. We had one employee who was forced to quit his job because his parole officer signed him up for a program that he was having trouble getting to after work. We’ve seen several others miss hours due to last-minute mid-day drug tests. These disruptions are counterproductive to people trying to rebuild their lives, and we now require that all employees on probation provide contact information for their parole officer so we can work with them to organize schedules in a way that makes sense.

Resources like United Way’s 211 help line and county P2E services can help with everything else, from transportation to housing, clothing, food and other essentials.

Everybody wants to be heard

I spent the first 34 years of my career climbing the corporate ladder at Enterprise Rent-a-Car, where I mentored and promoted more than 100 employees. While my prior experience didn’t prepare me for building relationships with parole officers, it did teach me a lesson that’s even more important: Every employee, no matter where they come from or what job they’re doing, wants to be heard and appreciated.

My first year on the job has shown me that this is even more true for second-chance employees than for a traditional workforce. Turning a life around after prison takes effort and long-term dedication. Our Bounce Back! employees tell me that formerly incarcerated people often feel like they don’t matter to anyone, which leads to low self-esteem and trouble trusting authority figures.

By nurturing their strengths and talents, you can give formerly incarcerated employees a point of pride to rally around. By listening to them, taking time to get to know them and showing that you appreciate their contributions, you can break down barriers and build a strong, exceptionally loyal team.

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: Jon Tyson via Unsplash

This new Dutch soda has a vibrant turquoise color and is loaded with vitamin C, calcium and B vitamins. Whereas vivid colors in beverages often come from synthetic food dyes, Ful contains spirulina, a blue-green colored algae. This powerful food is full of nutrients, yet spirulina also can have a positive impact on the environment when compared to ingredients in conventional beverages on the market. Ful’s researchers say they have found a way to extract the nutrients without the strong taste.

Ful Revive was developed by a team of women, Julia Streuli, Sara Guagilo and Cristina Prat, each of whom is seeking to do their part to help the globe accelerate its transition toward decarbonization. “We would like to feed a new generation of consumers with healthy, delicious, and low-carbon-footprint products by harnessing the incredible properties of algae,” noted Streuli, the CEO of Ful, who along with the other co-founders were profiled in a recent Blue Ocean Strategy case study.

The co-founders have a different take on the term “superfoods,” a term generally used for foods rich in nutrients. The team at Ful also encourages consumers to examine the impact of foods on the planet, as well as our bodies.

“We found that algae is an ideal food source for the future,” said Guagilo. “Not only is it incredibly nutritious with high protein content and rich in vitamins and minerals, but farming algae is also quite sustainable since it requires neither arable land nor considerable amounts of water to grow. Algae capture CO2 and convert it into O2 – and they grow very fast – taking about ten days in total. In terms of protein yield, algae produce protein 200 times faster than beef.”

The Aztecs first used spirulina to boost endurance, and more recent research has confirmed that claim. Various studies have concluded that it is an antioxidant, an anti-inflammatory, and provides a good source of vegan protein. Further, it has been used to combat malnutrition in impoverished areas. Nevertheless, it has remained a niche product in health food stores and hasn’t found widespread market appeal.

Nevertheless, Ful is setting out to make spirulina a more mainstream product and sees tremendous potential in this superfood. The brand seeks to reach Millennials and Gen Zers by appealing to its products’ health and environmental benefits.

“Based on the carbon negative nature of spirulina, we aim to blur the boundaries of functional drinks by offering a tasty and nutritious natural beverage,” added Guagilo.

However, the beverage market is crowded and has fierce competition. “There are too many different types of drinks. If you want to be healthy, you choose Vitamin Water or organic juice. If you need an energy boost, there’s Red Bull. If you want to hydrate, go for coconut water or Gatorade. Each drink has a specific function for a given event,” explained Julia. However, according to the trio, there are no beverages that really present an environmental benefit, and they believe there is unmet market demand for such products.

The typical environmental considerations for beverages revolve around making packaging less wasteful, lightweight or more readily recyclable. However, Ful’s employees examine the product's lifecycle, starting with examining the production of its ingredients, to make a carbon-negative drink.

This sparkling beverage, Ful Revive, is now available in three flavors: lime & mint, lemon & ginger and white peach. The drinks contain no added sugar and have 7.5 grams of spirulina extract per glass bottle. Although they currently offer only beverages, Ful is exploring other food products.

Co-written with Leon Kaye

Image credits: Selina Bubendorfer via Unsplash; Fulsuperfood.com

Whatever one may think of Tesla and its controversial CEO, the brand certainly set the bar high in the EV (electric vehicle) space. While Tesla continued to roll out sleek cars that won itself a dedicated fan base, automakers here in the U.S. and abroad were forced to play catch-up. In 2021 alone, it wasn’t even close: Tesla’s Model Y and Model 3 were the two best-selling EVs, with the rest of the top 10 sellers not coming anywhere close.

2022 could very well be a repeat of what is less of a race and more of a blowout when it comes to Tesla’s leadership on the EV front, but evidence does suggest the other auto manufacturers are gaining some ground.

One example of a shift is this week’s Consumer Reports announcement of its top picks in the automotive category. While the Model 3 still scores high marks from the venerable consumer ratings organization, this year the popular EV isn’t wearing the crown. For 2022, Consumer Reports’ automobile raters has given the Ford Mustang Mach-E its top overall EV score.

The big difference? Consumer Reports praised the Mach-E for its safety features, notably the systems Ford has included within the Mach-E to boost its overall safety. Ford scored points for its EV’s active driving assistance technology, which warns drivers when their attention isn’t entirely on the road — such as when someone looks at their cell phone or glances away for any other reasons. The Mach-E also won rave reviews for its design, ease of use, reliability and quiet ride.

“Make no mistake, the Model 3 is still a great choice, and Consumer Reports recommends it. It shines with the latest technology, a long range, an impressive charging network, and a driving experience closer to a high-performance sports car than a sedan,” wrote Jeff S. Bartlett. “But the Mustang Mach-E is also very sporty, plus it’s more practical and easier to live with.”

Last fall, TriplePundit predicted that the Mach-E could take on Tesla, notably the latter’s crossover, the Model Y. “… while Tesla has set the industry standard for premium EVs, Ford appears to have stepped up in providing what buyers in this segment have come to expect,” 3p’s Phil Covington wrote in November 2021.

With this news from Consumer Reports, Ford’s multi-billion investment in shifting toward a product line that leads with EVs is so far appearing to be a solid bet.

Image credit: Ford Media Relations

The increasing pressure for companies to decarbonize has left many scrambling to develop new strategies to demonstrate their climate leadership. However, a recent report conducted by the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor has shown that some of the largest companies in the world are misreporting or exaggerating their progress on climate action.

The study was completed by non-profit organizations such as the New Climate Institute and Carbon Market Watch. It assessed how 25 of the largest companies in the world were responding to the climate crisis.

The companies involved in the study have all pledged some form of zero-emissions or net-zero target. They account for 5 percent of all GHG emissions and have reported combined revenues of about $3.2 trillion in 2020. These corporations have the potential to lead us on the climate action front. However, the report shows that the companies commit to reducing their emissions by only 40 percent on average, not 100 percent as suggested by the term “net-zero”. Only three companies (Maersk, Vodafone, and Deutsche Telekom) have committed to a deep decarbonization of over 90 percent of their emissions.

The study was carried out with the attention of discovering good practices in the corporate world, but they were "frankly surprised and disappointed at the overall integrity of the companies,” said Thomas Day in a recent interview with the BBC.

The assessment of these 25 companies included: the tracking and disclosure of emissions, specific and substantial targets that have been set; how they are currently reducing emissions; and finally, if they cannot reduce emissions across all areas, how are they offsetting them.

The companies were given an overall integrity rating which ranged from "high integrity" to "very low integrity." Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Volkswagen received “low integrity” ratings. Maersk was the only company that received a “reasonable integrity” rating and none received a "high integrity" rating. The results don’t necessarily indicate that a company’s climate strategy is weak, but it may indicate that the lack of information provided meant that a good score could not be given. Companies could potentially receive better ratings if they were to be more transparent about their overall carbon emissions.

In an interview with Sam Gooder, the Head of EP&T Global, which specializes in working with companies to reduce their energy consumption and carbon emissions, he said that he was not surprised by the findings from the climate change responsibility monitor. “Unfortunately, sustainability is still a marketing tool and companies don’t want to look bad in front of the public. The laws and regulations surrounding what information companies must disclose about their carbon footprints still have loopholes, so companies can pick and choose what information they reveal."

For example, in 2019, Amazon started the Right Now Climate Fund and invested $100 million into reforestation projects and climate mitigation solutions. While those are sizable investments, analysts have concluded that more work must be done to tackle the company’s direct emissions – a far more difficult task.

That’s a similar challenge confronting larger companies worldwide. According to the New Climate Institute, upstream and downstream emissions within their value chains account on average for 87 percent of total emissions for the 25 companies assessed in this report.

So, can consumers trust that these companies will meet their net-zero targets? “I suspect many of them won't,” said Gooder. “Things have to be done now, not in a few years. Figuring out how to cut a company's downstream and upstream emissions can take years and often involves a very long process. For example, replacing boilers that are used to heat offices and factories can take years to organize. Furthermore, securing the budget to achieve their targets can be very difficult and I fear many will fail to meet their targets due to this.”

Image credit: Nature Design via Pixabay

Leading U.S. automakers have made a sharp pivot into the electric vehicle field in recent years, but in terms of crisis management the focus on zero emissions is not a free pass for bad behavior. A new lawsuit against Tesla Motor Company indicates that a lack of attention to racism and workforce issues can ripple back on brand reputation, regardless of what comes out of the tailpipe.

The case against Tesla

The Tesla lawsuit was widely reported last week, when the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing followed up on a three-year investigation of a Tesla factory in Fremont by filing a civil action against the electric vehicle maker this month. The agency also issued a press release on the matter.

"After receiving hundreds of complaints from workers and a nearly three-year investigation, DFEH found evidence that Tesla operates a racially segregated workplace where Black workers are subjected to racial slurs and discriminated against in job assignments, discipline, pay, and promotion,” DFEH Director Kevin Kish charged in a public statement.

DFEH also alleges that Tesla ignored those who tried to call the company’s attention to the situation.

“In addition to race-based segregation in the terms and conditions of employment, DFEH alleges that Tesla has turned a blind eye to years of complaints from Black workers protesting the near-constant use of racial slurs in the workplace and the presence of racist writing and graffiti in common areas of the workplace, including swastikas and other hate symbols,” DFEH wrote.

Crisis management 101: Fail

National Public Radio was among the many news organizations noting a history of complaints at the Fremont factory dating back practically to the start of operations in 2012, and listing some of the allegations in horrific detail.

“California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) said it attempted to resolve the dispute without litigation at first, which would involve an internal dispute resolution provided by the department, free of charge,” NPR reported, but Tesla reportedly refused to attend a meeting offered last month.

Tesla responded to the filing of the lawsuit by posting a public message on the company blog, on February 9. In terms of crisis management, the strategy underlying the post seems rather odd. Tesla could have simply disputed the allegations in the lawsuit while pledging to take the matter seriously. Instead, the post is a litany of deflection, misdirection and misplaced victimhood.

Who is the audience?

The strategy behind the blog post is actually not such a mystery. It is not a signal meant to calm Tesla investors and other financial stakeholders. It is a message to Tesla fans, a set of talking points to be chatted up on social media regardless of whether or not they are relevant to the case, or factual at all.

For example, at the beginning of the post Tesla describes itself as “the last remaining automobile manufacturer in California,” implying that its unique status should provide it with special consideration. That is clearly irrelevant to the charges filed by DFEH.

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

Tesla also emphasizes that the Fremont electric vehicle factory “has a majority-minority workforce.” That may be so, but the company provides no indication of whether or not minorities have had equal representation, let alone majority representation, as executives, managers, or supervisors at the time of the allegations.

Similarly, Tesla raises the point that it “provides the best paying jobs in the automotive industry to over 30,000 Californians.” Tesla does not specify whether or not “best paying” applies to jobs on the factory floor where the alleged behavior took place, or to managerial positions at the factory, or to other high paying positions at its headquarters and other offices.

Tesla raises the job creation angle a second time, arguing that DFEH should be working with the company instead of suing it, “especially because the allegations focus on events from years ago.”

That line of argument may make sense to Tesla fans, who are willing to make any excuse for their favorite car. However, time does not erase crime. The appeal to a timeline is just another non sequitur, unless Tesla also shows that the statute of limitations has run out on the charges.

Hyperbole on decarbonization

The blog post reaches for pure hyperbole when it references Tesla’s impact on decarbonization.

“No company has done more for sustainability or the creation of clean energy jobs than Tesla,” the company states. However, any mass transit company or bicycle manufacturer can arguably do “more for sustainability” than any manufacturer of high-end passenger cars, zero-emission or not.

The reference to clean energy jobs is even less convincing, considering the activity in the U.S. wind and solar industries generated by the Renewable Energy Buyers Association and other corporate-led clean power associations.

If the clean energy argument is a reference to Tesla’s acquisition of the residential solar installer SolarCity in 2016, it still doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The biggest solar installer in the U.S. is Sunrun.

Doing good is not a free pass

After laying out this list of talking points, the blog post does get around to addressing the lawsuit itself. The gist of its argument is that previous investigations by DFEH that have not resulted in charges of misconduct. However, that is a somewhat disingenuous take. Tesla refers to “almost 50” DFEH investigations that closed in recent years without a finding of misconduct. If the number was 500 it would still be irrelevant to the allegations in this particular lawsuit.

The blog concludes by circling around to the main talking point, which is the idea that a company that has “done so much good for California” should not be targeted for prosecution.

It is true that big companies like Tesla often leverage their economic clout for favorable outcomes in court. Still, job creation is not a magic shield to offset crimes. Tesla can easily win hearts and minds among its fan base but convincing a court of law is going to take some work.

New options for electric vehicle buyers

Tesla will also face an additional challenge as the lawsuit unspools. Until now, other leading U.S. automakers have failed to challenge Tesla in the electric vehicle space. In 2016 General Motors tried with the all-electric Bolt, but car buyers did not latch on to the unfamiliar name – or other models – in any great numbers.

That started to change two years ago, when Ford achieved an instant hit with an electric version of its iconic Mustang brand, followed by an all-electric version of its popular F-150 pickup truck. In the coming years, electric car buyers can pick and choose among some of the best-known names in U.S. automotive history for zero-emission mobility.

Getting serious about crisis management

Virtually all large companies generate controversy over labor issues at some point. Tesla still has plenty of time to address new competition in the electric vehicle field and appeal to car buyers outside of its comfort zone, which currently skews white, male and Republican.

However, it is going to take real effort, not just a set of talking points, for Tesla to retain its status as the top electric vehicle maker in the U.S in the coming years. The Fremont plant has been a sore point for labor advocates, and Tesla’s anti-union stance puts the company at a disadvantage in an era when younger workers are rediscovering the power of unionization.

To make matters worse, the media spotlight continues to focus attention on the tax avoidance habits of Tesla CEO Elon Musk. His social media habits are also not helping. Musk routinely mocks President Biden on Twitter, and he recently praised the ongoing right wing extremist protests that have erupted in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada.

If Tesla is serious about damage control, the company could start by dropping the attempt to paint itself as a do-gooder, and stop undermining the commander-in-chief as the nation faces the prospect of all-out war in Europe along with the threat of violent right wing extremism at home.

Image credit: Martin Geiger via Unsplash

In the weeks following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, many companies said they would “stand by” the Black community and pledged to ramp up their DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) hiring efforts. But as time went on, ongoing evidence suggested that companies have curbed such work — one factor driving the “Great Resignation.” The message many Black Americans have received is that if they are going to experience true social change, such messages from large organizations rang hollow, so they need to take on such challenges on their own.

Almost two years after those promises were made, our friends at Just Capital recently released their own research to gauge the current state of DEI data and disclosure. The results are mixed: On one hand, companies are more transparent than they were in 2021, but the U.S. public believes companies aren’t matching their deeds with actions.

Bottom line: People of color are still waiting to be shown the receipts for the $50 billion that companies say that they’ve committed to DEI pledges.

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

So, where’s the progress? Just Capital’s researchers found that based on the most recent data, 55 percent of companies in the Russell 1,000 disclosed some form of DEI data as of September 2021. That’s up significantly from 32 percent in January 2021.

Meanwhile, in September of last year, 11 percent of these companies released their EEO-1 Reports or intersectional data, both of which Just Capital describes as the “gold standard” in demographic reporting. That’s a jump from 4 percent a year earlier.

Yes, those are steps forward, but as Just Capital sums up the efforts, “The data exists, it’s just a matter of sharing it publicly.”

As far as industries that are moving forward faster on such disclosures, they include the utilities, oil and gas, and the financial sector — the latter two especially when it comes to the public release of their EEO-1 or intersectional data reports. 

The financial industry in particular has had the fastest growth in disclosure rates, according to Just Capital’s survey.

Laggards? Basic materials (as in companies that develop and process raw materials), technology, healthcare, industrials and consumer goods still have some catching up to do.

Even if companies don’t believe they have a moral or ethical obligation to do more to ensure everyone has a fair shot in building a career within the private sector, there are pragmatic reasons for pushing ahead such efforts — for example, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is heavily leaning toward that direction, as is Nasdaq. And, as we’ve regularly covered here on TriplePundit, there is an economic case for building a company that looks like the America of the 2020s.

“Disclosing workforce and board demographics is an important step for companies to jumpstart or even refine their DEI initiatives. By doing so, they provide a baseline to track progress and a method to hold themselves accountable to improving diverse representation,” wrote Just Capital’s Kavya Vaghul, lead author of the report. “And, as the rise in calls for transparency has shown, they’re elements stakeholders are increasingly looking for from corporate America.”

Image credit: Mikelya Fournier via Unsplash

The energy sector’s path to net zero is complicated. As other markets electrify their operations to wean off fossil fuels, the increased load on an already transitioning (and aging) power grid adds to the technological challenges for reaching a 100 percent clean energy economy. 

This conundrum is clear to those in the industry. Of the nearly 500 power sector stakeholders surveyed for the 2021 Black & Veatch Electric Report, 75 percent claimed they are directing capital toward clean energy and renewables, although only 10 percent believe the 100 percent clean generation model has been validated. 

The energy sector’s willingness to pursue decarbonization without knowing how to get to the finish line — or even where it is — signals a reassuring dedication. As the market moves onward into the clean energy transition, this dedication will be crucial to successfully incorporating the diverse mix of technologies we will need to form an energy market that can successfully support a net-zero emissions future. 

Three limiting factors that influence clean energy growth

A successful United States’ clean energy transition will involve the proliferation and integration of renewable energy sources. As outlined in Black & Veatch’s report, industry leaders believe that high cost, technological shortfalls and limitations in the transmission infrastructure hamper domestic renewable energy growth (Figure 1).

Despite a dramatic decrease over the last decade, the cost of energy from some renewable sources is still high. Renewables have also been subject to cost fluctuations related to political factors and current events. Such is the case of supply chain disruptions linked to COVID-19 and tariffs on imported goods, such as solar cells and modules coming from China. 

A key current technological shortfall is the lack of cost-effective, long-term, clean energy storage options to enable seasonal load shifting. Another critical shortfall is the limitation of the power grid and other infrastructure to handle increasing stressors with resilience and reliability. 

Infrastructure limitations impede the adequate transmission and distribution of available, low-cost energy to the areas that need it. This happens, for example, when a solar field located in the desert is generating large amounts of electricity but there is no practical way to get it to an area with high demand. 

Barrier entanglement

High costs, technological shortfalls and limitations in the transmission infrastructure are entangled. A full solution to one cannot be achieved unless the others are addressed as well. Take cost, for example, which is often intertwined with technological shortfalls. To tackle the intermittent nature of solar and wind generation, energy storage technologies are needed to fill in the gaps. Green hydrogen storage is a potential solution, but its limited market scale contributes to making it cost-prohibitive for many operations. 

Technological shortfalls and cost also intersect in the massive upgrades to the power grid required to overcome the limitations in the current transmission infrastructure. Upgrading the grid is extremely expensive, and potential solutions like distributed energy storage are not yet at scale.  

Creating solutions

In the search for answers to accelerate the clean energy transition, we must remember that success in finding effective, lasting solutions will require a case-by-case approach. 

The technologies that will enable a net-zero economy will include wind and solar generation, hydropower and geothermal energy, battery energy storage, nuclear power, hydrogen and technologies we haven’t yet created. But none of these is a one-size-fits-all solution. 

Take energy storage, for example. A utility that desires energy storage for use in frequency regulation, will require fast and frequent discharge, would likely look to lithium-ion battery storage. The costs of lithium-ion batteries have decreased considerably over the past years. 

In a situation where energy storage is needed over many days, battery storage may not be the best choice. In this case, a solution like green hydrogen may be the better option. Geographical concerns also come into play. In an area situated on a slope, pumped-hydro — where water is pumped uphill, stored in a reservoir, and released when needed, generating electricity as it comes back down — may prove a good option.  

Diversifying the response

Each question posed by the transition to clean energy has a unique answer that often involves multiple technologies. In the desert, solar photovoltaic generation may be the technology of choice, while wind may be the better solution for the Great Plains. Renewable hydrogen may work well to leverage some to the existing transportation infrastructure, while nuclear offers the potential of a low overall carbon output. 

Thus, successful approaches to clean energy solutions should be technology agnostic, and each situation will have its own unique response. 

Addressing the challenges to clean energy transition will not be easy or simple. Overcoming the cost barriers to renewable energy growth, developing the new technologies required, and overhauling the transmission infrastructure, will require massive investment and dedication. Choosing to explore the full range of solutions at our disposal can mitigate all three, smoothing the transition to our net-zero economy.

Image credit: tope007/Adobe Stock

The U.S. Department of Defense has been drawing attention to climate change as a significant national security threat for years, so it’s no surprise that the Department of the Army has organized its climate action steps into an organized strategy with a net zero goal. The surprise consists in the degree to which military concerns mirror those of business stakeholders, providing a strong new platform for accelerating private sector decarbonization.

A net zero plan for the U.S. Army

The branches of the U.S. Armed Services have already become early adopters of new – and old – decarbonization technologies to varying degrees.

The money has been adding up. In 2011 Pew Research released a study calculating that the U.S. Department of Defense increased its clean energy investments from just $400 million in 2006 to $1.2 billion in 2009. Pew estimated that DoD was on track to spend than $10 billion annually by 2030.

The Army is a good example of the range of clean tech ventures undertaken by the U.S. military in recent years. Though the Army has been cautious in the area of electric vehicles, in recent years it has made significant investments in efficiency upgrades as well as renewable energy, microgrids, LEED construction standards, alternative fuels and fuel efficiency. Workforce education and the creation of an “energy informed culture” are also part of the endeavor.

Considering the urgency of climate action, a more aggressive approach is warranted. In 2020 the U.S. Air Force set a high bar by announcing carbon-negative status as the ultimate goal for all branches of the Armed Services.

Somewhat less ambitiously, but perhaps more realistically, the new Army Climate Strategy focuses on a 50 percent cut in the Army’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to a baseline of 2005, towards the goal of net zero by 2050.

Validation for business leaders

Many leading U.S. corporations have been pursuing decarbonization, especially in the area of renewable energy investment, only to be frustrated by the power of fossil energy stakeholders to hold up state and federal legislation that would fast track decarbonization.

The Army Climate Strategy supports corporate clean power advocates by outlining the consequences of inaction as a matter of national security. Moreover, the document draws a climate change picture that applies to the private sector as well as to the U.S. military.

“The effects of climate change have taken a toll on supply chains, damaged our infrastructure, and increased risks to Army Soldiers and families due to natural disasters and extreme weather,” the Army Climate Strategy explains, painting a scenario familiar to any business impacted by the latest round of storms and power outages.

Supporting all workers

The Army began drawing a strong connection between climate change and workforce impacts even before developing the Climate Strategy.

By 2016, Army strategists were taking note of training grounds and facilities rendered unusable by climate-related weather events, and the loss of training days due to extreme heat, dust, or both. The Climate Strategy expands that thought to emphasize employee health as well as operational impacts.

“The Army must prepare for potential consequences including energy and water scarcity; damage to installations and infrastructure; displacement of and disruptions to operations, supply chains, and logistics; and imperiled Soldier health through exposure to airborne irritants like smoke and dust, disease vectors, and temperature extremes,” the Climate Strategy warns.

How business leaders can support the Army Climate Strategy

The Climate Strategy lists three key areas of action that provide additional validation for private sector efforts on climate action.

One is the familiar area of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from facilities and grounds, while also adapting infrastructure to improve resilience.

Another action area provides for workforce training regimens that take inevitability of an altered climate into account. That area should send a strong signal to any remaining climate “skeptics” who continue to ignore the science.

The third area deals with procurement, and this is where private sector advocacy on net zero efforts could make a difference.

The Climate Strategy is clear on the Army’s responsibility to clean up greenhouse gas emissions related to its operations, but it is not as straightforward in dealing with the ripple impacts of producing goods and providing services for the Army.

A summary of the Climate Strategy simply states that “Acquisition & Logistics will increase operational capability while reducing sustainment demand and strengthening climate resilience.”

In contrast, private sector stakeholders have begun to prioritize supply chain and lifecycle impacts in their climate action and net zero strategies, including ethical sourcing as well as environmental impacts. Many are also deploying evidence-based tools through the Science Based Targets initiative and the UN Global Compact.

Just as the Army’s interest in climate action can support and validate private sector efforts, businesses that are leading on climate action can leverage their experience to advocate for a more holistic and effective Army Climate Strategy.

Image credit: U.S. Army via Facebook

New legislation that describes a long-awaited rescue plan for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) recently passed the House of Representatives, and now the bill heads to the Senate. If House Resolution 3076 becomes law, it will help provide businesses with a more reliable, transparent and efficient platform for conducting commerce. However, considering the value corporate leaders place on decarbonizing their operations, the absence of a robust plan for fleet electrification sticks out like a sore thumb.

What is wrong with the USPS?

The USPS has been challenged in recent years by the rise of electronic communications and for-profit delivery companies, including those associated with e-commerce operations. This evolving landscape, though, is just one among several bottom-line issues confronting the Postal Service.

One of those issues is the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Signed into law by former president George W. Bush, the 2006 law requires the USPS to pre-pay retiree health care costs over a timeline extending 50 years or more. The long pre-payment timeline is widely viewed as burdensome and unique among all government agencies and private corporations. Though not solely responsible for ongoing financial difficulties at the Postal Service, the pre-payment requirement bears at least some responsibility.

The fleet electrification opportunity

The new legislation is aimed at easing the financial pressure. Among other elements, it provides for operational updates that will enable the USPS to benefit from new revenue streams.

One of the areas not updated by H.R. 3076 is the fuel that powers the Postal Service’s delivery vehicles. That comes under new a contract for delivery vehicles, issued by the Postal Service just last year.

Replacing the USPS fleet is long overdue. It is dominated by the “Long Life Vehicle” (LLV) local delivery truck produced by Grumman beginning in the 1980s, and now those vehicles are limping towards the end of their lifespans.

As a purpose-built vehicle tailored to post office specifications, the LLV represented a cost-saving improvement over previous Postal Service procurement policy, which relied on Jeeps and other off-the-shelf vehicles. As the name suggests, the LLV savings was largely thanks to the extended lifespan of the vehicles. Unfortunately, in recent years the LLV has come under fire for being out of date, the absence of airbags and air conditioning, being among the most serious shortcomings.

The new contract provides the Postal Service has a golden opportunity to update delivery truck features and catch the fleet electrification trend, too – or not, as the case may be.

The fleet electrification failure

Unfortunately for fleet electrification advocates, the new contract barely scratches the EV surface. The multi-year deal engages the longtime defense suppler Oshkosh Defense to produce up to 165,000 new vehicles, with only 10 percent estimated to deploy battery-electric technology.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has indicated that additional EVs could be forthcoming, if Congress approves additional funding to cover the higher up-front costs. Still, his failure to prioritize electrification has come under withering fire from fleet electrification advocates. Though EVs generally cost more than conventional vehicles up front, the fuel and maintenance savings add up over the years.

Competing deliver fleets are already beginning to electrify, and some are taking steps to ensure access to an ample supply of EVs by cementing relationships with auto manufacturers.

That includes Amazon, which has invested in the EV startup Rivian, and UPS, which established a partnership with the EV manufacturer Arrival in 2020.

In an interesting twist, DeJoy has reportedly owned stock in UPS and at least two other electrification-friendly firms in the delivery services field.

That includes the company XPO Logistics, which began a fleet electrification pilot program involving several Daimler battery-electric heavy duty trucks last year. The program is aimed at helping Daimler refine its EVs for widespread adoption, in addition to informing XPO’s own fleet electrification plans.

Next steps for a cleaner USPS vehicle fleet

H.R. 3076 enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the House, along with the support of labor unions and DeJoy himself, so its chances of passing the Senate seem good.

Meanwhile, some members of Congress have been taking DeJoy’s request for additional EV funding to heart. Last May, Representative Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts District 10 sponsored H.R. 3521, the Postal Service Electric Fleet Authorization Act of 2021. The bill would authorize $8 billion in funding for new EVs. Representative Jared Huffman of California District 2 also introduced the Postal Vehicle Modernization Act of 2021 (H.R. 1636) would make EV acquisition a requirement, contingent on $6 billion in funding.

Even if extra funding is not forthcoming, additional pressure from fleet electrification advocates – including President Joe Biden – could motivate the Postal Service to work with Oshkosh Defense on including more EVs in the current contract.

Oshkosh Defense has already stated that its new Postal Service delivery vehicle is designed to accommodate both internal combustion engines and fleet electrification into account, depending on which direction DeJoy wishes to go.

Lower operation and maintenance costs for EVs, along with falling up-front costs, should also help make the case for electrification over fossil energy. The current fuel price spike also underscores the additional bottom line disadvantage of continuing to rely on the fossil energy supply chain.

Business stakeholders can help motivate action on a more ambitious fleet electrification program for the Postal Service, by contacting their elected representatives and advocating decarbonization as part and parcel – so to speak – of a comprehensive effort to restore the Postal Service to long-term financial stability.

Image credit: Diego De Alba via Unsplash

The growing trucker protests across Canada finally elicited a public response from three leading U.S. business organizations last week. The business message came after a group of protestors in Canada blocked a key bridge to the U.S., causing a significant disruption in trade between the two countries. The words were chosen carefully, and they express an awareness that right-wing extremists – and their vehicles – pose a real and growing threat to commercial interests here in the U.S.

U.S. business leadership speaks out on trucker protests

The bridge in question is the Ambassador Bridge, a key commercial route linking the U.S. and Canada between Detroit and Windsor. Protestors began blocking the Canadian side of the bridge last Monday, as part of a rippling series of trucker protests originating with a convoy that began occupying downtown Ottawa at the end of January.

U.S. business organizations were silent as long as the Ottawa protest stayed in Ottawa, but the Ambassador Bridge action was cause for alarm. In a joint statement, the U.S. Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers urged President Biden to work with the Canadian government “to act swiftly to address “the disruption to the flow of trade.”

“The disruptions we are seeing at the U.S.-Canada border…are adding to the significant supply chain strains on manufacturers and other businesses in the United States,” they explained, adding that “the North American economy relies on our ability to work closely together.”

“We appreciate that the Biden Administration is engaged with the Canadian government, and we strongly encourage officials to continue efforts to resolve these blockages at the border,” they emphasized.

Finally, common sense on the right-wing extremist threat

Despite the bland wording, the use of language like “flow of trade,” and “blockages at the border” and “North American economy” is significant. To the extent that the trucker protests are associated with right-wing extremism, the joint statement sends a clear message. Business leaders are finally recognizing that right-wing extremists have the will, and the ability, to disrupt commercial interests on a multinational level.

The joint statement frames the Ambassador Bridge occupation as a matter that rises above the responsibility of local law enforcement. It is a matter of national significance, requiring aggressive action from elected officials at the highest levels of government.

Warning signs on right-wing extremism

As for the association between the Ambassador Bridge blockaders and right-wing extremism, warning signs have been flashing red for weeks.

As widely reported, the bridge occupation is an outgrowth of the “Freedom Convoy” that has occupied downtown Ottawa, Canada's capital, since late January.

The convoy began to gather steam after a GoFundMe account was posted on January 14, in support of Canadian truck drivers upset over COVID-19 vaccine mandates. However, the Canadian Trucking Alliance disavowed the convoy early on.

In a strongly worded statement issued on January 22, CTA pointed out that the “vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated.”  CTA also emphasized that it “does not support and strongly disapproves of any protests on public roadways, highways, and bridges.”

“… what is not acceptable is disrupting the motoring public on highways and commerce at the border,” the organization warned.

Follow the money

On January 27, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network addressed the involvement of right-wing extremists in the Freedom Convoy head on, issuing a report under the headline, “The ‘Freedom Convoy’ Is Nothing But A Vehicle For The Far Right.”

“They say it is about truckers, and have raised over $6 million dollars on GoFundMe. But if you look at its organizers and promoters, you’ll find Islamophobia, antisemitism, racism, and incitements to violence,” the Anti-Hate Network alleged.

In support of the Anti-Hate Network’s analysis, multiple news reports have taken note of Nazi flags and other far-right symbols among the occupants joining the trucker protests.

Given that backdrop, it is not surprising that practically all of the Freedom Convoy participants are white, even though people of color, including South Asians, make up approximately 25 percent of Canada’s 300,000 truckers.

Follow the money from Ottawa to the Ambassador Bridge

Organizers and supporters of the Ottawa occupation and other trucker protests across Canada have encouraged similar actions to take place in Canada and elsewhere. The money appears to be following, with a hefty assistance from donors outside of Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has claimed that approximately half of the Freedom Convoy GoFundMe donations are coming from U.S. donors. The account ballooned to more than $8 million before GoFundMe shut it down for violating its terms of service.

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

Supporters of the protest quickly pivoted to the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo, raising $3.5 million in just two days. A preliminary analysis by CTV News indicates that more than half of those donors are from the U.S.

Evidently those funds have been deployed on behalf of the Ambassador Bridge occupation. On February 11 a judge in Canada blocked access to the GiveSendGo account, on the request of the Ontario government.

It has already happened here, and it will happen again

Rumors of Canadian-style trucker blockades have already begun swirling around the U.S. If and when such actions take place, it will not be the first time.

The U.S. has been just one step away from a Canadian-style infrastructure blockade for years. Right-wing extremists in this country have had ample practice in organizing their vehicles for disruption, most recently in the form of the notorious “Trump Train” convoys of pickup trucks and SUVs that dominated the headlines during the 2020 presidential election cycle.

Supporters of U.S. blockades are already getting ample publicity, as U.S Senator Rand Paul and other Republican legislators in the U.S. are openly advocating for extremists to shut down entire cities with their vehicles.

Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and other high-profile personalities associated with right-wing extremism are also primed to support blockades in the U.S, just as they did as the Freedom Convoy got under way.

Ominous signs of international foul play

Social media will play a key role in rallying participants for ongoing trucker protests, and that is where the Canadian protests take on broader significance.

Publicity to solicit participation in the convoy through Facebook has been traced to multiple fake accounts and overseas sources. Facebook took down “dozens” of accounts by February 7, but it is a simple matter for others to pop up and rally support for blockades in the U.S.

On February 11, Grid News, a news organization founded by Washington, D.C. journalists, reported that “a Bangladeshi firm appears to have played a key role in promoting the Ottawa protest online.” Grid News further stated that it has uncovered “increasing evidence of fringe conspiracies and violent extremism throughout the movement.”

NBC News has also reported growing momentum for protests in the U.S., assisted by Facebook accounts associated with “content mills” in several countries overseas including Vietnam, Romania and Bangladesh.

Two NATO members in one blow

Coincidentally or not, Canada’s status as a founding member of NATO looms large during the disruptions fomented by the trucker protests, considering that Europe and Russia are on a wartime footing.

The actions in Canada have also disrupted the economy of another, more powerful NATO founder, the U.S.

The Ambassador Bridge is the busiest land crossing in North America. It is a vital supply chain route for the U.S. auto industry and many others. The fact that it took little more than a handful of pickup trucks and SUVs to bring all that commerce to a halt finally seems to have awakened U.S. businesses to scope of the threat.

As of this writing, rumors of a series of protests on Super Bowl Sunday appear to have fizzled, but the Department of Homeland Security is drawing attention to the potential for a nationwide convoy and blockade movement in March.

That timeline provides business leaders with an opportunity craft a more forceful, urgent message against the blockades. However, much more is needed. Years of inaction have fostered a political environment ripe for state sanctioned, violent right-wing extremism, with the help of lax gun laws and the suppression of voting rights.

The web of tolerance for race based, right-wing extremist violence has deep roots in the U.S. and unraveling it will be a monumental task. Business leaders who really profess to care about national security and American democracy can start by taking vigorous, aggressive action against those who deploy vehicles as weapons, including their own employees, vendors, contractors and clients.

Image credit: Naomi Mckinney via Unsplash