Search

Black Americans play a profound role in shaping the world’s technology. Many everyday essentials, from caller ID to traffic lights, came from the creative minds of Black technology inventors, innovators and leaders.

At VMware, we pride ourselves on innovation. So, in honor of Black History Month, we decided to highlight some of the all-time greatest Black engineers, scholars and entrepreneurs. These individuals profoundly progressed science, the tech industry and daily life.

1. Dr. Mark E. Dean

"Throughout all of his work, he focused on predicting where computing was headed. Dean was right on target in the late '90s, when he was dreaming up a magazine-sized tablet that could accept voice commands, play media and replace your PC. He predicted that we'd see that within 10 years, which was pretty much in line with the iPad's debut in 2010." - Devindra Hardawar, Senior Editor, Engadget

Ever heard of Dr. Mark E. Dean? He’s a Silicon Valley legend who co-invented the color IBM PC monitor and gigahertz chip. Dean also holds three of IBM’s nine original patents.

2. Dr. James E. West

Did you know that more than 90% of the microphones today, including those in phones and cameras, use technology co-invented by Dr. James E. West? After a long career as an acoustical scientist, West became an educator and advocate for diversity in the sciences.

3. Garrett A. Morgan

The light must be green because these innovations are a go! Today, we celebrate Garrett A. Morgan for patented inventions, including the three-position traffic signal and the first gas mask.

4. Lisa Gelobter

Get ready to reply with your favorite GIF in celebration. Lisa Gelobter was integrally involved with the advent of Shockwave. The technology formed the beginning of web animation, which performed 3.1 billion calculations per second. After working with major organizations (like Hulu, BET and The White House), Gelobter founded tEQuitable, a platform to address bias, harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

5. Dr. Jesse Ernest Wilkins, Jr.

Dr. Jesse Ernest Wilkins, Jr. is an acclaimed mathematician and scholar, who contributed to a greater understanding of atomic energy. As the University of Chicago’s youngest student, Wilkins earned a doctorate by age 19. Wilkins’ research in nuclear physics helped explain how gamma radiation works and how to shield the harmful rays.

6. Lewis H. Latimer

Many are familiar with Thomas Edison, but have you ever heard the name Lewis H. Latimer? Edison is often credited with inventing the light bulb. In actuality, Latimer was one of many working to perfect commercial lighting.

7. Janet E. Bashen

Meet Janet E. Bashen, the first Black woman to receive a patent for a web-based software solution. Bashen’s patented invention, LinkLine, is an equal employment opportunity case management and tracking software.

8. Dr. Edward A. Bouchet

Dr. Edward A. Bouchet is the first Black American to hold a doctorate in any subject from an American university. Bouchet earned a doctorate in physics from Yale University in 1876. As an educator later in life, Bouchet continued nurturing other Black students in the sciences.

9. Mary W. Jackson

Mary W. Jackson became NASA’s first Black female engineer in 1958 (yes, the one and the same portrayed in the movie “Hidden Figures”). Jackson contributed to research on aerodynamics for decades. She also “worked hard to impact the hiring and promotion of the next generation of all of NASA’s female mathematicians, engineers and scientists.”

10. Dr. Frank S. Greene, Jr.

Dr. Frank S. Greene, Jr. is considered one of the first Black technologists, earning Greene a place in the Silicon Valley Engineering Hall of Fame. Greene worked on developing high-speed semiconductor computer memory systems in the 1960s. Greene also founded the software companies Technology Development Corp. and ZeroOne Systems, Inc., as well as venture firm NewVista Capital.

Previously posted on VMware's Radius: Stories at the Edge and 3BL Media news.

Image credit: Shutterstock

Photo: A member of the National Guard on duty securing the U.S. Capitol building ahead of Joe Biden’s inauguration. Fallout from the violence includes the Dominion lawsuit in addition to other litigation filed against news media networks and individuals working for former President Trump.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign strategy rested on lying about the existence of massive voter fraud, even before the very first ballot was cast. The lies were groundless, shameless, easily debunked and tinged with naked racism. While Trump’s position as president protected him from legal repercussions in office, his allies in the business community were left vulnerable. If the new Dominion lawsuit against Trump ally and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell is successful, perhaps other business leaders will be all the less likely to help spread lies and conspiracy theories in the future.

Racism, conspiracy theories and voter fraud lies

The former president’s history of appealing to racism is well documented. Years before he launched his 2016 campaign on a running diatribe against Mexicans and Muslims, he burnished his public profile by ginning up public outrage against a group of Black and Hispanic teenagers accused (falsely, as it turned out) of rape. Similarly, during former President Obama’s two terms he was regularly in the media spotlight for supporting the “birther” conspiracy theory, stimulating public outrage by casting doubt on the birthplace of the first Black president in U.S. history.

When the re-energized Black Lives Matter movement swept across the country last summer, it’s no surprise that Trump returned to the “thug” slur to reference unarmed protestors. Meanwhile he failed to condemn armed white supremacists for a series of threatening actions against state officials and at least one murder accusation, culminating in the bloody, violent - and failed -  insurrection of January 6.

It’s also no surprise that Trump raised claims of widespread voter fraud early and often, even as Black voting rights advocates and their allies in the business community organized massive get-out-the-vote efforts in the run-up to Election Day. He persisted in claiming that the election was stolen right on through the violence of January 6, even though experts in his own administration vouched for the security of the process.

The Dominion lawsuit and the business case against the “Big Lie” of voter fraud

Though Trump enjoyed the protection of his office, his allies were not so fortunate. The first sign of trouble appeared earlier this month, when the global voting technology firm Smartmatic took Fox News to court for amplifying Trump’s voter fraud lies.

Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion lawsuit alleges that Fox made more than 100 false statements and implications about the company, resulting in measurable bottom-line harm to its global reputation.

Fox shined the media spotlight on Smartmatic even though the company played a minuscule role in the 2020 election. As a global firm, Smartmatic has ample experience in other nations but the 2020 election was its first foray into the U.S. Its only contract was with Los Angeles County in California.

A more significant target for Trump’s voter fraud lies was U.S. company Dominion Voting Systems, which had contracts in 28 states for the 2020 election cycle. As the company points out, its experience covers “tens of thousands” of U.S. elections since 2003 regardless of the political identity of electorates and office holders.

Earlier this Dominion also took legal action. Rather than targeting news media, it filed a $1.3 billion lawsuit the company My Pillow and Mike Lindell, its CEO, for spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

“The 115-page lawsuit filed Monday in Washington, DC, cites Lindell's media appearances and social media posts pushing what they called the ‘Big Lie’ about Dominion's machines — including a two-hour film that aired on OAN and was filled with falsehoods about voting irregularities,” CNN reported.

As the Dominion lawsuit points out, the lies are still in force through the My Pillow website, through promotional codes like “FightforTrump" that reference the voter fraud conspiracy theory.

Voter fraud lies breed violence

In addition to bringing a case against My Pillow and Lindell, the Dominion lawsuit is backed by the company’s a point-by-point debunking of the entire Trump disinformation campaign on its website.

A list of facts and the seriousness of the Dominion lawsuit will not cause Trump supporters to realize they’ve been had, but it does provide a roadmap for the business community to push back against voter fraud lies in future elections.

Among the many points raised by the litigation is the existence of a paper trail and validation process, but perhaps the most significant point refers to the potential for voter fraud lies to foster violence.

Long before events led to the Dominion lawsuit making waves, white supremacy and domestic terrorism were on the rise during the Obama administration but were not aggressively pursued, as evidenced by the kid glove treatment of the Bundy family and their allies, who illegally grazed cattle on federal property for years leading up to the armed takeover of the federal Malheur wildlife refuge in 2016.

Trump actively encouraged the movement up to and including the cultivation of the QAnon conspiracy theory mirror the language of Nazi-era anti-Semitic propaganda.

In that context, the Dominion lawsuit and its statement on the consequences of voter fraud lies could become a factor in future legal action by other business stakeholders.

“The company works with all U.S. political parties, and our customer base and government outreach practices support this non-partisan approach,” Dominion explains. “Given the high headline risk and the public visibility of elections, it would be difficult to thrive as a business without maintaining reliable technology and high standards as an industry provider.”

Nevertheless, that easily verifiable fact did not protect Dominion employees from assault.

“Malicious and misleading false claims about Dominion have resulted in dangerous levels of threats and harassment against the company and its employees, as well as election officials,” Dominion asserts.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce steps in, but more action is needed

Whether or not Dominion’s point about the violent consequences of voter fraud lies will be picked up by other business stakeholders remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the business community has taken some steps to rally behind election integrity, regardless of political identity.

In the run-up to January 6, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined other leading business stakeholders to assert that Joe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square.

“Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Partnership for New York City separately issued statements calling for an end to efforts to undermine Biden’s win,” CNBC reported on January 4.

Clearly the appeal to facts had no impact on the white supremacists who broke into the Capitol Building on January 6 with the expressed intent of murdering the Vice President and members of Congress.

That is why it is important for business stakeholders to back up words with action. In that regard, some have responded by withholding, or threatening to withhold, campaign donations to Republican members of Congress who objected to the Electoral College vote on January 6.

However, signs of an effort to help undo the violent fallout from Trump’s voter fraud lies are already beginning to fade, indicating that stronger action is needed.

Unmoved by the threats of the Dominion lawsuit, Trump’s Republican allies in Congress have doubled down on their support for him, and his voter base is just as dedicated as ever.

In one ominous sign, the Bundy family has popped up in the media spotlight again. Last month Jennfer Yachnin of E&E News reported that family patriarch Cliven Bundy continues to assert the privilege of white violence over federal protection of public lands.

“Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is vowing to once again ‘walk towards guns’ should the incoming Biden administration attempt to collect on more than two decades of debt from trespass fines and unpaid grazing fees,” Yachnin reported on January 15.

That would seem to describe an act of unarmed civil disobedience, but Yachnin also drew attention to Bundy’s ability to spark others to take up arms.

“Bundy…came to national attention in 2014 when he rallied armed supporters to his Bunkerville ranch to block the government's attempted roundup of his cattle,” she noted, in reference to a  recent interview between Bundy and conservative Pete Santilli who was involved in both the Bunkerville and Malheur episodes.

As reported by Yachnin, during the interview Bundy appeared to raise the possibility of another, similar action.

”We're going to have to go forward. If we have to walk forward towards guns, which we did at the Bundy ranch, we have to do that,” he reportedly said.

The point is that a festering problem will continue to fester unless forceful action is taken. While Cliven Bundy’s latest threat was a veiled one, last year multiple news outlets reported that his son Ammon Bundy was assembling a “militia network,” working off of the backlash against public health guidance on COVID-19 prevention.

The COVID-19 pandemic still in force and the threat of armed white supremacist violence continues to loom over American democracy. U.S. business leaders will need to take more forceful action on voting rights and election integrity to help prevent more violence in the months and years to come. The Dominion lawsuit could help pave the way forward.

Image credit: Brendan Beale/Unsplash

In the wake of last summer’s social unrest after the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, Black Americans witnessed a tidal wave of public statements of support and “we stand with” pledges from corporations that previously were never experienced. Nevertheless, much of corporate America still hasn’t matched their words with deeds. To that end, the recent launch of the Black Dollar Index offers consumers and investors a platform by which they can gauge companies’ commitments to economic and social justice and hold them accountable.

As corporations began to pledge their support, it became imperative to create a platform for consumers to hold corporations accountable and seek transparency on these commitments moving forward.

According to Kelle Rozell, the founder of the Black Dollar Initiative, this tool is a start to ensure that the change oft-promised last summer comes to fruition. From Rozell’s point of view, it’s all about having that ongoing honest conversation with U.S. corporations and their leaders.

“In most cases, transparency is the first step. Some companies could quickly increase their score by simply being transparent about their workforce data,”she said during an email exchange with TriplePundit. “From there we would seek out the opportunities in the blind spots, i.e., ‘your workforce looks great, but you haven't committed to Supplier Diversity,’ or ‘you really need to focus on hiring more Black executive level candidates.’”

So far, the conversations with companies appearing on the list have been constructive. When 3p asked if there has been any criticism or challenges about the rankings, Rozell replied, “[There was] no pushback, but we have had healthy dialogue to break down how we got to the score and opportunities to be better. A lot of these companies are just beginning with their roadmaps for diversity, so they know there is work to do, but want to share steps that they are actively taking. I think we will see a lot of growth a year from now.”

So far, Black Dollar Index researchers have evaluated the performance of more than 100 companies in the Fortune 1,000. To arrive at a company's rating, 80 percent of the companies’ scores are tied to quantitative data, based on such factors as the percentage of Black citizens working within the companies ranks, from individual contributors to the C-suite. As for the rest of the score, it’s qualitative, but straightforward: A yes or no on known negative race-related claims, investments in Black initiatives and if a supplier diversity initiative exists are among those data sets.

Some would argue that whether a company is truly an “ally” of Black America, or not, is a matter of perception. But resources like the Black Dollar Index help put such arguments to rest and allow consumers and investors to make up their minds about their purchasing and investment decisions based on consistent lineup of facts.

"We believe that the Black Dollar Index is an accountability tool towards real infrastructural change. Corporations play a huge part in the overall economy, policy making, and development of local communities,”added Rozell. “If we can use our dollar and cultural currency to affect their bottomline and in turn shift their priorities in how they hire us and give back, we could see real change for Black America in years to come."

Image credits: Tina Bowie/Pexels; James Eades/Unsplash

Photo: A car drives along a Dallas street during a February ice storm that has brought up many questions about the Lone Star State’s approach toward environmental justice, climate action and energy regulation.

While millions of Texas residents were still locked in a deep freeze without electricity or heat last week, fossil fuel stakeholders leaped to place the blame on the state’s renewable energy sector. The accusation was quickly debunked, but the entire back-and-forth missed the point: Regardless of the source, energy is a matter of community safety, public health and a reliable environment in which to do business. Energy is also deeply entwined in matters of environmental justice, and the experiences of last week underscore the high cost of injustice for all, businesses and residents alike.

The Texas energy paradox

According to the most recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Agency, Texas is by far the single largest energy producing state in the country, accounting for more than 20 percent of the nation’s total output.

That simple fact suggests that Texas would be the least likely state in the nation to suffer through a far-ranging energy disruption that impacted millions for days on end.

However, the Texas energy crisis of 2021 is not a one-off. The state has suffered through a string of weather-related energy supply disruptions in recent years, including heat waves, a major cold snap in 2011, and a long string of tropical storms and hurricanes.

To the extent that the latest series of weather events is a symptom of climate change, the current state of the Texas energy infrastructure is a harbinger of things to come: unstable, unreliable, and incapable of meeting the challenges of a warming planet or the need to confront environmental justice.

The free market fails on resiliency

Fortunately, most parts of the U.S. are better prepared for extreme weather events. The emerging consensus among energy experts is that Texas’s unique, deregulated energy market has raised the risk of widespread disruption, because it discourages long-term investment in weather proofing.

One leading example is the state’s sprawling natural gas infrastructure. It provides for the bulk of Texas’s electricity generation as well as a good deal of residential heating. The state’s refineries, petrochemical plants and other industrial facilities also rely heavily on natural gas.

“Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas's grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers,” the Texas Tribune reported last week. “Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.”

“By some estimates, nearly half of the state’s natural gas production has screeched to a halt due to the extremely low temperatures, while freezing components at natural gas-fired power plants have forced some operators to shut down,” the report continued.

Although fossil fuel stakeholders were quick to blame wind turbines, they simply proved the overall point. Wind turbines function normally in cold weather all over the world, except in Texas, where developers failed to weatherize systems even after the cold snap of 2011 demonstrated the need.

As a deregulated market outside of the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Texas is also cut off from grid mutual aid systems. In other parts of the U.S., grid operators can count on regional assistance when power stations and other infrastructure go down. Texas was left to deal with the crisis on its own, for reasons of its own making.

The free market fails on reliability and public health

As of this writing the impact on public health is yet to be measured in numbers, but the images of human suffering have circled the globe. Some observers are also warning of a ripple effect on the business community.

Last week Texas Tribune analyst Ross Ramsey wrote that the energy crisis “could leave a lasting bruise on the Texas exceptionalism political and business leaders like to brag about,” undoing “years of economic development promotion, corporate relocation work and tourism campaigns.”

“Low energy prices attract business, and Texas has made a name for itself as a fast-growth, pro-business state,” Ramsey noted, but the 2021 energy crisis stripped the veneer off the rosy picture and exposed the high level of risk involved in deregulation.

“Who wants to go to a failed state? Sure, there is no income tax. But we're rationing gas, turning off electricity for millions of households and boiling water so it doesn't poison us,” Ramsey observed.

As Ramsey pointed out, the deregulated Texas energy market favors refineries, petrochemical plants and other top industrial users in the state. These facilities can curtail operations in a weather emergency to avoid the energy price spikes that the deregulated Texas market allows. Many commercial users cannot do the same. Residential users are especially vulnerable because they demand more energy during heat waves and cold snaps, which are the very conditions that raise the risk of price spikes.

Texas at the crossroads: renewable energy, environmental justice and community resilience

The odds are that few, if any, lessons will be learned from the Texas energy crisis of 2021. After all, the 2011 cold snap was supposed to be a wakeup call for state legislators to fix the system, and they did not.

However, back in 2011 the renewable energy sector was not as competitive as it is today. If the Republican-led state government fails to take action, business leaders in Texas can seek other means of supporting new, weather-hardened renewable energy facilities that address both environmental justice and resiliency issues.

One area to watch is the popularization of microgrids alongside the growth of the community solar field, which focuses on local, resilient energy production.

Another potential area of progress is the rural electric co-operative field. Rural co-operatives are pivoting to renewable energy and resilience, and their community benefit mission supports investment in hardening energy infrastructure against weather emergencies.

The U.S. Department of Energy continued to promote growth in both of these areas during the Trump administration, despite the former president’s aim of supporting fossil energy. In all likelihood, the agency will redouble its efforts during the Biden administration, given the current president’s focus on environmental justice.

The strongest impact of President Biden’s environmental justice focus will likely be felt outside of Texas, where the FERC holds authority. If the community and economic benefits become apparent, that would provide Texas business leaders with support to lobby in favor of similar policies in their home state.

In addition, the Energy Department supports significant renewable energy demonstration projects and other clean tech R&D ventures in Texas, vehicle electrification and green hydrogen being two recent examples.

Warning signs of unsustainable growth and Texas’s fossil energy infrastructure were building long before the most recent crisis, especially regarding the impacts of oil and gas fracking and the disposal of fracking wastewater.

Texas has a major advantage over many other states because it has both wind and solar resources in abundance. During the Obama it won acclaim as a wind energy leader in the run-up to the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015.

Now that the Biden administration has rejoined the Paris Agreement, business leaders in Texas have a chance to burnish the state’s reputation again, regardless of another failure to act by Republican leadership in the state legislature.

Image credit: Matthew T. Rader/Wiki Commons

No one should have to work for free, but some are asked to do it more often than others. One thing even the most clueless among us should have learned over the past year is that people of color are sick of spending extra time educating people on how to treat each other with respect and dignity in the workplace, often with no compensation. Now, count in Black influencers as the latest group of people to push back against working for free.

Swag still isn’t compensation

The story about Pink Lily, an online women’s clothing boutique, is a textbook case. As Buzzfeed’s Stephanie McNeal reported this week, one influencer became rightfully miffed when she was ready to work with the online retailer — only to be told that she wouldn’t be paid directly for any content as she was below a certain threshold of followers.

Instead, she was promised free products, “exposure” and a link to earn a commission on anything her followers might buy should they swipe up on an Instagram story. The promise is not all that different from multilevel marketing companies like Amway, Avon or Herbalife: Just tell your friends and family, and watch the dollars add up, right?

Black influencers aren’t having it. Many may not have the number of followers about which their white counterparts can boast, much less an Olivia Jade or a Kardashian. But that doesn’t mean their time, efforts and voices are any less valuable or persuasive. Furthermore, the Pink Lily episode shows an ugly side of corporate behavior during Black History Month, as companies step over each other trying to find Black voices, influencers and faces in the quest to look more “diverse.”

Black influencers are tired of being exploited

The promise of “exposure” is one of the worst perks to promise any influencer, writer or artist. After all, if someone found you, it’s clear you’re already exposed. As another Black influencer, Kimberly Renee, explained to Buzzfeed, companies seeking Black faces for their public relations needs is at the very least insulting.

“This is particularly problematic, as it reads as if we’re being used as a prop to appease your temporary guilt or address customer complaints without taking real action,” she said in an interview with McNeal. “The lack of fair payment (or any payment for that matter) says that you still see us as people to be used up, drained and exploited.”

The problem is hardly new. The Instagram account @influencerpaygap is brimming with stories about social media influencers who are grossly underpaid, many of them Black. Some were even compelled to shell out money to attend and participate in live or online events. In between the horror stories and cautionary tales, the feed also offers a clear idea of what influencers can and should be paid for their work. 

A problem of both fairness and access

Adesuwa Ajayi, who works for a talent agency, launched the @influencerpaygap Instagram account after seeing that Black influencers didn’t have the same opportunities as whites.  “I think sometimes when you’re unaware of what other people are earning or what the potential of your space is, it’s so easy for you to be low-balled, and it’s so easy for you to lack confidence when it comes to negotiating your worth,” Ajayi told Verge last summer. “And I really wanted to create somewhere people were able to just feel a sense of confidence.”

There are success stories, such as the 35 or so Black influencers who live between two mansions in Atlanta and are able to rack up billions of views in part due to the critical mass made possible by their ability to work together. But for many people of color cutting their teeth in this still very new medium, it’s an uphill fight that's not made any easier by brands looking to fleece them for free labor.

Not everyone can be an influencer, and not every influencer should be one. For those who are smirking at the very concept, the response to that is if you think it’s so easy to be an influencer, try being one. On that point, as brands struggle to gain traction with their current and potential customers, they can take one huge step: Set a social media influencer marketing policy that’s fair and transparent for everyone — after all, if you’ve committed to fair hiring practices, the same should go for your promotional efforts, too.

Image credit: Dami Adebayo/Unsplash

As our co-editor showcases each January with an annual list of new products, the plant-based food movement is less of a trend and more of a surge. But this shift is not just about weaning people off meats or dairy: Vegan chocolate is one indulgence we will increasingly see at stores and online in the coming months as more consumers consider alternatives to dairy products, seek healthier options or have the food industry’s global impact in mind.

Of course, one way to go the vegan chocolate route is to go all-in on dark chocolate. The darker the chocolate, generally the less sugar and more antioxidants you’ll score anyway. Plus, there’s a less of a chance a dairy-based ingredient such as milk powder will sneak into those bars. Though there is often a risk that a brand’s chocolate may have come in contact with ingredients such as milk or soy (hence those pesky disclaimers on the wrappers), many companies, including Chocolove, make it clear their products are kosher, i.e., their non-dairy options have not come into any contact with milk.

But not everyone has an affection for dark chocolate, and in any event, as plant-based alternatives to dairy milk keep improving in taste and texture, watch for more specialty chocolatiers and the larger candy manufacturers to venture into vegan chocolate options.

Nestlé starts a new KitKat Club

No, not that Kit Kat Klub — we’re not talking about the setting of Cabaret or similarly-themed clubs in London or New York. One of Nestlé’s more recent products could nudge other chocolatiers to roll out similar products. Earlier this month, the food giant announced that an all-vegan KitKat bar will hit store shelves later this year in the United Kingdom.  The company said soy- or almond-based ingredients created “off-notes” — and the rice-based substitution for dairy in these bars was an effort two years in the making, Bloomberg reported. 

No word yet as to when that vegan chocolate goodness will make its way across the pond.

For the most part, global chocolate brands have not deigned to the vegan chocolate trend quite yet, but if Nestlé listened to chatter on social media, watch for other leading brands to do the same. Companies like Nestlé also must acknowledge the worldwide shifts in eating habits — the global food giant noted that the number of vegans in the U.S. have quadrupled over the last several years.

Change is already underway. Last year, Lindt, under its Hello brand, introduced a line of vegan chocolate bars that eschew dairy for oat milk.

Can’t wait for the vegan chocolate KitKat?

That being said, if you find dark chocolate too bitter and want that creamy milk chocolate mouth feel without the guilt, plenty of options are available. And no, you don’t need to be close to a Whole Foods, Harris Teeter or Sprouts. Endangered Species, for example, makes a dreamy 55 percent dark chocolate bar with oat milk that’s available at some Target stores. And for those who believe the day should start with chocolate at breakfast, Nutiva makes an alternative to Nutella should you be avoiding all and any dairy (in this Nestlé spreadable product’s case, the culprit dairy ingredient is milk powder).

We could write about vegan chocolate options all week, but here’s what to know about chocolatiers including Divine, Vesta, Hu, Alter Eco and Raaka, among others: Many of them are committed to ethical sourcing or have fair trade certification. Several of these companies also make no-sugar options; others say they avoid ingredients that give consumers pause such as palm oil.

If you find these options to be a little pricey, here’s a trade secret: Wander into your local Big Lots, Grocery Outlet, a dollar store, or one of those discounted stores of that ilk, you’d be surprised what you can find on the vegan/organic/fair trade/ethically made front. Just stock up, as if you decide to wait and enter that same store the next day, chances are those goodies will be gone.

Image credit: Tamas Pap/Unsplash

Photo: The Jaguar I-PACE, part of the British luxury automaker’s long-term strategy to become an all-electric car manufacturer within a decade.

Many car companies are keen to trade on their brand heritage to bolster their appeal. In reality, only a handful still in business today can truly lean on a storied history as firmly as Britain’s Jaguar.

Known for building sport-infused luxury cars, Jaguar has a racing heritage which stretches back to the 1940s. And according to automotive folklore, Enzo Ferrari famously once said the classic ‘60s era Jaguar E-Type was, “the most beautiful car ever made”  - the kind of peer review beyond compare.

Taking its heritage into the 21st century

Today, Jaguar trades as one of a pair of iconic British brands. Its partner, Land Rover, which also has a venerable history, is known for its rugged off-road vehicles and luxury SUVs. Together, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), under the ownership of India’s Tata Group, finds itself a relatively small player in an industry in flux and consolidation. And like all car companies, the company faces upheaval in a market where heritage alone won’t ensure survival.

Last week, JLR announced that under its “Reimagine” strategy, Jaguar will become an all-electric luxury brand from 2025. Also, in the next five years, Land Rover will welcome six all-electric models as it continues to strive to be the world leader of luxury SUVs, according to the company. These steps, JLR says, are part of an overarching plan to be a net-zero carbon business by 2039.

The news comes at a time when the auto industry is on the cusp of a tipping point, where full electrification is increasingly becoming the direction for auto manufacturers. General Motors has pledged to sell only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035, and Ford just released news that by mid-decade, all of its passenger cars in Europe will be zero-emissions capable, all-electric or plug-in hybrid – and then, all-electric by 2030.

Jaguar faces reality in a new regulatory environment

JLR’s direction is therefore in keeping with where the industry is headed, though it’s on a fast track. Analysis from the BBC points out, while JLR is making a bold move, the company had little choice in response to government regulations imposing stricter CO2 emissions.

Globally, sales have not fared well for the company during the COVID-19 pandemic, and since the United Kingdom and Europe remain the largest markets for Jaguar, regulatory pressure is doubtless having an effect on how to reinvigorate growth. As the BBC reports, “the U.K. government wants to outlaw the sale of all wholly petrol [gasoline] and diesel cars from 2030.”

On top of JLR’s electrification strategy, there was also recent news that JLR is reducing its worldwide workforce by 2,000 in non-manufacturing jobs this year, suggesting the company may be under some pressure to, pardon the pun, find another gear.

A curious investment in both all-electric and hydrogen technologies

In order to chart the company’s new course, JLR says it will spend 2.5 billion GBP (roughly $3.5 billion) annually on electrification technologies along with the development of connected services. JLR also intends to invest in green hydrogen fuel cell power, which a company press release says it is developing in preparation for future demand.

Reorienting the company around both an electric vehicle commitment and at the same time investing in hydrogen fuel cell technology strikes us as a heavy lift for a smaller auto maker. Toyota has been the main proponent of fuel-cell technology to date, and with just one vehicle on the market and extremely limited fueling infrastructure, such investment could prove a risky hedge for JLR.

Furthermore, despite a pivot to electric vehicles, Jaguar is canceling the electric version of the “XJ” sedan it was about to reveal – which runs contrary to the company’s new EV push, and appears to be a last-minute decision indicating it is the wrong vehicle for the moment. Autoblog writes that a company spokesperson says, after years in development, the planned electric “XJ replacement does not fit with our vision for a re-imaged Jaguar brand.”

Reading between the lines, JLR appears to have been forced to spend some time back at the drawing board to get the next generation of vehicles just right. That’s going to be important in order to write the next chapter in its storied history.

Image credit: Jaguar U.S.A. website

In the wake of the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and concerns about a peaceful and democratic transition of power, many businesses are reconsidering their relationships with government – including the effects of corporate political contributions.

A reckoning with corporate political contributions

There is a growing list of companies responding to the situation in various ways; some business are speaking out against lawmakers who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election by pausing their corporate political contributions, others are shutting down their Political Action Committees (PACs) and some are even asking lawmakers to return donations.

These reactions are indicative of the burgeoning concern about the impact of business dollars and interventions on the integrity of democracy in the U.S. and risks these relationships pose for businesses and people. The corporate world is realizing that representative democracy is good for business and, conversely, that the upending of the democratic process is bad for business.

Microsoft first paused its political contributions in January after it was revealed that the company’s PAC had donated to members of Congress that voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The tech giant recently announced that it will permanently suspend donations to any candidates who tried to overturn the election and that it is forming a new initiative called Democracy Forward, which allows stakeholders to contribute funds to groups working to improve public transparency, address campaign finance reform and bolster voting rights.

AT&T, whose PAC contributed more to the 2020 election than any other single company, also announced it would halt funds going to lawmakers that objected to certifying the election results.

The reputational risks of corporate political contributions have been raised on the national stage most recently at the confirmation hearing for Neera Tandem, President Biden’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In the hearing on February 11, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, noted his concern about the influence of corporations on politics, asking Tandem if the millions of dollars of corporate contributions received by the think tank she headed, Center for American Progress, would affect her decisions should she be confirmed.

These examples illuminate the ability of corporate political contributions to fan the flames of polarization and distrust, emboldening politicians and media outlets to fixate on that which divides, rather than unites us.

Long-term risks fester due to political spending

Beyond better known concerns such as reputational risk, the ability to recruit and retain talent, customer purchasing decisions, and access to increasingly ESG-focused investor capital, recent events are highlighting how the current approach to corporate political involvement can lead to less frequent but more catastrophic risks of failed democratic institutions or stalled progress on urgent systemic sustainability issues like climate change and inequality.

Since the rise of the corporate PAC in the 1970s, corporations have become deeply engaged in the U.S. political system. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, corporate PACs contributed $91 million, or 8 percent of all fundraised dollars, to House of Representatives candidates and $27 million, or 3 percent of fundraised dollars, to Senatorial candidates during the last election cycle. While these numbers may seem modest, PAC contributions have increased steadily in past decades, illuminating the necessity of political spending for companies hoping to gain access to effective lobbying.

Beyond lobbying and PAC contributions at a federal level, businesses also engage via state-level campaign contributions, supporting candidates in their fundraising efforts, hiring former government officials, funding trade associations, supporting ‘dark money’ groups that work to influence political outcomes and diverting their corporate political contributions as a tactic to influence ballot measures.

While traditional corporate PACS are limited to annual contributions of $5,000 towards any single campaign, wealthy executives tend to invest in “Super PACs,” which have unlimited ability to raise and spend funds, and make significant campaign contributions as individuals, increasing and diversifying their political interventions. Though these options are not restricted to rich individuals, those with extreme wealth are able to exert unequal influence through their donations. 

A surge in spending is linked to political polarization

In the 2020 election, outside spending amounted to almost $3.3 billion, nearly double the amount spent in 2016 and 56 times what was spent in the 2000 election. The increasing rates of corporate political contributions are considered an ‘arms race’ by business leaders and advocates such as American Promise, a nonprofit seeking to re-authorize limits on political spending by individuals, corporations and unions. The group is one of many that are increasingly concerned about the impact of political spending on the vitality of American democracy and the success of American enterprises as well as workers.

Instead of experiencing the ideals of free enterprise, open exchange, and competition, businesses today are faced with ‘pay-to-play’ barriers to entry and forced to cut political checks in order to be taken seriously. Some describe the expectation that companies must make financial contributions in order to conduct their regular operations as legalized extortion.

While this system of laws and customs operates on the premise that political engagement is good for business, there has been a shift in the attitudes of business leaders and growing recognition of the dangers of these assumptions.

The results of corporate spending on representative democracy are also concerning. Politicians often spend an exorbitant amount of time raising money, tilting the scales in favor of donors over constituents. These threats to democratic representation jeopardize the integrity of the U.S. government, expose it to the influence of foreign players, and undermine public trust.

Bipartisan support is growing for a clear alternative that will help companies get out of the political spending game and return to historical precedents that limited corporate, individual and union political spending rights. Business leaders and the general public alike are in favor of limits on political spending, with hundreds of individuals and companies pledging their support and a bipartisan majority of 81 percent of Americans in favor of a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and states to set reasonable limits on campaign fundraising and spending.

Beyond legislative changes, business and nonprofit leaders are taking matters into their own hands to redefine what it means to engage in the political system responsibly. The nonprofit Center for Political Accountability supports increased disclosure of corporate political contributions and accountability; to that end, the group has developed a model code of conduct for companies to implement.

Elizabeth Doty, the director of the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at University of Michigan's Erb Institute, said, “Companies have been concerned for some time about the costs to all of us when we do not have a well-functioning government. Now, they are starting to take a deeper look at how they have been pressed into funding some of the current dysfunction... and how they can use this moment as an opportunity to change course." The recently formed taskforce aims to help companies align the full range of their political involvements with their commitments to values, purpose, sustainability and stakeholders.

As companies continue to recognize that business has the most to lose if things continue as-is, an approach that incorporates both shifts in policy and reimagined commitments from the business community about corporate political finance will be necessary to pursue a truly representative democracy in the future.

Image credit: Andy Feliciotti/Unsplash

Granola bars and the outdoors have been a perfect pair since the crunchy, pocket-and-backpack friendly snacks were introduced by General Mills' Nature Valley in 1975. Available now in a variety of flavors and forms, granola bars have become the on-the-go mini-meal for everyone from dedicated trekkers to hedge fund managers.

In keeping with the snack’s traditional connection to nature and the environment, Nature Valley says it has developed recyclable wrappers for its crunchy granola bars. Introduced in stores in mid-February, the company expects them to be on most grocery shelves by spring.

The Nature Valley product is the first plastic film wrapper designated as Store Drop-Off recyclable by How2Recycle, according to the company. “The crunchy granola bars are our biggest selling item, so it was important to launch on our biggest subline,” noted Ashley Soukup, senior associate brand manager for Nature Valley. “We, as the brand Nature Valley, know we need to protect the environment for generations to come. Customers have been writing to us that they love that we support the national parks, so we knew we wanted to get to wrapper solutions.” 

Company officials plan to expand the packaging to other products, as part of Nature Valley's goal to achieve 100 percent recyclable packaging by 2025. Nature Valley also is promoting the Store Drop-Off recycling program.  

Research and development scientists from Nature Valley worked with corporate packaging partners to develop the wrapper film made with new polyethylene polymers. After the wrappers are recycled, the new compound can be used to manufacture items such as synthetic lumber and decking equipment. The formula, which took Nature Valley and its collaborators about three years to develop, was not patented to encourage other companies to use it.

Nature Valley and its collaborators saw no reason for other like-minded companies to start from scratch, Soukup said. “We had to work with suppliers to co-invent this; we had to ensure that the product is protected, prove that the wrapper is recyclable and could run on the production line--all during COVID,” she said. “We’re not interested in providing another barrier to others. We’re excited that this can scale beyond General Mills.”

The wrappers also are a means for Nature Valley to raise awareness of the Store Drop-Off recycling program. Increasing numbers of stores have collection boxes for plastic that is not accepted by curbside recycling programs, including “flexible plastics made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE),” according to How2Recycle. Among these are certain cereal bags, plastic mailers, grocery bags, produce bags, some types of plastic wrap and bread bags. Every Nature Valley crunchy granola bar has a Store Drop-Off logo on the label.

According to the Hartman Group’s Sustainability 2019 report, as many as 70 percent of Americans want to decrease plastic waste, but aren’t sure how to do it. At the same time, more than 90 percent of Americans are within 10 miles of a Store Drop-Off recycling location. With increased awareness, a potential 295 million people could participate in Store Drop-Off recycling--especially once consumers realize the breadth of materials that can go into these bins, Soukup noted. 

Nature Valley and other General Mills brands have joined forces with several NGOs to develop an infrastructure for plastic film recycling, such as The Recycling Partnership and the Wrap Recycling Action Program (W.R.A.P.), according to General Mills. A consumer education plan has been created to spread the word that Store Drop-Off recycling is available for Nature Valley wrappers and other plastics and encourage people to take their own recycling initiative. 

Nature Valley also is encouraging others in its industry to work with their suppliers for more innovative solutions.  “We know this is one step in the right direction,” Soukup said. “But it’s going to take a lot of action to solve a problem as big as the plastic problem.” 

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story included misspellings of Ashley Soukup's last name. We regret the error. 

Image credits: Nature Valley website

Photo: The Santa Maria Inn, one hotel property along California's central coast currently benefitting from a local tourism stimulus program.

Can the lure of a gift card to front the cost of meals, and a winery or two, nudge people to visit and boost local tourism? Leaders in Santa Maria believed so; this California city of 100,000 came up with a plan that could help support the local economy as we all emerge from the public health, social and economic crises COVID-19 has left across the U.S.

Local tourism has been shattered, but here's one way to revive it

The shuttered small businesses and restaurants across the country together paint a sad portrait of the massive hit local tourism, and the workers who depend on it, have suffered over the past year. For every cretin who saw the stimulus check as a means to book a cheap trip abroad, there are thousands more who are still skittish about going on a road trip until the country has achieved true herd immunity.

But while America’s largest companies, many of which have done quite well during the pandemic, say that they “stand” with local communities, here’s some food for thought: Why not put their money where their public statements are, and help fund local tourism stimulus packages to encourage people to visit smaller cities and towns across America?

Santa Maria is the perfect laboratory to learn whether such a program can work. The city in northern Santa Barbara county to film buffs is famous for the 2004 film Sideways, legendary for how the character Sandra Oh played kicked the crap out of Jack. Wine aficionados know the movie, and Santa Maria, for the region’s pinot noir wine.

And therein lies the challenge Santa Maria faces. First, as more people travel again, they will flock to the usual places: Miami, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Las Vegas and so forth. At a more local level, Santa Maria competes with Santa Barbara, Ojai, Pismo Beach and Big Sur for those tourist dollars. Then there’s the wine factor: sure, the Santa Maria pinots consistently score rave reviews, but beyond Napa and Sonoma, the Golden State also boasts regions like Mendocino, Paso Robles, Temecula and Livermore.

Santa Maria and the surrounding area offer more than wine, however. A 30-minute drive can take you to beaches, hikes, old historical sites. For foodies, tri-tip, the cut of beef that has made Santa Maria the barbecue capital of California, is not to be missed. The city also has plenty of taquerias and Mexican restaurants where you can nosh on dishes like birria (stewed goat). The nearby shore offers fresh seafood options as well.

Nevertheless, promoting the area requires more than clever marketing and social media campaigns, and that’s where the “Santa Maria Valley Stimulus Promotion” comes in.

TriplePundit decided to see what this was all about.

You've to dish out a little money to get visitors to spend even more money

The process was easy. Potential guests simply had to visit the local chamber’s tourism site and book a minimum two-night stay at a participating hotel or inn. After sending a PDF of the reservation to the chamber, visitors were told to expect a packet once they arrived at Santa Maria and checked in.

The program is good through the end of March, but it has already sold out: It didn’t take long for 500 visitors to participate in the program.

Included in the packet was a booklet full of suggestions for eating, wine tasting and visiting – the vast majority of places mentioned were local, including a map of a “taco trail” heralding the local taquerias in Santa Maria. In addition, a $100 Visa gift card was included, good for use anywhere. It covered 5 meals at local restaurants – 3p can confirm that it’s tri-tip’d out.

The rest of the itinerary is up to the visitor. 3p stayed at the historic Santa Maria Inn, where stars from Hollywood’s golden era, including Charle Chaplin, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Marilyn Monroe overnighted, usually on their way to extravagant soirees at Hearst Castle, located another 75 miles northwest along California’s coastal Highway 1. Hotel room doors throughout the property are festooned with star-shaped plaques reminding people who had slept there, including William Randolph Hearst and Marian Davies his mistress for whom he built his eponymous estate; 3p was, well, “fortunate” enough to score that room - unfortunately, the room Auntie Mame (Rosalind Russell) had partied in was already booked.

A way for big companies to think smaller and local

Other options, most of which are only 30 minutes away, included La Purísima Mission State Historic Park, the 11th of the 21 Franciscan Missions the Spaniards built as they took over California. Plenty of hiking trails await around communities like nearby Orcutt, which gives off an old west vibe, or Guadalupe, where walks can take you through spectacular sand dunes.

While the experiences this local tourism stimulus package offered were very local, the list of sponsors included a wide range of companies, both local and national. Companies that contributed to the program include Dignity Health, ExxonMobil, Walmart and Wells Fargo – as well as local car dealerships and retailers tied to America’s largest companies.

As more companies talk up “community,” local tourism programs like this one Santa Maria’s leaders successfully launched offer corporations an idea on how to contribute to a local cause – while helping to kickstart local economies at the same time.

Image credits: Leon Kaye