Search

Plastic bottles are now valid fare to ride the subway in Rome, Italy, Fast Company and several travel sites recently reported. You’ll need 30 bottles to get enough credit for one trip, which can be deposited into special fare machines at certain stations. This initiative is part of an effort by Mayor Virginia Raggi to incentivize greater collection and recycling of plastic in her city and follows a similar move by Istanbul, Turkey, last year.

It’s not just European cities either. Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, a country which happens to be the second largest source of oceanic plastic pollution, launched a similar scheme last year. There, five plastic bottles or 10 plastic cups gets you a two-hour bus ticket, and each bus can collect up to 7.5 tons of plastic a month.

"There has been a good response from the public," Franki Yuanus, a Surabaya transport official, told Agence France Presse (AFP). "Paying with plastic is one of the things that has made people enthusiastic because up until now plastic waste was just seen as useless." Surabaya’s system allowed buses to double as collection facilities and is one of many reasons the city won awards for being an eco-friendly model for the global south.

Istanbul, Rome and Surabaya’s moves are efforts by city governments to tackle what has become a massive crisis. Plastic pollution has, in the past few years, become a major global concern. The stakes are high, as a study released in 2016 by the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy shows our stark future. If we don’t make drastic changes soon, by 2050 our oceans could have more plastic in them than fish.

Of course, recycling is just one part of the solution. We also need to massively reduce the production and use of single-use plastics. We would need less water bottles if tap water was potable, or if there were more refillable water stations everywhere, for example. Shifting from plastic bottles to more efficiently recyclable materials, like aluminum in the case of PepsiCo, is another step. In fact, companies need to lead and do a lot more to solve a problem that they created.

“To put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, corporations need to step up with meaningful, game-changing and authentic measures that would significantly reduce their plastic footprint and move our societies away from the scourge of single-use, throwaway and problematic plastic packaging,” said Von Hernandez, global coordinator of the #Breakfreefromplastic campaign, in a press statement.

For Rome, Istanbul and Surabaya, though, it’s not just about plastic. These cities are also trying to get more users to take public transit, which can reduce the number of cars on the road. That means less congestion, and less greenhouse gas emissions, especially important for cities like Rome which, back in 2017, pledged to be fossil fuel-free by 2030.

Other cities are taking this to the next level—doing away with payments, by cash or plastic, entirely. Dunkirk, a city of 200,000 in northern France, made public transit completely free back last year, as has Tallinn, Estonia, and the entire country of Luxembourg. Their goal is to get more people out of cars and onto more sustainable transit modes—buses, trams, and trains. There’s momentum stateside too, as Los Angeles is considering a similar move soon. The focus in LA is a planned congestion pricing scheme, which would tax vehicular traffic entering urban areas.

Considering that plastic is manufactured from fossil fuels, most often petroleum, making transit free—or de-facto free— through plastic collection schemes can reduce emissions and waste while putting cities on the path toward meeting their sustainability goals. Now we just need more cities and companies to ramp up efforts to ensure all the plastic we produce is recovered and recycled.

Image credit: Dan Visan/Unsplash

How can sustainable land management succeed when there is also a growing global population to feed?

We can look to Stonyfield Organic as an example of a corporation that has taken sustainability seriously from its inception. The company’s newest initiative focuses even more on agriculture. Known most for its yogurt, Stonyfield recently announced a commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030, a goal that has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

We’ll need more companies like Stonyfield if we hope to grow more food for more people and, at a minimum, on the same amount of land. Earlier this month, TriplePundit reported on the Special Report on Climate Change and Land released by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Maggie Kohn summarized the report’s findings and noted progress some companies have already made toward elevating the way they grow, process and throw away food.

The IPCC report explains how our current land use contributes to climate change and how climate change affects our food systems. The report emphasizes that we must manage land sustainably and capitalize on its carbon sequestering processes if we hope to keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as set out in the Paris climate agreement. Stonyfield is a case study on how to move forward with such a plan.

How Stonyfield is pushing ahead on sustainable land management

“A commitment to sustainability was the entire reason we started Stonyfield … it is literally our DNA,” Gary Hirshberg, co-founder, chairman and “chief organic optimist” at Stonyfield Organic, told TriplePundit in an email.

Hirshberg continues:

“Whether in supporting thousands of family farmers in advancing organic and regenerative methods that avoid unnecessary toxic chemicals, sequestering more carbon, preserving habitats and promoting biodiversity or using cutting edge sustainability practices in our manufacturing, I’m proud that we’ve made a difference in the world. And we still have a long way to go. I deeply believe that the greatest hope for our planet lies in all businesses making similar commitments.”

As a mission-driven business, Stonyfield takes sustainability seriously. The company has teams across the business that do their part to cut carbon emissions at every point, include agriculture, energy, waste, packaging and logistics. Agriculture accounts for half of Stonyfield’s carbon emissions, Britt Lundgren, director of organic and sustainable agriculture at Stonyfield, explained to TriplePundit during a recent interview.

Setting an official science-based target has reinvigorated the company’s work on sustainability, Lundgren says. One project in the works will help Stonyfield cut carbon specifically from its agricultural activity. Open Technology Ecosystem for Agricultural Management, or OpenTEAM, will be the first open source platform to help farmers improve the health of their soil.

The project is a collaboration of Stonyfield, the Wolfe’s Neck Center for Agriculture and the Environment, FFAR (Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research), farmers and other food companies.

The platform aims to be a network to share knowledge and data between farmers, scientists and companies. It will be “farmer-driven,” Dave Herring, executive director of Wolfe’s Neck, told TriplePundit in an email. When the application launches, farmers will not only be able to add data to the platform, they will be able to develop their own tools within the system.

“In order for farmers to improve their practices, they first need to know how they are doing,” Herring says. “OpenTEAM, when fully operational, will give farmers real-time feedback about the outcomes of their farming practices – specific to environmental outcomes like soil, organic matter, air quality and water (retention, filtration, absorption and quality) and more.”

Part of the beauty of OpenTEAM is that it will allow farms to discover the most logical opportunity for them to improve their soil health instead of applying a general formula, Lundgren says.

Most importantly, this healthier soil will actually help sequester more carbon through increased living roots, microbial diversity and stable organic matter, a promotional video explains.

How will Stonyfield use OpenTEAM to meet its goals?

Lundgren and her team will be able to track the activities of Stonyfield’s farmers and eventually reward them for the carbon they sequester, similar to a carbon offset program.

“We think that every farm has the potential to increase soil carbon sequestration,” Lundgren says.

Stonyfield has also found that its efforts towards becoming more sustainable generally lead to cost savings. Lundgren points to lightweight packaging and reducing emissions from transport as two examples. It is unlikely that OpenTEAM will be an exception.

“When you work on improving soil health, you’re not only going to increase your carbon sequestration, but you’re also going to improve the quality of your forage and the yield of your forage. So you’re actually creating more nutrition for your cows at the same time that you’re creating climate benefits,” Lundgren explains. Healthier cows might just produce tastier milk for yogurt.

IPCC recommendations and business goals

To companies still unsure whether an investment in sustainability can be worthwhile, Lundgren says companies need to have foresight. “There is an insurance and risk-prevention strategy that is also a big part of doing this work on climate change,” she says.

“I think there are going to be challenges for everyone along the way to doing this,” Lundgren continues, “but I don’t think that those challenges are as great as the challenges that we are going to face if we don’t successfully do something to reduce the amount of carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere at a really rapid pace.”

Hirshberg says he can’t think of a sustainability investment that has not enhanced the company’s growth or profitability, and he’s confident about the company’s most recent endeavors. “OpenTeam and SBTi are just two of our most recent initiatives and I am certain they both will make huge financial sense.”

When asked what he would say to companies that are afraid to make the commitment to carbon reduction, Hirshberg added, “Today’s consumers are savvy and they’re increasingly looking for transparent, mission-driven companies using their platforms and resources to make concrete, positive impacts on the planet – Stonyfield’s success is living proof of that, and businesses who ignore these trends do so at their peril.”

Read more about Stonyfield’s story in Hirshberg’s book Stirring It Up, How to Make Money and Save the World.

Image credit: Wolfe's Neck Center for Agriculture & the Environment

By Alyson Genovese, Director of GRI’s USA and Canada Regional Hub

Adopted in 2015, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a shared plan for all countries – developed and developing – to end poverty, spur economic growth and protect our planet’s environment. The SDGs represent the first time that the private sector was included as a partner with a key role in reaching the goals.

Yet when it comes to the global context and scale of the SDGs, it can be difficult for individual companies to determine how they should consider and respond to the challenges and priorities of the SDGs. The goals were written for member states, so interpreting them in a business context isn’t always easy. However, they offer companies a route map and a universal platform for engagement – regardless of a company’s geographic location, industry or size.

So, what is the current state of play? A recent PwC study of more than 700 multi-national companies found 72 percent of published sustainability reports mentioned the SDGs, but just 23 percent included meaningful KPIs and targets. Our own tracking, meanwhile (inclusive of all reporting organizations, regardless of size) shows 31 percent of GRI sustainability reports published on our database in 2018 included a commitment to the SDGs.

While these data sets and reference points differ, both results indicate there is still work to do. Many companies have issued public commitments to the SDGs – and in some cases mapped their materiality assessments to individual goals. Yet examples of aligning the SDGs with corporate strategy – supported by initiatives, R&D or investment that accelerate their achievement – are infrequent.

GRI is the world’s leading provider of sustainability disclosure standards and as such is perfectly placed to provide the framework companies need to assess their contribution to the SDGs. For example, some of the most recent updates to the GRI Standards, for water and occupational health & safety, embed SDGs references and language.

Alongside the UN Global Compact and with input from companies and nonprofit partners, GRI created the Business Reporting on the SDGs Action Platform, providing tools for businesses to analyze the goals and targets, with step-by-step practical reporting guidance on making the connections between their disclosures and the corresponding SDG targets.

Meanwhile, Driving corporate action towards accomplishing the SDGs is a new GRI initiative, launched in July in partnership with global power company Enel. It involves online collaboration forums to explore how the goals are influencing reporting and contributing to new partnerships or ways of working. Regional events in 2020 will spread learning.

GRI continues to collaborate with the UN and other organizations to increase reporting for the SDGs around the world. Projects included a pilot project in Colombia last year, whereby the government became the first to use data from corporate reporting to assess business contributions and impacts on key sustainability topics, as part of their Voluntary National Review on SDGs progress. GRI is currently supporting Colombia to expand this project, alongside similar initiatives in Indonesia and Bangladesh.

Our aim is to help companies understand the business relevance of the SDGs on their strategy and financial performance – and take action accordingly.  Embedding SDG reporting within corporate disclosures is a crucial step to making this connection, as well as meeting the transparency needs of stakeholders.

The global challenges set out in the SDGs are ambitious. Yet the rewards, in terms of global development and prosperity, are significant. That is why it is fundamental that the private sector takes on a greater role in contributing towards their fulfillment.

Previously posted on GRI's Medium blog and 3BL Media news.

Image credit of Medellín, Colombia: Joel Duncan/Unsplash

Earlier this year, several employees at the leading advertising agency Edelman convinced the firm’s executives to drop work with a for-profit prison company. Now hundreds of Google employees, or “Googlers,” are engaged in a similar issue, with two big differences: They are taking their case public, calling Google to act in support of its human rights policies.

Googlers are taking preemptive action

The activism at Edelman surfaced on the public radar only after word leaked out that employees at the firm were refusing to work on a new contract with the Florida-based company Geo Group, a company specializing in the privatization of correctional facilities, detention centers and mental health treatment.

Though Edelman’s contractual status with Geo was unclear, the firm reportedly had taken Geo on as a client (Geo is no longer an Edelman client.)

Google employees are taking matters a step farther.

Rather than waiting for their company to enter into a relationship with an undesirable client, hundreds of Google employees and allies have publicly signed their names to an online petition, pledging not to work on a potential project for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

Taking a stand for human rights

The contract in question would be for cloud services for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. Although Google has not yet signed the contract, that was enough to spark pushback. In a petition posted on Medium on August 14, the Google protest group laid out a carefully documented ethical argument against competing for the contract.

The petition first directs attention to Google’s history of protesting human right abuses from the outset of the Trump administration, stating: “In January of 2017 thousands of Googlers, including our executives, joined together to protest the Trump administration’s Muslim Ban. This was the right thing to do and we are proud to work at a place that reflects these values.”

The petition argues that these same values obligate employees to refuse work on any contract that violates human rights: “…It’s time to stand together again and state clearly that we will not work on any such contract. We demand that Google publicly commit not to support CBP, ICE, or ORR with any infrastructure, funding, or engineering resources, directly or indirectly, until they stop engaging in human rights abuses.”

Google employees call out “purpose-washing”

The protestors have a point. The petition reminds Google that it has “repeatedly advertised its commitments to implementing ethical guardrails on its tech.” In particular, the petition cites Google’s own principles for artificial intelligence, which to summarize, state that “Google will not build technologies ‘whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.’”

In short, the petition calls out Google for purpose-washing: Formulating high moral or ethical standards, but not following through when meaningful action is needed.

Why Google, why now?

The employee petition comes at a fraught time for Google. The company has weathered at least four high-profile media attacks in recent days.

The sequence began on August 1 with a “scathing” op-ed in The New York Times slamming Google over sharing its technology with China instead of with the U.S. Department of Defense. It was written by Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel. That byline obscured several conflicts of interest, as Business Insider explains:

“Thiel sits on the board of Facebook, which competes with Google…He is also the chairman and founder of Palantir, which competes with Google…And he's an investor in Anduril… that's providing artificial-intelligence tools to the U.S. military.”

Also of note is Thiel’s instrumental role in the President’s 2016 campaign, his ongoing work with the Trump administration, and his financial support for the 2020 re-election campaign.

That affinity was made clear in the early morning hours of August 6 when President Trump followed up on Twitter with a criticism mirroring the Thiel op-ed.

TechCrunch summed up the series of tweets, reporting that “the President criticized Google and its CEO Sundar Pichai “for alleged ties to election tampering and China’s military.”

The following day, Gene Marks of the consulting firm The Marks Group published an op-ed in The Hill that also took note of the Thiel op-ed.

Project Veritas contributed to the series with a “staff report” posted on its website on August 14. The non-profit, it should be noted, is often cited for misleading and deceptively edited videos targeting progressive individuals and entities. The August 14 report was a refresher course in other Veritas material recently targeting Google.

Bubbling under the surface of all this criticism was an article in Forbes on June 10, which reports that Google’s data may have helped establish potentially illegal coordination between the 2016 Trump campaign and Wikileaks.

Corporate culture collides with employee activism

An August 13 long-form piece in Wired by reporter Nitasha Tiku also hints at a connection between the recent partisan attacks on Google. Tiku describes the company’s somewhat restrained efforts to work with the Federal government during the Trump administration, notwithstanding the conflicts with its professed values.

Tiku emphasizes that on an individual level, Googlers have suffered no such restraint. In fact, Tiku writes that Google’s corporate culture all but requires employees to speak up on human rights issues — and they have been doing so, loudly and frequently.

It remains to be seen if Google executives will respond to employee activism in this case. As one indication, last year the company decided not to renew a Defense Department contract for Maven, a project that paired artificial intelligence and drone technology.

The Maven decision later proved fodder for the Thiel op-ed, but it did enable Google to act on the company’s “Don’t be Evil” slogan — and not just for the sake of being good.

Bottom-line considerations were also in play, as dozens of employees reportedly resigned over the Maven work, and thousands more signed a petition asking Google to back out. In an age where tech companies are in a global race to recruit top talent, the company could ill afford a brain drain.

Regardless of partisan attacks, for companies like Edelman and Google, the long-term rewards for doing the right thing may well outweigh the risks of pushing back against human rights abuses during the Trump administration.

Be sure to join us 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 PUNDIT2019AUGUST when you register here during the month of August, 2019.

Image credit: Mitch Lensink/Unsplash

“A good act does not wash out the bad,” wrote American author George R. R. Martin more than 20 years ago. That’s the message LGBTQ groups are sending to many well-known brands, including those that insist they deserve to be listed among the ranks of pro-LGBTQ companies.

Earlier this year, the queer news site LGBTQ Nation made the point that many pro-LGBTQ companies celebrating Pride Month were at the same time donating to politicians hostile to the community. The list included some of the most recognizable initials in the business world, including AT&T, UPS, GE and UBS.

Many of these companies score perfectly on the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index; but, as writer Matt Keeley wrote earlier this summer, it’s a tough sell to say you’re one of the leading pro-LGBTQ companies if checks are also sent to political leaders like U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, who at one time claimed the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard – now widely considered a hate crime -- was a “hoax.”

Pro-LGBTQ companies: be aware of any financial connections

This backlash against companies is not only about to whom these businesses donates funds – it’s also about their ties to investors as well.

The latest brand to be accused of “pink-washing” (some call it “queer-washing”) is Equinox, the high-end health club chain that includes more than a few gay men and women as members. The company became the target of many critics earlier this month when it turned out that Stephen Ross, an investor in the company, had scheduled a fundraiser for U.S. President Donald Trump in the Hamptons.

“The Equinox situation represents a corollary,” wrote TriplePundit’s Tina Casey, “Behind-the-scenes brand owners and investors are also expected to act in ways that reflect and support the brand image.”

To its credit, the company has responded to the ongoing backlash with last week’s announcement it would donate $1 million to five charities – and members of Equinox will vote on how those funds will be distributed.

According to Newsweek, a longtime employer explained in a company-wide conference call why the political fundraiser was problematic for both gym members and employees:

“Even though [Ross] is an investor, the money that people pay to Equinox still goes in his pocket. And they know that, and that is the problem. Equinox can say, 'We don't view this, we don't view this,' as much as they want, but the problem is that the money people are spending is enriching him, and he is giving it to this person that is really polarizing.”

Activists call out inconsistent corporate behavior

In the wake of the Equinox controversy, LGBTQ activists are increasingly urging both consumers, as well as employees, to speak out and pressure companies to stop donating to anti-LGBTQ political leaders.

Zero for Zeros is an example of a campaign that is working overtime to highlight what its organizers say is the hypocrisy of companies that swoon over the LGBTQ community while offering financial support to anti-LGBTQ politicians. Brands in Zero for Zeros’ crosshairs read like an A-to-Z of multinationals, from Amazon to Wells Fargo. And the list of politicians is just as long, with the campaign citing numerous examples of past quotes and previously sponsored legislation that would have drastically undermined legal protection for LGBTQ citizens.

The group’s clarion call? Companies that are allies to LGBTQ employees and customers should not give money to elected officials that lead the fight against equality.

Tension between LGBTQ groups and companies is one part of the growing expectation that companies must go beyond saying they are pro-environment, pro-employee and pro-social impact. Stakeholders are increasingly demanding that companies become more transparent about lobbying expenditures, corporate political contributions, and memberships in trade associations.

Just as a company can’t tout its investments in renewables while financially supporting the fossil fuels industry, a company will now find itself in an awkward if it is brags about being pro-LGBTQ, yet continues to donate to anti-gay politicians.

Join us at 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What’s Next, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C., on October 29-30, 2019. One issue we’ll explore is how more companies are choosing to lead with "purpose." Yet, while some brands live and breathe their purpose, other efforts are only skin deep. We take a look at the good and the bad of purpose and how a company “pulls purpose” through the entire brand experience – to authentically find, live and tell their purpose. Receive a 25 percent discount using this code PUNDIT2019AUGUST when you register here during the month of August, 2019.

Image credit: Jordan McDonald/Unsplash

When Amazon acquired Whole Foods in 2017, the potential for a corporate culture clash loomed large. Those concerns are about to be realized as a unionization effort takes hold at Whole Foods. Similar efforts have failed at Amazon but the Whole Foods organizers may have a not-so-secret weapon in their toolkit: location.

Location and Amazon

Amazon is well known for a business model that focuses on customer service as an outcome of its ability to fulfill orders at low cost, high volume, and lightning speed.

In terms of labor relations that approach requires an automated, data-driven assessment of employee performance, a tool that Amazon has honed to perfection.

An emphasis on data collection does not necessarily lead to onerous workplace conditions, but it easily can. An article about Amazon’s fulfillment centers in The Verge earlier this year draws a portrait of a punitive system that resembles some of the worst aspects of assembly line work, including termination for those who fail to keep up.

A fair question to ask is why someone would continue to work in an overly burdensome environment. After all, the unemployment rate is low, and many companies are on the hunt for new recruits.

That’s where location comes in. Though average unemployment in the U.S. is low, pockets of poverty and lack of opportunity create the conditions for workers to take and keep jobs regardless of their treatment in the workplace.

In locations like these, employers can continue practices that would otherwise result in high turnover and short staffing.

Somewhat ironically, last year The Atlantic observed that presence of an Amazon fulfillment center in a struggling community can make conditions worse for that community's residents, or fail to improve conditions, rather than helping to create new opportunities.

Location and Whole Foods

The location factor has worked in favor of Amazon’s factory-like business model, but it could prove to be the monkey wrench when it comes to Whole Foods.

In contrast to Amazon’s fulfillment center location strategy, Whole Foods built its expansion on the ability to spot communities that are on the way up; in other words, where other employment opportunities are growing. In fact, Whole Foods has become known for attracting many other retailers, including other grocers, into up-and-coming communities.

Part of that success revolves around a broader trend of locating supermarkets and other large stores within residential and mixed-use buildings, an option that is simply not available to oversized warehouse-style operations like Amazon fulfillment centers.

In sum, Whole Foods faces more competition for qualified workers at its locations, especially for those who have excellent social skills that allow them to connect with customers.

Brand reputation on the decline

Even before the Amazon acquisition, workplace practices at Whole Foods were coming into conflict with its Whole Trade model for ethical practices and working conditions in its supply chain, and with the aims of its Whole Planet Foundation.

The pile-up of pre-Amazon complaints may have contributed to a relatively low rating of #58 for Whole Foods in Forbes’s 2017 “Best Places to Work” list. That’s a sharp drop-off from its 20-year consecutive record of earning a slot in the top 20.

Under Amazon, reports of deteriorating conditions and pay issues continue to surface, despite last year’s pledge by founder John Mackey to renew its focus on “worker happiness.”

Last spring The Guardian reported on pay and scheduling issues at Whole Foods that offset the benefits of Amazon’s new minimum wage policy.

In July, The Guardian also cited Whole Foods employees who reported pressure related to Amazon’s policy for promoting its Prime deals, as well as “widespread understaffing, increased workloads and labor budget cuts."

Whole Worker makes the connection

Pushback against union organizing efforts at Amazon have been “aggressive,” according to a report in Gizmodo last September. That report was based on a leaked training video that advised managers to be alert for “Warning Signs” of organizing, including employees “who normally aren’t connected to each other suddenly hanging out together” and any other “behavior that is out of character.”

Gizmodo reported that the union organizing group Whole Worker leaked the video. Last week the group turned up the pressure with an open letter connecting worker conditions at Whole Foods with the more expansive issue of Amazon’s complicity with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Published as a Google document, the anonymous letter aims to show “solidarity with our undocumented sisters, brothers, and siblings” by placing workplace conditions in the context of Amazon’s other business practices.

The letter specifically focuses on the company’s work with Palantir, the big data firm co-founded by Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel. Thiel was an instrumental supporter of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and is also associated with anti-immigrant organizations.

Whole Worker cites Plantir for providing “software that helps ICE in the deportation of undocumented people.” It also notes that Palantir has been associated with the misuse of information by private data-gathering companies, targeting individuals involved in union organizing and activism.

Whole Foods, Amazon and the "Wayfair Effect"

The letter reflects concerns similar to online petitions and employee actions at other companies. However, it stands out for its appeal to decision-makers, management and talent at Amazon to engage in street action.

After calling upon Amazon to cut ties with Palantir and end the sale of its Rekognition software, the letter concludes by calling out Amazon workers for their roles in the plight of immigrants and whole Foods workers alike:

“Workers that control the levers inside Amazon must make this machine stop and turn in another direction. Bodies inside this machine are being mangled as it tramples on our homes, destroying families and communities. If you have your hand on one of those levers, ask yourself what can you to stop it?"

What, indeed?

The link embedded by Whole Workers provides a hint. It refers to a high-profile walkout by employees of the home furnishings company Wayfair. The walkout occurred not at some remote factory or fulfillment center. It happened at Wayfair’s headquarters in downtown Boston, where the action maximized media attention and bystander participation.

Bringing that kind of activism to the tony and up-and-coming communities hosting Whole Foods stores could have a similar impact.

With employee activism on the rise at Amazon and elsewhere, Whole Foods may need to rethink how the company has been affected by Amazon’s business model and reexamine its roots.

Join us at 3BL Forum: Brands Taking Stands – What’s Next, at MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C., on October 29-30, 2019. Among the many themes we’ll explore is the changing expectations of the workforce, social risk and how corporate leaders are responding to such challenges. Receive a 25 percent discount using this code PUNDIT2019AUGUST when you register here during the month of August, 2019.

Image credit: Bryan Angelo/Unsplash

The clean energy revolution means more than simply replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon alternatives. Clean technology can also provide extra benefits for companies in terms of productivity, comfort and convenience. A case in point is the hydrogen plane startup ZeroAvia. The company has just emerged from “stealth” mode to offer the world’s first commercial aircraft with a hydrogen fuel cell powertrain as its exclusive means of locomotion.

Extra benefits from hydrogen power

ZeroAvia’s business model is based on the premise that its hydrogen fuel cell powertrain will reduce the cost of flight on small, 10-20 seat aircraft, targeting short-haul journeys of up to 500 miles.

With the ability of the company's hydrogen plane to compete on cost for passengers against large conventional jets, ZeroAvia is anticipating that business travelers will be attracted by the opportunity to fly into smaller regional airports.

Ideally, the increased flexibility in choice of destinations will reduce the potential for delayed flights and long security lines that often bedevil larger airports.

How low can hydrogen go?

Hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars have been slow to take off, partly due to their relatively high cost and lack of a mature fuel distribution network for motorists.

Those two issues are not significant barriers for ZeroAvia’s hydrogen fuel cell aircraft, however.

The company is anticipating a per-flight cost savings of about 50 percent for its powertrain compared to conventional jet aircraft. Higher power train efficiency is one key difference. Lower fuel and maintenance costs will also factor in.

To help reduce costs farther, ZeroAvia has adopted a “power-by-the-hour” engine lease model commonly used in the aircraft industry, in which customers pay only for the hours that they use the powertrain. The cost of fuel and maintenance will be picked up by ZeroAvia as part of the lease.

As for fuel distribution, the logistics of establishing hydrogen fuel stations at airports are close at hand, if not already solved.

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), for example, installed its first hydrogen fuel station for fuel cell vehicles in 2005.

And just last week the fuel cell company Plug Power delivered fuel cell cargo “tuggers” for the use of FedEx at Albany International Airport in upstate New York.

Support for hydrogen transportation at airports and elsewhere from the U.S. Department of Energy could also factor in.

The long road to the hydrogen airplane and zero-emission flight

Hydrogen fuel cells produce no airborne pollutants. The only emission is water, resulting from the interaction of hydrogen with oxygen in the fuel cell.

Still, the supply chain for hydrogen is front-loaded with pollutants and environmental impacts because the primary source for hydrogen today is natural gas.

Those supply chain issues should be taken into consideration by companies looking to clean up their travel-related emissions.

Fortunately, though, pathways for renewable sources are already beginning to emerge, and costs are already beginning to drop. ZeroAvia is in a good position to take advantage of those trends.

Top executives at the company have racked up considerable experience in zero- emission transport through previous work including at Tesla, Sonos and eMotorWerks, where ZeroAvia founder Valery Miftakov was also founder and CEO. In addition, the company’s go-to person for partnerships and special products lists the global hydrogen production leader Air Liquide on his resume.

Air Liquide has committed to decarbonizing hydrogen production for energy-related applications through its Blue Hydrogen initiative.

For its short-term goal, the company has pledged carbon-free production for at least 50 percent of hydrogen in the energy category by 2020 -- in other words, by next year. Biogas, water-splitting (using electricity sourced from renewables) and carbon recycling are the three main pathways identified by the company.

More travel, more low-carbon alternatives

Air Liquide’s timetable for renewable hydrogen improves the prospects for ZeroAvia to reduce its supply chain emissions.

ZeroAvia is looking at the year 2022 to introduce its new fuel cell aircraft to the market, and earlier this year Air Liquide announced it would ramp up carbon-free hydrogen production at an existing facility just across the border from the U.S. in Canada.

With business air travel projected to continue climbing at a rapid pace, hydrogen fuel cell technology has the potential to provide companies with another opportunity to cut costs and improve productivity while reducing carbon emissions all along the supply chain.

Image credit: ZeroAvia

With its relatively short payback period and the potential to reduce carbon emissions, it was only a matter of time before autonomous driving technology worked its way into the long-haul shipping sector. In fact, it’s already here. Last May, the U.S. Postal Service tested self-testing trucks developed by the startup TuSimple, and now UPS has upped the ante. It has tested the truck and bought a stake in the company, too.

A future of self-driving trucks?

UPS made the investment in TuSimple through its UPS Ventures division, announcing completion of the deal on August 13.

The self-driving trucks in question are no mere delivery vans. TuSimple has designed its autonomous technology around class 8 tractor-trailers with at least three axles, topping 33,000 pounds.

A driver is in the test vehicle at all times, as required by law. The trucks are still in test phase, using a 114-mile stretch of highway in Arizona between Phoenix and Tucson.

If all goes according to plan, the test runs could have wide implications for the entire long-haul trucking industry. TuSimple and UPS have adopted the ambitious goal of developing Level 4 Autonomous trucking, meaning that no driver would be required.

UPS has already been providing TuSimple with freight to carry on the Phoenix-Tucson route since May, and the two companies have been collecting time, distance and safety data for the hauls.

The benefits of an autonomous long-haul fleet

As for the bottom line, TuSimple anticipates that its autonomous service will reduce transportation costs by an ambitious 30 percent.

The safety factor comes into play partly through the autonomous system’s 1,000-meter range of vision and its ability to see and react more quickly than most human beings, especially when they are bored, drowsy or distracted. That includes driving at night and during inclement weather. In particular, an autonomous system could reduce rear-end accidents, one of the most common accidents involving trucks.

TuSimple also emphasizes the carbon-cutting factor, with evidence mounting to back up its claims.

Last year, for example, McKinsey & Company took a deep dive into the potential for fuel savings and came up with 10 percent or more, depending on the level of autonomy.

Labor costs are clearly another major factor, though McKinsey is among those who predict that fully autonomous trucking is many years away.

UPS and carbon emissions

Taking a vanguard position in autonomous driving is part of a broader sustainability strategy that teams UPS with new technology and innovative new systems.

In other recent steps, the company has partnered with Terracycle and the startup Loop to pick up and deliver household supplies in reusable containers.

UPS has also been active in the area of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell delivery trucks, which could draw it into the emerging renewable hydrogen field as well.

The shipping business has existed as long as there have been, well, ships. It has always adapted to new technology, and UPS is among those aiming to pick up the pace of innovation to meet the expectations and demands of a more sustainable future.

Image credit: TuSimple/Twitter

The Milton Friedman Doctrine is no more. Now, doing business is more than about maximizing shareholder value. And it’s about time.

For the past half century, the conventional wisdom in the business world held that a company’s first and foremost responsibility was to its shareholders. The 1976 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Milton Friedman long ago proclaimed that a company’s primary responsibility was to maximize profits for shareholders – and that those shareholders would then decide for themselves what social initiatives, if any, they would pursue.

We’ve seen a shift underway for some time, but now the business community has launched a drastic change in course. A group that represents the most prominent CEOs in the U.S. has agreed that nowadays, it’s no longer only about a company’s shareholders.

Today, 181 CEOs affiliated with Business Roundtable signed a letter agreeing that from now on, company executives need to think about how their companies can benefit all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, local communities and shareholders.

“The American dream is alive, but fraying,” said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the Business Roundtable’s chairman, in a public statement. “Major employers are investing in their workers and communities because they know it is the only way to be successful over the long term. These modernized principles reflect the business community’s unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans.”

In recent years, companies have been attacked across the political spectrum for a bevy of reasons. President Trump has hardly been shy about companies’ decisions to move jobs overseas; one of his potential opponents in next year’s presidential election, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, has suggested many plans focused on holding corporations accountable, including one that would mandate some members of corporate boards be chosen by company employees.

Not everyone will be satisfied with these CEOs’ chess move, according to Jena McGregor of the Washington Post. “The firms also opened themselves up to a range of criticisms, raising questions about how much the new statement would lead to real change,” she wrote.

Aside from the criticisms and suggestions that this shift is not going far enough, it is clear American capitalism is in need of a reset. “Capitalism, at least the kind practiced by large global corporations, was under assault from all sides, and CEOs were getting the message loud and clear,” wrote Allan Murray for Forbes.

And in the end, for anyone who has felt wronged by a corporation, here are a few examples of how many of America’s largest companies will enact such change, according to yesterday’s announcement:

• Companies are to do more to bring value to customers, while striving to exceed customers’ expectations.
• Employees can expect more training and education to help them adapt in a rapidly changing world.
• Suppliers can expect to be treated fairly and ethically.
• There will be more support for communities where companies have a presence; and, companies must promise more of a commitment to preserving the environment.
• As for shareholders, they can expect more transparency and a commitment to generating long-term value.

Milton Friedman is probably sending more than a side eye from the heavens above, but it’s a far different world now than in the 1970s. For the most part, products are commoditized and most are made abroad; the planet is heading to a climate crisis; global supply chains are often linked to human rights violations and environmental degradation; and many employees don’t have the job security, not to mention benefits such as health care that were far more generous and affordable back in the 1970s.

Change can’t happen fast enough; Business Roundtable is, at a minimum, now part of this conversation, one that can no longer be kicked down the road.

Image credit: Roberto Júnior/Unsplash

Would a meat tax nudge more citizens to change their diets, nudge more companies to expand into plant-based alternatives or ramp up animal welfare programs? In Europe's largest economy, the discussion is well underway.

Germany has given us a bevy of meat dishes, from the bratwurst to wiener schnitzel, the latter of which is on menus worldwide from Bavaria to Bangkok. But according to several news sources, including the country’s Deutsche Welle news service, some politicians are suggesting that citizens give up more at the checkout counter in the form of a meat tax in order to fund animal welfare programs in the country.

Growing criticism of how animals are treated at factory farms have sparked this discuss. Legislators who belong both to the Social Democratic and Green Party suggest that meat be taxed like most non-food products, at a rate of 19 percent. The current rate for food is a value-added tax of 7 percent. Taxing meat, say supporters of this policy, would help boost animal welfare programs across the country.

The global meat industry has long said it is doing what it can to make the sector more responsible and sustainable, but many policy makers aren’t having it. Some countries are already enacting policies in the drive to moderate their citizens’ meat intake. A few years ago, the Netherlands recommended that people adopt more of a plant-based diet, while reducing their weekly meat consumption to less than 500 grams (17.5 ounces).

On this side of the pond, the very idea of taxing meat would be about as popular as a universal basic income or government-run health insurance. Just look at the politics: Mississippi has banned the use of terms such as “veggie burgers” in retail outlets, even threatening jail time for offenders. Other states are considering similar measures.

But finding ways to either tax meat, or discourage its consumption, may not be impossible. A 2015 Chatham House study conducted surveys and held focus groups in a dozen nations and found such measures could work if they were framed as beneficial to the public interest – as in the anti-smoking campaigns of yesteryear.

Agriculture and food interests in the United States would fight such an initiative tooth and nail, but as we’ve seen time and again, the political climate can change on a dime. And the reality is that many of the world’s largest meat companies are already tweaking their business models.

For example, Brazil’s JBS, the world’s largest meat company, introduced a plant-based patty this spring. Nestlé will soon roll out its version of a plant-based burger in the United States and Europe. Smithfield Foods has kicked off a line of soy-based meatless products, which could be available in 5,000 stores by February 2020. And Tyson Foods recently announced its own alternative meat product.

Such chess moves are smart for a bevy of reasons that go beyond climate action and public health. After all, it’s better to anticipate these shifts, self-regulate and wield the ax on your own terms, rather than have legislators do it for you.

Image credit: Laura Anderson/Unsplash