Search

Last month, the Business Roundtable acknowledged the evolving role and purpose of business in the 21st century by updating its Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. In it the CEOs of America’s leading companies argue, “The long-term success of these companies and the U.S. economy depends on businesses investing in the economic security of their employees and the communities in which they operate.”

We could not agree more.

We especially applaud the BRT’s explicit focus on employees as a critical facet of this new commitment. Of course, operationalizing on this new statement of purpose will be no small feat. As the impact of this far-reaching and potentially disruptive new outlook becomes clear, new questions arise. What does it actually look like for an employer to invest in their employees? How will BRT members and other like-minded employers measure success? How might stakeholders hold employers accountable in this updated worldview?

Successfully navigating this transition is critical because the nature of work is changing. Both workers and employers face the effects of globalization, shifting demographics, increasing automation, and a growing gig economy.  While a forward thinking manager could anticipate one or some of these changes, no one should be expected to account for them all.  The challenge then is to design and build new employment systems that confront today’s challenges while staying open to tomorrow’s. 

In a time of growing economic inequality we believe that the workplace of tomorrow – the one that will be most competitive in attracting and retaining talent – is one where employers are providing economic dignity, creating good jobs, training their employees for new technological advances, and redefining the workplace experience for all employees.

This is what it means to be  an Opportunity Employer. Opportunity Employers commit to the principles and practices of Opportunity Employment – principles and practices that prioritize economic opportunity and mobility for all workers and lead to increased retention, diversity, employee engagement and stronger performance for entry-level and frontline workers while generating business value for the company. In short, it’s about creating a workplace where people of all backgrounds are valued and can thrive.

Our organizations, Talent Rewire and Grads of Life, collaborated to define and publish the Opportunity Employment principles and practices that are simultaneously good for employees and the bottom line. Our framework builds on years of engaging with employers, and in partnership with a community of experts that includes B Lab, BSR, Generation, Good Jobs Institute, JUST Capital, National Fund for Workforce Solutions, Skillful, B Lab, JUST Capital, and many other leaders. In order to make these findings actionable and measurable, we created the Opportunity Navigator – a free, online tool that allows employers to assess their progress against the best practices of Opportunity Employment. The Navigator provides a customized scorecard with strengths and opportunities for additional impact, along with resources that can support employers in taking action.

We’ve taken these steps in part because we know how challenging it can be for employers to move from a commitment to employees to taking the steps needed to prioritize opportunity and mobility for all. We invite BRT members and their industry peers to join the Opportunity Employer movement. Taking the quick assessment to see how your company scores through the Navigator tool is a great first step.

No matter what the future economy holds for business and society, we know one thing is certain: the changing landscape of work requires companies to invest in their employees and ensure that each and every one of them has the opportunity to reach their full potential. We believe the best and most sustainable path forward to achieve this is by becoming an Opportunity Employer. In the end, the companies that embrace these practices will be at a competitive advantage.

To learn more about Opportunity Employment and how your company can empower employees, come explore the Opportunity Navigator.

Elyse Roseblum is Principal at Grads of Life. Nicole Trimble is Managing Director of Talent Rewire.

Previously posted in the 3BL Media Newsroom.

Image credit: Alex Kotliarskyi/Unsplash

Workers at the Boston headquarters of the home furnishing company Wayfair raised the bar on employee activism earlier this summer, when they staged a street protest rather than settling for the now-familiar open letters to corporate leadership. At first it seemed like a one-off, but now employees at Amazon are prepared to take to the streets as well to join this month’s Global Climate Strike.

What happened in the weeks leading to the upcoming Global Climate Strike? 

The Wayfair walkout marked a significant milestone in the employee activism movement.  Although employee letters and petitions can attract some media attention, they do not have the visual impact of a street protest in the heart of a leading U.S. city. 

Employees at Amazon may be following a similar trajectory. A group of workers has been lobbying the company to take a leadership role on climate change, and they are prepared to take it to the next level. 

The vehicle for their protest is the upcoming Global Climate Strike on September 20.

The strike is supported by the #FridaysForFuture movement, sparked by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg in addition to other grassroots organizations. 

Organizers of more than 2,500 events in 117 countries have already registered to join the Climate Strike. The group of Amazon employees may be unique, though, because they are apparently the only employee group from a leading company to join with the specific intent of calling attention to their employer’s climate policy.

The employee group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice posted a petition letter on Monday, September 9, detailing their case for joining the Climate Strike and calling for support.

By early Tuesday morning, 1,000 names were on the petition. 

A call for climate leadership

While Thunberg and other activists call for government policy makers to step up and lead, the Amazon employees are focused squarely on their employer — and on themselves.

In an open letter published on Monday in Medium, the group made it clear that top executives at Amazon are not the only ones responsible for company policy.

“As employees at one of the largest and most powerful companies in the world, our role in facing the climate crisis is to ensure our company is leading on climate, not following,” the letter begins. 

“We have to take responsibility for the impact that our business has on the planet and on people.”

The group does not let Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos off the hook, however.

They take Bezos to task for talking the talk on climate change, while engaging in business and politics that together promote the fossil fuel industry and its political allies:

“Amazon contributes directly to climate change through intensive use of fossil fuels throughout our businesses and pollutes communities with our fossil fuel infrastructure; we have custom solutions to help oil and gas companies accelerate extraction and exploration of new oil and gas reserves; we’re funding the premier climate denying think tank and we funded 68 members of Congress in 2018 who voted against climate legislation 100 percent of the time.”

Employee activism and brand reputation

The letter includes a series of detailed action steps aimed at reducing Amazon’s direct greenhouse gas emissions, cutting off contracts that accelerate oil and gas extraction, and zeroing out financial support for “climate denying lobbyists and politicians.”

That may seem like a tall order, but the employee group argues that Amazon is uniquely positioned to hit those goals. In fact, they appeal to the company’s own reputation as “one of the world’s most innovative companies.”

They argue that the climate crisis is an opportunity to reach the zero emissions goal ahead of the pack, “not one who slides in at the last possible moment.”

They also bring up their influence on other companies:

“…a company with the innovation, boldness, and resources of Amazon should be at the forefront of driving this transformation of our economy that the climate crisis requires. A commitment from Amazon has the power to move industries. Investment by the company in electrified aviation or maritime shipping would be a game-changer.”

In concluding their case, the employees point to their achievements so far in terms of developing a “a massive logistics network that achieves speed,” and they call for the company — and themselves — to “put at least that kind of effort, innovation, and multi-year dedication into achieving zero-emissions logistics.”

Another milestone for employee activism

If the Amazon group follows through on their walkout plans, it could mark another milestone in employee activism, in which workers emphasize their own complicity in corporate operations that they disagree with.

In some ways, that trend is already evident. Earlier this year, for example, a group of employees at the powerful public relations firm Edelman reportedly convinced their firm in private conversations to drop a contract with the prison firm Geo Group, after they refused to work on that client's projects.

Last month a group of Google employees ratcheted up that approach by taking their case straight to the public. Instead of waiting for corporate leadership to engage in a contract, hundreds of employees signed a petition pledging not to work on potential business with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol or any other federal agency associated with human rights abuses.

If the Amazon group inspires other employees to join a street protest, the Google group could be next in line. 

Image credit: Jasmin Sessler/Pixabay

On the eve of International Women’s Day, 2017, New York’s Financial District was introduced to “Fearless Girl,” a four-foot bronze statue of a girl with her hands on her hips, resolution on her face and wind in her hair.

State Street Global Advisors (SSGA), the world’s third largest asset manager, commissioned the piece as a symbol for their initiative to bring more women to leadership roles, especially on corporate boards. Two years later, the financial firm has outlined the results of its initiative in its 2019 Annual Stewardship Report.

The report doesn’t only quiet skeptics that would assume the statue was an empty corporate ploy; it also shows that investment firms can make a tangible difference with their voice and voting power.

In 2017, SSGA reached out to 1,357 companies — amounting to about 70 percent of the equity assets the firm manages — that lacked female representation on their corporate boards. As of June 30, 43 percent of those companies have added a female director. That amounts to 577 companies. Six more have committed to doing the same.

Was the statement behind Fearless Girl enough to move the needle?

State Street did more than install an inspiring statue to achieve these results. They had to engage the chosen companies in conversations, and when necessary, vote against the chair of businesses that did not taken adequate action to add a female board member.

The firm has taken voting action against 667 companies thus far.

“Unlike their active manager colleagues, index portfolio managers don’t have the luxury of selling companies they think are adding risk to the portfolio,” Rakhi Kumar, Senior Managing Director and Head of ESG Investments and Asset Stewardship, says in a 2018 State Street article. “If a company is in the index, we own it. So our job is to identify areas of concern or opportunity, and help companies to act on them.”

Kumar added, “We do that through a constructive engagement process: When companies fail to take action we will use our proxy voting power to bring about change.”

Most conversations with companies have been positive, according to Kumar, but some took a turn for the worse. She recalls a company leader saying, “So you want a woman? We’ll give you a woman.” The company didn’t comprehend the bigger picture — that diverse perspectives are important, even good for business.

The benefits of diversity to business are well documented. A McKinsey Study found that companies with more gender diverse executive teams outperformed their competitors by 21 percent in profitability and by 27 percent in value creation. And companies that opted out of diversity were 29 percent less likely to achieve above-average profitability.               

State Street has been nuanced in its engagement with its companies, beginning by understanding how the companies view diversity and whether they are open to having a conversation. If a company shows it is open, the investment firm proceeds with the company’s data — what they collect and how they are using it.

Other investors are speaking out and demanding data

Data collection and transparency show that a company cares about diversity. That data is essential for investors to understand the companies they buy into.

The state of equity and diversity data is dismal amongst Fortune 500 companies. To get a better picture of their assets, some investors have recently taken a stand for more transparency. While SSGA may have been the first large U.S. asset manager to take action on gender diversity, it is far from the last.

Ninety-nine investors (as of June) have signed a disclosure statement, asking companies to publish data on workplace equity policies and practices. Like State Street, these investment firms understand the role diversity plays in profit.

Workplace equity is not a piece of cake

Achieving workplace equity and diverse leadership will not be easy. State Street itself faced a gender discrimination lawsuit in late 2017, ending in a $5 million settlement. If anything, this shows the road will be long.

While SSGA is expanding its stewardship in 2020, it will not abandon Fearless Girl. In its third year, State Street plans to tackle the 57 percent of its companies that have not yet taken action on gender diversity. The firm is stepping up its reprimands by voting against the entire nominating and governance committees of companies that lack action and productive dialogue.

Productive dialogue can start a chain reaction. Kumar describes one such situation in a State Street article. In Houston, a real estate investment trust “wrote us a letter informing us that they had added a woman to their board and that our input had helped shape their board refreshment process and discussions.”

Investment firms have inordinate power to change business landscapes. State Street’s Fearless Girl is showing the difference this power can make when it is used for value-based stewardship.

Image credit: Billie Grace Ward/Wiki Commons

Last week, the floodgates on gun safety opened after Walmart declared that gun owners were no longer welcome to carry their weapons openly in its stores, even in states that broadly permit open carry. The announcement could have been just another one-off, with no wider impact. Instead, several other major U.S. retailers quickly followed suit. So, what changed?

Retailers turn up the heat on gun safety

The latest wave of announcements on shopper safety began on September 3, when Walmart announced a new policy on open carry in a public letter to its employees. Also on that date, Kroger also revoked what had previously been a more permissive open carry policy.

Other companies quickly followed suit with new policy announcements of their own, including CVS, Walgreen’s, Wegmans, Meijer and Albertson’s.

Last Friday, the politics blog The Hill ran a list of open carry policies at the top 30 leading retailers and noted that Costco also discourages open carry, in addition to Starbucks, Target, Texas-based H-E-B, and the Food Lion stores of parent company Royal Ahold Delhaize.

Companies affirming “no gun restrictions” in response to inquiries from The Hill include TJX (TJ Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods), Macy’s and Aldi’s. The remaining stores on the list did not respond, with noted brands such as Amazon brick-and-mortar stores, Apple, Lowe’s, Best Buy and McDonald’s.

The building of a gun safety movement

The new cluster of policy announcements by retailers contrasts sharply with the fits-and-starts nature of previous efforts by companies to limit open carry in states that permit it. 

Back in 2013, for example, Starbucks revoked its previous tolerance for open carry, and made a “respectful request” for gun owners to refrain from carrying guns in its stores.

There was little discernible follow up until the following year, when Target made a similar announcement. Target used the same “respectful request” language while summing up the shopper safety angle with this common sense observation:

"This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.”

Other major retailers were slow to follow suit, though by 2015 at least five restaurant chains also publicly discouraged open carry, including Whataburger, Chipotle, Panera, Sonic and Chili’s.

In 2016, Levi Strauss & Co. discouraged open carry in its stores by formal announcement, repeating the now-standard “respectful request” language.

Last year Levi’s also upped the ante by lending its muscle to grassroots gun control efforts. The company announced that it would partner with the group Everytown for Gun Safety, the umbrella organization for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

Still, no other retailers drew media attention to their open carry policies until the new Walmart announcement.

Retailers turn up the heat on gun safety

Last week, TriplePundit conjectured that the rise of online shopping has made a key difference in the willingness of retailers to address gun safety in open carry states.

Shopper safety has always been a consideration for retailers, and the e-commerce trend has increased the pressure on brick-and-mortar stakeholders to ensure safe spaces for shoppers.

The e-commerce angle does not fully explain, though, why so many retailers have followed Walmart’s lead in recent days.

One additional factor could be the threat of legal action.

Regardless of state laws that broadly permit open carry, retailers may be held responsible for failing to take adequate steps to ensure shopper safety. That issue came up in a pair of lawsuits involving Kroger earlier this year, and that may have motivated other retailers to take preemptive action.

Brand reputation, activism and gun safety

Lawsuits draw unwanted attention, and that brings up another important factor, brand reputation.

Until very recently, brand reputation among retailers in open carry states was entwined with policies advocated by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Retailers risked public blowback when attempting to discourage open carry in their stores.

More recently, Moms Demand Action has challenged the NRA for the hearts and minds — and voting power — of residents in open carry states and elsewhere.

Concurrently with the rise of Moms Demand Action, the NRA has inflicted a good deal of damage on its own brand in recent months.

Those twin trends have provided retailers with far more wiggle room to adopt sensible gun policies that make shoppers feel safe in stores.

In a common sense world, the sight of a non-uniformed stranger carrying a gun into a store for no particular reason should be enough to send other shoppers walking toward the exits, if not racing out pell-mell in a panic.

By spreading that common sense message to millions of shoppers in their daily lives, retailers will play a critical role in de-normalizing state laws that broadly permit open carry, and help contribute to a legislative environment that brings public policy into agreement with public opinion on the rights and responsibilities of gun owners.

Image credit: Joanna Nix/Unsplash

In their rush to grasp the business benefits offered by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, are companies missing the ethical risks in deploying these technologies? Evidence of that oversight abounds, not least in a recent study of 450 C-suite executives in which AI was viewed nearly exclusively from an opportunity lens.

Aside from a mention of cybersecurity as a threat, a recent report—Maintaining the Human Connection in an age of AI, from the consulting firm A.T. Kearney—showed 50 percent of executives who are looking at the adoption of new technology in the long-term selected AI and machine learning as their best opportunity, up from just 27 percent last year.

The absence of reflection on the ethical aspects of AI is all the more striking in light of the observation from Paul A. Laudicina, founder and chairman of A.T. Kearney’s Global Business Policy Council and co-author of the report, who said in a press statement that the results “suggest that the C-suite believes corporate social responsibility is shifting from an optional activity to a central requirement for successful corporate leadership.”

While they recognize new skills are needed in an age of automation, more than 90 percent of executives surveyed in the study do not anticipate a reduction in workforce size as a result of technological displacement—at least not in the next five years. 

The benefits of AI bring new risks, along with opportunities

As they rush towards AI’s “game-changing potential,” as A.T. Kearney put it, CEOs would be wise to weave ethical considerations into their AI strategy, said Elaine Weidman Grunewald, co-founder of the AI Sustainability Center, a multi-disciplinary hub launched earlier this year to promote responsible and purpose-driven technology.

“AI will deliver undisputed revenue gains and dramatic cost-saving possibilities to companies,” Weidman Grunewald told TriplePundit. “What it will also deliver is a whole host of new risks, such as privacy intrusion, bias and discrimination. AI is different because it is self-learning and self-scaling, yet governance frameworks that address issues like transparency, explainability and accountability are lagging.”

The term “explainability” refers to machine learning techniques that make it possible for human users to understand, appropriately trust and effectively manage AI, as defined by the Harvard Business Review.

Without building and maintaining trust in an increasingly transparent era, companies embracing AI “may compromise all the benefits gained,” Weidman Grunewald noted.

Employees are still wary of AI

But while 85 percent of senior executives classify themselves as AI optimists, according to an EY study in May, the same survey revealed that employees may not be so keen. According to respondents, employee trust (33 percent) is one of the greatest barriers to AI adoption even though 87 percent of CEOs and business leaders completely or somewhat trust this technology.

One of employees’ more prevalent concerns is what has been called “snooptech,” the ability of employers to start using AI to monitor their employees. As Jeffrey Hirsch, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, recently reported in Fast Company, “Lots of workers are under automated surveillance from their employers.” Hirsch noted that such analyses could affect who is hired, fired, promoted or given raises. In addition, some AI programs can mine and manipulate data to predict future actions, such as who is likely to quit their job.

Can labor laws keep up?

Labor laws in the U.S. and other parts of the world have not kept up with technological advances and are not ready to deal with this new reality. In Sweden, however, the national Public Employment Service already has their eye on this issue. In a three-year partnership with the AI Sustainability Center, the agency is working to ensure that that their increasing use of AI in job matching and other services is done in a way that accounts for societal risks early in the process.

“As a public-sector agency, the stakes are high and being a first mover will be crucial in maintaining public trust,” says the AI Sustainability Center’s other co-founder, Anna Felländer.

Both policymakers and companies will have to step up their game in including social and ethical considerations in the use of AI. As 3p has reported, a growing number of companies are taking note and action to mitigate the risk and, in the process, finding opportunities to offer solutions, including IBM, Microsoft, Google and Accenture which through its new Applied Intelligence practice recently launched the AI Fairness Tool.

“Today all companies have become data driven. Yet there is a huge maturity spectrum when it comes to understanding the risks and pitfalls of AI,” Felländer says. “Maintaining a human connection requires an in-depth understanding of how the use of AI can impact not just on the bottom line, but people and society. That impact can be both positive or negative, but understanding the impact enables you to take action and mitigate risks before they occur.”

Image credit: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

Fans of the German automaker Volkswagen experienced a serious letdown almost exactly four years ago, when the company was forced to admit it had doctored the results of U.S. emissions tests for its diesel cars. Well, that was then. Now, the company is banking on zero-emission electric vehicles (EVs) to restore its brand reputation, and it is not cutting any corners.

A fresh start for a tarnished brand

Since last Friday, Volkswagen has rolled out a series of three announcements aimed at cementing its position as a global leader in the EV revolution.

The most recent announcement appeared on Monday, on the eve of the International Motor Show in Frankfurt, Germany, to introduce the company’s new ID.3 electric vehicle.

In the announcement, Volkswagen made it clear that the new car signals a fresh start in terms of the company’s corporate culture, right down to a new logo:

“This vehicle is the symbol of a new era for the brand," a company statement reads. "The ID.3 extends the Volkswagen offering as the first model of a completely new generation of pure electric vehicles—featuring zero local emissions, outstanding efficiency, and full connectivity. At the same time, the ID.3 reflects the realignment of the Volkswagen brand, and is also the first model with the new Volkswagen logo.”

It's also noteworthy that Volkswagen is focused on EV affordability. Though the ID.3 is not particularly cheap at a starting price of just under 30,000 euros (around US$33,000 at the current exchange rate), that is lower than the current average cost of a new car in the U.S., which hovers around the $36,000 mark.

The prospect of lower fuel and maintenance costs compared to diesel- and gas-powered vehicles can also help take the sting out of the sticker price, regardless of whether or not tax incentives are available.

Emissions transparency is part of the Volkswagen reboot

To round out its brand reputation do-over, Volkswagen was also careful to note that the ID.3 has “zero local emissions.” By specifying “local,” Volkswagen makes an important distinction between zero tailpipe emissions and emissions involved elsewhere in the EV supply chain. That includes emissions from power plants as well as emissions related to manufacturing and shipping.

By referencing the difference, Volkswagen could contribute to a broader public understanding of mobility’s carbon footprint. That transparency is a far cry from the company’s self-inflicted wounds as “dieselgate” unspooled in the fall of 2015. Though Volkswagen was far from the only company to be accused of tampering with emissions test results, it bore the brunt of public wrath from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Kickstarting the EV revolution

Volkswagen expects the ID.3 to launch in Europe in limited quantities next year. In the meantime, the company is building a new high-volume EV battery factory in Salzgitter, Germany, to help scale up production in the years to follow.

Last Friday, Volkswagen announced that the new mobile energy storage venture will involve a partnership with the Swedish battery manufacturer Northvolt. The choice of Northvolt dovetails with Volkswagen’s decision to distinguish between local emissions and the rest of the EV footprint. Northvolt bills its lithium-ion energy storage platform as “the world’s greenest battery,” with a low manufacturing carbon footprint and “the highest ambitions” for recycling.

The new factory is expected to launch by the beginning of 2024.

Volkswagen preps for the EV revolution

A third announcement in the series, also released last Friday, covered Volkswagen’s soup to nuts, efficiency-based conversion of its existing Zwickau manufacturing facility from an all-internal combustion lineup to an EV-only lineup.

The conversion began in 2018 and is expected to be completed before 2021. With other production lines in addition to the ID.3, Volkswagen is billing Zwickau as Europe’s “largest and most efficient electric vehicle plant,” partly due to a high degree of automation.

The Zwickau location also supports Volkswagen’s efforts to reduce its carbon footprint beyond vehicle emissions. The Marienthal sector of Zwickau has been selected for an energy transition study involving heat pumps, energy storage and solar power, as well as EV charging.

As further evidence that Volkswagen is shedding its diesel past, the company anticipates that 33 models based on its new EV platform will commence production in the next three years, as the first group in a wave that will eventually total 70 EV models over 10 years. That will add up to 22 million new EVs on the road from Volkswagen alone.

Those scaled-up numbers are badly needed if the global transportation sector is to decarbonize. Last November, for example, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) estimated that there were only 1 million EVs operating on U.S roads in 2018. The organization also anticipates that EVs will still account for only 7 percent of cars and light trucks in the U.S. by 2030.

In light of the new Volkswagen announcement, it looks like EEI and other industry watchers may need to revise their outlook in a more optimistic direction.

Image credit: Volkswagen

Can the fashion industry ever really be sustainable? Five industry leaders recently came together to make the case of how sustainability could become a reality within the world of fashion. These industry leaders shared their expertise on the risks and opportunities associated with a more sustainable fashion industry, and how various actors can play their part. There has been a lot of talk about the idea of sustainability in fashion over the last several years. It’s clear to apparel companies, however, that now is the time to dig into the tactics of how sustainability can be better identified, measured and benchmarked.

Fashion’s global impact is massive, and not always in a good way

Sustainability has become a buzzword over the last several years for good reason. The climate crisis, for one, is undeniable—and the fashion industry is a major contributor to the problem. The apparel industry is now valued at over $1 trillion, accounts for 2 percent of the world's GDP, and is believed to employ more than 1 in 10 of all workers globally. And as a leading United Kingdom sustainability news site recently reported, the apparel industry accounts for a tenth of the world’s annual carbon emissions, 5 percent of global water use, and has been identified as one of the sectors with the highest risk of modern slavery in supply chains.

Fast fashion is often seen as the culprit—retailers like H&M, Zara and Forever 21 (which is reportedly preparing a bankruptcy filing) have often been accused of perpetuating production practices that don’t support authentic sustainability in the industry. While the actual production of fashion is detrimental to the earth, consumer shopping patterns also continue to fuel the cycle. The truth of the matter is: Shoppers are buying more and more clothes—and the outlook doesn't look promising. According to the 2018 State of Fashion report from McKinsey and Business of Fashion, more than half of all fast-fashion items that consumers purchase are thrown away in less than a year.

Can fast fashion really evolve to become sustainable fashion?

Both H&M and Zara have been proactive over the last several years in developing strategies to become more sustainable and socially responsible brands. In 2016, H&M outlined an aggressive set of goals in its annual sustainability report, including a commitment to using 100 percent recycled or other sustainably-sourced materials by 2030.

Hendrick Alpen, H&M’s sustainability engagement manager, was among those who spoke out about the fashion industry’s ongoing evolution as he shared some insights on the progress the company has made around some of its initial goals. He insisted that becoming a 100 percent circular business is important to the Sweden-based company and explained what 100 percent circular would mean to H&M’s business:

“​Creating a circular production module means ultimately coming to the point where we do not have to use virgin cotton or virgin polyester ... but actually use old garments as a resource, and recycle it into new products. We are investing heavily in that recycling technology.” 

H&M now uses about 57 percent of materials that are organic, recycled or sustainably sourced cotton, Alpen said.

What apparel companies must do going forward

Apparel companies keep saying that they are looking to make changes, but such talk is not enough. To that end, these companies also discussed how genuine industry progress and government regulations together are key.

On the industry front, various tools are available to measure a company’s sustainability performance. The Higg Index is one such tool. Developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, ​the Higg Index​ is a suite of tools that enables brands, retailers, and facilities of all sizes to accurately measure and score a company or product’s sustainability performance.

As for government involvement, China—which oversees the apparel industry’s largest production operation—is now focused on building a greener supply chain as part of the country’s five-year plan. In January 2019, the China National Textile and Apparel Council outlined its plan for “Technology, Fashion and Green​” to address environmental issues.

If sustainability is to become the norm in the fashion industry, we’ll need to see more partnerships across all stakeholder groups and sectors. Brands, manufacturers, and governments must work together to deploy more aggressive goals and targets—and make them public in the interest of transparency and accountability.

With new advances in technology coming out every day, it’s equally as important to find innovative ways to disrupt the lifecycle of apparel, including developing next-generation processes that can turn old clothing into something new. If H&M or any of its competitors can crack the code that allows them to become 100 percent circular businesses, we’ll witness an industry that will set the bar for circularity high—and will motivate other industries to move quickly in order to keep up.

Image credit: Brunel Johnson/Unsplash

This story is part of an editorial series featuring speakers, organizations and themes we will discuss in depth at the 2019 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands—What’s Next, a two-day event on Oct. 29-30 that delves into the "why" and "how" behind corporate responsibility. You can follow the series here. 

Americans overwhelmingly agree that addressing social and environmental issues such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is important to our future. New data released from a 2019 State of Conscious Consumer Study revealed that over 70 percent of U.S. adults feel that addressing public health, sustainable development, environmental issues and planet health, workplace quality, equal access to prosperity, and gender equality issues are important to the future. So, why aren’t they doing more to impact these issues?

The study revealed that only 23 percent of Americans actually believe in their individual impact, leaving 77 percent of U.S. adults feeling paralyzed amid a sociopolitical climate consumed by fake news, mega-companies funding political campaigns, and alarmist assessments of our planet and society’s health. This assumed inability to make change has led to a nation overcome by the “not it” or bystander effect, which can have dangerous consequences and keeps people’s desire to impact change merely that, a desire. 

There are many ways that individuals can contribute to making an impact that, when compounded, will change the world. Walking or biking to work instead of driving, switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, unplugging your appliances when they’re not in use, purchasing organic or sustainable food products, replacing single-use plastics with reusable products, volunteering, raising awareness, or making donations are just some of the small, but impactful, ways individuals can make a difference. 

But while lifestyle changes, volunteering and donating are all great ways to give back, they aren’t the only ways to support the causes you believe in. There is a way to drive progress and diversify your personal income for a sustainable future. Values-driven investing empowers people to make a difference by using investment dollars to support the change they want to see in the world.

The Conscious Consumer Study also found that 56 percent of U.S. adults believe investing in companies supporting the issues they care about is an impactful action that can drive progress, yet 1 in 4 believe they don’t have enough money or information to take action. 

To address this issue, providers are paving the way for individuals—regardless of income levels—to take the future into their own hands and really make a difference. In a world that skews negative, new solutions are addressing the bystander effect and creating transparency to modernize the way we approach investing, especially for those that are just getting started. At COIN, we are fulfilling this ambition by laying out a path for a more conscious-led investing strategy. Our platform allows consumers to choose from varying impact areas—such as Clean Water to Better Health—that align with the United Nations Global Goals for sustainable development and invest in a custom portfolio of companies that make an impact in those areas. 

By investing with their values, individuals can send a clear and powerful message that companies making a positive impact on the world appeal to consumers, now and in the future. Environmental scientist David Suzuki once said, “In a world of more than 7 billion people, each of us is a drop in the bucket. But with enough drops, we can fill any bucket.” 

Individuals can take change into their own hands by using their voice, time and money. With these new solutions making values-driven investing more available and affordable than ever before, we do not need to remain paralyzed. 

We must believe in the power of compounding individual behaviors if we want to see true progress and positive global, societal impact. Let’s become a country of conscious consumers— because with enough drops, we can fill any bucket. 

Megan Schleck, co-founder and CEO of COIN, is among the speakers who will take the stage at the 2019 3BL Forum. Together, 80-plus speakers promise this two-day event one that is fast-paced, high-octane and invaluable with their perspectives on the latest in the environmental, social and governance (ESG) community.

We’re pleased to offer TriplePundit readers a 25 percent discount on attending the Forum. Please register by going to the 3BL Forum website and use this discount code when prompted: NEWS2019BRANDS.

Image credit: Emma Matthews/Unsplash

Four years ago, things did not look good for Banneker High School in Fulton County, Georgia, about 15 miles south of Atlanta.

It was performing in the bottom 5 percent of all schools in the state. Six out of 10 students did not graduate. Teacher retention was abysmal, and an estimated 97 percent of students lived in poverty. The future for many of the students was bleak, and they knew it.

“It just seemed as though there wasn’t anything here for kids that would provide a real solution,” reflects Banneker’s principal, Dr. Duke Bradley. “School—the very place created to build opportunity and hope—was actually fueling this epidemic. The community had lost confidence in the school.”

Fast-forward to 2019 and things at Banneker are very, very different. The graduation rate has increased by 47 percent—the highest growth in graduation rates among all 16 traditional public high schools in Fulton County. And, in less than two years, Banneker dropped off the state’s failing school list and is no longer eligible for state intervention.

“When I walk the halls, I can feel it,” Dr. Bradley says. “There is pride.”

This is the story of how a school failing its students, its teachers and its community was reborn, transformed by passionate and innovative organizations and individuals united around the belief that equitable access to high-quality education is the gateway to economic mobility. Together, these partners—the Fulton County School System, local businesses and a new organization called 3DE—continue to systemically re-engineer the education system not only at Banneker, but  also at an expanding number of schools, to better reflect the real world and prepare students for life beyond the classroom.

Schools failing students: How corporate America gets involved

There is no simple answer to why schools fail. Lack of budgets, over-crowded classrooms, the digital divide, and outdated teaching practices are just a few leading culprits cited by pundits on both sides of the aisle.

What is clear is that there is a problem in the U.S. education system.

Take for example, that only two U.S. states have high-school graduation rates above 90 percent, and 15 states graduate less than 80 percent of their students. American high-schoolers are also more likely to be absent from school compared to their peers in other developed countries, with chronic absenteeism rates exceeding 30 percent in some cities.  For schools in low-income communities, the rates are even more staggering. And where there is innovation, it often happens in pockets and not in a systematic way across schools and education systems.

The result doesn’t just affect students—it also affects corporate America, which is facing a growing shortage of skilled workers.

Just down the road from Banneker High School are gleaming buildings with manicured grounds, global headquarters of companies such as Chick-fil-A, Coca-Cola, Home Depot, SunTrust Bank and Delta Air Lines.

As far back as 2014, each of these companies had identified education as a critical focus. They realized that their local schools—and schools across the nation—were in trouble.

For these companies, getting involved wasn’t simply a nice way to give back; education had become a business imperative. They realized that if U.S. communities fail to thrive, so would they. To operate successfully, companies need vibrant communities with consumers ready to purchase their products and services, as well as a steady pipeline of skilled workers to fill their offices, fulfillment centers and manufacturing sites. Increasingly, this is becoming a struggle. According to the youth development nonprofit Junior Achievement, 49 percent of U.S. employers say that talent shortages affect their ability to serve clients and customers.

Businesses around Banneker were hungry to engage in education, but were searching for a meaningful way that would drive outcomes. 

An idea emerges from a simple conversation 

It all started in 2013 with a conversation with then-superintendent of Fulton County Schools, Dr. Robert Avossa, and Junior Achievement of Georgia President Jack Harris. Junior Achievement (JA)—founded exactly 100 years ago this year—is one of the nation’s largest and most successful nonprofit organizations dedicated to strengthening student achievement. Both Dr. Avossa and Harris saw an opportunity to work in partnership to develop a solution to address systemic issues. 

Their vision became 3DE: a joint venture between school districts, 3DE by JA, and the broader business community. Together, they set out to re-engineer high school education and, in the process, improve student engagement, accelerate academic outcomes and develop competencies necessary to excel in today’s workforce.

“Our goal was to develop a solution to catalyze transformation that would significantly drive economic opportunity and economic mobility in communities across the country,” says Jack Harris, president and CEO of 3DE. “We challenged ourselves to develop a model within the public education system so that we could reach a critical mass of students through learning that engages and prepares students for high-growth careers.”

3DE knew there was a lot of work ahead, including a complete re-think of school structure, curriculum design, and teacher development in a way that would thoroughly integrate career preparation into the high school experience. But there was no time to lose; Banneker High School was selected for the initial pilot in 2015.

Charting a course of interdisciplinary learning 

Under the3DE approach, every five to nine weeks, small teams of 3DE students receive a new case challenge. The challenges are designed with input from local businesses to reflect real-world situations. For example, students might be asked to come up with a solution to help Delta Air Lines improve the boarding process and the customer experience, or to support a cybersecurity firm in expanding usage of its simulated training program. 

“Case methodology helps students build cognitive skills, think independently, move strategically and work collaboratively, while discovering their passions along the way,” explains Callie Majors, senior vice president of brand strategy and investor relations at 3DE. “In the end, we believe it will help them develop the transferable skills they will need to enter the workforce and move more quickly from entry-level to manager- and leadership-level positions.” 

Each challenge is kicked off by a business professional who introduces the case situation to the students.  From there, teachers weave the challenge into the everyday curriculum—from geometry class to world history—to create a truly interdisciplinary approach. 3DE provides two full-time, onsite advisors who help coach the teachers and serve as the link between the business partners and the school. 

Student teams work together on research and ultimately present their solutions to their peers, debating and defending their recommendations. At the end of the project, the business representatives hear presentations from the top teams and offer feedback and coaching.

For most students, this is a whole new world. “This is not like any school I have experienced before,” said a student identified as Frances, as quoted on 3DE's website. “Case challenges make learning fun—even math.”

By senior year, students have completed 16 case challenges and move on to a year-long immersion project—which could be a consulting project, field research or an internship with a local business.

A focus on results 

Since 3DE launched, it has expanded to six schools across four school districts, and to 35 corporate partners. The results are consistently impressive and, so far, show that the model works:

• Positive academic outcomes: 100 percent outperformance on percentage of students scoring proficient or above on 2018 Georgia Milestones for all content areas compared to host school comparison.
• Elevated levels of engagement: 38 percent fewer chronically-absent students on average compared to host school peers.
• Success moving on to college: Of the graduating cohorts at Banneker, 88 percent have enrolled in two- or four-year colleges, and 100 percent of those who applied to college were accepted.

Nowhere to go but up

Over the next five years, 3DE plans to expand to 55 schools in 20 districts across seven states, reaching 20,000 U.S. students annually. By 2030, its goal is to be in 500 schools, eventually growing to 2,500 locations. 3DE’s Majors says this will represent about 10 percent of the nation’s high-school population and could constitute the tipping point where aspects of the approach are integrated across the education system. 

So far, 3DE has secured more than $27 million to fund its expansion efforts, including a three-year, $2 million grant issued in July by the SunTrust Foundation, which has been a 3DE supporter since the beginning.

For Majors, there is no question as to the program’s and the students’ potential.

“Our students are graduating with a vision for their future, confidence in their abilities, and a path to achievement,” she says. “Our students will be able to walk in and solve problems.”

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

Image credits: Element5 Digital, Oluwakemi Solaja and Charles DeLoye via Unsplash

Something incredible is happening in California. Despite opposition, lobbying, and millions in spending by Uber, Lyft and Doordash, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which would force gig workers who met certain work standards to be classified as regular employees with benefits, is looking more and more likely to pass and be signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

“Lyft and Uber are fighting this bill like crazy,” said Bob Reynolds, member of UberPeople, a ride-hailing driver community, in public post. “They have pulled out all the stops in an effort to not have to pay the drivers an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.”

AB5 is, in actuality, a modest bill that would give gig workers basic labor protections, such as a guaranteed minimum wage. It explicitly excludes several categories of workers, including medical professionals, architects, financial advisers, or hair stylists – genuinely independent workers. The target is clearly those who work for gig apps.

This bill, which is the first of its kind in the United States, would address a real and growing problem. The Uber gig model is built on top of worker exploitation. There is clear evidence that gig worker wages have fallen year after year, as platforms reduces their workers’ take. Some drivers barely make minimum wage and often find they have to work long shifts to make ends meet. There’s also no clear system for disputes, meaning that drivers, including those who have invested in vehicles to use with Uber or Lyft can be deactivated for any reason, anytime.

These companies regularly violate even the weak existing labor regulations for contract workers. Uber has amassed an astounding array of fines: $20 million for misleading “prospective drivers with exaggerated earnings claims and claims about financing through its Vehicle Solutions Program” to the Federal Trade Commission; $11.4 million in Pennsylvania for operating without approval; $7.3 million by California for failing to provide mandatory data to the state’s Public Utility Commission; and many, many more.

“We cannot sit by while companies pass off their own costs of doing business onto California’s taxpayers and responsible businesses, while depriving millions of workers of the labor law protections that they are rightfully entitled to,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), who introduced the bill, in a press statement.

Lyft, despite getting less attention, is hardly better and often stands alongside its competitor when it comes to restricting workers voices. In fact, it’s hard to find a gig economy start-up that treats workers well – even Juno, which promised to give 50 percent of its equity to its drivers, ended up giving them nearly nothing when it was acquired by competitor Gett two years ago.

Gig economy platforms were able to continue exploiting workers and avoiding labor laws due to their lobbying efforts. Uber, in particular, has long resorted to shady tactics to push politicians. When New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was considering restricting the number of app-based drivers in 2014, it created a fake “de Blasio’s Uber” feature so that every time New Yorkers logged on to order a car, they were reminded of the mayor’s threat with a message reading “NO CARS — SEE WHY” and were sent directly to a petition opposing the new rules. It worked.

So, what has changed? Workers are starting to organize, and cities are no longer allowing themselves to get bullied. Four years after initially failing, New York City did pass both a minimum wage and driver limits laws, with support from the Independent Drivers Guild. App-based drivers groups have sprung up across the country, including in California where the California App-based Drivers Association is affiliated with the Teamsters Union.

Unfortunately, Uber, Lyft, Doordash and other platforms, none of which are profitable, won’t sit back despite the demands of workers and politicians. They are already planning to challenge AB5 in court, and are gathering signatures to try to revoke the bill in a ballot referendum. This, more than anything, shows the true colors of the gig economy. Instead of working to address the real concerns and needs of workers, they are trying to rig the system to benefit their exploitative practices. Thankfully, the labor movement is ready to stand up and defend workers’ rights.

“This announcement lays bare the real motivation of multi-billion dollar gig companies,” said Art Pulaski of the California Labor Federation in a press statement. “They never cared about their drivers or workers. The only thing they care about is their bottom line and making their executives even richer than they already are. The California labor movement is unified in opposing this cynical measure.”

If California succeeds in passing, implementing, and maintaining AB5, it could herald a new chapter for the workers who make the gig economy possible – and the future of Uber, Lyft, and other gig platforms’ already struggling stock prices.

Image credit of protest at Uber offices in San Francisco: Phil Dokas/Flickr