Search

Automotive manufacturing, beef, cheese and wine production -- some of the United States' most lucrative exports -- are the negotiating points for two new mega-deals in the works between Japan, the European Union and other Pacific Rim nations.

Last week Japan and the EU announced tentative plans for a new trade deal with a well-publicized hand shake. Its message to the U.S. and President Donald Trump was unmistakably clear: global trade deals can succeed and flourish without U.S. participation.

The new Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement  (JEEPA) is so far destined to be the largest of its kind, (second to the former TPP). It will eliminate 85 percent of agricultural tariffs for Japan, helping to slash the $1.1 billion it pays to the EU as tariffs. The deal will also increase the EU's exports of textiles and clothing to Japan by 34 percent and Japan's exports of cars and food products to the EU by 29 percent.

To get around tricky negotiations with some cheese producers in the EU, the agreement will include a quota of the EU's signature dairy products. But both sides win handily in this deal, which paves the way for a fairly amicable boost in trade for countries that lobbied hard for years to establish trade deals with the U.S. and other Pacific Rim nations.

Earlier this year Trump announced that the U.S. would be pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a deal that took years to cement. Had it gone through, the agreement would have also wrapped in negotiations with Canada and Mexico, effectively updating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), another trade deal that Trump later decided he would renegotiate.

The remaining 11 nations of the TPP have said they will continue on with the agreement despite some reluctance by smaller nations that were counting on U.S. participation. For Japan, wrapping up the agreement is crucial to offsetting China's ability to forge an even larger partnership, one that could "rob" the TPP of the lion's share of its productive members.

All of this is bad news for the U.S., which, under the Trump administration's leadership, figured it would have the leverage to negotiate with countries on a one-to-one basis and still maintain a leading role in the global economy. With a new world order that is pushing hard against protectionism and unilateral deals, the Trump administration may find that Making America Great Again is a slogan that is best enhanced with global partnerships.

Flickr image: David Beach

Renewable energy stakeholders have been deeply concerned that the Trump administration will slow or even halt progress on decarbonizing the U.S. economy. However, the Department of Energy has continued to roll out new federal investments in support of renewable energy, most recently a new round of $46.2 million in funding for advanced solar power technology.

The new grants expose a sharp rift between President Trump's rhetoric in support of the coal industry and the actions of his own Energy Department, so let's take a closer look.

The SunShot Solar Initiative

The new round of funding comes under the Energy Department's SunShot Initiative, and that is a point of interest all by itself.

SunShot has roots in the 2006 Solar America Initiative of the Bush Administration, which had the relatively modest goal of achieving 5-10 gigawatts of solar-generated electricity by 2015.

In 2011, the Obama administration gave U.S. solar research a much bigger dose of adrenaline by launching the SunShot initiative with a new goal: bringing the cost of unsubsidized solar power down to parity with fossil fuels by 2020 (the SunShot name refers to the Kennedy-era "Moon Shot" effort that vaulted the U.S. into global leadership in space).

As President Obama was completing his first term in office, the Energy Department estimated that SunShot had passed the 60 percent mark toward its parity goal, and it reached the 90 percent mark in 2016.

The agency's progress is even more impressive for the utility-scale solar power sector. That goal was set at $1.00 per watt by 2020 for "fixed-tilt" arrays, meaning solar panels that remain in a fixed position instead of tilting to catch the sun at an optimal angle as it arcs across the sky.

As recently as 2011 that sector weighed in at $4.00 per watt. According to GreenTech Media, it sank under the $1.00 per watt goal by the end of 2016 -- three years ahead of schedule.

Not content to rest on its laurels, near the end of Obama's second term the Energy Department set a new goal of cutting the cost of solar-generated electricity in half again between 2020 and 2030.

$46.2 million for advanced solar power R&D

Political observers have noted that President Trump seems determined to erase the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, but so far SunShot seems to have escaped his notice, along with many other Energy Department initiatives promoting renewables.

The new round of $46.2 million has a long goal in mind. The funds will cover 48 projects fostering "early-stage solar power technologies" that help achieve the new cost-cutting goal of the Obama Administration, while also improving reliability and efficiency.

In a press release announcing the new funds last week, the Energy Department made it clear that SunShot has the full support of the Trump Administration -- at least, for the time being:

“The SunShot Initiative is a proven driver of solar energy innovation,” SunShot Initiative Director Charlie Gay said. “These projects ensure there’s a pipeline of knowledge, human resources, transformative technology solutions, and research to support the industry.”

Twenty-eight of the projects come under a SunShot early stage research program called Photovoltaics Research and Development 2: Modules and Systems.

PVRD2 is a relatively new initiative aimed at bringing the cost of solar power down to $0.03 per kilowatt hour. It supports technologies that are considered "high-risk," meaning that there is little or no attraction for private sector investment:

PVRD2 supports a wide variety of photovoltaics research pathways, including module design, high-risk emerging research, and technology facilitating rapid installation. Nearly 80 percent of these projects are led by academic institutions, ensuring that the next generation of energy researchers pursue cutting-edge solar technologies.

For example, in the new round of funding MIT will receive $225,000 for a project called "Two-Dimensional Material Based Layer Transfer for Low-Cost, High-Throughput, High-Efficiency Solar Cells."

This project is aimed at replacing the conventional method for "growing" high efficiency solar cells with a new low-cost method based on graphene.

The other 20 projects come under the SunShot Technology to Market 3 program for "highly impactful" solar power technologies. This initiative identifies innovations that have market potential, and provides support for getting to the next level of R&D leading to private sector investment:

Despite solar’s rapid growth, the challenge remains for small businesses to find funding for early-stage, transformative technology research and development. Businesses that receive funding under this program will perform the early-stage research to bring their technologies to a proof point where they are ready for private sector follow-on support.

Examples in this category include a $1 million grant to Echogen Power systems of Ohio for a next-generation energy storage system to complement concentrating solar power systems.

Some of the funding also goes to software that advances the cause of low cost solar power. One example is a Washington State company called Omnidian, which will receive almost $800,000 to develop a platform for managing and maintaining residential solar arrays.

So, What Happens Next?

President Trump made support for coal workers a central feature of his 2016 election campaign. He has continued to talk up the coal industry during his term despite a growing consensus among economists and coal industry executives that the days of coal dominance are numbered.

Nevertheless, except for a brief foray in to climate denial territory earlier this month, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has steadily undercut Trump's pro-coal rhetoric by cheerleading relentlessly for his agency's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs -- even to the point of re-designing the Energy Department's entire home page to focus visitors on a new "Science & Innovation" link that includes sublinks to "clean energy," "energy efficiency" and yes, "climate change."

Secretary Perry took a bit of a break from plugging renewables during the White House's "Energy Week" publicity event at the end of June, but since then his agency has resumed its torrent of press releases, blog posts, tweet and other social media favoring renewable energy.

In the meantime, Trump himself gave the solar industry a boost last month when he proposed using solar power to pay for a border wall with Mexico, which was another one of his key campaign promises.

Many political observers understood that to be a joke, but apparently Trump was serious -- or so he said in an interview last week with several reporters on board Air Force One. Vanity Fair provides this account:

“There is a chance that we can do a solar wall,” Trump said. “We have major companies looking at that. Look, there’s no better place for solar than the Mexico border—the southern border. And there is a very good chance we can do a solar wall, which would actually look good. But there is a very good chance we could do a solar wall.”

In the end, though, the President's newfound enthusiasm for solar power may not help him avoid the consequences of several investigations tying Trump staff and advisors, including his son and son-in-law, to activity on behalf of a foreign adversary interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

Image (screenshot): U.S. Department of Energy.

If you are an Airbnb host who declines a reservation judging by someone’s appearance on your smartphone, you had better keep those dates blocked on your calendar. You would also be wise to have a really good explanation of why that reservation was declined, both to the spurned guest and to Airbnb. And finally, you should definitely not be arrogant, imperious and clueless enough to text, “One word says it all. Asian” minutes before your guest is scheduled to arrive after driving in the snow and in the middle of nowhere on a stormy February night.

If you made those questionable choices in California, the Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH) could step in and hand down a fine of $5,000. That is what was announced late last week almost five months after UCLA law student Dyne Suh got into a dispute over the number of guests she could bring to a cabin near Big Bear Lake in Southern California. The texting exchange quickly devolved as the tone got nasty, and then the owner retorted that “It’s is why we have Trump.” Suh rehashed the incident and her feelings on YouTube, and Airbnb found itself in the middle of controversy yet again.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuZn8iVQbSc[/embed]

To Airbnb’s credit, the room-sharing service permanently terminated Tami Barker’s account soon after Suh’s video went viral and she complained to both Airbnb and DFEH. The agency quickly became involved, but DFEH went beyond simply assessing a fine. The agency reached an agreement with the former Airbnb host, who issued a personal apology to Suh. The cabin’s owner also agreed to comply with California’s anti-discrimination laws in the future, volunteer time at civil right organization, participate in a community education panel, report rental data to DFEH for the next five years and, most interestingly, enroll in a college-level Asian American studies course.

“There is a monetary cost to discriminating in California,” said DFEH Chief Counsel Jon Ichinaga, “a $4,000 minimum penalty for discrimination in places of public accommodation, which the Department will seek in all appropriate cases.” DFEH said it was also “heartened” by Barker’s willingness to resolve the matter in a forward-thinking and healing approach.

This is not the first time DFEH has become involved with how Airbnb hosts vet and accept guests. Earlier this year, the agency reached an agreement with Airbnb in which the service agreed to allow DFEH to conduct fair housing testing on certain hosts across California. The company also pledged to advise all users who believe they experienced discrimination to file a complaint with DFEH. Airbnb also agreed to report the rates of guest acceptances with a breakdown on race.

The DFEH case caps a long year for Airbnb, as the company had found itself under relentless criticism after African-American guests complained they were regularly discriminated against by hosts. A study issued last year found African-American guests were 16 percent more likely to be turned down for a rental request than members of other races. The company soon brought on former Attorney General Eric Holder to strengthen its anti-discrimination policy, much of which relies on the company effectively communicating renters’ rights and anti-discrimination laws to hosts. Come critics say the reforms still have not gone far enough.

Nevertheless, Airbnb has been aggressive in emailing its hosts on informing them what is acceptable when it comes to accepting or not accepting guests. The company has also tried to redeem itself in several ways; for example, earlier this year Airbnb said it would provide free housing to citizens and their families affected by the various travel bans imposed by the Trump Administration. And now those efforts have been capped by Suh’s case, which marks the first incident in which a government agency has fined a host for not complying with fair housing laws.

Image credit: YouTube

Implicit bias during the recruitment process and later, within a company’s offices, has long taken a toll on employees, especially among workers who do not feel well connected -- as if they have to work twice as hard to get half as far. More companies have committed themselves to eliminating bias as they recruit and retain talent, and a cottage industry of consultancies and thought leadership has grown and tries to find ways  to eliminate, or at least minimize, bias within the workplace.

To that end, a recent study suggests that while bias clearly takes a toll on employees, it also could hurt many companies’ bottom line as well.

New York-based Center for Talent Innovation (CTI) recently completed a report that started with in-person focus groups and web-based surveys involving 300 people from various multinational organizations. The result was a survey conducted by the University of Chicago online and over the telephone last fall, during which 3,500 interviews were completed. Participants shared information on how they assessed their overall potential, how they believed their supervisors assessed them on various elements of their jobs and what kind of feedback they received over time.

Analysts at CTI then segmented employees by what they described “talent cohorts.” The percentage of employees who reported that they were subjected to bias on the job ranged anywhere from 7.7 to 14.5 percent. At a first glance, those numbers many not seem outrageous. But then researchers assessed how bias can have an impact on an individual’s career momentum and negative effects on companies, they concluded that the impact of that bias escalates.

The study found that bias can accelerate burnout on the job, which CTI measured in several different ways. First, 33 percent of employees who perceive bias regularly felt alienated within the workplace. As a result, 34 percent said they had withheld potential ideas or solutions during the previous six months before they participated in the survey. Three-quarters said they were “not proud” to work for their employers, and 80 percent admitted that they did not refer professionals within their networks to work for their employers. Those who perceived bias offered those responses at a much higher rate than their counterparts who did not report any perceptions of bias within their companies.

Such bias, in turn, engenders what CTI describes as “bust-outs” resulting from burnout. Almost one-third of those same employees said they had a plan to leave their companies within a year; almost half said they had looked for a job during the previous six months.

The final cost, or in CTI’s phrasing, “blow-ups,” show where the headaches for a company can really manifest themselves. At least 5 percent said they had discussed their companies in a negative light on social media; 9 percent reported that they had purposely failed to follow through on an important assignment during the previous six months.

Not everyone who reviewed CTI’s methodology was a fan of the survey, including one Georgetown University researcher interviewed on Forbes. "It is usually the case that client and the supervisor assessments are rarely aligned," Sukari Pinnock said. "Bias is always in the mix — on both sides of the equation."

Analyzing self-assessments is always a slippery slope; after all, most employees and their managers look forward to annual reviews about as much as an upcoming dentist appointment. And how one writes one's self-assessment for their human resources file could vary from how they complete similar interviews for any research study. And how accurate are those employees’ descriptions of how they perform on the job? As one business school professor told my class years ago, “The fact is, we’re often not as good as we’d like to think we are.” One’s level of modesty may vary, depending on whether we are in a public setting or when we are filling out one of those 360 reviews in the hope of scoring a promotion and/or a raise.

Nevertheless, the perspective CTI’s survey offers is a warning to employers. While many jobseekers complain of a hyper-competitive job market, employers also say finding talent is an ongoing struggle. “Retention will be the biggest talent challenge of 2017,” said Forbes late last year. Meanwhile, more companies are becoming aware of the impact bias can have on their employees, and in turn they are taking steps such as sponsoring and mentoring programs in order to show that everyone has a fair chance to thrive within the organization. Elimination of bias obviously is about fairness and taking a stand – but pragmatically, it is also important for companies to address if they want to continue to thrive or even survive in the long term.

Image credit: Reyner Media/Flickr

By Lee Rhodes

When I was in the hospital several years ago battling cancer, I was given a beautiful candle that soothed me, imparting hopefulness and peace of mind. The mission of my company was birthed out of that experience, and I wanted to reflect that hope and healing back to my community — and the world — by giving 10 percent of my company’s revenue back to nonprofit organizations.

Many businesses have started taking similar approaches, and philanthropy is expected to keep growing in the coming years. Small businesses and major corporations alike are making altruism a goal, going above and beyond to support charities across the globe.

Giving back can be a lot harder than it looks, though. I had people constantly telling me that our business model wouldn’t be successful, but this is a time when stubbornness pays off. Companies that give back aren’t just businesses looking to make a buck; they’re forming emotional connections. And those connections can elevate a business’s long-term sustainability.

How does a giving model benefit your business?

While opting for a giving-focused business model of course gives you the opportunity to help others, it can also help your company. There are a few ways that philanthropy can benefit your business.

It'll be a breath of fresh air for your marketing department (and budget), both of which are crucial to staying competitive. While altruism is good for its own sake, it can also boost your company's reach and prestige by building word-of-mouth rapport with nonprofits in your community without investing in marketing materials.

Plus, it builds relationships with partners and customers. These types of connections are cumulative, which means they take time to build. For example, you could go to a hospital and say, “We're going to give you $2.5 million to build a brand new unit for the children to stay in while their moms are getting chemotherapy.”

Or you could include the promise of a donation to the hospital with every product sale. Suddenly, you have word-of-mouth advertising working for you, and you’ve created a relationship with those partners and customers. On top of that, you’re still donating money to the charity you choose.

Then, once you finally have that connection, you start creating a positive reputation within your community. For the first 10 years or so, our company focused on building its reputation in Seattle, gaining a huge following simply because of our altruistic model. When companies help others, people are more likely to support them. So when you have that kind of a reputation, your community will always have your back.
Building charitable contributions into your business model

Structuring charitable donations into your business model can set you up for success. Your customers will be more inspired and connected to your company when they feel like they are making a difference in the world through your company. As you build charitable contributions into your business model, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Be (really) brave

Steve Jobs once said the thing that separates the successful businesses from the ones that fail is pure perseverance. Companies with a philanthropic business model face a unique set of challenges, but the key to success is to stick with it.

For example, our company didn’t turn a profit last year, but we still gave away $1.7 million because that’s our promise. Even in good years, cutting a check for someone else is tough even when you know it’s going to a good cause.

It takes a lot of guts to continue giving even when the future of your company is shaky, but that bravery will pay off once you start seeing those relationships with customers and nonprofit organizations blossom.

2. Make your story marketable

Warby Parker created a story that its customers grabbed hold of and shared with others. Its "get a pair, give a pair" idea for glasses let customers participate in its mission of changing the world one child at a time, and it also made for fantastic marketing.

Your marketing plan should be an extension of your story. When you have a solid story behind your brand that you want to share with the world, marketing becomes simply a matter of telling that story. From the time your company is born, the marketing team should be using your story and goals to propel your brand forward with your customers.

3. Change your outlook on business

Many companies give back to charity, but only after they’re profitable. They wait to see how much they have left after breaking even, then they donate a portion of that. To me, that’s not what giving back is all about.

Giving-focused business models are a different beast from traditional business models because philanthropy is part of the core business strategy. Traditional businesses are focused on making money first and giving back second. Giving-focused businesses focus on both at the same time.

Altruism can be a positive force in the business world, and by giving charitable contributions, you’re helping create an emotional connection between your customers and your company. In doing so, you will catapult your business forward and create a lifelong relationship with your customers.

Lee Rhodes founded glassybaby in 2001 after a chance meeting between a tealight and a hand-blown glass vessel during her seven-year bout with cancer. Rhodes developed the idea for glassybaby’s one-of-a-kind votives and drinkers with the core mission of helping cancer patients she met during treatment afford basic needs such as bus fare, childcare, or groceries. Ten percent of the company’s entire revenue goes toward a charitable organization; to date, glassybaby has donated more than $6 million to 350-plus nonprofits since opening its doors.

Image credit: glassybaby

The Trump Administration may have walked away from the Paris Accord, but that policy shift is not stopping other political leaders and the private sector from moving forward on climate action.

Two outspoken supporters of the 2015 global climate agreement, California Governor Jerry Brown and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, announced this week that they will launch a new initiative to help drive down greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S.

“America’s Pledge” will collect and analyze climate change data collected by U.S. states, cities and businesses across the U.S. who are still aligned with the Paris agreement.

This program’s launch comes a week after Democrat Brown stuck another thumb in Donald Trump’s eye by announcing, during the G-20 Summit, that he plans on hosting a global climate change summit in California next year. Meanwhile, Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent Bloomberg has taken on a role as the United Nations’ envoy for cities and climate change. In a public statement, Bloomberg said, “The American government may have pulled out of the Paris Agreement, but American society remains committed to it – and we will redouble our efforts to achieve its goals. We’re already halfway there.”

According to a joint press release, NGOs including the Rocky Mountain Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) will be tasked with compiling and quantifying data. More organizations are expected to commit to this effort by the end of the year.

While proponents of the Paris Accord have been up in arms since Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the climate accords, the reality is that the U.S. exit is one of more style than substance. As Jim Brainard, the GOP mayor of Carmel, Indiana and a supporter of climate action explained to TriplePundit last month, 80 percent of Americans live in towns and cities, and many of those governments have aligned their emissions goals with the Paris commitment.

Nevertheless, the development of a focal point for sharing emissions data publicly and transparently will help build the case that fighting climate change and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive. The goal of America’s Pledge is to “raise the bar” and “expand the map” as more governments and companies make commitment to reduce their carbon emissions. Trump’s departure from the Paris agreement may long roil the international diplomatic community, but the parties behind Bloomberg and Brown’s plan hope to develop a playbook for emissions reductions that will help the U.S. meet its climate change agreements – whether or not it is a signatory to that treaty.

The partnership between Bloomberg and Brown has amounted to a American shadow cabinet on climate policy, as global leaders have been quick to meet the governor and former mayor as they assure the world the U.S. is still vested in climate change leadership. For example, Brown was recently named as a special advisor for states and regions ahead of this year's United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 23). The governor has also had meetings with Germany's top environmental official, as well as with China's President Xi Jinping. Bloomberg, meanwhile, met with France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo within 24 hours of the White House’s announcement of the about-face on the Paris Agreement to assure global leaders that many parties in the U.S. were still committed to tackling climate change.

As the Trump Administration continues to flounder on a number of issues, both Brown and Bloomberg effectively show the world that the U.S. is not ready to relinquish its climate mantle quite yet.

Image credit: America’s Pledge

Downing a cold one this summer has just become a tad more guilt free.

MillerCoors, the second largest brewer in the U.S., recently announced it conserved at least 15 billion gallons of water across its entire value chain last year. That update shows more improvement beyond the company’s most recent sustainability report, in which the company said it was nudging closer to its 2020 goal of reducing its water-to-beer ratio to 3:1.

The brewing giant’s most recent water-to-beer ratio, disclosed in its 2016 sustainability report, stands at 3.29:1; further efficiencies in irrigation across its supply chain, along with a wet 2016, should help that company inch even closer to that magic 3:1 goal. In 2011, the company revealed it required 4.07 gallons of water for each gallon of beer that shipped out of its breweries.

As the company discussed in an interview with TriplePundit two years ago, most of MillerCoors’ water footprint is spread across its vast agricultural supply chain. Therefore, the brewer must work with the barley farmers to conserve water in addition to scoping water savings within the company’s operations. By sharing digital technologies and developing water conservation projects with farmers in Colorado and Idaho, the company has been able to reduce both resource and water risks across its supply chain. To date, those efficiencies also have assisted the company with reducing its carbon footprint per barrel of beer by 18 percent when compared to MillerCoors’ 2010 baseline.

Many of these new agricultural developments occur within what the company calls its “showcase barley farms.” New techniques in precision irrigation and companion cropping occur on these farms, and growers can also meet to share and learn the latest best practices in farming. True, MillerCoors can boast about these sustainability metrics while saving money, but farmers benefit from this system, too.

One farm that provides MillerCoors barley serves as a case study for how a brewer can work closely with its supply chain for mutual benefit. A farm in Idaho’s Silver Creek Valley adopted what the company describes as “best management practices” to conserve water via various new tactics. Over the course of three years, the farm ended up saving 400 million gallons of water while reducing its operational costs from $51 an acre to $20 an acre during that time. Improvements including more efficient irrigation systems and equipment retrofits also helped the farm slash its energy costs by $120,000, or over 50 percent, annually.

The steps MillerCoors has taken in recent years mean the brewer is on track to meet 2020 goals. Those efforts over the next three years include ensuring that its sustainability programs focused on farming and water risks will cover 100 percent of the company’s barley-growing regions; a reduction in its carbon footprint by 25 percent; and attain landfill-free operations at all of MillerCoors’ manufacturing and brewing facilities.

Image credit: MillerCoors

Wednesday might have seemed like just another day on the internet, but it was far from it. Companies from dozens of industries lent their private and public spaces to underscore a critical message: Net neutrality is essential if the federal government wants industries to stay in business. Take away net neutrality by stripping Title II, and American commerce will suffer.

OK, that wasn't the gist of what most companies talked about, but maybe it should have been

More than 150 companies known for their global impact weighed in on Net Neutrality Day to tell us why doing away with regulations that protect consumers' rights to a fair and balanced access to the web would really hurt.

The explanations addressed issues that ranged from the potential throttling of bandwidth and buffering of videos to the power of mega-size internet service providers to "ban" or restrict a viewer's access to a competitor's services and sites. Tim Berners-Lee, widely credited with conceptualizing the "wide world web" model of the internet, shared his fears in a video that "if we lost net neutrality, we lose the internet as we know it."

https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0

Google, as promised, posted a policy notice on its blog supporting laws that protect equal access. But its search page was absent of any real partisan opinion on the issue.

Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg both posted comments on their personal Facebook pages expressing support for an internet that "gives voice to those who might not otherwise be heard."

Dozens of other big and small companies waded into the fight as well, focusing their concerns on what less access would mean to personal usage. Reddit posted a message to remind readers just what could happen if access was determined by how much users paid. "The internet's less fun when your favorite sites load slowly, isn't it?” it quipped.

Most, but not all, provided links to Battle for the Net website where consumers could send messages to the Federal Communications Commission and Congress.

As a writer who makes her living from the internet, it struck me that while there was a lot of talk about personal experience and equal access for users, there was little, if any discussion about what scenarios like those described, in which ISPs could throttle access, charge huge prices for "premium" services and decide what we could view would mean to U.S. businesses. Openinvest sent out emails to remind consumers that they could divest from those companies that didn't support net neutrality.  But like other companies, it didn't discuss the financial impact that the FCC's plan to disassemble Title II protections could have on companies that individuals might invest in

One in five consumers in the world are estimated to have shopped online in the past 30 days, according to We Are Social. That's a significant impact, especially if you consider that as many as 1 billion people globally don't have internet access.

Big Commerce drilled down a little deeper recently to determine just what that means when it comes to U.S. markets. Their study, which was run in partnership with Kelton Global, found that 51 percent of Americans actually prefer to shop online and 80 percent made purchases within the past month. The bulk of those purchases are made by Millennials and and Gen Xers, who spend a third more time shopping online than Baby Boomers.

When it comes to what encourages people to shop online, the internet wins out again: 23 percent of shoppers are wooed by social media, seeking out recommendations and reviews online as important ways to decide where to spend their money. Online shoppers are also skittish about paying high prices for shipping. More than 65 percent admit they'll reconsider shopping online if it's going to cost them more money to get the item.

And the kicker: According to Big Commerce's  and Kelton Global's study, 21 percent -- almost a quarter of internet users -- will be turned off by hard to navigate, slow or inaccessible websites that get in the way of their decision to purchase a product.

While those stats only address the value of online shopping access, it's pretty clear that with e-commerce growing 23 percent year-over-year, keeping the playing field even and free when it comes to consumer internet access isn't just something that builds personal experience. It keeps customers coming back to their favorite venue and keeps today's businesses sustainable.

Flickr image: Robbert Noordzij

By Jenna Cypress 

The average American doesn’t understand personal finance very well. They assume that just because they can qualify for a loan, they can afford the loan. Sadly, this often leads to poor decision-making. Do companies have a moral obligation to keep consumers from taking on too much debt?

Ethical considerations in the lending profession

In the past, loans and mortgages were obtained from local banks. If someone wanted to buy a house, they walked into their bank and met with a banker who they probably knew on a personal basis. Because this banker knew the client and held the loan on his balance sheet, he had a vested interest in making sure that he supplied the client with a loan that would set them up for success.

At the start of the 21^st century, things began to change. Mortgage brokers entered the picture and the focus turned to processing as many loans as possible. And because these brokers don’t have relationships with the borrowers – and they likely won’t ever interact or meet again – they don’t really care if the loan is something that can reasonably be handled. It’s a simple transaction – no emotions are involved.

This is part of the reason we saw a massive housing collapse at the end of last decade. Lenders started giving out loans to people who really weren’t qualified, just so they could make a quick buck. But now that we’ve fully recovered and the economy is as stable as it’s been in years, it’s time that we study the role of ethics in the lending profession.

The topic of ethical behavior is a tricky one. Technically speaking, it’s possible to be unethical and still not do anything illegal. But the growing opinion is that banks and lenders have a moral obligation to act ethically.

In the broadest sense, ethics in lending means treating everyone equally, being honest in all situations, giving full disclosure without being prompted, not taking advantage of people, and keeping good documentation. It sounds simple enough, but many lenders are finding it difficult to move past bad habits that are profitable.

 

How lenders can become more ethical (and profitable)

The word “ethical” is extremely popular in the world of finance right now. There are thousands of investment funds, banks, and lenders who use the word when describing their services. Unfortunately, many of these companies use ethics as a marketing slogan, not a guiding force in how they conduct business.

In order for lenders to truly become ethical, the idea that actions speak louder than words needs to be understood. As Tom Sorrell of Warwick University argues, firms that market themselves as being “ethical” are increasingly being looked on with suspicion.

“Ethical banks shouldn’t – morally shouldn’t – claim to be ethical,” he says. “Some things should be shown and not said.”

Having said that, what specific action steps can banks and lenders take to fulfill their obligation to be ethical and responsible in a fast-paced business environment that’s characterized by churning out as many loans as possible?

1. 
   
   1. 
      
      1. Educate BorrowersThe first thing that needs to happen is better education. Lenders need to publish more content like this resource from Auto.Loan, which helps people understand the concept of refinancing and how it affects their financial situation, or this article from The Motley Fool, which tells people how much house they can really afford. Educating borrowers doesn’t mean turning away business – it means setting them up for success which means the loan is more likely to be paid back in full.
      
      
      2. Promote Individual AccountabilityThere has to be more individual accountability within banks and lending organizations. Until people are held responsible for unethically preying on borrowers, no real change will take place. On the flip side, ethical behavior should be rewarded so that lenders are encouraged to do the right thing. Over time, this will correct erroneous behavior.
      
      
      3. Take Confidentiality SeriouslyFinally, confidentiality has to be taken seriously. Lenders are privy to vast amounts of personal information – information that, in the wrong hands, could prove destructive. In addition to legally protecting this information, lenders have to do a better job of only using it for the purpose for which it is intended. Confidential information is not to be used inappropriately for leverage.

Open for Interpretation

Technically speaking, being unethical and illegal aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. It’s possible to be unethical and still obey the law in the lending industry.

However, as more scrutiny is placed on the industry – and as corporate social responsibility takes center stage – it’s no longer smart to be an irresponsible lender. Ethical lending is not only the right thing to do – it’s also the most profitable from a long-term perspective.

Image credit: peter castleton, Flickr

By Victoria L. May, Washington University

There is a growing need for interdisciplinary approaches to address many of the modern challenges to advancing research, innovation and technological development. This creates a call for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education—not just in our classrooms, but also in our economic potential. As careers in STEM grow, we recognize the importance of equipping students with the 21st century skills necessary for them to thrive.

The development of these skills is the driving force behind the efforts of Washington University’s Institute for School Partnership (ISP). With a passion for enhancing STEM education for teachers and students in St. Louis, ISP partnered with major corporations in the community to launch STEMpact. This initiative utilizes the combined resources and human capital of these companies to develop STEM-capable teachers, thereby fostering STEM-capable students. We’ve had great success with these programs, reaching more than 30,000 students in the St. Louis area. One key partner in our work to further science education—and founding member of STEMpact—has been MilliporeSigma.

Beyond working with us on STEMpact, MilliporeSigma also engaged us to explore ways to make science come to life in the classroom. Together, we collaborated to develop lessons for MilliporeSigma’s Curiosity Labs™ program—a library of interactive science experiments using Next Generation Science Standards. We provided the company’s scientists with a blueprint for age-appropriate lessons that are easily adapted, expanded and modified. These inquiry-based, hands-on science experiences range from constructing a water filtration device to learning about chemiluminescence and creating a glow stick. Better yet, they’re delivered to classrooms around the world by MilliporeSigma employee volunteers—allowing students to directly engage with professionals in the field.

Science industry experts agree that hands-on laboratory experiences are critical to cultivating student interest in STEM. And the Curiosity Labs™ lessons are proof, with 79 percent of participants reporting an increase in content knowledge following the lesson; 80 percent demonstrating confidence in science; and 81 percent stating that they “enjoy” science.

The reach of the Curiosity Labs™ program is impressive—having reached more than 40,000 students in 2016 alone. To think something conceived and refined in St. Louis has spread so broadly—to tens of thousands of students across six continents—is simply incredible.

To immerse even more young minds in the world of science, MilliporeSigma recently launched the Curiosity Cube™—a mobile science lab that builds on the successful Curiosity Labs™ lessons we helped create. The Curiosity Cube™ kicked off its journey across the United States earlier this year, with a goal to bring interactive, hands-on science to more than 350,000 students and their families in 2017. Inside the Curiosity Cube™, visitors can find and fix mutations using gene-editing technology and explore the unseen world by looking through microscopes and manipulating cells on touchscreen monitors. These experiments are not just fascinating for kids—they bring science to life for visitors of all ages.

It’s exciting to see these experiences being made available to even more curious minds. Too many students get to high school without the confidence to tackle STEM subjects or an awareness of the opportunities waiting for them in STEM fields. That’s why it’s important to make inroads with students when it matters most—in elementary and middle school.

We invite other businesses to join STEMpact in our drive to improve STEM education. Together, we can not only strengthen the economic future of our region and beyond, but also show students the remarkable breakthroughs they can achieve through STEM.

Victoria L. May is executive director of the Institute for School Partnership (ISP) at Washington University in St. Louis, and assistant dean of Arts & Sciences