Search

The death of a Nevada woman has focused renewed attention on the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The woman, who died in September after returning from a trip to India, contracted a bacterial infection that successfully resisted every FDA-approved treatment.

The incident was reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week, only a few days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a set of new rules aimed at fighting these so-called "superbugs" on their home-turf: the farm.

Under those regulations, which went into effect Jan. 1, meat producers will no longer be allowed to use antibiotics to help livestock gain weight. And they will be required to obtain veterinary approval before using the drugs for other purposes.

The change — decades in the making — was lauded by many as an important step forward, while others decried it as too little, too late.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which previously sued the FDA over the issue, equated the agency's actions with "putting lipstick on a pig."

"For decades, FDA has been allowing antibiotics to be used en masse at low doses for both growth promotion and so-called 'disease prevention' in the unsanitary living conditions on many industrial farms," NRDC Senior Attorney Avinash Kar said in a prepared statement.

"Today’s announcement eliminates language on antibiotics labels that says they can be used for one of those purposes — growth promotion. But, and this is a huge BUT, it leaves behind a massive loophole in not addressing the other misuse — 'disease prevention.'”

The end result, Kar said, would be the same: the continued proliferation of drug-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotic resistance is a threat to public health

The use of antibiotics in the meat industry has been widely blamed for the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in recent decades.

Sustained contact with low doses of the drugs accelerates the microbes' evolution — killing off those strains that are vulnerable to the drugs while allowing drug-resistant genes to survive and multiply. The resulting superbugs can then be transmitted to humans through contact with infected meat or feces.

The problem is an urgent one. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have classified antibiotic-resistant bacteria as one of the top seven threats to public health for 2017. Such bacteria already claim an estimated 700,000 lives worldwide each year. The U.K. government has warned this number could increase to 10 million by 2050 if current trends continue.

But the problem is not new. In fact, scientists have known about it for decades. All the way back in 1977, the FDA attempted to curtail the use of antibiotics on the farm — an effort that was derailed by Congress.

While lawmakers ignored the problem, the threat only grew more urgent. Last year, scientists were alarmed to find a person infected with a strain of bacteria resistant to colistin, the so-called "drug of last resort." It was the first such case to be documented in the United States and led researchers to predict the emergence of a "pan-drug resistant bacteria." Now, it would seem, those doomsday predictions could be coming true.

The private sector can lead the way

In the absence of government action, some private businesses have stepped in to fill the gap — refusing to purchase meat from suppliers that use antibiotics in their operations.

Last year, a consortium of environmental and consumer-advocacy groups released a report rating the top 25 restaurant chains on their commitment to limiting antibiotic use.

Of those surveyed, nine received a passing grade. That number might seem small, but it is twice as many as the prior year. Among these, Panera Bread and Chipotle were the only chains to receive solid “A” grades — meaning they had implemented comprehensive policies that restricted antibiotics use across their supply chains. Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken were among those that received a failing grade.

“This year’s progress is encouraging," Cameron Harsh of the Center for Food Safety said in a press release announcing the report. "But companies and consumers can only move the dial so far — it is time for the U.S. government to step up and mandate reductions in antibiotic use for the industry writ large.

"Without strong, enforceable regulations for antibiotic use in place, there is undue burden on the public to hold companies to their commitments and to pressure the laggards in the industry to stop dragging their feet."

Image credits: 1) and 2) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 3) Natural Resources Defense Council 

My first job as a newspaper journalist was in the Ozark Mountains of Northwest Arkansas — the heart of America's industrialized poultry system. A Tyson processing plant stood a mile from my office, filling the air with the aroma of fried chicken. As I drove through the countryside at night, I would pass row after row of poultry houses — their bleak interiors illuminated by the constant glow of fluorescent lights.

Through the windows, I could see the birds packed like sardines, staring blankly into the darkness like so many concentration camp prisoners. It was eerie — and it was one of the reasons I started buying organic poultry.

Like many, I believed an organic label signified a higher standard of living for farm animals — that they had access to the outdoors, dirt, grass, maybe even a bug or two upon which to nibble.

It turns out I was largely wrong — though thanks to a new rule enacted this week by the USDA, that might soon change.

The regulations — finalized Wednesday, only two days before President Barack Obama left office — will ensure organically-grown livestock have enough room to lie down, turn around, stand and extend their limbs.

The chickens are the real winners. The USDA already revised its rules around cattle and other grazing mammals in 2010, requiring that they receive at least 120 days of grazing each year. But chickens enjoyed no such protection — until now.

By the new rule, poultry producers will be required to give their birds enough room to move freely and spread their wings. Farmers will also be prohibited from removing birds' beaks and required to provide access to fresh air, good ventilation and direct sunlight.

Competition, consolidation and consumer expectations

The move was a long time coming. Animal welfare and consumer advocates have for years pushed the USDA to clarify and strengthen the requirements for the organic certification of meat and eggs. That's because existing rules, while quite granular on questions of pesticide use and other growing practices, have relatively little to say about the treatment of animals.

This silence left the door open to very different interpretations of the law, distorting the competitive landscape, and resulted in confusion — even disillusionment — among consumers.

“There are lofty ideals in the current standards,” Suzanne McMillan of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals told Civil Eats last year, when the new standards were first proposed. “There are references to ability to engage in natural behavior, comfort behavior, the reduction of stress. But the USDA organic program really is failing to meet both the spirit of organic and consumer expectations around animal welfare.”

The ASPCA conducted a phone survey in 2014 to get a clearer picture of what those expectations were. Of 1,000 consumers surveyed, 68 percent said they expected animals raised on organic farms to have "access to outdoor pasture and fresh air throughout the day." And 67 percent said they expected them to enjoy "significantly more space to move than on non-organic farms.”

Many smaller producers are already in touch with these expectations and will meet or exceed the new requirements without significant operational changes. However, those who don't are an important minority.

Organic food is big money these days. The sector grew by more than 11 percent from 2014 to 2015 — to nearly $40 billion. This growing consumer interest has led to consolidation within the industry — with larger, established brands spinning off organic divisions and gobbling up smaller companies.

In the push for profits, the question of what it means to be organic has been muddied.

Broken promises, broken eggs

Even before Wednesday's rule change, the USDA's National Organic Program made some provisions for animal wellbeing. For instance, the rules demanded “living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior of animals,” as well as access to "the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight."

That's about as specific as it got, though — leaving the door open to trouble. The egg industry is a case in point.

The Cornucopia Institute in a 2015 report noted that practices among organic producers in the U.S. varied widely — from smaller, pasture-based farms where chickens had almost constant access to the outdoors to large, enclosed aviaries that could house thousands of hens with only a few, small openings. Most chickens raised in such environments never even stepped foot onto soil.

"In some of these situations, enclosed porches, accessible to only a small percentage of the birds, pass as 'outdoor access,'" the report's authors wrote. "Industrial egg producers sometimes house as many as 1 million or more birds on such organic 'farms,' frequently using two-story barns and aviary-type systems described by one organic producer as 'glorified cages.'"

The regulations adopted this week eliminate that ambiguity — creating minimum space requirements and demanding producers provide birds with daily access to the outdoors. Enclosed porches are specifically prohibited by the rule, and outdoor areas must include vegetation and soil.

Response varied

The announcement was lauded by animal welfare activists, consumer groups and many within the organic farming industry.

“It has been a long road to this historic moment, and we commend the (National Organic Program) for its determination to see this new rule through,” Deborah Press, director of ASPCA's regulatory affairs division, said in a statement.

“For more than a decade, many large-scale organic producers have profited from the organic label’s good reputation, charging premium prices while subjecting animals to factory farm-like conditions. The ASPCA and its 2.5 million supporters look forward to seeing the rule implemented in the new administration.”

However, other stakeholders — including lawmakers and representatives of Big Ag — argued the rule could increase prices, imperil public health and put some producers out of business.

Senate Ag Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was a vocal opponent of the new regulations. In a statement released after the final rule was published, Roberts said the Obama administration had "overstepped" in publishing the rule on the eve of the inauguration.

“This rule has serious potential to force organic farmers and ranchers out of business and is widely opposed by those very folks who are affected the most by this rule," he said. "Prices for consumers could rise, and animal health could be put at risk, which may decrease food safety. I will work with USDA under the new Administration to see what can be done to ease this overregulation on our hard-working farmers and ranchers.”

It's worth noting that Roberts has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from agribusiness in recent years, as has Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, the panel's ranking member. Though less strident than Roberts, Stabenow also expressed disappointment that the new rule didn't address concerns about animal health, consumer access and farmers' wellbeing.

“While I support high standards for animal welfare in the organic industry, I believe USDA missed an opportunity to do this in a way that did not risk unintended consequences," she said in her own statement. "I will continue to work with USDA and my constituents to address their concerns.”

Not all portions of the new rule will take effect immediately — leading some to worry that the incoming administration might try to roll back some or all of the new protections. The industry will have three years to comply with the indoor access provision and five years to comply with the outdoor access provision. The remainder of the rule will take effect in a year.

Image credit: Pixabay

We are in a national weight crisis. Obesity death rates now approximate those tied to smoking.

Maybe the most chilling fact tied to our weight crisis is that 17 percent of our children are obese. Obese children have a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer as adults. But the health consequences of childhood obesity is not just tomorrow’s problem.

A child who is obese for two consecutive years incurs 3.5 times the annual healthcare costs of a non-obese child. The hospitalization costs for obese children have doubled in less than 10 years to approximately $250 million annually.

The good news is that the obesity rate for children -- which was on the rise for years -- is beginning to flatline. Moms are acting to protect their children by improving their diets and promoting physical activity.

But the commitments by parents are not enough to stop our national weight crisis. What is required is a national commitment. As an economist, the choice is as clear as choosing health and prosperity or illness and health-cost-created bankruptcy.

U.K. acts to reduce obesity

Like the United States, the U.K. faces a childhood obesity epidemic. A third of U.K. children are either overweight or obese.

But unlike the U.S., the U.K. government has proposed a set of national actions to dramatically curtail sugar consumption -- which can help address the problem.

The U.K. plan is grounded on economics. Today the U.K. spends more on weight-related health care than it spends on fire service, police and the judicial system.

The U.K. plan also mirrors the type of actions America has taken to curtail tobacco use. U.S. tobacco regulations and taxes have reduced the percentage of Americans who smoke from over 40 percent in 1965, when smoking became a national issue, to today’s 17 percent.

We now have increased granularity on how human behavior changes in scaled proportion to the size of imposed taxes and regulations. States with the highest taxes and most regulation of tobacco have the lowest rate of tobacco use. States with limited taxes or regulation of tobacco consumption have the highest use of tobacco. Tellingly, the states with lower tobacco taxes/regulations also have the lowest levels of human health.

What the U.K. is acting on, and the U.S. has failed to accept, is that weight is now as much of a public health and financial crisis as tobacco consumption.

The U.K. obesity reduction plan

The U.K. government is focusing on curtailing sugar and increasing physical activity to achieve human weight levels that promote health.

The focus on sugar is driven by emerging research that identifies sugar as the most significant diet component causing our national weight crisis.

Soda companies defend sugar as just another calorie. But research now undercuts this premise by identifying the biochemical impacts created through sugar consumption, as well as the consumption of sugar derivatives like fructose. Inducement of insulin resistance is one identified biochemical effect. Insulin regulates how our body uses, or stores, food. Altering our body’s ability to use insulin creates serious health consequences.

The two key policy actions being taken by the U.K. to reduce sugar in foods and beverages are:

1. Taxing sugary sodas

Recognizing the potential for consumer backlash against paying a higher tax for anything, the sugar tax is imposed on soda companies.

The higher tax is intended to create a financial incentive for soda companies to find lower-cost, healthier solutions. The tax also attempts to create a financial incentive for promoting non-sugar beverage sales.

The money raised by the tax will be used to fund healthier school meals and increased youth participation in sport activities.

2. Reducing sugar product content by 20 percent

The U.K. will establish sugar content targets for all foods sold in markets and restaurants -- aiming to cut sugar content by 20 percent in three years, using 2015 as a baseline.

Promoting physical activity is a third component of the U.K. plan. The U.K. will fund programs that promote at least an hour of exercise a day for kids.

Making food labels more understandable is the fourth key component of the U.K. plan. Apparently food labels in the U.K. are just as uninformative as they are in the U.S. Both countries' current labels show a product’s total sugar content.

What is missing is specific consumption information on sugars that are easily over-consumed. The U.K. plan will revise food and beverage labels rule to enable individual portion management through messaging that is understandable and useful.

Image credit: Pixabay

By Stephan Aarstol

Are productivity and progress one and the same to you? As crucial as hustle is to any entrepreneur and his employees, it has its drawbacks — burnout, stress and depression, just to name a few.

So, how do you combat these and other drains on your productivity? For starters, try stepping away from said stressor. Look, the notion of taking time off regularly may sound crazy to people who have fallen into the trap of believing that more is more. Some of my most promising entrepreneurial ventures sprung from ideas I had when I was off the clock.

The seeds of my poker chip company weren’t sown while hunched over a desk; they were planted during a run-of-the-mill poker game with some friends. The paddle board company I successfully pitched on “Shark Tank” had unorthodox beginnings — it came to me while I was out on the water with a buddy at 5:30 a.m.

These represent two big breaks in my business career, neither of which would have happened if I hadn’t taken a break and turned my brain off.

Stop the stress

Job-induced stress, according to a study by Statista, is felt by 64 percent of North American workers. Though we lament its effects — dips in productivity, raw energy and innovation — stress has been normalized.

Some claim to thrive on it, though I encourage those who subscribe to that thinking to take a step back and reflect. Consider whether you’re just following the crowd instead of doing what’s ideal for you and your business.

To do my part in changing that culture in my own company, I decided to flip the normal eight-hour workday on its head. I drilled our schedule down to five hours — we work 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. without a lunch break, and then we’re out of there.

It’s worked better than we could have imagined, allowing me and other employees ample time to recharge our mental batteries. People actually like coming to work in the morning because they don’t feel tethered to their desks. And productivity? It’s soared.

Dial down to amp up

You don’t have to be a workaholic to achieve. If you’re ready to open the door to a new philosophy, try the following steps:

1. Just try it out. Explain to your team that you want to launch a productivity experiment. Tell them you want everyone to produce the same amount of output in five hours instead of eight. Add that this is a trial run so your employees feel less pressured — and you can return to your normal protocol if the experiment doesn’t work.

What can you expect? In most cases, your team will work miracles, implementing creative solutions to work fewer hours. After a lifetime of logging long shifts, they finally have incentive to be more productive because they can go home without a loss of job or dollars.

2. Clock yourself. The Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule, states that 80 percent of your productive output comes from 20 percent of your efforts. Conversely, 80 percent of your efforts are generating about 20 percent of your productive output.

Use that very principle to mentally or physically track everything you do all day, every day. Then, evaluate your findings. The goal of this exercise is to identify the minimal input that’s yielding maximum efficiency.

From there, it will be easier to unearth your wasted efforts and find ways to improve productivity. And you won’t have to break your back or overdo it mentally to get there.

3. Don’t mind machinery. Workers are fearful of technology because they worry they will be replaced by robots. In most knowledge-working industries, this won’t happen for the simple fact that those employees understand that technology’s real power comes from its ability to blend with human know-how.

Why not efficiently supplement live customer service with a website, FAQs, and YouTube clips? This saves time by harnessing technology. For instance, our online store works 24/7/365 and is the source of 98 percent of our revenue.

Consequently, we cut our retail store down to five-hour cycles, too, without a blip on the revenue radar. We had the same number of customers coming into the store, and they came at a faster clip.

We’ve all heard we must work smarter, not harder. The former, to some, may be best defined as not working at all, but when you value living, you tend to value working, too.

Time off creates a symbiotic relationship between your career and your life that can change your perspective on everything, making you and your employees better at your roles.

Image credit: Pexels

Stephan Aarstol is the author of the widely acclaimed book “The Five Hour Workday: Live Differently, Unlock Productivity, and Find Happiness,” garnering coverage from CNN, CNBC, “Fox & Friends,” The Huffington Post, and Forbes. His unique spin on the average workday earned him “World’s Best Boss” distinctions from multiple German newspapers and the title of “America’s Best Boss” by U.K.-based newspaper The Daily Mail. Stephan Aarstol is the CEO and founder of Tower, deemed one of Mark Cuban’s best “Shark Tank” investments.

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

It's that time of year again: The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute and Autodesk announced the winners of their annual design challenge this week.

Now in its second year, the challenge seeks to inspire up-and-coming designers to create products for the circular economy — highlighting safe materials that can be perpetually cycled.

Global interest from the design community in rethinking products for the circular economy is continuing to escalate, said Institute President Lewis Perkins. And the organization received a record number of entries for this year's challenge.

A total of 162 professional designers and design students from 19 countries submitted work for the fourth round of the challenge. Participants were required to take a free two-hour, online course about designing for the circular economy, made possible by a partnership with the Alcoa Foundation. So, even those who don’t win will still walk away with an increased knowledge of cradle-to-cradle design.

“With a rapidly growing population and finite resources, now more than ever, it is necessary for designers and engineers to design for the circular economy, creating a future where we can live well and within the limits of our planet,” said Lynelle Cameron, senior director of Autodesk Sustainability and president and CEO of the Autodesk Foundation.

These four concepts -- from the innovative to the simplistic -- prove what's possible when today's best and brightest apply circular-economic thinking to everyday product design. Let's check 'em out.

REX

Winner: Best Student Project

Designed by Mallory Barrett of North Carolina State University, REX is stunning in its simplicity. The reusable, stainless-steel prescription bottle eliminates the need for the constant reproduction of plastic medication tubes. It also renders adhesive labels obsolete.

While those throw-away prescription bottles may not seem like a big deal, they can really add up: Americans filled more than 4 billion prescriptions in 2015 alone, and many U.S. recycling streams do not accept pill bottles.

The REX bottle uses a recycled stainless-steel frame and recycled plastic cap for a closed-loop supply chain. Once the prescription is used up, customers can simply remove the label and return the bottle to a drop-box at the pharmacy -- where it is sterilized for reuse.

Since the steel bottles can be reused indefinitely, "the rate of production of new bottles will decrease" in kind, Barrett wrote in her business plan.

Eco-Luggage

Winner: Best Professional Project

Okay, we know what you're thinking: Another supposedly eco-friendly suitcase design? Before your eyes roll into the back of your head, take a moment to hear us out.

Eco-Luggage plays off the modular storage favored by today's busy traveler. It's versatile, with plenty of pockets for must-haves large and small. The rolling structure can be used separately as a carrying trolley. And the bag can be used without the structure for shorter trips.

But unlike other suitcases, all that modularity is good for more than creating space for a fourth pair of shoes: It also allows for easy repair and, ultimately, recycling.

Taina Campos and Jeremy Godol of Frame Design Studio put design for disassembly at the core of their approach. As individual components succumb to wear and tear, they can be easily removed or replaced as needed.

Each material was selected carefully, and all of the bag's components are either biodegradable or recyclable.

SolarCasting

Winner: Best Use of Aluminum

Developed by Bert Green, Allison Warth, Andrew Fabian and Ashleigh Otto of Solarmill, SolarCasting offers an innovative take on reclaiming and recycling aluminum.

The solar furnace harnesses the power of the sun to create products from recycled materials. Aluminum can be melted at fairly low temperatures, meaning the furnace can operate entirely using concentrated sunlight.

Once melted, recycled aluminum can be poured into molds to create anything from car parts to jewelry.

GPS-tracking and precise focus controls turn a "scavenged television lens into a powerful machine capable of producing highly detailed cast metal objects on a semi-industrial scale," the designers say in their business plan.

"By combining this 100 percent carbon-free foundry with recycled, lead-free aluminum, we are able to create an unbreakable chain of material reclamation without the need for fossil fuels." Pretty neat stuff.

Leave No Trace Leaf Knife

Winner: Best Use of Autodesk Fusion 360

This simple, closed-loop innovation comes from camping enthusiasts Ari Elefterin and Matt Callahan of Parsons School of Design: The New School.

The 3-D printed Leaf Knife is the first product of the duo's Leave No Trace, a camping gear company for the circular economy. They developed an accompanying Leave No Trace service system, which provides replacement parts, care solutions and disposal options -- aimed at keeping product materials moving through a perpetual cycle of use and reuse.

The design duo modeled and sculpted their product using Autodesk’s Fusion 360 3-D printing technology -- allowing it to be completely disassembled for repair, part replacement and recycling.

The aluminum handle and steel blade are both 100 percent recycled and 100 percent recyclable -- enabling an entirely circular supply chain that reflects "the cultural and ecological values of the camping enthusiast," the designers said.

Images courtesy of the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute

The automotive industry is “material resource–intensive,” General Motors stated in its 2015 sustainability report. 

The iconic American automaker wants to change that by greatly reduce its own waste footprint -- committing to cut total waste by 40 percent by 2020, from the base year of 2010. And that includes all of its manufacturing waste.

In 2011, GM said 100 of its manufacturing sites, along with 50 non-manufacturing facilities, would be landfill-free by 2020. The company hit that target last year, four years ahead of schedule. 

All totaled, 152 of GM's global facilities send zero waste to landfill: 100 of which are manufacturing plants. And now, it's looking toward the next step. 

“While we continue to increase the reuse of byproducts, our vision is to eliminate waste by applying the most advanced manufacturing processes and technologies in our plants globally," Alicia Boler Davis, GM executive vice president of global manufacturing, said in a statement.

GM recycles or reuses 2 million tons of byproducts a year across its supply chain. Finding innovative end uses for its byproducts, as outlined in GM's Landfill Free Blueprint, helped the automaker accomplish this feat. Solutions include: 

• Converting 227 miles of oil-soaked booms from the 2010 Gulf oil spill into two production years’ worth of air deflectors in the Chevrolet Volt.


• Recycling cardboard packaging into Buick Verano headliners to provide acoustic padding that reduces noise in the passenger compartment.


• Recycling over 3.2 million water bottles from six GM facilities and the Flint, Michigan, community into fabric insulation to cover the Chevrolet Equinox v6 engine and dampen noise -- an air filtration component used in 10 GM facilities -- and insulation for the Empowerment Plan coat that transforms into a sleeping bag for the homeless.

And in defiance of the convention that sustainability kills profits, recycling generates money for GM -- $2.5 billion in revenue from 2007 to 2010 to be exact. GM says recycling efforts generated an additional $1 billion in recent years, which it reinvests back into its business, including the development of fuel-efficient vehicles.

When GM began taking steps to achieve landfill-free facilities in the U.S., it invested about $10 for every 1 ton of waste reduced. But the program costs have since been reduced by 92 percent. 

And cutting waste is having positive environmental effects beyond GM's own supply chain. In 2015, about 8.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions were prevented from entering the atmosphere as a result of GM’s reuse and recycling programs, according to the company.

Landfill-free facilities have better operational efficiency and eliminate waste-hauling fees, plus re-purposing waste into vehicle components or plant supplies eliminates having to buy virgin materials.

“We view sustainability as a business approach,” said John Bradburn, GM global manager of waste reduction. “We look at ways we can grow and strengthen our business for the long term, and that often means reducing our environmental footprint while maximizing social benefit.”

Industrial facilities in the U.S. generate and manage 7.6 billion tons of non-hazardous industrial waste in land disposal units a year. By contrast, GM recycles 85 percent of its worldwide manufacturing waste.

The American automaker has more landfill-free facilities and recycles more waste from its global facilities than any other in its sector. GM wants to continue its progress by having all manufacturing sites achieve zero waste to landfill.

Overall, the auto industry is one of the leaders when it comes to zero-waste-to-landfill commitments. America's other leading automaker Ford, for example, also has a goal to eliminate the disposal of waste in landfills -- inking a plan to cut waste sent to landfill by 40 percent per-vehicle back in 2013. A total of 26 of its facilities have achieved zero-waste-to-landfill status. 

Perhaps one day the vehicles made in the U.S. will come from facilities that do not send any waste to landfill. As automakers continue to move toward this goal, it seems a race to the top may be inevitable -- to the benefit of drivers and ecosystems alike.

Image credit: Flickr/Alan Levine

By Anna Johansson

Businesses put a lot of effort into finding, hiring and deploying the right employees. In fact, some estimates suggest it costs roughly 16 percent of an annual salary to replace someone in a high-turnover, low-paying position -- and 20 percent in a mid-range position. That’s a lot of money and shows just how important human capital is from a financial standpoint.

So, why is it that so many companies unintentionally ignore employee health when it comes to crafting corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives? Most organizations spend too much time focusing on sustainable supply chains and efforts within the local community – which are both inherently good – and totally forget that CSR is about serving all stakeholders – including employees.

How leading organizations can prioritize employee health

For organizations that want to develop well-rounded CSR strategies, employee health and well-being must be at the center. Because, if you don’t take care of your employees, everything else eventually falls apart.

1. Overworking and workaholism

“While the Washington Post reported in 2014 that the United States is more productive when compared to France, Germany, Russia, Greece, South Korea, and Mexico, the amount of hours we invest in work does not necessarily have the highest productivity yield hour by hour,” American Addiction Centers explains.

What experts have discovered is that, in an effort to prove themselves through increased output, many American workers are actually developing workaholism. This dependence on working longer hours can lead to anxiety disorders, ADHD, OCD and depression.

From a CSR perspective, keeping employees healthy could look like discouraging 12- and 14-hour days or requiring individuals to use their vacation time. You should be doing whatever necessary to keep employees mentally healthy and engaged.

2. Workplace safety and health

Keeping employees safe in the workplace is an important part of being a responsible organization. While it’s easy to assume this is strictly a human-resources issue, the fact of the matter is that keeping employees safe at work goes a long way toward communicating your organization’s prioritization of safe conditions to the marketplace.

Casio, the Japanese consumer electronics company, is a great example.

“Casio goes beyond employee health management. It also seeks, by taking active measures to promote better health, to improve employee motivation and raise productivity,” the company explains. Practically, Casio does this through comprehensive annual health checkups, initiatives to counter lifestyle-related diseases, and even a program aimed at preventing long working hours.

3. Nutrition and exercise

It’s amazing how many organizations give time and money to organizations that promote healthy living, yet they do very little to positively influence their own stakeholders – particularly employees.

While you don’t have to build a flashy on-site gym or start catering your employees’ meals like tech startups in Silicon Valley, it’s imperative that you address the issue of nutrition and exercise in some form or fashion.

It’s easy to feel as if the only way to have an impact on society is through funding major programs and supporting public issues you believe in, when in fact, the biggest effect you can have starts with your employees.

By helping your employees develop smarter eating habits and encouraging exercise and fitness through discounted gym memberships and rewards for passing health exams, companies can encourage healthier living. As a result of this healthy living, families and local communities become stronger and more vibrant.

4. Connecting employee health to larger societal health

Despite the fact that the United States spends more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation, people are living shorter lives and preventable sicknesses and diseases are at all-time highs. From a business perspective, this represents a wonderful opportunity to make employee health the catalyst for a larger societal issue.

“Reframe health and wellness as a broader stakeholder and value chain issue, and ensure that the company’s CSR agenda reflects that shift,” suggests BSR, a global nonprofit business network dedicated to consulting on sustainability.

“New priorities and business opportunities may arise as a company develops a more holistic understanding of how health and wellness is linked to other important social and environmental challenges, as well as business challenges.”

Making health and wellness a CSR priority

There’s a massive crossover between CSR and human resources, and employee health needs to be a focal point for more organizations moving forward.

“I have spent considerable time in my career in the presence of the CEOs of major companies,” CSR expert Elliot Clark says. “When you ask them about what concerns them, talent is always near the top of their lists. Concern for talent needs to extend well past the recruitment and retention of competence to the availability to perform physically, emotionally and mentally.”

While you may assume that your organization is fine because it offers a cost-effective health plan to employees, this isn’t enough. You need to prove to all of your stakeholders that health and wellness is an active priority by promoting it from every angle.

Image credit: Pexels

Anna Johansson is a freelance writer, researcher, and business consultant. A columnist for Entrepreneur.com, HuffingtonPost.com and more, Anna specializes in entrepreneurship, technology, and social media trends. Follow her on Twitter and LinkedIn.

By Scott Huntington

The water cycle, the process by which water circulates through the planet’s atmosphere and waterways, helps make life here on Earth possible.

Climate change, however, caused by excessive greenhouse gas emissions, is disrupting that process. It’s creating a vicious cycle in which higher temperatures, changes in rainfall and water contamination cause environmental consequences that make global warming worse and damage the health of the planet further.

How Climate Change Impacts Earth’s Water

Climate change causes various changes in our water supply, which sometimes leads to pollution and other problems.

Changes in rainfall

Increased temperatures caused by climate change raise the rate of evaporation from both land and oceans, as well as enable the atmosphere to hold more water by about 4 percent for every 1 degree Fahrenheit increase.

This added evaporation will dry out some areas and fall as excess precipitation in others. Generally, dry areas are expected to get drier while wet areas become wetter. This will lead to increasing instances of drought in some areas and more flooding in others.

Increased need for water

As temperatures rise and evaporation amplifies, so will the need for water for individuals, agriculture and industry. Rising population will add to this increased demand.

As certain areas experience more droughts, we’ll have to more frequently transport water where it is needed. Rising water levels in other areas may necessitate infrastructure changes. Both of these essential measures may result in more emissions and more used energy.

A rise in sea levels

Melting ice caps, ice sheets and glaciers, as well as expanding warming waters, will lead to rising sea levels. This could harm coastal communities and various ecosystems, as well as contaminate fresh water supplies.

Rising sea levels could push saltwater into freshwater aquifers, making the water unusable for drinking or irrigation unless it’s treated using an energy-intensive process.

Increased water pollution

High levels of rainfall could overwhelm and damage important infrastructure like sewer systems and water treatment plants and lead to polluted water, causing it to become brown or cloudy. Heavy precipitation could also lead to increased runoff of fertilizers, sediment, trash and other pollutants into water sources.

Impact of water pollution

Water pollution can have a multitude of negative effects on our environment, some of which can lead to even more problems and exacerbate climate change.

Stress on ecosystems

Increased levels of nutrients in water from things like fertilizer runoff can cause algae to grow at excessive rates. When this algae dies, bacteria can lower the level of oxygen in the water, creating dead zones where nothing can live.

Garbage that makes its way into ocean waters can also kill marine life that mistake it for food or get caught in it.

Chemical pollution can also harm or kill marine life. It can accumulate in sea creatures in increasing amounts as it moves up the food chain, eventually affecting humans.

Some scientists say ocean degradation could even cause a mass extinction event.

Worsened climate change

As water becomes a scarcer resource, we may need to treat this increasingly polluted water to make it useable. This process requires a lot of energy and could lead to more emissions.

Hope for the future

Climate change is having a negative impact on our water supply, ecosystems and quality. These problems in turn lead to more issues and the overall degradation of our environment.

The situation is clearly serious, but there are some things we can do.

Decreasing emissions by using less energy or switching to renewable energy helps to slow global warming. Turning lights off when not in use, driving less and insulating your home to make it more energy-efficient can all help reduce energy use.

Buying environmentally responsible products and eating a low-impact diet are other lifestyle changes that can have a positive impact.

Expressing your support for environmental protection can also help. You can make your voice heard by writing government officials, voting, posting about it online or simply talking with family and friends.

The effect that climate change has on our water is just one example of the impact it can have. It is becoming increasingly evident that we are at a critical point in time regarding our changing climate and the future of our planet.

Image credit: Pexels

Scott Huntington is a writer and blogger. Follow him on Twitter @SMHuntington.