Search

On the heels of the failed insurrection of Jan. 6, several prominent Republicans have raged that the real danger to American democracy is “cancel culture.” That view is quite understandable. After all, several top U.S. corporations have already canceled their financial support for scores of Republicans in Congress who abetted the insurrection, and the fallout has only just begun. Despite Republicans' complaints, it appears the business community is determined to exercise its right to boycott whomever it pleases, and IBM has just made the case for corporate cancel culture to go even further.

When boycotts work: "Cancel culture" as damage control

The term “cancel culture” has different shades of meaning. Generally, it refers to an outpouring of criticism targeting celebrities and other public figures. During the Donald Trump administration, it has also become a political slur. Leading Republican officials such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley deployed the term “cancel culture” to neutralize Black Lives Matter supporters and other critics of the outgoing president’s policies on human and civil rights, among other issues.

But using the slur “cancel culture” has now become a damage control strategy for lawmakers facing corporate boycotts due to their connection to the failed insurrection attempt. An ever-growing list of business leaders joined a funding boycott on the 147 Republican members of Congress who objected to the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6. In addition, tech companies are boycotting Trump and some of his supporters by denying them access to their social media or e-commerce platforms.

Under these circumstances, many of those 147 elected officials will find it difficult, if not impossible, to win re-election. Other Republican party members seeking higher office are also at risk. Little wonder that they are leaning on the “cancel culture” slur to regain access to corporate dollars, media support and e-commerce platforms.

Gov. Haley provides one example of how the “cancel culture” slur works as a damage control strategy. She spoke at a closed-door meeting of the Republican National Committee on Jan. 7, just one day after the failed insurrection. As reported by Politico and other news organizations, she criticized the president and called upon members of her party to do some soul-searching.

But another part of Haley’s speech was picked up by a conservative op-ed contributor in The Hill, who reported: “Haley also warned of what might turn out to be a much more corrosive threat to the already unravelling fabric of our republic: the rise of censorship and ‘cancel culture.’”

The op-ed continued:

“They’ve demonstrated that they’ll ‘cancel’ anyone who gets in their way,” Haley said. “They want to shout down and shut up anyone who disagrees with them. They want to take control of the classroom, the boardroom, the media green room and even the dining room table."

In sum, the real danger facing the U.S. is not the violent extremists who attacked the Capitol building with murderous intent. Members of the public who insist on a civil society are the real enemies.

IBM gets corporate social responsibility right

The “cancel culture” slur may sound like a smart strategy inside the Republican bubble, but in a corporate context, it is something entirely different. It is an existential threat to the corporate social responsibility movement. It erases the foundational principle of the movement — namely, that corporations have the power to decide right from wrong.

Christopher A. Padilla, IBM’s vice president of government and regulatory affairs, is among those recognizing the threat that the “cancel culture” slur poses to the corporate voice on matters of moral, social and civic concern. 

In an IBM blog post last week, Padilla did not call out the Republican party by name, but he clearly intended his message as an argument for corporations to flex their public muscle far beyond the cancellation of donations to Republicans. “Many of our peers in corporate America have started by suspending their financial contributions to elected officials who objected to the clear and certain outcome of the election,” Padilla wrote. “But this moment in history should be about much more than organizations temporarily withholding political money to take a stand. This is an opportunity for us to pause and think, to look ahead at what policy measures can truly restore trust and confidence in our democracy."

Padilla noted that IBM has a decades-long policy of not making political donations, either directly or through a PAC. From this nonpartisan platform, Padilla pledged that IBM would support Congress and the incoming Joe Biden administration in a series of reforms aimed at limiting the ability of the Republican party, or anyone else, to organize another insurrection.

That includes strengthening the rules for presidential transitions, updating Hatch Act restrictions on partisan politicking by public servants, restricting the installation of partisan allies in federal agencies, and reforming the law on financial disclosure and divestiture for persons holding public office.

Padilla also highlighted two legislative proposals previously supported by IBM, which bear directly on the ability of the Republican-backed mob to organize and break into the U.S. Capitol building with lethal force, reportedly with the involvement of law enforcement officers.

One is the issue of justice in policing, which dominated the public discourse in the months leading up to the 2020 election. IBM is among the corporations supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, and Padilla pledged to step up the company’s efforts to advocate for new racial justice legislation like the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

The other reform has bears on the issue of tech company liability for online content. Tech companies are currently shielded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and Padilla pledged that IBM would support transparency-oriented legislation like the bipartisan PACT Act introduced during the previous session of Congress.

Section 230 reforms cut straight to the heart of the “cancel culture” slur by affirming the responsibility of tech companies to make moral, ethical, and civic judgements about the speech and images they host.

“Cancel culture,” the talent race and brand reputation

If Gov. Haley and her colleagues in the Republican party hope to defuse the corporate boycott movement by leaning on the “cancel culture” slur, they have their work cut out for them.

Even before the insurrection, the Republican party was already at risk of losing the talent race, as the up-and-coming generation turns away from racism and white supremacy. Now reports have surfaced that employers are shying away from hiring former Trump administration officials, adding yet another reason for talented and ambitious young people to avoid associating with the Republican brand.

Lest Republicans complain that the employment issue is another form of “cancel culture,” Forbes chief content officer and editor, Randall Lane, counters that the issue is not political — it is a simple matter of brand reputation. In a Jan. 7 article, Lane warned employers of the reputational risk involved in hiring any of Trump’s top spokespersons, based on their collective track record of lying to the public.

“Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie,” he wrote, while noting that Forbes is a top brand with a reputation of its own to protect. He placed “cancel culture” firmly in the silo of “societal blight,” meaning that it has no bearing on a company’s right to protect its brand. “This standard needs to apply to liars from either party,” he concluded. “It’s just a realization that, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, in a thriving democracy, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”

Reputational risk and public safety

The reputational risk factor is already emerging in areas aside from corporate donations. Loews Hotels, for example, caused a stir over the weekend when it publicly announced that its Portofino Bay Hotel in Orlando canceled a fundraiser for Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who is widely regarded as among the chief instigators of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“We are horrified and opposed to the events at the Capitol and all who supported and incited the actions," Loews wrote in a Twitter post on Jan. 16. “In light of those events and for the safety of our guests and team members, we have informed the host of the [February] fundraiser that it will no longer be held at Loews Hotels.”

Th public safety issue dovetails with the growing movement among corporations to push back against permissive state laws on carrying weapons in public. It also reinforces the efforts of corporations to push back against the anti-mask movement as a simple matter of civic responsibility.

Business leaders have only just begun to realize that they can steamroll over the “cancel culture” slur. The only question is whether they can act quickly and forcefully enough to help prevent Trump, Republican members of Congress, and their supporters from creating another insurrection from the ashes of the first one.

Image credit: Ian Hutchinson/Unsplash

While Martin Luther King, Jr. is most known for his leadership on securing civil rights, he was also passionate in his fight for economic justice. His stance on economic issues was summed up in one of the last speeches before his death, during which he said, “It is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income.”

Over the past year, no shortage of companies have pledged their alignment with economic and racial justice as the Black Lives Matter movement channeled the passion of millions of Americans. The events of the last two weeks, however, illustrated that many of these companies’ deeds fell far short of meeting their words.

How? Start by following the money trail. The Associated Press estimated that companies have donated at least $170 million to politicians who voted to overturn the November presidential election results. Six of the largest U.S. asset managers alone reportedly donated over $100 million to this group of politicians. Those donations are about as far from a ploy to uphold King’s ideals as any company can get.

On one hand, you could defend these companies by saying they didn’t know what would happen on Jan. 6. Then again, it’s not as if these elected officials hid their views on matters of race and economic justice.

It’s no wonder these political donations are widely seen as tacit approval of a fight to overturn an election that was largely decided by people of color voting in huge numbers — only to be told for weeks that their votes were illegitimate and didn’t matter. That’s quite a departure from King’s “Give Us the Ballot” speech from over 60 years ago, when he implored the federal government to secure voting rights for Black Americans.

Corporate public statements in the last 10 days echo last summer — when corporations were practically stepping over each other proclaiming that they, too, stood with Black Americans. But the problem for many of these companies was, again, the money trail. As Will Meyer discussed in an op-ed on Business Insider last August, statements ring hollow when those same companies either help fund, or lend their technology, to a system of law enforcement that too often singles out people of color. “Yet despite these gestures that have gained untold ‘earned’ media for these companies, each one remains deeply invested in punitive systems that continue to harm Black and brown lives,” Meyer wrote.

Many civil rights leaders see criminal justice reform as one way to continue King’s legacy, which included his advocacy to transform a legal system stacked against Black Americans. The reality, however, is that more companies are entwined in the U.S. prison system than those making any effort or even noise to reform it.

Bottom line: Many companies are, time and again, great at talking the talk, but when it comes to the walk, many trip before they’re even out the door. Abetting a system and group of leaders that tried to silence people who voted for a shift in racial and economic justice won’t cut it. Neither will grand promises of ending all political donations — that’s only resuming the “both sides” argument. Last we checked, there aren’t two sides on supporting American democracy or striving to ensure racial equality.

As for the argument that companies need to tread carefully in order to not upset some of their stakeholders, here’s the problem: It’s not that the cat is already out of the bag. In fact, that cat is long gone, and you’ll never catch it.

As Ben & Jerry’s CEO Matthew McCarthy wrote in Ellen McGirt’s latest RaceAhead newsletter: “Activism at a corporate level comes down to a unified walk and talk. Businesses must make transparent their values and take actions to address real social and/or environmental ills. If you're not willing to act, there's no sense in getting involved in the game because the people you serve are too smart, too savvy, and will call B.S.”

Whether the call is to have a more diverse and inclusive workforce, or to support everyone’s right to vote, or to pay a fair wage, the way companies can honor King is to take action now. Vague promises to correct injustice by 2025 just won’t cut it — and as McCarthy says, you’ll be called out on your response if the promises aren’t followed up with deeds.

Image credit: Bee Calder/Unsplash

Every year World Wildlife Fund’s Markets Institute identifies and publishes a list of global issues, trends, and tools we think will most affect food and soft commodities in the coming year. We have just released the list for 2021. These emerging developments may not yet be apparent. Thus, this list is intended to create awareness and shift our thinking and actions.

This year the process has been complicated by COVID-19 which could have dominated the list (we predicted the increased likelihood of zoonotic diseases in our 2017 list). The pandemic has disrupted lives, food systems, and much more, and its long-term impacts remain to be seen. We have tried to look beyond the pandemic to lasting changes and influences on our global food system. We are also interested in the extent to which the pandemic experience is a trial run for our responses to climate change.

The Arctic: the next frontier

While the world’s attention has been focused on deforestation in the Amazon, there has been far too little attention on the Artic. Here are a few reasons to be concerned: there are some 42,000 resource extraction and infrastructure projects already in various stages of development (in a region of four million, many Indigenous peoples); wheat, corn, and soy were planted this year on what was recently Russian permafrost; “zombie” bacteria from thawing reindeer corpses caused an anthrax outbreak in Siberia; fisheries are moving north but management systems are not keeping up with them; and marine species are now moving between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. Welcome to climate change.

Eating in 

During the pandemic shopping and cooking at home accelerated. It will never return to what it was. The shift has been away from brick-and-mortar stores, established food distribution pathways and even in-restaurant dining. E-commerce for food and food delivery will increase, while face-to-face interaction in both grocery retail and restaurants will be less than before. Remote work and high-speed internet will accentuate these trends which will are not likely to return to pre-COVID levels.

Common metrics

There is still little agreement about what must be measured or how to measure it. We can’t improve global performance on food without common metrics. We see movement for SDG and ESG performance, LCAs, GHG emissions, regenerative agriculture, ‘Build Back Better’ ambitions, illegality, habitat conversion, minimal environmental performance for food production and trade, impact investments, costs of misinformation, impacts of climate change, and so on. We can’t measure everything, so what do we need to measure? And can we use fewer metrics as windows on multiple impacts?

Bringing equity back into business 

It’s clearer than ever that current business models do not address social and economic equity or injustices, nor do they provide hope for those that are marginalized. Understanding the connections between capitalism and social and economic justice is essential and involves rethinking business models, financial structures, and subsidies. We need to consider new equity models like ESOPs (employee stock ownership plans) and joint ventures (JVs) as well as Stewardship Trusts. A focus on increased productivity and wages misses the point. We need to address social externalities in food from production to consumption and use current systems to invest in more resilient systems. Long-term contracts and carbon markets would help producers be more resilient and diversified. If we don’t begin to address social and economic issues in business models, we can’t address environmental externalities.

Food security in Africa

After the successful launch of the African Orphan Crops Consortium, the mapping of the genomes of 101 key food crops, and the successful graduation of the fourth class of the African Plant Breeders Academy in Nairobi, it is critical that we support the institutions and people who produce the seeds and cuttings within each country to make planting materials available to farmers. This is the opportunity to engage smallholders, and particularly women, in these grow-out schemes. What’s at stake here is increasing productivity and producing significantly more nutritious food for the continent that will have the highest population, income, and consumption increases of any continent, while conserving the Congo Basin, the Serengeti, Miombo, Okavango, and many other biodiverse regions.

Fisheries react to climate migration

There is increasing evidence that fisheries are shifting in response to warming oceans and moving beyond traditional management jurisdictions. This would be bad enough if all the fisheries were previously well managed. But they haven’t been. In fact, 15 to 30 percent of global fishing is IUU, and 90 percent of fisheries have been fished at or beyond capacity—it is the “beyond capacity” (33 percent) that is critical. Many countries do not have the money or the will to invest sufficiently in fisheries management. Imagine the issues now, when fisheries are moving faster than the ability of management systems to keep up.

Image credit: Vidar Nordli-Mathisen/Unsplash

2020 may have been the year of net zero (among other things), but 2021 is shaping up to be a solid year for such corporate commitments, too. For companies following the Science-Based Target initiative’s (SBTi) guidelines, the tackling of such goals can check many boxes for companies seeking to prove to their stakeholders that they are serious about their sustainability strategies, especially with the Paris Agreement inhaling new life now that a presidential administration more serious about climate action steps in this Wednesday.

Beverage companies, whether they are purveyors of booze or fizzy drinks, face several huge challenges. The world’s largest companies in this sector have a huge global presence. They are also procuring and shipping a lot of materials that have either a huge environmental impact (plastic) or are heavy to haul around (glass). Plus, the products they ship are mostly water by weight. Then, of course, the transportation emissions can’t be overlooked. Neither can the energy consumed along the value chain, from moving that water in the first place to the energy required to keep the lights on at bottling plants, distilleries and retail locations.

To that end, PepsiCo is the latest beverage (and food) giant to face those hurdles as it boards the net-zero train.

Many companies that say they are working on a long-term net-zero strategy do so with vague promises of emission reductions and “partnering” with their suppliers to work on their environmental footprint. But PepsiCo appears to have a vision that accounts for the roadblocks ahead: This is a company, after all, that is in just about every nation and territory on earth and employs more than a quarter of a million people worldwide.

So, PepsiCo says it’ll take on a net-zero agenda by approaching it from several angles: revamping its agriculture supply chain, reducing its consumption of virgin plastic, changing how it approaches product design and shifting more of its global operations from using conventional energy to renewables. The overarching goal is to reduce its absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

PepsiCo’s announcement follows that of Coca-Coca European Partners (CCEP), the $14 billion company that bottles and sells Coke-branded products across Western Europe. CCEP has a similar goal to slash emissions by 2030 and be net zero by 2040 — and it says it will spend about $300 million in undertaking this effort over the next few years.

Another beverage company with a large presence in Europe, Suntory, has also said it will start to lay out plans enabling it to become net zero before mid-century. Nestlé, which has plenty of beverages within its brand portfolio, is another company with a net-zero plan that includes focusing on agriculture, forests and the deployment of renewables.

Image credit: Martin Péchy/Pexels

The swift reaction many companies have shown as a result of last week’s violence during the U.S. Capitol riots is almost as breathtaking as the silence they exhibited in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6. Suddenly, more companies are demanding refunds on their political contributions made to the likes of Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. At first, this sounds like an honorable stance, but then again, politicians like Hawley made their views clear long before they took the lead in challenging the results of the November presidential election.

Some of the business community’s ties to last week's violence isn't surprising. For example, independent journalist Emily Atkin profiled some of the right-wing extremist elements working within the oil and gas sector which in turn had an active presence in D.C. last week. And while more evidence suggests the financial sector’s wallets opened wider for Democrats than Republicans during the most recent election cycle, it turns out plenty of money from bankers went to politicians who supported overturning the Nov. 3 presidential results.

Now we’re seeing more companies duck for cover as it turns out they, or their employees, supported various candidates reportedly linked to the Capitol riots or the QAnon movement. Even if those funds were sent unwittingly, the actions of some representatives such as Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who live-tweeted the location of the Speaker of the House during the riots, finally crossed the line. Over the past few days, many of these companies have said they will halt their political spending or completely shut down their campaign funds or PACs (political action committees).

But the reckoning has gone beyond the banks, energy companies, tech firms and retailers. It turns out some professional sports team owners sent checks to dodgy politicians as well, including those whose actions have direct ties to the Capitol riots.

For example, Charles Johnson, the largest shareholder of the San Francisco Giants, has donated money to Boebert. Arizona Diamondbacks owner Earl “Ken” Kendrick has also reportedly given financial support to Boebert’s campaign. In light of those revelations, Major League Baseball (MLB) has announced it will join the roster of businesses pulling the plug on political donations after last week’s violence in D.C.

Finding itself in the middle of controversy is hardly new for the MLB. During the 2018 midterm elections, the baseball league’s political action committee donated to Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith’s campaign — only to ask for the money back when she made off-color comments about race and lynching.

“Companies that are committed to ideals of inclusion don’t throw $5,000 at a senator who makes references to lynchings in a state with a wretched history of them while opposing a candidate who is Black," wrote sportswriter Jeff Passan at the time. “Nothing can wash away the stain of the money given to Hyde-Smith.”

Two years are a long time in politics — and in business. American voters have shown over the last several decades that they are willing to forgive, forget, or do both at the same time. But with their brand reputations on the line, companies that seek to ensure they will thrive in the long term are now evaluating how to best wield their pocketbooks. They could consider two stakeholders who could benefit from money that once went to political contributions and lobbying: their employees and local communities.

Image credit: Andy Feliciotti/Unsplash

As 2021 gets underway and COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to skyrocket across the United States, recent data from the Marshall Project, a nonprofit media outlet covering criminal justice, shows that 1 in 5 people who are incarcerated in the U.S. have tested positive for COVID-19 at some point during the pandemic. This rate is more than four times higher than that of the general population. This is an opportune moment for businesses and individuals alike to reflect, take accountability, and work to repair the damage caused by the U.S. prison system.

The pandemic has unleashed a crisis across U.S. prisons

The Marshall Project has been tracking COVID-19 in state and federal prisons since March 2020 and reports that 330,000 incarcerated people tested positive for the illness and at least 2,020 have died. The findings show that positive COVID-19 cases in prisons rose steadily from the beginning of the pandemic and peaked at a rate of 25,897 cases in one week last month.

While these figures are shocking, they are also likely a gross underestimate of the actual numbers, as testing in prisons is limited and many cases likely go unreported.

The prison-industrial complex, described by Critical Resistance as the “overlapping interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and imprisonment as solutions to economic, social and political problems,” has contributed to the proliferation and overcrowding of private prisons across the U.S. since the 1980s. In recent decades the prison population has increased by 700 percent, resulting in growing profits for private prisons and their suppliers as well as extreme overcrowding.

The U.S. prison system has long been a hub for infectious diseases, though COVID-19 poses an elevated threat to inmates who are unable to physically distance themselves due to overcrowding. They also often lack access to personal protective equipment and other crucial supplies like soap and hand sanitizer.

While some incarcerated people have been released early across the country due to action taken at state and county levels, the 8 percent reduction of the prison population recorded in the first half of 2020 is attributed to fewer people being incarcerated rather than existing inmates being released. Due to concerns about the coronavirus, courts have been closed, fewer people have been admitted into prisons from county jails, and parole officers have sent fewer people to prison for low-level crimes.

The links between COVID-19 and more human rights abuses

Inmates who were not released have been subjected to a troubling new practice of placing people into solitary confinement within state and federal prisons in an attempt to achieve social distancing. Virtually nonexistent throughout the global north, solitary confinement is a common practice in U.S. prisons. But when used as a prolonged or indefinite form of punishment, it is considered a violation of human rights under international law.

The human rights concerns for people in prison extend beyond the increased use of solitary confinement and insufficient measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, permeating the very fabric of the U.S. through racist policies and practices.

Black people are five times more likely to get stopped by police without just cause and are also incarcerated at more than five times the rate of white people in state prisons around the country. While current population data reflects that 32 percent of the U.S. population is Black and or Latinx, that demographic represents 56 percent of the prison population, indicating vastly disproportionate rates of incarceration based on race.

The rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths also paint a picture of extreme inequality. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Black Americans are hospitalized for COVID-19 at a rate 3.7 times higher than that of white people; Latinx citizens are hospitalized at 4.1 times the rate, and the death rate for both groups is almost three times that of white Americans. 

The human story behind these numbers is one of the compounding effects of racist policies in the criminal justice and health systems, which continue to devastate millions of people around the country who suffer from prolonged separation from family members or are left to grieve the passing of loved ones in isolation.

Business is complicit in abuses within the U.S. prison system

Too little is being done to put an end to these racist practices, especially as the prison-industrial complex increasingly profits from inmates during the pandemic. For example, since prisons have gone on lockdown and banned all visitors to combat the coronavirus, phone calls are now the only way for inmates to be in touch with the outside world. At around $1 per minute, these calls are expensive and place an enormous financial strain on incarcerated people and their families, while delivering substantial profits to the two companies that control the market.

Beyond the private prison industry, the business world at large is also complicit in reinforcing these systems of inequality. While 2020 was a hallmark year for corporate activism in the face of climate change, police brutality, and racism, most companies have been remarkably silent when it comes to injustice in the U.S. prison system.

This silence is especially notable given that many people who are currently incarcerated and at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 are at an elevated risk due to the racist policies these brands were protesting in the first place.

As COVID-19 continues its spread, this is a reminder that now is not the time for silence, inaction, or apathy; it is the time for action in support of health and human rights. The well-being of our communities depends on it.

Image credit: Pixabay

When the Joe Biden administration moves into the White House on Jan. 20, the president-elect faces the monumental task of undoing the damage of the Donald Trump administration while managing a global pandemic and economic crisis. That leaves little room for actual progress, especially in regard to environmental issues. Nevertheless, businesses leaders can make a difference by applying their resources and know-how to help steer the civic discourse toward a pathway that respects science and honors civic responsibility. To start, all stakeholders can eliminate the sovereign citizen movement, sparked by Trump, that has been a roadblock to environmental stewardship over the past four years.

The Trump effect: Everyone’s an expert

Among the many disturbing themes woven through the Jan. 6 insurrection is the idea that an individual can only believe and support something when they see it with their own eyes.

President Donald Trump rose to power as the personification of that idea. Long before he entered the 2016 campaign cycle as a candidate for president, he grabbed the media spotlight by demanding to see the “long form” of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The incessant demands accomplished two goals. One was to feed “birtherism” conspiracy theories regarding Obama’s country of origin, in an attempt to undermine his constitutional right to hold office. That goal, though, was secondary. The main objective was to cement Trump’s right to personally view the evidence and render final judgement on the matter.

The right of Trump, a single individual, superseded every other person, including the tens of millions of voters who chose Obama for their president and the thousands of elected representatives who supported his campaign — not to mention the various documents and other evidence proving, without a shadow of a doubt, that Hawaii is in fact one of the 50 U.S. states.

A movement that stands in the way of the Biden administration

That “I’m the decider” attitude runs deep in bogus constitutional theories such as the sovereign citizen movement, in which individuals assume the right to decide that they are not subject to the laws that govern everyone else.

The movement first took hold in the 1980s as a manifestation of white supremacy. Later it also began attracting non-white adherents. By 2010, the FBI labeled the movement a “terrorist threat” and a threat to law enforcement.

More recently, the white element of the sovereign citizen movement burst into the media spotlight when Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan, and a group of armed white men overtook buildings at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon for six weeks in 2016. When finally brought to court, Ryan Bundy later applied the sovereign citizen concept to argue in his defense.

Trump did not create the sovereign citizen movement, but he recognized its power to persuade individuals that the law does not apply to them. By Jan. 6, millions of otherwise ordinary citizens were firm in their belief that a free and fair election was an illusion, and thousands of them marched on the Capitol to take by force what they feel the law denied.

Sovereign citizens vs. environmentalists: Environmentalists win

While coated with a constitutional veneer, the sovereign citizen movement at heart is about personal privilege above the law. It’s no accident that the Bundy brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy, was notorious for illegally grazing cattle on federal land, and that his sons chose to prove their point by illegally occupying a federal nature preserve.

Seen through this lens, Trump’s dismantling of environmental regulations is part and parcel of his strategy for appealing to white supremacy in order to attain and hold power. He almost succeeded on Jan. 6, as armed, predominantly white insurrectionists literally came within minutes, if not seconds, of kidnapping members of Congress with intent to kill.

But he did not succeed. On Jan. 20, a new president with a far stronger environmental and civil justice agenda will take office.Undoing the damage of the Trump years will be a monumental task, but many business leaders have already done the important groundwork of enlisting employees and the public in civic activities that benefit their communities, especially in the area of environmental activities.

Moving forward, business leaders can use their track record on environmental activities as a springboard for engaging the public in the four intertwined priorities outlined by the Biden administration, which are defeating COVID-19, economic recovery, racial equity and climate change.

As a guidepost, businesses can take some cues from environmental organizations that have been analyzing Biden’s proposals and identifying pathways for taking swift, effective action.

Some of these priorities will sound familiar to many top executives. The Environment America Research and Policy Center, for example, has issued a “First Things to Fix” report that identifies having the Biden administration rejoin the Paris Agreement on climate change as a key priority.

U.S. businesses have continued to support the science-based goals of the Paris Agreement. The new Biden administration will support and amplify those efforts, providing business leaders with a powerful platform to make decisions based on science.

In addition, hundreds of U.S. mayors pledged to continue supporting the Paris Agreement during Trump's presidency. The Biden administration will enhance opportunities for businesses to connect their environmental initiatives with fact-based civic goals in their own communities.

Those relationships will also help grow the environmental justice movement and provide more support for a “just transition” from conventional jobs to green jobs. Labor unions were once skeptical of the benefits, but in 2019 the AFL-CIO signed a joint pact with 75 CEOs affirming the connection between climate action, labor and environmental justice.

Like it or not, globalism is here to stay

The EARPC report identifies 14 other priorities that can provide businesses with a springboard to engage employees, and their communities, in the practice of civic responsibility, fact-based action and care for the common good.

Chief among them are restoring the full force of the Clean Water Act, cutting vehicle emissions, reinstating a broad greenhouse gas performance standard for transportation, tightening rules for toxic waste discharges, strengthening air quality standards, closing down unlined coal ash ponds, strengthening environmental review processes, protecting endangered species, tightening up standards for mercury and other air pollutants from fossil power plants, reducing pollution from industrial flares, remediating lead pipes, and restoring energy-efficiency policies.

The report also identifies several other areas that address issues that are mainly regional or local, but which have an impact on global efforts to preserve biodiversity and reduce the impacts of climate change.

That includes protecting Alaska’s Tongass Forest, halting oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, withdrawing the Trump offshore drilling plan, reinstating protections for the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Monument off the coast of New England, and updating emissions regulations for oil and gas drilling sites.

The report also identifies two priorities that address global treaties for phasing out the use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) climate pollutants and regulating the international waste trade.

Of course, business leaders could carry on their environmental activities without engaging their employees and the public in broader issues.

However, the events of Jan. 6 were one horrifying demonstration of a breakdown in civic awareness and personal responsibility. Business leaders can act now to help ensure that a second one never occurs. Aligning with the Biden administration would be a start.

Image credit: Sdkb/Wiki Commons

Let’s face it, no matter where your sympathies may lie over what’s been going on in the nation’s capital, we’re all craving comfort food. Whether you were infuriated over the insurrection or believe free speech is under attack, we all crave carbs to curb the angst.

Even before last week’s violence, the months-long pandemic has given a lift to simple, carb-heavy pleasures. Washingtonians now apparently have a thing for Philly cheesesteaks. Chicago restaurants capitalized on pre-election stress. California’s Central Valley has witnessed residents going for even more timeless Mexican favorites like pozole and cocido. And at the beginning of the pandemic, food processing companies couldn’t make mac and cheese fast enough.

Now the folks behind a comfort food icon, Kraft Mac & Cheese, are striving to make the product a little less guilt-inducing.

No, we’re not talking about replacing that gooey, neon-hued cheese — that’s always going to be around. Face it: Half of us love it. The other half feign horror at the ingredients, but while they profess to avoid the stuff, many indulge when no one’s looking. If you don’t have a box stashed in your cupboard, you’re not living.

Here’s what’s changing: For those of us who can’t even bother to boil some water and want even faster instant gratification, Kraft also offers a microwavable version that's ready in less than five minutes. Sales of those microwavable cups have been on the upswing, which makes sense: If you have yet another Zoom call, you want something fast to get you through that next hour-long virtual slog.

But here’s the sticky, gooey situation: Recycling systems across the U.S., and around the world, have been torn apart as plastic trash exports have screeched to a halt and single-use plastics keep piling up. Even if your local garbage pickup service accepts plastic, there’s another problem: Many recyclers won’t take plastic items that still have paper or plastic labels affixed to them.

So, Kraft Heinz says it’s come up with an answer: It’s testing out a recyclable, fiber-based cup (shown above). Instead of a resin-or paper-based label, branding and barcodes will be directly printed on the cups. The company says the goal is to develop a cup that is both recyclable and able to break down at industrial-scale composting sites. If all goes to plan, we may see these cups of comfort food goodness in stores by the end of this year.

Image credit: Hermes Rivera/Unsplash

In the weeks leading up to the failed insurrection on Jan. 6, many U.S. business leaders refrained from calling out President Donald Trump for lying about the results of the 2020 election. However, inciting a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol building with murderous intent was the last straw. Several top U.S. companies have already taken steps to hold Trump and his supporters to account for their actions. Nevertheless, the danger is still ongoing, and a true reckoning will not occur until the trickle of corporate censure turns into an irresistible torrent of unequivocal condemnation.

Top U.S. greeting card company has had it with your insurrection

In the days leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz emerged as leading figures among a group of 147 Republican members of Congress who pledged to object to the Electoral College vote. Though widely viewed as a toothless stunt, together they provided Trump with a false sheen of constitutional legitimacy and abetted his efforts to remain in office by any means necessary.

Among the news organizations tracking the issue, the newsletter Popular Information compiled a list of corporations that have pledged to stop donating to those 147 Republican officials, either temporarily or forever.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association PAC is one representative example. "In light of this week’s violent, shocking assault on the United States Capitol, and the votes of some members of Congress to subvert the results of November’s election by challenging Electoral College results, BCBSA will suspend contributions to those lawmakers who voted to undermine our democracy,” the group told Popular Information’s Judd Legum.

Similarly, Marriott International stated: “We have taken the destructive events at the Capitol to undermine a legitimate and fair election into consideration and will be pausing political giving from our Political Action Committee to those who voted against certification of the election.”

Others taking up the same position include American Express, Commerce Bancshares (the holding company for Commerce Bank), Dow, Inc., Boston Scientific, Citibank, 3M, JPMorgan Chase, Mastercard, Charles Schwab and Microsoft.

Popular Information also highlighted Hallmark for going above and beyond. Instead of simply suspending future donations, Hallmark stated that it will demand the refund of a prior $3,000 donation to Sen. Hawley. The company will demand an additional $5,000 back from newly elected Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, who also objected to the Electoral College vote before the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

“Hallmark believes the peaceful transition of power is part of the bedrock of our democratic system, and we abhor violence of any kind. The recent actions of Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall do not reflect our company’s values. As a result, HALLPAC requested Sens. Hawley and Marshall to return all HALLPAC campaign contributions,” Hallmark told Popular Information.

This trickle really could turn into a flood

Goldman Sachs and Facebook are among a dozen or so other corporations that expressed a middle ground to Popular Information. They condemned the violence but suspended donations to both the Republican and Democratic parties, or simply pledged to study the matter further.

As more evidence emerges about the extent of the planning and premeditation involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol, Goldman Sachs and Facebook may be forced to recalibrate their positions.

That could happen sooner rather than later, partly due to pressure from employees.

Earlier on Monday, for example, Popular Information reported that AT&T was still studying the issue. By Monday afternoon, Reuters reported a statement from AT&T, in which the company wrote that it decided on more forceful action after a phone meeting held by employees on its PAC board.

AT&T will “suspend contributions to members of Congress who voted to object to the certification of Electoral College votes last week,” the company told Reuters.

After the attack on the U.S. Capitol, there's the brand reputation factor

The suspension of financial support from campaign donors is just one part of a larger bottom-line puzzle emerging from the wreckage of the Jan. 6 insurrection.

News and entertainment organizations that have enabled media personalities to support Trump’s lies suddenly appear concerned about their legal exposure and the potential loss of advertising dollars.

That appears to be the case with Westwood One, which has 8,000 broadcast radio affiliates in its stable along with 416 radio stations that it owns and operates through its Cumulus branch.

Cumulus is known for cultivating right wing on-air personalities, fostering a media environment that supported President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. On Monday, the website Inside Music Media reported that Cumulus issued a blanket warning that it would fire any host who continued to support Trump’s lies about the election.

The story was soon picked up by other leading news outlets including the Washington Post, which wrote that Cumulus took action to right its ship on Jan. 6, even as the attack on the Capitol building was under way.

The New England news organization GoLocalProv posted part of the Cumulus memo signed by EVP Brian Phillips, who emphasized that the ban includes any coded references that suggest support for President Trump's claims.

"There will be no dog-whistle talk about 'stolen elections,' 'civil wars' or any other language that infers violent public disobedience is warranted, ever. Through all of our communication channels, including social, we will work to urge restoration of PEACE AND ORDER,” Phillips wrote.

That forceful directive seems to have sparked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg into taking the long overdue step of removing “Stop the Steal” content from his platform, though it may be too late to stave off a fresh wave of advertiser boycotts.

Cumulus most likely had its advertisers in mind, too, but there may also be larger forces at work. On its website, Westwood One lists the NFL, the NHL, the NCAA, the Olympics and the Masters golf tournament as its brand partners.

That entire group has remained eerily silent so far, but in a hint of things to come the Professional Golfer’s Association board of directors voted to pull the 2022 PGA Championship out of its contract to play at a Trump golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

We’re not out of the woods yet

All in all, the corporate response seems to be building toward a massive repudiation of Trump and his supporters, but too slowly.

The FBI has issued warning of more violence in the days and weeks ahead, and in all 50 states in addition to Washington, D.C.

More business leaders need to act now, and act forcefully, to hold Trump and his allies to account for their actions by any means necessary, whether that means withholding financial support from politicians or firing any employee or executive who threatens the peace and security of the nation.

Image credit: DHS/Wiki Commons

A week after the U.S. Capitol breach, it’s become clear the riots were much worse than we thought. Meanwhile, workers across many industries have drawn a line in the sand, telling their employers to take action. We saw this at some of America’s largest tech companies, including Microsoft, where employees spoke out against past political donations to the likes of Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and Lindsey Graham.

Pulling the plug on political donations

Some companies are completely shutting off the political donation spigot. BP, for example, said its employee political action committee will hold off on sending checks, period, for at least six months. Critics, however, note this is simply following the “both sides” playbook long flaunted by the outgoing U.S. president and his supporters.

"This is not a time to say, 'Oh, both sides did it.' What the hell did the Democrats do this week except stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law?" said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York during a Monday interview with MSNBC. “Those corporations have been playing footsie with this administration for years; they should get clear — if they want to get some credit for not supporting this kind of activity, then they should get clear on who did it.”

There is no 'both sides' when it comes to the Capitol breach

One group of Americans that isn’t buying the “both sides” argument are flight attendants working for U.S. airlines. That shouldn’t be a surprise — many were subjected to ugly incidents in the days leading up to last week’s violence, as summed up by the harassment Sen. Mitt Romney endured at an airport not long before Congress voted on certifying the Electoral College results.

While most discussions of the Capitol breach have focused on how to punish those involved — whether they be the politicians who incited the riot or the terrorists who carried it out — these airline employees are taking a long-term view in working to ensure such violence never occurs again.

The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), which claims to represent over 50,000 flight attendants working within 17 airlines, called for stricter enforcement of flight safety rules after reports emerged of horrific behavior on flights going into the Washington, D.C. area in the days before the Capitol breach.

About time for a no-fly list?

Since then, flight attendants and the union’s leader, Sara Nelson, have called for greater cooperation between the federal government’s law enforcement and national security agencies. The goal would be a no-fly list that includes anyone who was verified as participating in last week’s riots. “At the least, these individuals should be flagged for additional screening that includes a behavioral assessment at the airport by people who are trained to do that, and to determine whether or not they're going to be a risk on the flight,” Nelson told Forbes.

As the federal government moves at a snail’s pace to hold those responsible for the Capitol breach accountable, it’s been left up to citizen groups such as airline employees to find the most logical and forceful recourse, in this case by restricting something these domestic terrorists cherish as a tool to enact violence: their freedom of movement.

The AFA’s bold stance on the Capitol breach puts them in curious company with the likes of Hallmark and New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick. What do these three have in common? They are speaking out, taking action, and telling the truth with far more force than the GOP leaders who, for the first time ever, are begging for unity after they stood by while a mob tried to kneecap U.S. democracy.

Image credit: Tyler Merbler/Wiki Commons