Search

Last week, the U.S. arm of the United Nations-affiliated Sustainable Development Solutions Network released a comprehensive strategy to create a carbon-neutral U.S. economy by 2050. Called America’s Zero-Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP), the agenda was developed by over 100 researchers at dozens of universities and institutions across the country and details policy solutions for the power, transportation, industry, buildings, food and land-use, and materials sectors.

According to the findings laid out in the plan, transitioning almost entirely to renewable energy by midcentury would cost only 0.4 percent more of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) per year compared to sticking with fossil fuels. And the transition has the potential to create around 2.5 million new jobs annually over the next 30 years. 

The report’s release coincides with a poll by Climate Nexus, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication which found that 82 percent of U.S. voters support a 100 percent transition to a clean energy economy. 

The reality is that the transition is already happening in the U.S. economy as solar and wind outstrip coal and natural gas in cost effectiveness. In fact, according to ZCAP, renewable energy’s share of the American power supply now exceeds that of coal for the first time since 1885. Coordinated efforts by the federal government — both executive and legislative — could spur the economy to a faster than business-as-usual transition.

Renewable energy is a good investment bet

Clean energy investments make sense as renewables continue to outpace fossil fuels on price, but they may also help lead to a more sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plenty of investors have already begun to heed the call: New analysis from BloombergNEF estimates that global investment in clean energy will reach $11 trillion by 2050, which aligns squarely with ZCAP. However, private-sector investment must be complemented by regulatory certainty and public-sector investment to maximize potential, the plan details. 

The last time a major government investment spurred the private sector to the scale proposed in ZCAP was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). For example, in Maryland, the state energy agency estimated that its $9.4 million ARRA-funded program to install solar systems on public buildings generated over $36 million in private investments and created 80 jobs. In general, every dollar spent on energy efficiency will yield $4 in return.

Energy efficiency as a cornerstone of a zero-carbon future

Energy efficiency is the workhorse of any climate change plan. Reducing waste in energy use and demand means less energy is required to meet commercial, industrial and residential needs. Further, because generating electricity with fossil fuels uses copious amounts of water, reducing energy demand through efficiency is an effective water conservation tool. 

ZCAP proposes a National Energy Conservation Code for Buildings. This could be considered a ramped-up version of the existing International Energy Conservation Code, which is updated every few years and sets minimum standards for energy efficiency in buildings.

Buildings account for about 12 percent of direct carbon emissions in the U.S., and, as the plan points out, U.S. buildings have a larger carbon footprint than the entire greenhouse gas output of Brazil or Germany. Reducing those emissions by addressing onsite fossil fuel consumption and construction is a critical step in reaching zero-carbon. Further, construction and property management jobs by their nature cannot be outsourced or moved out of the country.

The water sector: The missing piece in the climate puzzle

The ZCAP lays out a comprehensive strategy for a zero-carbon economy, but it misses one big opportunity to contribute: the water sector.

Most climate plans do not consider the important role that the water sector could play. Many water conservation strategies can achieve the same energy savings — and therefore the same carbon reductions — as traditional utility energy-efficiency programs, but at half the cost.

Water utilities often own or lease extensive property where renewable energy could be deployed to help power their systems. Everything from biogas at wastewater treatment plants to floating solar panels that reduce the evaporation of water in retention ponds (which coincidentally also help keep the solar panels cool and improve their efficiency) should be included in any climate plan.

To stave off further impacts from climate change, every sector has a role to play. The water sector will feel the brunt of climate change — and it has the opportunity to help reach the solution. 

Image credit: Thomas Richter/Unsplash

Small businesses led by women, which have been hit disproportionately hard by the coronavirus pandemic, will soon get new backing from Mastercard. In a statement released last month, the financial services giant reaffirmed a prior goal to help 25 million women entrepreneurs and 50 million small businesses prosper through better access to the digital economy — and bolstered the commitment with a new partnership. 

Mastercard and its Mastercard Impact Fund are collectively putting a new $20 million worth of investment to work through CNote, an impact investment fund founded by women. The money will be used in CNote’s impact management Promise Account. The partners say they hope the additional funding will help female and minority owned businesses to grow and recover from the pandemic and related economic disruptions.

The recent Small Business Summit run for free by Mastercard in partnership with Create & Cultivate is also testament to these efforts. The new CNote partnership is also an evolution of CNote’s earlier involvement in Mastercard’s startup engagement program, Start Path, which launched in 2014 to provide digital mentorship resources to under-served communities. 

Partners come together for systemic change

The $20 million provided by Mastercard will be deposited into Community Development Financial Institution banks (CDFIs), as well as in credit unions designated to help low-income communities and communities of color. In this way, the funds form part of Mastercard’s wider commitment, starting in seven cities, to equalize opportunity and close current racial wealth distribution gaps.

CNote is also focused on fighting historical systemic inequalities. In a statement announcing the partnership, CEO Catherine Berman said these ingrained inequalities necessitate an “ongoing, active effort to redesign” current systems. She emphasized that everyone should be able to access financial freedom and economic opportunities, regardless of their skin color or where they were born.

Mastercard, women entrepreneurs and inclusive capitalism

Mastercard is no stranger to inclusivity programs, having worked with CDFIs for the last 10 years. The company’s Center for Inclusive Growth has already partnered with such organizations as the Community Reinvestment Fund USA, Accion Opportunity Fund, Grameen America and the Center for Economic Opportunity.

The financial services company’s focus has been on helping small and micro businesses to obtain growth capital through better access to digital technologies. One example of this digitization work is with nonprofit microfinance organization Grameen America. Here, Mastercard helped facilitate $1.6 billion in small business loans for women entrepreneurs. The partnership also enabled Grameen America to remain open during the COVID-19 crisis, highlighting the potential of digitization for weathering changing economic forces — which so far have impacted women and people of color hardest.

Thankfully, Mastercard isn’t the only financial company backing women entrepreneurs. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development says its Women in Business programs have the backing of over 30 financial institutions. Still, according to the European Parliament, 47 percent of women still lack adequate digital skills within the EU today — meaning digitization could play a key role in harnessing the untapped potential of women entrepreneurs. 

Inclusive business hangs in the balance

Last year’s State of Women-Owned Businesses Report, commissioned by American Express, highlighted the successes and challenges faced by women entrepreneurs in the U.S. today. According to the report, there were just under 13 million female-led businesses in America in 2019. Women-owned businesses employed 9.4 million people and generated $1.9 trillion in sales last year — and they grew by 21 percent between 2014 and 2019. The growth in businesses owned by women of color was nearly twice that figure, standing at 43 percent. 

Yet, according to the American Express report, even with these successes there still remain big challenges, particularly for women entrepreneurs of color. Although women entrepreneurs receive less funding in general, women entrepreneurs of color fare far worse —  and the disparity is growing. Businesses owned by white women also earn far higher revenues compared to those owned by women of color. And with the exception of businesses owned by Asian women, the average revenue for women of color owned businesses fell between 2014 and 2019, according to the report.

Other trends include the growth of part-time entrepreneurs, dubbed “sidepreneurs." These have grown by 32 percent in the same time period, far outpacing the growth of any other business venture. Also, the growth in the number of women sidepreneurs is nearly double the growth of women-led businesses overall. Drilling down even further, the growth of African-American/Black women sidepreneurs is triple the absolute rate in sidepreneurs. 

With the spike in women returning to care-giving positions amid the COVID-19 crisis, it is plain to see why female-led businesses need targeted support. Therefore, while it’s encouraging to see more women starting their own businesses, many of these positions are precarious given current circumstances. This makes Mastercard’s recent work and other similar initiatives crucial if we are to avoid a reversal in progress. 

Image credits: Dan Burton and Adam Winger via Unsplash

Just a few years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was teetering on the edge of irrelevancy. Among other issues, the organization’s conservative track record on climate action, tobacco sales and gun safety placed it at odds with prevailing trends in public sentiment. Top corporations and local Chamber affiliates began cutting or suspending their relationships with the Chamber, too. However, indications of a reset began to appear in recent years — and the Chamber has displayed signs of a more radical shift in the runup to Election Day 2020.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce responds to public sentiment

Hints of a reset emerged in 2018 when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined many other business leaders in publicly excoriating the Donald Trump administration over its family separation policy, through which hundreds of children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Last year, the Chamber again found itself at odds with President Trump when it added a page to its website that directly contradicts the president’s ongoing efforts to stymie climate action. The new web page affirms climate science, calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and advocates for U.S. leadership on global decarbonization.

“Climate policy should be informed by the best science and observations available," the Chamber now states on its website. "The U.S. should continue to be the world leader in climate change science and the major sponsor of the research used in multi-lateral scientific forums."

Lip service or real change?

The Chamber’s ongoing support for allies of fossil fuel stakeholders and its entanglement in environmental justice issues does undercut the force of its public statements. Nevertheless, public statements can be a springboard for change. In that regard, the Chamber of Commerce seemed poised to take a more proactive approach on contentious issues as Election Day 2020 drew closer.

One recent example occurred on Oct. 7 when the Chamber drew a roadmap for COVID-19 recovery in a public statement. Though not criticizing President Trump by name, the statement draws attention to the president’s failure to address the COVID-19 crisis and a raft of underlying issues including climate change, broadband and educational access, and resources for displaced workers. The list also includes immigration reform, likely referring to the Chamber’s support for immigrants in the DACA program — which defers deportation for undocumented people who arrived in the U.S. as children and meet certain criteria — in addition to its condemnation of the family separation policy.

“Whatever the outcome of the 2020 election, our elected leaders will face the same slate of challenges: bringing the pandemic under control, restoring our nation’s health, and revitalizing our economy,” the Chamber emphasized.

Trump administration awakens the sleeping dragon

The cautious tone of the Oct. 7 statement contrasts sharply with a public letter to the president issued by the Chamber of Commerce just one week later, on Oct. 15. The letter came in response to a new Executive Order that undermines diversity training programs among federal agencies and federal contractors.

Co-signed by 150 Chamber affiliates and trade organizations, the letter is a scathing, blow-by-blow criticism of the Executive Order. It is also a ringing endorsement of the current approach to diversity training.

“Federal contractors are firmly committed to maintaining a diverse and inclusive workforce and to providing their employees the necessary training to reinforce this goal,” the Chamber concluded. “The Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping does not help contractors in this regard, and in fact creates several significant obstacles and impediments.”

U.S. businesses stand up for the peaceful transfer of power

To be clear, the Chamber’s criticism of President Trump pales beside recent statements from other business leaders who have advocated for change in the runup to Election Day.

Just one recent example is a public statement cosigned by prominent Trump critic Mark Cuban along with 10 other top entrepreneurs and executives, lambasting the president’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis.

"While national leadership could have coordinated a swift response to protect both lives and livelihoods from the impact of the pandemic, small business were instead left largely to our own devices,” they wrote, while making the case to vote Joe Biden in as president.

Mild as it is, the Chamber of Commerce does count itself as part of a bipartisan groundswell of support for a peaceful transfer of power. In addition to business stakeholders, scores of prominent Republicans have also publicly advocated for a change in administrations, including former members of the president’s own staff.

There are some signs that this bipartisan environment has enabled the Chamber to advocate more forcefully for a peaceful change in administrations, a shift that is all the more significant in consideration of the president’s ever more desperate attempt to retain power, regardless of the will of the voters.

On Oct. 27, for example, the Chamber of Commerce joined the CEO-led coalition Business Roundtable, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, ITI, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, the National Retail Federation, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association in a joint statement calling for peace and patience during and after Election Day.

The public statement is a direct rebuke to President Trump, who concluded his 2020 campaign by insisting that vote-counting must stop at the stroke of midnight on Election Day. The imaginary deadline contradicts generations of legal elections precedent allowing for days if not weeks of counting before an official result is certified.

“Even under normal circumstances, it can take time to finalize results,” the Chamber of Commerce and its co-signers observe. “We urge all Americans to support the process set out in our federal and state laws and to remain confident in our country’s long tradition of peaceful and fair elections.”

The Chamber’s participation in that exercise lends force to other nonpartisan efforts advocating for a peaceful transfer of power, such as statements from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of more than 300 faith-based investors. On Oct. 22, ICCR sent a letter to more than 200 corporations urging them to push back strongly against the president for inventing the idea of widespread voter fraud and for encouraging his “army” of supporters to watch voters at the polls on Election Day.

The letter outlined a six-point strategy for corporations to use their platforms in support of a complete count, to condemn voter intimidation, and to advocate for a peaceful transfer of power. Most significantly, ICCR also advocated for corporations to direct their lobbying and political donations in support of these goals.

Given its track record of donating to Republican lawmakers who support President Trump, that last item will be a tough hill for the Chamber of Commerce to climb — but at least on this issue they have a running start, and a solid cushion of support from other business leaders.

Image credit: Element5 Digital/Unsplash

As of press time, the presidential election is too close to call. But no matter how the results shake out, the images we’ve seen over the past several days show that, by far, the U.S. needs to rethink how it manages Election Day.

Litigation over mail-in ballots. Long lines to vote early — or in person, depending on location. Citizens doubting whether their mail-in ballots would be counted. Drive-through lines for citizens to drop off their ballots in parking lots. And as a side note, there are the countless number of bleary-eyed employees who will have a hard time focusing on Zoom calls this Wednesday morning — if they don’t cancel them.

Affixing Election Day on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November may have made sense in the late 18th century when the voting populace was limited to landowning white guys who had horses and servants at their disposal, ensuring their voices (and no one else’s) would be heard.

But the hoops through which voters have to jump in order to cast their ballots have shown that democracy in the U.S. could use a boost. Yes, there are several business coalitions, including Business for America, that are striving to ensure the key levers that protect voting rights are secured. But it's clear structural change needs to be made. 

The quick solution would be to make Election Day a holiday, and the private sector could take the lead on lobbying for this in the halls of the U.S. Capitol.

Some brands, including Ben & Jerry’s, have made the case that Election Day should be a holiday. And in an interview with Minnesota Public Radio’s Marketplace, Andrea Hailey, CEO of Vote.org, said the nonprofit she leads counts more than 900 companies that participated in its paid time off program.

As Congress has shown no serious interest in making Election Day a federal holiday, Hailey said such a change would have to be up to the private sector. “Until we have a government that is really excited to make it so, I think it’s on corporate leaders and companies, who also have a stake in there being a healthy and thriving democracy, to go ahead and give a paid day off for Election Day and for election participation,” she told Marketplace’s David Brancaccio.

When you consider all the lost time resulting from workers spending hours in line to vote, another pragmatic way to look at Election Day as a federal holiday is that businesses could see a boost in productivity — and earn more goodwill from their employees. “Every minute spent in this democratic pursuit — including transportation to and from voting precincts, waiting in line, and casting a ballot — means lost wages,” wrote Katica Roy for Fast Company.

Image credit: Bonnie Kittle/Unsplash

Leading U.S. corporations leveraged their massive buying power to support clean power during the Barack Obama administration, and a change of occupants in the Oval Office has not dampened their enthusiasm for a decarbonized economy. In the latest development, an influential business consortium has upped the ante with new guidelines for accelerating the renewable energy trend.

Big business unites behind clean power

The driving force behind the new push for clean power is REBA, the Renewable Energy Buyers’ Alliance. REBA launched in May 2016 with the aim of supporting then-President Obama’s signing of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change. 

As a project of Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Rocky Mountain Institute, World Resources Institute and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), REBA came out of the gate with a portfolio of more than 60 member companies that were already investing substantial sums in clean power. 

REBA’s set its members on course toward a goal of shepherding 60 gigawatts worth of renewable energy into the U.S. energy profile by 2025. There was a quick change in the direction of U.S. energy policy following the election of Donald Trump in November 2016, but REBA members have continued to accelerate their decarbonization plans in support of a net-zero goal for the nation.

Pandemic or not, the clean power train stays on track

REBA has stuck to its course throughout 2020, even through the economic disruptions fostered by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The year opened on a note of optimism. With more than 200 companies in its portfolio, on Feb. 5 REBA unveiled a list of the top 10 biggest renewable energy buyers in the U.S. for 2019, with a combined total of more than 9 gigawatts.

Not surprisingly, the top slots were held by U.S. companies that feature prominently in national and global commerce. Facebook headed the list, followed by Google, AT&T, Microsoft, T-Mobile, Amazon, the aluminum and aerospace firm Ball Corp., and McDonald’s. Rounding out the top 10 was Honda, indicating that even companies headquartered overseas can influence energy trends in the U.S.

Even as the pandemic took hold, REBA launched a first-of-its-kind clean power networking program in May to address the important issue of data center sustainability. The group also issued a report charting pathways for accelerating renewable energy procurement among commercial and industrial users in April.

Renewable energy for everyone

This week, REBA took its efforts to the next level by formulating a set of guiding principles for reforming the wholesale energy market. The new Buyers’ Principles on Wholesale Market Design aims to support clean power access throughout the U.S. while cutting costs and improving grid reliability, with ample flexibility for individual users to carve out their own clean power plans.

The wholesale angle is an important development because in previous years, corporate clean power purchases mainly involved the construction of rooftop solar panels or on-site wind turbines at corporate facilities.

As the cost of wind and solar power fell, corporations began to purchase off-site renewable energy, but these purchases were narrowly defined and did not necessarily increase renewable energy access for others.

With the new Buyers’ Principles, REBA advocates for a transformation of energy policy that mirrors the rapid progress of new energy technology, opening up emerging options to corporations on a regional and national basis. Chief among those are new energy storage and smart grid technologies that enable demand-response incentives, which reward customers for off-peak usage. Scaling up new technologies, aligning them with government policy, and fostering market transparency and good governance are also in the mix.

The new focus on wholesale markets represents an understanding that corporate demand for clean power can spur further investments that increase access for everyone. That approach is exemplified by REBA member General Motors, which has engaged in a community-wide renewable energy program through the Michigan utility DTE, in anticipation of widespread electric vehicle adoption.

“The Buyers Wholesale Market Design Principles showcase how to optimize energy markets so that all customers can effectively pursue ambitious clean energy goals that improve air quality and address climate change,” explains Rob Threlkeld, vice chair of REBA’s board of directors and global manager of sustainable energy, supply and reliability at General Motors.

Regardless of the results of the 2020 presidential election, REBA members are poised to accelerate the clean power transformation in the U.S. The only question now is whether or not state and federal lawmakers will come along for the ride.

Image credits: Pixabay and Tom Swinnen/Pexels

Under a 2020 business strategy called The Rewire, Harley-Davidson is out to streamline its operations while closing in on an impressive fuel economy goal of 50 miles per gallon for its iconic lineup of gas-powered motorcycles. That could be just the tip of the sustainability iceberg in the company’s 117-year history of manufacturing two-wheeled mobility for the masses. Last week, Harley-Davidson teased out a burst of media fireworks over its stylish new Serial 1 pedal-assisted electric bicycle concept, as a precursor to unveiling the production version of the e-bike on Nov. 16.

Harley hatches secret plan to grow a new generation of e-bike enthusiasts

The very idea of pedaling a machine that sports the Harley-Davidson imprimatur may come as a shock to some. However, followers of the company took note last year when Harley-Davidson announced it was acquiring a startup called StaCyc, maker of the E-Drive electric two-wheeler for children.

Though it does not come with pedals, the 12eDrive two-wheeler meshes perfectly with Harley’s renewed focus on adventure-seeking and outdoor fun. The 12eDrive may also help grow the next generation of Harley loyalists by introducing very small children — ages 3 to 5, to be specific — to the skill involved in motorized two-wheeling.

“The StaCyc 12eDrive is the perfect choice for little rippers with little or no experience on a balance bike,” StaCyc claims in marketing materials. "Your child can learn to push, balance and coast in the non-powered mode. Graduate them to the powered mode (the holy grail of fun) as they show proficient use and understanding of the brake and the ability to coast and brake while standing.”

Pedal-assisted e-bikes open the door for more drivers

Harley’s ability to court the next generation of gas-powered motorcycle buyers has been the subject of media debate for years. The StaCyc acquisition and the new Serial 1 e-bike venture demonstrate that the company is serious about rewiring its business model for the era of electric mobility.

In the conventional motorcycle area, competition from other legacy brands and startups has made affordability a key issue. Many up-and-coming young motorists have little or no extra cash on hand to invest in a premium branded motorcycle, especially so for touring models that are pitched as recreational vehicles.

More broadly, the entire vehicle-buying landscape has shifted. That’s partly due to a decline in the number of young people seeking driver’s licenses, with affordability again playing a role.

Ride-sharing has already taken up some of the slack, and now e-scooters and e-bikes are offering new alternatives that appeal to a tech-savvy generation of vehicle buyers. That’s where the pedal-assist for Harley’s first e-bike venture — and its new startup Serial 1 Cycles — comes in.

The electric motor in a pedal-assisted e-bike only kicks in while the rider is pedaling. That provides it with some significant advantages over fully motorized two-wheelers, whether gas or electric. In the absence of any local restrictions, pedal-assisted e-bikes fall squarely into the bicycle category. They do not require a motorcycle license, or any driver’s license at all. They can also use bike paths and other infrastructure normally reserved for bicycles.

Serial 1: Pedal-assisted power with fun and style

The rising popularity of e-bikes alone provides Harley with ample reason to grab a foothold in the pedal-assist market. The company’s experience in attaching cargo holders to two-wheelers could also come into play, especially in the emerging fleet vehicle market.

In addition, Harley may be eyeballing the potential for attracting avid bicycle riders to the motorcycle market by introducing them to the fun and convenience of motorized power. 

Harley also apparently intends the new Serial 1 e-bike to provide the next generation of potential motorcycle riders with an introduction to the company’s history and adventure-seeking culture. Though the production model may go in a different direction, the Serial 1 concept is styled after the company’s first known motorcycle, introduced in 1903 as the Serial One.

“When Harley-Davidson’s founders put power to two wheels and created their first motorcycle in 1903, they changed the way the world moved forever,” reads marketing material for Serial 1 Cycles. The spinoff company claims it will offer “premium e-bicycles guided by intelligent, human-centered design and crafted using the most advanced bicycle technology available, to create the easiest and most intuitive way to experience the fun, freedom and instant adventure of riding a pedal-assist electric bicycle.”

Pedaling into a more sustainable future

The Rewire is Harley-Davidson’s 2020 runup to a soon-to-be-announced, five-year re-organization plan it calls The Hardwire. Aside from shedding inefficiencies in marketing, personnel and manufacturing, the new plan seems poised to leverage the sustainable mobility trend through Harley’s new LiveWire electric motorcycle as well as Serial 1 Cycles. 

Meanwhile, the company has been zeroing-in on sustainability for its gas-powered fleet as well. In addition to supply chain and manufacturing improvements, last year Harley announced a 2027 fleetwide fuel economy goal of more than 50 miles per gallon, representing a 25 percent improvement over its 2011 average. Harley already hit the 44 miles-per-gallon mark in 2018, so it’s possible the fleetwide average will far surpass 50 miles per gallon within the next six years or so.

The sustainability angle is a delicate balance for a company that has long cultivated a core customer base of older, you’re-not-the-boss-of-me men. However, Harley appears to be well aware that a younger, more diverse cadre of consumers is driving the mobility market of the future, one that still values freedom while recognizing the importance of collective action and the allure of new clean tech.

One interesting example is Harley’s new marketing campaign featuring actor and environmental activist Jason Momoa; actor Ewan McGregor, who is also known for activities in the environmental area; and travel writer and adventurer Charlie Boorman, who has become an enthusiastic ambassador for electric mobility and sustainable travel.

The campaign is highlighted by Harley Davidson’s The Long Way Up touring video powered by the electric LiveWire motorcycle — and if you’re not quite ready to ride the LiveWire, the Serial 1 e-bike may be just the place to start your own electric mobility journey.

Image courtesy of Harley-Davidson via PRNewswire

Fast-casual Mexican restaurant chain Chipotle claims to be the first brand to launch a sustainability impact tracker for all digital food orders. Called Real Foodprint, the new feature shows average values for the sustainability and animal welfare impact of all of its 53 ingredients. The company says it hopes that easy access to the new data will allow customers to tweak their orders toward more ethical or sustainable outcomes. 

The impact data will appear on the menu on Chipotle's website and customer app. These impact values will be shown next to industry average values for each ingredient, enabling a comparison with conventional ingredients against five key metrics: carbon in the atmosphere saved, water saved, supported organic land, improved soil health and antibiotics avoided. 

Customers will also be able to share their order’s impact scores via social media. Bill Nye, the science enthusiast and broadcaster, teamed up with the company to demonstrate the feature in a new TikTok video, showing off how his Chipotle Burrito Bowl measured against the new metrics.

Where does the impact data come from? 

In an era of a proliferation of environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics, knowing the data that companies use is impartial and reliable can be a challenge. In this case, the data used in the Real Foodprint feature is provided by HowGood, an independent research company. HowGood is home to the world’s largest database of sustainability information for products and ingredients, giving Chipotle’s new feature added legitimacy. 

The researchers at HowGood collated information from Chipotle’s suppliers and combined it with other data from 450 unique sources. These include peer-reviewed scientific literature and industry research, as well as findings from NGOs and government bodies. This enabled an average impact value to be ascertained for each ingredient.

The average industry baseline values were then established by using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as from the World Health Organization. Chipotle also aggregated the average percentage of each ingredient used in each menu item. 

In a press statement, HowGood’s CEO Alexander Gillett said the new datasets enable a “trailblazing” and truly comprehensive snapshot of each ingredient. Caitlin Leibert, head of sustainability at Chipotle, echoed his sentiment, saying the new feature will enable guests to “make good choices for the planet." Leibert added that the “radical transparency” of the data would also create greater accountability at Chipotle for its impact over time.

A next step for sustainability at Chipotle

On the subject of accountability, Chipotle has been an advocate for a more sustainable agricultural system in the U.S. for decades.

Then-CEO Steve Ells launched Chipotle's “food with integrity” mission statement back in 2001 to address ethical food sourcing. The statement was prompted by an article Ells read at the time on the issue of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs, which are essentially factory farms) — and it ultimately helped define the company’s core values.

The company also has a long track record of emphasizing sustainability and animal welfare in ingredients sourcing. Ells has even testified before the U.S. Congress calling for a reduction in the use of antibiotics in farm animals, so it's no surprise that antibiotic avoidance was chosen as one of Chipotle’s new metrics.

Climate impacts and public health converge

Now more than ever, sustainability and ethical sourcing are hot topics for agriculture and the wider food industry. However, organizations such as the Sustainable Agriculture Network warn that more frequent extreme weather events will put added pressure on farmers to maximize yields. Also, the demand for cheap food still drives industrial farming methods, which increase public health risks, according to organizations like the U.S. Public Interest Group. The group warned in April that factory farm practices provide the perfect breeding ground for the spread of zoonotic viruses, such as the coronavirus, to humans. 

The climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic have hammered home the issues of human health and sustainability in ways we will never forget. Chipotle’s new ingredients impact feature is therefore auspiciously timed. If Chipotle’s Real Foodprint can move the needle on safer, more sustainable and ethical food choices, even just a little, that’s got to be a good thing. 

Images courtesy of Chipotle 

The novel coronavirus pandemic has put new spins and strains on workplaces, schools and families, leading to new perspectives on work and life. One company decided it was time to take another look at its family leave policy.

A perfect time, executives at New Zealand-based accounting software company Xero decided, to enhance the company’s already generous family leave policy with additional time and more inclusive language.

“Overall, there was a lot of excitement and a bit of surprise that we launched it during a pandemic,” said Ben Richmond, Xero’s U.S. country manager, who is based in Colorado. “When you think of what’s going on, people have friends and family at other companies facing layoffs and pay cuts. We've taken this people-first principle.

“This is a time when the world needs leadership on these types of topics,” Richmond continued.  “It is important in these crazy times.”

Xero started by throwing out the conventional terms of maternity and paternity leave, calling it family leave and opening it up to any caregivers and their partners. The family support policies are in line with the company’s focus on inclusion and diversity, said Richmond.

“We want to be an inclusive work environment and it’s really about work-life- integration now,” he continued. “We have people who work very hard, but we want to help them on their family journey as well. There are many different families in today's world and this is designed to support equality. We want people to do the best work of their lives, and that’s hard to do if they are not feeling engaged.” The company’s efforts won it a spot in the 2020 Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index.

The revised policy, effective October 1, allows all primary caregivers parental leave payments that are equivalent to 26 weeks, double the previous amount of 13 weeks. If an employee’s partner gives birth to a child or adopts a child, the employee is entitled to six weeks partner leave, which can be taken in two chunks. For employees who receive government parental leave payments that are a percentage of their salaries, such as in Canada, Xero supplements the amount so that employees are still receiving their full weekly earnings. 

To help employees stay in the loop during their leave, they can return to work for up to 10 “keeping in touch days,” at their usual salary. Employees returning to work at the end of their leave have the option of easing back into office life during the first two months, by working fewer days or  hours or working from home.  Employees also receive four weeks vacation. 

“This policy is much more future-proofed,” Richmond explained.  “We have a lot of same-sex parents and often it can be fathers who are taking on the primary role of caregiving.”

The timing of the policy also works well for Richmond; he and his husband have started planning to have a child and hope to be parents by October 2021. “My husband and I are both very ambitious people,” he said. “Xero is such a cool place to work, but at the same time I really want to be present when we have a young one—this will enable both of us to do it properly. The key thing for us is the flexibility. I want to be part of the [parenthood] journey and this way we can really do both things justice. We can be there for our child and keep growing a career.”

Xero’s policies also are expected to give it an edge in recruiting and retention. The pandemic has accelerated technology trends, making the software market more competitive. “We see promoting these diversity and inclusion parental support policies as super valuable because it shows our employees can thrive-we’ve seen first-hand how it works in the workplace,” Richmond noted. “At the same time, our values have shifted around what is important to us.”

The pandemic and resulting quarantines have highlighted the disparities and shortcomings in family leave policies - when they even exist - in the U.S. While most other countries have national maternity or paternity leave, America has a hodge-podge of programs, offered by employers, states or municipalities. As of 2019, only California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York have paid family leave; Connecticut, Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon and the District of Columbia have adopted family leave policies but have not yet implemented them.  The only national leave program is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows employees unpaid time off for illness or to care for family members. 

According to new research from ING, a quarter of parents feel the pandemic has made supervisors more understanding about parental responsibilities, but more than half say the hardest challenge for partners has been managing work and family responsibilities. 

As a native New Zealander who has lived in Colorado for four years, Richmond has experienced the different perspectives toward leave and seen evidence that American workers' fears of being away is counterproductive. “The data does not prove out the view in the U.S. that taking time off impacts businesses’ ability to achieve their goals,” Richmond said. “We have proof points in our business, because we have operations in other countries where these types of leave policies are more common. The output of people is not affected negatively; it’s greater.”

The productivity of employees in Xero offices in the U.S. has improved since more leave time was added. “In the U.S., it is quite unusual to take time off work,” Richmond continued. “In the southern hemisphere, people take two or three weeks off at a time; here people take a week off once a year. When you leave for just a week, the work just accumulates. If someone is gone for two or three weeks, other people pick up the work. Companies have to invest more time in putting systems and processes in place so people can take longer breaks and develop tighter, more engaged teams so they are not so dependent on one person.”

The old adage that the person who puts in the most hours is the most productive is just that: old.  “Working crazy hours shouldn’t be the only way you can grow and get ahead in your career,” according to Richmond. “People who are refreshed will find ways to work faster. They are operating at a better level. It has been proven by enough companies that they can do better things for shareholders if people [employees] are in a better state of mind.”  

Xero expects to continue to be lead in the areas of diversity and inclusion.  Executives at other companies considering expanding their leave policies should look back on the experiences of employees who had to juggle a family issue and work with limited leave and how they could have helped more, advised Richmond. “Reflect on who could do this better and think beyond parental leave to other types of leave they can offer. Challenge the status quo and reflect on your own experiences and do research in your own space.“ 

Image credit: Omar Lopez/Unsplash

Written with Camilla Gardner

When deciding to act on a resilience project, we often linger on the price tag and let it control our decision-making. Perhaps it’s time to focus our attention on the costs of inaction.

Resilience – our new normal

2020, for sure, has forced each of us to contend with many “new normals.” For many municipalities, budget constraints exacerbated by COVID-19 are forcing them to rethink how to allocate available resources. Wage cuts compounded by health challenges and, for many, a hellish hurricane and fire season have precipitated a multi-crisis reality. At a time when resilience is key more than ever, municipalities increasingly axe sustainability positions and projects.

Why are our priorities so severely shuffled? A primary culprit is the traditional strategy that municipalities employ to make decisions. This process – known as cost-benefit analysis, or CBA – weighs the sum of the benefits of an action against the negatives, or costs, of that action. Frankly, the conventional CBA approach is an archaic process that is incompatible with the modern climate crisis. Here’s why:

Time to rethink the cost-benefit analysis

For starters, the dollar values placed on resilience and mitigation projects (and which, ultimately, dictate whether to pursue a project or not) are an incomplete picture of the outcome. CBA is myopic in the sense that it is structure-centric and lacks a holistic, human-focused tone. It excludes the social and environmental benefits that accrue over time, even decades after project completion.

So many of the most important outcomes of resilience projects – the intangibles that make a city livable and bolster people’s well-being and capacity to thrive – aren’t communicated within the bottom line. Similarly, the costs are immediate and upfront while taking mitigatory action usually has remote, delayed and uncertain benefits. Consequently, economic and social needs and desires that are felt immediately seem more pressing than climate resilience efforts.

Consider a green infrastructure (GI) project, which involves a network that provides the “ingredients” for solving urban and climatic challenges by building with nature. In addition to maintaining water quality and mitigating flooding, GI installations can clear and cool the atmosphere, increase local property values, enhance aesthetics, and improve local health outcomes and social connectivity.

Yet not all of these co-benefits can be reaped right away. When trees are involved, the rate of carbon sequestration, stormwater capture, or urban heat island mitigation may be greatest 20 to 50 years after a project’s completion.

3 ways to take a new approach toward your long-term planning

It is increasingly essential to enhance the visibility of the local impacts derived from climate resilience projects by communicating these co-benefits in the one language that drives decision-making: dollar value. We are losing out a lot by allowing seemingly unfavorable cost-benefit ratios to inhibit progress toward a future we cannot afford not to create. To do so, the following needs to become standard practice for conducting cost-benefit analyses:

Conduct a triple bottom line (social, environmental and financial) CBA

The triple bottom line (or otherwise noted as TBL or 3BL) is an accounting framework with three parts: social, environmental (or ecological) and financial.

Collectively, we rely too heavily on technical and infrastructural solutions to address a much more holistic problem. Too often, the dialogue around climate resilience investment only weighs avoided losses against the physical costs of the (grey) infrastructural investment. Likewise, this conversation usually occurs after disaster strikes. We must shift to highlight proactively that these investments yield a triple dividend.

These include development potential to local communities by stimulating innovation and economic activity bolstered by reduced climate risk, as well as a web of improved social and ecological outcomes that enhance wellbeing for all involved, even if disaster doesn’t strike. Recently, FEMA incorporated ecosystem benefits into its CBA tool. It is a critical first step forward toward legitimizing nature-based climate solutions. But much more needs to be done to move forward.

Pursue innovative strategies to monetize the “intangible” benefits.

Certain values, such as avoided energy costs, can be determined easily via their market price. However, many values don’t have a direct market value – such as the value of social connectivity, the costs of trauma, the loss of community caused by a hurricane or wildfire, or the costs of having to relocate from one’s community.

One solution is contingent valuation. This is an economic survey technique for eliciting willingness to pay for outcomes such as health or that don’t have an obvious price tag.

The United Kingdom’s Sheffield Hallam University study used this process to determine the value of feeling part of the community or of having neighbors looking out for each other: $16,700 and $13,000, respectively. This method has even been used to value human life by determining people’s willingness to pay for risk reduction devices or services that could prove life-saving. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency had valued “statistical life” at an average of $7.4 million in 2006 dollars.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg of what can and must be valued to make the business case for a more livable future. Unfortunately, contingent valuation is both time and resource-intensive. Moving forward, it is critical to fund research into innovative strategies to monetize these more holistic costs and benefits city by city in a more streamlined, cost-effective manner. Likewise, encouraging policymakers to give greater value to more qualitative considerations – not just the bottom line – is key.

Incorporate a timeline that accounts for longer-term social and environmental benefits.

Even if all co-benefits were internalized, a challenge remains: common discounting practices. They’re designed to take account of the variable timescales over which costs and benefits are distributed. But they give very low (and possibly practically zero) weight to far-off events, namely the social and environmental benefits of resilience projects. Consequently, by discounting, CBA appears to make these benefits disappear. A potential solution: time-declining discount rates. These declining discount rates account for discounting but make future benefits more relevant to the present investors and policymakers.

Finally - making the case for a more equitable future

The effects of climate change are disproportionately felt by lower income and communities of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC). Accordingly, disaster recovery and adaptation costs and the price of necessary resilience projects are greater. This results in less-favorable cost-benefit ratios. Therefore, resilience investments tend to favor wealthier neighborhoods and overlook the committees with the fewest resources but are the most in harm's way.

By establishing the strategies discussed above as priorities as well as centering on the unique social context in which a project will be applied and focusing more on what is to be gained rather than how much it might cost, our investment decisions can be more informed and equipped to center equity, real climate risk, and the well-being of all.

Camilla Gardner supports the resilience program at the Urban Sustainability Directors Network as a Climate Resilience Consulting associate. 

Image credit: Pxhere