Search

By Shawn Overcast

Elon Musk acts like space is the next frontier, but business pioneers know true innovation is happening on terra firma. Instead of exploring the cosmos, business leaders are experimenting with office dynamics. The 21st-century workplace is characterized by perpetual changes and increasingly unconventional setups. Our ancestors would have trouble recognizing our employee-centered office spaces and  working arrangements. Telecommuting has become commonplace for many small and large organizations, and most companies have a global focus — internationally-based employees, vendors, and clients are par for the course. Thankfully, communication is instantaneous with technology such as email, real-time messaging, virtual meetings, and synchronous conference calls. How accustomed are we to this brave new work world? When children photo-bombed their father’s international interview on the BBC, society laughed it off because of how commonplace that scenario has become. Workers adore this ever-changing environment, but it can be problematic for business leaders. CEOs, executives, and founders must corral a flock that often isn’t in the same office, city, or country. Although research shows innovative work environments are more productive, companies still have to grapple with the logistics of never-ending change. Suddenly, heading to Mars seems a lot simpler than navigating the evolving business world. Shades of Gray Among the Standing Desks “Exception is the norm” might as well be the motto for the modern work environment. Employee handbooks and departmental budgets are peppered with gray areas instead of yesteryear’s black-and-white situations. Corporate leaders must make decisions on a case-by-case basis, usually with no prior expertise in handling such situations. When I began telecommuting, there was no established rule book. I worked with my supervisor and our human resources department to create the boundaries of my flexible work arrangement. We established performance metrics and expectations to ensure everyone had the same understanding of the arrangement. For instance, I would be available via instant-messaging platforms during standard working hours, respond to emails within 24 hours, and visit the office at least once a month. As my telecommuting progressed, my colleagues and I established more mutual trust. This allowed us to eliminate a few of those initial ground rules — I no longer had to provide a weekly account of what I had done and planned to do, for example. We managed to make telecommuting work, but it truly was a team effort. That collaborative spirit is missing from many employee-driven work cultures. We’ve admitted that certain employees work best when they can choose for themselves how and when they do their best work, but we neglect to create the necessary structure. Without a framework approved by leadership and workers, mass chaos is inevitable. Empowerment is fine, but responsibility goes both ways. Leaders should be ready to provide feedback on a new set of behaviors, and employees must be open to the give-and-take of the modern work environment. Caring for the Heart of Your Organization Is your company ready to give more freedom to employees? Do you feel like you’re losing great people to more agile competitors? It’s probably time to become an employee-centered workplace. Here are a few guiding principles as you make the transition.

1. Acknowledge your beliefs and assumptions. Spend time reflecting on your own beliefs about work. Do you think tasks only get done at a desk (or in a cubicle), or do you feel like it depends on each worker’s role and responsibilities? What problems and benefits does your current structure offer? Get everything out in the open before you move forward.After you’ve addressed your biases, map out your ideal workplace. Whether it involves a shift to more telecommuting or an open floor plan, visualize it with the help of department leaders and frontline employees. This exercise can help you uncover potential issues and opportunities. Compare your dream hierarchy with your current structure. If there isn’t natural overlap, consider how you can steer your company in the desired direction.
2. Scan your environment and ask questions. Talk with the people who will be most affected by proposed changes: your employees. What would work best for them? How can they bring their best selves to every aspect of their work lives?Listen and learn before you hit the budgets. Consider ways you can spend your money more effectively. Instead of building out cubicles and conference rooms, for example, your team might be happier with tables and chairs, a booth for private calls, a smattering of standing desks, and the ability to work from home (with advance notification and approval, of course).
3. Develop leaders for emerging challenges. Leaders received education on everything from workplace conflict to motivating employees, but there is no such thing as too much communication-related training. Managers must be able to provide consistent, constructive feedback to the employees they supervise. Your goal should be clear lines of communication — particularly if some workers are not in the office on a daily basis. It's exceedingly easy to accidentally alienate remote team members. Send messages regularly to ensure they know exactly what’s happening and feel like a valued part of the organization. Moreover, don’t forget that remote employees could be tomorrow’s leaders; give them a chance to enjoy development opportunities that focus on building their analytical, communication, problem-solving, and collaborative abilities.

Piloting a business (or a spaceship) with no real boundaries might seem scary, but it’s also an exhilarating opportunity. Provided you’re on the same page, you and your team members can go anywhere in the universe. If you’re able to successfully adapt to this limitless workplace freedom, there’s nothing to stop you from boldly going where no one has gone before. Shawn Overcast is partner at gothamCulture. She has more than 15 years of experience quantifying the softer side of business, working with human capital departments from small companies to global Fortune 100 organizations. Follow gothamCulture on Twitter. Image credit: K2 Space: Flickr

Late last Friday I got a call from the communications team at Hampton Creek, the folks who are using food science to upend the factory farm.

Founder and CEO Josh Tetrick wanted to talk about recent rumors that he'd been a victim of an attempted coup. It wasn't quite as dramatic as that, but his tale did include a forensic email investigation by a team of former FBI, CIA and NSA. The investigators uncovered systematic efforts to influence the corporate governance of Hampton Creek to strip his power. And he put a stop to it. Three employees were let go after the forensic analysis uncovered their attempts to limit Tetrick's control by modifying the bylaws.

Corporate governance tales don't usually make Law and Order's "ripped from the headlines" reenactments. But the black-and-white bylaws, charter and board structure of a company are heady stuff for sustainability practitioners. They are key to maintaining a company's mission -- or, as Ben and Jerry found out, losing it. Like the case of Ben and Jerry's, what happened at Hampton Creek wasn't as cut and dried as do-gooders versus bankers. Instead, it was (and continues to be) a matter of how far to carry a mission and when to cash it in.

Hampton Creek has made quick financial success, reaching a $1.1 billion valuation with egg free products in over 20,000 locations after only six years. To really move the needle on our broken food system, they need to go bigger. Way bigger. An acquisition by a company like Kraft/Heinz could arguably do a lot of good for a lot of chickens. But would it eliminate the factory farm? Probably not.

"We will factually not achieve our mission if we don't see the end of the factory farm. I know that to be true." Tetrick explains forcefully. He'd rather bet the proverbial farm on that long term goal than see the traction and momentum he's gained thus far slow or become derailed.

It's not sell it to a large publicly traded food manufacturer. It's not to keep it as a nice little private company. The only point to doing this is to try to increase the probability that we solve this challenge, we achieve this mission before we're dead and gone. That's what animates everything... If you gave me 100% chance right now, if you said 'All I have to do is say yes' And we'll get acquired now for $2.1 billion dollars [or a billion over current valuation] and we'll be integrated in to a larger food manufacturer, and we lose the ability to control this long-term mission. I would say, 'No thank you.' I'd rather a 25% possibility of really doing something more."

That's why the efforts to change the corporate governance to -- presumably -- limit his control stung so hard.

There have been a handful of different attempts over the course, really, of the last eight to 10 months, to change provisions in our bylaws and our voting agreement and the company's charter. Provisions that each one of them,  might seem benign, maybe, but taken together, and all pushed through, they would result in a world that's much different than the world that we have today.

That world, as the Guardian reported, would be one where control was "hand[ed] it to investors." Luckily for Tetrick, he'd taken the most "principled suggestions" from a group of mission-based company founders, investors and activists in animal welfare, environmentalism, and global poverty to tie up the corporate governance in terms of bylaws, charter and board structure. His goal: to protect the long term vision. Efforts to derail this structure were uncovered before damage was done. As a result, several board members have agreed to step away from active management into an advisory capacity. Tetrick explains his need to make this transition. " Ensuring our employees maintain their ability to direct our mission is as critical as the technologies we deploy and the products we launch. We will always protect this principle."

But the incident was close enough to shake Tetrick and give him the incentive to double down on mission and long-term thinking.

Maybe as a co-founder, I have a different time horizon than most. Today is really important, and next year is really important, but I'm trying to imagine a world, if I'm in a car accident 17 years from now, what happens to this place?

He's been strategic, working with investors like Mitsui, a Japanese conglomerate which has been  around for 120 years and the Heineken family who have been investing for over 80 years. These investors understand that big change doesn't happen overnight, in a quarter, in a year or even a decade. And they are willing to wait.

Upending the factory farm "is hard and is a big bet, and it won't be accomplished by selling ourselves, with all respect, to Kraft-Heinz or to any other food manufacturer. It will only be accomplished by taking the big bet that the people in this organization can do it and will direct the long-term nature of the firm, and we're going to go for it," he posits.

I applaud Tetrick's vision and gumption, but our conversation left me wondering if a corporate entity, which will always have a bottom-line pressure, and which can only focus on a few things at a time, is the best-structure for a goal this audacious. Maybe he is better off selling for a billion dollars and starting a foundation to address the problem of factory farms from many angles.  Just look at how The Ellen MacArthur foundation is transforming the circular economy from a pipe dream into a reality with a series of strategic investments. By investing in many different initiatives, the foundation is able to bet on a number of possible solutions simultaneously -- arguably a faster, more effective path to change.

However, whether he's chosen the best path or not, the man is still standing. Given the recent efforts to strip him of his power, and the ease with which he brushed them off his shoulders, I wouldn't bet against him.

In an announcement that sent shock waves through the U.S. grocery business on Friday, Amazon announced plans to acquire Whole Foods for $13.7 billion. The news immediately sent shares of many supermarket retail chains down sharply. Kroger, which had been rumored as a suitor of Whole Foods, saw its share price crater as much as 11 percent before making up most of those losses by the end of Friday. Target and Walmart suffered similar losses, while Costco saw its stock price sink 7 percent and Supervalu’s shares spiraled down over 14 percent.

Shareholders of Whole Foods, however, had a fantastic day, as Amazon’s proposal to buy Whole Foods at $42 a share is a 27 percent premium over last Thursday’s closing price.

With 465 stores nationwide, Whole Foods owns a relatively small slice of the U.S. grocery market. In the health-conscious Los Angeles area, for example, Whole Foods only claims a 3 percent market share, while stores owned by Albertsons and Kroger together have a hold on 40 percent of that market.

Nevertheless, the combination of Whole Foods’ brand reputation, combined with the prowess and technology that has made Amazon an economic power on par with Walmart, will cause plenty of sleepless nights for executives within the largest U.S. grocery companies. The Seattle-based online shopping giant has already been testing technologies that (depending on one’s point of view,) range from practical to creepy. And in scoring Whole Foods, the stores of which are usually located in very central, well-heeled or trendy neighborhoods, Amazon now has a platform to test its various ideas. June 16, 2017 may very well be the date people look back on when the retail sector at large entered one of its most jarring transformations.

Where Amazon could go with its technology is raising plenty of eyebrows. The company has patented a smartphone technology that prevents consumers from online comparison shopping within the walls of a store. In Seattle, Amazon is testing a store that requires no checkout. Shoppers just saunter into the Amazon Go, open an app, and take the items they want. Shortly after exiting the store, Amazon charges that consumer’s account and emails them a receipt.

It is that threat of automation that has some consumers, and many workers, worried. Although part of Whole Foods’ recent financial struggles has resulted from its older and outdated stores, the chain deserves credit for improving the customer experience at supermarkets. Gone are the fluorescent lighting, linoleum and dowdy shelves; Whole Foods nudged many of its competitors to soften the design of their interiors, hand out samples with a smile and revamp these stores into places to meet and dine, not just shop and checkout. But one problem bogging down Whole Foods is that chains such as Walmart and Kroger were adroit at catching up, and their scale allowed them to put a dent in the Austin-based company’s sales figures.

But from P and 14th in Washington, DC, to Houston’s Galleria district to Fig Garden Village in Fresno, Whole Foods’ reputation for having knowledgeable and personable employees has comprised one of its key strengths. And when it comes to labor practices, the company’s CEO, John Mackey, has long been hostile to unions, but working at a Whole Foods is still a decent gig. The company says it offers employees a good wage, competitive benefits and the opportunity to work their way quickly to gaining affordable health care benefits.

So far, Amazon’s founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, says Whole Foods’ operations will remain unchanged. The chain’s leadership will stay on and the company will continue to operate out of Austin while keeping its current name and branding. Considering Bezos’ track record, such as his acquisition a few years ago of the once struggling, but now soaring Washington Post, Whole Foods could actually improve in several ways.

Critics of Amazon, however, are not feeling optimistic about this multi-billion transaction. To some, the company represents all that is to be feared about automation backed by hundreds of billions in revenues. In a public statement, the Institute of Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), which has long complained about Amazon’s business practices, issued a stern warning about what it says is the company’s monopolistic nature.

“Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods raises significant anti-competitive issues that should be deeply concerning to federal antitrust regulators and the public. This deal would allow Amazon to leverage Whole Foods’ 444 U.S. stores in ways that would dramatically amplify Amazon’s online market power,” said Stacy Mitchell, a co-director of ILSR, “and it would give Amazon, which already sells more clothing, books, toys, and consumer electronics than any other retailer, a substantial share of an even bigger consumer goods category, groceries. Regulators should block this acquisition.”

Federal regulators will most likely allow the acquisition to occur, as technically the two companies are not quite true competitors. For a generation, the U.S. government has also allowed far larger deals to close. And historically, the main focus of antitrust laws has been to guarantee that concentrated market share will not result in increased prices for consumers. If the Trump Administration, whose leader and aides have long seen Bezos as an adversary, decides to fight this deal they might gain some traction.

But as Stephen Gandel of Bloomberg has noted, the feds have adopted a formulaic approach to gauging whether a merger or acquisition will move forward or not. Since Whole Foods’ online business is relatively tiny ($100 million), it will be difficult to make a case against this deal. “Broadly defined, Amazon has a large share of the online grocery business, but it is picking off one of its smallest rivals,” concluded Gandel.

Nevertheless, retail, and not just the grocery business, is entering a brave new world. Whether consumers will benefit economically and socially is an open question that will not be answered for several years.

Image credit: That Other Paper/Flickr

Is food manufacturing becoming too complex? Millions of pounds of processed food sold by Conagra, Tyson and Gourmet Boutique have been recalled due to the presence of an undeclared allergen: Milk.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a supplier notified the three manufacturers that bread crumbs that had been sold to the companies apparently had milk in them, but this allergen was not declared in the product ingredients.

Under federal law, companies must declare specific allergens, such as milk, on product labels. The USDA is urging consumers who have purchased any of the products listed to either return them to the store or throw them out.

About 700,000 lbs of Conagra products are listed under the company's recall, including Chef Boyardee pasta products. Approximately 295,000 lbs of breaded chicken cutlets produced by Gourmet Boutique are suspected to have the allergen. Tyson Foods' recall was the largest at 2,485,000 lbs of ready-to-eat chicken products. Tyson's products were sold for institutional use, including at schools, and are not available at supermarkets.

Food recalls have been on the increase recently, raising concerns as to whether global supply chains are becoming too complex . There have already been more than 30 food recalls since January, including several for contamination from listeria and e-coli. According to recent studies, the number of food recalls in the United States has quadrupled in the last five years and that spike in incidents is being attributed in part to the increasing globalization of supply chains that must keep pace with local and national food policies.

But the increasing risk to consumer health is only one of reasons that food recall alerts are concerning, notes Food Safety Magazine. The other is the sheer cost of having to recall thousands -- or in the case of Tyson's recent recall, millions -- of pounds of food.

"The average cost of a recall to a food company is $10 [million] in direct costs, in addition to brand damage and lost sales," said the magazine. The statistics are according to a study by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute. The publication notes that those costs may be even higher for large, multi-national companies.

This isn't the first time this year that companies have had to issue a recall due to undisclosed milk products in the manufacturing process. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) records indicate that recalls for unidentified milk in products were occurring as early as January this year and took place in April and May as well through several smaller manufacturers.

But the incidents also raise and interesting question about recalls for the types of products that often are made with milk and often do have milk declared on the product label. Is recalling and disposing of millions of pounds of food (that we're told would be safe if not for the undeclared allergen food product) the only way to fix food processing mistakes?

There's a fair amount of disagreement in the medical community about just how many children (and individuals in general) suffer from milk allergies. Many milk allergies are now suspected to be related to lactose intolerance, a condition that is normally not life-threatening and fairly prevalent in adults.

Between 2 and 3 percent of children in the U.S. are allergic to milk (between 1.4 million and 2.2 million children, although scientists point out that in many cases, milk allergies resolve before the child becomes a teenager).

But the USDA's reason for encouraging recall has nothing to do with how many children could be exposed to allergic reactions. It has to do with ensuring consistency, a major factor in ensuring a safe food supply. As one who experiences milk and gluten allergies, the recall process is understandable. But it still seems a bit like closing the door after the horse has left the barn. It does little to convey to the public that the next shipment of food on grocery shelves or in school cafeteria will be free of allergens.

The Trump administration is promising less, not more oversight in product manufacturing. From the looks of it, that's a concern when it comes to ensuring that supply chains that reach across the world can guarantee that those most at risk from food allergies can rely upon a well vetted and regulated food supply.

Flickr image: Tyrone

According to a recent Boston Globe investigative report, the cheap prices at off-price retail department stores such as TJ Maxx come at the expense of labor rights in factories overseas and here in the United States.

Suspicion that clothes at chains such as TJ Maxx, Marshall’s and Ross may come from dodgy sources is nothing new. The problem lies in the nature of their supply chains. A former CEO of TJX, the parent company of TJ Maxx and Marshalls, explained in a USA Today interview several years ago that as much as 85 percent of the company’s merchandise was purchased directly from suppliers. When these off-price chains first started as far back as the 1970s, they were known to offload factory seconds or excess merchandise from other department stores and specialty retailers at extremely low prices, and in turn passed those bargains onto their customers.

But with the changing nature of the global apparel sector and the rise of fast fashion, clothes can be made more quickly at a lower price than a generation ago. And due to the fact that TJX sells more clothes than Macy’s now, the company’s ability to scale affords them opportunities to buy branded clothing at an even lower rate than the few remaining department store chains. As a result, while visits and sales at American malls have cratered, TJX has been able to not just survive, but thrive.

But those profits, say human rights activists and regulators, come with the human price of low wages paid at factories located as far apart as downtown Los Angeles and Southeast Asia. Last fall, the Los Angeles Times profiled a worker in L.A.’s Garment District making $4.50 an hour. His struggles symbolized a Department of Labor (DOL) investigation that resulted with several garment companies ordered to pay $1.3 million in lost wages and damages to workers - who frequently made $3 an hour less than the local minimum wage. Up to 85 percent of garment factories in downtown L.A., in fact, have been charged with various labor violations.

The poor treatment of garment workers has long been a standard practice in Southern California. A previous DOL investigation found that not only were garment factory employees often underpaid, but in many cases, they were even denied their wages; that 2014 inquiry of over 200 factories revealed that on average, workers were shorted $1,900 in wages during that year alone.

But chains such as TJ Maxx have not been implicated, nor punished, as a result of the DOL investigations. As is typical across the worldwide apparel industry, these companies do not own the factories from which they source their clothes. Instead, the factories and wholesalers within the supply chains of TJX and its competitors were the companies penalized for any wage or human rights violations. When Globe reporter Megan Woolhouse reached out to TJX for comment, the company replied that its vague vendor code of conduct “expressly requires” their suppliers comply with U.S. wage and labor laws.

And unlike apparel companies such as H&M, Gap Inc. and Marks & Spencer, which have pledged to make their supply chains far more transparent, off-price retailers like TJX view their supplier base as a competitive advantage. The hyper-competitive nature of the retail sector allows stores like TJ Maxx to defy the laws of retail physics and score brand names such as Polo, and in turn sell them for low, yet profitable prices. Secrecy, from these companies’ point of view, is their ticket to success, so do not look for TJX and its competitors to become more open about its sourcing anytime soon. “TJX is famously tightlipped about its strategy, answering questions on the topic by e-mail only,” wrote Woolhouse in her report.

What’s clear is that one reason why TJX has become a Wall Street darling, despite retail’s ongoing woes, is that the company is able to source clothing fast and can nimbly churn those items hanging on a rack into cash. And similar to Zara’s proclivity to source from factories close to its stores, logistics dictate that in many cases, sewing clothes in California is faster and makes more sense than sourcing them from Vietnam or Cambodia.

But as Woolhouse’s investigation concluded, L.A.’s Garment District factories are quick to cut corners, and that is where the trouble begins. Nevertheless, TJX can absolve themselves of any responsibility, as a complicated trail of contractors and subcontractors allow the company to profit off of underpaid workers toiling in a basement, without sharing any of the legal responsibility.

Working within a TJ Maxx or Marshall’s location may be a better deal, but only because retail workers are more visible and are covered by federal wage laws. The company does not have the most sterling reputation when it comes to its shop floor culture, and only recently boosted hourly wages for its stores’ employees after public pressure nudged Walmart to give its workers a raise. Now the time has come for TJX to turn around its supply chain’s dismal performance, become more accountable, and ensure that the workers making its clothes also gain a fair wage.

Image credit: Mike Mozart/Flickr

The government of the United Arab Emirates wants companies conducting business within the country to do more on the corporate social responsibility (CSR) front.

To that end, the UAE’s Ministry of Economy recently held an event in Dubai to launch a “Corporate Social Responsibility Index” in order to boost such initiatives across this nation of 9.2 million people. The timing is prescient, considering Ramadan is underway; this month for many Muslims is a time for reflection, and companies are amongst the institutions that remind residents to “do good” during this month.

This program is part of the UAE’s “Year of Giving,” which aims to boost volunteerism, engage business to work closely with local communities and even inspire environmental cleanup. And on the social responsibility front, this program includes 11 various initiatives, from the development of rankings to measure local companies’ performance, to a responsible procurement program and the requirement that companies disclose their social responsibility work in an annual report.

Whether companies will be eager to participate is an open question. The Ministry of Economy says on one hand, the implementation of any CSR programs is voluntary. But if companies operating in the UAE do launch such programs, the government will require that they be disclosed.

In fairness, part of the work culture in the UAE is to garner nominations and awards, so that could inspire businesses to launch such programs in order to enhance their brand reputation and stand out in the marketplace. Awards for everything from sustainable procurement to green building have sparked a cottage CSR award industry in the UAE and surrounding Gulf states. According to one local English-language newspaper, the results from companies that participate in this program will be announced in April 2018.

On the other hand, the expatriate lifestyle of most foreign workers in the UAE is one of long hours, so scoring the buy-in of these employees will be quite the challenge. Furthermore, the three-year-long slump in oil price has forced emirates, including Abu Dhabi, to tighten their budgets, which means less procurement, and therefore less revenues, for privately-held companies. Employees who may have had latent interest in making their company a force for good are now more focused on making sure they can keep their jobs. The same expatriates who flocked to the UAE during the boom of the 2000s, adding much talent to the country's human capital, are now leaving in droves, according to several publications such as Financial Times.

The same goes for state-owned companies, at which most UAE nationals work; these firms, many of which manage the country’s energy sector, also largely rely on the labor of foreign nationals. While the UAE’s oil and gas industry has felt most of the recent economic pain, there has been a trickle-down effect across all industries in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, as these companies generate most of the country’s job opportunities.

Despite the UAE’s recent economic struggles, there are plenty of opportunities for both local and expatriate employees to launch programs in order to contribute to environmental and social responsibility efforts across the country. Dubai’s chamber of commerce, for example, has long operated a program that encourages companies to launch programs on this front. And in Abu Dhabi, the economic machine of the UAE, foundations including the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development have launched volunteer programs in order to engage company employees across all sectors. Some companies, including National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD), have a long history of conducting CSR programs – along with issuing sustainability reports that candidly discuss their various programs’ results.

To the UAE’s credit, the country’s leadership has long been focused on diversifying its economy so that it is not reliant on the volatile oil and gas industry. The results have included Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s renewable energy company that has also launched a clean technology hub near the city’s international airport. And a 90 minute drive away, investment zones such as Dubai Internet City and Dubai Silicon Oasis provide a home to regional headquarters for some of the world’s most recognized multinationals. Employees at such business centers have the ability to tap into their global networks and share ideas on how to make the UAE an even richer experience – and improve the country’s current environmental and social performance, both of which have exposed the Emirates to outside criticism in the past.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

By Judy Levin

Last month, TriplePundit reported on policies adopted by numerous sustainable businesses to purchase furniture made without toxic flame retardant chemicals. Now a new effort  by leading businesses, governments and universities is pushing for even safer furniture made without another set of chemicals dangerous to our health.

The market demand for safer furniture has already created a seismic shift throughout the industry. Prior to 2013, most furniture companies nationwide used flame retardant chemicals in their products. But regulatory changes and consumer demand influenced furniture companies to offer fire-safe products made without flame retardant chemical additives. Our surveys of residential and office furniture makers show that many major suppliers are now offering such products, in some cases for their full line of furniture.

Now companies that that represent more than $92 million of furniture purchasing annually, including Kaiser Permanente, LinkedIn Corporation, San Francisco Department of the Environment and the University of California, Santa Cruz have pledged to prefer furniture made without the “Hazardous Handful” of toxic chemicals. In addition to flame retardants, these companies are urging their furniture suppliers to avoid fluorinated chemicals used for water and stain resistance, antimicrobials, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Government buyers are also taking action; earlier this month, New York became the first state in the country to adopt strict restrictions on furniture purchased to avoid the “Hazardous Handful” of toxic chemicals.

These chemicals pose health threats to employees, customers and the community. Studies have linked exposures to these chemicals with serious health problems, including cancer, birth defects, thyroid disorders, delayed puberty, obesity, asthma, and other serious illnesses. Exposures to these chemicals cause problems throughout the life-cycle of the product, posing threats to furniture factory workers, consumers, office workers, and communities where furniture is disposed.  

This healthy competition for healthier products ultimately means safer workplaces for employees, safer homes for our children and families, and safer communities for us all. Responsible businesses who wish to join the sustainability leaders seeking safer furniture can take the pledge for safer furniture today.

Judy Levin is the Pollution Prevention Director at the Center for Environmental Health

The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) violated the law when it didn't consider environmental impacts before issuing permits for the continued construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). That's the key point of U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg's latest ruling, which he released Wednesday.

Boasberg said that while the Corps did comply with parts of the National Environmental Policy Act, it did not adequately consider important impacts the pipeline could have on communities downstream or adjacent to the pipeline.

Those issues Trump administration failed to address before giving the go-ahead to Energy Transfer Partners, LLC to restart construction include "the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice," a key grievance that complainants, including the Standing Rock Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux have had with the pipeline's approval.

"This is a a very significant victory and vindication of the tribe’s opinion," Jan Hasselman, lead attorney for the tribe's lawsuit against the Corps told the Atlantic. At the heart of the issue is that the Corps failed to consider that the tribe relies on hunting and fishing for sustenance, practices that would be at risk if there were a pipeline leak at some point in its operation. There was no environmental study done to determine the effects the chemicals used in cleanup operations would have on the ecosystem if there were an accident.

While the court did not demand that the pipeline cease operations while  the Corps "reconsiders" environmental impacts, the ruling does recognize the very issue that prompted the lawsuit: that according to federal law, environmental impacts must be "considered" as a determining factor for whether to issue such permits.

The ruling also takes exception with how decisions were made in light of environmental data about environmental impacts. According to Boasberg, "[In] February 2017, [the Corps] did not sufficiently weigh the degree to which the project’s effects are likely to be highly controversial in light of critiques of its scientific methods and data. That statement may require future permitting agencies to not just consider precedents in terms of what has been permitted before, but what the current scientific findings are when it comes to the impact of chemicals, invasive cleanup operations and long-term disturbance of ecosystems from the transport of "controversial" products like oil.

While it's unclear whether the judge's ruling was pointing toward the impact of carbon emissions, some oil and gas critics may interpret it that way, pointing out that current research suggests that there is a link between high-emission operations and global warming.

Lastly, according to Atlantic writer Robinson Meyer, the ruling gives a nod to the rights of communities -- particularly communities of color and economically impacted neighborhoods -- that find their voice diminished because they live adjacent to an industrial project that doesn't actually cross their land. The Corps decision that the pipeline doesn't cross the tribes' lands is "technically correct," Meyer points out, but based on the judge's ruling, may not release the Corps and other agencies of due diligence when it comes to considering the long-range impacts of the project.

But where the tribes failed to win recognition in their case (as far as this ruling is considered) is in the argument that the omissions of an environmental impact statement were enough to order the oil company to turn off the taps.

The Corps “substantially complied with [the National Environmental Policy Act] in many areas," Boasberg wrote, rejecting the notion that the pipeline was illegal and should be shut off at this time.

Judge Boasberg has called for the parties to meet with him next week to review the next steps. The tribes are expected to argue that the pipeline should be shut off while the Corps reconsiders the potential environmental impacts of the project. It's unlikely the judge will rule in favor of a shutoff.

Still, this week's ruling could have long-term implications for future industrial projects that the Trump administration may have in mind, requiring more thorough considerations of not just the direct impacts of potential spills and environmental accidents, but the rights of communities nearby. And for environmental justice advocates who have long argued that industries and governments have a broader responsibility to nearby neighborhoods in the effects of their products and factories, that could be a big deal.

So too, could be the recognition that agencies charged with reviewing the environmental impacts of projects must consider and apply current research to the decision of whether problems like global warming are increased by the project. It's a topic that will likely be taken up by other litigants that see an opportunity to argue that oil transports and oil and gas industries now pose a risk to the planet and those communities it holds.

 

Flickr image: Fibonacci Blue