Search

Joe Biden’s presumptive inauguration on Jan. 20 next year will see a Democratic administration back in the White House and, along with it, doubtless a renewed focus on climate policy from the executive branch of government. This should be good news on all fronts for those looking forward to a more sustainable future, and the electrification of transportation should gain a boost as a consequence. But to what extent can a change in administration shift policy toward greater adoption of electrification in a meaningful way?

This question was the subject of a virtual panel discussion last week co-hosted by Plug-In America and the Electrification Coalition, two organizations which have been promoting the electrification of the transportation sector through advocacy work for over a decade.

The mood was generally optimistic, but experts said a change in the administration isn’t likely to deliver a silver bullet. Rather, the work toward a more sustainable transportation future will continue to be a multi-faceted approach, though with more favorable — and indeed important — influence from the Biden administration.

Cabinet picks and Senate majority still up in the air 

Jay Friedland, senior policy advisor for Plug-In America, said Biden’s cabinet picks — and how their confirmations shake out in the Senate — will be very important. So too will be the new administration’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Who will control the Senate is still to be resolved by January runoff elections in Georgia, the outcome of which will likely bear heavily on what the administration will be able to accomplish.

With that in mind, however, Friedland pointed out that policymaking at the advent of electric vehicles was a bipartisan effort, noting that EV tax credits were a George W. Bush-era initiative. Friedland also observed that, over the last four years, more resistance to promoting electrification has come from the Donald Trump administration than from the Congress itself. 

Leadership on transportation electrification could bring jobs to the U.S. South, Midwest

Time has moved on, too, and today the global picture has become more important than ever to consider. Ben Prochazka, national director of the Electrification Coalition, explained that never before has there been a greater focus globally on EVs, with China in the game in a big way. “The time is now for the U.S. to respond,” Prochazka said, and that while the country has a lot of talent in the market, the right policies will need to be in place to continue in a position of leadership.

Hopefully, a resumption in bipartisan cooperation might be available to maintain this leadership position. Sue Gander, managing director of EV policy for the Electrification Coalition, explained that car-makers are retooling for EV production in America, which could nudge things in the right direction. Cadillac’s production of the forthcoming Lyriq sedan in Tennessee, for example, will bring major investment and maintain jobs in this conservative-leaning state. Battery manufacturing by Volkswagen will provide opportunities for jobs in the South, too. Such investments are hard for elected representatives to overlook and could spell a political shift toward enhanced cooperation going forward.

The Midwest, where existing car manufacturing remains hugely important even where  jobs have been lost, is also is likely to gain from policies supporting EVs. For example, the new electric pickup truck company Lordstown Motors, which now occupies an ex-General Motors facility, says it plans to bring back workers in Ohio, as and when the company is able.  

The feds are in a two steps forward, one step back cycle on transportation, but states can fill the gap

Another opportunity for bipartisan efforts might lie in further stimulus initiatives. Prochazka pointed out that transportation networks have taken a major hit as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and now would be a great opportunity to invest in electrification in the transportation sector. Friedland pointed out existing bipartisan bills in the works, such as the Carper, Alexander Clean Fuels Infrastructure Act introduced in May 2020, which would likely gain more support under a Biden administration.

Of course, the be-all and end-all doesn’t lie solely with the federal government. Gander pointed out that where the federal government doesn’t move, the states still can. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, also adopted by Oregon, is gaining traction elsewhere in the United States, while a coalition of 15 states have signed on to a memorandum of understanding to accelerate truck and bus electrification. 

Increasingly important, too, will be to continue to build out charging infrastructure — especially where multi-unit homes are being built, where policies to incorporate EV charging points into the building codes should be supported. This can be done at the state level.

Indeed, Friedland pointed out, “The states have been the innovation labs, whereas the federal government has seen cycles of moving forward and retrenchment.” Perhaps this is likely to remain the case, but we’re now moving once again into the more favorable phase of that cycle.

Executive orders on electrification are less likely 

What the panelists were not too bullish on would be the Biden administration’s use of executive orders because, ultimately, executive orders have to go through a rule-making process to be implemented. Furthermore, whenever money is involved, such law-making would need to gain support in Congress. 

But even here, the Biden administration might be able to gain some movement by executive order in promoting, for example, the electrification of federal government vehicle fleets. The Biden administration can also quickly cease lawsuits such as the current administration’s attempt to challenge California’s auto emissions waiver. 

Still a tough road ahead

In summary, just because we have a Biden administration it doesn’t mean that transportation electrification will be an easy path, but there will be more levers of opportunity to make progress, said Prochazka of the Electrification Coalition. Still, added Friedland of Plug-In America, advocates will continue to need to stay engaged at all levels of government and with stakeholders, write to members of Congress, and stay in touch with state and local agencies. Hearing everyones’ voices will likely help move this forward.   

Image credit: Aleksejs Bergmanis/Pexels

Update: Although Switzerland's effort to hold companies responsible for human and environmental impacts in supply chain won majority popular support, a national vote rejected the proposal due to regional differences on Sunday, Nov. 29. 

Switzerland is close to setting a new precedent for responsible business. On Nov. 29, in a first-of-its-kind decision, the country's parliament will vote on a referendum that holds all companies headquartered in Switzerland legally responsible for human rights abuses and environmental exploitation in their supply chains. If passed, victims of unethical economic activity anywhere in the world will be able to seek retribution from the companies at the top.

“For too long, multinational corporations have been able to hide their abuses behind a veneer of respectability, using plausible deniability whenever bad behavior is highlighted,” Valter Sanches, general secretary of Swiss global union federation IndustriALL, said in a press statement. “[This proposed legislation] is part of a global movement by unions and civil society organizations to hold companies responsible for their behavior. Our message is this: We are coming for you. There is nowhere to hide. We will hold you accountable.”

The so-called Responsible Business Initiative is the result of five years of campaigning, and the Swiss Coalition for Corporate Justice collected 120,000 signatures in less than a year before submitting to parliament. In June, a counter-proposal brought to parliament was narrowly defeated. Now, in a popular referendum, citizens will decide on this amendment to the country's constitution.

Other governments have considered adopting similar legislation. The European Union published a draft directive last month mandating supply chain due diligence. As of yet, no nation has progressed as far as Switzerland is poised to go.

Unprecedented alignment with the UNGPs

Back in 2011, the United Nations developed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) to clarify the role businesses and governments play in creating ethical supply chains. These take the form of three pillars: governments passing and implementing laws to ensure businesses don’t violate human rights, corporations continuously taking concrete steps to respect human rights, and governments providing a remedy when companies do abuse human rights.

With respect to the first and third pillars: Thus far, even a decade after the U.N.’s principles were published, governments have yet to hold companies legally accountable for the actions taking place in their supply chains — and many multinational corporations have shown they don’t even know what’s happening upstream.

Part of the reason this Swiss proposal is unprecedented is because of a fear that businesses, even nations, may become uncompetitive in a regulated global marketplace. This is part of the concern IndustriALL says the Swiss corporate lobby has voiced in its resistance to the initiative.

Without top-down governance, many of the recent improvements to the global supply chain have come in a grassroots way: corporations responding to growing global crises and the greening preferences and demands of their customers. A study from earlier in 2020 found that a third of consumers will stop purchasing a preferred product if they lose trust in the brand. And these customers are voting with their money for sustainable, transparent and value-driven brands, even if it costs more, findings showed. Companies like L’Oreal are taking their own initiative to clean up the supply chain and align with customer values. For example, earlier this year, L’Oreal announced its efforts to support a more renewable plastic recycling process.

Data transparency is a key to improving the supply chain

While it’s yet to be seen how legal enforcement will take shape, it is clear that creating an ethical and sustainable supply chain benefits businesses, if only by avoiding public shaming and lawsuits — such as the suit filed in January against Silicon Valley tech giants on behalf of child cobalt miners and their families.

For any company that even wants to avoid a public relations disaster, data is a good place to start in improving supply chain sustainability. A 2019 report from CDP about its Supply Chain Program, which facilitates carbon emission transparency, states that “as suppliers become more mature in their understanding of sustainability issues and advance their approaches for taking action, there is evidence that they too are improving their efforts to cascade positive change downwards through their own supply chains.” This improvement, the Harvard Business Review notes, is because company disclosures influence how these multinational corporations contract with suppliers.

Whether or not the Swiss decide they want to hold corporations legally accountable for supply chain injustices, the vote itself shows the UNGPs’ first and third pillars are finding ground at the upper levels of governments. Fulfilling the responsible business ecosystem outlined in the UNGPs can only further support the environments and people sustaining complex supply chains, as well as the businesses profiting at the top.

Image credit: Elisa Stone/Unsplash

(Image: Walmart CEO Doug McMillon)

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon took a potentially life-saving step during a third-quarter conference call on Tuesday when he emphatically congratulated Joe Biden as president-elect. In a normal world such a statement would be, well, normal. However, in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, this simple acknowledgement of fact could make all the difference for millions of Americans who are suffering — and dying — as the result of what many say is President Donald Trump’s failure to lead.

When lives are at stake, business leaders must step in

Well over a million new COVID-19 infections have been reported in the U.S. since Election Day on Nov. 3. The death toll is mounting, and that makes a swift, seamless transfer of power all the more imperative. The Biden administration will have to make up for a full year’s worth of federal inaction by the time he takes office on Jan. 20, 2021.

Nevertheless, Trump continues to undercut the transfer of power by continuing to lie about the results of the 2020 election. His false claim of victory is no mere tantrum or exercise of ego. Nor is it simply an attempt to con more money from his supporters, as some have alleged. By claiming victory, Trump also provides powerful cover for his appointed director of the General Services Administration, Emily Murphy, to continue blocking the Biden transition team from access to resources and high-level personnel.

Tthe Trump campaign and its allies have also brought dozens of lawsuits attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which further strengthens the shield of support around Murphy. Trump’s high-profile allies in government, like U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), also contribute to the shield by asserting that the Trump team has the right to pursue legal claims in court.

With the health — and life — of millions more at stake, business leaders can make a difference by affirming Biden’s status as president-elect in no uncertain terms. Nevertheless, many leading CEOs have yet to speak up. Among those that have, some agree with the argument that Biden is not really the president-elect until the last Trump lawsuit has been thrown out of court.

None other than U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue set the tone on Nov. 7, the day that the Associated Press formally tapped Biden as the top vote-getter. Within hours of the AP report, Donohue issued a statement that hinted at the urgent need for an efficient transfer of power. However, he also undercut his own words by emphasizing that it is “important to complete the election process by fully counting every vote and resolving any disputes.” On Thursday, however, Donohue followed up with a bolder statement to Axios, referring to Biden as president-elect and arguing President Trump "should not delay the transition a moment longer."

Last week, Fortune reporter Nicole Goodkind also noted that two other influential business groups, the National Association of Manufacturers and The Business Roundtable, issued statements along those same lines.

Walmart talks: Will others listen?

That is why McMillon’s words can make all the difference. 

On Tuesday, Fortune reported that McMillon chose to conclude his opening remarks on Walmart’s third-quarter call with these words: “Congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden … we look forward to working with the administration and both houses of Congress to move the country forward.”

That’s it. That’s all it takes. Apparently the effort is too great for many executives, but Goodkind’s prior reporting in Fortune indicates that more may follow in the Walmart CEO's footsteps.

In a Nov. 13 report, Goodkind noted that 24 of “America’s top CEOs” had met earlier “to discuss the possibility of current President Donald Trump’s refusing to leave office.” The upshot of that meeting was to agree that “the president had a right to pursue legal action around the election.” However, the CEOs also reportedly agreed on an important qualifier: The legal activity could “grind through” as long “it doesn’t hurt anything.”

If more than a million more COVID-19 infections and an overwhelmed healthcare system don’t count as hurting anything, it is difficult to see where U.S. business leadership gets its moral compass. “Corporate social responsibility” are just three hollow multi-syllable words strung together unless business leaders speak up.

On the plus side, at its earlier meeting, the group reportedly agreed that “they may take public action collectively and privately put pressure on their Republican congresspeople to speak out” if the peaceful transfer of power is threatened.

According to Goodkind’s information, the same group of two dozen CEOs is meeting again on Nov. 20 to “discuss whether further action is necessary.” Trump’s own lawyers are deserting his ship, which may help stiffen their spines.

Business leaders have faced one crucial test after another during the Trump administration. They have passed some and failed others. Their actions in support of voting rights may have contributed to a Joe Biden victory, but Election Day did not end the battle. With the COVID-19 death rate topping 1,000 Americans daily, this last, final test is the biggest one yet.

Image courtesy of Walmart

(Image: Founded by young entrepreneurs, Oorja provides solar-powered water pumps that allow smallholder farmers to transition away from using diesel for irrigation.)

In rural India, smallholder farmers often struggle to earn a living. They are also largely dependent on highly polluting diesel fuel, the dominant source of energy across northern and eastern India, responsible for 5 percent of the country’s carbon emissions. Diesel fuel is also costly: Farmers across the country spend $4 billion per year to operate 9 million diesel-powered water pumps for irrigation, presenting a huge financial burden for farmers, most of whom cannot afford to invest in alternatives.

Enter Oorja, an innovative, mission-driven social enterprise based in New Delhi that provides integrated energy solutions to replace diesel engines used along the agricultural value chain. Oorja installs, operates and maintains solar water pumps, which are each shared by 15 to 20 smallholder farmers. The water pumped is metered and sold by volume through a service called Oonnati, achieving 20 percent cost savings compared to diesel-powered irrigation.

Over 180 users have adopted Oorja’s clean energy services and moved away from diesel fuel without any upfront cost for technology acquisition. Benefits extend beyond the cost savings, said Dr. Clementine Chambon, co-founder and chief technology officer for Oorja. Because farmers can irrigate their land throughout the year using Oorja’s system, agricultural productivity has increased by 6 to 15 percent for participating farmers — and income shot up by 30 percent. Further, a clever “cluster" model for operations, in which each group of farmers is serviced by a multi-skilled field team that is hired locally, generates additional local employment.

Given its sustainability bona fides, it’s no wonder that Oorja has garnered a number of accolades, including the $US100,000 Grand Prize in the 2019 Cisco Global Problem Solver Challenge, which aims to recognize new business ideas from early-stage entrepreneurs around the world who are leveraging technology for social impact. Oorja was founded in 2016 after co-founders Chambon and Amit Saraogi met during a climate change workshop for young entrepreneurs, while Chambon was completing a PhD in bioenergy at Imperial College London.

“We see major potential for pay-per-use-based energy solutions such as Oonnati to contribute to diversifying and commercializing agriculture, boosting crop yields, generating employment, and enhancing farmers’ income,” Chambon told TriplePundit. “The potential to scale Oonnati irrigation services in India is vast.”

Removing upfront costs for smallholder farmers

The benefits of the approach could extend beyond India. Smallholder farmers produce 80 percent of the world’s food but are among the poorest of individuals. Among its community-based solar projects, Oorja has deployed 15 solar irrigation pumps and a mini-grid. Additionally, two solar-powered agro-processing mills allow farmers to mill their grains and other crops at the village level, saving 25 percent compared to diesel-based processing. This Oojjwal milling service was launched as a vertically-integrated offering sold to the same groups of marginal farmers that purchase the Oonati service. 

Resolving the initial cost barrier for acquiring solar energy systems is a linchpin in Oorja’s approach, said Preeti Kumari, project officer for the startup. Around 90 percent of farmers in India are not in the position to invest in individual solar pumps. Although the government has offered a capital subsidy on solar pumps since 2014, most farmers cannot afford the high initial deposit of around INR 30,000 (US$500), equivalent to six months of income. 

The impressive impact of Oorja’s scalable and sustainable community-based solution is what merited Cisco’s recognition, Mary de Wysocki, senior director of corporate social responsibility at Cisco, told TriplePundit. “Oorja’s solution fulfills both environmental and sustainability aspects in that farmers can rent out these solar systems and create additional livelihoods,” she said.   

Young entrepreneurs hold the key to an inclusive future, but they need support to succeed 

The measurable impacts of Oorja’s model reflect the mission-driven focus of today’s young entrepreneurs, Chambon added. “The motivation in the current generation of social entrepreneurs is to create value rather than just making a profit,” she told us. “We believe it comes from an awareness of pressing social and environmental issues, empathy, motivation to do something meaningful, and perhaps a heightened sense of accountability for the outcomes created by businesses.” 

Chambon and her colleagues at Oorja are not alone in sharing this approach to business. According to a multi-country study published in 2018, almost a third of new startups aim to solve a social problem alongside turning a profit, a trend driven largely by young entrepreneurs. 

Further, nearly half of all U.S. workers are employed by small businesses, meaning the empowerment of entrepreneurs is a key strategy to ensure future job creation. In other words: Supporting young entrepreneurs can not only create jobs and ensure future economic prosperity, but it also opens the door for innovative solutions to key social challenges that have held global economies and societies back for generations. 

“These young people are really visionary founders,” de Wysocki said. “They’ve got great ideas, but often they can’t get that initial money even to develop a prototype or proof of concept.” Young social entrepreneurs often need consulting support and expert advice on their business models in order to translate their big ideas to pilot trials, and eventually to their first customers, she continued. “With that mindset, the Cisco Global Problem Solver Challenge is about moving these visionaries through the cycle of innovation.”

Partner support fuels scale and greater impact

Partners like Cisco have boosted Oorja’s efforts to grow from the pilot stage to scaling its services across the agricultural value chain and in new markets within India, Kumari said. The Cisco prize money “helped us to expand Oonnati in the northeastern state of Assam,” she told us. “Further, it provided us capital for team expansion and further technology validation for remote monitoring of solar assets, thus bolstering our capacity to work at larger scale.”

That Oorja has a female co-founder in Chambon played into Cisco’s selection of its 2019 Grand Prize winner. “We’re trying to drive more inclusivity,” de Wysocki said. "When you think about venture capital-backed startups, they are predominantly male. We’ve made a concerted effort to increase the number of female leads who are part of these startups.”

Chambon and Kumari predict that social enterprises and mission-driven startups will continue to play a crucial role in catalyzing development at the base of the supply chain and for underserved populations. India, in particular, is home to around 2 million social enterprises and has long been a dynamic hotbed for social innovation. But despite advances in its socio-economic development, the country still faces challenges in the fields of agriculture, education, healthcare, clean energy, gender equity, and equitable economic growth, among others. Soon to become the most populated country on earth, with a high density of people living together, India may prove to be a testbed for many sustainability solutions — and the potential of young entrepreneurs. 

“It is imperative to enable India’s young people to reach their full potential, and for this to happen, India needs to become a more inclusive and prosperous society,” Kumari told us. “We see that the vibrant community of startups and social enterprises is gaining sustained interest and support from impact investors in India and internationally. If this trend persists, it will result in delivering hundreds of projects providing access to basic services and making dramatic changes in the lives of millions of people.”

The fifth annual Cisco Global Problem Solver Challenge is accepting applications through January 29, 2021, with an expanded prize pool of US$1 million. Learn more here.

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

Images courtesy of Oorja

(Image: BlackRock CEO Larry Fink speaks at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.)

New coronavirus infections are spiking across the U.S. and around the world. Globally, 4 million new COVID-19 cases were reported last week. The U.S. alone has surpassed 11 million cases since the start of the pandemic — and hospitalization rates are now reaching record levels, with 150,000 new admittances reported on Monday. The surge in infections is prompting communities around the world to re-issue business and school closures or impose partial lockdowns, creating a new wave of economic uncertainty and leaving businesses and their employees wary about what will happen next. 

We're undoubtedly in for a difficult and unpredictable winter, but BlackRock CEO Larry Fink thinks the business community is ready. Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's 2020 Corporate Citizenship Conference on Tuesday, Fink called the coronavirus pandemic "the largest crisis in our lifetimes," but he feels business leaders have risen to the occasion. "I do believe the business community has shown more purpose than any time in my 44 years of business," he said. 

As the CEO of the world's largest asset manager, Larry Fink is inherently revered among rugged traditional capitalists. But after a string of successive letters calling on CEOs to embrace business models that serve all stakeholders, not just shareholders, he is emerging as a rising star in the sustainable finance space as well. Many view his decision to speak about stakeholder capitalism as a sign the two worlds are poised to converge — and that purpose-driven and profitable businesses will soon be viewed as one and the same. 

Speaking on Tuesday, Fink shared his perspective on the state of business leadership amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, and more than 1,500 people tuned in to listen. Read on for his top insights.  

Corporate purpose breeds profitability, Larry Fink says

"For those who are earning their license to operate in every community, their shareholders are the huge beneficiary of that because when you execute that in the long run, you have very strong, durable profitability," Larry Fink told attendees at the Chamber Foundation's conference this week. "During COVID, we’re seeing this very clearly." 

Research indicates that companies and investment funds with strong environmental, social, and governance profiles outperformed the S&P 500 in the early months of the pandemic. While Fink noted it's difficult to compare apples to apples when it comes to financial performance across industries, as some sectors have faced more significant disruptions than others, he agreed that businesses with a strong purpose have risen to the top. "In how we adapt, how we change, how we are trying to connect with our clients, we're proving our purpose more than ever before," he said. "I do believe COVID is only going to accelerate our clients' and our employees' desire for a stronger, more articulated business purpose." 

Even before the pandemic, BlackRock and other asset mangers were noticing significant gaps in price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios among companies in the same sector, a phenomenon Fink attributes to corporate purpose. 

"I've never seen such a broad divergence of P/E — we're talking 20, 30, 40 percent divergence among companies in the same industry," he explained. "If you look underneath each of those companies and see what is the reasoning for that divergence, the best companies are companies that are heavily engaged in their corporate purpose — driving their employees, driving their clients, and earning that license to operate in communities — and you're seeing that through profitability. This is becoming more and more real." 

Business leaders are finding their voice 

Corporate, executive and employee activism is something we at TriplePundit track closely and cover in our weekly Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which publishes every Wednesday. In the years we've followed this trend, we've seen more and more companies and their executives issue strong public statements on the issues of the day, which increasingly shape public sentiment and even public policy. 

The rapid increase is no coincidence, Fink insisted. "Ten years ago and much earlier, most leaders of businesses did not want to have a voice because we all thought clients didn't want to hear your voice," he said. "In the world we live in, it's not about running away and hiding from your voice — this divergent world is about having a voice." 

"When you have that voice and it connects with your clients — it may not connect with the far left or the far, right, I'm not here to suggest that — but if it connects with your clients, you can drive this," he continued. "You can be one of those companies that is creating a 20, 30 percent premium versus your peers. And that’s what we see as an investor." 

Some companies are still falling short on safeguarding employee health and safety

Though he says he is pleasantly surprised by how many businesses have stepped up to serve communities during the pandemic — citing examples such as pledges to avoid layoffs and converting production lines to manufacture needed supplies — Fink harbors no illusions about the corporate response being above reproach. 

"The first commitment we all need to have — and I don’t believe companies are as committed as they should be — is to find ways of helping improve the quality of healthcare for our employees," Fink said. "If you are not working with your employees and helping your employees feel safe, especially in a COVID world … companies are not doing enough." 

Companies must strive for transparency — not necessarily perfection, Fink claims

In his 2020 letter to CEOs, Larry Fink called on all public companies to report on their social and environmental impact using the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards. "SASB is not a perfect mechanism, but it's the best we have at the moment," Fink continued. "Since I wrote the letter, there's been a 100 percent increase in companies reporting under SASB. Why is that important to me and for all investors? Because then we can understand the social fabric of a company." 

Although BlackRock has been criticized for failing to follow through on the lofty proclamations issued in Fink's letters, transparency — which Fink himself often classifies as a first step — is one area where the asset manager appears to be walking the talk: In September, for the first time since signing the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2008, BlackRock earned straight As for transparency across all categories, a feat it claims is directly tied to its ESG integration efforts. 

"We're not going to ask for miracles by any one company, but companies have to move forward," Fink went on. "I do believe the best companies are moving forward, and they're showing how they are more purposeful in their communities. They're showing how they are more purposeful with their employees. And that then drives more client activity."  

Overall, the lessons we're learning about the companies that survived and thrived during the pandemic — and those that faltered — could help drive a more equitable recovery, Fink said.

"We are certainly seeing in 2020, by equity market performance, the big winners — and many losers," Fink concluded. "I'm not trying to say it's perfect. And that's one of the big issues that's going to be confronting us in 2021 and onward — that this great recession we're living in has created huge gaps in our social fabric. It creates an unevenness, and this is what we're going to have to be focusing post-COVID." 

Image credit: Larry Fink speaking at the World Economic Forum: World Economic Forum/Flickr

Editor's Note: This is part two in a two-part series on sustainable, climate-smart agriculture. You can read part one here. 

As discussed earlier this week, a first-of-its-kind food and agriculture sector-wide vision will require a strong evidence base for the kinds of solutions that will work effectively and with economic viability for everyone involved—including those farming the land.

One of the sources of that evidence-based information will be the work of the Agriculture Climate Partnership (ACP) formed recently between USFRA and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), which brings scientists together with farmers to develop and test solutions to unlock the climate-saving potential in farmlands. The partnership envisions a world where every farmer and rancher is employing at least one climate-smart solution on every acre of farmland. The goal is for agriculture to be net-negative for greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

That is a tall order when agriculture contributes 13 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the second-largest emitter after the energy sector (which includes emissions from power generation and transport).

The ACP formally “is really an effort to try to bring farmers and the scientists together, to bring the data together, and try to move with one voice,” Sally Rockey, Executive Director of FFAR, told TriplePundit. “This would then accelerate our progress towards having agriculture as a solution to climate change into levels we've never seen before. But we really have to work together in order to create an evidence base with a lot of relevance that can be used on the ground as quickly as possible.”

Complexity is at the core of the challenges confronting agriculture

Rockey acknowledges the challenges. One is the complexity of the agriculture system. “Every farm is different. Every field is different. Production practices are different. The environment is different. In order to get results that can be put at scale, you really have to build a system that takes into account and can deal with all those complexities,” she continued.

Such complexity requires robust, solid data. “That's why things such as data analytics, artificial intelligence, deep learning are going to be so necessary in this kind of project,” added Rockey. “Data is at the core of it because we have to have really sophisticated ways to tease through all these data sets and be able to understand what is relevant for a particular farmer in a particular situation, based on their environment, geography, practices, et cetera.”  

Who owns the data?

Another challenge, Rockey noted, “is just how much we're willing to share our data and our results with each other; that question of who owns the data. Collaboration is at the core of this. It will require agreements among public and private partners about what is going to be able to be shared. We have to work out ways that you can work together and share as much as possible without diminishing the economic potential for those involved in there.”

It will be important, she insisted, to find “a coalition of the willing: those individuals who are willing to come in at the beginning and take the risk to join early.”

Farmers: let’s not forget economic viability 

Joan Ruskamp, a Nebraska farmer and cattle feeder, agreed that there is enormous complexity to tackle in identifying solutions. She says what she appreciated in conversations with other stakeholders at Honor the Harvest is “is that there was not an expectation of a cookie cutter method,” she explained to 3p.

“Every farm is unique, our soils are different, our climate is different. What we do in 2020 is because of what's been tried and proven or failed these last 100 years. We didn't get here by accident in the way we grow corn beans, or feed cattle,” said Ruskamp. “It's all been a continuation of trying to find not only more efficiency, but less use of resources while we're producing safe food. I don't know any farmer that doesn't want to provide safe food because we're all eating it too, and so are our families, our parents, our grandkids, our friends, and our communities. We’re unique, but we're still very connected.  We do live off the land and we need her to be healthy.”

Ruskamp’s concern going forward will be to make sure that climate-smart solutions are economically viable for everyone involved. She explained:

“Probably the piece that's been most lacking between all the segments is the economic viability. Every segment traditionally has focused on their own profitability, an approach that says, “I'm buying at lower cost and I'm selling at highest costs. And I'm not really concerned about the people in front of me or behind me, as long as I have a margin. We can't really honor a harvest if we're continually expecting some parts of the system to not be economically viable. Everyone has to be able to thrive, not just get by. We have to build a system that we can all thrive on. “

Ruskamp’s views are echoed by Anne Meis, who underscores the need for science and data. “We know those practices like minimum tillage, cover crop diversity, and livestock integration been proven to lead to healthier soil,” said Meis. “Now we need to strengthen the science behind methods of actually measuring the carbon draw down, and then couple that with the investment in finance to start accelerating these practices on the farm.” 

Like Ruskamp, a more sustainable agriculture system in the future “has to make economic sense, in this recognition of the importance of the soil, given that farmers are caretakers of this amazing commodity. Is there a future in farming where producing the most bushels per acre is the ultimate goal because that's the economic pay?”

Finally, Ruskamp asked rhetorically, “Or is there a future in farming where farming practices have an economic value because they bring about soil health, with a dollar amount assigned to healthy soil and the science behind it that measures carbon draw-down. That’s a big leap into the future because it means changing the culture of farming. We need a paradigm shift in valuing agriculture for the ecosystem services it provides.”

Image credit: Benjamin Lehman/Unsplash

With the COVID-19 outbreak reaching a new level of crisis, it is all the more imperative for the outgoing Trump administration to ensure a swift and effective transfer of the gears of government to President-elect Joe Biden. Nevertheless, as of this writing President Trump has not even taken the first step of formally conceding. That makes it all the more imperative for business leaders to insist on launching the transfer process immediately. In one development that could prove decisive, law firms have begun to withdraw their business from the Trump campaign and its allies.

When delay costs lives

Media analysts officially called the 2020 Election in Biden’s favor on Saturday, November 7, but as of last week only a small flurry of high profile members of the business community publicly welcomed him as the president-elect.

Some, like Facebook COO Sheryl Sandburg, chose to ignore the pandemic and focus on the history-making achievement of Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris, or to dwell on general themes of unity and democracy.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Thomas J. Donohue was among others who at least hinted at the need for an efficient transfer of due to the urgency of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in a statement issued on November 7 he carved out a giant loophole, when he emphasized that it is “important to complete the election process by fully counting every vote and resolving any disputes.”

Why lawyers need to stand up for the law

Donohue’s loophole illustrates why it is important for law firms to pull the covers back on the efforts of the Trump campaign and its allies to delay the transfer of power by launching a series of lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 Election.

Trump and his high profile supporters, including Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), have argued that the Trump campaign is entitled to pursue claims of election fraud in court. Graham, for one, has backed up that argument with a reported $500,000 donation to the campaign’s legal fund for election challenges.

If that is what Donohue means by resolving disputes, the cost in human lives is mounting with every day of delay. The Trump administration never developed a national strategy for managing the COVID-19 crisis to begin with, and now the number of people infected, sickened, hospitalized, and killed by the virus has skyrocketed with the onset of cool weather.

In just the seven-day period from November 9 to the 16th, the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 tracker recorded more than 1 million new cases, an alarming surge considering that it has taken almost 10 months for the U.S. to reach approximately 11 million cases in all.

Employee activism at work behind law firms pulling out

In this context, it is notable that several law firms in the Trump stable have finally taken a stand against the delay.

Last Friday, The New York Times reported that one Trump firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, “abruptly” withdrew from an election lawsuit in Pennsylvania. The move follows an extended period in which some lawyers at the firm have reportedly spoken internally against involvement with the Trump campaign.

According to The Times, lawyers at another Trump-affiilated firm, Jones Day, have also “expressed discomfort” about involvement with the campaign.

In particular, The Times took note of a Jones Day lawyer who emailed others at the firm, arguing that “we as lawyers choose our clients and our causes. We choose what we stand for. And this project, I submit, should not be one of those things.”

When you’ve lost Jacoby & Meyers…

Employee activism at the two law firms has begun to catch the media eye, partly with an assist from anti-Trump Republicans organized through The Lincoln Project.

Last Thursday, Fortune magazine cited Randall Eliason, a legal scholar at George Washington University, undercut the notion that Trump and his allies have a constitutional right to representation. Criminal defendants prosecuted by the government have that right, but “Trump is playing offense by affirmatively bringing these cases, and the firm is not obligated to represent them,” Eliason said.

Fortune also took note of a statement from Andrew G. Finkelstein, managing partner at the firm Jacoby & Meyers, who vehemently supported the ethical duty of a law firm to refuse work that casts doubt on the 2020 Election.

"I adamantly reject the notion that my firm would ever consider representing President Trump, his campaign, or the Pennsylvania Republican Party in their transparent efforts to undermine the integrity of our country’s electoral process,” Finkelstein told Fortune.

On November 12, Reuters noted that employee recruitment may also be in play, citing 2020 Harvard Law School graduate Molly Coleman, who is also executive director of the anti-Trump People’s Parity Project linking law students with attorneys.

“Law students from U.S. schools including Harvard and the flagship university for Jones Day’s home state Ohio are also mobilizing against the firm. Some are considering a boycott,” Coleman told Reuters.

There may also be a ripple effect on corporate clients, whose affiliation with law firms in the Trump fold has suddenly drawn attention on social media.

Reuters cites the example of GM, which found itself peppered with responses critical of its relationship with Jones Day after tweeting a message celebrating women’s leadership.

As the days tick by, more U.S. business leaders may be forced to step away from the “resolving any disputes” cover position and start taking action to save lives.

Short of a formal Trump concession, one impactful place to start would be the General Services Administration, where Director Emily Murphy, a Trump appointee, has blocked the entire Biden transition team from access to federal resources and high-level personnel.

On Monday, ABC News reported that Ms. Murphy seems to be looking for another job next year, leading one to wonder what, if anything, she hopes to accomplish by continuing the blockade day after day - unless it’s a bigger pile of bodies.

Image credit: Ronnie Rondon, Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash

Just when many of us feel as if we have reached peak pandemic fatigue, we’re inundated with more news about potential lockdowns and restrictions as winter sets in and a fading presidential administration refuses to do anything to fight the surge of COVID-19 cases. On top of all this, it's clear we’re already in the midst of a mental health crisis, one that will surely increase over the next several months.

Hence there’s a concurrent pandemic that we’ve barely quantified and still struggle to understand. With a brutal winter upon us comes a holiday season that will continue ongoing separation from loved ones, as well as giving painful reminders of family members and friends we’ve lost, access to mental health care is more crucial than ever.

Yet, access to mental health services is still elusive for many Americans. Part of it is the continued stigma; though at least in popular culture, mental health issues are discussed with more empathy than the mockery typical of the past. On Netflix, The Queen’s Gambit shares the main character’s struggles with mental health and substance abuse issues with compassion. And while critics would say it’s about as fictitious as that hit series, Helena Bonham Carter’s portrayal of Princess Margaret has one of its best moments when the character confronts her struggles in the seventh episode of the latest season of The Crown.

But many companies are still scrambling to manage the needs of a housebound workforce. Other companies that have mostly essential workers on the payroll find themselves challenged to keep these people healthy — or engage in public relations gymnastics to maintain the veneer that all is right with their employees.

Evidence suggests the outlook of many employees is grim. Last month, the global staffing firm Robert Half revealed in a survey that more than a third of professional employees feel more burned out than they did a year ago.

To their credit, more companies are boosting options for mental health services. First, however, there’s an important threshold that management and employees need to cross: the ability to be open about struggles with mental health. Many rank-and-file workers still don’t feel comfortable broaching the topic with their managers.

More companies are stepping up on this front. Starbucks, which had already enhanced such options for employees in recent years, announced at the onset of the pandemic it would offer its retail employees 20 sessions a year with a mental health therapist or coach. If you’ve been in a Starbucks lately waiting for that latte — or any restaurant or retail store for that matter — you could see why such a benefit is a start, especially in areas where there is high resistance to measures such as social distancing and wearing masks.

Other companies as starkly different as Target and Salesforce are offering web- or app-based resources for free to employees. More are also slashing or eliminating the cost of co-pays for mental health care visits, or their health insurers are taking care of that for them.

Companies that still find the standard five visits a year for mental health care to be sufficient are not only behind the times, but may also be missing out on future talent. The online career information portal Handshake recently found that 65 percent of the students it surveyed said mental health is a priority during this pandemic — and more than 60 percent said it’s important that employers provide such benefits, now and post-pandemic.

Image credit: Dan Meyers/Unsplash

We’re just days away from what will likely be an unusual Thanksgiving for many people in America, with a smaller safe “bubble” of trusted friends and family gathered around the table. So it’s worth pausing to think about how that bounty arrives at our tables and to ask: have the challenges to the food and agriculture system during the pandemic helped plant the seeds for a future with sustainable, resilient climate-smart agriculture?

A group of thought leaders from across the food and agricultural system including companies like Tyson Foods, Bayer, Cargill and McDonald’s grappled with that question and others, and their unified answer was an unequivocal yes.

They were among some 200 farmer, rancher, food, agriculture, finance, science and technology leaders who gathered for the virtual Honor the Harvest Forum, co-hosted by the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers in Action (USFRA) and The Aspen Institute.

The result was a first-of-its-kind food and agriculture sector-wide vision: A resilient, restorative, economically viable, and climate-smart agricultural system produces abundant and nutritious food, natural fiber and clean energy for a sustainable, vibrant and prosperous America.

Building resilience for future shocks

There is an upside to the insights that have emerged from the pandemic. “The experience of COVID over the last several months has amplified the urgency with which we need to approach this vision” according to Erin Fitzgerald, CEO of USFRA. She said USFRA’s research shows that the agriculture industry is currently on a trajectory to halve its carbon footprint in the next ten years.

That would help the sector build resiliency to manage future shocks and ensure climate-smart agriculture solutions are accessible and affordable for farmers and ranchers. Disaster events caused over $560 billion in damages in the United States from 2010-2019, according to USFRA, before food system players were in agreement that action towards that vision should not be delayed.

Joe Koss, President and CEO of food company Culver’s Franchising System, told TriplePundit, “Certainly, over the last several months with this COVID situation, we've learned we can’t take anything for granted. It’s important that we continue to support our farmers and everybody along the food supply chain because we know it can get disrupted very easily.”

For agriculture, the foundation of resilience is in the soil

Farmers and ranchers as uniquely positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using on-farm practices that increase carbon storage and improve soil, which would help with resilience, Fitzgerald explained, “but they can't do it alone.”

The Honor the Harvest Forum “allowed leader to meet the moment,” she added. “And what was most notable to me was that we brought together farmers and ranchers with the entire food and agriculture industry, connecting them to the value chain and its leaders - making it a truly working sector. That’s how we get the leadership to move forward.”

To advance their sector-wide vision, the stakeholders made commitments individually and collectively to four outcome areas, including the restoration of the environment through agriculture that regenerates natural resources; a revitalization of our collective appreciation for farming; investments in the next generation of agricultural systems; and a focus on strengthening the social and economic fabric of America through agriculture.

The agricultural sector’s commitments – which include actions already in progress – will include outcomes through focused investments, optimized data, metrics and technology, and workforce development.

Anne Meis, owner and operator of Meis Farms in Nebraska, told 3p: “What we all want is healthy soil, which means healthier people and a healthier planet. That's the common goal.”

Tina Owens, Senior Director, Food & Agriculture Impact at Danone, among the 200 thought leaders at the Forum, told 3p, “What’s important is to continue to bring these diverse actors and thought leaders together on an ongoing basis to integrate the evidence-based information back into their own organization's way of doing business.”

Owens underscores how important it is to have farmers and ranchers at the table in figuring out the solutions. “No matter how much we reduced our internal emissions of our footprint, all the way through to the consumer, if we didn't address what was happening back in the field, either in the dairy barn or where the feed is grown, we would miss the biggest opportunity that's required of us to help convert our global greenhouse gas emissions.”

U.S. agriculture can play a key role for achieving the SDGs

An important way to realize the sector-wide agriculture vision is to bring attention to the outsized impact the sector has on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). That was the impetus for a new report from USFRA.

According to the report, U.S. agriculture contributes to all 17 SDGs and has an outsized positive impact on a core group of seven. The aim is to have it serve as a basis for members of the food and agriculture value chain to acknowledge their own positive contributions, align on challenges that remain and advance specific opportunities to reduce environmental impacts – in the U.S. and in the developing world.

The findings were developed in accordance with the framework set out in the SDG Sector Roadmap Guidelines developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). USFRA's partners in the creation of the report were United Soybean Board, WBCSD and sustainability consulting firm ERM.

“Sometimes in the U.S. the UN Sustainable Development Goals are too hard to understand, yet food and agriculture touch almost all 17. So we really needed a translation, a way to show how we fit into the story,” explains Fitzgerald. “We are the sector that can unlock all the Goals so it is really creating a call to action for leaders to work with the food sector and farmers and ranchers.”

Food and agriculture could be a “game-changer” in meeting 2030 goals

“The way that we use land globally matters significantly and needs to change significantly,” said David Bennell, Manager, Food & Nature, WBCSD North America. “I think it is more and more obvious that agriculture has probably the earliest opportunity, almost the lead user opportunity, to make some significant substantive improvements that will actually bring more financial value to farmers and demonstrate conservation benefits too. Not many other sectors can do that as quickly as agriculture.”

He added: “If we can get the entire value chain agreed to work collaboratively around specific metrics to advance responsible production and consumption, for instance, in some ways, that’s a potential game changer, looking at this in a way that emphasizes equitable value distribution across the chain. Now it gets interesting for everybody. So this report is a very practical and credible way to act on the vision.”

“More and more multinational food companies are showing interest in aligning with the sustainable development goals, and we want to understand their goals and how we might help them achieve it,” agreed Polly Ruhland of the United Soybean Board. “We also know that one of the primary ways that we get a sustainable planet is to solve the hunger problem. Hunger is an underlying cause of many sustainability challenges we have on the planet. And other goals like clean water, responsible production and consumption, climate, partnerships—all of these things are fundamental to sustainability. And our sector has the power to address each of them.”

Later this week: We’ll focus on how the Agriculture Climate Partnership is working to bring scientists and farmers together to develop and test solutions to unlock the climate-saving potential in farmlands.

Image credit: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

While the human and environmental costs of climate change play out before our eyes — from a devastating wildfire season on the U.S. West Coast to severe storms brewing in the Atlantic — an alarming new report makes the future economic costs all the more clear. If climate change goes unchecked in a business-as-usual scenario, global GDP growth will fall by 10 percent by 2050, and the mean damage costs of climate change will reach $5.4 trillion annually by 2070. But if global temperature rise is capped at 2 degrees Celsius in alignment with the Paris climate agreement, GDP growth rates will remain unchanged and annual damage costs will fall by more than $3 trillion, according to research from CDP and University College London. 

Meeting the goals of the Paris agreement to prevent the worst impacts of climate change will require the work of both the public and private sectors. To date, nearly 1,000 companies are taking some science-based action. Among them, 467 companies have joined the Science-Based Target Initiative (SBTi), certifying their goals as being in line with the Paris agreement, a crucial first step to ensure that targets are measurable and effective. 

Going beyond direct emissions is crucial to tackle climate change

To make a real impact on mitigating climate change, companies must look beyond their operations and purchased electricity and begin to analyze their supply chain emissions, say groups such as SBTi. Scope 3 emissions refer to indirect upstream and downstream emissions that occur in the corporate value chain, excluding indirect emissions associated with power generation (Scope 2) and direct operational emissions (Scope 1). Setting a science-based Scope 3 target enables a company to identify where its biggest emissions originate and how best to tackle them. 

According to the CDP, the organization that tracks corporate action on climate and other environmental indicators, supply chain emissions are 5.5 times more than a company’s direct emissions. That means addressing those can go a long way to tackling overall emissions.

Different sectors in the Scope 3 sights

Every target will need to be based on the needs of each company. A thorough life cycle analysis (LCA) is a necessary first step to determine where in the supply chain is the greatest impact. Many companies are still in the early stages of developing science-based Scope 3 targets, but more and more are in the process.

For example, PepsiCo is one of a handful of beverage companies that report and set a target to reduce Scope 3 emissions by 20 percent by 2030, using a 2015 baseline. The target includes initiatives that address emissions by the farmers from which the company sources ingredients, as well as packaging, distribution and retail. In the retail sector, Target also has a science-based goal on the books, aiming to reduce Scope 3 emissions by 30 percent below 2017 levels by 2030, mainly through partnerships with suppliers of the goods that fill its shelves. 

As illustrated by these examples, the way a company achieves its Scope 3 target is largely determined by industry. For a company such as Kimberly-Clark that produces personal hygiene products, a significant component of the LCA will focus on forests, which are an essential part of the climate solution overall. 

Forests stabilize the global economy and must be managed sustainably to prevent further climate degradation — and they are both a cause of, and a solution for, greenhouse gas emissions: About 25 percent of global emissions come from land use, the second largest source after energy. 

But forests are also a solution. About a third of the emissions released from burning fossil fuels is absorbed every year by forests. Nearly 2 billion hectares of land across the globe has been degraded, equivalent to the land mass of the entire continent of South America. Opportunities exist to restore those lands, and paper companies can make a significant impact. 

Kimberly-Clark targets forest impacts as part of its Scope 3 goals 

Kimberly-Clark, maker of products including Cottonelle and Scott brand bath tissue, is working to account for forest-related emissions as part of its work in Scope 3. Though forest carbon and land use emissions are not yet part of the company's Scope 3 goal, which calls for a 20 percent reduction in value chain emissions by 2030, it intends to augment the target to include forest- and land-related emissions once its LCA is complete, David Chaffin, global responsible materials sourcing lead for Kimberly-Clark, told TriplePundit. 

Significantly, the company intends to directly address impacts by factoring in the forest carbon footprint in its supply chain rather than simply buying offsets, as evidenced by Kimberly-Clark’s existing goal of a 50 percent reduction in natural (Northern) forest fiber by 2025. By addressing how it sources raw materials from boreal and other high-carbon value forests, its target and future intentions carry more weight. 

In addition to being science-based, Scope 3 emissions targets are more effective if done in coordination with external stakeholders — from affected Indigenous communities to NGOs pushing for more stringent targets. Kimberly-Clark has both formal and informal relationships with Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, for example. Acknowledging that fiber sourcing directly impacts forest-dependent communities — many of them Indigenous communities that will be disproportionately affected by climate change and biodiversity loss — the company also aims to work with partners to explore how it can better support these communities’ rights and well-being, Chaffin said. 

“Relationships are critical to ensure our targets are as ambitious as they can be and as scientifically credible and effective as they can be,” he told us. 

For Chaffin, this work is not only essential, but also personal. Spending his formative years visiting the Boundary Waters boreal forest of northern Minnesota left a lasting impact, leading to a career in forest ecology and conservation. He views Kimberly-Clark’s commitment to addressing its climate impacts on forests as a critical component of advancing science and understanding of forests as they relate to climate mitigation. 

“Forests have always been a major part of my personal life,” Chaffin said. “There’s no place I’d rather be than on a lake in a boreal forest. A lot of the work I’m doing is about how to reduce the impact on those ecosystems in particular.” 

Using the latest science and a sophisticated LCA, he believes the company will break new ground. By creating methodologies specific to biogenic carbon science — in other words, analyzing the carbon stored in trees and the carbon paper products re-release into the atmosphere at end of life — “we can get as complete a picture as possible with different fiber and forest types,” he explained. The company’s LCA will run for six to eight months, and the results will inform a baseline for its forest target in early 2021. 

Such knowledge could serve to prove the critical role forests need to play over the next 10 years as part of the decarbonization of the global economy. Scope 1 and 2 emissions were the necessary first steps toward addressing corporate emissions. Scope 3 is where the rubber really hits the road.

This article series is sponsored by Kimberly-Clark and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image credit: Geran de Klerk/Unsplash