Search

By Teresa Fogelberg

We are well into the new century, one in which we will likely travel to Mars, create artificial intelligence and potentially cure diseases that have plagued humanity since its inception. But flying in the face of all that we have achieved is the startling fact that women are still at a structural disadvantage in nearly every facet of life.

How can this be the case?

Not only have we not achieved gender equality, but if we look closer at some situations, such as conflicts in South Sudan or even political developments in the U.S., it can also seem that in some respects the gender gap is widening.

For example, on Feb. 27, the Bangladesh parliament approved a law that permits girls under the age of 18 to marry (under “special circumstances”) with permission from their parents and a court. The law provides no minimum age for these marriages. This is a devastating step backward for Bangladesh, which has the highest rate of child marriage in Asia and one of the highest rates in the world: 52 percent of Bangladeshi girls marry before age 18, and almost a fifth marry before the age of 15.

So on this International Women’s Day, we are faced with a pressing question: What needs to be done to address this shameful state of affairs? Or in other words, how do we ensure that the little girl born in Bangladesh enjoys the same rights and opportunities as the little boy born in England?

Of course there is no simple solution to this problem. The ugly fact is that gender inequality has always been a part of human societies. As Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche states, in simple and convincing words, in her smash hit booklet We Should All be Feminists: “We have evolved. But our ideas of gender have not evolved. Men [still] rule the world."

But for the first time in history, we have the international agreements, the tools and capabilities to change this horrible state of affairs. There is a whole series of international conventions and treaties, of which the UN Convention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination Against Women is the most famous. And since last year, gender equality is one of the Sustainable Development Goals.

SDG 5 on gender equality

The pressing need to eliminate the gender gap is acknowledged in the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which every country and every business should be working to achieve by 2030.

SDG 5 calls for the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. Within this global goal, specific targets lay out the myriad ways in which females face disadvantages. Women experience de jure and de facto discrimination in nearly every region of the world. Women are also subject to an appalling level of physical and sexual violence, even in the most progressive societies on the planet: 70 percent of the victims of human trafficking are women. In some parts of the world, little girls are subjected to forced marriages and even genital mutilation.

And of course, women have unequal access to economic resources; we are all too often paid less for the same work done by men, and we have less access to financial services and ownership and control of property.

In other words, achieving SDG 5 will be incredibly challenging for all relevant actors: individual men and women, local and national governments, as well as business large and small.

The crucial first step we need to take is to collect robust data on the gender gap. This is necessary to be able to know the baseline against which we can measure results. The old adage is true: You can’t manage what you don’t measure.

The data gap

Closing the gender gap will be a daunting task, but there is hope because, frankly, the world has done so little to address this problem. As a result, we can make quick gains in this area if, collectively, we are serious about improving the situation.

We need a serious effort to collect and compile useful data on gender inequality. We know that all too often women and men are operating on different playing fields, but the shocking truth is that we know very little about how pervasive discrimination against women actually is. Nor do we really have a grasp on basic facts like exactly how many women are sold into slavery each year. Rough estimates will not cut it if we are serious about tackling these problems.

Remarks from Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of U.N. Women Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka last September highlight the poor state of affairs when it comes to data on gender equality:

“Right now we do not have data for 80 percent of the indicators to monitor SDG 5. That is serious. This is an urgent challenge that requires urgent solutions,” she said. “Currently, lack of political will and chronic under-investment plague gender data production and only 13 percent of countries dedicate a regular budget for gender statistics.”

Empowering reporting on SDG 5

Clearly we must do better. The scarce data we have on gender equality does not paint a pretty picture, despite GRI’s 20 years of work in this space. But we need to push for even more of this data to truly understand the challenge.

Luckily the SDGs provide a framework for action. Unlike their predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs explicitly call for private-sector action to help us achieve the global goals. Corporate reporting, using the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, can help fill the data gap.

Also, GRI recently launched a groundbreaking initiative with the U.N. Global Compact called the Corporate Action Group for Reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals. This action platform builds on more than 15 years of innovation and cooperation between the two leading organizations in sustainability reporting. The goal is to produce a global list of prioritized disclosures for tracking business contributions to the SDGs. These will be presented by the platform members at a special event at the U.N. High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in July. Additionally, there will be a publication on leadership and best practice for business on SDG reporting. This will be released at the U.N. Private Sector Forum, convened during the U.N. General Assembly in September.

It’s time for the business community to step up and help close the gender gap. Together we can take the first step by generating useful data on gender inequality -- data that we can then use to empower action to rectify this oldest of injustices.

It’s the right thing to do, but it will also help businesses attract and retain the best young women. I truly believe that in the 21st century, women will take up their rightful position of equality. I implore all governments and businesses to be on the right side of history. We have international agreements and regulation and -- maybe more importantly – a different mindset.

Chimamanda inspires us by asking us to dream about and plan for a different and fairer world: a world of happier men and happier women who are truer to themselves.

Image credit: Pexels

Teresa Fogelberg is GRI’s Deputy Chief Executive and heads GRI's Policy Team, which works to enable smart policy on sustainability around the world.

By Gwen Child

The collision of the Donald Trump administration’s energy agenda with dire climate change predictions has left many of us in shock. As federal climate policy hangs in the balance, people are looking for other routes to enact the changes that scientists say we need to make in order to preserve a livable planet.

Effective and flexible solutions are crucial at this moment in history, and many are looking to individual states to take the charge on climate action.

One of the most powerful tools we hold is a market-based approach in which economic forces regulate pollution once a price has been set. Carbon pricing stands out in that it elegantly covers the entire economy, incentivizing energy-efficiency and clean-energy development while holding big polluters accountable for the damage they do.

States across the nation recognize the potential of such policies, and some already have campaigns underway to put a fee on carbon. Participating groups hail from all areas and don’t fit into one specific political framework. They present a number of approaches to accomplishing a similar goal: Some bills designed to return 100 percent of the revenue collected to households and businesses, while others invest the revenue in clean-technology projects.

This diversity proves that putting a price on carbon is an efficient, versatile and viable way to cut emissions.

The Boston-based nonprofit Climate XChange is working to unify these groups dedicated to carbon pricing and build a community oriented around this common goal. Armed with an expert economist on staff and four years of experience working to pass such bills through the Massachusetts legislature, the organization set out to help other states start campaigns of their own.

This February, the group announced the launch of their newest project, the State Carbon Pricing Network. The network, made up of 17 states, includes participants from national organizations, states with active campaigns, and those considering such campaigns. Together, the states can demonstrate the benefits of strong climate legislation at the local level, thereby enabling potential action in other states and eventually nationwide.

The goal is to catalyze progress by encouraging collaboration and connecting existing campaigns undergoing common challenges. New campaigns are welcomed, and communication is facilitated via regular calls, meetings and distribution of information. Connection to necessary resources is pivotal, with Climate XChange providing support by assisting with bill drafting and economic studies.

Filled with enthusiasm during a time when much of the country has been left hopeless on climate, carbon-pricing campaigns in the State Carbon Pricing Network are quickly growing. Climate XChange conducts economic analysis research that helped inform two carbon-pricing bills in Massachusetts this year. These bills obtained an immense amount of initial support, with more than a third of state lawmakers signing on to co-sponsor.

Washington state held the nation's first vote on a carbon fee during the last election season, and three similar bills have been introduced this session. Gov. Jay Inslee also included a price on carbon in his proposed budget for 2017-2019.

In Washington, D.C., and Vermont, coalitions of invested stakeholders have plans to introduce carbon-pricing bills. Energize Rhode Island Coalition is preparing for similar action and plans to bring its "message of job creation, economic growth and climate benefits to residents through education and outreach,” said Mary Jane Sorrentino, group leader for the Rhode Island chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. The group, like many others, understands the severity of climate change impacts and that action can be economically beneficial.

“With the lack of sensible policy at the federal level, it must happen at the state and regional one," Sorrentio said. "Rhode Island spends $3.1 billion annually on out-of-state fossil fuels. If our state enacts carbon pricing, we can grow our economy and take charge of our energy future." 

Oregon, Arkansas and New York are also looking to gain momentum for their campaigns.

The State Carbon Pricing Network will help lay the groundwork for these emerging endeavors, and strengthen existing ones.

Putting a fee on carbon is the next necessary step to cutting our emissions and tackling climate change. Successful carbon pricing legislation on the state level has the potential to light a spark across the nation, bringing us closer to a clean energy future.

To join upcoming calls on carbon pricing across the country, sign up here: Put a Price on Carbon in My State!

Gwen is the Communications Fellow at Climate XChange and graduated from the University of Vermont with a degree in Community and International Development. Her passion for environmental protection began during a semester abroad in high school at the Island School. It continued into her gap year when she worked at the Natural Resource Defense Council as a policy analyst intern and throughout college with work at the Central for Rural studies in VT.

 How do you talk to people with whom you disagree? These days everyone wants to know the answer to that. Companies want to stand up for their values without alienating customers. Family members want to celebrate holidays without arguing. This question was asked at The Heart Series conference during a panel where representatives from Upworthy, YouTube and Kindness.org shared insights on what makes a message go viral.

So, how do you talk about a polarizing issue? How do you convince someone that the environment should be protected? That racial justice is important? That immigrants should be welcome?

“The first thing you have to do is disarm them with that human story because they’ll trust you more if they think you’re talking to them respectfully,” said Adam Mordecai, Upworthy’s editor at large.

“People trust their own community the most,” he continued. If you tell someone a political belief that’s different from their own and you’re not from their community, they have two choices: First, they can automatically presume you’re biased and have a secret agenda to change their minds. Or, they can believe that their preacher, their parents, their siblings and their friends have all been lying to them their whole lives. Furthermore, if they think that they’ve been lied to, they’ll wonder: “If this one thing is untrue, what about everything else I know?”

Mordecai summarized the dilemma: “They can choose to have the entire fabric of their existence destroyed or think that you’re biased.” Obviously, the easiest and most common choice people make is the latter. “So, you need to disarm them by giving them a friendly and human face to the issue first.”

Once you’ve disarmed them with a human story, hit them with one surprising fact. “The biggest thing we like to do with our content is find that one surprising fact that will really resonate with people that they wouldn’t have expected in a million years,” Mordecai explained. “If you have a piece of data that is really eye-opening or jaw-dropping, you can throw that at them after you disarm them with a human story first. And that gets them to start thinking and pondering without their entire brain exploding.”

He continued: “It’s really hard because sometimes you’re just so frustrated by the counter arguments and how they’re just being aggressive and think you’re out to get them. But if you disarm them and don’t take the bait and don’t let them think you’re giving the partisan nonsense, they’ll be more open to listening. You have to be really gentle with it, and it’s really hard.”

Tell authentic stories

Two other benefits of telling a story is that it’s more memorable and makes people care. In YouTube and Upworthy’s Five Fundamentals For Social Change Videos they advise: “Stories stick while facts fade. Find the story.”

Most people find raw statistics and data boring so they tune it out. When telling your story, make sure to talk to your audience like they are humans, not machines. “Not robots. Not 350 million particles per second. Give them the data in a way that they can connect to,” Mordecai advised.

What do people care about? Personal stories accompanied by powerful photos, videos, or other visualizations. Stories like that will help them care and remember the story you’re sharing.

The structure of a story

Make sure you apply the fundamentals of storytelling, too. Jason Djang, education manager at YouTube, says the fundamental structure of a story is three acts. There’s a beginning, middle, and end. The main character is a hero: You watch the hero take on a challenge, observe the rising action, and see the hero triumph in the end. You can see yourself in the hero. You can picture yourself in the hero’s shoes. Then, at the end, you can decide whether you are going to be like the hero and go on the same journey.

One word of caution though: When telling the story of the hero, be careful to champion others. You don’t want to come across as trying to be the savior of the world. “Tell the stories of people and the important things they’re doing on the ground,” Mordecai said.

“If you don't have a three-act story to tell, another way to think about content is to be useful to your audience," Djang added. “If you think about a view chart of a viral video, it’s going to peak and then it’s going to drop and then generally disappear from people’s memory. But if you produce and upload a useful video, that will have a life and perpetuity.”

For example, “The first person who ever published a 'how to tie a tie' video on YouTube is still making money on that video. So, I would think about: What sort of value proposition does your brand have that’s simply useful to the audience?”

Djang then asked the audience, “Who here has looked up how to do something on YouTube?” Almost everyone raised their hands. “It’s a visual medium," Djang said of YouTube. "It shows you things. So what can you show your audience that they would find useful that they might be searching for? That’s the way to capture a new audience, right?” So, figure out what information people might be searching for and then visually provide that valuable information to them to capture their attention.

Think about why you share content

If you want your message to go viral, it’s also important to think about why people share content.

“We share content because we want to communicate something about ourselves,” Djang said. We choose a particular video or photo “because the content communicates something better than we can say it ourselves.”

We’re all building our personal brands on social media, and we selectively choose what we want to represent us. So when you think about why people share content, think about why you shared your last piece of content. Did you share a video so you come across as informed? Or smart? Or caring? And what 10 words describe the content you just created? Are those words that people will want to use to represent themselves on social media? If so, they’re more likely to share your content.

Find your voice

YouTube and Upworthy’s guide also recommends that you stay true to your voice: “Your strength is your voice. Use it.”

If you create a video about racism, immigration or the environment, use the same tone you use with all of your other storytelling. If your strength is humor, use humor. If your focus is fashion, talk about fashion. It will be easier to tell your story, and your customers and fans will feel it’s authentic and be interested because they're already fans of your style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5DHP739ngU&feature=youtu.be

Be bold

Another fundamental is to be bold, honest, and transparent. “Courage is contagious. Pass it on.”

The social change storytelling guide elaborates: “There are parts of ourselves most of us don't talk about because they don't line up with who we’re expected to be. It’s hard to share these things that make us feel vulnerable, but ‘going there’ (as long as you feel ready, comfortable and safe) can actually strengthen your bond with your community and show viewers it’s all right for them to ‘go there,’ too.”

Include a call to action

At the end of your story, have a call to action, the companies advised. “People want to help. Give them something to do,” they said in their the guide.

When people take the time to listen to you, they are likely to want to help. So, know what you’re trying to accomplish with your story, and give your audience a clear and simple call-to-action item they can employ to make a difference. There are a lot of possibilities. A call to action could be to change a perception, belief or behavior. It could be to donate to a nonprofit or start buying products from more conscious companies.

A call to action is also beneficial because it gives viewers’ emotions somewhere to go. It’s a positive outlet.

For example, climate change feels “significant and huge and overwhelming,” Mordecai posited. “A lot of content was made with, 'Hey, uh, you need to save the world, all billions of people, by yourself. Do it now,' and then audiences feel the pressure of the whole world on them and feel powerless to do anything because there’s no way they’re going to be able to take on this entire climate thing."

“You can talk about hard, depressing issues. You just have to give people somewhere to go with it," he advised, "whether it’s write a letter, whether it’s helping build a little organization in your neighborhood, whatever it is. That way they feel like they can do something positive which is a much better feeling and more productive than, 'Oh great, we’re all going to die.'”

Remember to listen

Finally, once your message is out there, stop and listen. “Communities are complicated. Learn from them,” UpWorthy and YouTube advise in their social change storytelling guide.

No one has the right perspective all the time. Sometimes you get something wrong. Listen to your community because they might point it out. Be introspective. Have meaningful conversations and engage in respectful discussions of different opinions.

So, there you have some basic tips on telling social change stories that go viral. And if you want to know more of what to do, check out the storytelling class Pixar and Khan Academy just started, the Creator Playbook for Brands created by YouTube, and Upworthy's deck How To Make That One Thing Go Viral - Just Kidding!

On the flip side, there’s also a funny video about how not to tell a story. It’s funny because so many companies make these exact mistakes. Don’t be one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2YBtspm8j8M

 

Note: If you enjoyed reading this article, make sure to check out The Heart Series two-day conference. It brings together conscious companies of all sizes to discuss how to make a bigger impact. It’s fun, engaging, informative, and good for networking especially if you live in Los Angeles.

The Heart Series will host pop-up events around the U.S. this year. First up is New York City, and you can sign up for event info here. The 2018 conference is Feb. 15-16 in Los Angeles. You can snag an early bird discount ticket for $279 right now (that’s a $500 discount *nudge, nudge*).

Photos credits: Paper Ban Studios

It is not hard to find dystopian scenarios that wonder how we will be able feed the 9 billion people expected to live on this planet by 2050. Deforestation and social unrest could only be the start. But the reality is that in wealthier nations, including here in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, up to 40 percent of all food is wasted before it ends up on a dinner plate or in a lunch bag. Worldwide, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimates about a third of all food is lost or spoiled.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) suggests about 25 percent of all calories in the food we produce are being squandered. The global food supply will only grow more complicated as farmers and food companies confront more pressure to feed an increasingly hungry world. More efficiency in the supply chain, in addition to tactics such as reforming food donation laws, revamping date labeling or even composting, are a start.

But WRI went further, making the business case for companies to be more conscious about food waste and drive the world toward a more efficient food supply.

And stamping out food waste can pay dividends: For every $1 spent on eliminating waste, companies collect an average $14 return on investment, according to a WRI report released last week. Better training and improved packaging are among the many recommendations WRI says food companies could adopt to boost that bottom line.

Such a statistic should excite any company’s chief financial officer. So how did the WRI reach this conclusion?

As the saying goes, such an approach needs to be “holistic.” For example, efforts to improve on-site storage on a farm will not be helpful if a farmer has no surplus market to sell his or her crops. And what about food that isn’t attractive enough to sell? Educating customers or selling 'ugly' fruits and vegetables at a discount is a start, and to their credit, more grocery chains are doing so.

That same distribution center saddled with misshapen fruits and veggies could also redistribute them, along with excess food, to food banks. Food that reaches its “sell by” date is also primed to be donated. But local regulations sometimes impede donation, burdening companies with more waste disposal fees. So again, we are talking about a total integration of supply chain efficiencies, as well as regulations, that can help farmers and food producers slash waste and save money.

Such efforts could also work at restaurants and for foodservice companies that manage places like university cafeterias. If a company in this space buys less food, they can sell more product at a high profit.

And waste diversion solutions are not all necessarily high-tech. One Michigan university, for example, went “trayless” at its campus cafeterias a decade ago. Students could eat as much food as they wanted, but would have to use a plate and make multiple trips. One year later, Grand Valley State University reduced food waste by 13 metric tons, or 55 pounds per student, per year (and incidentally, conserved over 30,000 gallons of water from not having to wash trays).

At a high level, WRI and its partner on the report, the U.K.’s Waste and Resource Action Program (WRAP), offer three recommendations for the private sector.

1. Companies need solid food loss and waste management protocols.


2. And they must set ambitious food waste reduction targets for their operations and supply chain.


3. It's an overused word, but one apt for this case: Collaboration is key. Companies can partner with NGOs and government agencies to root out waste and find opportunities to raise consumer awareness.

If consumers in developed and developing countries can accept concepts like smaller portions at restaurants and interpret date labels without the knee-jerk reaction to toss otherwise perfectly fine food, that will accomplish a great deal. There really should be no reason for hunger or more environmental degradation, even as the world’s population continues to grow. Farmers have proven they can grow more food on the same amount or even less land; it is up to companies to guarantee that those advances in agriculture actually pay off.

Image credit: Brian McGuirk/Flickr

The cold-blooded murder of Indian engineer Srinivas Kuchibhotla in a suburban Kansas City bar, and the lack of empathy from President Donald Trump and the White House, has put many foreign-born technology workers on edge. America is a country that only grows because of immigration and innovation. But many say it's now run by an administration that is hostile to both, spurring economic uncertainty and social unrest.

The recent emergence of an anti-immigrant website, SaveAmericanITJobs.org, only stoked more fears, especially among Indian-Americans and Indian nationals who are working in the U.S. temporarily. At issue is the site’s filming and posting of pictures of Indian families relaxing and playing in suburban Columbus, Ohio. The site’s creator, Steve Pushor, told BuzzFeed that he does not support violence or want Indian nationals to leave the nation. But his creepy narration of the video, which was since pulled down from the site, made some immigrants uncomfortable, especially those from India and South Asia.

At the core of the issue is controversy over the H1-B visa program, which first emerged during the late 1990s as a result of the American dot-com boom. The visa program, which has morphed over the years as part of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, allows 65,000 highly-skilled technology workers from overseas to work in the U.S. on temporarily assignments for up to three years. (That number rises to 85,000 if the tally includes the 20,000 visas granted to foreign nationals who complete graduate school.)

Technology companies, which have overwhelmingly opposed Trump’s immigration policies, insist that the program is necessary in order to recruit skilled talent. Many businesses are also flummoxed over the Trump administration’s recent decision to end “premium processing,” which ensured some visa applicants a full review within 15 days. Critics of the program say it is rife with abuse, and link it to companies like Disney and Southern California Edison (SCE) laying off technology workers, only to humiliate them more by demanding they train their replacements or lose their severance pay. Outrage over the announcements led Disney to backtrack on some of those plans; SCE found itself under investigation.

So is the H1-B program necessary to fill in the gaps, or is it a ruse to pay foreign-born workers less than U.S. citizens?

The truth is somewhere in between, but simply blaming these workers for "stealing" American jobs is a stretch. It is difficult to estimate how many H1-B workers are in the U.S. at any point in time. Many later return to their home countries, or technology companies transfer them somewhere else overseas. But there are at least 6.7 million information technology jobs in the U.S., and a cursory search through online job boards reveals that there are plenty of jobs out there.

Regardless, scapegoating people like Srinivas Kuchibhotla for putting down roots and living abroad while contributing to our country’s economy only moves our society in one direction: nowhere. The reality is that America’s openness has allowed millions of people to work here, pay taxes, buy local goods and services, and, in many cases, invest here and start their own companies. Or, they take their knowledge and start companies in their home country because they prefer to be in a place where they feel more at home, creating an economic multiplier effect worldwide. The same holds true for Americans who, because of our excellent higher-education system (especially if you have white skin), often have the opportunity to take their skills, credentials and experience to work abroad.

The stubborn truth about America is that if you have a minimal amount of ambition, creativity and some entrepreneurial drive, you can make it in this country – even if you are one of the 60 percent of Americans who do not have that piece of paper called a college degree (and many U.S. citizens do quite well without one). To those who blame immigrants for taking your jobs, the problem is not with them. The problem lies within, if you expect a job to fall into your lap. The economy is changing, just like it has continually for the last 200 years.

Image credit: Austin/Flickr

One of the most iconic sights in London are the black cabs, or hackneys, that have sailed on the city’s streets since the late 19th century. But over time, London’s taxi fleet has contributed to the city’s air pollution woes. Estimates suggest that the city's 23,000 diesel-powered black cabs contribute as much as 15 percent of London’s nitrous oxide emissions and up to 35 percent of its black soot, or PM10 emissions, that can contribute to a bevy of public health problems. Even the free-market beacon The Economist has called out the health and pollution problems that sidetrack London and much of the United Kingdom.

To that end, London’s city government is working to transition more of its cab fleet to electric vehicles (EVs) by 2020. It does not really have much of a choice, as the city of 8.7 million people will launch what it calls an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in September 2020. Any motorized vehicle will have to meet strict exhaust emissions standards or pay a heavy surcharge to commute around the city center. Electric vehicles (EVs) are one way for drivers to stay compliant and move about freely on the city’s streets.

The London Taxi Company (LTC), which is owned by the same Chinese conglomerate that owns Volvo Cars, has been testing an electrified version of the black cab in Norway's Arctic region. As the BBC reports, LTC engineers want to ensure that the cars can perform in the most extreme conditions. Furthermore, executives have become more bullish on the vehicle’s prospects in other markets, including cities like Moscow where long winters lead to atmospheric conditions that often exacerbate poor air quality. LTC has its sights set on other cities such as Oslo and Amsterdam, but current diesel-fuel taxis will not do – electrification will be key if we will see those boxy cars within other cities in the near future.

Of course, electrification will not be enough, as a new fleet of vehicles will require some tweaks across London’s transportation infrastructure. LTC says it will do its part by installing 150 rapid charging stations by 2018 and another 300 by 2020.

Then there is the challenge of convincing local taxicab drivers, who generally own their vehicles, to make the switch. LTC says 80 percent of the approximately 1,200 drivers the company surveyed last fall said they are “interested” or “very interested” in buying a zero-emissions vehicle, but the devil is in the details. The U.K. government offers some financial incentives to switch to electric, and owners of such vehicles are also exempt from other licensing fees. But at a cost of US$48,800, it's still a huge investment, even after rebates, for the average London taxi driver who is also competing with the likes of ridesharing companies such as Uber.

London’s government is striving to clean up it entire public transportation system. The city’s high cost of living in part has nudged more residents to use city buses, so the city is introducing 12 new low-emission bus zones by 2020 to help clean up the city’s air. London has to work on it’s famous subway, or “tube” network, as well: recent research suggests underground commuters breathe in the most polluted air, while the drivers of cars spewing out pollutants are perversely the least exposed to pollution themselves.

Image credit: James Barrett/Flickr

By Shannon Houde

The political landscape spurs questions for people looking for their dream jobs in the impact sector. This moment presents unique challenges and opportunities for those interested in sustainability jobs, and an insider’s perspective on those challenges and opportunities can be invaluable.

We recently hosted our annual webinar for ICRS with additional insights from Hanan Hanna, an Acre recruiter, and were impressed by the spot-on questions we received from the audience.

"Are in-house sustainability roles on the rise, or are companies starting to embed sustainability into other existing roles?”

According to Greenbiz’s State of the Green Business Report and BSR’s State of Sustainable Business Survey, sustainability is now more integrated into our companies than ever before.

Though some jobs are absorbing new sustainability responsibilities, for the most part the number of unique sustainability jobs continues to climb. In the last four years, the number of those jobs has doubled, and the size of sustainability teams continues to grow.

Author and academic Katie Kross spoke about these trends in a recent GreenBiz interview: “Sustainability is becoming a more mature​ ​industry, so it makes sense we are not seeing​ ​the same ‘peak sustainability’ in the creation​ ​of new sustainability departments that we​ ​saw in 2008,” she said.

“Sustainability hiring today looks​ ​very robust. Those companies that may have added their​ ​first sustainability executive three years ago​ ​might now have openings for two to 10 more​ ​people on their team this year.”

“It feels like the language about the impact sector is always changing. What is the difference between a CSR and a corporate sustainability role?”

The title of a department or role entirely depends on the terminology being used by the sector and company. You will see postings for corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate sustainability, sustainable business and corporate citizenship roles, most of which are in essence the same; the terminology is just different.

To stay on top of your target companies’ terminology, do your research and follow thought leaders in that space. There are lots of ways to talk about the impact sector, so make sure you are matching key words to the language of your target audience in your resume, CV and LinkedIn profiles.

“I want to get an impact-driven job, but I know I need to learn more first. Is it better to get a broad education on the impact sector or take a deep dive and focus specifically on one thing?”

In the impact sector, specialists thrive over generalists. It’s time to drill down and make choices rather than casting your net wide.

According to Acre, general technical and soft skills are important, but more focused education like supply chain knowledge is becoming critical in consumer markets, as is traceability. Knowledge on REACH and the Modern Slavery Act are also currently in high demand for contractor/interim roles. Pick your focus and dive deep to build an expertise in a niche.

“How do you think Brexit will affect the state of the sustainability market?”

I am by no means a politician, and I speak to this question through the lens of my own work and the news I read each day. The truth of the matter is that we really don’t know yet. There is potential for the U.K. government to maintain similar laws around human rights and the environment that we have had as members of the EU, but we won’t know the details of this until it happens. As we have already seen in the U.S., the biggest potential risks for the sustainability market are on our diverse work forces, our currency exchange rates and of course on our commitment to the COP 21 Paris Agreement.

So far, jobs in this sector do not seem to be negatively affected. Immediately following the Brexit vote, we did see hiring freezes come out of some of the bigger supply chain companies, which were soon lifted after the GBP currency stabilized. We haven’t seen any other hiring freezes to date, but that is also something we will have to wait and see.

It may take months or even years to see the long-term effects of Brexit and of the Donald Trump presidency. The best thing to do is to stay up to date on the news, especially following the key issues that you want to put your stake in the ground around.  What impact will you choose to have?

“The recent political changes have inspired me to make a move into a more impact-driven job, but I’m not sure where to start. It seems easier to land a role I am overqualified for, but is this the best way to get my foot in the door?”

There are many more entry-level and junior positions coming into the market than senior positions. Think of it like a pyramid, with fewer senior roles on the top than on the bottom. But you should be targeting jobs that match your qualifications and your level on that pyramid, or even above it so that you are growing and will be challenged.

Recruiters don’t like to see people undervalue themselves. If you do the legwork to translate your accomplishments and skill sets, you can prove that you have enough experience to hit the ground running in a bit of a stretch role.

That being said, if you feel like you need to acquire a bit more experience to help better market yourself for a higher-level sustainability job, you may need to take an interim or lateral step into a different position.  It’s okay to do something for a year or two that helps you to get closer to the position you really want, but you should always be growing.

If you try to take a step backward or offer to take a salary cut, you will quickly see you aren’t getting calls back for interviews and get easily demotivated wondering, “Why wouldn’t they want someone like me since I am such a good value?” This is because hiring managers don’t want to manage someone more senior than they are for fear of being overtaken, or that you would get bored and leave, or that if you are undervaluing yourself then what worth do you really have to them.

For more individualized insights and support, please take a look at my career coaching packages and blog tailored to guide you through the step-by-step process of finding your dream career and building a competitive personal brand in the impact sector.

Shannon Houde is founder of Walk of Life Consulting, the first international career coaching business focused solely on the environmental, sustainability and corporate responsibility fields.

Image credit: Unsplash via Pixabay

The dismantling has begun. Last Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order (yes, another one) to peel back one of the more controversial layers of environmental protections put in place by the Barack Obama administration.

Trump's order directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to “review” a rule that assigns federal jurisdiction over tributaries and headwaters that flow into federally-protected water sources.

Formally called a technical regulation, the Clean Water Rule had one fairly important purpose in the eyes of the Obama administration: It clarified which waters, streams and wetlands were protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and, by doing so, gave the EPA the voice to prevent destruction of wetlands or tributaries that might affect key water sources further downstream.

Environmentalists fought for this clarification for years. A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2006 (Rapanos v. United States) brought this issue into sharp focus when a divided court (4-1-4) ruled on whether a commercial developer was within his right to fill in wetlands on his own Michigan property.  Four of the justices sided with the developers, while four said the runoff that eventually entered navigable waters downstream was a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. One justice abstained. And the issue of the EPA’s powers to protect major rivers from upstream pollution was left unanswered.

In 2015, then President Obama signed an executive order codifying the precise definition of the EPA’s jurisdiction under the CWA. “Navigable waters” were now not just major rivers and lakes that could potentially serve as irrigation and drinking water sources for U.S. commerce and livelihood, but those sources that could directly impinge upon their safekeeping, such as wetlands and tributaries at the river’s headwaters.

Some private property owners say the Clean Water Rule (also called the Waters of the U.S. rule or WOTUS) smacks of federal overreach.

In states like Colorado, where a family’s ancestral water rights can stretch back hundreds of years, some see WOTUS as an encroachment on state oversight, not to mention private business.  In June 2015, 16 states filed suit to block the new rule, alleging that it endangers “the very Constitution” by asserting "independent sovereignty” over states’ jurisdictions. The rule is being blocked until the challenge is heard in court.

Trump has vowed to roll back the rule. But since the WOTUS executive order was signed into law almost two years before he took office, the new president needs the EPA’s help. And this is where the fidelity of career environmental bureaucrats may well be tested. Trump needs the EPA to come up with a modified water rule that can stand up to a vigorous public comment period and meet the criteria that his administration expects.

Trump no doubt knows that the outcome of that divisive process is a metaphor for his presidency: What is cast upstream can muddy outcomes later. Removing EPA oversight of wetlands and tributaries may signal carte blanche to property and business owners who figure their actions are now irreproachable. An environmental disaster, like the one that unfolded near a tributary of the Missouri River in December 2016 while the rule languished under a court injunction, could be seen as a mark on his administration’s legacy.

And as Juliana Rose Pignataro of the International Business Times pointed out, it would be a mistake to assume that Trump’s elimination of the Clean Water Rule benefits only Trump’s supporters. It also benefits Trump properties.

Golfing organizations are an outspoken opponent of WOTUS because of the administrative burdens it places on some golf course developments.

Rewriting environmental rules so they can’t interfere in private water and wetland use could reduce development and administrative costs in states like Florida and North Carolina, where Trump golf courses reside. Leaving the rule in place would inevitably cost Trump more staffing and maintenance costs on his properties and more potential legal costs for new developments.

So Trump’s dislike of the rule isn’t surprising. Nor is his peculiar explanation last Tuesday when he tried to describe what a federal Clean Water Rule is designed to do. The president said WOTUS is a “horrible” rule because it gives the EPA the power to regulate “nearly every puddle or every ditch on a farmer's land, or anyplace else that [the agency should] decide.” That might be true in isolated cases if the developer or property buyer refused to do his own due diligence first, but his explanation isn’t supported by EPA literature, which notes: “[The] rule limits protection to ditches that are constructed out of streams or function like streams and can carry pollution downstream and actually clarifies which secondary water sources would be of concern."

The Clean Water Rule was crafted to force landowners that border tributaries and wetlands to give more forethought to the environmental impact of their actions before they fill in wetlands or build dams that impact water quality downstream. Like many environmental laws, it places the onus back on the landowner and sets a benchmark of responsibility to protect American waters from inadvertent pollution.

Meanwhile, environmentalists are gearing up to fight Trump’s efforts to gut key regulations. In Connecticut, where a 24 percent cut to the EPA’s national budget and a 30 percent cut in workforce could have significant impact on pollution cleanup and remediation efforts, local groups like Save the Sound and the Connecticut Fund for the Environment are vowing to fight the administration’s latest moves.

With Scott Pruitt, a longtime foe of climate change legislation, now heading the EPA, Trump appears to be lining up the axe for even more rule-cutting. It doesn’t bode well for air and water protections once assumed to be key federal responsibilities.

Images: Flickr/Daniel Oines; Flickr/Moto "Club4AG" Miwa