Search

Despite the Donald Trump administration’s failure to formulate an effective action plan on climate change, the Department of Defense is continuing its efforts to shed fossil fuels. In the latest development, the U.S. Air Force has launched a new Reimagining Energy Challenge, aimed at “supercharging the innovation ecosystem” with the ultimate aim of a carbon negative target. Yes, that’s carbon negative — for the entire Department of Defense.

DoD, energy and the U.S. Air Force

The U.S. Department of Defense began including climate change in its official threat assessments during the Barack Obama administration. DoD recognizes that a warming world creates new global stress points that increase the demand for both humanitarian and military intervention, while affecting DoD facilities, supply chains and the military’s readiness.

As one of the world’s single largest consumers of fossil fuels, DoD can also leverage its buying power to determine its own energy future and that of the planet.

Within DoD a particular area of focus is on the Air Force, because that branch of the armed forces is the single largest user of fuel in the U.S.

The Air Force was an early adopter of biofuels and large-scale solar power during the Obama administration, and it continues to support foundational clean energy research. Along with other DoD clean tech initiatives, these efforts continue through to the present day, though perhaps flying under the media radar.

Reimagining energy in an uncertain world

With roots in the earliest days of fuel-powered flight, the Air Force also has innovation built into its DNA. That’s where something called AFWERX comes in. 

AFWERX is the Air Force’s official innovation catalyst, aimed at connecting the Air Force with the civilian network of innovators, supply chain stakeholders and financial resources.

“We're the U.S. Air Force's community of innovators who connect Airmen with the resources required to transform their ideas into reality,” AFWERX explains in its Facebook pitch. “The mission of AFWERX is to serve the needs of the Air Force by addressing tough challenges.”

One of those challenges being climate change, it’s no surprise that the Air Force has set its sights high. The Reimagining Energy Challenge is a crowd-sourcing platform that stimulates innovators to aim at two broad targets: eliminating all fossil fuel dependency across the entire DoD, and the creation of a carbon negative DoD.

The new challenge enlists innovators in a mission to "help the DoD with aspirations of eliminating all #fossilfuel dependency and becoming #carbonnegative," AFWERX emphasizes.

The Air Force is evaluating energy from every angle

The Reimagining Energy Challenge also reflects the urgent need to address energy issues that exist regardless of whether or not the world warms up catastrophically.

AFWERX notes that the Air Force’s rising demand for fuel, the emergence of new threats, and the scarcity of fossil fuel in the future all combine to demand a more diverse and resilient approach to energy.

With that in mind, the Reimagining Energy Challenge seeks solutions that solve energy issues from a holistic perspective, including: energy availability when and where needed for mission effectiveness and quality of life; more effective warfighting and humanitarian missions that are less reliant on fossil fuels; the increased ability to rapidly respond to humanitarian crises; leveraging all energy sources for military use such as wind, water, nuclear, hydrogen and thermal; the creation of new industries and capabilities inspired by the U.S. DoD; and harnessing energy from space.

This challenge covers all the bases, including fixed and mobile energy generation and storage, transmission and distribution, warfighting and operational equipment, data collection and deployment, and something called “energy culture, policy and education.”

Energy culture, policy and education

That cultural and educational aspect could become especially important after Inauguration Day in January 2021, when a potentially new administration in the White House could reinvigorate public sentiment in favor of climate action.

In addition to the Air Force, other branches of the U.S. Armed Services have been working to instill a culture of clean power, energy efficiency and energy conservation. As members of the military and civilian workers cycle back into their communities, they become crucial ambassadors of the sustainability message.

By promoting the early adoption of clean power, DoD has helped stimulate the market for new technology. Now it’s up to business leaders to support innovation and advocate for a more resilient and sustainable DoD.

Innovators who want to get in on the action still have time to participate in the Reimagining Energy Challenge. The original deadline of October 21 has been extended to October 29.

Image credit: Aral Tasher/Unsplash

The Hummer is back. The brash, military-inspired outsized SU — which was a symbol of excess in the first decade of the 2000s only to disappear along with much of the U.S. economy in early 2009 — will hit the road again, reborn as the Hummer EV, in late 2021.

Whether or not you think the world needs to see the return of such a vehicle is a matter of opinion, but it’s not the Hummer of old, and it will return with a more environmentally friendly touch.

The Hummer EV is a sign of things to come at GM

The Hummer this time around is all-electric and is the second electric vehicle from General Motors (GM) to be revealed this year, following the Cadillac Lyriq, with the company’s next-generation EV platform. It also represents another step toward GM’s promised all-electric future, which will span across all of the company’s brands and market segments over the next five years.

Resurrecting the Hummer under the GMC marque, General Motors has retained all the looks and the heft of the original but has ditched the gas-guzzling internal combustion engine in favor of a three-motor electric powertrain for the “Edition 1” version of the new Hummer.

Revealed online via a brief video stream on Oct. 20, the Hummer promises to be an extremely capable off-road vehicle, packing a performance punch that stacks up well against future rivals such as Tesla’s Cybertruck. Unlike Tesla, however, GMC is eschewing a futuristic look and, instead, its form harkens back to the more familiar.

Though unmistakably a Hummer, under the skin it’s all new. As with the Cadillac Lyric, the Hummer EV will use the next generation Ultium modular-battery technology GM has developed in partnership with South Korea’s LG Chem. The reveal did not detail the size of the battery in the new Hummer, but it has to be pretty massive to meet the performance numbers GM is promising.

The Edition 1 will boast a drivetrain putting out 1,000 horsepower and 11,500 pound-feet of torque, which will be capable of launching the vehicle from zero to 60 miles per hour in approximately three seconds. In addition, GMC expects the Hummer EV to travel 350-plus miles on a single charge. 800V DC fast charging will allow drivers to add a claimed 100 miles of driving range in as few as 10 minutes, making this a serious vehicle for covering useful distances.

Who will lead in the all-electric truck race?

The performance is impressive, and the range is certainly very respectable. But considering the company is claiming the Hummer EV to be “The World’s First All Electric Super Truck,” one has to stack up the specs against the Tesla, which pulled the covers off the Cybertruck a while back and also promises a fall 2021 delivery for its tri-motor variant. On paper, the Cybertruck bests the Hummer with a claimed 2.9 seconds to 60 miles per hour and a significantly higher 500 miles of range. 

So, can the Hummer EV truly carry the mantle as the world's first all-electric super truck?

Well, those claims are always subjective, but GM has detailed a few other attributes which certainly go beyond just power, range and drag strip times. Indeed, we get more of an idea of other areas where GM might compete favorably.

For example, the Hummer will come with the option of four-wheel steering and, along with that, a neat trick GM is calling the “crab walk” — literally, this allows the vehicle to move diagonally. Not something, perhaps, that anyone needs to do on a daily basis, but it's a feature which allows the vehicle to navigate around rocks on a narrow off-road trail and, who knows, maybe gets you out of a tight spot at the shopping mall parking lot.

Air ride suspension permits the driver to jack up the truck an additional six inches so the armor-plated underside is further protected from bottoming out on rocky terrain. Conversely, drivers can lower the vehicle by two inches for better aerodynamics on the freeway. Piloting the vehicle on tricky ground is aided by 18 cameras located all over the vehicle, including two beneath it, providing real-time visuals and presumably eliminating any possible blind spots that a driver is ever likely to encounter.

The Hummer EV is to be outfitted with removable glass roof panels — called the infinity roof — converting the cabin to an open-top experience, and drivers will benefit from GM’s Supercruise driver assist package featuring auto lane-changing capability. The cargo space is a traditional pick-up truck style.

One challenge for this EV: Cost

If you want one, you can go onto GMC’s website now and reserve your very own, but you’re going to need a robust bank balance.

The Edition 1, available in fall 2021, starts at a shade over $112,500. We can assume GM is looking at this as somewhat of a halo car to showcase the automaker’s EV technology, as opposed to something it plans to sell in large volumes.

To spend under 100,000 — though only by five bucks — you’ll have to wait another year for a lower specification model, the EV3X version, which still comes with an impressive 800 horsepower tri-motor powertrain. A third option comes a year after that. The fourth and cheapest variant, the EV2, available in the fall of 2024, is a dual motor offering yet sacrifices some range to around 250 miles between charging, for just under $80,000.

The Hummer EV2, with a range of 250 miles, is comparable with the Cybertruck’s base model, but since the lowest-priced Cybertruck is priced from $39,900, the Tesla comes in a lot cheaper and will be available two years sooner. That has to be hard to overlook.

Still, the Hummer has some brand cache in this segment, looks like a traditional truck — doubtless important to many — and certainly GM is revealing at the outset more details of the Hummer’s off-road bona fides, an area where Tesla remains untested. But will all that be enough to guarantee its success?

Image credits: GMC

Issues of racial and economic justice have dominated the national conversation since the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd earlier this year. As Conroy Boxhill, managing director of Porter Novelli-Atlanta, observed during the 3BL Virtual Forum last week: “The fight for racial justice is not siloed.” It is not separate from inequalities related to healthcare, energy, housing, community development or public policy. True progress is intersectional and takes on the overlapping issues that prevent equal access to opportunity, justice and wellbeing. 

On the Forum’s virtual stage, Boxhill spoke with representatives of three very different organizations — energy policy nonprofit Fresh Energy, cult favorite ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s and Latino advocacy organization UnidosUS. They discussed what brand leadership on racial justice looks like and how businesses can work across sectors to advance equity. Each organization’s unique case studies offer a glimpse into what the intersectional fight for racial justice means.

Fresh Energy: Ensuring no one is left behind in the fight against climate change 

In five the years since the Paris climate agreement was adopted by U.N. member states, a growing number of governments and corporations have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through a shift to clean energy. This is all great news, but if inclusion isn't kept in mind, there's a danger that the move toward a low-carbon economy could further entrench the racial and economic injustices that already pervade our societies, said Ben Passer, director of energy access and equity for Fresh Energy.

"Corporations are taking up the mantle of fighting the climate crisis," Passer said on the Forum's virtual stage. "What’s tricky is that while we’re excited to see that .... we also want to make sure those communities that don’t have the resources to invest in the next wave of clean energy are still able to access it." Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, Fresh Energy works with legislators, utilities and other stakeholders to advance clean energy policy in the state — and it's increasingly focused on energy access and equity, an effort further galvanized following the murder of George Floyd in St. Paul's sister city, Minneapolis.

In and of itself, clean energy policy has vast potential to positively impact communities of color: In Minnesota, 91 percent of Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) live in areas with  high air pollution, impacting their health and putting them at greater risk of serious complications if they contract COVID-19. This is an issue nationwide, with people of color living with 66 percent more air pollution than their white counterparts on average. 

While cleaner air benefits everyone — particularly those who are already disproportionately affected — many existing clean energy policies otherwise exclude people of color and low-income people. Renters, for example, have fewer options to control how their homes get energy and often can't benefit from cash incentives for things like solar power or energy efficiency. Through policy advocacy, Fresh Energy is looking to expand clean energy benefits to more people through means such as community solar gardens that open up solar energy to low-income renters and grant funding to improve energy efficiency in multifamily buildings. In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, it also advocated for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds from the federal relief bill to support housing assistance programs. 

"Being here in the Twin Cities and in Minnesota, I have to be candid, I feel a tremendous amount of accountability to make sure that our communities are benefiting [from our work]," Passer said. "The murder of George Floyd rocked our community to its core, and if you drive through Minneapolis, still to this day, communities are rebuilding .... As they rebuild, we want to make sure they’re doing it in a way that is really helping the community.”

Ben & Jerry’s: Bold activism breeds community engagement 

A week after the murder of George Floyd, Ben & Jerry's issued one of the strongest corporate statements ever seen in support of racial justice, calling on white America to "acknowledge its privilege" and "dismantle white supremacy." It laid out four policy points for government to enact, and businesses and individuals to support, including committing the U.S. to a "formal process of healing and reconciliation" and creating a national task force aimed at "ending racial violence and increasing police accountability." The company also voiced its support for slavery reparations. 

"There are moments when it is important to stand up, be counted and be bold, and in the wake of the tragic murder of George Floyd, we felt it was one of those moments," said Chris Miller, head of global activism strategy for Ben & Jerry's. "While words are insufficient and not enough, words need to be said at certain times, and we felt like this was the moment.”

Along with public statements and policy advocacy, Ben & Jerry's continues to work with nonprofit partners like the Advancement Project and Color of Change, and Miller says the company is keenly focused on engaging customers in the fight for racial justice. This month it re-released its Justice ReMix’d ice cream flavor as part of a call to urge young people to vote with justice in mind in the Nov. 3 election, and it launched a podcast about the history of racism in America in September. 

"We speak to a broad audience," Miller said. "We sell more ice cream at Walmart than anywhere else, so we’re not preaching to the choir. We have an opportunity to get our fans and our customers involved in the causes that we are involved in." 

UnidosUS: Bringing communities together to fight for racial justice 

Through policy advocacy and community partnerships, UnidosUS works on a breadth of issues affecting the U.S. Latino community, including immigration reform, education, healthcare and economic empowerment. The Washington, D.C.-based organization also came out in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in the weeks following the murder of George Floyd, declaring "tu lucha es mi lucha — your fight is my fight." 

The group's president and CEO, Janet Murguía, who marched alongside Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the streets of D.C., penned a powerful op/ed for The Hill calling on Latino communities to join the fight for justice for Black Americans. The organization also voiced support for the Police Exercising Absolute Care with Everyone or “PEACE Act” to raise the standards for use of force by law enforcement and joined the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda in calls for racial justice and police reform. 

But both Murguía and Orson Aguilar, principal of policy and advocacy for UnidosUS, who spoke on the Forum's virtual stage, acknowledged there is still more work to do to rally the Latino community as allies — particularly with respect to the inclusion of Afro-Latinos in broader conversations about Latinos' rights.

The nearly 1 in 4 U.S. Latinos who identify as Afro-Latino often face multiple layers of discrimination both due to the color of their skin and to the xenophobic and anti-immigrant sentiment rising across the U.S. "Looking forward, we really do have to think about how we can be more inclusive of our Afro-Latino community," Aguilar said. "We need to also acknowledge that there is discrimination and racism in our own community, be bold enough and brave enough to call it out and talk about it, because if we don’t it will continue to happen."

While we’re on the topic of the U.S. elections, we’ll spend much of the final episode of the 3BL Virtual Forum, tomorrow, Thursday, Oct. 22 at Noon ET/9 a.m. PT, on how companies are doing their part to ensure everyone who’s eligible to vote in the upcoming U.S. elections can cast their ballots. Register if you haven’t already — we are presenting this event at no cost.

Image credits: Clay Bank (1) and (2) via Unsplash

When President Trump issued a new executive order that regulates diversity training among federal contractors, he unleashed a firestorm of protest from civil rights activists and other social advocates. That executive order also provoked a rare but strong critique from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in the form of a public letter to the president.

The letter describes how the September executive order creates bottom line headaches for U.S. companies, but more interesting from a corporate responsibility perspective is the importance it places on diversity training in a civic landscape characterized by a diverse population and more global interaction.

The executive order on diversity training is, to start, a throwback

The order followed on the heels of a months-long, nationwide series of protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, which gained renewed force over the murder of  an unarmed Black man, George Floyd, at the hands of uniformed police officers in Minnesota.

Responding to the massive public outpouring of support for equal justice and equal protection, many U.S. firms pledged their own support for the movement in various forms. That included improvements in diversity training, with a focus on unconscious bias and structural racism in the U.S.

[Editor's note: Be sure to sign up for the weekly Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which arrives in your inbox every Wednesday.]

Despite attempts by certain politicians and pundits to undermine the message of Black Lives Matter activists, the protests still continue and the movement has maintained popularity with large segments of the U.S. public.

Nevertheless, instead of supporting the efforts of the business community to respond to public sentiment, on September 22 the president undercut the ability of federal agencies and contractors to offer comprehensive, meaningful diversity training.

Specifically, the order aims to prevent something it calls “offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping,” mainly by banning the discussion of unconscious bias and structural racism in diversity training.

With its emotion-stirring references to “anti-American,” onerous stipulations, vague terminology and a built-in employee complaint hotline, the new order all but follows the career-destroying “red scare” playbook deployed by U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s.

The bottom-line case against the new executive order

Aside from that, the new order creates significant new regulatory burdens on U.S. businesses. However, the business community was curiously silent in the wake of the new order - until last week, that is.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce outlined the business case against the new order in a blistering public letter dated October 15, co-signed by a group of 150 local Chambers of Commerce, other commercial organizations, and non-profit groups.

From a bottom-line perspective, the letter draws particular attention to the confusion over standards resulting from the order’s reliance on subjective, ambiguous language.

That includes confusion over what content is actually permitted and what is excluded, as well as the more complicated matter of handling variations in the perceptions of individual employees.

“Because of the ambiguity and subjective nature of the key terms that define what training materials are not allowed, whether the training material in question is compliant could very well depend on the outlook of the person filing the complaint,” the Chamber observes.

The ambiguity effect could become especially burdensome for multinational companies that have federal contracts, because the order provides no guidance on diversity training for employees outside of the U.S.

Even if guidance on that point becomes available, the Chamber notes that additional guidance is needed to address circumstances under which the order conflicts with another country’s training mandates.

Employee relations also factor into the Chamber’s analysis of the complaint hotline embedded in the new order.

“Employers are concerned that this will invite non-meritorious complaints from employees who may be disgruntled about a range of different matters,” the Chamber writes.

Because the order sets vague parameters for filing a complaint, the Chamber also notes that an employee could touch off a burdensome investigation simply by reporting a discussion between attendees at a training session, even though the conversation is not part of the official presentation.

Diversity training in the era of diversity and inclusion

In addition to these direct bottom line issues, the Chamber also calls attention to the foundational role of diversity training in the modern business environment.

“…The E.O. is already having a broadly chilling effect on legitimate and valuable D&I training companies use to foster inclusive workplaces, help with talent recruitment, and remain competitive in a country with a wide range of different cultures,” the Chamber writes, referring to reports that some U.S. companies have suspended diversity training altogether in the wake of the new order.

The race for top talent already factors strongly into the race for top dollars. Companies that fail to foster a diverse and inclusive environment will find themselves falling behind, especially those involved in fields that are also vulnerable to broader shifts in brand reputation.

Elections have consequences

The letter rounds off with a sharp poke at the president’s penchant for using executive orders to circumvent the law.

The Chamber accuses the September order of pursuing the same kind of social engineering that the Chamber found highly objectionable during the Obama administration.

“Such an approach effectively creates two sets of rules, one for those companies that do business with the government and another for those that do not,” the Chamber writes. “Federal contractors should be left to manage their workforces and workplaces with a minimum amount of interference so long as they are compliant with the law.”

That emphasis on compliance with the law is especially forceful during the 2020 election cycle, in which the diversity and inclusion stakes have been so clearly defined by the behavior of the president over the past four years.

Although the message ends with a commitment to work with the president to overcome their objections, the Chamber’s overall message is clear. On Election Day, business leaders who value diversity training have an opportunity to cast their vote in favor of legislators who support a level playing field for all companies.

Image credit: Chris Montgomery/Unsplash

Despite rising concern over the global plastic pollution crisis, the amount of plastic entering the environment has continued apace. Public pressure has resulted in a weak patchwork of nation-based regulations and voluntary efforts, but they have failed to stem the tide. Now a group of global corporations has joined together to support a coordinated, treaty-based circular economy strategy through the United Nations. The question is, will it succeed where others have failed?

A treaty-based effort on plastic pollution

The new plastic pollution effort launched last week under a partnership between the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, WWF and the firm Boston Consulting Group, following a jointly authored report, The Business Case for a UN Treaty. “Despite a doubling of voluntary initiatives and national regulations over the last five years, plastic waste continues to leak into the environment at alarming rates – with more than 11 million [metric tons] of plastic flowing into our oceans each year,” explain the partners.

They acknowledge that voluntary support has grown in recent years, highlighted by the the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, which just recruited the U.S. as part of its Plastics Pact network.

However, the effort to support a circular economy has been outrun by the bottom-up demand for plastic. A more intensive, top-down approach is needed.

“A binding global agreement that builds on the vision of a circular economy for plastic can ensure a unified international response to plastic pollution that matches the scale of the problem,” explained Ellen MacArthur, who is founder and chair of Trustees of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

The proposed treaty on plastic pollution would coordinate regulations among nations and require those nations to set targets and develop action plans.

The treaty would also establish agreed-upon methods and metrics, and recruit support for innovation and new infrastructure.

But will this plan work?

The prospects for the success of such a venture would have been dim just a few years ago. However, recent improvements in bio-based alternatives have helped to set the stage for an international treaty that promotes commercial innovation.

Coca-Cola is one early adopter, having developed and introduced its proprietary PlantBottle in 2009.

In addition, the emergence of next-generation petrochemical recycling technology is raising the possibility of reclaiming hard-to-recycle plastics including foam, polyethylene, and dirty or mixed waste.

U.S. policy makers have already spotted the potential for economic development in that field. In one recent move, the Department of Energy awarded $11.6 million to the University of Delaware to support its new Center for Plastics Innovation.

The research will help support efforts to make 100 percent recyclable products inside and outside of the single-use plastic packaging field. That trend has already emerged in the footwear area, with Adidas’ 100 percent recyclable shoe initiative being just one recent example.

Just last week, the Energy Department also committed a new round of $27 million in funding to support 12 new projects in the field of next-generation plastic recycling. The 12 projects represent a range of new technologies including new formulations and bio-based materials.

In addition, some large-scale plastic packaging users are no longer depending on their supply chains to develop recycled plastic sources. They are actively financing and supporting R&D projects that provide them with more sustainable materials and feedstocks.

One recent example is L’Oreal, which has partnered with the French bio-industry research firm Carbios on molecular-scale recycling technology for PET bottles.

The business case for high-tech recycling

Another indication of the potential for new economic activity in the high tech recycling space is indicated by a bill currently before the Pennsylvania State Senate.

The bill, which has already passed the Pennsylvania House, would take next-generation recycling facilities out of the generic “recycling” category and reclassify them as manufacturing facilities. The shift recognizes the vast technology gulf between conventional plastic waste-to-energy incineration and modern pyrolysis technology.

Unlike incineration, pyrolysis is a closed, low emission (or potentially zero emission) process that melts plastic into a reusable pellet-form feedstock. Pyrolysis can also be used to reclaim plastic for liquid fuel.

The energy needed to power the process is also getting a sustainability makeover. In one example, researchers are exploring the potential to deploy recovered pyrolysis gas and molten salt from a concentrating solar power system.

Pennsylvania’s support for next-generation plastic recycling is particularly interesting because the state is part of an ongoing Energy Department plan to establish five major new petrochemical facilities in the area, leveraging Appalachian shale gas resources.

The plan was already beginning to unravel as overbuilding in the global petrochemical industry ran into the COVID-19 crisis. If the recycling bill is signed into law — which appears likely — growth in the pyrolysis industry would further undermine the demand for virgin shale gas in the region.

Going beyond recycling

Still another recent development is the support of leading producers and buyers of plastic. Recycling, reclaiming, and reusing are all important steps to reduce plastic pollution, but a permanent solution to the problem will lean heavily on cutting off the plastic pollution problem at the source.

To that end, WWF, the MacArthur Foundation and BCG have recruited the support of more than two dozen global companies that serve as pipelines for much of the world’s plastic packaging.

These companies have already taken on the plastic pollution challenge on a variety of fronts, including reducing their use of plastic packaging and designing packages for reuse instead of disposal.

The list includes the packaging producer Amcor and the chemical company Borealis, along with familiar brands in food production such as Danone, Mars, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Unilever. The global retail industry is also represented, by H&M and the supermarket chains Tesco and Woolworths, among others.

The missing piece of the plastic pollution puzzle

Consumer support is another element that has been missing from plastic reduction movement. It is difficult to change individual habits, as evidenced by the achingly low rate of recycling participation in many parts of the U.S.

Nevertheless, consumer involvement is essential for the shift from single-use packaging to refillable and reusable packaging, and there are signs that support to tackle plastic pollution is growing.

Due to the efforts of WWF, numerous other organizations and business leaders in a wide range of fields, public awareness of the plastic pollution crisis has become part of the mainstream public conversation in recent years.

“The issue of plastic pollution is ranked among the top three environmental concerns globally,” explains The Business Case for a UN Treaty. “With growing scientific evidence of the environmental and social impacts of plastic pollution, public interest in the topic has spiked in recent years.”

The report identifies 2017 as an “inflection point.”

“Plastic is now viewed as the most negative material used for consumer goods items, with 65 percent of global consumers associating it with ocean pollution and 57 percent deeming it harmful,” the report states.

In tandem with growing public concern over the impacts of climate change, support for action on plastic pollution has nowhere to go but up.

That seals the business case. Now it’s up to consumers and business leaders to take their case to policy makers, here in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Image credit: Pixabay

We’ve seen business and employee activism during this year’s U.S. elections at a level unmatched in history. True, we saw rumblings during the 2018 midterm election cycle, and that year witnessed an intensity of activism previously unseen. This year, we’ve seen far more companies push for voting rights and pull out the stops to get out the vote. And various business groups, which have pledged to be nonpartisan, have certainly played a huge role in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

[Editor's note: Be sure to sign up for the weekly Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which arrives in your inbox every Wednesday.]

Some critics, however, insist unprecedented times require unprecedented action — and argue business leaders, for the most part, aren’t meeting the moment.

One of them is Bennett Freeman, a consultant for multinational corporations on international labor and human rights. Writing for Fortune, Freeman agreed that recent statements and moves are unprecedented, but he insists business leaders aren’t moving the needle far enough. Their actions, he says, are sorely lacking for two reasons.

First, such statements haven’t gone far enough to call for a peaceful transfer of power, assuming the election ends up with results closer than current polls indicate. Noting that the current U.S. president, vice president and Supreme Court justice nominee have declined to commit or support such a transition, Freeman wrote: “The turmoil that would befall the country, let alone the economy and the financial markets, in such a situation would be a nightmare that should concentrate the minds of business leaders regardless of party or ideology.”

Second, while we’ve seen the usual suspects — or brands that already have a record of political activism — come out strongly to ensure anyone who is eligible to vote in the upcoming election can do so, America’s largest companies have been relatively silent. True, some large companies like Gap Inc.’s Old Navy, as well as Starbucks, have taken measures unthinkable four years ago, but CEOs of companies within the Fortune 500 ranks for the most part have been silent. Freeman is unimpressed:

“The most prominent business leaders should lend their names and weight to this declaration — and better yet, extend its scope to address the imperative of the peaceful transfer of power, if the outcome produces a change in administration, as well as the integrity of the election itself.”

Freeman specifically called out the Business Roundtable, noting the group has been vocal in redefining corporate purpose. “Its purpose must now extend to the defense of American democracy itself,” he insisted.

Corporate America has long professed to be apolitical, even as companies' lobbying budgets and political contributions have stated otherwise. But Freeman suggests this playbook no longer applies. “Speaking out to avoid a fatal crash for American democracy is their responsibility too,” he added. “Meeting this responsibility would be an act of no-nonsense nonpartisanship.”

While we’re on the topic of the U.S. elections, we’ll spend much of the final episode of the 3BL Virtual Forum, this Thursday, Oct. 22 at Noon ET/9 a.m. PT, on how companies are doing their part to ensure everyone who’s eligible to vote in the upcoming U.S. elections can cast their ballots. Register if you haven’t already — we are presenting this event at no cost.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

With Episode 2 of this year’s 3BL Virtual Forum in the rearview mirror, we thought we’d let the words of last week’s speakers shine on their own. Last Thursday was devoted to how companies are responding to the call for racial and social justice in America — and yes, it got personal, and in a very inspiring way.

While we’re on the topic of social justice, we’ll spend much of the final episode of the Virtual Forum, Thursday October 22 at Noon ET, on how companies are doing their part to ensure everyone who’s eligible to vote in the upcoming U.S. elections can cast their ballots. Register if you haven’t already — we are putting on this event at no cost.

It takes more than a public statement to take a stand on social justice

“Words matter. Money and financial commitments matter. But they’re just a starting point for the hard work that needs to be done on the movement for racial and economic justice.” — Lynne Filderman, Executive Producer of the 3BL Forum and CEO of Curation on Purpose.

On being a Black American and having the personal intersect with the professional

“To a person of color, issues of race, racist ideas and racism are not remarkable. What, in fact, I believe is remarkable in this season is the way that people are engaging in a different way. For me, when I think about my lived experience, I have the experience of coming from relatively humble beginnings, what people may classify as a low socioeconomic status, but I today get to sit in the halls of leadership and power in corporate America, and so I like to say I live in many communities.” — Shundrawn A. Thomas, President of Northern Trust Asset Management

Clean energy, the climate crisis and underserved communities

“While we are really excited to see leadership [on the climate crisis], we also want to make sure those communities that don’t have the resources to invest in the next wave of clean energy are still able to access them. That’s what we’re up against — really trying to make sure under-resourced households, low-income households and renters are able to access those same things just as wealthier households or corporations and companies are able to.

This isn’t just something like systems and structures that we’re working within. It’s even just barriers within your day-to-day life. Renter households, for example, are not able to make those decisions about energy investments because they don’t own their home, and that is a systemic issue. That is a racial issue.” — Ben Passer, Director of Energy Access and Equity at Fresh Energy

Understanding the meaning of ‘white privilege’ in the business context

“Privilege is such a polarizing word — I never knew that or realized that. I think when most whites hear ‘privilege,’ they think of money, but this is not about money. You have the privilege of leadership, you have the privilege of making policy, and that’s across any color line or culture line.

“You have the power to make change, but also you have the power and the privilege to take a pause and then really make impactful, sustainable change. Everyone came through the gate ready to run and saying: ‘What do we do? George Floyd was murdered. We have to do something.’ And I’m like, ‘Slow down, take a pause — what makes sense for your company, your company culture, your growth?’ [White people] have the power to make the change, you have the privilege to take that moment to pause and figure out what’s the best thing to do.” — Leslie Short, Founder and CEO of The Cavu Group

Opportunities companies have to push forward on social justice

“Corporate America is kind of the last thing that we’ve unleashed to dismantle racism. We’ve seen efforts in government, and we’ve left it up to government. But corporations are extremely powerful, and the private sector is extremely powerful. When you unleash these forces, that’s truly going to get us to the place we want to be, and that’s a place where we have diversity, equity and inclusion in every single thing we see and do.” — Orson Aguilar, Principal of Policy and Advocacy for UnidosUS

What it means to move from the sidelines to being in the center of the action

“I don’t want to minimize the serious issues that our society must wrestle with, but I don’t believe we’re actually as polarized as some would like us to believe. I believe there is a broad consensus around our country that people ought to have access to health care, that people ought to have the ability to go and vote, that climate change is a thing we need to deal with.

“I think we’ve been led to believe by those who want polarization to serve their narrow political agenda that there’s this huge divide, but I don’t think that exists. I’m hopeful that we will find a way to move forward together and that it will create a sense of stability within our country that will allow us to address some of these critical issues.” — Chris Miller, Head of Global Activism Strategy at Ben & Jerry's

Yes, there’s a pipeline of talent. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

“I’ve worked in so many sectors over the years, and I started in about the mid-1970s. One of the things I heard then that I still hear now is, ‘Well, you know, if there were simply more [people of color] in the pipeline, people would be in positions within organizations, and they would be at the table.’ That was back in 1974 — it’s impossible that by 2020, and into 2021, the pipeline hasn’t been filled. It’s discouraging, it’s exhausting in some respects, but at the same time, I will say that I’m forever hopeful.” — Jennifer Smith Turner, Novelist, Board Member of Newman’s Own Foundation and Board Member of Chief Executives of Corporate Purpose (CECP)

What this summer has meant for many of our fellow citizens

“For me, it’s been exhausting, it’s been disheartening. But what I try to do is double down in the ways I can uniquely move the ball forward, even figuring out ways to use the comparative power and privilege — even as a Black man but a man nonetheless, and coming from a particular educational background — that I have to really move our company forward for folks who don’t necessarily enjoy some of the [privileges] I enjoy.

“Community is important right now, and if companies can try to build and create community as brands, that’s a critical part of taking a stand as well because these issues chase us into the workplace. When I work here, I don’t stop being a Black man and seeing what happened to George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. So, the workplace has to find a way to say, ‘You know what, in this part of the world, we’re making something different for all the folks that work here.’ I think people in roles like mine can be a critical player and try to create that.” — Chequan Lewis, Chief Equity Officer, Pizza Hut

On equity and how work can further the movement for racial and social justice

“Think about equity on two different levels: You can think about equity as ownership interest, but you can also think of equity as equal access to opportunity. I like to say my work gives me two opportunities to drive this all-important focus on equity. When you’re in a leadership position and when you’re working with others and have influence with others, we can actually create more equitable opportunities. And the wonderful thing about the country we live in is that opportunities abound, but a tough reality is access to that opportunity is not equitable. So, I have the opportunity, day by day, to create more opportunities.” — Shundrawn A. Thomas of Northern Trust

Bottom line: We must be able to talk this out

“When we are in the workplace, we don’t leave our diversity, we don’t leave those experiences that define who we are at home. It’s so important that we’re able to have those dialogues at work and be part of that inclusive culture — and taking the best parts of ourselves.” — Cecily Joseph, Chair of the Board of Directors at Net Impact and Advisor of the Initiative for Equity and Social Justice at Presidio Graduate School

Image credit: James Eades/Unsplash

WWF reminds us that our current food choices often neglect one important effect of the global food system: environmental sustainability. Current food production methods and their impact on natural resources inadvertently affect our wellbeing and the planet at large. To maintain good health and meet climate change targets, we cannot compromise nutritional benefits or environmental costs. A new report suggests we are doing the latter.

For WWF, taking on climate change globally means a renewed local focus on food

Earlier this month, WWF released a report that reveals the necessary health and environmental benefits of adopting what it calls a "planet-based diet." This means choosing foods that are produced with respect to local capacity, can meet nutritional needs and are in alignment with environmental sustainability goals.

From WWF's perspective, many current government dietary guidelines do not align with global health and environmental goals. Agricultural food processes are costing the planet freshwater and accelerating tropical deforestation and biodiversity loss. Food produced in this detrimental fashion is often over- or under-consumed.

Take, for example, the U.S. According to WWF, Americans are over-consuming meats, sugar, saturated fats and sodium and under-consuming vegetables, fruits, dairy and fish. These trends account for growing rates of chronic diseases and deficiencies. 

This isn’t only about taking on climate change or simply consuming more plant-based foods. A planet-based diet is not merely a consumer choice. Each country is facing unique challenges from its own food system.

WWF illustrates this point by explaining that encouraging 'flexitarian' or vegan diets in India or Indonesia would accelerate biodiversity loss, as the nutritional need for fruits and vegetables and the resulting global demand would dramatically increase. To combat this, farmers, retailers, governments, and consumers must all participate in creating and supporting sustainable food production that is specific to each country.

There are numerous benefits to adopting a planet-based diet. For us, this means a reduced rate of premature mortality and chronic diseases. For the planet, it means the preservation of freshwater and the prevention of tropical deforestation and biodiversity loss.

How dietary shifts can help

WWF highlights five strategic actions that would benefit from a planet-based diet: reversing biodiversity loss, staying within the global carbon budget for food, utilizing existing cropland, achieving negative emissions, and optimizing crop yields.

Much of global biodiversity loss stems from not using healthy plant species that are adaptable to food production and climate change and instead opting for animals. According to ongoing WWF research, agriculture is the cause of the extinction of 80 percent of mammals and bird species globally. And biodiversity loss isn’t limited to the impacts of livestock. For example, in Denmark, biodiversity loss is largely driven by coffee, tea and cocoa.

As it is important to balance every country’s nutritional needs and agricultural capacity, living within the global carbon budget for food requires the same approach. This means equally distributing this budget to all countries, so all parties have the same responsibility of combating climate change and tackling their local food issues. Another action supported by dietary shifts is halting the expansion of croplands and instead growing food and improving its production to support people instead of livestock.

Taking such action will require us to be innovative in food production processes. WWF says it supports methods of conservation agriculture, agroforestry and regenerative agriculture because it will produce more food with fewer resources. In comparison to animal foods, plant-based food products require fewer natural resources. In fact, WWF points out that the majority of water use is attributed to meat and dairy livestock consumption, and consuming plant-based foods can reduce water use by 8 percent in the U.S.

How WWF suggests becoming “planet-based”

How can we implement the planet-based diet when so many sectors are involved? It may seem daunting to implement changes quickly when almost every country has different regulations, agricultural capacity and nutritional needs. For action steps, WWF emphasizes collaboration, creating ambitious government dietary guidelines, adopting new regenerative agriculture practices and minimizing the use of pollutants. In addition, cover crops and improved grazing techniques will protect natural resources. WWF also stresses policies and aligning legislation that together protect biodiversity and improve food production.

Essentially, a planet-based diet emphasizes local needs, food accessibility and nutrition, while tackling problems like tropical deforestation and biodiversity loss. We cannot balance one or the other. With agriculture accounting for 27 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to WWF’s research, we must not ignore the impact of our food choices.

On that point, WWF released an online tool for people to do just this. The Planet-Based Diets Impact and Action Calculator sheds light on every individual’s impact and areas for improvement. Along with this, countries can come up with their own solutions that align with a planet-based diet. We will be unique in how we implement this diet, but will face the same consequences if we don’t.

Image credit: Markus Spiske/Unsplash

The World Bank has come under fire by a leading European NGO over some of its loans and grants. In a recently issued report, the German group, Urgewald, lambasted the international financial institution and lending agency for its continued investment in fossil fuels, despite ongoing pledges to tackle climate change.

The tension between the international lending agency and the NGO is a cautionary tale for financial companies — or any organization for that matter — that call for climate action yet continue to invest in or insure fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels still attract billions in loans and grants

By accessing updated World Bank data, and through contacting individual projects, companies, and grant and loan recipients, Urgewald concluded that the World Bank had invested over $2 billion in fossil fuel projects in the past two years.

The NGO also alleged that the World Bank’s lenders have distributed over $12 billion for fossil fuel projects since the adoption of the Paris climate agreement in 2015. This is roughly the same as the agency spent on fossil fuels between 2014 and 2018.

Urgewald concluded that the majority of the $10.5 billion invested over the last five years was to finance new fossil fuel projects in the form of new loans, guarantees and equity. The NGO’s researchers further mentioned specific examples of projects that the World Bank has recently funded, such as an additional $38 million granted to support upstream oil and gas development in Brazil through a technical assistance program. Another $20 million was provided last March to the Petroleum Resource Governance and Management Project in Guyana, with funding commitments lasting until April 2021, according to Urgewald.

The claims made in the study came days before the World Bank’s 2020 economic outlook meetings this week, which highlighted the importance of investing in more sustainable projects amid a stalling global economy.

In an initial statement responding to Urgewald, the World Bank claimed it had stopped financing upstream oil and gas investments last year. The agency said it was also determined to assist developing countries on energy projects that would be economically viable in nations dependent on energy imports. It went on to emphasize the recent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on global and local economies, and said the bank was working with governments, various partners and the private sector to address current challenges.

A question of what’s needed in emerging economies

In addition, the World Bank reiterated the importance of funding for adapting energy operations needed by critical health facilities and hospitals. Yet, in a recent report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stated: “The COVID-19-induced economic crisis does not change the basic climate challenge, or the proper response to it.”

To that end, at the 2020 World Economic Outlook Forum, Gita Gopinath, chief economist and director of the research department at the IMF, addressed the need for continued sustainable investing in a press statement. Gopinath insisted that a push for investment in sustainable infrastructure, with low interest rates and high uncertainty, could “significantly increase jobs,” and that sustainable public investment played a key role in reducing carbon emissions.

Short-term gains, but a long-term surge in poverty

Nevertheless, Heike Mainhardt, a senior bank advisor at Urgewald, described the World Bank as part of the problem, accusing the bank of a lack of leadership on climate change. The accusations are timely considering that the World Bank’s leaders recently warned that without urgent mitigation measures for global warming, 100 million people could be driven into poverty. Not only that, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has found that, by 2030, the global exploitation of fossil fuel is on target to reach 120 percent more than what can be used to maintain the 2015 Paris agreement’s target of keeping global temperature rise to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Citing the Urgewald study, the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres, personally called out the World Bank on its fossil fuel investments, warning that fossil fuel projects were “of the past” and that investments in future-proof technologies such as renewable power and sustainable transport were a more rational path forward, given the goals of the Paris accord.

A question of subsidies

Guterres has called for an end to fossil fuels subsidies in past speeches, shaming “bailouts for polluting industries.” The IMF has also warned that fossil fuel subsidies have long-term negative environmental and economic effects, further reinforcing existing income inequalities as those subsidies mainly benefit wealthy households.

Nevertheless, the World Bank has pushed back against Urgewald’s study, describing it as “distorted and unsubstantiated.” The organization emphasized that any money it dispersed to fund fossil fuel projects during the study’s period amounted to 1 percent of the $2 trillion spent globally on oil and gas exploration and production.

But to the World Bank’s critics, only being a small part of a big problem may not be enough of a counterargument. Even if half of the bank’s funding went predominantly to natural gas power projects, as the bank states, the argument remains that the strategy still amounts to subsidizing fossil fuels. The World Bank’s response is that funding natural gas projects helps developing economies avoid cheap coal, which is far more polluting. Whether this serves as a good climate-positive strategy in the long run, however, remains to be seen. Such organizations as Urgewald certainly aren’t buying it.

Image credit: Marcin Jozwiak/Unsplash

Ikea will begin a large-scale furniture buyback program on Black Friday, Nov. 27. The launch of this program marks the first time the store, long known for affordable modern home décor and do-it-yourself furniture assembly, will scale the policy across 27 countries.

Items not resold will be recycled or donated to local community projects, the company said.

“By making sustainable living more simple and accessible, Ikea hopes that the initiative will help its customers take a stand against excessive consumption this Black Friday and in the years to come,” the global retail giant said in a widely distributed news release.

Selling secondhand is one step toward a circular economy

Countries such as Britain, Germany, Australia, Canada and Japan will be part of the project Ikea is calling “Buy Back.” The United States will not initially participate, though U.S. stores may join in the future, a spokeswoman said. Where available, customers can receive up to 50 percent of an item’s original price in the form of a store voucher.

This initiative falls into Ikea’s 2030 sustainability goals. Last year, the company committed to becoming 100 percent circular by 2030. The plan is for all products to be designed with the potential to be reused, refurbished or recycled, with an overall aim to reduce waste. Thus far, Ikea has conducted a materials investigation, and some products already adhere to circular guidelines. A baby cot, for example, transforms into a toddler bed. But company leadership expects customers to start seeing marked improvements in stores over the next few years.

Making strides toward a circular economy during a pandemic is admirable, though necessary. But it’s not despite the pandemic that Ikea has found progress; in some ways, the company may have expedited its transformation because of this year’s global crises.

“[Circularity is] a big shift that I would say has become even more important in terms of the pandemic," Ikea’s head of circular design, Malin Nordin, told Dezeen this summer. "We want to accelerate the shift."

"It has become even more important and relevant to take care of what you already have and prolong the life of products that you already have," she continued.

Paired with the nearly global buyback program, Ikea will open its first second-hand store later this year, located in Sweden.

Bottom-line reasons for reducing waste

Why would Ikea go through the effort of redesigning products and buying back furniture to find its niche in the circular economy? According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) a few of the benefits to this shift include saving on materials costs by reusing and recycling, creating jobs, finding new profit opportunities and developing stronger relationships with customers — about half of which are even willing to pay higher prices for environmentally friendly options, a 2020 study by ING Bank found.

Improved supply chain security is another advantage for companies that embrace a circular business model, EMF notes. Current supply chains have been disrupted by the half-year long pandemic and natural disasters speckling the globe. By reusing and recycling, companies can open themselves to a more decentralized and localized supply system.

Other industries are also chasing circularity and reaping its benefits. In fashion, secondhand selling was in the news earlier this year. Aware of consumer demand for more environmentally and socially friendly options, high-end department store Nordstrom began selling second hand clothing and accessories at its New York flagship store and online in January.

“Whether you’re shopping at Target or Walmart or Nordstrom or Macy’s, customers are saying we’d love to see secondhand products here because we’re buying it anyway,” Anthony Marino, president of online consignment and thrift store ThredUp, told the Washington Post. “Retailers are realizing that the person who buys secondhand clothing is not somebody else’s customer — it’s their customer.”

Similarly, Ikea can rely on planet and climate-conscious customers to sustain and support a shift in modus operandi — a shift that ensures greater resiliency and stability for stores as future global challenges inevitably crop up.

Image credit: Mika Baumeister/Unsplash