Search

By Blake Richetta

With increasing uncertainty about the future of energy in America, many consumers are looking to break free of their sole dependence on utility companies and utilize renewable sources of energy instead.

For many, this means turning to renewable energy sources such as solar power. And it’s not just early adopters anymore – the U.S. solar industry is growing faster than ever. According to an industry insights report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), a new U.S. solar installation was performed every 84 seconds in the third quarter of 2016. There are now nearly 1.2 million individual solar systems installed throughout the U.S., and more than a million of those are residential systems.

Solar is considered by many as an ideal solution for cost savings, as well as reducing one’s carbon footprint. With climate scientists and the general public are greatly concerned by emissions produced by traditional fossil fuels, solar has established itself as a key alternative energy source in homes and businesses around the world.

But there’s a growing group of solar users who are on the cutting edge of energy technology. These clean-energy pioneers have upgraded their panels to integrate with advanced home energy-storage technology, achieving greater energy independence and foolproof protection against potential disasters and power outages.

Several companies are making strides and emerging as leaders in the home energy-storage space including Sonnen, Tesla, SolarMax and Enphase. At my company, Sonnen, we focus on equipping our batteries with smart technology that maximizes the home’s use of self-generated solar energy and minimizes the homeowner’s dependence on the utility grid.

Here is a brief overview of how most solar storage systems work:

• Energy is gathered from alternative means (in this case, solar panels).


• The battery saves energy collected during non-peak times (the middle of the day, when the sun is shining and families are out of the house) to be used during peak times (in the evening when the sun is not shining, utility costs are high, and families are using their lights and appliances).


• Intelligent software within the battery gathers data on the household’s typical energy consumption patterns and uses this data to cost-effectively manage household energy sources and usage throughout the day.


• Effective energy storage and management means a household rarely needs to draw from the local power grid, bringing them closer to energy independence.

Home energy-storage technologies solve an obvious problem for solar users: how to make use of the solar power homeowners produce during the day while at work or school. With storage, these families can save that energy and use it when it’s really needed – in the evening when all the lights are on and the sun isn’t shining.

The ability to save energy produced at peak hours for use in a home after the sun goes down has reduced dependency on the grid and driven this market forward.

The possibility of energy independence is driving many consumers around the world to invest in a greener home and install solar panels paired with battery technology. At the same time, demand is also being driven by ongoing changes in solar incentives and net metering, as well as uncertainty about potential increases in utility tariff rates. Many users see storage systems as a way of maximizing the value of their solar investments and protecting themselves from rising utility costs.

It’s no longer about having reliable backup power during an outage – it’s about making clean-energy consumption more efficient, more sustainable, and more affordable and accessible for more homeowners.

The future of clean energy looks like communities of homes generating their own supply of energy and sharing their surplus with other households who are running low -- resulting in a network of homes that are entirely free of traditional utility energy generation.

This may seem hard to imagine, but it’s not a concept of the future. In Germany, an entire community just like this one already exists. The sonnenCommunity is an interconnected virtual network of sonnenBatterie owners who have standalone PV installations, wind turbines and smaller biogas units that provide a green and personalized base generation to the sonnenCommunity.

Approximately 8,000 households in Europe, both with and without solar on the roof, are trading their stored energy with each other. By using excess renewable energy from the community to power their homes, members are building a cleaner and more reliable energy future.

The sonnenCommunity in Europe is primarily made up of homeowners with a photovoltaic (PV) system and a sonnenBatterie that stores surplus solar power. The community pools renewable energy generated by houses fitted with PV systems, standalone PV installations, wind turbines and smaller biogas units, and provides it to homeowners as an alternative to conventional energy providers.

However, even households without the ability to generate their own power can obtain electricity from the community using the recently released sonnenBatterie City system. With the sonnenFlat City tariff program, apartment owners and renters can pay a flat fee to obtain, store and use free electricity from the community without needing to generate their own power.

While the goal of totally independent, clean-energy communities may be harder to achieve on this side of the Atlantic due to state-specific regulations, the U.S. shows significant promise and growth in clean-energy adoption. Eco-minded, cutting-edge Americans continue to seek out the best ways to maximize their solar systems, creating buzz about the industry and driving the market forward.

While energy independence may look different in the U.S. right now, the emergence of energy storage innovators, like Sonnen and its peers, proves that American consumers are already looking for what’s next in clean energy. Recently, we’ve seen innovators start to pair home energy-storage systems with smart thermostats. This addition takes efficient energy use one step further, allowing intelligent temperature controls to help a household further regulate their power consumption.

One short-term action industry players can take in a move toward energy independence is partnering with traditional utilities. Working together, utility and storage companies can optimize energy usage for consumers and take the first step toward greater energy independence and a greener earth.

Image credits: 1) Pexels; 2) Courtesy of Sonnen

Blake Richetta is vice president of sales for sonnen, where he leads the company’s U.S. expansion and builds strategic relationships with regional distribution channels. Most recently, Richetta supported sonnen’s decision to open a centralized InnovationHub in Atlanta, GA. With nearly 20 years of experience working with distribution channels in smart home and intelligent software, Richetta's experience in consumer electronics is key to advancing sonnen’s market leadership in the U.S. Prior to joining sonnen in December 2016, Richetta was North American sales manager for Tesla Energy. Previously, Richetta also worked for Lutron Electronics, where he helped to build the company's smart-home lighting and shading business for over 15 years. 

By Dawn Grimes

Every year the Consumer Product Safety Commission orders recalls of thousands of goods to protect consumers from a host of dangers ranging from toxicity to flammability to faulty construction and packaging, among others. Despite significant investment of time, energy, and money, recall can happen to the best of manufacturers.

For companies facing a product recall, here’s some advice based on our experience as a social enterprise and destination handler with a track record of processing millions of pounds in recalled electronic consumer goods at our Indianapolis-based facility.

What can manufacturers do to avoid a recall?

As an “end-of-life” electronics processor, it’s our job to break down, sort, and separate retiring IT and electronics products to create the cleanest possible streams of the sub-materials that were used to create them, mostly metals and plastics. As a result, we’ve become intimately familiar with the bits and pieces of these de-constructed consumer products in order to sell them to refiners and smelters.

From our perspective, brand manufacturers who really understand the properties of the raw materials they’re using will reduce the odds of their finished goods ending up at facilities like ours. It’s surprising how often raw materials are at the heart of a recall: using non-tempered glass when tempered was needed, using a polypropylene plastic instead of an acrylic or nylon, or using raw materials that are contaminated or not fire-resistant. Working with supply chain experts like Mintec or Source Intelligence can help R&D eliminate any number of problems from contamination to mineral conflict that that can result in recall, regulatory failures, or non-compliance.

When products are recalled, what happens to them?

Savvy manufacturers can ease the burden of a recall by thinking ahead. We recommend building a relationship with a reverse logistics handler before a recall notice ever arrives. Having an established relationship with an organization with expertise in getting product off shelves, and out of distribution centers and the consumer stream has great potential for saving product-makers time and money in case of recall. Organizations like Stericycle, Inmar, and U.S. Ecology are well-versed in the consumer protection safety and environmental regulations that dictate recalls.

At RecycleForce we receive electronics product recalls by the semi. Consumer packaged electronic goods typically come to us from distribution centers, warehouses, or retail shelves. Here’s what happens once the truck backs up to our loading dock:

• De-Package:The first thing we do is manual de-pack. That is, we take goods out of their consumer packaging to separate and sort cardboard, paper inserts, film plastic, Styrofoam, and blister packs. Anyone who has opened a new CD would know this can be one of the most time-consuming aspects of the process.
• Manual de-manufacture: Our employees take products apart with hand tools, then sort and separate the various components for shredding or baling.
• Mechanized destruction: Even though products are destroyed during the manual de-manufacture process, the government may require (or some customers prefer) that destruction results in bits and pieces. Therefore, after shredding we run pieces through a mechanical separator that sorts plastic from metals.
• Downstream processing: We generate 81 different sub-material products, primarily metals and plastic, that we downstream to refiners who process them for use in new products.

Making the best of a bad situation

Environmental good: There’s an environmental halo that can be claimed by even the worst of recalls. Instead of disposal by landfill, many of our customers recognize there’s an opportunity to commit to sustainability and to the environment. Most of the product recall processing we’ve handled have been at a 95 percent+ recycle rate and in many case we achieve 100 percent.

Social Good: At RecycleForce we employ people recently released from correctional institutions. We provide an opportunity for more than 300 people each year to get traction through industry, classroom, and job skills training. We also help with transitional services like assisting with setting up an employee’s child support, helping them get a driver’s license, or connecting them with mentors, housing agencies, or other basic needs support organizations.

Without these foundational elements, the rate of return to the criminal justice system is incredibly high. Historically, here in Indianapolis, about half of those released from prison return within three years. The majority return on a technical rules violation, often involving unpaid fees or restitution. At RecycleForce 60% of the people we serve are placed in full-time employment—with a return-to-prison rate about a third of the national average.

We live in a throw-away culture. Society throws away electronics and it throws away people, too. At RecycleForce we reclaim the value of recalled electronics and we help people reclaim the value of their own lives.

Dawn Grimes is the VP Business and Enterprise Development at RecycleForce. RecycleForce is an Indianapolis based social enterprise – a business with a social mission – offering comprehensive and innovative electronic recycling services while providing life-changing workforce training to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Intertubes are buzzing about the latest shareholder letter from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Without calling out Donald Trump by name, the letter outlines several key criticisms of the president's most newsworthy policies -- including a prescient warning about how war affects the nation's economy.

Plenty of business leaders have offered their own critiques of Trump, but the JPMorgan shareholder letter stands out because Dimon is not just any top exec. His name was floated for Treasury Secretary shortly after Election Day, and he was included in Trump's much-publicized Strategy and Policy Forum: a high-profile gathering of leading executives designed to establish Trump's A-list business cred in the earliest days of the new administration.

Dimon vs. Trump: Round 1

Pundits who are shocked by the content of the new Dimon shareholder letter should go back and recall some recent history.

Dimon's 2016 shareholder letter also included several not-so-veiled jabs at leadership styles that critics would say describe Trump.

Here's the headline from Quartz, almost exactly one year ago, on April 7, 2016: "JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon delivers an epic takedown of Donald Trump without even naming him."

Quartz writer Jake Flanagin zeroed-in on a section about leadership that closes out the letter, and he picked out a Jamie Dimon laundry list of "what doesn't work:"

“Treating every decision like it is binary — my way or your way.”

“Drawing straw men or creating scapegoats.”

“Denigrating a whole class of people or society.”

“Equating perception with reality.”

“Treating someone’s comments as if they were complaints.”

Sound familiar?

Flanigan also sliced out Dimon's take on what works:

“Collaborating and compromising.”

“Listening carefully to each other.”

“Constantly, openly, and thoroughly reviewing institutions, programs, and policies. Analyze what is working and what is not working, and then figure out — together — how we can make it better.”

Dimon vs. Trump: Round 2

To be clear, the bulk of the 2017 shareholder letter lays out a position on regulatory issues and government relations to be expected from a global financial institution.

However, Dimon raised more than a few eyebrows with several relatively brief passages that seem aimed squarely at the Trump target.

Fortune magazine's Jen Wieczner, for example, highlighted at least five hot-button issues Dimon pushed: immigration, the environment and climate change, national defense, and trade relations with Mexico and China.

The national defense issue is especially newsworthy considering the recent U.S. missile strike on a Syrian air base.

The passage on national defense comes up in a section of the letter in which Dimon discusses several "non-economic" factors that could account for slow growth, wage stagnation and the shrinkage of economic opportunity. Here it is in full:

"Over the last 16 years, we have spent trillions of dollars on wars when we could have been investing that money productively. (I’m not saying that money didn’t need to be spent; but every dollar spent on battle is a dollar that can’t be put to use elsewhere.)"

The Trump administration would like to position the Syria operation as a decisive reaction to the use of chemical weapons on civilians by the Syrian government, but questions about the missile strike are already dominating the media narrative.

That's partly because the U.S. reportedly tipped off Russia and/or Syria long before the missiles were launched, a forewarning that minimized loss of life -- and equipment -- at the air base. The base reportedly went back into action quickly, and as of this writing at least one additional air attack has struck the same site where chemical weapons were deployed.

As per Dimon's letter, attention is also quickly focusing on the cost of the operation.

MarketWatch, for example, reports that the replacement cost of the 59 Tomahawk missiles deployed against Syria adds up to roughly $60 million.

Media attention is also beginning to focus on the potential benefit to Trump's personal finances. Reportedly the president owns stock in Raytheon, the manufacturer of those missiles. Raytheon's stock jumped after the missile launch.

Dimon's criticism of defense spending is also especially relevant in the context of Trump's proposed federal budget, which would greatly boost defense spending while cutting other programs.

More jabs at Trump

Dimon also appeared to target Trump with three brief but pointed passages on immigration.

One occurs near the beginning of the letter. Dimon begins a section on geopolitical risks by promising that "I’m not going to write about immigration in this letter --," but he concludes the very same sentence with this observation:

"We have always supported proper immigration – it is a vital part of the strength of America, and, properly done, it enhances the economy and the vitality of the country."

The second reference occurs later in that section, when Dimon links economic globalization and immigration while defending NAFTA:

"Mexico is a long-standing peaceful neighbor, and it is wholly in our country’s interest that Mexico be a prosperous nation. This actually reduces immigration issues."

Dimon brings up a third reference to immigration in the same "non-economic" category as national defense:

"It is alarming that approximately 40 percent (this is an astounding 300,000 students each year) of those who receive advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math at American universities are foreign nationals with no legal way of staying here even when many would choose to do so. We are forcing great talent overseas by not allowing these young people to build their dreams here."

Jobs, jobs and more jobs...

Another area of focus in the Dimon letter is workforce development. In that regard he presents a powerful counterpoint to Trump's focus on bringing back traditional jobs in coal and other fossil industry sectors, including pipeline construction.

As Dimon described, JPMorgan is leading by example in this area, with more than $325 million in "demand-driven" workforce initiatives globally.

Broadly described, coal jobs could fit into this initiative:

"Our programs build stronger labor markets that create economic opportunity, focusing on middle-skill jobs – positions that require a high school education, and often specialized training or certifications, but not a college degree."

However, the devil is in the details. JPMorgan sees workforce demand in other areas that "offer good wages and the chance to move up the economic ladder:"

"...surgical technologists, diesel mechanics, help desk technicians and more ... Our goal is to increase the number of workers who have access to career path-ways, whether they are adults looking to develop new skills or younger workers starting to prepare for careers during high school and ending with postsecondary degrees or credentials aligned with good-paying, high-demand jobs.

Workforce development in the U.S. is strongly related to another "non-economic" factor Dimon said inhibits growth: the criminal justice system:

"Felony convictions for even minor offenses have led, in part, to 20 million American citizens having a criminal record – and this means they often have a hard time getting a job. (There are six times more felons in the United States than in Canada.)"

To be clear, Dimon did not examine the racial aspect of felony convictions for minor offenses. However, in a lengthy passage earlier in the letter, he connects the dots between education and opportunity with a reference to "inner city schools" that presumably refers to ethnic and racial minority youth, who are vulnerable to profiling and sentencing disparity:

"Whether they graduate from high school, vocational or training school or go on to college, our students can and should be adequately prepared for good, decent-paying jobs...Career and technical education specifically can give young people the skills they need for decent-paying roles in hundreds of fields, including aviation, robotics, medical science, welding, accounting and coding – all jobs that are in demand today."

Once again, coal jobs fail to make the cut.

Image (screenshot): JPMorgan Chase annual shareholder letter

Last week the Ford Foundation announced a move that could transform social enterprise, generate more investment in the nonprofit sector, lift people out of poverty and boost inclusion in the global financial system.

The New York-based philanthropic organization said it will invest as much as $1 billion out of its $12 billion endowment to accelerate mission-related investing (MRI) over the next decade.

The 80-year-old foundation -- which over the years provided seed funding for countless initiatives, from public television to law school clinics to microfinance in Bangladesh -- believes this move will spur institutional investors and other foundations to devote more resources to impact investing.

The foundation says it now disperses up to $600 million in grants year-to-year. On that point, its staff insists that a slow shift of resources to MRI investing will have a minimal effect on the foundation’s grant programs.

MRIs differ from other foundation activities in that such funds come directly from a foundation’s endowment. Their goal is to not only achieve social objectives, but also contribute to a foundation’s financial strength and growth. From the Ford Foundation’s point of view, a shift in how it conducts business is necessary if it hopes to continue funding community projects in the long term.

For almost 50 years, American tax law requires that private foundations pay out a minimum of 5 percent of their total assets annually. As a result, foundations generally invest most of their endowments in order to reap dividends or bank interest to bankroll its costs, as well as pay out funds for those important grants.

Other philanthropies fund what the nonprofit world calls program related investments (PRIs), which can comprise both equity investments and low-interest loans. But PRIs and conventional grants generally come from funds generated by the investment payouts that an endowment earns.

For the Ford Foundation to actually commit 8 to 9 percent of its actual endowment exposes it to some risk – but also demonstrates how bullish the organization is on the growth of social enterprise.

At a time when more companies are eschewing the equity markets and going private, along with stubbornly low interest rates, foundations need to find innovative investment vehicles to grow in order to maintain and expand the work they fund. As more entrepreneurs embrace programs such as B Corp certification and social enterprises prove they can change lives and generate returns, more investors will take stock of what can in brief can be described as a private-NGO hybrid organization.

The foundation says it will initially target American affordable housing projects with its MRI investment, along with financial services in emerging economies.

Here in the U.S., urbanization has priced out many citizens while the current presidential administration appears determined to eliminate or decimate funding for many social programs. As one study last year concluded, the cost of housing has spiked to a point where very few cities can claim to offer affordable housing, good-paying jobs and a high quality of life.

Meanwhile in developing nations, while the number of citizens who are "unbanked" continues to decline, far too many people still lack access to the financial system. More companies are realizing the benefits of paying supply chain workers digitally, and the ability to access money and shop with a keypad cell phone has proven it can help lift people out of poverty. The Ford Foundation claims it already has a successful track record on this front with its work lifting low-income Americans out of poverty.

“We have come to believe that if we expect to overcome the forces of injustice and inequality, we need to expand our imaginations and our arsenals,” wrote Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, in a recent blog post. “In short, we must begin to more deliberately leverage the power of our endowment.”

Image credit: Stakhanov/Wiki Commons

Retail giant Amazon made waves with its recent forays into the entertainment field. And now it looks like the sprawling enterprise is about to pull the rug out from under hydrogen fuel cell skeptics.

Last week the company signed a deal with fuel cell innovator Plug Power for a new generation of zero-emission, hydrogen-powered electric forklifts and other equipment at its fulfillment centers.

Warehouse operations aren't the most exciting sector in the auto industry, but the new Amazon forklift deal could make a big difference for the future of fuel cell electric cars. That market has been slow to take off, but the Amazon announcement adds momentum to the trend, helping to keep investors and auto manufacturers interested in pushing the technology forward.

A big deal for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

Fuel cell vehicles run on electricity, like the now-familiar battery electric vehicles. Both types of EV emit no air pollutants. The main difference is that fuel cells generate electricity on-the-go through a chemical reaction. Battery EVs run on stored electricity.

That difference looms large in warehouse operations, where excess fat shaved from time and space translates into big bottom-line savings.

Battery-powered forklifts require relatively long charging times, and extra storage space for battery charging. In contrast, fuel cell forklifts can be fueled up in a matter of minutes, like an ordinary gas-powered vehicle, and they don't require a "battery room" or other excess storage.

Hydrogen fuel cell forklifts have already begun to establish a solid track record in the logistics sector, and it looks like Amazon didn't take much convincing.

The recent deal enables the company to acquire more than 55 million common shares in Plug Power in connection with a $600 million commitment from Amazon to purchase goods and services from Plug Power.

This could be just the beginning...

Amazon and Plug Power plan on a relatively modest start for the new venture, with a total of $70 million in buys this year for fuel cell equipment at selected fulfillment centers.

What's really interesting about the deal is the "and services" part of the agreement. Forklifts appear to be just the start of a wide-ranging collaboration between the two companies, leading to other applications.

Here's Plug Power CEO Andy Marsh enthusing over the potentials:

“This agreement is a tremendous opportunity for Plug Power to further innovate and grow while helping to support the work Amazon does to pick, pack and ship customer orders. ... Our hydrogen fuel cell technology, comprehensive service network, and commitment to providing cost-savings for customers has enabled Plug Power to become a trusted partner to many in the industry and we are excited to begin working with Amazon.”

To put this in perspective, consider that just a few years ago it was difficult to get investors interested in fuel cell technology. The hydrogen economy dream was hitting a harsh reality -- namely that the technology was not quite ready for prime time. Growing competition from battery-powered EVs also helped to shove hydrogen fuel cells down the ladder.

TriplePundit's RP Siegel interviewed Marsh about the fuel cell dilemma in 2012, and the CEO made these observations about Plug Power, forklifts and the future of fuel cell EVs:

"With limited capital, we had to be selective in our decisions about which markets to go after. ... The one that really jumped out at us was replacing batteries in fork lift trucks with fuel cells. How big of a market could that be? Well, in the US there are over 1.5 million forklift trucks, and worldwide, the number is 6 million.

"We chose this market because it was a way to build a profitable business that would allow us to attract large customers in a relatively large market ... as we continue to drive down our costs, we should be at parity with IC [internal combustion] engines in five to six years, at which point we’ll be ready to expand into other areas."

With the new Amazon partnership, it looks like Plug Power is hitting that five- to six-year timeline for growing into other areas.

Fuel cell EVs hit the streets

Just a wild guess, but in a few years you could see Amazon introduce its own fuel cell EV for street use.

That may seem far-fetched, but consider that Google began dabbling in the related field of self-driving cars in 2015 and is now a burgeoning leader in the space. (That project has since been transferred to Google's parent company, Alphabet.)

Apple is also inching into the self-driving car market.

Intel is another tech company putting feelers into the self-driving sector. Just last month it took a giant step with a $15.3 billion acquisition of the Israeli startup MobilEye.

Amazon will have to act fast if it wants to catch the train. Mainstream auto manufacturers are beginning to add fuel cell EVs to their rosters at a quickening pace.

Toyota was among the first to make a firm commitment to the field with its fuel cell Mirai. The company's efforts include the all-important transition to sustainable hydrogen and support for growing the network of hydrogen fuel stations, along with a foray into the forklift sector.

Other companies introducing fuel cell EVs to the consumer market include GM and Honda.

So, who's giving fuel cell EVs the stinkeye?

In response to the Amazon fuel cell forklift news, last week MIT Technology Review pumped out a brief article with this observation about the consumer market:

"Attempts to convince the public to embrace hydrogen-powered cars have flopped. While some automakers continue to push on with the vehicles, other are increasingly having second thoughts."

Calling Debbie Downer!

On the brighter side, last December the journal IEEE Spectrum took an in-depth look at the potential for the fuel cell EV market to bust loose, penned by the director of the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of California, Irvine.

The article emphasized that both battery and fuel cell EVs will have a place in the zero-emission market of tomorrow, but fuel cells will give batteries a run for the money based on a number of advantages including range and refueling time.

The author, Scott Samuelson, also makes a good case that excess renewable energy can be used to manufacturing sustainable hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles.

That growing market could provide an important incentive for investors to accelerate the pace of renewable energy development.

Image: via Plug Power.

By Shelley Alpern

In February, the Business Roundtable (BRT), a group representing the some of the most powerful CEOs in corporate America, delivered a regulatory hit list to a sympathetic White House. Within that roster was a pitch to decimate the regulatory provisions that allow small shareholders a voice in corporate governance.

Concerted attempts to weaken shareholder proposals have been made at least three times in the last couple of decades. In 1997, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) went so far as to solicit public comment on a rule, but was forced to abandon the idea after considerable opposition from the investment and broader publics. The Commission broached the idea again in 2010 but, again, it was not pursued.

Critics of the process object to the $2,000 minimum ownership requirement necessary to file a shareholder proposal, and the fact that they be re-submitted for shareholders’ consideration even after receiving fairly limited support.

The BRT and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want to raise both the resubmission thresholds and the minimum amount needed to file. The BRT would replace the $2,000 minimum with a sliding scale based on the market capitalization of the corporation, ranging from 0.15 percent to 3 percent ownership of outstanding shares.

Consider the impact at Apple if 3 percent ownership were required. Only shareholders in possession of $22 billion worth of the stock would be able to file a shareholder proposal. A number of years ago, I participated in the filing of a shareholder proposal at Apple that requested a stronger policy concerning the toxic chemicals used in its products. My firm withdrew the proposal when the company agreed to a timetable to phase out two problematic chemicals

“In too many cases,” the BRT opined, “activist investors with insignificant stakes in public companies make shareholder proposals that pursue social or political agendas unrelated to the interests of the shareholders as a whole.”

That reading of affairs is seriously out of touch with investors’ views.

Outside of the most insulated circles, the notion that sustainable environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies and practices are “unrelated to the interests of the shareholders as a whole” is steadily fading into irrelevance. Virtually every corporate website features a sustainability section that identifies daunting ESG issues the company faces, from climate change and water scarcity to ensuring respect for labor and human rights in its supply chain.

Investors expect corporations to be thinking both broadly and holistically about the risks and opportunities associated with sustainability issues, whether those investors are Goldman Sachs, the California state pension fund, or ordinary workers with 401(k) funds. According to U.S. SIF, $8.72 trillion in professionally managed assets in the U.S. use ESG screens, up by 33 percent since only 2014. As this number has grown, so has the average vote for proposals addressing environmental and social issues; those are up 33 percent in the last decade.

The critics are trying to fix a system that simply ain’t broke. From reading their complaints, one gets the false impression that corporate America is overrun with shareholder proposals because filing them is as easy as waving a magic wand. In fact, the process is not particularly easy or inexpensive. There is no point in going to the trouble if you don’t believe your proposal is in the best economic as well as social interests of the corporation.

As regulators and lawmakers consider these ill-conceived attacks on shareholder rights, they need to understand that corporations, investors and other stakeholders benefit from the process. It’s not very well known that not every shareholder proposal ends up going to a vote. In any given year, a substantial number are withdrawn following discussions with corporate executives. Sometimes these discussions amount to no more than an exchange of views; many other times, however, proponents agree to withdraw their proposals in exchange for concrete corporate commitments to constructively address the issue at hand, as the Apple example illustrates.

That is just one story among hundreds that could be told. But the bigger picture is greater than a hodgepodge of anecdotes. For example, corporate preparedness for climate change would likely be years behind its current state but for shareholder dialogue and proposals.  Proposals are also responsible for vast gains in the transparency of corporate political spending, and for more inclusive nondiscrimination policies.

The BRT and Chamber’s campaign to cripple shareholder proposals is best understood in its larger context. It is part of a much larger, ambitious attempt to roll back all manner of environmental and worker protections that is based on ideology rather than evidence. Especially in these times, companies and investors benefit from the debate and forward progress generated by evidence-based shareholder proposals. It’s not the time to weaken shareholder rights.

This post originally appeared on The Clean Yield 

Image credit: Flickr/Sam valadi

Shelley Alpern is the Director of Social Research & Shareholder Advocacy for Clean Yield Asset Management.

International trade has doubtlessly created wealth in developed and developing countries alike. But the growth of manufacturing and outsourcing throughout emerging economies has also exacted huge environmental and social costs.

A recent study published in the journal Nature suggests that as much as 22 percent of the world’s early deaths attributed to air pollution – notably those linked to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – can be traced to pollutants emitted while making products destined for a foreign market. In addition, the study claimed 12 percent of such deaths were due to emissions released in a region of the world other than where such fatalities occurred.

The study bolsters the argument that the world’s wealthiest countries should be the ones paying the tab necessary to mitigate climate change risks this century – as developing countries such India and China are merely producing the goods and services enjoyed in North American and European markets.

The study combined four models that estimated the impact of PM2.5 emissions due to both the production of goods and their transport across borders and oceans. In evaluating data available from 2007, the study found that items manufactured in China that year resulted in pollution that caused the deaths of 64,800 deaths outside the country; at the same time, the consumption of Chinese-made goods in the U.S. and Western Europe could be linked to over 108,000 deaths within the country.

Some companies say they are already partnering with their suppliers so that they can become more environmentally responsible, and such work includes the reduction of emissions made by their products in overseas factories before they are sold in developed countries.

Apple, Adidas, and Marks and Spencer are among the companies mentioned as making progress in the 2015 Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI), which evaluated 167 global brands on how their supply chains’ performance added up. Several years earlier, the World Resources Institute highlighted the work of Walmart and General Electric completed on challenges such as fleet efficiency and reductions in packaging waste.

Then there is the challenge of shipping, which presents its share of pollutants due to the dirtier fuel that freighters use when transporting goods from developed to developing countries. The Danish logistics giant Maersk, for example, claims that it is striving to reduce its emissions per container 60 percent from 2007 baseline levels by 2020. UPS, another company that is integral to many companies’ supply chains, has invested in cleaner-burning delivery trucks, supported forestry programs and has recently invested in solar on some of its U.S. facilities. The company also set an ambitious goal to drive 1 billion miles this year on alternative or advanced technology vehicles by the end of this year.

Nevertheless, the global business community could do more to reduce international trade’s impact on people and the environment. Some analysts have suggested that the global apparel industry is responsible for 10 percent of the world’s emissions, second only to the hydrocarbons sector. The global food industry is yet another example of how heavy lifting is needed to clean up global trade. In addition to the impact on the world’s water supplies, the boom in food exports has contributed its share of emissions – especially due to the growing popularity of palm oil.

Image credit: Kentaro Iemoto/Flickr

Wells Fargo may have committed $110 million to settle its sordid fake accounts scandal, but this chapter appears to be far from over – and the bank will have even more fights on its hands in the coming months.

Reports surfaced that the proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholders Services (ISS) is recommending that Wells Fargo shareholders vote to remove 12 members of the bank's board of directors. ISS says lax corporate governance oversight contributed to the fabrication of at least 2 million consumer credit card and savings accounts.

The recommendations from ISS came a few days after another proxy adviser, Glass Lewis and Co., suggested in a shareholder resolution that six board members be replaced after they were accused of overlooking the scandal’s potential risks for the bank’s reputation.

ISS also urged shareholders to vote yes on another resolution that would require the bank to disclose how its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline could have an impact on Native American communities and traditional lands.

Wells Fargo has vigorously defended its involvement in the controversial pipeline, insisting it is not the lead bank for the project -- and that its business involvement “will continue to support our customers on both sides of the issue.”

Opponents of the pipeline retort that any amount of investment, including Wells Fargo’s reported $120 million stake in the project, is too much when considering the risks of damage to both local communities and the environment.

The lingering effects of Wells Fargo’s fake accounts scandal, as well as its investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline, prompted some municipal leaders to urge their cities to sell off their holdings in the banking giant.

Last month, five members of the Washington, D.C. City Council introduced a resolution urging the city to sever any ties with Wells Fargo. Those council members also mentioned Wells Fargo’s policy of lending to prison lenders, another business interest that has increasingly been the focus of activists who oppose the bank’s lending policies.

Additional cities that have either divested or are considering ending their relationships with Wells Fargo include Seattle; Missoula, Montana; Ashville, North Carolina; and Los Angeles. Two additional California cities, Davis and Santa Monica, ended their banking contracts with Wells Fargo after details of the fake accounts scandal emerged last fall.

Meanwhile, accusations of how the company treated whistleblowers who raised awareness about onerous sales quotas and the fake accounts scandal continue to paint an unflattering portrait of Wells Fargo.

As CNNMoney reported last week, one Southern California retail branch manager called the company’s confidential ethics hotline to document what she believed to be unethical behavior – only to be fired last September after the company accused her of abusing alcohol.

Federal prosecutors said the bank may have also violated Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank laws when she was terminated, and also indicated that Wells Fargo may have to hire back its former employee.

Image credit: Ken Lund/Flickr

Boycotts have become a steady feature of the political landscape in recent months, and TriplePundit is exploring what makes them work, if they work at all.

In the latest development, Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly lost almost all of the advertisers on his long-running show, "The O'Reilly Factor," within days after The New York Times broke new that O'Reilly and Fox paid out $13 million to settle sexual harassment claims over the past 15 years.

The swiftness of the reaction is remarkable, but the question remains: Will it work?

When boycotts work

Before delving into the details of the O'Reilly debacle, it's worth pausing to note that "work" is a broad term that can refer to a wide variety of desired outcomes.

At one end of the scale, a boycott can aim to drive its target out of business. That appears to be the goal of the #GrabYourWallet campaign against the Ivanka Trump brand and other companies affiliated with U.S. President Donald Trump and his family members. In a clever twist, #GrabYourWallet encourages shoppers to not only to refuse to buy Ivanka products, but also to boycott the stores that carry those products.

Another example is the Sleeping Giants campaign against the Breitbart news organization. That boycott aims at pressuring advertisers to block their ads from the site.

Crippling the Ivanka brand is an achievable goal, partly because of the rough-and-tumble nature of the fashion business. Even without the political baggage, brands can quickly rise and fall as consumer tastes change.

Driving Breitbart completely off the Internet is a much tougher challenge. Despite the loss of advertising revenue, the site could continue surviving on the wallet of its chief backer, the billionaire Robert Mercer.

Somewhere in the middle of the boycott "work" scale is behavior change. #GrabYourWallet falls into this category as well, because it aims at getting stores to stop carrying the Ivanka line -- not to put them out of business.

Another good example is Under Armour. In the face of withering criticism after its CEO Kevin Plank expressed support for Donald Trump, the company did not wait for a boycott to coalesce. It immediately fired off a statement disavowing the comments, and Plank himself took out a full page ad in the Baltimore Sun walking back his support.

At the far end of the work scale, boycotts can simply aim to embarrass or discredit their target.

For example, if the goal of the Sleeping Giants campaign is to discredit Breitbart as a news organization, the loss of advertiser support (more than 1700 companies and counting) is an effective weapon.

At this end of the scale, boycotts can also be aimed at drawing publicity to their organizer. Breitbart, for example, has supported a wide variety of boycotts that seem aimed more at energizing its base rather than actually affecting a business. The Breitbart-supported Kelloggs boycott falls into this category.

The Bill O'Reilly advertiser boycott

With all this in mind, let's take a look at how the Bill O'Reilly advertiser boycott could work.

At the latest count, ABC News reports that 52 companies have pulled ads from the O'Reilly Factor. Among the notable companies to react swiftly were Advil, Mercedes, BMW, Jenny Craig, Bristol Myers Squibb and Reddi-wip/Con Agra.

By Wednesday, a slew of others joined in (list provided by Buzzfeed):

Invisalign, Propane Council, WeatherTech, AllStar Products, Jenny Craig, MileIQ, Geico, CARFAX, Advil, Subaru, Bamboo HR, Touchnote, Stanley Steemer, Gilead, GoodRx, Amica Insurance, BeenVerified, H&R Block, LegalZoom, Visionworks, Pacific Life, Old Dominion Freight Line, Eli Lily, Southern New Hampshire University, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, and ReddiWip.

Despite all this, the O'Reilly Factor could stay on the air indefinitely. As a group, the advertisers that fled the program have simply shifted their dollars to other Fox programming, so the show could continue with the financial backing of the network.

If that happens, O'Reilly and his supporters could make a good case that the boycott failed.

Turning the boycott tables

On the other hand, there is also a good case to be made that the boycott succeeded in embarrassing and discrediting its target. News of the boycott -- and O'Reilly's legal history with sexual harassment -- is in wide circulation on social media and among news organizations. That includes a particularly scathing long form commmentary in the Baltimore Sun by former O'Reilly fan David Zurawik.

In addition, by swiftly pulling out of the O'Reilly Factor, the advertisers accrued a fair amount of positive publicity to themselves.

Several have used the opportunity to confirm their support for gender equality and women's rights. Buzzfeed (see link above) has compiled a list of statements including this from Mercedes-Benz:

"The allegations are disturbing and, given the importance of women in every aspect of our business, we don't feel this is a good environment in which to advertise our products right now," a spokesperson for company told BuzzFeed News.

Buzzfeed also cites a representative statement from Hyundai:

"...As a company we seek to partner with companies and programming that share our values of inclusion and diversity. We will continue to monitor and evaluate the situation as we plan future advertising decisions."

The takeaway from all this is that advertisers have turned the tables on boycotters.

Rather than waiting for potentially embarrassing consumer boycotts to take hold, companies are becoming more vigilant about where they advertiser, and how that could affect public perception of their brand.

In effect, companies have become the boycotters, and they are only just beginning to realize the depth of that power.

Photo: by futureatlas via flickr.com, creative commons license (futureatlas blog: futureatlas.com/blog).