Search

Labor Day weekend has passed, and therefore goes another summer—well, at least unofficially if you are holding out till the Equinox. So now that your last summer road trip of the year has wrapped up, we thought we’d update you on the some of the leading automakers’ latest sustainability moves. Of course, the big automotive news of the week was Bugatti setting the new record in becoming the world’s fastest car—a feat summed up best by Seth Meyers—but we’d like to think the following updates on six of the world’s leading car manufacturers will have more long-term impact.

Toyota looks to low-emissions vehicles for the 2020 Olympics 

The world’s largest automotive manufacturer announced that at least 90 percent of all the cars it will provide for next year’s Summer Olympics in Tokyo will be low-emissions vehicles. The fleet will include at least 500 Mirai cars powered by hydrogen. The company also recently announced its commitment to reducing emissions across its U.S. operations by 40 percent.

GM goes renewable, offers a boost on the Bolt 

Next year’s Chevy Bolt model will have 259 miles of range on a full charge, a boost of 21 miles over previous model years. The Detroit-based automaker is also touting the recognition it recently received for its contribution to advance the U.S. renewables market. According to an emailed statement to TriplePundit, the company has more than tripled its original renewable power goal, which currently stands at 416 megawatts.

Honda's long-range electric vehicle hits Europe

Long venerated by car owners for its reputation for reliability, the second largest Japan-based automaker hasn’t quite attracted the same buzz for its all-electric models as Tesla, Nissan, BMW and even Chevy. But the new Honda E, which for now will be marketed in Europe, has made more than a few reviewers swoon over its design—and for city drivers, its 136 miles of range is respectable.

Ford eyes an expanded EV lineup

The company that a century ago launched the automobile industry that we know today generated plenty of buzz last year when it announced it was phasing out most of its compact-sized cars and sedans. Other than its SUVs and trucks, the only models we can soon expect to see are the Mustang and a Focus crossover. Nevertheless, Ford insists it is focused on developing a robust lineup of all-electric vehicles (EVs)—and in fairness to the automaker, there is a steadfast “perception gap” in what electric cars can currently do, as opposed to how most consumers think they perform. The company’s head of electrification just shared his perspective on this ongoing challenge yesterday.

FCA is pushing toward its long-term sustainability goals 

Fans of the 500 minicar series will not be happy that some of those models will no longer be sold in North America after 2019, and the all-electric 500e is one of the four models that will be axed after this year. From an operations perspective, however, FCA appears on track to meet its long-term sustainability goals, especially when it comes to waste, water and emissions. Let’s give props to some of their Detroit employees for doing their part to keep parks in southeastern Michigan pristine.

New EV models soon to come from BMW 

Have you seen the all-electric BMW i3 models? Seeing one charging at the local Whole Foods made me wish . . . I had spent that money on an i3 instead of at Whole Foods. Other reviews have generated more mixed feedback. Well, more all-electric news is coming from BMW this November: The company’s line of Mini Cooper-branded EVs will hit the roads, with 45,000 customers already on its waiting list.

Image credit: Chevrolet

The infamous Popeyes chicken sandwich sparked a “frenzy the likes of which we haven’t seen,” at least according to the foodie blog Eater. Long lines, memes and celebrity testimonials (one even by Cardi B) all added to the buzz. 

However, two weeks after its debut, Popeyes ran out of the $3.99 chicken sandwich.

“Y’all. We love that you love The Sandwich. Unfortunately we’re sold out (for now),” Popeyes tweeted on August 27.

The news led to headline-grabbers including a man suing Popeyes for the missing sandwich and a man pulling a gun on a Houston employee, which brings into question the responsibilities of a company associated with creating such a firestorm.

The $65 million earned media exposure win elevated the fast-food chain’s brand, but at a cost. 

While the marketing ROI of doubling Popeyes’ Twitter followers is exciting for a brand with a smaller market share than its rival, Chick-fil-A, the marketing goal of going viral does not take into account the toll on operational efficiency and employee well-being.

A dismal working experience is the norm in fast food

The boom in consumer demand led many Popeyes’ employees to work 60-hour weeks and to face an ever rising tide of angry customers as chicken sandwiches sold out earlier each day—not that it was reflected in the company’s public statements.

“Popeyes restaurants experienced unprecedented volumes over the last couple of weeks,” a company spokesperson told Business Insider. “All restaurant employees have worked very hard. We are grateful for all that they do for Popeyes guests.”

However, one Popeyes employee, Wanda Lavender, wants a monetary gesture from Popeyes. “The corporation made all this money—millions—off of these sandwiches, she shared with Vox. “But where’s our cut?”

Low employee satisfaction and high turnover is not new for the fast-food industry. The lack of workers’ autonomy, the physical demands of being on one’s feet every day, and unpredictable schedules all contribute to the high turnover rate, as detailed in Harvard Business Review.

In 2015-2017, the Labor Bureau of Statistics concluded that the turnover rate for the restaurant sector was 81 percent. Unfortunately, those within the industry estimate the turnover rate has surged to as much as 100 percent to 200 percent a year.

Fast-food companies continue to churn through employees

“Because turnover is getting so serious and because chains have the ability to do the HR analytics, they can begin to cost out turnover and say, ‘This is not a cost we have taken seriously, because historically we were counting on high turnover model as acceptable,’” explained Rosemary Batt, chair of HR studies and international and comparative labor at the Cornell School of Industrial Labor Relations, to Business Insider.

Both McDonald’s and In-N-Out say they are taking steps to curb high turnover. McDonald’s USA recently announced the launch of training around safe and respectful workplaces to empower employees to work through unconscious bias and bullying. In-N-Out, meanwhile, is a leader in the fast-food space for employee engagement. It never refers to frontline workers as employees but rather as associates, offers a starting wage of $12 per hour, and provides various levels of benefits to full-time and part-time employees, according to its website.

“I think overall, to retain employees is to not have a transaction of ‘I pay you, you work for me’ but a transaction of shared values and respect,” a respondent to an employee engagement survey conducted by 7shifts, a software company for restaurants, explained.

What’s next for Popeyes after that chicken sandwich craze? 

It’s time for Popeyes to learn from the examples set by some of its competitors.

While a summary on Glassdoor found some positive reviews, there were also plenty of comments about low pay that came with the high stress of working at Popeyes. And less than half of reviewers said they would recommend working there to a friend.

By bringing humility to its conversation with employees, Popeyes should communicate, with authenticity, that it valued the stores’ employees who worked late, made thousands of chicken sandwiches and dealt with disrespectful customers over the past month, so they feel as if they are more than a number on the profit and loss statement. 

Image credit: Popeyes

With its recent “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation,” the Business Roundtable (BRT) affirmed that there should be new standards for corporate leadership.

Business leaders have the opportunity to create change wherever they work - both within their company and in the states where they do business.

Building on this new direction, companies are now poised to further these trends and demonstrate their commitment to the BRT Statement of Purpose when it comes to sexual and reproductive health (SRH).

For decades, the private sector in the U.S. has been notably silent when it comes to SRH. This trend has been ongoing despite widespread support from employees, whose contributions have increased in recent years to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Research from The Harris Poll and NARAL also reveals the extent to which employees want their company to support SRH as well when it comes to public policy. In addition, a survey from Greenwald & Associates and Planned Parenthood Federation of America shows that 90 percent of millennials say reproductive health is an important issue to them, while more than two-thirds say it is very or extremely important.

If the recent Soulcycle debacle has shown us anything, it is that there is an appetite among customers and employees for companies to lead by promoting inclusion and respect while fighting exclusion and hate.

Furthermore, companies are already supporting access to SRH care in their global operations. For example, the United Nations Foundation and the ExxonMobil Foundation joined forces years ago to create a roadmap to catalyze program and policy action for women's economic empowerment. The directive states:

“Whether a program works depends on the economic situation of the woman and the context in which she lives...including access to quality family planning and reproductive health services.” 

Companies like Levi’s have been investing in their female employees, and women-owned suppliers, for years. There are also existing initiatives, such as the P.A.C.E. program and Business for Social Responsibility’s (BSR) HERHealth, which are straightforward ways for companies to plug into this work.

Because of the surge in legislation to curtail access to SRH, there is a new sense of urgency, desperation and empowerment among employees, executive champions, customers and shareholders. It was a watershed moment this past June when over 180 leaders of publicly traded, private and B-certified businesses stood up for access to reproductive health care access for their employees in the wake of numerous state level abortion bans. The Don’t Ban Equality ad, which ran in The New York Times, has since been signed by nearly 400 business leaders nationwide. 

How can companies continue the trend and demonstrate their commitment to the BRT Statement of Purpose when it comes to SRH?

Include SRH as part of the workplace gender equity conversation: SRH is a value many companies share, even if it has not been explicitly called out. To successfully create the conditions for gender equity in the workplace, recruit top talent across states and build diverse and inclusive pipelines – access to SRH is fundamental.

Make public statements of support: Through public partnerships, or signing onto amicus briefs - corporate allies can signal visible support to current and prospective employees, customers and a growing cadre of increasingly vocal investors.

Make employee benefits inclusive of comprehensive SRH the norm: Ensure your company considers access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services (including abortion, contraception, IVF and adoption) in their insurance and benefit offerings as well as in all the geographies where employees live and work. For example, Equileap has begun to track and rank companies according to gender focused measures including SRH healthcare access. Also, companies must consider the implications of legislative and regulatory efforts on access, and both adjust their policies to address restrictions to access and lend their support to preserving access.

End political contributions to anti-SRH elected officials/candidates: Companies that make political contributions to candidates who oppose SRH are taking action that runs counter to their stated corporate values and efforts to support gender equity as well as build a diverse and inclusive workforce. A recent report by Equity Forward focuses on dozens of companies that boast about their commitment to gender equality. But each of these companies contributed to support lawmakers who sponsored oppressive SRH legislation.

In The CEO as Urban Statesman, the author, Sam Williams, offers that a CEO’s touchstone when deciding which issues to tackle is simple: "Is this something I could stand in front of institutional investors and defend?” The BRT statement of purpose, the surge in legislation and regulation to demolish access to SRH and the impact that has on its workforce make an affirmative answer to this question necessary and more feasible than ever for companies and brands.

Image credit of 2018 Women's March in Phoenix, AZ: Josh 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. 

Never doubt Ben & Jerry’s ability to take swift action to raise awareness about the most pressing social and political issues of our time.

The popular ice cream brand is now drawing attention to the need to enact meaningful criminal justice reform with its new “Justice ReMix’d” flavor.

Let’s address the flavor profile first: Justice ReMix’d boasts cinnamon and chocolate ice creams swirled with chunks of of cinnamon bun dough and spiced up fudge brownies. That blend alone should be an easy sell.

But take note of those brownies tucked into these pints of Ben & Jerry’s; they help sum up the mission of this ice cream. The brownies are sourced from Greyston Bakery, the Yonkers, NY supplier which has been an important part of Ben & Jerry’s supply chain for years. Since the early 1980s, the bakery has provided jobs and training to people who face barriers to joining or reentering the workforce, including the formerly incarcerated.

Partnering with Ben & Jerry’s to launch Justice ReMix’d is the nonprofit Advancement Project National Office, which for 20 years has advocated for human rights and social justice causes including criminal justice reform. Among the causes the Advancement Project has taken on includes its “Close the Workhouse” campaign, which has been determined to close a notorious St. Louis jail that critics say has a long history of accepting abusive prison guard behavior in addition to its reputation for providing inadequate health care.

Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of developing flavors in the name of political and social activism. Past flavors have raised attention to voter disenfranchisement, a “Pecan Resist” blend promoted as a way to speak out against various Trump White House policies – and, a temporary rebranding of a cookie dough flavor to “I Dough, I Dough” to celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to cement marriage equality as U.S. law.

Whether it’s to raise awareness about where Ben & Jerry’s on certain social issues or to support nonprofits’ work in pursuing a certain cause, the Vermont-based company has made it clear it won’t stop these marketing tactics anytime soon.

“Our approach to creating social change is to raise up the work non-profits are doing on the ground,” said the company’s co-founder, Ben Cohen, in a public statement. “We bring every resource we have to support them—our business voice, our connection with fans, our Scoop Shop community and of course, ice cream. Somehow, it’s easier to talk about difficult issues over a scoop or two.”

Matthew McCarty, CEO of Ben & Jerry’s, 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: Ben & Jerry’s

As if brick-and-mortar retailers didn’t have enough to worry about from the powerful e-commerce trend, the issue of shopper safety could also drive more people to get their goods online instead of walking into a store. Walmart seems to have recognized the danger with its latest shift in gun policy, and now retail giant Kroger has joined the mix.

State gun laws are not helping

Shopper safety is not an option. It is a matter of bottom line survival.

Businesses do in fact have the right to ban guns on their property. Nevertheless, few have been willing to take that step.

State and federal laws do not provide retailers with social cover for enforcing gun bans their property in all but a handful of U.S. states. The burden is fully on the stores.

Out of the 50 states, only five have laws on the books that prohibit open carry for both handguns and long guns, except under specified circumstances. Three others prohibit open carry for handguns only or long guns only, also with certain exceptions.

Although the odds of being killed by a gun in a retail store are slim, last month the Cincinnati Enquirer took a deep dive into the issue of guns at businesses and came up with some alarming numbers from the FBI, including the fact that almost half of mass shootings occur in a business setting.

Long before Kroger, Starbucks took the lead on shopper safety

Clearly there is a need for support from state lawmakers. That being unavailable, however, businesses have been begging for cooperation from gun owners.

Back in 2013 Starbucks, for example, issued a “respectful request” for customers to refrain from openly carrying guns in its stores, emphasizing that “this is a request and not an outright ban.”

In November 2016 Levi-Strauss CEO Chip Bergh also politely asked customers to refrain from bringing guns into the company’s retail stores, using the same “we respectfully ask” approach.

Even the massacre of 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas was not enough to change the terms of the conversation. Earlier this week, Walmart used the same “respectfully request” language to announce that it will discourage customers from open carry in its stores.

Additionally, Walmart put its managers on the spot by giving them discretion on how to deal with customers who carry openly in their stores. That includes letting the customer -- and their gun -- stay in the store.

Changing the conversation on shopper safety -- or not

A turning point may have been reached this week when the leading grocery giant Kroger announced that it is also requesting no open carry, even though none of its stores have been involved in a mass shooting within the most recent media cycles.

On the surface, it would appear that nothing has changed. As reported by CNN, Kroger is simply “respectfully asking” customers to refrain from open carry.

That’s despite years of pressure from the organization Everytown for Gun Safety and a lawsuit filed by the widow of a shooting victim in a Kroger location. The litigation cites 23 shootings in Kroger stores since 2012, with only two others taking place over the previous 21 years.

Signs of a stronger lobby for shopper safety

One thing has changed, though. CNN also notes that as with Walmart, Kroger is publicly allying itself with grassroots gun safety advocates, stating that “we recognize the growing chorus of Americans who are no longer comfortable with the status quo and who are advocating for concrete and common sense gun reforms."

In other words, the nation’s top retailers are continuing to toss the gun safety ball right back where it belongs: in the hands of the nation’s lawmakers.

Corporations can help move the needle on gun safety, but in the end, the responsibility for a national policy on gun safety belongs to those who hold the reins of legislative power in Washington, D.C.

Be sure to join us this fall at 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What’s Next, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C., on October 29-30, 2019. One theme we’ll explore is how companies, with employees at the helm, are reinventing themselves – whether it’s redefining their purpose, making social impact commitments or finding where to put a stake in the ground. Receive a 25 percent discount using this code NEWS2019BRANDS when you register here.

Image credit: Virginia Retail/Flickr

The thousands of fires consuming the Amazon rainforest this year (as shown in the NASA photo above) have brought international attention and alarm. This year has seen an 89 percent increase in fire hotspots compared to the end of August 2018, a number of Amazon fires that hasn’t seen since in almost a decade.

In the face of lukewarm rhetoric from the Brazilian government concerning the fires, companies are taking action. Last week, days after Brazil’s government rejected funding from the United Nations G7 for fighting the fires, VF Corp — the company that owns brands including Timberland, Vans and the North Face —said it will pause purchasing supplies, including leather, from Brazil.

The company said in a statement they would resume purchases when “we have the confidence and assurance that the materials used in our products do not contribute to environmental harm in the country.”

The background on the Amazon fires

Cattle ranching is one of the main industries that is encroaching on the Amazon. Alberto Setzer, a senior scientist at Brazil’s space research center (INPE) told CNN 99 percent of the fires in the region have resulted from human action. Even in the dry season, the rainforest rarely catches fire naturally. Environmental organizations place the blame on cattle ranchers, loggers and miners.

Corporate action is vital as Brazil’s last two administrations have put economic development over ecological protection. The current administration, under President Jair Bolsonaro, has made its skepticism of climate change clear.

Bolsonaro campaigned on the Amazon’s economic potential. And since being elected in 2018, the president has taken specific action to clear the way for agriculture in the Amazon, including an executive order enabling the Agricultural Ministry to certify indigenous lands as protected territories, a change that indigenous groups claim would lead to “an increase in deforestation and violence against indigenous people.”

The president’s tune changed slightly after domestic and international pressure, including an EU threat to withdraw a trade deal. Bolsonaro placed a 60-day ban on intentional burning in the Amazon and deployed 44,000 troops to fight the fires.

“Forest fires happen all over the world, so this is no reason to impose international sanctions. Brazil will continue to be as it is now a country that is friendly with everyone and is responsible with protection its forest,” Bolsonaro said in a televised speech on August 23.

Despite the ban and military intervention, 2,000 new fires were burning in the Amazon only two days later.

Corporate action is putting pressure on Brazil

The rest of the world is imagining the earth’s lungs on fire; this is not just a national issue from the point of view of the global community.

While the world awaits the September 24 United Nations General Assembly meeting where Bolsonaro is expected to defend his policies in the Amazon, companies are voicing their disapproval.

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook promised his company would donate to preserve and restore the Amazon forest.

The next day, representatives from oil firm Equinor, fertilizer-maker Yara and aluminum producer Norsk Hydro met with Norway’s Climate and Environment Minister Ola Elvestuen on the topic of the Amazon.

Elvestuen told reporters, “[Companies] must be conscious about their supply chains and ensure that they do not help contribute to deforestation.”

Norsk Hydro told Reuters it is alert to its environmental footprint.

“Hydro has a bauxite mine in Para that respects environmental regulations. We use significant resources to replant and rehabilitate mining areas and we have a goal to conduct one-to-one reforestation of available areas,” a company spokesman told Reuters.

Investors are making their voices heard as well.

Norway’s biggest investors — Storebrand ASA and the pension fund KLP — have contacted companies to confirm that they do not contribute to environmental degradation.

“If there is evidence that we are invested in companies that contribute to develop new deforested land or deforest areas … we will withdraw from investments,” Jeanett Bergan, KLP’s head of responsible investments, told the Guardian.

What's next for the Brazilian government?

And back to VF Corp. Only five percent of the leather the company uses in its shoes and apparel comes from Brazil, according to the Guardian, but this sort of symbolic move has already affected Brazil’s economic image in the eyes of investors.

“The disaster has already been done to the environmental image,” Fabio Silveira, a director and partner at the São Paulo financial consulting outfit Macrosector, explained to the Guardian. “That means that the cost lenders put on Brazil’s environmental risk, previously regarded as close to zero, just went up.”

“Brazilian companies and the Brazilian government lose. Nobody can deny international banks put a cost on environmental risk,” Silveira added.

For a country climbing out of a recession and fighting a 13 percent unemployment rate, these repercussions add up. At this point, no one can ignore the fact that a laissez-faire policy with regard to the environment and global climate does not pay off.

Perhaps this mounting economic pressure on Brazil will open Bolsonaro to cooperation when he attends the U.N. meeting in September. Environmental scientists warn the Amazon is nearing its tipping point as fires continue to consume the forest. Global partnership is essential to avoid reaching that point.

Editor's note: Be sure to join us this fall at 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What’s Next, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C., on October 29-30, 2019. One theme we’ll explore is how companies, with employees at the helm, are reinventing themselves – whether it’s redefining their purpose, making social impact commitments or finding where to put a stake in the ground. Receive a 25 percent discount using this code NEWS2019BRANDS when you register here.

Image credit: NOAA

Environmental catastrophes are a reminder of how various international protocols, such as the Equator Principles, are critical at a time when millions of lives are at stake.

Right now, a horrific environmental and human tragedy is unfolding in the Brazilian Amazon, where thousands of illegally set fires are devastating the tropical landscape, encroaching into indigenous territories. The key drivers are farmers seeking land to grow soy and raise cattle, and their actions are often backed by Brazilian agricultural interests. Global corporate supply chains are directly connected, as various NGOs, including Mighty Earth, have identified Cargill, Marfrig, Blackrock, JP Morgan Chase and even the retailers Walmart and Costco as being connected to the Brazilian fires.

“Multinational corporations helped create these conditions for profiteering at the expense of the lungs of the earth – and these same companies are poised to profit further as today's fires open up the door for tomorrow's plantations and ranches,” said Amazon Watch, Rainforest Action Network and Friends of the Earth in a joint press statement.

How can this be happening? Deforestation has long been accepted as a global problem and numerous companies – including several implicated in the Brazil fires – have agreed to zero-deforestation and other ethical supply chain agreements. NGOs have placed special blame on financial institutions, foremost BlackRock, for funding local companies and enabling them to aggressively expand into the Amazon.

One of the largest mechanisms meant to ensure that financial institutions do not encroach on the rights of indigenous peoples, or otherwise harm the environment and local communities, are the Equator Principles. Initially formulated in 2003, the principles are voluntary guidelines for financial institutions to not fund projects that violate indigenous rights, harm labor standards, or damage the environment. Currently 97 financial institutions are members, but, unfortunately, that does not mean as much as it should. Case in point: The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

“13 of the 17 banks providing financing for DAPL were signatories to the Equator Principles,” said Steven Heim, Managing Director at Boston Common Asset Management, during a recent interview with TriplePundit. “Without being strengthened the Equator Principles will lose relevance for both investors and banks.”

The DAPL situation is part of the reason that Boston Common Asset Management, along with 50 investors and organizations representing $2.9 trillion in assets, are calling on global financial institutions to strengthen the Principles so that situations like that do not occur again. They see this as a problem of will, particularly to change practices within institutions.

“If banks employ better risk management frameworks they will prevent contributing to human rights abuses and damage to their reputation,” said Heim. “It will also allow natural resource companies to retain access to resources and build long-term positive relationships with Indigenous Peoples.”

One key critique of the Equator Principles is that there is not a strong, built-in grievance mechanism that would allow indigenous peoples and other impacted communities to directly challenge members. Others believe that there need for more accountability so that members are held responsible when they fund or invest in projects like DAPL that disregard social and environmental principles.

The Equator Principles specifically mentions indigenous peoples for a reason. They play a key role globally in land management. Studies show that they are the best stewards of natural landscapes and biodiversity, live in regions with some of the planet’s densest carbon stock, and their traditions could show the whole world how we can live in balance with nature as we begin to see the impact of climate change. Despite this, they are under threat from land encroachment, development and other threats nearly everywhere they live.

There is also a need for financial institutions to ensure they only invest in companies that respect indigenous rights. The Brazil fires, which some fear could hit a tipping point and result in the Amazon no longer functioning as a living tropical forest, show just how much is at stake.

“Indigenous peoples play a critical role in stewardship of the world's forests and biodiversity including the Amazon as well as other rainforests and temperate forests,” said Heim. “Additionally, it's also important that a long-term view towards a thriving Amazon is taken which will benefit indigenous peoples and other stakeholders rather than adopting a shortsighted view of burning trees and brush for agriculture.”

The Equator Principles are currently under review, with a fourth iteration expected soon. Let’s hope that the Amazon fires along with concerted pressure from the coalition led by Boston Common Asset Management pushes the organization to add teeth to the principles. The planet, and indigenous peoples around the world, can no longer wait.

Editor's note: Be sure to join us this fall at 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What’s Next, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C., on October 29-30, 2019. One theme we’ll explore is how companies, with employees at the helm, are reinventing themselves – whether it’s redefining their purpose, making social impact commitments or finding where to put a stake in the ground. Receive a 25 percent discount using this code NEWS2019BRANDS when you register here.

Image credit: Pixabay

After tragedies in Mississippi and Texas, along with numerous incidents across the U.S. that involved citizens who had good and bad intentions, Walmart has taken an even firmer stand on firearms.

To those who thought the world’s largest retailer was being far too silent on gun violence, Walmart CEO Doug McMillion explained that the company’s priorities were first supporting its employees and affected families while working with law enforcement.

“We’ve also been listening to a lot of people inside and outside our company as we think about the role we can play in helping to make the country safer. It’s clear to us that the status quo is unacceptable,” McMillon said in a public statement.

Adding to previous decisions to stop selling certain firearms, McMillon announced that Walmart will enact even more policies related to gun safety. These include discontinuing the sales of “short-barrel” rifle ammunition, cease selling of handgun ammunition and end all gun sales in Alaska, the last state in which Walmart still sells handguns.

And in a move that will certainly infuriate citizens who are adamant about what they say are their Second Amendment rights, McMillion asked that customers no longer openly carry firearms into any Walmart or Sam’s Club locations in states where “open carry” laws are on the books.

“As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same,” McMillon explained, mindful that these decisions will not please all of the company’s customers.

Additional steps Walmart said it will take include working with other retailers to make stores safer. “We will treat law-abiding customers with respect, and we will have a very non-confrontational approach,” McMillon said, inferring his company will move fast to adopt these new policies while making all customers feel welcome. “Our priority is your safety. We will be providing new signage to help communicate this policy in the coming weeks.”

Finally, McMillon made it clear that his company, as well as others in all industries, can no longer stay silent on the most polarizing issues of today. He urged the U.S. Congress and other political leaders to take action. “We encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger,” he said. “We do not sell military-style rifles, and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness.”

Whether everyone agrees with Walmart’s evolved stance on guns or not, it’s clear the company is moving in one direction. “In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again. The status quo is unacceptable,” McMillon said as he concluded his public letter.

Editor's note: Be sure to join us this fall at 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What’s Next, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C., on October 29-30, 2019. One theme we’ll explore is how companies, with employees at the helm, are reinventing themselves – whether it’s redefining their purpose, making social impact commitments or finding where to put a stake in the ground. Receive a 25 percent discount using this code NEWS2019BRANDS when you register here.

Image credit: Pixabay

As the United Kingdom’s government embarks on a landmark campaign to mitigate e-waste, should electronics manufacturers do more to promote circular-economy practices?

Recently the U.K.’s Royal Society of Chemistry surveyed 2,353 adults about how they approach electronics recycling. The organization found that 96 percent of consumers were keeping one or more small technology items, including laptops, mobile phones and MP3 players, stored at home. Of these people, fewer than one in five have plans to recycle the items, with two-thirds planning to hoard their electronics “indefinitely,” citing that data and security fears made them feel uneasy (37 percent) and that they did not know where to go to recycle old devices (29 percent).

Worldwide, the amount of e-waste is growing

Despite the data suggesting people are hoarding old electronic devices, the amount of e-waste across the globe is growing at an unprecedented rate. Worldwide, e-waste is expected to climb to nearly 7 kilograms (15 lbs.) of e-waste per person by 2022. Considering that many of the top-selling smartphones weigh around six ounces, that’s a significant amount of e-waste.

Government regulations, like the U.K.’s new e-waste management campaign, are starting to address safer methods of disposal, noting the harmful effects caused by improper disposal of toxic rare earth minerals found in electronics. An International Solid Waste Association study found that of the 44.7 metric tons e-waste generated in 2016, only 8.9 metric tons were collected and recycled, while the remaining was disposed into residual waste to be incinerated or landfilled.

The improper disposal of e-waste can lead to many negative environmental impacts, including the poisoning of human food chains. For example, a recent techUK study brought additional attention to how Europe's e-waste is affecting public health in Africa.

The report took at close look at the level of toxins in the Agbogbloshie district on the outskirts of Accra, Ghana’s capital. NGOs including Seattle-based Basel Action Network and publications such as the Guardian have long described Agbogbloshie as the site of the world’s largest e-waste dumping ground. Researchers at techUK found that eggs from chickens in Agbogbloshie, where large amounts of illegally exported e-waste from Europe end up, had 220 times the tolerable amount of chlorinated dioxins. Highly toxic, chlorinated dioxins are carcinogenic and can cause reproductive, hormonal and developmental problems, as well as damage to the immune system.

Are electronics manufacturers obligated to champion a circular economy?

While governments are beginning to raise awareness around e-waste issues, the question of how much responsibility electronics manufacturers should take is hard to ignore. After all, e-waste is a direct result from and a possible solution to revitalizing their supply chains. Of the finite natural elements commonly used in manufacturing electronics, 11 are at risk of running out.

Fairphone, a Dutch social enterprise, says it is committed to having a positive impact on the electronics industry by paving the way for more ethical sourcing. The company builds smartphones with responsible and sustainable materials, including recycled plastic, copper and tin as well as fair trade-certified gold. Their definition of “fair” is strongly influenced by the working conditions of the people mining the materials. Fairphone has set a goal to responsibly source 70 percent of these eight materials – tin, plastic, gold, tungsten, copper, cobalt, lithium and neodymium – by the end of 2020.

By forging new supplier and sub-supplier relationships and even shipping e-waste containers from countries like Ghana back to Europe in an effort to salvage batteries and recycle materials such as cobalt, Fairphone is showing the electronics industry what can be accomplished in an effort to spur industry-wide change.

One electronics company doing its part to promote a circular economy is HP. Since 2016, HP has been drawing attention to the impact of e-waste. HP says it is helping electronics hoarders let go of their unwanted devices by publicly offering recycling services, trade-in incentives, return for cash or donation options as well as to safely destroy data drives and other electronics at the end of their life cycle.

HP says it has used over half a million pounds of ocean-bound plastic in their products, and more than 80 percent of HP ink cartridges and 100 percent of HP LaserJet toner cartridges are manufactured with recycled content.

The company also supports events designed to inspire new ideas to push the circular economy forward. Recently, HP hosted a Massachusetts Institute of Technology event focused on moving away from the traditional approach of making electronics as take, make and dispose. Innovators were brought together to brainstorm solutions that could enable a shift in supply chains from linear to circular, helping to reduce waste and improve lives along the way. Organizers of the event say new solutions will be presented later this year.

Additionally, some colleges and universities across the United States already are teaching students how to repair electronics that would otherwise become e-waste.

With companies like Fairphone and HP working to create a circular economy for electronics, should other manufacturers like Samsung, LG Electronics and Apple do more? Marketing tactics like planned obsolescence—the practice of deliberately designing devices not to last—is regularly called out by activists for the harm it causes to people and the environment. One study brought to light that purchasing a new phone uses roughly the same amount of energy as using an older phone for 10 years. 

While many electronics manufacturers incentivize e-waste recycling with trade-in offers, these current programs clearly are not robust enough to revolutionize the supply chain and prevent people from hoarding their devices.

And, for those in the U.S. who may not know where to properly dispose of electronics, Best Buy and Staples stores offer free electronics recycling.

Image credit: Andrea Huyoff/Pixabay

This time of year, vacationers from around the country flee the city to make their way to cool off along Maine's rocky coast and in the mountains and lakes of the Green and White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire. As the climate gets warmer, the summer season is getting longer, and conversely, winter tourism is suffering, with less snow to accommodate skiers and snow mobile riders.

Climate-minded communities across Northern New England are lessening their reliance on fossil fuels. Not only is a healthy planet an incentive, economics are a driving force. Consider that the northern New England states alone – Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont – spend $8.2 billion every year (66 percent of their total energy purchases) on imported fossil fuels. If these dollars were redirected toward local clean energy solutions, they could eventually cover 80 percent of the region’s energy needs via renewable heating and electricity, energy efficiency and electric vehicle transportation. 

New England’s businesses and residents are seeking clean energy solutions, and entrepreneurs and forward-thinking investors are responding. In recent years, northern New England states have established clean energy policies, goals and programs – the first step toward developing clean energy markets. However, these markets are still in the early stages. A substantial scale up in investment using both traditional and new investment approaches and a combination of existing and new capital sources is needed to make efficient, clean, renewable energy the first choice for heating, electricity generation and transportation.

Solar power is a perfect example. Across rural Maine, municipalities are increasingly flipping the switch to solar, made more affordable by creative financing solutions. The town of Tremont on rural Mount Desert Island, a summer vacation destination for more than a century, held a ribbon cutting ceremony earlier this year to celebrate its new solar array, installed on the town’s capped landfill. The array will generate 100 percent of the electricity needed for the town’s municipal buildings. The project was made possible through an innovative impact investment structure devised by the mission-driven community investor Coastal Enterprises (CEI) in partnership with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Maine. CEI and TNC teamed up to offer communities a cost-effective way to access power purchase agreements (PPAs) with developers/owners rather than shouldering the cost of installation.

Sundog Solar installed the 153kW solar array with no upfront cost to Tremont. Instead, the town has a six-year lease agreement with its special purpose LLC, Tremont Solar, created by Sundog to own and operate the equipment. In order to make the loan terms more appealing, TNC makes modest zero-interest loans to CEI to include in its lending package to solar developers like Tremont Solar. This enables CEI to charge a lower interest rate to the developer, who can then pass along that benefit to customers in the form of more attractive PPAs.  

Because of the loan terms it received from the CEI and TNC partnership, Tremont Solar is able to sell the power to the town at a rate that is expected to save $400,000 in electricity costs over the next 25 years. Furthermore, the town has the option to purchase the panels after six years, which could result in more savings. By reducing energy costs for municipalities, tax revenue is freed up for other community purposes.

Solar projects involving PPAs are by nature more complex investment structures, due to calculating the variable pricing of the multi-year electricity costs, not simply equipment and installation costs. To date, CEI has financed 7.1 MW of total solar production across 25 projects in Maine and New Hampshire, ranging from college campuses to the roofs of municipal water and sewage treatment facilities. 

While TNC is providing funds only for municipal and school solar projects—and has thus far participated in three projects with CEI—CEI sees this kind of innovative finance as an investment in the region’s future where climate investors can make a difference for people and the planet over the long term. Leveraging its specialty in constructing renewable, and specifically solar, energy transactions, CEI has recently launched a new subsidiary, Bright Community Capital, to focus on investing in solar projects in communities with low incomes.

These examples reflect the disproportionately rural nature of Northern New England, with Maine and Vermont topping the list as the country’s most rural states. An average of 61% of their populations live outside of urban or suburban areas (compared to a 19% average nation-wide). By creating both locally-sourced energy and new jobs, targeted investments at the clean energy transition will help these rural communities at a time when many are undergoing tough economic transitions. 

Rural residents and communities aren’t just consuming sustainable energy. Consumer demand is also fanning entrepreneurial innovations that can boost local economies. Given their geographical dispersion, rural residents are often the last to see electrical services restored following a major storm or outage, making generators a necessity.

CEI’s venture capital subsidiary, CEI Ventures, invested in Westbrook, Maine-based Pika Energy, which manufactures innovative battery storage technologies to capture, store and deliver solar power on demand. Pika’s backup battery storage gives customers new, cleaner options to both save money and keep the lights on during blackouts. Pika's model was recently validated when the company was acquired by Generac, a global leader in the design and manufacture of a wide range of residential, commercial, and industrial power products.

In 2019, TNC and CEI commissioned a report by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), Advancing Clean Energy. It asserts that transitioning to a clean energy future will keep more of the region’s energy dollars local and attract new investment from outside the three states, demonstrating the win-win nature of a clean energy economy. 

The report states that approximately $100 billion would need to be invested in northern New England to meet 80 percent of the region’s energy needs with clean energy, energy efficiency and electric vehicles. To put this investment in context, the region would otherwise import $82 billion in fossil fuels over the next decade. The largely private investment would be focused on upgrading the region’s transportation, buildings and electricity grids to transition to a clean energy economy.

Much of this transition boils down to enabling sound investment choices—for example, helping towns save money over the long-run by switching to solar. Market-based public policies, public funding, and innovative finance tools like those used by the CEI/TNC partnership can also play a key role in bridging the gap and reducing investor risk. What’s more, the dollars will be invested locally, expanding job growth and economic equity. 

Creating a future in which both people and nature thrive will require significant transformation of all energy sectors away from fossil fuels. Increasing the efficient use of renewable energy for both buildings and transportation creates jobs, stimulates the local economy, decreases air pollution, alleviates fossil fuel health impacts and helps mitigate climate change. The opportunity for creative thinking and innovative investment to make a critical impact has never been more clear.

Editor's note: we had the author wrong in an earlier version of this article. We sincerely apologize for the error.

Image credit: Linette Bumford/Unsplash