Search

Photo: Trump supporters, including one carrying a flag that's become a symbol of white supremacy, at Columbus Circle in front of Union Station, along 1st Street at Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. on Wednesday morning, January 6.

Five years ago, practically to the day, a group of armed white men took over the federal Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and were allowed claim it as their own for six weeks before finally giving up. In many ways, the episode was a dry run for yesterday’s short-lived but terrifying takeover of the U.S. Capitol by a white mob. The question now is what role, if any, can business leaders play in ensuring that white supremacy and white violence are never again defended and legitimized by elected officials.

White supremacy, white violence and white privilege on federal property

TriplePundit closely followed the events of the Malheur takeover because its ostensible leader, Ammon Bundy, was a business owner. On Jan. 2, 2016, he and a group of armed men entered and took over buildings at the nature preserve, driving out federal employees.

At the time, 3p wondered why Ammon Bundy chose the Malheur refuge to make the case for local control by ranchers on federal property, given that he was the owner of a truck repair business in Idaho and not a rancher in Oregon. For that matter, in 2013, cattle ranchers in Oregon reached a land use agreement with the federal government that was reported to be working out well for all parties.

The experience of Ammon Bundy’s father, Cliven Bundy, provides at least a partial explanation. The elder Bundy had become notorious for illegally grazing cattle on federal property in Nevada, culminating in an armed standoff with federal agents in 2014.

Despite the threat of violence, Cliven Bundy enjoyed the support of conservative organizations and legislators involved in the movement to transfer federal property to states, though he later fell out of favor after making blatantly racist remarks in public.

In contrast to the violent treatment faced by Black men and women protesting police brutality as part of Black Lives Matter and other movements, the Bundys and their followers were accorded every courtesy, and were by and large apprehended peacefully (with one notable exception).

In a related matter, in 2018 U.S. President Donald Trump pardoned the Hammonds, two Oregon ranchers who were convicted of setting a series of wildfires after disputes over cattle grazing on federal lands. Unfairness in the Hammond convictions was cited by Ammon Bundy as the proximate reason for invading the Malheur refuge in the first place. Apparently the president agreed, despite the findings of the court. In addition to the 2018 pardon, in recent days the Trump administration has proposed returning grazing rights to the two ranchers.

The Hammond pardons presaged a flood of notorious high-profile pardons for white men during Trump’s last weeks in office, even as his administration has rushed to execute Black men on death row.

From a wildlife refuge to the halls of Congress

The kid-gloves treatment of the Bundys and the Hammonds has been credited with creating an environment that supported waves of armed white mob actions against state and local legislative bodies, with little or no consequences for the perpetrators.

Those actions of white supremacy swelled in 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. Not coincidentally, Ammon Bundy himself emerged as a leading instigator.

The mob activity reached a fever pitch in the run-up to the 2020 general election, with the instigation and support of President Trump himself.

Little wonder, then, that a mob populated almost exclusively by white people would run amok in the nation’s closely guarded capitol, secure in the knowledge that they would not be subject to the same violent treatment that so often falls upon people of color.

As of this writing, it appears no one in the mob suffered serious injury, with the exception of one woman who was shot inside the Capital Building and later died of her wounds, who as of press time has been identified by only a few news outlets including the Daily Beast.

What is clear is the double standard between the treatment of Black Lives Matter protestors and people of color and the treatment of those who perpetrate white supremacy.

Yet another lesson for business leaders: Fight racism and white supremacy

In the run-up to the 2020 general election, some leading corporations plunged into get-out-the-vote efforts, with a focus on encouraging people of color to vote. Those efforts were laudable, as far as they went. However, in the face of Trump’s repeated threats to disavow the results of the vote, these efforts did little or nothing to prepare the public for the aftermath of Election Day.

Even after the results of the election demonstrated a clear, decisive win for Democratic challenger Joe Biden, Trump refused to concede. Though some business leaders publicly congratulated the president-elect, many others did not. There was no strongly organized effort to advocate for the peaceful transfer of power until Monday, Jan. 4, when the organization Partnership for New York City published an open letter from more than 170 business leaders to Congress, urging acceptance of Joe Biden as president-elect.

It was too little, too late. By then, scores of Republican members of the House and Senate had already pledged to exercise their right to object to the electoral count in several states, thus providing powerful new fodder for Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Even as these members of Congress stood up to voice their complaints yesterday afternoon, Trump egged on attendees at an ostensibly peaceful “Save America Rally” being held nearby.

“You don’t concede when there’s theft involved ... our country has had enough and we will not take it anymore,” Trump reportedly said, before encouraging the crowd to walk to the Capitol.

The rest, unfortunately, is history — and it will repeat itself, unless business leaders finally take white privilege, white supremacy and institutional racism for what it is: a dire threat to the rule of law and to the peace and security of the nation.

One good sign was raised by the conservative National Association of Manufacturers, which last night called upon Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove President Trump from office immediately.

In its published statement, NAM also noted that Trump has been “cheered on by members of his own party,” suggesting that the 12 Republican senators and more than 100 Republican representatives who pledged to object to Biden electors share equally in the blame.

Their names are a matter of public record, and business leaders who wish to set things right could start by financing more responsible candidates to hold the safety and security of all the public in their hands. After all, the 2022 midterms are right around the corner.

Image credit: Elvert Barnes/Unsplash

After years of mounting worker organizing, Google employees, in addition to those within other Alphabet companies, announced the formation of the Alphabet Workers Union earlier this week.

“Our new union,” said Program Manager Nicki Anselmo in a press release, “provides a sustainable structure to ensure that our shared values as Alphabet employees are respected even after the headlines fade.”

The Alphabet Workers Union is supported by Communications Workers of America (CWA) and is a part of the Campaign to Organize Digital Employees Campaign (CODE-CWA), which aims to organize workers across the tech, digital and gaming industries.

The new organization, which says it has more than 400 members, prides itself on being made by and for tech workers and is the first union to be open to all employees regardless of their roles at Alphabet.

The group’s goals differ from traditional unions, which are designed to negotiate contracts with employers; instead, this union says it’s focusing on long-term advocacy and inclusive decision-making structures at the company. Organizers say they are striving to uphold Google’s since retired motto, “Don’t be evil.”

While the move goes against the grain in the union-averse tech world, newly minted union members outlined the long history and successes of collective action and employee organizing that paved the way for this announcement.

Google employees have long exhibited their ability to organize, speaking out against the company’s handling of sexual harassment allegations in 2018 when 20,000 employees walked out of their offices after the New York Times reported that Google executives had been provided with millions of dollars in severance packages despite accusations of sexual harassment.

Various Google employees also successfully organized in protest of the company’s external partners and practices, including a petition to preempt a contract for cloud services with U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2019 and an outcry against Google’s drone-based A.I. contract with the Pentagon, known as Project Maven. Concerns about the ethics of these contracts have been at the heart of the protests, highlighting the tensions between Google’s stated goals and the company’s actions.

Google’s highly visible employee activism places specific pressure on company leadership and could have also compelled other tech giants into action. In 2020, though unverified by the company, Apple was widely reported to have pulled its newly acquired startup, Xnor.ai, from ongoing work with Project Maven in order to fend off any potential criticism from employees and customers.

Actions taken at the highest levels in the tech industry indicate that the collective power of employees is a force to be reckoned with. Furthermore, the informal petitions, pressure, and other forms of organizing done by Google employees in recent years are accompanied by an uptick in unionizing amongst tech workers throughout the sector.

Recent successes include union campaigns from tech companies Kickstarter and Glitch, as well as a group of Google contractors in Pittsburgh who were able to unionize based on their employment status. If the momentum continues, thousands of workers at an Alabama Amazon warehouse may also win their unionizing vote later this year.

Over the past year, under immense pressure and scrutiny to take a stand against racism, climate chaos, and economic inequality, employee activism has become an integral part of risk mitigation and social responsibility for brands, whether or not employees are unionizing. During the Global Climate Strike, for example, purpose-driven businesses across the U.S. encouraged their employees and customers to participate, while companies like Amazon faced criticism from their employees due to their silence on the matter.

Although the establishment of unions at tech companies is a divergence from business as usual in Silicon Valley, it provides valuable insight into the future of the tech space and begs important questions about who holds decision-making power, how decisions are made, and how companies can live up to their stated values. Tech companies that want to succeed long into the future will have to start answering these questions.

Image credit: Kai Wenzel/Unsplash

There they go again. The high-profile corporate lobbying organization ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) has been on the receiving end of unwelcome attention over the past several years, costing it the membership of top brands like Coca-Cola, Amazon and McDonald’s. The decision to quit ALEC seems all the more prescient after last weekend, when a lawyer associated with the organization appeared to advise outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump on his attempt to overturn election results in Georgia.

Brand reputation trumps lobbying power

Much has been reported over the years about ALEC, infamously dubbed as a “bill mill” for conservative state legislators and a grooming station for legislators-to-be.

Though ALEC positions itself as an organization of and for legislators, corporations reportedly fund almost the entirety of its budget. That can lead to reputational risk, and for some companies, the risk has not proved worth the reward.

During the Barack Obama administration, ALEC’s position on gun rights, climate change, and voter suppression got it into hot water with Amazon, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Enterprise, among others. The roiling of the membership roll continued during Trump’s term in office. Even ExxonMobil has considered joining other top brands, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell Group, Ford and Expedia, in a rush for the doors.

A connection to ALEC further puts brand reputation at risk

The decision to leave ALEC resonates all the more following the events of last weekend, when the Washington Post reported on, and released a full transcript of, a phone call that President Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Saturday.

Presidents make phone calls all the time, but this one followed 60 baseless lawsuits by Trump allies seeking to undercut President-elect Joe Biden’s right to take office on Jan. 20, raising concerns over a constitutional crisis if not an outright coup.

Media reports on the erratic behavior of Trump-affiliated lawyers Rudy Giuliani, Lin Wood, and Sidney Powell have also fed into the narrative of a power-hungry election loser clinging desperately to his own interests over respect for the democratic process.

Into this history-making picture steps ALEC. The organization reportedly suspended its focus on voter ID laws after 2012. However, in the run-up to the 2020 election, reports surfaced that it revived its interest in election legislation through a new, unpublicized "Political Process Working Group," to be spearheaded by an ALEC-affiliated lawyer named Cleta Mitchell.

As reported by Slate among other news organizations, Mitchell has firmly established her relationship with ALEC in recent years. In October 2019, she moderated the “How to Survive Redistricting” panel at an ALEC event, featuring four experts described as “among the architects and defenders of some of the most notorious gerrymanders and voter suppression plans of this decade.” The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal adds that Mitchell has also represented the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Rifle Association in addition to ALEC.

If the name Mitchell rings a bell, it should. Cleta Mitchell was among a group of top White House officials sitting in on Trump’s now-notorious Saturday phone call seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. The transcript reveals that she took an active role in the conversation.

Consequences, anyone?

The corporate fallout from the phone call has yet to materialize, but Mitchell’s affiliates are already feeling the heat.

Unlike Trump’s other top legal advisors, Mitchell is not a small-time attorney with a disproportionately high media profile. Quite the opposite. Mitchell has generally flown under the media radar despite her involvement with the NRA and other high-profile clients.

Until her resignation on Tuesday afternoon, she was a partner at the firm of Foley & Lardner, which is described as a “large, elite, multi-city firm” by the legal news organization Law and Crime.

Foley & Lardner appears to be taking the matter seriously. By Monday, the firm posted its response to Mitchell’s involvement in the call, in which it emphasizes that “Foley & Lardner LLP is not representing any parties seeking to contest the results of the presidential election” and that the firm recently “made a policy decision not to take on any representation of any party in connection with matters related to the presidential election results.”

The firm also noted that its attorneys could act in their private capacity, but it is difficult to see how that could relieve Foley & Lardner from the association in the public’s eyes.

While Foley is investigating Mitchell’s involvement in the phone call, she could also face blowback from the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, where she is a longstanding board member and serves as the current board secretary.

The Bradley Foundation has gained a reputation for financing voter suppression, among other conservative causes, but its status as a nonprofit precludes it from overt political activity. For now, the organization is taking a “no comment” approach, but odds are that, like Foley & Lardner, it will also seek to distance itself from the controversy.

As for flying under the media radar, that era appears to be over for Mitchell. Last month, senior reporter Vivia Chen of The American Lawyer named Mitchell to her 2020 list of the “Worst, Most Atrocious Lawyers of the Year,” joining such luminaries as Kayleigh McEnany, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Jenna Ellis, Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein along with Rudy Giuliani.

Though some corporations have publicly quit ALEC only to return at a later date, the Mitchell affiliation may finally motivate a permanent separation. That’s especially likely given the reenergizing of the Black Lives Matter movement, which has drawn attention to the fact that Trump is focusing his overthrow efforts on a state with a high Black population and a history of race-based voter suppression.

After all, voter suppression is one thing. An outright attempt at a coup, bloodless or not, is quite another.

Image credit: Jacob Morch/Unsplash

Leading U.S. corporations have been tiptoeing around the issue of anti-mask hysteria all throughout the COVID-19 crisis, and now it looks like Ford has had enough. To kick off the New Year, the company has launched #FinishStrong, a high profile, hard-hitting ad campaign that celebrates the everyday heroism of wearing a face mask to prevent the spread of a lethal virus. Now, was that so hard?

Ford claps back at anti-mask agitators

Other brands have featured mask-wearing actors in their advertising, but Ford raised the bar on public health messaging by creating a powerful 30-second video that focuses all attention on face masks and the people who wear them, not on its brand.

“We’re in this together and Ford’s goal since the pandemic started has been to try to help save lives,” explained the company’s president of Americas and International Markets Group, Kumar Galhotra, in a press statement.

“While many are weary from the challenges 2020 has thrown at us, now is the time for us to pull together, protect each other and finish strong until COVID-19 vaccines arrive more broadly. Lives are on the line.”

The ad stays on an upbeat theme throughout. It portrays masks in the context of ordinary people taking care of others, whether it’s bringing a 12-pack of toilet paper home to the family or saving lives in a hospital.

By omission, those images are a ringing clap-back at elected officials - on up to President Trump himself - and other public figures who have failed to wear face masks, fomented confusion over face masks, radicalized members of the public to protest against mask regulations, and fostered an environment of violence against those who advocate for face masks, including frontline retail and health care workers.

#FinishStrong lays it on the line: face masks save lives

To raise the positivity note of #FinishStrong even higher, the ad concludes with images that portray the unmasked, post-COVID return to normal community life, whether it’s dancing in the street, packing into an outdoor concert, winning a football game, getting married, riding 1,500 pounds of rodeo bull or simply exchanging a full body hug with a loved one.

As for the cold, hard statistics about the lethal consequences of anti-maskers, Ford leaves that for the backstory.

In a press release announcing the new campaign, Ford emphasized that face masks are effective tools that prevent the spread of COVID-19. Conversely, when people stubbornly refuse to wear masks, they needlessly endanger themselves and others.

“If more Americans embraced COVID mitigation protocols, such as wearing masks, 50,000 or more lives could be saved between now and the end of March when vaccines are more readily available, according to officials at the IHME, University of Washington’s School of Medicine,” Ford explained.

Referencing the milestone of “50,000 or more” is most likely not an accident. It is within range of the 58,000 U.S. soldiers who died over a period of 19 years during the Vietnam War, a conflict widely regarded as a pointless waste of human life and a dark stain in U.S. history.

Ford won't have your anti-mask hysteria

As Ford points out, the #FinishStrong campaign is just one element on a broader, collaborative COVID-19 commitment by the company that includes manufacturing and donating millions of face masks, and manufacturing millions of other medical items including face shields, isolation gowns, ventilators and respirators.

Just imagine the frustration, then, of seeing millions of Americans, from ordinary citizens to self-appointed “militia” thugs and QAnon conspiracy nuts all the way up to the President of the United States himself, fail to make use of basic health care resources.

Nevertheless, the #FinishStrong campaign is relentlessly upbeat, forward-looking and optimistic about America’s ability to pull itself together in times of crisis.

The #FinishStrong ads have been running during the college and pro football games as the regular season ends and the playoffs begin, providing a high profile, all-American venue for Ford’s vision of a community-wide effort to save lives.

More to the point, Ford reportedly reallocated significant advertising dollars away from its top selling F-150 pickup truck in order to devote air time to #FinishStrong.

Other leading brands may want to think long and hard about making a similar commitment this winter.

As the COVID-19 death tally surges relentlessly past the 350,000 mark - yes, that’s about six Vietnams in less than one year - President Trump has dropped all pretense of responsibility for managing the COVID-19 outbreak, instead focusing all attention on a  “bloodless coup” to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Ever since the first U.S. death from COVID-19 in March, the president has left U.S. businesses to struggle for reason in a sea of mass hysteria.

From top U.S. retailers to the National Football league, business  leaders have made some attempts to steer the national conversation back onto the firm footing of science-based actions that protect the whole community. Clearly that patchwork approach has failed. With the #FinishStrong campaign, Ford has created a roadmap for other trusted household brands to coordinate and amplify their messaging on face masks.

Nothing will change the ant-mask mindset, but the combined might of Mr. Peanut, the Pillsbury Doughboy, Tony the Tiger, the Aflac Duck, the Budweiser Clydesdales, the Geico gecko, the Michelin tire man, Flo from Progressive and the Most Interesting Man in the World could finally push conspiracy theories and phony patriotism out of the public conversation on COVID-19 prevention.

Image credit: Ford Media Center

Editor's note, Jan 6.: In the wake of the breach today at the U.S. Capitol, the Business Roundtable, one leading association of U.S. CEOs, has said: “The chaos unfolding in the nation’s capital is the result of unlawful efforts to overturn the legitimate results of a democratic election. The country deserves better. Business Roundtable calls on the President and all relevant officials to put an end to the chaos and to facilitate the peaceful transition of power.”

With the two open U.S. Senate seats in Georgia to be decided as soon as tonight (though highly unlikely) in a hotly contested runoff, along with the contentious maneuvers planned to challenge the certification of the Electoral College results tomorrow in Congress, one outcome is that more CEOs are speaking out. The Business Roundtable, for example, has urged leaders in both houses of Congress to respect two centuries’ worth of tradition and continue with the peaceful transition of power. The powerful National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) issued a similarly-worded statement on Monday.

With the exception of a few CEOs, such as Doug McMillon of Walmart, most corporate leaders have shied away from explicitly urging the current president to ride off into the sunset. That’s understandable to a certain point in this volatile political climate — and after all, business groups can offer these CEOs cover when they express views that could be unpopular with some of their stakeholders.

The problem, however, is that the proverbial bandage has already been ripped off. The void of leadership in Washington, D.C. means that many CEOs will have to take a stand.

Now, there’s additional evidence suggesting that more CEOs could voice their displeasure with the state of our current politics by withholding their wallets. During an interview with CNBC earlier today, Yale School of Management’s Jeffrey Sonnenfelt said more than two dozen CEOs told him they are considering yanking their financial support for GOP politicians on Capitol Hill who have aligned themselves with President Donald Trump’s ongoing challenge to the November election results.

Such a shift is important, as for the past few decades, many business leaders have funneled money to both political parties as a way to hedge their bets depending on who wins the White House.

But according to Sonnenfelt, who said he hosted a private conference call earlier today with at least 33 CEOs, these same leaders are getting fed up. When he asked if business leaders should warn lobbyists privately that their companies would no longer support politicians who continue to contest the presidential election results, all of them replied with a “yes.”

“They all wanted to move to [an] action stage, saying we need to actually put our money where our mouth is,” Sonnenfelt told CNBC, “and start to go after what they saw as either insurrectionists, or some of them in fact, were using the term ‘aiding and abetting sedition’ of these 50 percent of the GOP House and 25 percent of the Senate.”

Sonnenfelt led a similar conference call 10 days after the November election, during which CEOs told him they would start to issue public statements and pressure elected officials if, after all legal challenges were exhausted, the Trump administration did not start to work with President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team. Of course, Trump and his supporters are still challenging the results despite their failure in the courts, and Sonnenfelt indicated that the business leaders with whom he spoke could start taking bolder action in the weeks ahead.

“We haven’t seen them put the money where their mouth is previously, and that’s a big change,” Sonnenfeld added during his CNBC appearance.

While many business leaders have expressed support for respecting the U.S. election process, their calls to action have been relatively muted compared to those of former political and military leaders — the recent Washington Post op-ed signed by 10 former U.S. secretaries of defense being one example. But the business community is finally getting the message: A healthy democracy and respect for the U.S. Constitution are not only for our collective safety and security — without them, conducting business the way they know it is also now under threat.

Image credit: Andy Feliciotti/Unsplash

It’s an old federal agency, dating back to the Abraham Lincoln administration. It’s relatively small, too, by federal government standards — at last count it only has 3,500 employees. But the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which is tasked with ensuring the security of the U.S. banking sector, recently proposed a rule that could have long-term consequences for climate action.

One organization, the sustainability advocacy group Ceres, isn’t having it.

Fair access or an unfair imposition on the private sector?

The controversy is over a rule the OCC proposed back in November. Stating that its goal is to secure “fair access to financial services,” the rule would prohibit banks from deciding not to fund certain industries or projects. The public comment period ended yesterday, Jan. 4 — and if the rule moves forward, banks declining to loan funds for oil and gas projects would have to backtrack.

As the clock ticks on the Trump administration, which despite the expected shenanigans in Congress tomorrow will sunset on Jan. 20, the OCC’s proposed rule is yet another example of the Trump White House kicking in as many doors as possible as it’s shown the exit. And as more stakeholder groups pressure the banking sector to divest or stop funding fossil fuel projects, it’s clear this is one more example of how the current administration is doing whatever it can to leave its imprint on federal policy.

While the OCC denies conservative politics are behind this proposed rule change, saying there have also been calls to “de-bank” organizations like Planned Parenthood, independent ATM operators and agricultural companies, it’s clear the effects of the Barack Obama administration’s Operation Choke Point helped sway the OCC toward suggesting this rule change. Critics of that policy — which the Obama White House designed to limit access to funding by the likes of gun retailers and payday lenders in order to stop predatory and deceptive businesses from continuing their operations — accused the program of overreach, saying it denied banking services to legitimate companies.

Supporters of Operation Choke Point say the reversal would force banks to do business with companies to which their stakeholders — including customers — would object, opening a can of governance worms.

Just as more banks take climate action seriously…

But in politics, timing is often everything, and that is where Ceres is taking a stand.

From Ceres’ point of view, a reversal of the OCC rule would actually put more financial institutions at risk, as they would be compelled to fund projects that are at risk of becoming stranded assets, flying in the face of their climate action and risk mitigation plans.

“This proposed rule is an outrageous last-ditch attempt to obstruct progress to address climate change as a systemic financial risk,” said Steven M. Rothstein of Ceres in an emailed statement. “The OCC’s job is to ensure the safety and security of the U.S. banking systemic system. Climate change presents a clear threat to that system, and in turn to the U.S. economy and all who depend on it.”

Rothstein added: “Banks have begun taking steps to protect against that risk, and the OCC should help them down that path, not throw hurdles in the way. Any proposal that would make it harder for banks to mitigate their exposure to climate risk jeopardizes efforts to maintain sustainable capital markets and to build a more resilient economy.”

Yesterday’s OCC deadline for public comment was also a point of contention for Ceres, which argued that the timing imposed an atypically tight deadline. Further, Ceres argues this policy flies in the face of what the private sector says it wants in the first place.

“The proposal is widely seen as an attempt to make the oil and gas sector a protected asset class in the U.S.” the group said in a public statement. “Nearly every major U.S. bank has committed to stop funding oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, while Barclays [and] JPMorgan Chase have committed to align their lending with the goals of the Paris Agreement or a net-zero emissions pathway.”

According to a recent Ceres report, the U.S. banking system is already at far greater risk than most banks have currently disclosed to their shareholders — and regulators and investors still don’t have their heads fully wrapped over the potential threats the sector faces unless it takes bolder climate action.

Image credit: Erol Ahmed/Unsplash

The surge in online shopping over the past six months has meant a flood of boxes and bags landing at homes and businesses, bringing with them waves of plastic packaging, most of which ended up in the trash.

To help reduce that plastic tide, international retailer H&M said it replaced the plastic packaging on the outside of delivery parcels with paper shortly before the end-of-the-year shopping crush. The paper packaging was released with the H&M brand in select markets, and also will be used at for women’s ready-to-wear and other products sold under its & Other Stories brand during the early part of this year.

“We are introducing a type of packaging that is better for both the customer and the environment,” Hanna Lumikero, the service owner responsible for H&M Group’s new packaging system, said in in a company statement.  “It is yet to be improved, since we need to continue working on replacing the use of plastic throughout our logistics supply chain. But by introducing this new multi-brand packaging, we are creating a huge impact by replacing the outer plastic with a paper solution. This is a small step on a long  journey.” The paper packaging also is recyclable.

First to get the new packaging were distribution centers in the Netherlands, the U.K., Sweden, China, Russia and Australia, and for the H&M labels Cos, Arket, Monki and Weekday, according to Women's Wear Daily (WWD).  

“We use valuable input from our customers to improve and we know that they are happy about receiving their orders in more sustainable packaging. At the same time, we are committed to reducing plastic throughout our business and value chain. That is why we will implement this packaging solution in all of our brands,” continued Lumikero. 

Branding labels on the new packaging also provide each brand with a chance to be “more relevant with messaging,” according to the company.

The fashion industry has long been dependent on plastic for wrapping, hanging, tagging and shipping, although of course the plastic packaging problem is not exclusive to fashion. In just the U.S. alone, 380 billion plastic bags and wraps are used each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many of these single-use plastics are not recycled or disposed of properly.  H&M’s move comes at a time when companies have a growing number of choices when it comes to more sustainable packaging. 

Designing multi-purpose packaging that can be used in retail settings and for shipping is one option, according to Prashant Jagtap, who started the firm Trayak to advise companies about reducing the environmental effect of the packaging. "Question every piece of your packaging to see if it is absolutely necessary," he added.

The Sustainable Packaging Coalition is another source, publishing guidelines and free resources on the characteristics of sustainable packaging.

And sometimes the results of tinkering are surprising. The online thrift store Thredup went back to recycled poly bags for small orders, after comparing the production and shipping costs with paper kraft mailers. 

"We found that the poly mailers require three and a half times less energy than it took to make our previous kraft mailers," says Madeline Aaronson, Thredup's Organic Growth Manager. Research indicated that five times as many poly mailers could fit into a shipping truck versus the paper mailers, resulting in lower emissions. "We know there are drawbacks to plastics, but we couldn't ignore the energy savings on poly bags," Aaronson added in the Fashionista article.

H&M is aiming to reduce packaging by one-fourth, while at the same time designing packaging that is reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. The company says it has already has eliminated much of its plastic packaging from its stores. H&M claims it is also continuing to try to find ways to limit the use of plastics within the logistics supply chain for online shopping and shipping. H&M’s overall approach, concluded the company, contributed to a 4.7 percent reduction in plastic packaging in 2019, a total of more than 1,000 tons of plastic.

Image credit: H&M Group

(Image: In August 2020, Mercy Corps launched the Gaskiya program — named for the word “truth” in the Hausa language — to understand how rumors and misinformation flow through communities in Nigeria and to test measures to prevent their spread. As part of the program, community leaders, known as Truth Champions, listen and report rumors about COVID-19 in their community.)

As every nation struggles to contain COVID-19, one of the most pressing challenges for governments, public health officials, and humanitarians has been the fact that misinformation about the pandemic seems to spread almost as quickly as the virus itself. In nearly every country, conspiracy theories and false narratives abound, from rumors about the origin of the virus and how it is spread, to false advice about how to treat it.

Such misinformation is dangerous in any context, but particularly so in fragile places dealing with conflict, violence and weak governance, where false narratives are often weaponized against marginalized groups. As the extent of this problem became clear earlier this year, Mercy Corps launched a program that seeks to understand how these rumors spread and empower community leaders to share accurate information that can cut through the noise and counter these waves of falsehoods.

In northeast Nigeria, a region where civilians bear the brunt of a brutal conflict between the military and armed opposition groups, an assessment by a local radio station in May 2020 found that 96 percent of listeners had heard COVID-19 messaging on the station, but a full 45 percent still did not believe the virus was “real or deadly.” Rumors abound, including that the virus cannot survive in the hot climate of northern Nigeria or that it is a test from God. In August, Mercy Corps launched Gaskiya (named for the word “truth” in the Hausa language), a program designed to understand how rumors and misinformation flow through communities here and test measures to prevent their spread.

Because there is so much misinformation out there, our team didn’t think that just providing correct information would be enough. We needed to better understand the rumor landscape — where they were coming from, who was spreading them — before we could figure out how to best counter them. We began with a household survey in nine different communities, designed to gain an understanding of what exactly people were hearing about COVID-19 and where they were hearing it. Then we designed a user-facing rumor tracker that allows citizens to report rumors they hear in their communities via SMS text messages and calls. We recruited 178 “Truth Champions,” representing each of the nine different communities, and trained them on the truth about COVID-19, how to identify rumors, and on how to use the tool itself. 

We chose a phone and SMS-based platform because smartphones and apps are not widely used in these areas. When someone calls into the tool to report a rumor, we ask them what the rumor is, where they heard it and from whom. Our partners at Translators without Borders created a dashboard to conduct qualitative analysis of the rumors, analyzing trends in what’s spreading and from where. Meanwhile, after each report, the Truth Champion gets a phone call back with information about how to refute that particular rumor.

In addition to that immediate feedback loop, perhaps the most crucial element of this project is the last step: bringing that data and analysis back to each community in an effort to find solutions. In each location, we bring the Truth Champions and other community leaders together to discuss what we’ve observed so that we can better understand why certain rumors are resonant in each location, and work with them to identify how we can best combat these rumors.

In our first few weeks since launching Gaskiya, we’ve already seen a wide range of rumors, including that the virus doesn’t exist at all. Some suggest a variety of unproven home remedies, while others heard from religious leaders that the virus could be fought off with greater faith. These are the kinds of rumors and misinformation about COVID-19 that we’ve seen, with varying details, all over the world. The key is figuring out how to gain trust and combat misinformation in each local context.

We know from our experience in fragile places around the globe that the most effective solutions come from the local community and those experiencing the challenges firsthand. So while Gaskiya relies on technology to operate, it really is about listening to people. The technology doesn’t solve the problem, but it does give us a path to finding human-centered solutions for each community.

In recent years there’s been a growing emphasis in the humanitarian community around the belief that access to information is a human right. Initiatives like Signpost (a Mercy Corps collaboration with the International Rescue Committee), Internews, and NetHope are all built on the idea that for many vulnerable people, access to information can often be a life-or-death issue. The rapid spread of misinformation during the pandemic has highlighted that people need not only access to information, but also the resources to interpret, analyze and respond to that information. 

As the world looks toward the successful global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, community engagement and trust-building will be critical. Misinformation about the vaccine is already circulating in the countries where we work, before vaccines have even arrived. One of the biggest hurdles will be convincing people that vaccines and those providing them can be trusted. Winning this trust and tackling the misinformation that creates vaccine hesitancy will require significant funding and a herculean and coordinated effort from governments, public health experts and humanitarian groups.

To do that, we need to meet people where they are, digitally speaking. The tech we use will vary by context, and any initiative needs to take the reality of the local digital ecosystem into account. In northeast Nigeria, that means using phone and SMS technology. In another setting it might be Facebook or WhatsApp. And notably, tech alone isn’t the solution. But when used smartly, the right tech allows us to effectively listen to people and find out exactly what they need.

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

Image credit: Mercy Corps
 

Plastic bag bans have been slow to take hold in the U.S., and the COVID-19 pandemic created additional complications. Nevertheless, momentum is building again, and leading retailers have an opportunity to get out in front of the national conversation as advocates. However, they had better act fast, before shopping bags become the next target for politically charged conspiracy theories leading to verbal and physical attacks on frontline retail workers.

COVID-19 slows, but does not stop, momentum toward plastic bag bans

Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the only two statewide plastic bag bans in the U.S. were imposed in California in 2014 and in Hawaii between 2011 and 2015. Washington, D.C. was also an early adopter, having passed a ban in 2009.

Momentum for change finally took hold in 2019 when six states — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New York, Oregon and Vermont — all passed plastic bag bans. A seventh state, New Jersey, signed a ban into law just last month, bringing the total of state-based bans to nine.

At first, the pandemic appeared to throw a lifeline to plastic bag stakeholders. Consumers became more inclined to accept disposable plastic bags as a means of preventing the spread of the virus, a sentiment encouraged by industry stakeholders.

So far, however, the available evidence does not support single-use plastic shopping bags as an effective part of the COVID-19 prevention toolkit. In fact, it appears that the virus may remain active for longer periods on plastic surfaces compared to other materials.

A patchwork of state laws takes shape

If plastic bag industry stakeholders hoped for an opportunity to re-argue their case in the public square, it seems the opportunity has slipped through their fingers.

One representative example is Boston, which temporarily suspended its municipal ban on plastic bags last March only to re-implement it in October.

The National Conference of State Legislatures recently took stock of state and local legislation on plastic bags and noted that state-based efforts to manage plastic bag waste date back at least as far as 1991, mainly through fees, public education efforts and recycling improvements.

During the 2019 legislative cycle, plastic bag stakeholders did win rollbacks or preemptions in some cases. However, among the almost 100 pieces of plastic bag legislation introduced in that year, the trend favored more regulation, not less. The result is now a patchwork of state-based regulations taking effect within the next two years. Almost all of the new activity is concentrated in the northeastern U.S., with Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey and New York all joining Maine.

The momentum for plastic bag bans also appears to be drifting down to the greater D.C. region. A new bag ban almost passed the Maryland legislature in 2020, which could set the stage for eventual success.

Another battleground for U.S. retailers

The adoption of plastic bag bans among northeast states closely mirrors the Democratic political identity of the region. A similar situation has occurred on the west coast, within the blue-identified states of California and Oregon. That entwining of political identity and shopping bags is bound to complicate matters for regional and national retail chains, potentially exposing their frontline employees to the same kind of verbal and physical abuse that has occurred over face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The failure to establish a firm federal policy on public safety has transformed the simple act of wearing a protective face mask into a politically charged platform for emotional outbursts and self-aggrandizing claims for personal freedom at the expense of public health.

To protect their employees and customers, leading retailers have been forced to take the initiative on face masks, with or without the support of governors in their home states.

Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Even as COVID-19 continues to kill thousands of Americans every day, millions of other Americans cling to the belief that their personal opinion on face masks overrides any sense of responsibility to protect human life and health.

Adding to the problem, mask protesters have been radicalized and re-energized in the aftermath of the Nov. 3 election, joining in a toxic stew of personal grievance with self-appointed “militia,” white supremacists and proponents of the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Outgoing President Donald Trump has stirred the emotional pot to his own advantage ever since losing his chance at a second term in office, all but guaranteeing that mass hysteria will continue to dominate the public conversation for years to come, whether the topic is a lethal virus or a simple shopping bag.

Leading retailers hoping for a return to normalcy after President-elect Joe Biden takes office will need to stop hoping and start being proactive. The movement to ban plastic bags is a benefit for retailers seeking to decarbonize their supply chains, but it will remain out of reach if the issue is politicized beyond its current coastal enclaves.

Advocating for a return to reason, science and civic responsibility is not just a job for government. It is an all-hands-on-deck drill and a prerequisite for progress.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

Next-generation plastic recycling technologies could breathe new life into the U.S. petrochemical industry, and not a moment too soon. The global recycling market has been cracking under the strain of plastic waste, and export rules are tightening. In the latest development, the European Union announced a new export ban at the end of last month, one that could have an impact on U.S. markets.

The global plastic recycling market is just not up to the job

China touched off a crisis in the global recycling market in 2018 when it banned certain types of waste imports. The move exposed glaring shortfalls in the traditional approach to recycling.

In conventional recycling, the onus is on global markets to propel the demand for products made with recycled plastic. That has succeeded to some extent, but it is clearly not a permanent solution to plastic waste.

Here in the U.S., plastic recycling rates are generally low to begin with, and evidence is mounting that sending waste overseas simply shifts the burden from developed economies onto others that are ill-equipped to handle mountains of waste. The result is that waste ostensibly intended for recycling is mishandled, ends up in landfills or incinerators, or is dumped illegally.

A sea change for plastic waste

China’s ban touched off a wave of activity around the issue of plastic waste by other nations and international organizations.

Although the United Nations estimates that only 2 percent of plastic waste is exported, the ripple effect was significant. Without the benefit of China’s more sophisticated recycling infrastructure, the waste stream has surged into countries that are not necessarily equipped to handle it.

Major new markets have included Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Turkey, and several members of the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including the U.S., Korea, Canada and members of the EU.

One significant development occurred in November when OECD announced an agreement on new rules for exporting certain types of plastic waste. The new agreement only covers the category of hazardous plastic waste intended for recycling, as an update to the 1989 Basel Convention covering the shipping of hazardous waste. However, it is a step in the right direction.

Under the updated rules, all 37 OECD member countries that export hazardous plastic waste for recycling must now receive prior consent from the destination country.

The OECD timeline also calls for members to review the rules for non-hazardous plastic waste in 2024. In the meantime, organizations fighting this surge of waste can expect greater access to information from OECD members. 

As part of the new agreement, the members have committed to publicizing lists of their regulations for exporting non-hazardous plastic waste. That includes single-source or “pure” polymer waste where little or no by-products are left for disposal, as well as mixed plastic waste that is more challenging to process.

EU members take a stand on plastic waste

Another significant step occurred on Dec. 22 when the European Commission announced new regulations for importing and exporting plastic waste.

The EU's new export regulations have an environmental justice angle in that they will help prevent the indiscriminate export of unsorted plastic waste to countries that may not be equipped to recycle it.

Under the new rules, EU countries will no longer export many types of plastic waste to non-OECD members. The only permitted waste is “clean plastic” intended for recycling. The Commission also announced stricter regulations for exporting plastic waste to OECD members outside of the EU, and for importing waste into the EU.

In a statement announcing the new rules, Virginijus Sinkevičius, EU Commissioner for environment, oceans and fisheries, made a strong case for regulation of the global plastics market.

“These new rules send a clear message that in the EU we are taking responsibility for the waste we generate. The export of plastic waste will only be allowed under very strict conditions,” he explained. “The export of unsorted plastic waste to non-OECD countries will be completely banned. This is an important milestone in fighting plastic pollution, transitioning to a circular economy, and achieving the aims of the European Green Deal.”

Meanwhile, over here in the U.S.

The ripple effect of the new EU regulations is all but certain to affect recycling markets in the U.S.

Plastic scrap exported from the U.S. dipped sharply after the China ban, and the COVID-19 crisis has placed new burdens on these waste streams. Domestically, the U.S. already makes an excessive contribution to plastic pollution along its coasts. The risk of bursting at the seams will become greater without a reliable export market — unless domestic recyclers step up their efforts.

Recycling is clearly not the only solution to plastic waste over the long run, but until the global economy de-plasticizes, it can make a stronger imprint on the plastic pollution problem.

New, next-generation forms of recycling could help make a difference. Among the solutions to emerge are bio-based, microbial and molecular-level technologies that break plastic down into chemical building blocks, rather than simply shredding or melting it. Another emerging approach involves pulverizing plastic waste to produce hydrogen gas and carbon nanotubes.

The aim is to develop more efficient recycling streams while also producing a high-performance material that is equal to, if not better than, virgin plastic.

All of this could work to the advantage of petrochemical stakeholders in the U.S. If they were so inclined, they could pivot their know-how, infrastructure, and supply chains into next-generation recycling technology rather than relying on raw natural gas and petroleum for feedstock.

Though the U.S. is most closely associated with plastic waste exports, it actually does import a significant amount of plastic. With new technologies in hand, the domestic petrochemical industry could build on that foundation to increase the role of the U.S. in the global market for plastic recycling, giving the country a leading role in the global marketplace.

They had better act fast. COVID-19 pandemic or not, the long-term market for virgin plastic already shows signs of weakening as the movement for reduced packaging heats up among leading consumer goods manufacturers. The package-free movement is also gathering steam, and the next generation of bio-based plastics offers yet another challenge to the oil and gas supply chain.

Image credit: PxHere