Search

Apple is close to opening its new headquarters in Cupertino, California. Employees will start claiming their spaces within 30 days, but the entire process of consolidating everyone under one roof could take up to six months.

The excitement is certainly buzzing for this Silicon Valley gem. Two miles of walking paths crisscross the new campus, and those burned calories can be canceled out by pizza delivered in next-gen boxes that will spare employees the annoyance of a soggy pie.

But Apple's new campus is curiously missing a few things -- one being daycare facilities. As Quartz writer Mike Murphy surmised, that omission is “probably not a big deal to workers who don’t need to leave the 'mothership' to tend to such worldly pursuits as child-rearing.”

The 175-acre campus, which is about one mile in diameter, also does not offer easy access to public transit. What employees do have is the choice to leave their cars in one of the 11,000 onsite parking spaces.

One could argue that forcing employees to drive is not necessarily Apple’s fault. The nearest train station is about five miles away in Sunnyvale; and most likely no one will be bothered to take a bus down Stevens Creek Boulevard and then take a lengthy walk to what many call the “spaceship.”

As Jason Henderson, a San Francisco State University professor who focuses on transportation, told a local radio station last month: “They’re going to generate a lot of emissions if you consider many of the moving pieces here, including that this facility is located very far from any mainline public transportation.”

What Apple’s shiny mothership lacks, in the eyes of some critics, turns out to be a missed opportunity to show that it really is a 21st-century company willing to meet the needs of all of its employees.

The median home value in Cupertino, once a blue-collar town known more for good schools and an impressive collection of public parks, has now soared to over $1.8 million, according to Zillow. Even though the city of 60,000 is adding more housing and mixed-use developments, it is doubtful than few employees other than the company’s highest-paid managers and executives can afford to live there. The company says it will rely on private shuttles, but considering Google’s experience with such a system in the past, it is hard to argue that a company fleet is a long-term solution.

And the lack of daycare shows a degree of tone-deafness considering that critics have long attacked the technology sector for falling far short when it comes to diversity. Add the “motherhood penalty” that often gets in the way of career advancement, and one wonders why some space in the 2.8 million square-foot facility could not have been reserved for a daycare center (a 100,000 square-foot gym, however, is available to all employees).

The campus, which is located on land once occupied by leading Silicon Valley names such as Hewlett-Packard and Tandem, does showcase many impressive features. Apple says it will plant as many as 9,000 trees around the massive ring-shaped structure, a project that will recall a time when Cupertino was known for its apricot and plum orchards.

The building itself promises to be energy efficient, with a 17-megawatt solar array promising to meet most of the headquarters’ power requirements. And instead of a conventional HVAC system, the building’s design allows it to draw air from the outside and circulate around the entire building, replicating the Santa Clara Valley’s near-perfect weather that is probably only outdone by San Diego.

One could say that a focus on what the new Apple building does not offer, instead of highlighting what is progressive about this new campus, is unfair. Indeed, working within the Apple’s new digs will be a singular experience compared to the drab office parks that line Silicon Valley streets such as Lawrence Expressway or Tasman Drive.

But what is lacking is surprising. After all, consumers have flocked to Apple’s products for years for their user-friendly features. Telling workers they have to rely on the automobile, along with implying that women can forget about any semblance of work-life balance, smacks as more 20th-century thinking than genuinely looking ahead.

Image credit: Mark Mathosian/Flickr

The rate of CEO dismissals are slowing down worldwide, according to a recent PwC report. But more are being fired for ethical lapses.

Boards of directors, the media, institutional investors and regulators are holding corporate executives more accountable, the result being that 5.3 percent of CEOs were fired over ethics violations between 2012 and 2016.

That is a small uptick from the 3.9 percent who lost their jobs for similar reasons between 2007 and 2011 – but again, CEO turnover has also slowed down in recent years, largely due to a slowdown in merger and acquisitions activity.

The report does not suggest ethics or improving or declining one way or another, and again, the raw numbers of CEOs let go over dubious behavior are relatively small: in 2016, only 18 such cases occurred within the world’s 2,500 largest publicly owned companies. The ability to quantify ethics violations on a grand scale would be a difficult task for any consulting firm. But in a blog post, three of PwC’s leaders suggest that overall, companies’ corporate governance structures are improving. As companies improve their internal controls and procedures, they are also held to a far higher standard by their stakeholders, shareholders and the general public.

For example, the public has become far more critical about how companies conduct themselves – and social media is the megaphone by which individuals can badger companies into being more transparent and accountable. For those who felt burned by the Enron, MCI Worldcom and Tyco scandals earlier this century, those memories are still very much fresh. Hence the public is quick to react before any bad behavior, from its point of view, can spiral out of control.

Starbucks, for example, landed in trouble when its United Kingdom team attempted a cheery Twitter campaign at Christmastime a few years ago – only to be reminded by the public about their suspicions over whether the coffee giant was paying its fair share of corporate tax. Recently, Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf quit after a bevy of dodgy business practices rocked the bank, from the fake account scandal to questions whether the company bent lending laws covering military families. Forget the cliché of “the cover-up is worse than the crime,” as the 24/7 news cycle, paired with the quick ability to start a social media firestorm, reveals the crime very quickly nowadays. Therefore, companies are increasingly being held to a higher standard, and will punished much more harshly in the court of public opinion when any transgressions come to light.

In addition, PwC’s Per-Ola Karlsson, DeAnne Aguirre and Kristen Rivera explained that global market trends also have a role in clamping down on unethical conduct. More companies are chasing after growth in emerging economies, where laws and regulations in general are often less stringent, weakly enforced, or both compared to wealthier nations. The outcome is even more rigor on ethics policies, as no company wants to land in trouble. Witness the apparel industry, for example, which is cleaning up its act after years of allegations related to environmental degradation and human rights violations. Corporations including Gap Inc. and VF Corp. say they are striving to make their supply chains for accountable – which arguably can help an entire company’s operations become far more transparent with fewer ethical lapses.

PwC’s report highlighted additional trends related to ethics. CEOs who also had the title of board of directors’ chair tended to to be dismissed over ethical lapses at a higher rate compared to the rest of their peers. Many CEOs let go over ethics questions also tended to have a longer tenure than executives dismissed for different reasons – suggesting that strong financial performance over time made more companies complacent on the corporate governance front.

Image credit: Mike Steel/Flickr

A recent study, primarily derived from an analysis of satellite photographs, alleges that soy and meat production is responsible for widespread deforestation across Brazil and Bolivia.

The result ties American food products to environmental degradation and human rights violations, according to the NGOs Mighty Earth, Rainforest Alliance and Greenpeace.

Furthermore, the political chaos in Brazil could lead to the dismantling of an agency responsible for the protection of indigenous rights – which means deforestation could accelerate in the next few years after being contained for much of this century.

Mighty Earth says an investigation of 28 locations that started last fall proves that large-scale clear cutting of forests have ties to the the large agricultural commodities firms Cargill and Bunge. In addition to either creating a market for, or turning a blind eye, to deforestation-based soy, Mighty accuses these companies of financing both land clearance and local infrastructure development.

Much of that soy, in turn, is sold to companies in Cargill’s and Bunge’s supply chains – and as a result, Mighty says companies including Burger King are selling products containing soy that are connected to illegal and unchecked deforestation.

As of press time, Burger King has not replied to TriplePundit’s request for comment. Neither Bunge and Cargil would not address Mighty's accusations directly. But they did reiterate to 3p what they say are their commitments to stopping deforestation within their supply chain.

Bunge, for example, explained its stance on deforestation in an email to 3p:

"Bunge has a clear commitment and public plan to eliminate deforestation. We are working actively, individually and in partnership with NGOs and peer companies, to achieve our goals. We are expanding traceability of our supply, collaborating to develop new systems to identify areas for suitable agricultural expansion and exploring ways to provide new incentives to farmers to avoid deforestation."

Cargill directed 3p to its forest policy. "We work alongside a number of organizations who share our goal of ending deforestation," reiterated a Cargill spokesperson by email to 3p. "Some are critical, some are supportive; but in all cases, we benefit from these interactions as we work toward a common purpose."

Last month, Bunge announced that it is committed to ending deforestation within its supply chain; Cargill has issued a similar policy. But Mighty insists these companies' public campaigns do not match its recent satellite images.

Mighty claims to have shared its research with both Bunge and Cargill. Bunge told Mighty it is monitoring the operations of its suppliers in Bolivia. Cargill denied connection to one soy plantation in the country while confirming it has sourced from another. Both suppliers have also declined to support any expansion of deforestation efforts across South America, while another competitor, ADM, says it backs such efforts.

Meanwhile, other NGOs say that both environmental degradation and land grabbing could only worsen in the coming months. In the wake of last year’s impeachment of its president, the current government in Brazil has been determined to end stringent forest protections implemented by previous administrations. A congressional commission in Brasília, with ties to the country’s powerful farming lobby, has recommended that the country’s indigenous rights agency, FUNAI, be dismantled. In addition to suggesting that this agency, largely staffed by anthropologists, be replaced with a division in the country’s national justice department, the commission also insists that 80 FUNAI officials be prosecuted for supporting “illegal” land claims by indigenous peoples.

The president of Rainforest Alliance, Nigel Sizer, attacked the policy for being destructive to both the local environment and human rights. "The Rainforest Alliance deplores the move to dismantle Brazil's indigenous affairs agency,” Sizer said in an emailed statement to 3p. “We believe that only by recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples to the land which they inhabit, will the issues of deforestation be properly addressed.”

Meanwhile in Brasília, two congressional measures that would remove protection measures from 600,000 hectares in the state of Pará are moving forward.

Greenpeace said this would only make it easier for these lands to be explored and exploited by mining, agribusiness and energy interests in the coming months, and has launched an online petition to raise awareness about the issue.

“It’s a very dark time for us,” a spokesperson from Greenpeace’s chapter in Brazil said during an an email exchange with 3p.

Image credit: Neil Palmer/Wiki Commons

Most of us know it as Jell-O. Its wiggly appearance adorns our kids’ cafeteria lunch plates and, at one time, it was the star show at community potlucks. It’s the secret ingredient in some brands of yogurts and sour cream and gives gummy bears and sour candies their rubberized tinsel strength.

To those who love all things chewy, gelatin is almost a food group. But for those who shun the idea of eating an extract made from animal bones, it’s a huge headache and an epicurean no-no.

For most of the 375 million vegetarians and vegans in the world, the suspect presence of gelatin in foods often means going without at the desert table, or adeptly navigating through dozens of brand-name products in the grocery aisles. To food manufacturers, that avoidance means lost revenue at the cash register. It also means there is a sector of the population that may never warm up to your brand name.

And that matters. According to the founders of Geltor, a Silicon Valley startup bent on capturing a part of that unique customer base, the gelatin market is worth $3 billion -- largely because there’s never been an ingredient that could adequately reproduce its properties.

Vegetarian ingredients like agar-agar, starches and pectin, Geltor CEO Alexander Lorestani points out, do a fair job at imitating gelatin and have been used for thousands of years by candy makers and canners. But they are far from the real McCoy when it comes to their consistency.

“[Anyone] who has tried a [gummy] bear made with a gelatin substitute knows they are just not the same, they don’t have the same chemical or mechanical properties,” Lorestani told the website Food Navigator-USA.

Lorestani and his partner Nick Ouzounof, a molecular biologist, have gone to work to address this issue, using genetic engineering and fermentation tanks to produce a recipe that can duplicate the rubbery consistency and adaptability of gelatin.

Of course, for some consumers who are turned off by the idea of eating a gummy bear that shares an association with GM technology, Geltor’s answer may not seem that palatable, either.

But for some manufactures, the prospect opens a world of opportunities – some of which are already being tested in laboratory “kitchens” in other parts of the world. According to the research firm Visiongain, the meat alternative industry is now estimated to be worth $4 billion and is expected to grow exponentially in the coming years. Companies like Quorn, Beyond Meat, Amy's, Memphis Meats and Supermeat all see the potential to capture a market that can nullify ethical, environmental and religious boundaries.

Geltor may be the first to come up with an alternative for a product that has been around for eons, but it’s likely not going to be the last to realize that finding ways to replace “irreplaceable” animal by-products in food can offer a windfall for the culinary industry, the environment and the inventor’s pocket book.

Flickr/Marc Arsenaut

The passing of Roger Ailes on Thursday inspired stories about his career broadcast on all the major network and cable stations. However, the Ailes legacy should not be about his groundbreaking efforts in politics and media, but rather his role in creating the divisive and polarized political atmosphere gripping the country today. The Ailes formula sacrificed traditional impartial news coverage in the name of ratings and revenues for Fox News.

Sometime in the 1990s when Roger Ailes was emerging from his role as a political operative and merging into his future as the CEO of Fox News, he was quoted as saying there are four things the media will cover: pictures, polls, charges and mistakes.

If it was only Fox that took Ailes’ theories to heart, it would have been a one-off. But as ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams told the New York Times last year: “Fox was cleaning our clocks in the ratings” when Abrams took over as general manager of MSNBC in 2006. “Many cable viewers, it turned out, were not interested in television news’s bread and butter – a diverse newscast of multiple dispassionate stories – no matter how important,” Abrams told the Times. “Despite what they might tell pollsters, viewers were clearly looking for a great yarn, and Mr. Ailes could spin one.”

Abrams summed up the Ailes formula as follows: “Pick one or two hot stories, add numerous live guests and stick to that story throughout the day.” To compete, Abrams led MSNBC to copy the Ailes strategy, and CNN soon followed.

Ailes was caught in the formula he created

Ailes recent resignation came as he was caught in the very formula he used to shape Fox News.

He apparently made one or more mistakes, became the subject of multiple charges of sexual harassment, and had his picture displayed side-by-side with that of Gretchen Carlson, the attractive news host with whom he is alleged to have sexually harassed.

A 2011 Rolling Stones story described Ailes as “the classic figure of a cinematic villain: bald and obese, with dainty hands, Hitchcockian jowls and a lumbering gait.” This image displayed next to Carlson’s likely created questions in the minds of viewers about what drove many of the hiring and political decisions Ailes made during a career when he not only built a media dynasty, but also counseled political leaders with names like Nixon and Bush.

The tragedy of Roger Ailes isn’t his death or his forced resignation from Fox. The tragedy is the impact he had on political campaigns, the democratic process and the nation.

His design to drive media viewership in part shaped today’s divisive political climate that not only allows, but often pushes politicians to make charges against their opponents if they want coverage.

This public bashing creates personal political divisions that become more important than policy differences and make it almost impossible for difficult, consensus-based decisions to be made.

This is the Ailes’ legacy: a divisive formula of confrontation.

President Trump recognized and used the Ailes formula

The ascendancy of Donald Trump can be traced to his recognition of the Ailes formula. He provided compelling images (his hair, his wife, his airplane, his grand entrances). He made outrageous charges about immigrants, his opponents, and other subjects of his derision, capitalized on opponents’ mistakes, and milked the poll numbers to his advantage. Cable news responded by talking about him all day long.

How much would President Trump have been covered if he hadn’t followed the Ailes formula? Would the media have made him the subject of so many stories? Three potential candidates, maybe more, might have had a greater chance to win if their views had been given more coverage.

How would Bernie Sanders have fared if he had been covered earlier in his campaign (or used the Ailes formula)? To this day, Sen. Sanders talks primarily about issues and his proposed solutions. Only when masses of people began to follow him did the media give him significant coverage, even though he is a respected U.S. senator.

What about John Kasich, who consistently presented himself as an adult, refusing to make outrageous charges? What would his fate have been if the media had covered Gov. Kasich and his issues to the same degree they covered Mr. Trump’s allegations? Where was the media’s restraint in ignoring Mr. Trump’s observation about how Mr. Kasich eats (and the video of him eating) given its irrelevance, particularly since he is the governor of a large U.S. state?

One more example: The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, joined by William Weld for vice president, were barely acknowledged, despite both being former governors and on the ballot in all 50 states. In their hour-long CNN interview on June 22, 2016, they solely focused on issues, despite being baited to do otherwise.

Follow-up coverage was slim because the Libertarian candidates didn’t make outrageous charges, haven’t been charged with making many mistakes themselves, and haven’t been party to irrelevant visual images, either positive or negative.

Regarding polls, what viewers heard about these candidates was that unless they received 15 percent support, they wouldn’t be allowed in the debates.  How could they have achieved 15 percent if they didn't have significant name recognition because they weren't covered?

For this climate of personal, destructive and counter-productive behavior, we can blame the media; we can blame the politicians; we can blame the public's willingness to follow the negativity; or we can blame the legacy of Roger Ailes. However, blame and charges are the name of the game being played. To play a different game, all of us -- media, politicians and citizens -- must reject the Ailes formula and change what we think is important to cover, say, listen to, read and watch.

Image credit: Flickr/Ninian Reed

by Antonio Pasolini

Solar power is on the increase and is expected to triple over the next five years, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. But who are the homeowners buying solar? It may be intuitive to point to the wealthier strata of society, which is partially true, but not the whole picture as a new study by PowerScout and GTM research points out.

Painting an accurate picture of the demographics of solar power is limited to zip code estimates and incomplete state incentive databases. In order to zoom in a little closer on exactly who is going solar, PowerScout’s used its state of the art image recognition technology to detect solar panels in satellite images of homes.

Based on a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) algorithm, this type of machine learning is behind the latest advances in self-driving cars, Facebook’s auto-tagging algorithms, and dozens of other computer vision applications.

"We used this algorithm to pinpoint where residential solar is being installed down to the household level. Next, we used robust consumer marketing databases to determine the income bracket for each solar home, and compared the distribution of solar installations across income brackets to the distribution of the general population," PowerScout said in a blog post.

So, what has the research found? One of the key findings is that more than 70% of solar households have annual income between $45,000 and $150,000, a range roughly aligned with “middle-income”. This is compared with 65% of the general population in the same middle income bracket, meaning that in general middle income homes are overrepresented in the solar sample. The most overrepresented demographic is that in the $100,000-150,000 range, which does indicate that solar households tend to have a higher income than the overall population.

This d​o​esn't mean low-income households are not getting solarized. The study says they are underrepresented in comparison with the general population, have also accounted for a significant share of solar capacity with a GTM estimated 530MW of installations in the four states covered in the study.

To read the full study, follow the link.

The Donald Trump White House appears determined to demolish the previous administration’s energy and environmental policies, but it's crowing about one Department of Energy success, and justifiably so.

The latest numbers released by the DOE’s Better Buildings Challenge amounted to 240 trillion BTUs in energy cuts and $1.9 billion in cost savings.

The Challenge, which was first implemented during the George W. Bush administration, seeks to make all commercial, residential and public buildings 20 percent more energy-efficient over the next decade. The program largely relies on partnerships and market-based solutions to allow new energy-efficiency innovations to scale – encouraging investment and green jobs in the process.

The latest results indicate the 345 public- and private-sector organizations participating in the program have made a difference. In addition to energy and financial savings, the Challenge avoided 15 million tons of carbon emissions and prevented 4 billion gallons of water waste.

The methods implemented by businesses, schools and manufacturing plants varied across the board. Starbucks, for example, installed advanced-metering systems that measure equipment performance while keeping store temperatures comfortable enough for customers. Thermostats and lighting in many Starbucks locations were automatically adjusted to match local weather conditions, cutting utility costs by 6 percent. Of course, rolling out such a process is relatively seamless for Starbucks, which owns all of its retail locations.

Wendy’s, which franchises many of its locations, said it actively recruited franchisees to join its energy savings campaign. On average, the typical fast-food restaurant uses 10 times more energy than the average retail store. Wendy's headquarters provided technical support and benchmarking data in order to help franchise locations switch to LED lighting and more effective HVAC systems. Individual locations were able to access energy data and find opportunities for costs savings.

Other industries, including health care, also benefitted from the Better Buildings Challenge. The Cleveland Clinic, for example, replaced 50,000 troffer lights with LEDs -- reducing energy consumption by 15 percent. That is not a small sum for the typical hospital, which on average spends about $680,000 on utility costs each year, averaging $13,600 per hospital bed.

Colleges and school districts, which are susceptible to fluctuations in energy prices, are also active participants in the Challenge. K-12 school districts in Colorado, Washington and Illinois reduced their energy consumption by as much as 28 percent last year. In higher education, UC-Irvine led the pack with a 27 percent reduction in energy, followed by Towson University, just north of Baltimore, which saved 20 percent by transforming 5 million square feet into more energy efficient space.

Even Energy Secretary Rick Perry was apparently impressed with this program’s progress, notable as at one time, he was determined to eliminate the DOE before he was chosen to lead it. “Hundreds of leaders from the public and private sectors are demonstrating innovative approaches and deepening American investments in critical building infrastructure,” Perry said in a public statement. “By planning ahead and investing in cost-effective energy efficiency strategies, partners are bringing better buildings to our communities and improving the everyday places Americans live and work, while creating new and lasting jobs.”

This latest DOE report comes as supporters of the coal industry insist that the current presidential administration stick to its promise to revive jobs in this sector, and advocates for renewables retort that solar power was responsible for 1 in 50 new U.S. jobs last year. But a new job may be found most easily within the energy efficiency services sector, which was largely responsible for this Challenge’s recent round of success. According to a DOE report released in January, 2.2 million Americans work in in the energy efficiency field, an increase of 133,000 jobs during 2016.

And it is those jobs that helped to retrofit 200 million square feet of building space last year thanks to a $650 million investment. Those efforts spawned at least 1,000 solutions in a DOE database that are ready to be tapped by any organization looking to save money by investing in new energy-saving designs and technologies.

Image credit: Towson University

America's largest oil companies, Chevron and ExxonMobil, beginning to talk openly about climate change -- at least on the surface. Exxon has floated vague support for a carbon tax, while Chevron markets itself as environmentally friendly.

But actions speak louder than words. And when it comes to action, unfortunately these companies fail miserably.

They not only continue to produce and invest in fossil fuels, but they also refuse to heed growing concern from shareholders about the impact climate change may have on their operations. No example makes that position more clear than their respective boards' position on some common-sense shareholder resolutions.

“In preparation for their annual meetings on May 31, both Chevron and ExxonMobil opposed every climate-related resolution put forth by their shareholders,” Kathy Mulvey, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a blog post this week.

Both companies are facing unprecedented shareholder concern with respect to climate change. And it's not just the climate activists who are calling on companies like Exxon to change. Some major investors are also joining the call. Aegon Asset Management, which manages $10 billion in assets, is one of many companies asking the company to disclose the resilience of its portfolio – a common-sense, risk-abatement strategy that more and more investors should consider.

What’s concerning to these investors is that Exxon and Chevron are even lagging behind other oil companies.

"While European companies such as Shell, Anglo American and Rio Tinto have embraced these resolutions, U.S. companies have been more resistant," Natalie Beinisch, an engagement officer with Aegon Asset Management, said in a press statement last month.

Despite this astounding alliance between environmental activists and big finance, Exxon and Chevron seem reticent to consider climate change in their future planning.

So, what can we do? One idea: divest. The New York City Employee Retirement System has approximately $321 million invested in Exxon and $169 million invested in Chevron alone, according to Go Fossil Free. They -- and other big-money systems -- could send a strong message to the two companies ahead of their annual meetings.

“For a city that prides itself on being a frontrunner, New York is quickly falling behind when it comes to investing in a climate-friendly future," said Jamie Tyberg, with New York Communities for Change, in a press statement.

A similar climate resilience resolution targeting Exxon got 38 percent support last year. And it remains to be seen if the support of companies like Aegon will push this year's resolution above 50 percent.

But chances are, Exxon will just ignore the evidence as they have for decades. Winning a single shareholder resolution won't change the practices of a company whose entire business is built upon denial and producing dirty fossil fuels.

Perhaps Exxon and Chevron won't listen to shareholders when they advocate at annual meetings. But I have a feeling they'll notice when more and more cities, funds, and investors divest and impact share prices. Then, maybe, they'll finally start to take climate change seriously – but I wouldn't count on it.

Image credit: Minale Tattersfield via Flickr

https://youtu.be/zpLU04A9ySQ

Lifting and moving products through a store is not an easy job, and it can wind up leaving employees with very sore muscles. Home improvement giant Lowe’s decided to do something about its employees' achy backs. 

The company teamed up with researchers at Virginia Tech to create a robotic exosuit with lift-assist technology to help employees move heavy items around the store or warehouse. The purpose of the exosuit is to help employees lift heavy objects and prevent the muscle fatigue that often comes from doing repetitive motions.

Lowe’s Innovation Labs worked with Dr. Alan Alan Asbeck, an assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and a team of eight graduate and undergraduate students from Virginia Tech’s Assistive Robotics Laboratory to build the suit. 

Researchers spoke with employees to learn about their jobs, routines and movements. After months of testing in a lab, Lowe’s and Virginia Tech designed and developed a light-weight wearable exosuit prototype that makes lifting heavy products easier.

The suit absorbs energy and delivers it back to the employees, allowing them to exert less force when doing certain movements. Carbon fiber in the exosuit’s legs and back help them get back up easier when they bend and stand. So, lifting something like a five-gallon bucket of paint will feel much lighter.

The exosuit is in pilot at a Lowe’s store in Christiansburg, Virginia. Lowe’s Innovation Lab and Virginia Tech will get feedback from employees about the suit over the next few months to see how it can be improved.

“Our employees ensure our stores are always ready for customers,” Kyle Nel, executive director of Lowe’s Innovation Labs, said in a statement. “As a way to support them, we found a unique opportunity to collaborate with Virginia Tech to develop one of the first retail applications for assistive robotic exosuits.”

Human-assistive devices “have become an area of interest” for Virginia Tech in recent years, Asbeck said. The technology he helped develop is “different” for several reasons. The exosuit has “soft, flexible elements,” and it is in a “real-world environment for an extended period of time.” The first four exosuits are being used by the Christiansburg store’s stocking team.

The exosuit is not the only thing that Lowe’s Innovation Labs has helped develop. Last year, Lowe’s introduced LoweBot, a NAVii autonomous retail service robot, in its San Francisco Bay area stores.

LoweBot helps customers find products in multiple languages and navigate through the store. It's beneficial for employees, as it takes care of simple customer questions and frees up human staffers for more complicated queries. The bot can also help with inventory monitoring in real time.

Before LoweBot there was OSHbot, retail service robots installed in the midtown San Jose Orchard Supply Hardware store. OSHbot greeted customers as they entered the store and allowed customers to tell it what they were looking to find or scan an item, and guided customers to the product they were looking for. It also helped employees with inventory scanner. The OSHbot pilot closed in 2016 as the program rolled into Lowe’s.

Lowe’s Innovation Labs also created the first Holoroom proof-of-concept a few years back that used augmented reality technology. Its team is now working on a pilot project that uses augmented reality to change a customer’s shopping experience. An app called Lowe’s Vision: In-Store Navigation allows any Tango-enabled device to give a customer turn-by-turn digital directions that appear before them. It is being piloted in two stores in Sunnyvale, California, and Lynwood, Washington. Customers who do not have a Tango-enabled device can use the application with an employee during the pilot.

Image credit: Lowe’s

According to a leading U.S. trade group, the snack and candy industry is getting serious about portion control, as well as reducing sugar content.

The trade group pledged action behind its words, including a pledge to offer smaller sizes of popular candies. Brands that are reportedly on board for this effort include Ferrero, Ghirardelli, Lindt, Nestlé, Mars and Wrigley. By 2022, half of these companies' individually-wrapped candy and chocolate products will be marketed in portions containing 200 calories or less.

This is quite a turnaround for the National Confectioners’ Association, which is quick to tell the public that candy is a “fun, transparent, affordable and fun treat.”

The association, which advocates and lobbies for the confectionery and candy sector, says the industry employs an estimated 55,000 workers in approximately 1,000 factories across the U.S. -- generating a staggering $35 billion a year.

With those numbers in mind, the association is often preoccupied with economic and trade issues. Foremost on the NCA’s agenda are what it calls unfair agricultural subsidies and quotas that inflate the price of sugar in the U.S., putting its industry at an unfair competitive disadvantage with candy makers overseas.

And much like the U.S. beverage industry, the NCA has been quick to defend its turf. Several years ago, it flouted a study that suggested children and adolescents who eat candy tend to be less overweight or obese. The scientific backing of that study was probably true and made it clear candy should be an occasional treat and savored in moderation. The title of the NCA’s press release, however, was hardly the best tactic in attempting to win over both parents and nutritionists.

The fact is that the underlying causes of obesity is complex: Sugary foods and beverages, portion control, processed foods and the lack of exercise all contribute to the problem. But as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) points out, the obesity rate refuses to move. The same goes for the diabetes crisis in the U.S.; at last count, the CDC estimated that 29 million Americans live with diabetes, while 86 million grapple with pre-diabetic conditions.

Therefore, all hands need to be on deck. In addition, as eating habits evolve and more consumers are interested and demand more nutritious food products, companies that refuse to follow these trends will see their businesses suffer.

In addition to smaller portions and reduced sugar content, the industry promised to showcase the caloric content on the front package of 90 percent of its top-selling candies – gone will be the days of squinting at small print under the glare at the local supermarket or drugstore. The NCA also promised to offer more information about these products online so shoppers can better grasp the “unique role that confections can play in a happy, balanced lifestyle.” (Whatever that means.)

So, is the candy industry serious about doing even a small part to improve public health in America? The New York Post, never a publication to hold back, scoffed at the announcement and reposted a Reuters article with the headline, “Candy makers hit by health craze team up to reduce calories.”

But if these companies are teaming up on this new directive, they are certainly not boasting about it. None of the aforementioned companies sent out a press release about this program. The latest media release from Wrigley (part of Mars) discussed providing dental care to Russian kids. Nestlé most recently touted its participation in a national fitness competition.

Do these companies believe this announcement is more of a public relations stunt than taking on a mounting health problem? After all, one argument against restricting or eliminating the sale of large-sized sodas is that consumers can simply order more than one. That certainly is the case with these smaller portions of candy.

A commitment to education programs explaining how excessive sugar can increase the risk of diabetes and obesity, on the other hand, would be a far more “transparent” initiative.

Image credit: Luke Jones/Flickr