Search

In an already tumultuous first year, the past few days have comprised one of the worst 48-hour periods of President Trump's time in office. His portrayal of the tragedy in Charlottesville on Saturday as a “both sides are at fault” saga was only the start. Then came the clumsy White House attempt on Sunday to spin his statement to sound more forceful. The president finally condemned the violence directly yesterday, but it was simply too little and too late. This president, either through bad advice, a lack of empathy, or reluctance to spurn a group of people his critics describe as his base, appeared to defend the tactics of a group of white supremacists upset over the fact that the city of Charlottesville was taking down a statue of a man who committed treason almost 160 years ago.

As Chris Cillizza noted on CNN, “The wrong answer is to not name them, to cast the events in Charlottesville as an example of both-sides-do-it-ism and make your statement vague enough that it can be interpreted in any way shape or form as condoning this sort of behavior.” A president's job is to serve as the moral authority and soothe the nation in times of disruption and President Trump only fanned the flames of hatred.

Now it appears that the business community has had enough.

President Trump has become so radioactive that major companies can disavow him without fearing shareholder backlash.

This is a dramatic turnaround. Earlier this year, CEOs were quick to appear with President Trump to showcase job announcements and other pro-business agenda items. Many in the business community rode the wave of exuberance, as the new regime in Washington made it clear the regulatory environment would change in favor of corporate growth.

On Saturday, Trump’s actions forced business community leaders' hands. If CEOs and other business leaders take corporate social responsibility seriously, having any ties to the White House is simply too risky.

The first CEO of a global company to distance himself from President Trump this weekend was Kenneth Frazier, the head of pharmaceutical giant Merck. Frazier had been on the White House’s American Manufacturing Council, but early Monday morning he stepped down. “As CEO of Merck and as a matter of personal conscience, I feel a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism,” Frazier said in a public statement.

As we all know, the Tweeter-In-Chief did not take kindly to Frazier’s comments:

[embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897079051277537280[/embed]

Whether that tweet, described by many as infantile and ineffective, turned two more CEOs against the president is conjecture. But not long after Frazier made his announcement, Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank said he would resign from the same manufacturing advisory council. Plank has walked a fine line of cautious support for this administration for months. While some of Under Armour's customers were turned off by Plank's affiliation, he declined to distance himself from President Trump. After Charlottesville, Plank's association with the White House because untenable for Under Armour's brand. Mind you, Plank's departure statement was more muted in tone than Frazier's. Nevertheless, the timing of Plank's exit made the reason for his departure clear.

Finally, early last evening, Intel's CEO Brian Krzanich announced he would leave that same advisory council. Krzanich has also had a very public affiliation with Trump. A few weeks into Trump's tenure, he met with the president to publicize a new $7 billion factory in Arizona that may employ 3,000 people when completed. In an indirect, yet very pointed, criticism of President Trump, Krzanich wrote in a company blog post, "I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them."

Watch for more business leaders to challenge President Trump as they feel more emboldened to speak out against him. After all, appearing to be an ally of this president is not just about risking any offended customers or stakeholders. Appearing to be be bullied into making promises that cannot be kept can further tarnish a company's brand. Just take a look at Carrier, who allowed Trump to claim that he saved hundreds of the company's jobs in the U.S. Several months later, layoffs occurred anyway. Unless this president's advisors can convince him to moderate his tone and not impulsively react to his critics, more corporate CEOs are going to realize that standing up to Trump will pay dividends - and it is becoming more obvious that being targeted by Trump is about as painful as being nibbled on by a goldfish.

Image credit: World Economic Forum/Flickr

COMMIT!Forum will convene hundreds of corporate social responsibility leaders and CEOs from CR Magazine’s annual 100 Best Corporate Citizens ranking.  The event includes a pre-conference workshop on integrated CSR and sustainability reporting from BrownFlynn.  Emcees for COMMIT!Forum include Aman Singh, editor in chief of Futerra, and Icema Gibbs, head of CSR at JetBlue Airways.

By Dave Armon

With 50 Fortune 500 companies and more than 400 small businesses voicing opposition to a proposed Texas bathroom law, the phenomenon of brands taking stands shows no sign of abating.

But there was a pause, immediately after U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated, when large companies showed signs of retrenchment from publicly advocating for progressive policies on environmental, social and governance issues, according to a poll from the nonprofit CEO-led coalition CECP.

A post-election dip in corporate activism happened was noted in February, a few weeks after President Trump took office, according to Daryl Brewster, CEO of the organization founded in 1999 by actor and activist Paul Newman.  By June, new membership research showed momentum had returned to the Brands Taking Stands movement.

The surge in corporate activism has not been limited to social issues. A letter signed by 30 high-profile CEOs seeking continued U.S. support of the Paris climate agreement was unsuccessful in getting the new administration to remain in the pact, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“While not every company is comfortable taking public stands on social, political, environmental and governance issues, we know that being a good corporate citizen produces business benefits well beyond the profit line,” said Lynne Filderman, executive producer of COMMIT!Forum, the annual conference presented by the Corporate Responsibility Association and CR Magazine, at the MGM National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C.  “The Brands Taking Stands theme has been exceptionally well received, which means information sharing and debate will be healthy and insightful when we meet in October.”

“With business emerging as a stabilizing force despite unpredictable global circumstance, leading companies like are taking brave steps in speaking out on issues that matter to their stakeholders, including employees, consumers, and communities,” said Brewster. “CEOs are playing statesman-like roles and taking positions on topics ranging from race relations to living wages and supporting environmental organizations.”

CECP’s “pulse” polls are among five significant data sets that will be revealed at COMMIT!Forum.  Other research to be shared includes:

• Updates to the highly respected Cone Communications annual CSR study showing “It’s no longer what you stand for, but what you stand up for.” The Omnicom-owned firm found, for example, 78 percent of Americans want companies to address important social justice issues.


• Details of a Corporate Citizenship survey, currently in the field, of the status of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The consultancy also has details on how the Fortune 50 are embracing the Global Goals.


• The cost of a bad corporate reputation on the ability to recruit and retain employees will be presented in the context of research from the human resources outsourcing firm Cielo.


• Authenticity in corporate messaging, a data mining project conducted by ManpowerGroup Solutions among 14,000 job applicants. The study will reveal insights into the role corporate responsibility plays in talent acquisition.

What do brands take a stand for and against? 

In Austin, Texas, public outcry from a consortium of public and private companies has hobbled attempts this summer to adopt legislation that would restrict transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice. Among large corporations using advertising, public relations, lobbying and other advocacy campaign tactics to oppose the bill are American Airlines, Apple, Amazon, Capital One, Dell, Facebook, IBM, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines.

“Why Texas? And why now? On July 18, the Texas Legislature will start a 30-day special session, where it is likely some will try to advance a discriminatory ‘bathroom bill’ similar to the one that passed in North Carolina last year,” wrote Diane Gherson, IBM’s senior vice president for human resources, in an internal memo sent to IBM employees around the world. “It is our goal to convince Texas elected officials to abandon these efforts.”

In North Carolina last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association threatened not to hold NCAA basketball playoff games in the state if laws remained in place discriminating against transgender people.  Salesforce, Apple, Marriott International, Angie’s List, Levi Strauss and Gap and other companies protested an Indiana law that would have allowed business owners to refuse to serve LGBTQ and other customers based on religious grounds.

Immigration reform has been a hot button issue for corporations. In January, hundreds of CEOs of New York tech companies including Blue Apron, Etsy and Warby Parker called on the Trump administration to rescind an executive order suspending entry for citizens of certain countries and ending refugee programs.

Dave Armon is CEO of the Corporate Responsibility Board and publisher of CR Magazine.

Image credit: Flickr / Guillaume Paumier

Oklahoma has been making news in recent years for a sudden burst of seismic activity, ranging from barely-felt temblors to quakes strong enough to damage buildings and knock out power. Seismologists pinned the blame on the practice of disposing oil and gas wastewater in deep wells, a common practice in fracking operations. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin took emergency action last year to mitigate the problem -- but that may be a classic case of too little, too late.

The quakes have continued, and a new report from the University of California at Santa Cruz indicates that earthquake hazards will continue to bedevil Oklahoma for the foreseeable future.

Oklahoma's earthquake problem

Oklahoma's earthquake problem can be traced to its unique geology, which includes a sprawling sedimentary rock formation called the Arbuckle Group.

Over time, the practice of disposing oil and gas wastewater into wells in the Arbuckle Group raised pressure in the deep "basement" of the formation. The drilling operation known as fracking factors in because it involves vast amounts of water (and therefore wastewater), but brine from conventional oil and gas drilling is part of the problem, too.

Now that pressure in the Arbuckle basement has intensified, the more recent disposals are more likely to have an outsized impact, a bit like the old "straw that broke the camel's back" analogy.

So, cutting back on the amount of wastewater entering the Arbuckle may not have an immediate and equal impact on earthquake risks.

Here's an explainer from the U.S. Geological Survey:

The Arbuckle Group took a lot of water for a long time until we put so much in that it started causing earthquakes...It’s not a lot of flow into the basement but it’s transmitting a pressure wave. And the slight increase in pressure is enough to make it easier to move.

Cutting back on Arbuckle well disposal could also have an outsized impact the bottom line for the state's oil and gas industry.

That's because in Oklahoma, oil and gas wells generally bring up more brine than in other areas. That requires well operators to dispose of more wastewater than their competitors elsewhere:

...for every barrel of oil that can be produced, operators are left with 10 to 15 barrels of wastewater. That leaves a big disposal job that continues through the life of the well, long after drilling and hydraulic fracturing are complete...

A seismic spark of hope for Oklahoma

By early last year, seismologists gathered enough evidence to convince Oklahoma policymakers that the earthquake problem was induced by oil and gas wastewater disposal.

Governor Fallin first asked the industry for voluntary disposal curtailments, but after a record-tying 5.6 magnitude shocker hit last September, she ordered an emergency shutdown of all disposal wells in a large area of Pawnee County. Fallin also directed her agencies to work with EPA on a plan for another area where federal agencies have jurisdiction.

So, what are the chances for those efforts to work?

In November 2016, Stanford University seismologists produced a report exploring the impact of the state's earthquake mitigation efforts.

The researchers came up with a model indicating that a sharp reduction in wastewater disposal would have an immediate and significant impact:

...We present a calibrated statistical model that predicts that widely felt M ≥ 3 earthquakes in the affected areas, as well as the probability of potentially damaging larger events, should significantly decrease by the end of 2016 and approach historic levels within a few years.

On the down side, while the model indicates a sharp decline in the overall rate of induced earthquakes, it also indicates that the risk of potentially damaging earthquakes will remain relatively high over the next several years.

Another report, more bad news for Oklahoma

That brings us to the new University of California report, which appeared earlier this month in the journal Science Advances.

The new study takes a decidedly less optimistic view overall, according to co-author Emily Brodsky, who is a professor of Earth and planetary sciences:

"Although they were correct in saying that small earthquakes seemed to be decreasing, the moderate earthquakes are not decreasing. The problem has not been resolved to where we can stop worrying about it."

Overall, the new study predicted twice the probability of moderate earthquakes in areas already at risk, compared to the earlier study.

UC-Santa Cruz writer Tim Stephens noted that current events have borne out the more pessimistic finding:

As if to underscore the new findings, central Oklahoma experienced a series of earthquakes last week, including a magnitude 4.2 temblor Wednesday night (August 2) that knocked out power in Edmond, near Oklahoma City. State seismologist Jacob Walter, a coauthor of the new paper, said it was the fourth earthquake of magnitude 4 or greater in 2017. The rate of such earthquakes is somewhat lower than in 2016, he said, but they continue to pose a hazard.

The takeaway is that reducing wastewater disposal will make a difference, but it will take much longer than the earlier study indicates.

In other words, hoping that seismic activity will return to historically quiet levels within a few years is just that -- a hope.

Speaking of hope...and the bottom line...and jobs, jobs, jobs

The earthquake studies are much more than an academic exercise. They amount to a checkmark in the "negatives" column for businesses interested in locating or expanding in Oklahoma.

Existing property owners are also facing insurance issues due to ongoing seismic hazards.

On the bright side, while Oklahoma is dealing with the destructive legacy of its oil and gas industry, it is also emerging as a clean energy powerhouse.

The state was already ramping up its wind industry sector in 2012 thanks in part to early investor GE, which is also involved in a new wind energy transmission project -- a 4,000 megawatt monster aimed at bringing wind power from the Oklahoma panhandle to points east.

In the latest development, last month GE announced that its Renewable Energy offshoot is partnering with the company Invenergy on the world's second-largest onshore wind farm, a 2,000 megawatt, 800-turbine behemoth dubbed with the somewhat Games-of-Thronesy name "The Wind Catcher."

The idea is to send renewable-sourced electricity to more than 1 million customers in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and other parts of Oklahoma, in the territory of the utilities Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company.

According to GE's press materials, the new wind farm plus the transmission line will deliver more than $7 billion in savings for customers of the two utilities over the next 25 years.

That's over and above the 4,000 direct and 4,400 indirect jobs created annually during construction. Some of the job creation involves manufacturing, as major components for the turbines will be manufactured in the U.S. including factories in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma.

Approximately $300 million in property tax revenues will also sweeten the pot over the life of the project.

As for permanent positions, there's an interesting parallel with the notorious Keystone XL tar oil sands pipeline.

For all their magnitude, Wind Catcher and the new transmission line will only account for about 80 direct, permanent jobs once they are commissioned.

Similarly, Keystone XL is a major infrastructure project that involves thousands of jobs during construction, but only a few dozen permanent positions.

The big difference -- and the only one that matters -- is that demand for wind power is running high, while there doesn't seem to be as much interest these days in buying what Keystone developer TransCanada is selling.

Image: via U.S. Geological Survey.

According to the startup database service Crunchbase, the popularity of high-protein diets, concern over animal welfare and Silicon Valley’s obsession with the next hottest innovation has led to at least $250 million invested in what the company describes as the “alternative protein space.”

The companies that have received millions in funding include the usual suspects: the leading plant protein headline-grabbers, Hampton Creek, Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. But the roster also includes laboratory meat startup Memphis Meats and cricket flour-based Exo Protein. Banza, a Detroit-based company that makes pasta with chickpea flour, and Koia, which crams its drinks with plant-based proteins, have also gained millions of dollars from investors.

One simple reason for all these dollars flowing to these companies is that these products are improving in quality and taste. The mealy veggie patties and rubbery fake chicken strips of yesterday are getting better. Not that everyone is fan: Crunchbase’s Joanna Glasser, for example, was restrained in her assessment of the trendy Impossible Foods’ “bloody burger.”

“The Impossible Burger was edible,” said Glasser, “It was not lumpy; it was not an old shoe. But it was also very much not a burger. It remains firmly a substitute, not a replacement.”

Nevertheless, more consumers are clearly satisfied enough with a replacement, and hence these meat alternatives and protein additives have become more mainstream. Hampton Food’s Just Mayo products have long been on the shelves at Target and Walmart. Gardein and Quorn boast respectable shelf space in Target’s frozen foods section. Beyond Meat’s burger alternative is packaged to appear like its bovine-based cousin.

And these companies such as Beyond Meat are no longer dismissed by conventional food companies as niche, but as a complement and even competition. General Mills invested in Beyond Meat shortly after its pea protein and carrot fiber products made a splash at Whole Foods; Tyson Foods acquired purchased a stake in the Los Angeles-based fake meat company last year.

At the same time, there will always be consumers who want the real thing. While meat grown and cultured in a laboratory sounded like a ridiculous idea earlier this decade, Hampton Creek is bullish about this product and has said it has an ambitious plan to take such a product to market. Memphis Meats, which got its start making the “world’s first cultured meatball,” has gained over $3 million from investors as it seeks a jumpstart in the race to remove meat from slaughterhouses and produce it in a more humane way.

But the interest in alternative meat is also riding another trend, one that will not fade or buckle: statistics. Most estimates agree that the world’s population will hit the 9 billion mark by mid-century, and the amount of land needed to create more protein to feed a hungry population just does not add up for a sustainable, or livable, future. The world seeks food that does not necessarily come from our furry, feathered or scaled friends – nor from fields where soy or other crops are grown. Therefore, in this era during which everyone (not just millennials) wants to try the next best thing, protein-rich insect flour in the baking section may soon be the reality.

Israel-based Hargol FoodTech, for example, recently scored $600,000 for its quest to build its network of grasshopper farms. Companies with similar objectives, such as Eat Grub, BugEater Labs and Midgard Insect Farm have received small but notable cash infusions. Based on the popularly of the spicy deep-fried grasshoppers at Seattle Mariners baseball games earlier this spring, these startups, and their investors, may be onto something.

Image credit: Alpha/Flickr

By Warren Becker

In a study done by market trends researcher Mintel, 56 percent of U.S. consumers claimed they’d stop shopping with companies they perceive as unethical. Suffice it to say, open honesty with customers and potential buyers is a must, especially in fields such as skin care.

Transparency has been a priority in skin care, especially when it comes to the ingredients products contain. And with so much information for customers to sift through, brands that aren’t upfront about what's inside their products open themselves up to PR and legal problems. Look no further than The Honest Company, which recently paid $1.55 million in a class-action lawsuit over claims that its line of products contained sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), despite the company's claims products were SLS-free.

Transparency also gives products legal cover, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues warnings to cosmetic companies that make outlandish claims or that are less than honest with consumers about a product’s contents. Conscientious consumers desire more transparency from the companies they purchase personal care products from. If your company is candid, open, and honest, it will inspire trust from your customers that you have their best interests at heart.

Increased governmental oversight

While companies can be more forthcoming with product ingredients, legislators are working to require increased transparency. The proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act would give the FDA more control concerning the safety and allowable claims of cosmetics products.

Under the proposed legislation, the FDA would evaluate at least five ingredients per year, recall any products whose safety it deems questionable, and require many companies to register all facilities and make full ingredient lists available online.

Companies selling products with ingredients unsuitable for vulnerable populations such as children would have to include that information on their labels. The FDA would also review regulations on cosmetics-related Good Manufacturing Practices. There’s a lot more to this legislation, but the proposal for greater FDA oversight is a clear sign that increased ingredient transparency is on the horizon and that businesses need to get out in front of it.

Open up the conversation

Customers appreciate corporate honesty, especially when they put their trust in a product. Embrace a more transparent business approach using these three steps:

1. Build transparency into your foundation. When SC Johnson announced its intention to show the presence of 368 potential skin allergens that may occur in its products, it went beyond what the European Union and the U.S. require concerning allergen transparency. Consumers can look up entire product ingredient listings on SC Johnson’s site to ensure they’re buying the products that are right for them.

Follow SC Johnson’s lead and publish each product's complete list of ingredients not only on the product labels, but also on a website and other public forums that customers frequent. Being transparent on that base level can inspire a brand to incorporate it into other aspects of the company.

2. Give the "why" behind each ingredient. BBMG, GlobeScan, and SustainAbility performed a global study that revealed that 82 percent of consumers want to know what ingredients are or aren’t in their products. But why ingredients are included is just as important.

Do you have a wide selection of products so customers can avoid ingredients of concern? Customers know what ingredients work and don’t work for them, so be ready to explain your reasoning for adding or omitting an ingredient. Having this information instills in customers confidence that they’re using a product that’s been thoughtfully formulated.

3. Use numbers to back it up. Three-fourths of global consumers are concerned about the long-term effects of synthetic ingredients. Nearly 70 percent believe that food prepared naturally, without artificial ingredients, is healthier, and more than half agree that the food and drink with the fewest ingredients are the most healthful.

Provide proof of safety and efficacy when available for customers to put them at ease. Include influential bits of data to show your product was made with customer well-being in mind.

Society as a whole is more concerned than ever with the ingredients in their personal care products. When your company is more transparent about its ingredients, you build the confidence and trust of consumers. Your loyal customers will not only recommend you, but they will also keep coming back for years to come.

Warren Becker is the chief operating officer of Cosmetic Solutions, recognized worldwide as a leader in the formulation and manufacture of turnkey private label skin care and personal care products. Cosmetic Solutions' natural, scientifically proven offerings are used by renowned skin care leaders and physicians, established cosmetic brands and up-and-coming entrepreneurs to help customers achieve results. Warren holds an MBA in International Business from the University of Miami and has partnered in the success of hundreds of health and beauty brands.

Image credit: Miran Rijavec, Flickr

The debate over energy subsidies ignited once again last week with a coal-producing state’s suggestion that Appalachian coal be subsidized so that it can be burned in power plants across the U.S. But this is not about a bailout, say the plan's supporters; rather, a coal state governor believes supplements should be paid to coal companies due to national security.

West Virginia’s Governor Jim Justice, in the name of terrorism, describes his “revolutionary” plan as crucial so that the U.S. power grid can continue to operate in the event natural gas pipelines are blown up. Gov. Justice said that as a safety measure, the federal government should pay $4.5 billion a year for power companies that continue to use coal.

"Keeping our Eastern coalfields and our miners working is critical to national security," said Gov. Justice in a public statement. "All it is going to take to shut the power grid down to the entire Eastern half of the country is a bomb being placed at a key natural gas pipeline or on a major highway artery to the West. Chaos would ensue, just look at the mayhem that took place in New York a few years back when the grid shutdown [sic] for a night. Think about what would happen if the power grid was shutdown [sic] for 60 to 90 days in the dead of winter. We could lose hundreds of thousands of people."

The governor did not mention that rail lines could be blown up, or that coal-burning power plants could also be sabotaged.

But Gov. Justice did admit that this subsidy would be necessary because even as regulations on the coal industry are rolled back, coal mining is still not competitive.

Justice’s plan suggests to a $15 subsidy for every ton of Appalachian coal burned. Bloomberg estimated that based on the amount of coal from the region burned during 2016, that would amount to the federal government paying $1.65 billion annually to prop up the industry. But the problem for Justice and his allies in the coal industry is that even though coal will still be part of the U.S. energy portfolio for many years, more of it is often sourced elsewhere.

Even as coal enjoys a slight uptick in consumption over the next few years, much of that harvested coal will come from states like Wyoming and Montana, where extracting coal is far more cost-efficient. Automation has also helped the coal industry stay relevant in recent years; subsidies are unlikely help bring back jobs. As Tim Loh of Bloomberg noted earlier this summer, "While coal companies are hiring again, executives are starting to search for workers who can crunch gigabytes of data or use a joystick to maneuver mining vehicles hundreds of miles away."

Opponents of clean energy subsidies have complained the government has no business “picking winners” and claim that incentives for clean technologies such as solar and wind power are the only reasons why they have become viable in recent years. Supporters of such programs counter that the boost in subsidies for renewables is a recent trend; in addition, fossil fuel subsidies are going to companies that are profitable anyway; and over the past century, the total amount of subsidies diverted to developing energy from fossil fuels and nuclear technology overwhelms recent incentives for solar and wind.

Furthermore, a contributor to Forbes earlier this year pointed out that the estimated $200 billion in costs for healthcare, lost labor productivity and damage to coastal areas are de facto subsides for energy companies as the government and consumers have been picking up those costs.

Justice, however, needs to find a way to keep the coal industry alive as most analysts agree that market forces will cause the sector to decline even more in the coming years. Exports to Europe and Asia have led to an increase in coal mining nationwide, and as a result, that helped West Virginia’s GDP grow 3 percent during the first quarter of this year, hence helping it become the second-fastest growing state in the nation. But economies overseas are also investing in alternative sources of energy such as clean energy, which means West Virginia’s leaders still need to develop a long-term strategy to diversify the state’s economy.

Image credit: Jim Justice/Flickr