Search

To date, the U.S. still does not have a nationally coordinated contact tracing program that would help manage the spread of the coronavirus. The White House, in fact, has made clear that it would oppose any federal legislation that funds programs for contact tracing and testing.

A ridesharing company with plenty of data

Could the private sector help to drive contact tracing efforts? Pardon the pun, but ridesharing giant Uber says it is doing just that — and already has been doing so on the sly.

Since this spring, Uber has been sharing worldwide data that is related to infectious diseases, including COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, with public health departments. The way Uber works with public health authorities (PHAs) is that if such an agency requests data to which it is entitled by local law, Uber has a process in place by which it will release information on both Uber drivers and passengers.

A contact tracing plan on the down-low

As Reuters recently reported, Uber executives met with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local public health officials in January, when the disease was first beginning to spread outside of China, to sort out how the ridesharing company could help with data collection efforts.

Uber now manages a portal that so far has filed requests from 40 locations across the United States. Worldwide, the company has fielded 560 requests on those potentially exposed to COVID-19 across 29 nations.

Such information is crucial for contact tracing efforts, as it can help local officials notify people they may have been exposed to the coronavirus in the event someone infected with the virus used or provided Uber’s services. But Uber is also doing its part to stop the spread, as it will block users from using its app for 14 days if they are confirmed to have contracted the virus.

The private sector has an opportunity to step up and stand out

At first gut-check, privacy advocates may object to the sharing of such data, but Uber has made it clear that it will only share its users’ data with government officials if there’s a definite link to public health risks. And in the absence of any guidance from the federal government, state and local public health officials are scrambling to build viable contact tracing systems – and they need as much help as they can get as local budgets have been left in shambles. Scoring such data from the likes of Uber and its competitors can help track those who have been infected with the coronavirus, get them the treatment they need and prevent them from spreading it to others.

Uber would never admit this publicly, but there’s an additional benefit for the company: Becoming a proactive partner in the fight against COVID-19 could help burnish the company’s reputation in the long run. There’s no shortage of stories outlining the company’s struggles on all fronts, from its shortcomings on diversity in the workplace to its efforts to thwart local governments from regulating its services. At a time when investing tied to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors shows no signs of going away any time soon, some investors in this space have been skittish about including Uber within their portfolios.

At a time when the U.S. has steepened the curve instead of flattening it, Uber’s action now could become a future case study of how a company can respond to a crisis with the tools it already has at hand.

Image credit: Andras Vas/Unsplash

The London Stock Group (LSEG) published its 2020 green economy report last week and unveiled a number of new issuers receiving the bourse’s Green Economy Mark. This LSEG certification process, which recognizes sustainable businesses across eight industry pillars, acknowledges securities issuers that derive more than 50 percent of their revenues from sustainable products and services. The total value of companies that have received this certification from LSEG stood at over $83 billion (or 67 billion British pounds) by the end of June 2020.

A certification investors can readily understand

Eight new issuers have now received the LSEG’s certification, which is based on a data model developed by the index provider FTSE Russell. The total number of issuers that are licensed to use this certification is now at 86, up 16 percent since the Mark’s launch last October. There are 46 issuers to be found on the exchange’s Main Market, with another 40 on the LSEG’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM).

Furthermore, the LSEG’s report underlines its stated commitment to support sustainable finance and investment. And it has been shown to make financial sense when investing in companies that are taking sustainability issues seriously. Indeed, investment in these stocks can provide investors with a broad, cross-sectoral and international exposure — rather than a much narrower focus on, for instance, renewable energy infrastructure and “pure-play” clean technology companies.

As such, the Green Economy Mark offers a solution to the challenge of identifying investments within the equities of companies that are focused on a more sustainable economy, according to the LSEG. Though not tracked by an index yet, over the last 24 months, companies assigned the LSEG’s Mark outperformed the FTSE All-Share index — comprising 615 companies in the blue-chip FTSE 100 index, FTSE 250 and FTSE Small Cap — by 36 percent.

Companies certified with the Green Economy Mark demonstrate resilience

While the markets have experienced significant volatility during the COVID-19 pandemic, equities with the Green Economy Mark certification have, in aggregate, demonstrated greater resilience and subsequently recovered faster than the rest of the market. The Mark also “helps navigate and make use of the current green finance tools and stimulate new ideas,” according to the exchange.

Between the launch of the Mark in October 2019 and the publication of this latest report, Calisen Plc, a company based in Manchester that procures, owns, installs, and manages electricity and gas meters for energy retailers, floated in February 2020 on the exchange, raising $418 million. In doing so, it became the first company issuing an initial public offering (IPO) to earn this LSEG certification.

Highlighted as a case study in the report, Calisen was the top Green Economy Mark issuer in terms of capital-raising activity this year, ahead of National Express in second place with $291 million.

At the time of the Green Economy Mark’s launch last year, a total of 74 London equity issuers qualified and were equivalent to an aggregate market capitalization of over $70 billion. At that time, 38 of them represented Main Market issuers with a total market cap of $65 billion and 36 alternative market issuers with a total market cap of $4.6 billion.

Denzil Jenkins, the interim CEO of LSEG, commenting in the wake of the new report, said: “The Green Economy Mark underlines our commitment to finding innovative solutions to support the growing investor demand for actionable climate related financial information. As a leader in green finance, LSEG is ideally placed to support issuers and investors in the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.”

Sustainable investing is here to stay

That said, today the sustainable business economy represents around 6 percent of the market capitalization of global listed companies, equating to approximately $4 trillion. Globally, over $30 trillion in assets under management (AUM) are now linked to sustainable investment strategies, according to the 2018 Global Sustainable Investment Review survey.

LSEG’s analysis reflects what is occurring on the other side of the pond: Sustainable investing is here to stay despite the global COVID-19 pandemic, and now institutional investors are starting to give notice to companies that they expect more disclosures related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts.

The 33-page report accompanies news of other issuers to the Mark. Five of them are from the LSEG’s Main Market (Cairn Homes, National Express Group, SIG, SQN Asset Finance Income Fund, and TI Fluid Systems) and three from alternative market (Gresham House, TP Group, Water Intelligence), joining other Green Economy Mark issuers in highlighting how they are supporting transition to low-carbon economy. 

Among the report’s key findings is that while Green Economy Mark issuers represent 8 percent of total capital raised on London equity markets over the past 24 months, this figure is four times their market cap representation, which stands at 2 percent. And so far in 2020, a group of 18 issuers among the segment’s ranks have raised about $1.24 billion in follow-on capital to support balance sheets, growth and fund innovation.

Overall, industrials represent the largest sector of the green economy both by number of issuers (24) and market capitalization ($31.6 billion) on the LSEG, followed by financial companies in the second spot with 23 companies with a market cap of $12.5 billion.

In addition to what is now a total of 86 companies with the Green Economy Mark, an additional 110 issuers on London’s equity markets are reported by FTSE Russell to be generating some level of green revenues below the 50 percent threshold for the mark, most being within the industrial sector.

Image credit: LSEG Media Center

Since quarantine began, many of us are much more aware of the need for producers and companies to maintain a healthy food supply chain. But we still don’t think of what that entails, including the need for agricultural enterprises to ensure lower costs and more viable business models. One opportunity some farmers are trying out is by creating dual-use farms: farms that produce both crops and electricity through solar power, or “agrivoltaics.”

Agrivoltaics (also known as agrophotovoltaics) was a term to reflect new research into how to maximize land use efficiency while generating power for farms, and potentially as an additional revenue stream. For example, some companies are starting to think about dual-use farms as an opportunity for community solar.

Community solar is a business model that allows several consumers to have access to a solar system, spreading the costs and benefits among users. It has been growing in popularity especially in urban areas to help streamline costs, enabling lower-income consumers to participate.

Enter BlueWave Solar and its approach to agriculture and electricity

BlueWave Solar, a company based in Massachusetts, has been working to center dual-use farms in its community solar initiatives. They have designed an approach to allow agriculture to coincide with the solar arrays, spacing and orienting the arrays to allow for more sunlight for the crops and more space for free maneuvering of both equipment and people.

Drew Pierson, Head of Sustainability for BlueWave, said the company has been working with other solar developers in the area as well the agriculture and energy departments of the state of Massachusetts, the University of Massachusetts Clean Energy Extension and the American Farmland Trust to bring the science of solar to improve the efficacy of regional farmland. They want to make the Northeast “a laboratory to make optimal use of our land and develop innovation solutions for food, water, energy, and economics.”

This matters in a region like New England, where about 90 percent of its food has to be imported from outside the region and thus is vulnerable to disruptions in the food supply chain. In order to address resilience issues, the community of researchers, academics, the ag community, and political leadership want to see more food produced within the region, with sustainability and resilience top of mind. But land is constrained and the solutions require innovative thinking.

Thinking local while scaling up agrivoltaics

BlueWave wants to use the Northeast as a test bed for research to develop dual-use technologies that can create a roadmap for scalability across the region and beyond. One key component is water conservation related to solar, an issue that developers generally consider less when conceptualizing solar development projects. Though in early stages of research, the company is looking at how micro-climates retain water better with solar as well as deploying measurement tools and devices to map how water is flowing under the surge within a solar project.

Liz Varney, owner of Twin Elm Farms in Mendon, Massachussets, is using BlueWave’s solar system on her farm. Her family has owned their farm for decades and in addition to the financial concerns, they wanted to maintain the farm as a scenic part of the landscape. Solar appealed to her as both a technology that would reduce costs and help generate additional income while preserving the landscape.

When asked what lessons she would share with other family farms interested in solar and agrivoltaics, Varney said partnering with a company that listened to her and the community’s concerns to make the project a part of the community as opposed to something imposed upon it. Time and time again, from climate justice to community solar, the need to engage the community and give them ownership over the solution is critical to success.

Solar has been used in conjunction with agriculture in other parts of the country, such as California. Engaging farms in a dual-use economy to help spur the development of community solar is a relatively new way of thinking about how to make our farms and our energy supply more sustainable. As we remain at home, ordering our groceries and using excess electricity to power our laptops, it’s worth thinking about how these two industries are innovating at the very source. Agrivoltaics could be one long-term answer.

Image credit: Max Trommsdorff/Wiki Commons

While fast-food chains have generally been dishing up new meat-free versions of burgers and tacos, Taco Bell has so far been an iconoclast during the ongoing plant-based fast food wars. To date, the popular fast-food chain has relied on traditional vegetarian standbys such as beans and potatoes. Last year the brand decided to make it easier for non-meat eaters to order at its locations by rolling out a vegetarian menu.

But like other restaurant chains, Taco Bell has had to pivot quickly during this pandemic, which thereby comes with supply chain disruptions, dining room closures, and the need to take on new health and safety precautions.

So, the Irvine-based chain announced late last week that it was nixing several items from its menu, including those laden with potatoes.

It’s a curious move considering that potatoes are on a roll as many consumers are seeking comfort food during this era of self-quarantining and shelter-in-place orders. Major potato producers including McCain Foods and J.R. Simplot are also touting the sustainability of their cornerstone food products.

For Taco Bell, this is a bottom-line business decision. Without saying so explicitly, the company has to adapt to a new reality of drive-in purchases and delivery services via third parties. (Plus, have you seen the lines at the local fast food drive-in lately?) Add the reality of ordering at a drive-in lane, satirized perfectly by this Saturday Night Live skit from almost 30 years ago, and you’ll get it.

Judging by the backlash on social media, however, one would think Taco Bell would need to hire the same crisis communications firms needed when celebrities like Kendall Jenner and Lea Michele had their own episodes of public scorching on platforms like YouTube and Twitter. The comments ranged from the all-caps rants we are usually accustomed to getting in emails from the unhinged uncle to surmising that “getting rid of potatoes and loaded grillers is actually illegal.”

Food and culture writer Bettina Makalintal was far more measured on Vice: “Swapping potatoes in for meat seemed genius, like a secret you only knew if a stoner friend passed it along to you, and a potato-filled Quesarito is a delight of carb overload that I can only hope you experience before the sad day of August 13, 2020.”

The stark reality of today’s economy, however, means adding affordable menu items while making an eight-hour shift less complicated for employees. As for the ditching of potatoes, one writer noted that just about all of Taco Bell’s food items can be customized to be vegan.

Of course, there is another option that vegans in the know seek out when they crave Mexican food, and are easily found in California and the Southwest: nopal cactus, or nopales — they offer a nice crunch and texture without the carb calorie bomb. Now that would be a menu addition that would score Taco Bell endless press and social media buzz.

As for Taco Bell skipping the plant-based protein craze, brace yourself: The company’s CEO, Mark King, told Bloomberg earlier this year that the chain had been in talks with both Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat.

Image credit: Lars Blankers/Unsplash

Update: Since this story broke, Trader Joe's has announced that it will soon remove such labels from it's packaging. 

Trader Joe’s has long built its business catering to a certain demographic: the “woke” over-educated consumer who’s really curious about food from around the world but doesn’t necessarily have the coin, or time, to cook such creations from scratch. It’s a palace of gastronomy for those with Dom Perignon taste on a Two Buck Chuck budget.

The Trader Joe's schtick has worn thin

But to some, the Polynesian schtick and irreverent packaging that has made Trader Joe’s a fan favorite since the chain started in California during the late 1960s has worn thin. In the wake of the protests over the murder of Black Americans by police officers, which sparked the sunsetting of brands including Aunt Jemima, Mrs. Butterworth’s, and even the last Sambo’s breakfast restaurant, some believe it’s time that Trader Joe’s rethinks its labeling.

The problem is some of the catchy packaging found on various foods throughout Trader Joe’s. Trader Giotto’s made 99-cent bags of pasta a pantry staple; Arabian Joe’s helped put flatbread on the U.S. map; Trader José offers a rainbow color palette of salsas and Mexican food; Trader Joe San and Trader Ming’s gave wallets a break by curbing the urge to order Chinese or Japanese take-out.

Enough of the Jungle Book vibe, already

But what may seem cute and flippant to some consumers is offensive to others. Critics say this is yet another example of white people fetishizing cultures deemed different than their own. To that end, a group recently launched an online petition demanding that the grocer remove what it says is “racist branding and packaging” from its stores.

The petition also noted that the store’s branding itself is based on its founder, Joe Coulombe, who took inspiration from a book (White Shadows in the South Seas) and an amusement park ride (Disneyland’s Jungle Cruise Ride), both of which have their own problematic views toward how they portray Indigenous cultures.

For those who are weary of what they say is at a minimum a tone-deafness of Trader Joe’s branding, the retailer's cultural appropriation is nothing new. After all, many of us may remember our parents or grandparents referring to Asians as “Orientals” – and that word in turn was often our great-grandparents’ and their ancestors’ term to refer to people living in the Middle East. Over 40 years ago, Columbia University professor and author Edward W. Said laid this all out in his book Orientalism, which in a nutshell describes how centuries of colonization in the Middle and Near East have given much of the world a warped vision of those regions.

Branding that makes some feel like an "other"

Whether or not one views this packaging as racist, the reality is that some of Trader Joe's branding definitely does make some people feel like an "other" — and some, frankly, just aren't having it anymore.

The online petition, which as of press time is close to reaching its modest goal of 1,000 signatures, is not the first time Trader Joe’s has been called out on its branding. After one blogger contacted the grocer’s public relations department asking about the “Trader Ming” packaging, the company’s PR director replied, “Some time ago, we made the decision to use only the Trader Joe's name on our products moving forward.”

Trader Joe’s sent a similar reply to SFGate after its food and drink editor ran a story on the online petition.

At a higher level, the renewed talk of Trader Joe’s labeling shows that, as is the case with other grocery chains, it has a challenge appealing to people of color. The company gives off the vibe that it’s a haven for white hipsters (who may not have the budget for Whole Foods or Harris Teeter), even though the company has it share of Black fans. And at a time when food deserts are on the radar again during this national reckoning on racial equity, Trader Joe’s has long had a reputation of avoiding communities of color – until the evidence suggests gentrification led by white people is well underway.

Image credit: Mx. Granger/Wiki Commons

Food companies may say “Black Lives Matter” and insist they are determined to “protect” essential workers, but there’s an inconvenient reality hidden behind these public proclamations. Many of these food companies are profiting handsomely while global hunger continues to rise, says a leading humanitarian aid organization.

Food companies profit while global hunger trends upward

The NGO Oxfam recently lashed out at global food companies in a recent report. Calling the novel coronavirus a “hunger virus,” the writers of this report describe as unconscionable that 12,000 people a day could die from hunger exacerbated by COVID-19 while eight of the world’s largest food companies have paid a collective $18 billion to their shareholders since the beginning of this year.

From Oxfam’s point of view, the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a bevy of social problems all contributing to global hunger, including mass unemployment, declining humanitarian aid, a broken food supply chain, climate change and income inequality.

And despite the fact that certain regions of the world, including North America, the European Union and Australia, can boast food surpluses (despite panic buying), Oxfam paints a nefarious picture of food companies “using” the COVID-19 pandemic to hike prices on consumers.

Global ‘hotspots’ and wealthier nations all face risk

The problem is everywhere. Indeed, some of the most vulnerable nations, including Yemen, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti, are “extreme hunger hotspots,” according to Oxfam’s statistics. But wealthier countries are not immune from food insecurity. That includes the U.S., where Oxfam cited data suggesting consumer prices have risen 2.6 percent, even while farm income has decreased.

“Now the coronavirus has combined with the impacts of conflict, spiraling inequality and an escalating climate crisis to shake an already broken global food system to its foundations, leaving millions more on the brink of starvation,” say the authors of this Oxfam report.

While Oxfam certainly wags its finger at the private sector for its contributions to the emerging global hunger crisis, the NGO for the most part leaves it up to governments to launch drastic action in order to solve these problems. The organization’s six-point plan includes a call for wealthier governments to support humanitarian aid worldwide to prevent people from succumbing to starvation. In addition, Oxfam calls for both the private and public sectors to work together and ensure employees across the entire agribusiness value chain can safely show up for work, whether they are farmworkers or street vendors.

And in a nod to the fact that women play a huge role within the global food industry, yet generally face the most risk (and often have little influence in the worldwide COVID-19 response), Oxfam is calling for bolder action to address the discrimination they face when it comes to scoring credit, technology and access to land.

With 13.7 million and counting COVID-19 cases, will it get worse?

As data suggest the number of total COVID-19 cases will soon reach 14 million, Oxfam envisions an even harsher surge in global hunger if more drastic measures are not taken.

The real canaries in the coal mine now are Brazil, India and South Africa. Oxfam describes each of these middle-income countries as “emerging hotspots,” where social distancing measures – if they are followed at all – tend to push the poorest citizens to hunger rapidly as they have little or no safety net. The three nations are also important parts of the global food supply chain yet travel restrictions and lockdowns have left many communities at risk. Small-scale farmers in India, for example, have been unable to hire migrant workers at the peak of harvest season.

Oxfam has funded programs to fight hunger in the three nations, but it’s clear the NGO is armed with little more than a slingshot to confront the rising assault of global hunger. Organizations like Oxfam can only do so much: If the world’s largest food companies truly want to meet the moment and become the global citizens that they claim to be, it is past time to ramp up their anti-hunger efforts. The tactics could include distributing food to those who need it most, lobbying their governments to cancel poorer nations’ debts or funding sustainable agriculture programs.

This is about more than checking a box or blunting global hunger – it’s simply a pragmatic move to secure food companies' supply chains, and global consumer base, for the long haul.

Image credit: Stephanie Liao/Unsplash

This article on what companies can do to improve on their racial equality performance was written with Jane P. Madden, Managing Partner, Global Sustainability & Social Impact Practice Leader, Finn Partners.

In response to the murder of George Floyd by police in late May, America has brought BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color) issues front and center, with corporations speaking out in support of racial equality like never before. In addition, racial equality and economic disparity has become an increasingly important part of the COVID-19 discussion. As we head into August, companies must go beyond standalone Black Lives Matter statements and social media blackouts. To do this, they must begin implementing authentic and sustainable changes into their business strategy. 

As the anti-racist movement, a global pandemic and ongoing environmental crises converge, it has become increasingly clear that environmental and governance issues are also social issues. As governments, NGOs and activists navigate solutions, it is also critical that businesses reassess how to create financial value while also utilizing their business to generate social value.

Racial equality is a vital part of ESG

ESG (environmental, social, governance) performance is the core of responsible business. It is also a powerful business driver that builds resiliency. In fact, research from BlackRock suggests a majority of ESG-focused investment portfolios have outperformed non-sustainable counterparts during this year’s coronavirus-driven downturn – and the investment giant is even going so far to vote against management in companies in which it has invested.

My colleague, Jane Madden (Managing Partner, Global Sustainability & Social Impact Practice Leader at Finn Partners), shares it has always been a best practice that ESG be approached in an interdisciplinary manner and reflect the mission and core values of the company. But as we see the silos of ESG break down even further, companies need to look at ESG through an integrated and holistic lens.

For example, recent anti-racism protests have put environmental justice in the spotlight, as activists reconnect the social justice movement with the disproportionate number of people of color and the poor who live and work in places with degraded environmental quality (both an “E” and an “S” issue). “The lack of corporate board diversity and management (generally a “G” issue) limits benefits realized from diverse points of view, but it has also played a large role in socio-economic disparities across the country,” Jane says. “Furthermore, sustainability leaders need to own past discrimination and integrate anti-racism into the discipline. They can no longer look at the E, S or G as stand-alone issues.”

Public health, systemic racism and fostering more diverse and inclusive workplaces are very complicated. These challenges and their solutions must not be over simplified. There are several principle-based actions companies can take to ensure better incorporation of ESG to create a more equitable, resilient, and social-positive business.

Five actions businesses can take to secure racial equality

Go Beyond the Pledge. Commitments to racial equality need to be supported by measurable actions. Companies who have made statements of solidarity with Black Lives Matter and other organizations, but who do not have diverse hiring or labor practices, have been rightly criticized. Companies that strive to improve performance need to own past behavior and be open about their challenges. Most importantly, they need to take thoughtful actions that will have lasting impact by creating a more diverse, inclusive and equitable workplace. 

Be transparent. The foundation to any ESG strategy is transparency. As the world and the markets rapidly shift, companies need to be transparent in their commitments and honest and modest about their actions and achievements, particularly when it comes to BIPOC employees and communities, to earn trust.

Activate diversity competency. According to Black Enterprise, 187 S&P 500 companies (37 percent) did not have a single black board member in 2019. Critical diversity and inclusion initiatives should expand to include DE&I competency, especially at the board and management level. Just as climate leaders called for “climate competency” on corporate boards several years ago, we need to build “diversity competency” on corporate boards. Implementing new policies and actions, including: the hiring and wage equity practices; ensuring that the talent pipeline includes historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), black and minority student groups and alumni associations; and linking management performance to diversity, equity and inclusion outcomes, will strengthen the business. They will also add long-term value from new talent and a more inclusive corporate culture. More diverse and culturally inclusive workplaces can also help systematically address the wealth gap for BICOP employees.

Think and act local. Engaging with local community groups is a critical piece of developing and implementing any business strategy. While national or multinational organizations provide expertise and scale for certain issues, going local should, at the very least, be carefully considered as part of any strategic engagement. This may mean partnering with local organizations to advise on hiring practices or identifying business partners who can help achieve business and communication goals through a thoughtful social impact lens.

Donations are necessary but not sufficient. There will always be a critical role for corporate donations, but it does not replace rethinking and changing your business model from hiring to marketing to products and services. One-time donations, while welcome, may not always make the intended impact. Reactionary contributions made in the name of racial equality can come off as disingenuous, especially if the cause does not align with the company’s core values or is contrary to its actions. Utilizing the company’s core business competencies, employee skills and resources, and implementing long-term impact investments, can create more equitable and resilient economies and communities, and better meet employees’ values and their own growth objectives. These same actions strengthen trust and loyalty and can develop talent and customer pipelines. Use the power of your corporate purse in another way – support and integrate black-owned businesses into your supply chain.

Corporate sustainability is not a zero-sum game. The rise of social issues, including racial equality, does not diminish the importance of environmental issues. All must be addressed. To be effective and meet ESG performance goals, environment, social and governance issues must be considered holistically and be integrated into business strategy.

Image credit: Life Matters/Pexels

Fear, convenience and an abundance of take-out food have led to a huge spike in single-use plastics during the coronavirus pandemic, from grocery bags to sporks.

Concerned that the return to plastic could set back U.S. recycling and sustainability efforts, scientists and environmental groups are trying to reassure consumers about the safety of reusable items and encourage businesses to do what they can to limit plastic use.

The rush to single-use plastics

Over the past few months, as the novel coronavirus spread worldwide, consumers and retailers worried that reusable items could hasten transmission. Just months after many cities and states banned the use of plastic bags in stores, they were back. Limited to take-out and delivery service, restaurants have been forced to use large amounts of disposable containers and utensils. Used personal protective equipment (PPE), much of it plastic, also has been filling trash containers.  

In states where restaurants have been opening even on a limited basis, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommended establishments use disposable serving materials and dinnerware as well as single-use condiments and disposable or digital menus.  

The use of polystyrene plastic (more commonly known as Styrofoam) in particular has shot up. Two manufacturers of polystyrene products, Ineos Styrolution and Trinseo, have experienced “double-digit percentage sales increases in the food packaging and health-care industries” in February, March and April, Bloomberg reported.

To allay consumers’ and retailers’ fears, a group of 119 international scientists released a statement confirming that reusable items are no more likely to spread the virus than disposable ones, as long as they are effectively cleaned.

“Available evidence indicates that the virus spreads primarily from inhaling aerosolized droplets, rather than through contact with surfaces,” according to the scientists' statement. "Single-use plastic is not inherently safer than reusables, and causes additional public health concerns once it is discarded." Reusable items and hard surfaces are safe to use after they have been cleaned thoroughly with hot water and soap or disinfectants, the scientists said.

As for retailers, the group recommends store personnel limit contact with customers’ personal items, such as cups and bags, and vigorously disinfect any hard surfaces.

Plastic won’t necessarily protect you from COVID-19

The virus has been shown to live on a number of materials, and according to one study, it lingered three times longer on plastic than on other samples that were tested. 

“The plastic industry seized on the pandemic as an opportunity to try to convince people that single use plastic is necessary to keep us safe, and that reusables are dirty and dangerous,” maintained John Hocevar, Greenpeace’s ocean campaign director, in a CNBC article. “The fact that neither of these things is supported by the best available science was irrelevant.”

Being proactive to reduce plastic waste

Consumers and retailers can take steps to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics, even when it comes to take-out.  When the pandemic started, the Just Salad restaurant chain had to abandon the reusable bowls it sold to customers --the innovation had saved more than 75,000 pounds of plastic a year--and shift to strictly takeout and delivery orders. The company decided to make a change to its online ordering form and ask customers if they needed plastic utensils, which usually went into an order automatically. Not only did the move save the chain money, but the amount of outgoing plasticware dropped by 88 percent.

People can still try to bring their own bags to grocery stores and wash them regularly, experts said. At least one state, Connecticut, no longer is automatically providing plastic bags and reinstated its 10-cent- per-plastic-bag fee for stores and restaurants July 1. The governor had suspended the fee in March. If stores elsewhere won’t allow cloth bags, shoppers can request paper bags or ones made from compostable material or keep cardboard boxes in their cars for purchases. 

Since many beverage shops are not filling reusable cups, the most economical thing for coffee drinkers to do is brew their daily java at home. 

Accurately sorting items for recycling can help reduce waste as well. 

Experts are hopeful that once the pandemic eases, recycling and sustainability will become even greater public priorities than they were before the virus. "Public health must include maintaining the cleanliness of our home, the Earth," Dr. Mark Miller, former director of research at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's Fogarty International Center said in a public statement. "The promotion of unnecessary single-use plastics to decrease exposure to the coronavirus negatively impacts the environment, water systems, and potential food supply compared to the safe use of reusable bags, containers and utensils."

Image credit: Brian Yurasits/Unsplash

BlackRock has taken a highly public stance on climate action over the past several years after successive shareholder letters from CEO Larry Fink. And this week, the investment firm approaching $7 trillion in assets under management explained how it will wield a big carrot (engagement) and an even larger stick (voting during proxy season) to hold companies accountable.

In a recent report, BlackRock explained how as of this week, it has identified 244 companies that were making “insufficient progress” on integrating climate-related risks within their business models or public disclosure statements. Furthermore, BlackRock took voting action on more than 20 percent of those companies, or 53 in total. The asset manager said it notified the remaining 191 companies they are “on watch,” and if they do not take significant action going into 2021, it will vote against their management come proxy season.

BlackRock says that in looking out for its own clients, it’s particularly focused on carbon-intensive industries with a large market capitalization that also contribute a significant amount of carbon emissions in the regions where they are based.

As news outlets including the Financial Times reported, companies subjected to BlackRock’s voting actions included ExxonMobil and Volvo.

But these recent developments are more than finger-wagging and checking the “no” box on proxy statements, BlackRock insists. The investment house claims it has engaged “hundreds” of companies on ESG (environmental, social and governance) challenges over the past several years. And it’s not just the usual suspects, as in polluting industries, that have come under the watchful eye of BlackRock.

“Our stewardship also includes topics that have been central to many companies’ license to operate, particularly over the past few months, such as human capital management and diversity and inclusion,” the company's report reads.

The current global pandemic, along with the ongoing protests seeking racial equality and criminal justice reform, are also on BlackRock’s radar.

“The COVID-19 crisis, and more recently the protests surrounding racial injustice in the United States and elsewhere, have underscored the importance of these issues and a company’s commitment to serving all of its stakeholders,” added the authors of the BlackRock report.

BlackRock has attracted its share of criticism, including its decision to not vote to support climate change-related resolutions presented to various companies, including Australian energy firms. At the same time, the investment giant said it had supported similar proposals on the proxy statements of companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron.

In addition, BlackRock has been public about its stance against companies like Tyson Foods, the management of which it voted against in the wake of supply chain problems and outbreaks of COVID-19 at some of its plants. BlackRock also voted against a director on the board of McKesson Corporation over what it said were its actions during the U.S. opioid crisis.

The markets appear aligned with BlackRock’s directives, as investments in ESG funds keep increasing and perform better overall than standard indexed funds.

Don’t expect BlackRock and Fink to moderate their tone any time soon. As its executive committee recently wrote, “Given the groundwork we have already laid and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management when companies have not made sufficient progress.”

Image credit: Alexander Tsang/Unsplash