Search

Steep hills, cobblestone streets, basalt-and-limestone paved sidewalks — not to mention rich food and pastries plus the free-flowing wine that would make anyone leery of riding anything with two wheels — the first impression traipsing about Lisbon is that micromobility would hardly be an option for getting around Portugal’s capital.

An introduction to micromobility in Lisbon

But the truth about micromobility options within Lisbon (and other cities in Portugal) is that electric scooters, bicycles (thanks to Gira) and e-bikes help make Lisbon not only a joy to explore but are a step forward for sustainable living, commuting and the notion of “smart cities.” The ease of hopping a scooter or bike complements investments the city’s added investments in public transportation — not to mention that ridesharing companies like Uber and Bolt make hailing an electric car in Lisbon and Porto as convenient as booking a diesel- or gasoline-fueled car.

Investments in upgrading the city’s infrastructure are among the many factors that have helped Lisbon rebound from the depths it hit during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Since then, the city has embarked on an aggressive transportation strategy, and results include grant after grant coming from the European Union, with funds earmarked for projects such as the city’s expanding subway system or modernizing its iconic tram network.

Included in this revival has been the arrival of scooters and bicycles across the city. The transition was not necessarily easy. As was the case of cities across the pond here in the U.S., Lisbon endured its share of scooter chaos, and the companies that provided such services in turn were paying a steady stream of fines as their wares were discarded across city sidewalks.

Your micromobility adventure: Here's where to start

Ground zero for experiencing Lisbon’s scooter culture is at Praça do Comércio, which itself symbolizes the city’s transformation. As recently as the 1980s the public square, which faces the Tagus River, was used as a parking lot. Nearby is a subway station and commuter rail station.

At first, the appearance of all these scooters could be cringeworthy to those who define micromobility as hailing a taxi. Yes, there are ample views of awkward visitors finding their balance on a scooter, a vision that makes any sight of your parents and grandparents slithering on a Segway tour appear as graceful swans.

But a trip aboard a scooter to explore more of Lisbon demonstrates how these services have become a vital part of the city’s transport system. TriplePundit tested out the system to reach some out-of-the-way venues and can vouch that despite the city’s terrain, micromobility in Lisbon certainly works, and works well.

Several companies offer scooters across this city of 540,000. The ones with the largest presence are Bird, Bolt, Lime and Link. Most charge similar fees: one euro or even less to unlock, and then anywhere from 10 to 25 cents a minute thereafter. At the time 3p was visiting, Bolt was taking an aggressive stance on pricing: Unlocking costs nothing, and the ride was about 10 cents a minute; some of our rides were further discounted. All offered some kind of promise that the more you rode, you more you saved.

If you’re visiting and are relying on your phone plan’s roaming option, that will affect which of these services could work for you. For us, Bolt turned out to be the easiest option. Link was somewhat of a challenge to scan and unlock; the same went for Lime. Bird, which appeared to have its scooters everywhere (and appeared to have the most sturdy ones at that), was a service we had no luck with unlocking — again, to be clear, hardly the fault of Bird as we were relying on our cheap-ass U.S.-based free yet clunky data roaming plan.

The fun — and occasional fright — started once we left Praça do Comércio and ventured to relatively far-off neighborhoods such as Belém or sites such as the Museu Nacional do Azulejo (the national tile museum — yes, there’s a such thing, and considering how important tiles are to Portugal’s aesthetic, it’s a must-visit).

Micromobility in Lisbon, as is the case with just about any city, is largely dependent on bike lanes. Compared to other European cities such as Amsterdam or Stockholm, or an ocean away in New York or Bogotá, Lisbon’s bike lane network is limited. Much of that can be attributed to its hilly terrain and the fact that despite the city’s redesign after the 1755 earthquake, many of its winding streets are great for post card shots, but not necessary for cycling. Depending on the source cited, scooting around on sidewalks is frowned upon in the least and worthy of a traffic violation at worst, but we saw plenty of locals zooming along cobblestone streets and Lisbon’s lovely Portuguese pavement-laden sidewalks. If you do decide to brave the cobblestone or tiled sidewalks, consider a mouth guard depending on your level of tolerance for your teeth chattering.

Achieving that last kilometer

Nevertheless, based on the number of workers we saw in suits — not to mention the plethora of skater bros (and some skater gals) — scooters and other mobility options have become a thing for locals, not only for those visiting with a passport. In fact, some of the scooter acrobatics were as breathtaking as they were goosebump-inducing. Bottom line: We found the scooters to be a cost-effective and timely method of transport, whether we scooted on bike lanes under the city’s 25 de April bridge (built by the same company that constructed the Golden Gate Bridge), that aforementioned museum, or completing errands out and about the Campo Pequeno neighborhood with a spin around that city’s bullring for good measure.

Not that scooters are always easy to hire and fire...

There is one caveat to the ease of exploring Lisbon by scooter: parking. Finding a place to bid adieu to a scooter was almost comical. While parking a Bolt or Link scooter proved to us to be a relatively seamless process, the same did not go for Lime — probably because we all know the howls of protest and disgust Lime generated here in the U.S. a few years back, where images of them strewn about sidewalks led some to be tossed into bodies of water.

It was clear Lime was extraordinarily cautious in averting any fines or nasty letters from local authorities. Parking near a subway station or bus stop, next to row of Link or Bolt scooters, was an unlucky proposition. Hilariously, parking a Lime scooter next to another Lime scooter, or two or five, also proved to be a frustrating task. To Lime’s credit, an exasperated email complaining about a ride’s charge generated by time wasted on parking more than moving from point A to B was answered with a full refund.

In fact, at one point, the frustration with parking led to an unfortunate event at a pharmacy, where we had to schedule a COVID-19 test to return home. Agitated at repeated failures to park the scooter, 3p decided to just park (we couldn’t pause) the scooter and pay by the minute with a side of constant glances to prevent a theft. That epically failed: The result was a young woman nabbing the scooter for a joyride into a cobblestone-laden alley which soon ended once that passage turned uphill. The outcome was a spat akin to a D-grade Charlie’s Angels scene, which included an awkward chase, shouts, curse words, evil laughs, an aborted face slap, pulled hair and a bloodied knee. The lesson learned is to park the scooter, try to interpret the app’s parking maps in the sunlight’s glare as best as possible, and never, ever leave your scooter unattended.

Other than that sad chapter, micromoblity absolutely works in Lisbon, as it should in any city located on flat land with even pavement. In fact, the scooters and bikes made the visit far better.

Images via Leon Kaye

Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced it was rescinding a rule dating from the Donald Trump administration that ended up preventing retirement plan administrators from considering climate change and other ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors when deciding upon 401(k) and other retirement plans. A boon for ESG funds could soon follow.

According to at least one analyst, not only are such managers now allowed to weigh ESG as a factor in selecting funds, but it could also become their fiduciary duty to do so. The rule change could also permit ESG investing to become available to more than 100 million workers, as stated in an emailed statement from the nonprofit Ceres.

The DOL’s decision comes in the wake of a May executive order that instructed the entire federal government to deploy policies designed to safeguard businesses, workers and families from climate-change related financial risks.

To be clear, the Trump White House did not outright ban ESG investing within employee retirement plans. But what the rule did accomplish, said many critics of the policy, was deter companies from offering more sustainable financial products such as ESG-indexed funds on the menu of retirement options in order to prevent any potential litigation from employees. According to Nasdaq, at last count less than 3 percent of company retirement plans include any form of ESG-indexed or socially conscious funds.

Advocates of socially conscious investing said such decisions on the role ESG funds could have in helping workers plan for retirement have been shortsighted.

Overall, 2020 was a banner year for ESG funds, as many performed better than the equity markets at large. Meanwhile, these same funds witnessed record inflows, as shown by recent data released by Morningstar. 2021 so far has shown mixed results depending on the source cited. One year’s bull can be another year’s flatline or, in the worst case, a bear market. One analyst at Bloomberg sneered at the idea, saying more ESG funds have underperformed than over-performed the rest of the market so far this year.

But investors looking at the long term, particularly those saving for retirement, understand that a year of growth can follow with a year of hard knocks, but that’s the market. 401(k) and IRA investments, if managed well, can result in a secure retirement and help families build intergenerational wealth. It's just that now, investors want to make sure their dollars are tied to companies that aren't disastrous when it comes to the environment, protect workers and have fair hiring practices.

In any event, investors are increasingly buying into planning their retirements through an ESG lens. A Kiplinger-Domini poll released last week showed that 70 percent of investors say a company’s ESG performance is very or somewhat important when they make long-term financial decisions. Four in 10 say they’ve bought ESG-indexed stocks or funds, two-thirds of millennials have made such investments, and overall 8 in 10 believe they will add ESG investments to their portfolios during the next year or two. And more than half of investors say the recent news about the environment and climate change risks are what is primarily driving such decisions.

Another report from RBC Global Asset Management, also issued last week, found a similar sentiment from investors worldwide. Around 40 percent of investors aren’t satisfied with the range of ESG funds currently available to them and seek even more options. Any stubborn beliefs that sustainability means an inferior investment have largely dissipated: More than 80 percent of these investors believe ESG funds can do just as well, if not better, than indexed funds overall — and over 70 percent said they use ESG principles to help guide long-term financial decisions.

To be clear, the decision to invest in ESG funds involves more research than simply funneling one’s money into a fund that has “ESG” in its title. There are criticisms, which are fair, that reiterate that a company can be completely transparent about its performance, while being a major polluter or saboteur of human rights, and still be included within an ESG-indexed fund. On the flip side, a company may perform well on the environment, internal governance or the socially conscious spectrum, but if their ESG-related disclosures are lacking, they could be overlooked by institutional investors.

Further, one of the most publicized tactics used to further sustainable investment — divestment from fossil fuels and other carbon-heavy industries — is not necessarily a rock-solid strategy, Bloomberg’s Mark Gilbert recently argued. Assets shed by institutional investors can simply be snatched up by hedge funds, with those dollars benefitting both energy companies and fund managers alike. Gilbert and other analysts suggest strategies that rely more on engagement with such businesses rather than divestment. The retort from some institutional investors, such as Green Century Funds, is that such stakeholder engagement is simply “too little, too late.”

Confused? Well, as is the case with our life choices and buying habits, there is no watertight strategy in making ethical and responsible long-term investment choices: We simply have to make the best possible decisions on selecting ESG funds and similar financial products using the best possible information (and time) that we have at hand.

Hence Debbie Carlson of MarketWatch suggests an eight-point plan for sustainable investing, which includes researching the fund’s prospectus to see if that ESG fund has been “rebranded” from what was once an underperforming fund. Learning the background of the fund’s manager and philosophy toward investing can also help the uninitiated investor make the best possible financial decisions.

The Joe Biden administration’s stance on climate action is a welcome U-turn to supporters of sustainable investing who had been disheartened by the previous regime in the White House. Policymaking by executive order, however, has its disadvantages. Even though the frequency of executive orders in recent decades is far lower than it was during the first half of the 20th century, the reality is that there is a chance many of these directives could disappear come 2025 or 2029.

Nevertheless, the events of the past few years show ESG investing is no longer fringe and is now fact mainstream. Similar to what we’re seeing in the labor markets, Americans appear ready to expect more from the financial markets. “…the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political ideology, want companies to prioritize the same issues: paying a living wage, providing good jobs, cultivating a strong, diverse and inclusive workforce, and protecting workplace health and safety,” said Just Capital in a recent public statement. “The DOL’s new proposal is one way of helping drive capital to the companies leading on these and other important issues, and, if approved, we look forward to seeing its impact in practice.”

Image credit: Joshua Mayo via Unsplash

A recent poll suggests vaccine mandates could be one way for employers to score engagement and loyalty from employees, which over the past year has appeared to be in short supply.

It’s no secret that the ongoing “Great Reset” has many employees looking elsewhere. Others have quit and are holding out for a better paying job, because as we’ve seen what’s been unfolding across the service industries, better opportunities await. After all, many workers were told in early 2020 that the pandemic could result in a new way of work in which many of their jobs may not exist after we emerge from the pandemic, so many retrained or took online courses to “up-skill.”

Further, the delta coronavirus variant has made many employees skittish about returning to the store, warehouse or office. Add the “Great Rudeness” that predated the “Great Reset” — and in fact, the awful behavior has even become worse — and it is no wonder that many workers’ eyes are wandering elsewhere and away from their current tasks at hand.

There is no panacea for managers who are awake at night and during the day are scrambling to ensure the employees they have recruited will be retained. Nevertheless, a recent survey from The Harris Poll and Fast Company reveal that vaccine mandates won’t make things within companies more turbulent — if anything, such policies could be a net positive.

According to the survey, almost half (47 percent) of U.S. adults who participate in the labor force (as in the employed, unemployed and students), said they would be more open to accept a job offer from a company if it deployed a vaccine mandate. Less than a third (29 percent) indicated they would be less likely to accept that job offer.

Workers in the northeastern U.S. were more supportive of vaccine mandates by more than a 2-to-1 margin. While workers polled across the rest of the U.S. were overall less supportive, throughout the country those in favor of such policies outpolled those who said they are against vaccine mandates in the workplace.

People of color were more encouraged by such a workplace policy compared to whites. Men were more supportive of vaccine mandates than women, though women who were in favor of such a policy were looking at the big picture: 60 percent of women (as compared to 54 percent of men) believed vaccine mandates in the workplace were important to end the pandemic; more women than men (52 to 43 percent) said vaccinations to prevent illness from COVID-19 should be a universal requirement.

And what were the largest drivers of vaccine mandates at work? Almost 60 percent mentioned that more comfort with interacting with their co-workers, along with a greater sense of personal safety, were the deciding factors in favor of such policies. Bottom line, more than half (52 percent) agreed with this statement: “employers that mandate COVID-19 vaccination care about their employees.”

Whether or not companies just don’t care is the reality or only a perception, truth be told, it’s out there. One human resources consultancy poll recently concluded that only half of America’s workers feel as if their companies treat them fairly.

In fairness, there is only so much a company can do to prevent its employees from eyeing the exit door; but this Harris Poll and Fast Company survey concludes that ensuring workers are safe once they walk through the entrance doors is at a very minimum a start toward strengthening trust.

Image credit: Mufid Majnun via Unsplash

… pickles, onions on a sesame-seed bun.” Burgers have since come a long way, baby, including plenty of plant-based options.

You might be aging yourself if you know that Big Mac jingle, one that many who grew up during the 1970s and 80s associate with memories of piling into the station wagon for a trip to the Golden Arches.

Others may associate that jingle with Styrofoam waste  - as in the clamshell containers that were eliminated years ago after many protests (and are even part of the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., though currently the item is not on display.) Then there are the associations with deforestation, obesity and sight pollution often coming in the form of strip mall locations and drive-thrus.

While McDonald’s here in the U.S. has been a holdout on the plant-based sandwich scene, the company has long served a non-mean option in several markets globally: Sweden has had veggie burgers on McDonald’s menus on and off since the 1990s.

But the reality is that other chains such as Burger King, KFC and Del Taco have at a minimum tinkered with rolling out test menu items that are plant-based. Many plant-based burgers or tacos have become a fixture, allowing companies to win new customers in a very competitive market. Plus, with the state of advertising and marketing in flux, introducing plant-based items is a sure-fire way to score some earned media.

So, while McDonald’s motives aren’t exactly clear, what we do know is that the plant-based ceiling has been cracked at the Golden Arches. As announced on many media outlets including CNBC, the company will test market the McPlant burger at eight locations from Manhattan Beach, California to Jennings, Louisiana starting in early November.

The McPlant made its first appearance in some European markets earlier this year. It debuted at U.K. locations last month and at the latest count is available at 250 McDonald’s outlets across Britain.

The British press, which generally seems hell-bent on tearing just about anyone or anything apart, appears to be a fan – especially of the slice of cheese, as the challenge of melting vegan cheese still has a long way to go to win over foodies. “The vegan American cheese was particularly good. If you hadn’t told me it was vegan, I probably wouldn’t have known,” gushed one editor at the Independent.

According to McDonald’s, the McPlant was the result of three years of research. The burger includes a patty the company formulated in a partnership with Beyond Meat; vegan cheese that is pea-protein based; a vegan sauce; and the usual toppings such as lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, mustard and ketchup. And unlike other restaurants, the Golden Arches insist the McPlant patties are cooked separately from other menu items, including with dedicated utensils.

If past is prologue, expect the McPlant to become a fixture, as so far the overall response to this plant-based burger is positive.

“Despite only being a small test, it marks a big jump forward in what has been a long and winding road for a plant-based McDonald's burger,” said one writer at Food & Wine.

The plant-based news here in the U.S. follows other McDonald’s announcements on the sustainability front, including a company-wide zero-emissions goal, and a plan by 2025 to eliminate virgin plastic from its Happy Meal toys.

Image credit: Mike Mozart via Flickr

“These boots are made for walkin', and that's just what they'll do, one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you” – Lyrics from Nancy Sinatra’s song, These Boots Were Made for Walkin’

Yes, that song is timeless, but in case all the reports and headlines have not sunk in, we don’t have a lot of time to curb our collective impact on the plant – including our obsession with footwear, which doing its part to walk all over the planet, and not in a good way.

To that end, Timberland recently rolled out its Greenstride collection, which at last count features 32 various styles of boots and hiking shoes, all of which have a soul.

And by that we mean that the soles of these boots take a big step away from the use of synthetic materials that are contributing to pollution across the planet. According to Timberland, these soles are made with 75 percent combination of sustainably sourced sugar cane and responsibly grown rubber.

“When people think of boot culture, they think of Timberland,” said Drieke Leenknegt, global vice president of marketing for Timberland, in a public statement. “With this campaign, we celebrate our latest boot innovation through highly visual, even artistic creative that inspires ‘Adventurous Doers’ to pull on their GreenStride boots and get outside. To bring it all to life, we’ve given a platform to the game changers of today, who take steps every day to move their communities, and the world, forward.”

Timberland and its competitors share one mounting challenge: They compete within a consumer base that loves the outdoors and at the same time, demand footwear and apparel that can help them conquer mountains, trails and just about everything else in the great outdoors. The problem, however, is that this ongoing love and obsession with the great outdoors means many of these products leave their own impact on the planet. Whether their needs include shoes offering both cushioning and traction, or a waterproof layer to protect hikers from the elements, the reality is that skiers, climbers and cyclists are driving a manufacturing process and supply chain that keep polluting the very outdoors where these items are made.

More consumers are now aware of their effects on the environment, and Timberland along with other outdoor gear companies are responding in kind. The results have included backpacks made out of plant-based materials instead of synthetics; internal programs launched to further circular design; and promoting platforms that encourage customers to buy and sell their used gear online.

And on the social side of sustainability, many of these outdoor apparel companies are finally realizing they’ve been appealing only to white people for the most part; REI, for example, has awakened to the reality that open spaces across the U.S. have long excluded people of color by design, and is striving to right that ship.

Timberland, meanwhile, has built upon its legacy of emphasizing a kinder and more sustainable supply chain, whether that involves more focus on regenerative agriculture or procuring more raw materials, and generating positive social impact, across Haiti.

Image credits: Timberland online store; Timberland via 3BL Media

Corporate spending on federal lobbying has surged since 2016, and most reports suggest 2020 almost set an all-time record despite the pandemic. That spend has included the checks Big Tech have continued to cut, which is not surprising considering the news even before last week’s whistleblower’s testimony in Congress. We’re seeing the impact of lobbying now as it surrounds the economic plan currently under discussion on Capitol Hill. Messaging has even crossed the line to gaslighting, as spending on lobbying efforts has come with accusations that such a fiscal plan would have made the pandemic even worse.

“With the help of lobbyists, businesses are trying to secure the biggest piece possible of the relief pie,” Fumika Mizuno wrote last summer. “The problem, however, is that lawmakers should be listening to the voices of their constituents, not corporations with close ties to the government.”

Among those constituents are those who have almost no opportunity to secure what they need for their businesses through lobbying are the Black and Latina women who have struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Despite the fact women of color keep launching companies at an impressive pace, research has shown time and again that the amount of capital they score pales compared to their white and male counterparts.

A new report from Digital Undivided underscores the reality that women of color entrepreneurs keep facing.

Let’s start with the more positive news: It hasn’t been all bad. A majority of founders who Digital Divided interviewed found opportunities during the crisis. The pandemic motivated them to do whatever they could to grow their businesses, and many women said the rewards of entrepreneurship have still been a motivating force.

But the news shouldn’t be considered all good, either. Far from it. Sure, many of these women who participated in the Digital Divided survey said they persevered and got through it. But of course they persevered and persisted: They really had no other choice as funding to keep their businesses humming along was difficult to find.

At least 80 percent of the women surveyed said additional funding would help them grow their businesses, whether they were in health and wellness, beauty, apparel or education – the four largest sectors that combined represented almost half of the companies led by the founders who were a part of the Digital Divided report. True, less than 10 percent of them said that government-mandated closures during the pandemic had an adverse effect on their companies, as many were able to pivot and pitch their products and services online.

Nevertheless, the sting from the struggle to attain capital has been evident. “We’re reading headlines of annual record highs of VC funding, while our dry powder continues to thin. It’s exhausting, to say the least, since these headlines often don’t take into account *who* the funding is going to,” one business owner told Digital Divided.

Many news outlets, including TriplePundit, reported during the pandemic about the struggles people of color confronted in scoring funds from the government and banks. Digital Divided’s numbers suggested that discrepancy had continued over the past 18 months. While 38 percent of the women surveyed said they received some form of assistance from the federal of local governments, 74 percent said access to capital would have offered a lift during the crisis.

Meanwhile, almost 70 percent said their friends and family were their most critical sources of support – exceeding other resources including customers, entrepreneurial organizations and even their own professional networks. While there was little sentiment that they were the “last in line” to receive assistance such as federal PPP loans, it is clear banks and government agencies were not a reliable source of support.

The bottom line is that women of color in business face similar challenges that job seekers run into: Those responsible for hiring employees, or loaning capital, tend to hire or provide funding for people who look like them.

So, what is the solution? Among the recommendations Digital Divided suggest include increased funding, of course; targeted programs for small, women-owned and people of color-owned companies; up-skilling and re-skilling initiatives; and finally, programs that address health and wellness in Black and Latino communities, ones in which more women of color are founding businesses in this sector - yet they have a large mountain to climb as these same communities have endured the harshest impacts during this public health crisis.

Fair access to political leaders that does not hinge on the size of checks that are drawn would offer a start, too.

Image credit: Brandy Kennedy via Unsplash

This article on COP26 and the private sector was written with Debbra Johnson.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP26, that begins on October 31 in Glasgow (at the venue shown above) will mobilize participants to step up their actions on resilience to global warming. Indications are the private sector will get the message and accelerate its slow, uncoordinated and graceless dance toward helping achieve net zero carbon emissions.

Arguably, COP26 should serve as a wake-up call to the private sector, seen as being both principally responsible for causing the global warming predicament and for fixing it. As for fixing it, the private sector has an essential role to play. A 2018 assessment by two Vanderbilt University climate change specialists estimated that private actions can close 10 to 30 percent of the so-called “Paris Gap,” the difference between the 2015 Paris climate accord and what that agreement will achieve by 2030 if all countries comply with their commitments.

A growing number of companies are moving to achieve their own climate- and risk-mitigation strategies and objectives. Roughly 300 global companies, for instance, are members of the RE100 initiative and aligned with that commitment to using 100 percent renewable electricity across their global operations. Climate warriors gaining kudos for leading the way to combat climate change are companies such as 3M, IKEA, John Deere, Patagonia and Unilever – and industries, notably agriculture, apparel and logistics.

But most private sector companies aren’t yet embracing an overall program to shrink their environmental footprint. Marsh & McLellan Companies’ Global Research Center concluded in a study that most companies focus narrowly on passively mitigating long-term climate risk while meeting short-term environmental or sustainability compliance standards. This approach fails to build climate resilience to gain a competitive advantage. A smaller, savvier group embeds climate risks in strategic assessment and operational planning to leverage resilience to their advantage.    

Private sector blind spots toward climate risk are surprising since practically every company is vulnerable and likely already experiencing global warming’s impacts, whether from disrupted output, higher operational and maintenance costs, or scarcer natural resources like water.

COP26 may prove most valuable in illuminating why the private sector can no longer shilly-shally. The 13-day conference is expected to identify at least six powerful forces already moving to require the private sector to play its critical role – or else. Those forces are investors, regulators, customers/clients, competitors, suppliers and employees.

Consider the potential clout of each group of stakeholders attending COP26:

Investors: Late last month (September), over 50 members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which manage over $10 trillion in assets, urged 50 major at-risk companies – including energy companies as well as noted brands such as Nestlé, Clorox, Swatch and Campbell Soup – to identify and respond to climate threats and issued guidelines it expects all companies to do to address the issue. And in the 2021 proxy season, shareholder proposals submitted on environmental matters and climate-related proposals in particular climbed for the second consecutive year to 115 from 89.

Regulators: Watchdogs worldwide are signaling they plan to make climate-related disclosures mandatory – from U.S. banking regulators and the Securities & Exchange Commission to stock exchanges in Hong Kong, London and South Korea and regulators in Britain, New Zealand and Switzerland. Many are taking their cue from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, a global group of regulators that has recommended a reporting standard comprising 11 broad climate-related categories that focus on material risks rather than environmental impacts.

Customers and Clients: Consumers increasingly communicate they want companies to take action on environmental issues. A Deloitte survey found that nearly one-fourth will switch to buying products from an organization that shares their environmental values, and 21 percent have encouraged others to switch, with consumers ages 18 to 24 three times more likely to switch brands based on values.

Competitors: As resource scarcity surfaces, companies that don’t innovate around climate resilience may falter behind direct and indirect rivals. Already, companies are factoring in climate change and resource supply into their business strategies, explaining why companies like Google and Apple are among the largest buyers of renewable energy.

Suppliers: Early adopters of climate resilience strategies are collaborating with suppliers to enhance their overall operational resilience. In May, for instance, Apple published its annual supplier responsibility report for 2021, outlining the progress it and its suppliers are making to further environmental protection goals. Apple partners that don’t meet the selection criteria face being dropped from the partnership. Walmart and others also make climate protection a requirement in selecting suppliers.  

Employees: The pandemic has sparked a new Employee Value Proposition with a stronger focus on employee well-being rivaling pay and advancement. In a recent study, Edelman, a longtime reporter of the link between brands and trust, concludes that today’s employees are belief-driven, with more than three-fourths expressing higher expectations of employers and 61 percent choosing their employer based on beliefs, especially about social issues. A growing number of companies that encourage employees to take action on climate and other issues find this approach helps during the current war for talent to attract and retain younger generations. And the nonprofit Drawdown has just published a guide, “Climate Solutions at Work: Unleashing your employee power.”

Which brings us to the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction to 2030. It serves as a roadmap for how to make communities safer and more resilient. More specifically, it underscores how the private sector must collaborate in partnerships with the public sector to reduce disaster risk with a heavy emphasis on prevention.    

Indeed, while fading, a misperception continues to exist that climate risk prevention is the sole responsibility of governments and the public sector. The Sendai Framework and COP26 will help shatter that myth and emphasize the vital role of the private sector. It is essential to keep a fire under the private sector. The planet depends on it. 

Joyce Coffee, is founder and president of Climate Resilience Consulting and a Senior Sustainability Fellow at the Global Institute of Sustainability. Debbra Johnson is a strategic resilience and sustainability advisor. Both are on the U.S. board of ARISE, the volunteer Alliance for Disaster Resilient Societies led by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Image credit: Fredrika Carlsson via Unsplash

In the global effort to prevent catastrophic climate change, the rights and roles of Indigenous peoples are finally getting the attention they deserve. Corporate leaders on climate action can assist by listening to Indigenous voices and acting to help protect both land rights and human rights.

Indigenous voices needed at the climate action table

The impact of air pollution on urban areas can easily grab media attention, but that is just one, downstream effect of human activity leading to climate change. Far from the media spotlight, fossil energy operations alter landscapes and devastate natural habitats, often with a catastrophic effect on indigenous communities and the land they occupy. Other types of mining operations and disruptive agricultural practices have  similar impacts.

Now that biodiversity and habitat preservation are becoming part of the mainstream thinking on climate change, it seems obvious that supporting Indigenous land stewardship is an effective, and urgently needed, tool in the climate action toolkit. However, that has not always been the case, and much work still remains to be done.

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

In 1995, for example, the first in a long series of United Nations climate COPs (for “Conference of the Parties”) took place, but it occurred without any input from Indigenous peoples. The formal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations as a COP constituency finally occurred in 2001, but the new status was virtually meaningless. Indigenous voices were absent from the Kyoto Protocol, which went into force in 2005, and from the 2010 Cancun Agreements.

Indigenous peoples did eke out a place in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, but they only appeared in the non-binding sections. An earlier iteration included passages on Indigenous land rights, but those were left out of the final cut.

COP26 could be different

The 26th COP in the ongoing series will take place in Glasgow, Scotland from October 31 to November 12. As in past practice, Indigenous peoples have planned an awareness-raising series of educational and cultural events at COP26 under the banner of the organization If Not Us Then Who?.

This time around, Indigenous leaders have raised the bar on public awareness with an assist from the social change organization Burness.

Burness is leveraging its media experience to call attention to representatives from Indigenous peoples from tropical regions, who will stage a series of public events during COP26. The list includes Sonia Guajajara of the organization National Indigenous Mobilization in Brazil, Joseph Itongwa of Indigenous Mobilization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Levi Sucre, a Costa Rican Indigenous leader who represents an alliance of communities in Central America. Indigenous peoples from other regions in Latin America will also participate, along with leaders representing communities in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

In support of this effort, Burness is also helping to raise awareness about the growing, evidence-based consensus on the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in ecosystem conservation, and consequently on global food security, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity protection.

Burness also points out that pathogen spillover has been linked to habitat loss and encroachment, which is another area in which Indigenous and local land stewardship can play a crucial role.

The Indigenous peoples events planned for COP26 will have input from global organizations including IPCC, the IPBES, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The series will also draw on experts from the World Resources Institute, the Rights and Resources Initiative, the Forest and Farm Facility at the Food and Agriculture Organization, Prisma Foundation, the grant making organization Tenure Facility.

Burness also cites researchers with the International Institute for Environment and Development, Rainforest Foundation Norway, and the Rights and Resources Institute.

The many ways to engage with Indigenous peoples

Corporate support for biodiversity conservation is growing, and the Indigenous peoples movement provides sustainability planners with a network and knowledge base for effective action.

In addition to partnering directly with Indigenous organizations, corporate leaders can tap into legacy organizations like Ford Foundation and Nature Conservancy, which have begun to focus their resources on Indigenous and community-based land stewardship.

“[Indigenous] communities collectively manage at least one-quarter of the world’s lands, 17 percent of all forest carbon, and vast stretches of freshwater and marine habitats. Their stewardship and management often achieve greater conservation results and sustain more biodiversity than government protected areas,” Nature Conservancy points out.

Corporate leaders should also pay closer attention to simple, nature-based climate solutions like planting millions of trees. In concept, large-scale tree programs can serve as an effective carbon sequestration and recycling strategy. However, without careful planning they can easily run into conflict with local communities and Indigenous land rights.

In support of a more sustainable and equitable approach to biodiversity conservation, during COP26 Indigenous leaders plan to call attention to a native oak forest restoration project in Scotland, spearheaded by a group of local residents.

Scotland and tropical rain forests may seem worlds apart, but the U.K. is in fact a living demonstration of the impact that deforestation and habitat loss can have across on industrialized Western economies as well as Indigenous communities.

Among conservationists, Scotland is known as “one of the most deforested lands in the world,” with 99 percent of its forests lost to human activity over centuries of timber harvesting, sheep grazing and other commercial uses. Scotland’s long history of land privilege and exploitation has also been linked to the destruction of forests for private sport.

In recent years the reforestation movement in Scotland has gathered steam. An alliance with Indigenous leaders could provide conservationists in Scotland and elsewhere with a fresh burst of energy, adding more impact to biodiversity issues during CO26 — and challenging corporate leaders help lobby for change, as well.

Image credit: Dulcey Lima via Unsplash

You’d have to be in the deepest of sleep to not miss the headlines about American workers leaving their jobs in droves. Warehouse workers, once seen as the future of retail, are quitting no matter how sweet the pay and bonus incentives may first appear. Childcare workers aren’t finding joy in running around chasing kids for $12 an hour, so they are leaving their jobs. The same goes for restaurant employees, who deal with all the rage and drama seen on cable TV reality cooking and baking shows, without any of the glamour, celebrity, attention or the tiniest chance of a payoff. And in many states including Florida, teachers are leaving the classroom at a rapid pace.

We were told the cuts in unemployment insurance, combined with the rush to enjoy the summer after months in lockdown, would cause a hiring spree once again. So, what’s going on? The Delta variant is definitely part of this crisis, but dysfunction in the workplace has causes that go beyond the virus.

“Workers, especially low-wage workers, are revolting against years of poor pay and stressful conditions,” wrote Heather Long for the Washington Post. “Now, people are still hesitant to take the first jobs available to them, if they don’t believe they’re good jobs. And they are not reluctant to quit a situation they don’t like.”

It's clear: Fewer service workers means it's difficult for others to get things done. But let’s not forget another problem that is adding stress to both workers and their companies’ customers.

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

Add the ongoing supply chain disruptions and shortage of just about everything from Gatorade to tires, the added worries felt by your employees are factors that your HR staff cannot ignore – even if your company is within an industry that is not necessarily affected by all this volatility.

More Americans are balancing work with caregiving, whether they are coping with children or elderly parents. Errands are taking longer as finding products from school supplies to even pasta are reported time and again.

So, what virtue are HR staffers and managers going to need in spades in the coming months? It should be obvious: patience.

That patience needs to come in the form of not only compassion and empathy, but in benefits. In fairness, many companies have already gotten on the enhanced benefits train – in fact, one survey suggested 98 percent of all U.S. companies expanded at least one of their employee benefits during the pandemic.

“Work-life ‘balance’ has always been a lie. Work and life are not independent entities fighting for 50/50 equilibrium,” Tim Allen, the CEO of Care.com, wrote earlier this year as he discussed that same survey’s findings. “They’re interconnected, and one affects the other. But people — especially women — have been conditioned to design life around the demands of work, and rarely to design work around the demands of life.”

Those demands of life aren’t easing anytime soon for your employees; if anything, they keep increasing.

What’s the response, then? It’s not enough to lean on your health plan’s mental health benefits (which should have been boosted long ago), but one idea is providing pediatric behavioral health care for employees moonlighting as caregivers.

A transportation subsidy should be on the table to mitigate any difficulties employees could have showing up to the office. The ongoing automotive chip shortage is among the reasons why the prices of both new and used cars have surged, making reliable transportation a struggle for employees required to work onsite if their vehicle peters out on them.

Financial wellness plans are another added benefit to consider, as rising prices have nudged many families to rethink their household budgets and curb their contributions to retirement plans – along with the fact that many companies decided to end any contributions to 401(k) plans during the pandemic.

The new normal for companies is not only about deciding to raise prices or take the financial hit due to all these global disruptions and cost increases. Employees’ lives are still being disrupted, and it is up to companies to do what they can to keep them at ease; after all, taking care of your employees is a far more affordable option than the costs and time involved in finding replacements for them.

Image credit: Brian Lundquist via Unsplash

With all the excitement over electric cars, it can be easy to forget that sustainable biofuel was once supposed to be the transportation fuel of the future. However, it is way too soon to write biofuel out of the decarbonization picture. The global economy will need liquid fuel for many years to come. That is especially true of the airline industry, which continues to face significant challenges along the road to electrification.

What’s wrong with electric airplanes?

Electric mobility has made remarkable progress over the past 10 years. In addition to improved range for electric cars, batteries are showing up in all sorts of uses, from fire trucks and garbage trucks to locomotives, ships, and yes, even aircraft.

The growing use of fuel cells is also helping to accelerate the electrification trend in aircraft as well as ground vehicles and watercraft. Despite all the activity, though, scaling up either batteries or fuel cells to meet the demands of long-distance air travel is still far off in the future.

For now, the state of affairs is limited to relatively small aircraft and relatively short trips.

One interesting contribution to the field is the Airlander by the firm Hybrid Air Vehicles, which deploys a concept comparable to that of an electrified blimp or zeppelin. The company’s goal of ferrying 100 passengers per trip by 2025 is an ambitious step forward for electric flight, but its focus is on regional travel in the range of 230 miles or so.

The sustainable biofuel picture is a complicated one

One key factor holding back a swift transition to electric flight is the need to develop new on-board propulsion systems to replace jet engines. Another factor is the need to invest in new electrical infrastructure to replace pipelines, storage tanks and fueling equipment. It would seem that sources of sustainable biofuel could solve both problems at once. Rather than switching up all those systems and all that infrastructure, biofuel could simply replace its petroleum-based counterpart, gallon for gallon.

That sounds simple enough but formulating and certifying new jet fuels is a long process. Adding to the timeline is the need to prove that the resulting fuel will in fact have a significant impact on emissions. Airline industry regulations allow sustainable aircraft fuel (SAF) of various sorts to be blended with standard jet fuel, but the current maximum limit is still 50 percent.

Further complicating the picture is the need to develop new biofuels that avoid creating new problems. Corn ethanol and other food-based biofuels run into sustainability problems because they rely too heavily on food crops. Second-generation biofuels avoid that problem by relying on non-food crops. However, they can still run into agricultural issues when they take up farmland that could otherwise be used to grow food.

Second-generation biofuels can also run into deforestation and habitat destruction issues, exposing airlines to reputational risks. Human rights abuses also pose risks related to overseas supply chains, from sugar cane operations in Peru to palm oil plantations in Malaysia.

Better and more sustainable biofuel necessary for more responsible travel

Biofuel stakeholders have been moving in the right direction by introducing - or rather, re-introducing - the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) derived from waste.

The U.S. Department of Energy describes a long list of alternatives to growing land crops for SAF. The list includes algae, waste fats, oils, and greases; agricultural, forestry and wood mill waste; municipal solid waste and wastewater sludge; and even livestock manure.

In addition to their potential environmental benefits, these sourcing streams can also provide corporations with the benefit of a domestic supply chain.

JetBlue took a step in the right direction last month, when it announced that it will double its previous commitment to purchase SAF from the U.S. bioenergy firm SG Preston. The fuel will go to JetBlue’s operations at John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia airports in New York City, and Newark Liberty International Airport in nearby New Jersey.

SG Preston is an experienced sustainable biofuel producer. In addition to oil seeds and other second-generation sources, it has embraced third-generation sources that avoid running into the kinds of land use issues that bedevil food and energy crops.

JetBlue anticipates that its new fuel purchase will consist of a blend of approximately 33 percent SAF with 66 percent conventional jet fuel. The SAF will be sourced partly from waste fats, oils and greases. The remainder will come from oilseeds.

According to JetBlue, this will be the first large scale purchase of made-in-America SAF delivered to the three airports.

“Targeting a start in 2023 and continuing over a 10-year period, SG Preston will deliver at least 670 million gallons of blended SAF to JetBlue to fuel its flight operations at JFK, LGA and EWR, helping JetBlue avoid approximately 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions,” JetBlue explained, adding that it does not expect the agreement to have a significant impact on its total fuel costs.

Baby steps for sustainable biofuel for the aviation sector

JetBlue also anticipates that the purchase will put it ahead of schedule for achieving its previously stated goal of achieving 10 percent SAF by 2030 across its operations.

Though it appears to be a modest goal, that 10 percent figure is probably a realistic one considering the supply bottleneck for third-generation sources. The alternative would be to rely more heavily on first- and second-generation biofuels, which could expose JetBlue to criticism over land use impacts.

JetBlue also appears to have limited its sourcing streams. While not specifically excluding agricultural crops, the company has adopted a more rigorous definition of SAF than the Department of Energy. JetBlue describes SAF as “jet fuel produced from biological resources that can be replenished rapidly and without impacting food supply.”

The emphasis on rapid sourcing suggests that JetBlue favors waste streams over agricultural inputs. Though biofuel crops sound good on paper, the impacts of climate change are beginning to raise questions about the reliability of the domestic supply chain.

Piling onto the sustainable biofuel trend

JetBlue’s 10 percent goal is also realistic in consideration of the supply competition it faces from other airlines that have voiced support for President Joe Biden’s SAF plan.

Announced last month as part of President Biden’s “Build Back Better” economic recovery agenda, the SAF plan acknowledges that reducing emissions from liquid jet fuel is a short- and medium-term climate solution, with electric flight being the end goal.

“But for today’s long-distance travel, we need bold partnerships to spur the deployment of billions of gallons of sustainable aviation fuels quickly,” President Biden emphasized.

In contrast to JetBlue’s approach, the Biden plan includes a strong emphasis on agricultural sourcing, including a proposed tax credit for energy crop farmers as well as R&D funding and other assistance.

Aside from helping to spur a rapid increase in the domestic supply of SAF, the tax credit is a strategic move that could help encourage the powerful U.S. agriculture industry to lobby in favor of the proposed Build Back Better legislation, which is facing near-universal resistance from Republicans in Congress, as well as from the Business Roundtable and other corporate allies.

The World Economic Forum’s “Clean Skies for Tomorrow” initiative added its weight to the Biden side last month, when it announced a goal of 10 percent SAF by 2030.

Sixty companies in the airline and energy sectors have signed on in support of the initiative, and the lineup suggests that additional non-agricultural pathways for SAF are in store.

The company LanzaTech, for example, has developed a microbe-based system for producing fuels from industrial waste gas.

Another good example is Velocys, which has developed technology that generates fuel by combining green hydrogen with carbon dioxide from various sources, including the air.

JetBlue has already said that its new sustainable biofuel purchase puts it ahead of schedule for its 2030 goal. With enough support from the U.S. and other leading governments, it seems that the entire airline industry could far exceed the 10 percent goal by 2030.

Image credit: Nick Morales via Unsplash