Search

By Dale Wannen

With the close of 2016 approaching, it’s that time again where we can sit back and think about what an “interesting” year it has been. In fact, just the news of Brexit and the rather surprising election results would have been plenty to sit and ponder over some spiked egg nog. But if you still have an appetite, check out our naughty and nice corporate scandals to bring lively conversation to the holiday party.

Naughty

1. We all can’t stand paying that $3 ATM fee. But imagine paying fees on an account you didn't even sign up for. Wells Fargo was caught opening over 1.5 million accounts that were not authorized. Wells also fired 5,300 employees related to the shady behavior. Since the scandal, CEO John Stumpf (who agreed to not receive the $41 million in unvested options — thanks!) has stepped down from both the CEO role and chairman of the board. New customer checking account openings plunged 41 percent in November compared with last year. Note that Wells has stated the CEO can no longer also be the chairman of the board, clearly a rule that could have helped the company avoid this mess.

2. Increasing the price of a service or good by over 600 percent would generally cause the buyer to simply stop buying. But when the convoluted world of pharmaceuticals is involved, it seems to be the norm. Enter the Epipen and Mylan Pharmaceutical CEO Heather Bresch. As Bresch spiked the cost of the EpiPen, which is used to help children who experience allergic reactions, her own compensation increased 671 percent -- from about $2.5 million in 2007, to some $18.9 million in 2015. Mylan agreed to fork over $465 million to make up for years of underpaid Medicaid rebates on the product. The company is also in the midst of laying off about 10 percent of its workforce.

3. Got a friend at JPMorgan? JPMorgan Chase & Co. will pay $264 million to the U.S. government to settle allegations that it hired the children and relatives of influential Chinese policymakers in the hope of winning their business. The settlement follows a three-year investigation. The practice of giving the children of China's ruling class plum jobs was so common that the bank had a formal program known as "Sons and Daughters." The program included spreadsheets that tracked how often the hires turned into business deals. Somehow CEO Jamie Dimon still has a job and is now a member of President-elect Donald Trump’s economic advisory team.

4. The big pharmas sure know how to pay themselves. This final spot goes to Leonard Schleifer of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. He netted about $47 million, up from $42 million last year. To put that in perspective: With a five-day, 40-hour work week, Schleifer would make more than $22,800 an hour; $182,000 a day; and $910,000 a week. As of Dec. 19, the stock’s year-to-date performance was negative 30 percent. Yes, that’s negative. Something tells me that Regeneron’s compensation package needs some tweaking.

Nice

1. We have all heard of the evil oil-congested Carbon Underground 200, but what about the good guys? Nonprofits As You Sow and Corporate Knights came up with the flipside version called the Clean 200. And the winner is Toyota! Companies eligible for the Clean 200 must have a market capitalization of at least $1 billion and derive at least 10 percent of their revenue from clean energy as defined by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Second to Toyota was Siemens, while Johnson Controls came in third.

2. Patagonia donates all Black Friday profits to environmental charities. Can you top that!? The apparel company donated $10 million in Black Friday sales to charity. Instead of donating to just one charity, however, Patagonia will give money to "hundreds of grassroots environmental organizations." The activewear company only projected $2 million in sales and said it was "humbled" by the final figure. Patagonia is not a publicly-traded stock. Shucks.

3. Take that United States! At 648 megawatts, India and the Adani Group have opened the largest solar plant in the world. The plant will power 150,000 homes and is a step closer to making the country fully sustainable. Facing a growing population, India’s goal is to produce 40 percent of its energy through renewable resources by 2030. The world's second largest solar plant, the Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County, California, has a capacity of 550 megawatts. Do I sense a little friendly alternative energy competition to build the first 1,000-megawatt station?

4. How about a positive note for the big pharmas? Fortune Magazine unveiled its 2016 “Change the World” roster of 50 companies which focused on social and environmental challenges. Topping the list is pharma firm GlaxoSmithKline, which bases drug prices on income levels in the countries where it operates and reinvests 20 percent of any profits it makes in the least developed countries into training health workers and building medical infrastructure. On top of this, its CEO made a fraction of what the aforementioned drug-pushing CEOs made.

Image credit: Flickr/Mobilus In Mobili

Dale Wannen is President of Sustainvest Asset Management, an investment advisory firm focused on sustainable and responsible investing (SRI).

Forty-nine years ago, on Dec. 22, 1967, "The Graduate" opened in movie theaters to rave reviews. Not only was the film a hit, but it also went on to become a cultural signpost of a generation and a historical record of the times.

Part of that record was a brief bit of dialogue, the meaning of which is discussed to this day:

Mr. McGuire: “I just want to say one word, are you listening?”

Benjamin Braddock: “Yes, sir”

Mr. McGuire: “Plastics”

This brief exchange lent that one word -- plastics -- multiple layers of meaning.

Invented by John Wesley Hyatt in 1869, synthetic plastic -- then called celluloid -- was hardly new in the late ‘60s. Nor was the depiction of it as representing everything cheap and artificial: a conveniently packaged symbol of all that young Benjamin Braddock’s generation rebelled against.

For Mr. McGuire, plastics was the future, a straight-line trajectory of growth and prosperity. Earnest young men looking for a promising career in upper-middle-class America, like Dustin Hoffman’s Benjamin Braddock, would do well to get into plastics. It was the new economy of plastics, and fortunes could be made.

Half a century on and we live at the apex of Mr. McGuire’s vision of this new economy, endlessly churning out plastic consumer goods destined ultimately as little more than indestructible junk. Buy, use, throw away, repeat. But the “magical properties” of plastic that make it so ubiquitous also reveal the fundamental weakness of the linear, throw-away culture in which it became the “workhorse material” it is today.

But, of course, there is no "away."

The age of plastics

A paper published earlier this year in the journal Anthropocene suggests plastics are an important geologic indicator of humanity’s impact on the planet.

"Plastics are ... pretty well everywhere on Earth, from mountain tops to the deep ocean floor -- and can be fossilized into the far future," Jan Zalasiewicz, a researcher and professor of palaeobiology, said in a press release.

"We now make almost a billion tons of the stuff every three years."

Even in the late '60s, a century after its creation, the impact of plastics was not yet fully understood. Today we can take a ride on a Boeing Dreamliner 787, one of the most advanced airplanes ever built -- half of which is, by weight, plastic. The digital revolution that ushered in the information age is driven by bits and bytes housed in plastic. Without contact lenses, two tiny disks of precision-cut plastic, I would be legally blind. Plastics are an intimate part of our lives -- permeating our society, the global the economy and the natural environment.

If Mr. McGuire held forth on the promise of plastics in the 20th century, Zalasiewicz’s research warns of its perils in the 21st.

How, then, do we reap the benefits of Mr. McGuire's plastic world without drowning under the weight of its own excess?

The New Plastics Economy

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last January, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched the New Plastics Economy initiative with the report The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics.

Plastic is the “key enabler for sectors as diverse as packaging, construction, transportation, healthcare, and electronics,” the group said in its report.

The initiative maps and quantifies the material flow of plastic through the economy, with analytical support from McKinsey & Co. and input from a spectrum of stakeholders representing cities, business, NGOs and academics. A total of 180 experts and 200 publications were consulted in the preparation of the report. Two key takeaways emerge as the consequence of the prevailing flow of plastic through the economy:

• Significant economic loss and wasted resources


• Global environmental degradation from material "leakage" into the environment, particularly the ocean

Plastics production surged from 15 million tons in 1964 to 311 million tons in 2014. That upward growth curve will only continue, with production expected to double within 20 years. As more plastic ends up lost to the economy and fouling global ecosystems, it is now clear that we must find another way to add value and reduce the adverse impacts of such an essential material.

The goal of the three-year initiative is to build "irreversible momentum towards a plastics system that works," Rob Opsomer, lead of the New Plastics Economy initivae at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, told TriplePundit, "... with the ultimate goal to have substantial impact on global plastics flows within the next 10 years."

Implementing this kind of impact requires an evolution in three essential areas of plastics production and handling throughout the value chain:

• Creation of an effective after-use economy


• Drastically reducing leakage and other negative externalities


• Decoupling raw materials from fossil fuel feedstocks

This is an enormous undertaking, given how embedded today's linear, fossil fuel-based plastic production, use, and disposal model is in the global economy. Indeed, the scale of the challenge emphasizes how insufficient the current patchwork of fragmented policies, after-use collection methods, and economic accounting currently in use.

"One thing is clear," Opsomer said. "Incremental change or capturing 'quick wins' is not enough - we need a systems shift, which doesn't happen overnight: hence the three- to 10-year objective."

The initiative is the first effort to integrate a global, systemic approach to the challenge. Of all things plastic, packaging is arguably the most pernicious and is the starting point for a New Plastics Economy.

Packaging, end-of-life and the circular economy

The market for plastic packaging has grown by 5 percent annually since 2000. Between 2000 and 2015, plastic grew from 17 percent to 25 percent of the global share of material used for packaging. In 2013, the industry put 78 million tons of plastic packaging on the market, valued at US$260 billion.

Plastic delivers many direct economic benefits and can contribute to resource efficiency. It reduces food waste by increasing shelf life, and its relative light weight reduces fuel consumption for transporting goods.

But there are problems.

Even after more than 40 years since the launch of the first recycling symbol, only 14 percent of plastic packaging is actually collected for recycling. Of the 72 percent left, 40 percent ends up in landfill and fully 32 percent leaks out of the collection system entirely. It is either illegally dumped, mismanaged or not collected at all. That means, according to the report, that 8 million tons of plastic packaging leak into the ocean every year. Imagine one garbage truck full of the stuff dumping its contents into the ocean, one truckload every minute. By 2030 it will be two truckloads; by 2050, four truckloads every minute -- dumping single-use plastic packaging into the ocean.

Estimates indicate that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean, by weight, than fish.

Clearly, current collection and recycling regimes are inadequate. Apart from the environmental degradation is the enormous economic cost of all this lost material. Analysis from the report indicates fully 95 percent of the value of plastic packaging material, worth $80 billion to $120 billion, is lost to the economy. Much of it is wasted in a short, single-use, linear flow.

Only 5 percent of the material value of plastic packaging is retained for subsequent use. The material that is captured for reuse is mostly downcycled into lower-valued applications, making the material unavailable for further recycling after use, eventually going to landfill.

A cornerstone of a New Plastics Economy is creating an "effective after-use plastics economy." Not only will this capture material value otherwise lost, but it also increases resource efficiency and provides a direct economic incentive to avoid leakage of valuable materials.

The best place to begin building this after-use economic incentive is with municipal waste collection and recycling programs.

Cities: Where change lives

"Cities play a central role in the transition towards the New Plastics Economy," Opsomer told us. As with many of the global challenges we face, cities are the engine of innovation and change.

Cities are "nutrient concentrators," he explained. "They are the location where almost all plastics in the world are aggregated at any given time. In addition, city administrations are often an active part of the plastics value chain, as in many parts of the world they control the 'waste management' (or post-use material flows) system."

"Finally, cities are innovation hubs where a lot of the innovations in design, materials, business models and technologies required to usher in the New Plastics Economy will come from. Therefore, cities are an important stakeholder group."

Cities like Copenhagen and London's Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) are among the front-running stakeholders working with the initiative to implement and encourage the circular economic principles outlined in the report.

A spokeswoman for the EU parliament told TriplePundit the European Union is also working to create guidelines to help member states deal with "so-called waste package." The EU is "looking at one part of the circular economy cycle: the end-of-life phase of products."

"Plastic plays a role here as well: It is about separate collection and recycling quota for plastics but also for plastic packaging more specifically. Extended producer responsibility is relevant as well. The interface between chemicals, products, and waste legislation is currently looked at in the European Commission," the spokeswoman said.

Opsomer said establishing a "Global Plastics Protocol" will align the efforts of all stakeholders, especially cities and municipal agencies, to establish the main pillars of a circular plastics economy. Such a protocol will provide a common framework while accounting for specific needs localities.

"Exact targets depend on, amongst others, local circumstances and measurement methodologies (which at the moment differ widely in different geographies)," Opsomer explained.

Early adopters like London and Copenhagen serve as models for other cities as they transition their materials flow to a circular economy.

The world without plastic

A world without plastic Is a "world I don't want to live in," Dr. Rolf Halden told a group of journalists, researchers, and scientists at a recent panel discussion plastics in the ocean. Like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's initiative, Haldren said "we have to design a new infrastructure, a ground-up circular economy."

Dr. Halden is director of the Center for Environmental Security at the Biodesign Institute and senior sustainability scientist in the Global Institute of Sustainability at Arizona State University. He said plastics need a "new chemistry" and warns of the dangers of "ignoring end-of-life scenarios" on our health and economy.

Opsomer calls it "moonshot" innovation:

"Innovation is required in all steps of the plastics value chain -- including new materials, product designs, business models and recycling technologies."

We don't want a world without plastics, even it were possible. The challenge and opportunity of a New Plastics Economy is carving a circular path for plastics, indeed for the entire economy, that aligns itself with natural processes, resources efficiency, and economic sustainability.

The meaning of the word implied in a movie 49 years ago remains, in a sense, a cultural signpost. Yet one more indicator of our time as one of transition.

Image credit: Edinburgh Greens, courtesy Flickr 

Infographics used with permission, Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Federal and state governments have made some heroic efforts in recent years to improve healthcare affordability for Americans. The Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) is perhaps the country’s boldest effort to equalize healthcare access across the nation. Yet according to a 2014 study funded by the Commonwealth Fund, the U.S. continues to rank last among major developed countries when it comes to accessibility, efficiency, equity and quality of care for its citizens.

The study, which looked at 11 developed nations (the U.S., Australia, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland). The U.S. not only has the most expensive healthcare system, but it is also "last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency and equity.”

And it’s no surprise that individuals with complex health problems -- who require supportive care due to developmental disabilities, mental illness or other chronic issues -- are often at greatest risk when it comes to getting adequate healthcare services. While the federal government provides Medicaid funding, it is up to the states to determine how and under what circumstances it is spent.

That local control allow states to regulate funds that in the past were largely directed at care in institutionalized settings like assisted living and extended care facilities. These days, more and more states are realizing the value of expanding Medicaid access to home care settings. Still, not all states administer those valuable dollars in the same way. The services available for an adult with a developmental disability, for example, can vary widely from state to state because programs are based on local priorities, not on national mandates.

Take Oregon, where limited part-time pay is provided for family caregivers who are willing to stay at home and care for a chronically ill loved one. The payment the family member(s) receive is determined by the amount of personalized care the individual needs on a weekly basis. Oregon’s program is based on the belief that home care by family members costs less than private facility care, where insurance, bulky regulations and other costs have to be factored in.

But home-based care provides another benefit as well, noted healthcare consultant Josh Boynton: It helps ensure that individuals who don’t need to be in a care facility can pursue a better quality of life and, often, increase their daily independence. For some, that translates to more stable health conditions as well as a happier lifestyle. [Full disclosure, Josh is a cousin to TriplePundit Editor in Chief Jen Boynton. He was chosen for this interview for his expertise in the area of developmental disabilities.]

Boynton is the former CEO of LifeShare, which he and his wife Rachel founded 20 years ago in New Hampshire in an effort to offer better manage care to individuals with disabilities. Boynton said the concept for the company emerged when he realized the available state programs couldn’t fully address the care needs of their client, Ron, a young man with developmental disabilities and multiple health challenges.

“[We] quickly realized that the [health services] system that was supporting Ron … was really about the system. It wasn’t about the person that was receiving the services,” Boynton recalled. That pre-designed menu of services required individuals to meet the needs and qualifications of the program rather than to ask, “What does Ron need?”

For Josh Boynton and his wife, this seemed strange. Boynton grew up in the health services setting, majored in human services in university and worked as a case manager for an area agency in the state. The couple knew from working with individuals with disabilities that any successful program needed to be able to adapt to the specific needs of the client, not the other way around.

“So, we went to the state and said: 'Hey, would you consider allowing Ron and his team to really be the one to drive the services and create the service plan, hire and train the staff that would support Ron?' It might have seemed like a long shot at the time. But the state, which had just received a grant to start a new health services program, said 'Let’s try it.'”

What emerged would eventually become the template for a new approach to managed care in which the daily tasks like preparing meals, assisting with hygiene, and providing transportation to doctors’ visits became part of the bigger goal of addressing what Ron wanted to do with his life. And it did something else: It took into account that Ron -- like every other person -- had the potential to change, grow and seek his own dreams.

“We started to support Ron through this individualized service option where we said: 'You know what? Let’s design the system to evolve and move as Ron moves and evolves.' Ron was an artist. He would spend hours and hours and hours putting together these brilliant colors. So we [thought] ... Instead of trying to fit Ron into a box -- you know, put Ron into this employment setting or this sheltered workshop -- let’s create an art co-op. We’re hire fellow artists to work with Ron."

The idea was a hit. “There was a little art co-op in a small college town in New Hampshire, and it was a place where people with all abilities would come and do their art,” Boynton said. For the first time in his life, Ron, who was unable to speak and spent his younger years in institutionalized care, was actually able to share his own talents with others. “He wasn’t seen as somebody with a disability who needed services. He was seen as somebody who had talents and was part of a community.”

As time went on, Josh and Rachel saw something else: Ron began to change. What Boynton calls “institutionalized behaviors,” which served as part of Ron’s communication mechanisms when he struggled to connect with people, began to lessen. “He started to really interact. His anxiety went down; the tension in his life was down; and his smile got brighter and brighter and brighter.”

“It sort of organically grew from there,” Boynton said. People learned about Ron and his care team, and one by one friends and strangers stepped forward seeking information about how they could encourage and create an individualized service option that could tailor better, more personalized care for their family member or friend. “[It] got into several states, supported hundreds of folks and it never lost the value, never lost the vision and never lost the approach.”

That approach put forth a simple premise, Boynton explained: “Real service for real people.” The concept of a person-centered approach that can explore how the service team can make someone's life better, rather than how the individual can fit within the parameters of a set program.

As LifeShare continued to grow, its reputation did also. It took root in other states, but not before helping to transform New Hampshire’s Medicaid program. Today, the state’s Choice for Independence program is considered a model example of progressive thinking when it comes to addressing the needs of persons with disabilities.

Its name, which was eventually changed from the Elderly and Chronically Ill Waver, reflects the new thinking of a person-centered approach that supports the whole individual. And its qualifications are set not only to be attainable, but to meet the individual circumstances of its applicants – just as is the program.

The Boyntons sold LifeShare to the Centene Corp last year. But its impact can still be felt in the communities it served. For Boynton, its growth is proof that there are ways to make sure that delivery systems meet the needs of an individual – irrespective of their medical challenges.

Still, to do that on a national level, he maintains, U.S. health  services will need to be restructured -- and soon.

“There are 5 million people [in the United States] who have been put in the category of living with a developmental disability,” Boynton said. He maintains that only 600,000 of those 5 million actually get adequate care. And that’s at a steep price.

“We are costing over $100 billion in Medicaid services. So if we are spending $100 billion for 600,000 people and you have another 2.5 million living with aging caregivers,” or faced with seeking services in emergency rooms, or receiving no services at all, “in 10 to 15 years, we will need support for millions.

“We need a bold change, a disruptive innovation,” Boynton said, that makes it easier to seek individualized care.

It’s a view that other experts echo as well.

“The United States in particular has opportunities to learn from diverse payment innovations and care redesign efforts under way in the other study countries,” explain researchers at the Commonwealth Fund.

Thanks to the innovative efforts that eventually became LifeShare, we may already be on our way.

Image credit: Flickr/zeevveez

Sally Levy is the CEO of Meniv Rishon, the water utility in the city of Rishon LeZion. Israel’s fourth-largest city -- home to 250,000 residents -- suffered from water stress only a few years ago, along with the rest of the country. But the utility has since launched an ambitious water infrastructure investment plan with the goal to curtail its water loss.

Levy set a goal to cap water loss at 5 percent by this year. In 2011, Rishon LeZion lost about 8.3 percent of its water to leakages and other problems – not bad considering Israel’s national average of 10 percent, but still some room for improvement. This year, the utility reduced its water losses to only 2.9 percent of the city’s overall supply -- blowing past its target.

A large driver was the emphasis Israel has long placed on water – going so far as to make it a matter of national security. “Israel treats water as a national asset,” Levy insisted during TriplePundit’s visit to her utility’s offices last week.

It goes without saying that Israel is one of the most politicized nations on the planet, and the same goes for how the country approaches its water security. Israel is now seen as a global leader in water technologies such as desalination. And as Israel boosted its water capacity over the past decade, all municipalities were required to get on board and purchase desalinated water, whether they needed it or not.

Levy was tactful about this decision, though it was clear she felt the city’s water supplies were safe – it just needed to be more efficient. “Do you know what the best innovation in water is?” she asked rhetorically. “Wells!” Rishon LeZion, unlike most of the country, is self-reliant when it comes to water, with 16 live wells supplying the city.

But as all cities in Israel are required to do, Meniv Rishon must purchase some of its water -- the bulk of which is desalinated -- from Mekorot, the country’s national water company. Any fees paid for this water do not go to municipal water investment; such funds must be provided for locally.

Levy’s challenges surged as the utility had to make up for the fact that Israel’s national government no longer subsidizes water costs and, in fact, charges for it even though the country is now a net water exporter. Meanwhile, the cost of water for residents surged from 2 shekels (50 U.S. cents) to 10 shekels (US$2.50) per cubic meter. That huge difference in price, however, hardly benefits Meniv Rishon, which operates on thin margins.

Nevertheless, Levy somehow found the means to invest around US$17.8 million in improved infrastructure in recent years. And no, these projects were not high-tech solutions such as sensors or other next-gen tools to detect water leakage. The utility runs a lean machine, as its employees are trained to respond quickly to any reported leaks.

Rishon LeZion receives about 571 millimeters (22.4 inches) of rain a year – a significant amount in a region with such a dry climate. Nevertheless, for years too much of that was lost to runoff.

Much of the problem is the fact that for years that water had no where to go. Like much of Israel, Rishon LeZion is built largely on sand. Over the years, sand was taken from a large pit in the western part of the city in order to build residences and offices. Eventually that pit became surrounded by the city – and over time it morphed into a pond that attracted garbage and mosquitoes.

Levy decided this pond had to become part of the city’s infrastructure, so it became a repository of the city’s effluent from wastewater treatment.

This new lake also collected some rainwater, and it eventually became a wildlife habitat that now anchors a new shopping center and an amusement park called Superland. But the lake could not hold all of the city’s rain runoff, so the decision was made to build a nearby “fjord” to capture the excess rain.

The fjord’s water is used for local landscaping in order to secure potable water for the city’s residences and businesses. Meanwhile, the city’s improved water storage makes it possible for about 5 million cubic meters of water to recharge the local aquifers annually.

Levy also estimates that the city saves about 5 million shekels (US$1.25 million) in costs as a result of these improvements. “Forget about all these fancy technologies,” Levy said. “The most important thing, fundamentally, is to manage the water correctly in the first place.”

Levy’s leadership has not only resulted in a huge boost in water security for Rishon LeZion, but also an improved quality of life in the city. Although it was raining during our visit, it was clear how the new reservoirs improved the city’s ambiance. Trees have soared high over these new wetlands; water birds could be spotted everywhere; and families were clearly enjoying the scenery atypical in what is mostly Israel’s dry desert landscape.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Levy’s leadership, it is a relatively simple one: Take pride in what you do, and put your customers first.

The enthusiasm Levy has for her city’s water system is infectious: During our tour of the city, she was beaming and was even quick to point out that the power station was clean and immaculate. Every little detail was pointed out, and Levy loved having it documented – she even photobombed a picture that our group was taking during last week’s press tour.

One reason why many nations’ water infrastructure is crumbling is because some things as dull as pipes and water mains don’t grasp our leaders’ and citizens’ attention. But Levy proves that emphasizing the importance of water has purpose. And incorporating facilities that have a vital role while offering tangible value, such as recreation, has turned Rishon LeZion’s water security to a focal point of civic pride – and a destination for leaders from across the world who want to learn from its success.

Image credits: 1) Meniv Rishon; 2) Gal Joss

Editor’s note: Vibe Israel is funding Leon Kaye’s trip. Neither the author nor TriplePundit were required to write about the experience.

By Bob Keener

The incoming administration will include far more people than any before who will take senior positions from business executive backgrounds and who have no public policymaking experience.

This raises two questions: To what extent is the government really like a business? And to what extent should business models and practices be applied to the work of governance? The answer to both is: It depends -- on what kind of business models and practices we’re talking about.

There’s a big difference between business as a force for good, for individual mobility and social stability, and business as winner-take-all, exploitive, extractive and – most dangerous – wielding ultimate power over citizens.

What people usually mean by “businesslike” public governance is crucial because of the real-world decisions that flow from that view of business, including policies enacted to make the county more “business-friendly.” Far from supporting and encouraging business as a force for good, the dog-eat-dog approach is completely at odds with the values that most triple-bottom-line business leaders hold.

If you lead a business that values people and the planet as well as profits, your values – and the way you choose to operate -- are under attack in a truly threatening way. Many well-meaning legislators craft laws based on the tireless fictions handed them by the Chamber of Commerce and other old-school business advocacy groups. If you know there’s a better way, it’s time stand up for it in public and with policymakers. It’s time to become an activist for business as a force for good.

Here’s where you can start.

1. Join with others

You are not alone. A big difference between the last time we had a new administration and today is that, in eight years, we’ve seen explosive growth in responsible, sustainable, triple-bottom-line companies. You may already be connected with organizations full of business owners and managers who share your values. Many are wondering what to do now. You don’t need to have the answers; you do need to reach out, connect and engage with like-minded business people to come up with those answers.

The most important goals of your action plan should focus on policy:

1. Protecting existing policies that represent the healthier business environment you want to have


2. Preventing new policies that give advantages to winner-take-all businesses

For example, at the American Sustainable Business Council, we are prioritizing climate and workplace policies to slow climate change and reverse economic inequality, both of which have a profound, negative impact on all businesses, long-term as well as short-term.

2. Prioritize your issues

With so many aspects of good government in jeopardy, it would be easy to feel overwhelmed. But you must set clear priorities and focus on them to thrive in business, and the same is true in your policy advocacy.

For guidance, look for areas of synergy with your business and your stakeholders. For example, some ASBC members in the tourism industry focus on clean water or nature preservation; some in the business of womenswear focus on family-friendly workplace policies. Find the issues that are important to your business wellbeing and your customers, and once you’ve chosen the top two or three issues, commit to them long-term.

3. Understand your power and clarify your principles

When business people engage in policy advocacy, they find that elected officials and the media pay attention – a lot of attention. This is why business lobbyists wield such outsized influence. It’s time responsible business people turned that influence to their own advantage.

To make sure your messages are heard, put them in business and economic terms. For example, point out the economic risks to your business and your industry from extreme weather events due to climate change. Or, talk about how putting more money in the pockets of low-wage workers by increasing the minimum wage would boost consumer demand in general and help your business specifically.

Having clear principles, such as sustainability and maximizing opportunity within our communities, will help others understand your perspective and will boost your credibility with politicians and the media.

4. Lobby your state and federal legislators

To set up meetings with them, use your well-earned clout by telling them you are a business owner or executive. Ask them what they hear from other business leaders and counter any arguments that support the winner-take-all business agenda.

Just by showing up, you let policymakers know people with your views are just as much part of “the business community” as the people who pressure them for winner-take-all concessions. Have specific policy proposals that you support and let policymakers know that you will support them if they support the proposal. Invite them to tour your facility so they can see first-hand your principles and values in action.

5. Speak out -- and build your brand, too

As a business leader, you have an important voice in your local and regional communities as well as in your industry. You already do everything you can to promote your business, products and services. When you add your policy perspectives to all your communications (website, local news interviews, mass mailers, etc.), you help build support for healthier policies in the same way. Plus, you get the distinct, added benefit of showing the public and your prospects how your company is living out its values. Yes, consumers and business buyers do vote with their buying choices!

The bottom line

As the new administration in Washington moves to make policy “business-friendly,” they’ll tell us we must give up our values of responsible stewardship of the environment and opportunity for all. We know that’s not right. But a more compelling fact these days is that it’s also not sustainable.  Even the most short-sighted politician can be helped to understand that – if the message comes from responsible business leaders like you.

Image credit: Pixabay

Bob Keener is Deputy Director of PR for the American Sustainable Business Council. Follow him @BobK_ASBC.

When Brisbane, Australia, suffered a massive drought in 2007, the city passed an ordinance that required new homes to include cisterns to capture rainwater with a minimum capacity of 1,200-gallons. Along with the cisterns came a water gauge. These homes in Brisbane saved 40 percent of their water.

If every home in Brisbane installed such water-harvesting systems, the city wouldn’t need to expand its water resource infrastructure for 100 years, said rainwater harvest and greywater capture guru Brad Lancaster.

“We have all the water we need, even in the desert, if we just know how to capture and use it wisely,” said the Tucson-based Lancaster, who employs similar tactics in his home city. “More rain falls on the hardscapes and roofs in Tucson than the city uses in a year. We just have to capture it.” He says capturing water from roofs, driveways and streets doesn’t take water away from the environment, and it prevents the erosion and flooding that occurs from unnatural concentrations of water flowing off hard surfaces.

“I believe that by harvesting water — and more — we can all begin to transform our households and neighborhoods from being consumers of resources to generators — and even regenerators — of resources,” Lancaster tells readers on his website.

Lack of information stops people from harvesting water

While harvesting rainwater seems logical, Lancaster says lack of information stops people from implementing it. He says it takes a 180-degree shift in thinking for home and business owners to recognize free water is falling on their property and that they can take advantage of it.

The simplest way is to take a shovel and create a simple rain garden for a perennial plant by directing water from a hard surface into a basin that holds that plant. On Lancaster’s own property, which he uses as a laboratory for his ideas, the installations follow the same principle but are more complex.

Lancaster started by practicing in his backyard. Since 1993, when he first became interested in water harvesting, he has developed drains from the main house to two 1,300-gallon cisterns and from the roof of a former one-car garage to two 1,000-gallon cisterns. Overflow from those cisterns, along with direct rainfall and runoff from raised paths and patios, is directed to mulched and vegetated basins in the yard. In times of no rain, he diverts greywater from his washing machine, showers and sinks directly to those same basins. The yard is designed so that water flows into and through a series of basins, percolating into the soil as it flows.

 

 

It is common to cut cores out of curbs to allow water to drain off properties and into gutters. But Lancaster turns the concept around and cuts curb cores to direct street runoff to street-side basins and plantings in the public right-of-way adjoining his property.

Even more dramatic are his strategies for cutting away sections of the curb so water streams into tree basins along the side of the street. Once the basins are full, no water enters the basin but flows in the gutter as it did before the curb was cut.

Lancaster’s journey required wrangling with the city to officially recognize rainwater harvest and greywater capture as legal practices. Once people started to become aware of the potential, political will began to build.

He worked with a candidate running for city council who was ultimately elected. That councilmember spearheaded an ordinance requiring commercial landscapes to provide at least 50 percent of their irrigation water from rainwater. Another ordinance required new homes to include a stubout where greywater could be easily accessed for use on landscapes.

A rainwater harvest manual enhanced knowledge of how to harvest rainwater, and the city established a rebate program providing up to $2,000 for rainwater harvest improvements and $1,000 for utilizing greywater per property.

Tucson has not only made curb cuts legal, but it now requires all new city streets be designed to harvest at least half an inch of rainwater in the adjoining right-of-way.

Lancaster has taken this capture potential even farther.  When Hurricane Odile came through Tucson in September 2014, he diverted the water from the other side of the street to his side. The water he captured made a storm that dropped 1.5 inches of rain the equivalent of a 20-inch event. He describes the process in “Harvesting Rain from a 1,000+ Year Storm Event.”

Changing the greywater regulations pitted advocates against health officials, but it turned out as many as 100,000 people were already illegally using greywater. Instead of enforcing existing law, officials studied those users and found no health risk. A colleague searched the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data bases, and Lancaster said there was no record in of anyone getting sick from contact with greywater.

While the study found no health risk, it was discovered that some greywater applications performed better than others. The result was the publication of 13 common-sense guidelines and legalization of the use of greywater throughout the state of Arizona, with no inspection, no permit, and no fee – as long as people followed the guidelines.

Greywater systems provided unexpected health benefits

An unexpected health benefit came from greywater capture, which requires homeowners to use the right nontoxic soaps and avoid chlorinated bleach so as not to kill landscapes. The secondary result is healthier residents in homes where greywater is used in conjunction with these less toxic products.

Design is important, too. Placement of plants is important not only for the flow of water, but also for how those plants serve the homeowner.  “If I want to be more strategic and plant one tree, I choose the west side of my home or garden so it shades and cools me at the hottest time of the day,” Lancaster said.

He also advocates lush landscapes and non-native plants requiring more water be kept close to the house and irrigated with greywater and cistern water. Native plants that will survive with little water should be placed on the periphery where they can be irrigated by rainwater passively harvested by rain gardens.

He says his principles will work anywhere, and has consulted not only in the desert but also in places with more water like Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. “Rainwater harvesting works wherever there is a dry climate or dry season; the only thing that changes is the plant palette,” he told us. "Georgia accumulates five times the rain as Tucson, but their plants will be as stressed as ours in a drought.”

Mitigate flooding in wet times and drought in dry times

“No matter where people live, it makes sense to mitigate flooding in the wet times and drought in the dry times,” Lancaster insisted. He makes it clear that one practice is universal for rainwater harvest: Always have an overflow when there is more water than the system can handle.

Finally, developing a sense of community is another hidden benefit of his approach to water management. Previously barren streets now are shaded by native trees, and, because the vegetation creates a cooler environment, more people are out talking, walking and working in their gardens.

In Tucson, neighborhoods are defined by watersheds, creating awareness of where the community’s water comes from and where it goes. After years of trainings, using nonprofits and extension offices to build awareness, and requiring a three-hour course to obtain rebates, Lancaster said people can be found harvesting rainwater in almost any neighborhood in Tucson. And the practice is common knowledge, he told us, whether residents are implementing it or not.

Can capturing rainwater and greywater provide all of a property’s irrigation needs so homeowners don’t have to buy water for landscape use? Lancaster says the answer is “yes” if a plant palette is used whose water needs are in balance with water harvested on-site. This typically results in a 30 to 50 percent reduction in water use and the water bill, he said -- but there is a caveat. “People with high-water consumption landscapes might not be able to provide all their irrigation water needs with harvested water. It depends on the size of landscape and its water demand, along with the extent of the water harvesting system.”

For more information about sustainable rainwater harvesting, visit http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/ or read Brad Lancaster’s book “Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond.”

Image credits: 1) Brad Lancaster and Jade Beall Photography; 2) Brad Lancaster and Joe Marshall; 3) Brad Lancaster 

By Gretchen Digby

Consumers are becoming more aware of the impact their purchasing decisions have on the environment, and as a result, many consumers have adopted increasingly sustainable behaviors. In tandem, there has been a strong rise in consumer demand for companies to offer environmentally-friendly products and services. According to Nielsen, 66 percent of consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable brands — up from 55 percent in 2014 and 50 percent in 2013.

These sustainable behaviors also transcend into the workplace: Having employees who are aware and engaged in your company’s sustainability measures is no longer just “nice to have.” It is now a key competitive business advantage. The new year presents a great opportunity to hit refresh on your company’s sustainability goals and allows employees to re-prioritize their sustainability habits. With the spirit of the new year in mind, I’m sharing my top three tips for motivating employees to participate in sustainability programs to help make 2017 your organization’s most environmentally-friendly one yet.

Avoid one-size-fits-all programs

Workplace needs are constantly changing and so must employee engagement programs, especially those related to sustainability. Sustainability programs are not “set it and forget it,” but should be amendable and reflective of ever-changing workplace needs. While you may initially see high levels of enthusiasm at the launch of the program, like anything, there can be a shelf-life and employees will lose interest if you don’t constantly incorporate easily digestible ways to blend sustainability into their daily work routines.

When developing your sustainability program it is also important to focus on the end-goal and provide your employees with multiple options to help hit your goals. For example, if your goal is to reduce employee generated emissions, brainstorm all of the ways employees can easily contribute to the goal in their daily activities. This could include things such as biking to work, creating a carpool club, work from home options and public transportation benefit programs.

Rather than choosing just one tactic, such as a “bike to work challenge,” you discuss the different ways employees can reduce emissions and they pick the one that’s best for their lifestyle. By providing regular updates on emission reductions from all the alternative transportation options, employees will be able to see first-hand the difference they’re making and feel motivated to continue with the program.

Celebrate actions taken and goals met

To my previous point, employees need and want to know their individual actions matter. When employees are positively recognized for participating in sustainability programs, it makes even the most mundane process and infrastructure improvements throughout the organization feel gratifying and rewards team work. In fact, countless studies have shown when people feel appreciated and are recognized, they are more engaged, more motivated and more productive; this goes for participating in sustainability programs, as well.

When I was activating Green Teams across my company, for example, we created a program where teams could compete for silver, gold and platinum certification based on points earned related to the sustainability activities happening at different distribution, office, sales and service, and manufacturing locations. This encouraged friendly competition among the different regional sites and also helped generate excitement around the program. Employees will feel a sense of pride and “buy in” if the efforts they make internally are recognized by senior leadership in public forums.

Make the economic case for sustainability

Research shows that a sustainable and energy-efficient business is a profitable business. Your company’s sustainability program will be successful if you can show employees how sustainability efforts directly produce ROI for the business. Continually measuring and communicating progress on key indicators of your company’s sustainability program will reinforce to your employees that achievements in sustainability goals are meaningful for the company’s bottom line, and make smart business sense.

It is best to start by setting easily achievable goals, and then becoming more ambitious as confidence and expertise are gained by employees. For example, requiring all printing and copying to be done double-sided, providing refillable pens in the supply cabinet, and turning off unused lights and equipment, are simple possible starting points.

Once an individual understands how his or her role directly contributes to the sustainability program (e.g. turning off all unused equipment when you leave the office for the day) and the overall well-being of the organization (e.g. electricity costs in the plant were down six percent after one quarter), they are more likely to be productive and passionate contributors to the program. In addition, with the better use and conservation of company resources, operations will be streamlined and business costs will decrease.

New year, greener work environment

In today's increasingly competitive landscape, many more companies are realizing that being sustainable is more than an environmental gesture — it makes long-term economic sense. Implementing environmental practices is also a great way to let your employees, customers and partners know that your organization takes sustainability seriously and that you really care about the environment.

The new year provides a great opportunity to revisit your company’s sustainability programs and, by avoiding a one-size fits all strategy, celebrating actions taken and goals met, and clearly spelling out the business case for sustainability, you’ll find yourself with a motivated workforce in 2017.

Image credit: Pexels

Gretchen Digby serves as Director of Global Sustainability Programs at Ingersoll Rand, where she establishes world-class internal and external energy efficiency and sustainability training curriculum for the company's 47,000 employees. She also oversees the company’s global network of employee volunteer Green Teams, which have helped reduce the company’s overall environmental footprint, improve employee engagement scores, and increase recognition in communities where they operate.

Interview by Tom Idle

Hans Daems, the newly elected chair of CSR Europe, couldn’t have chosen a more pertinent time to take up the position with the business network. Daems, who is also the group public affairs director at Hitachi Europe, will lead the organisation during an important year in its development – with youth unemployment, human rights and sustainable cities very much front of mind for the collective of some 50 corporate members and 45 national CSR organisations, gathering the thoughts and views of almost 10,000 companies. 

Tom Idle: Remind us of the purpose of CSR Europe 

Hans Daems: It was originally created through the European Commission to raise awareness of CSR and to share best practice on how businesses can create positive impact. It has now become an independent body that brings together large businesses, as well as companies that are organised at a national level. For example, in the UK, Business in the Community (BITC) is a part of our network. 

Our purpose is to enhance understanding and provide learning opportunities for those working in CSR within their companies so that they can improve business process. Part of this is enabling companies to work together to better understand how to integrate CSR into their business. 

TI: And it’s also about encouraging collaboration within the network – which is easier said than done. How are you doing this? 

HD: We organise workshops and events and our expertise lies in bringing people together. 

For example, we recently enabled 11 of the big players in the automotive Industry to work together in finding a common approach to supply chain sustainability.  

CSR Europe is now a unique Europe-wide platform, renowned by fostering high quality exchange and discussions. We have the ability to connect the dots to create a more advanced and interactive environment for businesses to collaborate to deal with today’s challenges together. No company should be under any illusion that they can find solutions on their own. 

TI: What risks are posed by the UK’s decision to leave the EU to overall CSR policy and legislation? 

HD: Well, there’s two ways of looking at it. The societal challenges that businesses are confronted with are not linked to any one country and they call for a collaborative approach. Things like climate change and migration are very complex issues. And I think sustainability will remain an area where the UK will continue to collaborate with the rest of Europe to find solutions. 

However, businesses will require standardisation of policy and a level of predictability. The UK has always been a leader on the sustainability agenda and it will be interesting to see how that evolves. 

TI: Of course, there’s a big difference between the leadership shown by business and that of governments when it comes to sustainability. How do you assess the current state of play by governments in encouraging companies to be more sustainable? 

HD: There has to be the right balance between regulation and creating a climate where governments and policymakers can work with business. 

If you take something like dealing with sustainability in global supply chains, there is a real opportunity for governments to create a framework in which businesses can take up some of the responsibility for those issues. 

At Hitachi, we think we have solutions to deal with many of today’s societal challenges. But as a business, we do need a level playing field and some predictability. Many of the investments needed demand a long cycle that often goes beyond the traditional timeframe of an elected parliament. 

TI: So, is it down to organisations like CSR Europe to make sure legislation is in place across Europe? 

HD: CSR Europe is not a lobbying organisation. We are all about collaboration – between businesses, and between stakeholders, with policymakers being one of them. We have to be careful not to ask for more or less. But having a predictable landscape is helpful. 

TI: What do you think of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a tool to set priorities and targets? 

HD: It can create a framework that encourages businesses to come together. Of course, collaboration is very much a buzzword right now. But the challenge is to create impact and leverage the strength of different players. The SDGs manage to highlight the shared responsibilities and the role that businesses need to play. 

TI: Which are the companies getting it right? 

HD: t’s not appropriate for me to point to one company over another. But those that are doing it well are showing a proactive approach to collaboration. And they are engaging their teams, within HR, legal, purchasing, etc. Those companies will ultimately be more successful. 

TI: How is Hitachi embracing collaboration? 

HD: For us, it’s all about co-creation and working with others to come up with solutions. 

For example, in healthcare we are working with people within the NHS to come up with data-driven platforms to deal with lifestyle diseases. We are working with different actors in the rail sector to come up with highly reliable railways solutions. And we’re teaming up with universities and technical colleges to make sure we develop the right skills for people to work in our manufacturing plants. 

TI: What do you hope to achieve during your time as chair of CSR Europe? 

HD: My job is to push the organisation forward. Led by Stefan Crets, we have a very good team in place. There is a lot of talent and good ideas about how collaboration can work in practice. 

Increasingly, our role is to make sustainability part of the core business agenda for companies. Genuine collaboration is possible – whether in compliance on human rights, whether in reporting of non-financial performance, or business exchange in implementing the SDGs. There are lots of opportunities for businesses to come together and those that want to be part of our neutral business platform for collaboration will do better than others. 

Uber started testing the use of autonomous cars in San Francisco last week, following earlier tests that began in September in Pittsburgh. There was only one caveat: According to the California DMV, “Uber needs a permit to test its self-driving vehicles,” which the company doesn't have.

Uber has a different perspective on the issue, claiming the regulations don’t apply to the cars it tests in San Francisco as they’re not truly autonomous and are not capable of driving “without … active physical control or monitoring.”

As Anthony Levandowski, who runs Uber's autonomous car programs, put it: "You don’t need to get belts and suspenders or whatever else if you’re wearing a dress." Uber also made the case that the technology in its self-driving cars is similar to Tesla’s autopilot technology, which doesn't require special permit.

Uber said it has no intention to stop the testing in San Francisco in defiance of an order from the California DMV, at least until the company gets the permit. This week, the California Attorney General's office also joined this legal battle, sending Uber a notice with a similar message to the DMV's.

While it is clear that the last word has not been yet said in this case, it is interesting to evaluate what’s behind Uber’s combative response.

Why did Uber choose to pick up a fight in a place where so many other companies -- including Google, Ford and Tesla (yes, the same company Uber used to make its case) -- didn’t have any problem applying for and receiving the DMV testing permits? Also, if Uber knew about these California requirements, why conduct the testing there and not somewhere else with requirements similar to those in Pittsburgh, where the company had no issue at all?

The reply I believe can be found it Uber’s business model. I’ll try to make the case that you can find clues in each of the five components in my business model framework. As I described last October, I add in my framework the elements of ‘mindset’ and ‘culture’ to the more traditional business model components (value creation, delivery and capture) to provide crucial context informing how value is actually created, delivered and captured.

Mindset: Uber is considered by many the latest poster child of creative destruction -- a term mostly identified with economist Joseph Schumpeter, who described it in 1942 as a "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."

It seems that Uber has happily adopted this image of a new entrant destroying the value created by outdated incumbents as part of an innovation mechanism required to keep the capitalist machine running. This view is also aligned with the narrative Uber created around clashes it had in the past with regulators on various practices -- this is not a case of company that ignores the law or has no ethical backbone but of a company that, like in many other cases of creative destruction, has to deal with outdated regulation that had value decades ago but now “exists to preserve a century-old monopoly for a connected few.” Is it really surprising that the company has 120 employees in its legal team?

This narrative can be seen in the company’s comments last week -- arguing, among other things, that some states and cities understand the complexity of operating self-driving technology and “have recognized that complex rules and requirements could have the unintended consequence of slowing innovation.” It concluded simply by saying it hopes California “will take a similar view.”

Culture: As the most valued startup in the world, it is no wonder that Uber reflects Silicon Valley's startup culture. Cultural traits that are common in the Valley -- such as entrepreneurial drive, focus and discipline, risk-taking, and competitiveness -- are manifested, for example, in Uber’s competences that include innovation, execution, quality obsession, fierceness and super pumpedness, among others.

However, the Valley’s culture is not just about enthusiasm, agility, experimentation and disruptive thinking – it has brilliantly created a powerful ethos of successful entrepreneurs, from Steve Jobs to Mark Zuckerberg that do whatever it takes to realize their vision. Uber, as we can see, definitely subscribes to this model – taking the 'don’t beg for permission, ask for forgiveness’ approach to the next level with its own “win-at-all-costs approach” and “always be hustling” mantra.

Value creation: Uber is maniacally focused on creating a great experience for its customers. And it seems that self-driving technology is becoming crucial to the company’s premise to provide riders with a seamless, delightful experience.

Thus, any delay in applying this technology becomes unacceptable from the company’s point of view. The growing importance of self-driving cars to Uber’s value proposition can be seen using the ‘job-to-be-done’ theory -- i.e., the idea that people have a certain job in mind that they hire a product or service to do. Jobs are not just functional, but also have social and emotional dimensions.

On the functional level, autonomous technology helps Uber preserve its ability to offer a reliable and affordable service, especially with regards to reducing the costs of Uber’s rides.

On the social level, which is about how customers want to be perceived by others, self-driving cars add a unique dimension to the rides -- allowing riders to use cutting-edge technology to get from point A to point B (and show the world on Snapchat or Twitter).

Last but not least, the emotional level (how the customer feels or wants to feel) is extremely important: Ride-hailing service is great, but it is almost a commodity now, when competitors like Lyft or Juno provide their own Uber-cloned services. The excitement factor is fading, and what used to be fun and cool has become just another routine. Self-driving technology brings back the cool factor into ride-hailing and, at least for now, gives Uber the edge over its competitors that still need to use humans to drive the cars – how boring!

Value delivery: Uber describes itself as “nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation.” This description does not just represent the Uber’s legal argument against classifying its drivers as employees, but also the way Uber perceives itself -- which is as a technology company using a sophisticated algorithm to deliver its value proposition.

However, I believe this description is not totally accurate. It suggests that the algorithm equally serves the riders and the drivers, but it seems the drivers are more a part of the algorithm than are served by it.

As Alex Rosenblat explains: “Uber’s neutral branding as an intermediary between supply (drivers) and demand (passengers) belies the important employment structures and hierarchies that emerge through its software platform.”

It is not that Uber does not care about their drivers (some reports show the company makes more efforts on that end), but it seems to approach them overall as code lines in its algorithm: The company tries to improve them to make the algorithm better, but as soon as it finds better code lines (i.e. driverless cars) it would move on, changing its description to ‘a neutral technological platform, designed simply to match driverless cars and passengers.’

Value capture: It's likely that no company represents the new economy better than Uber. But when it comes to capturing the value it creates, Uber acts like an ‘old economy company’ that subscribes to the shareholder primacy doctrine. In other words, in Uber’s world shareholder value maximization is prioritized over any other stakeholder interests, which means profitability is extremely important to Uber.

However, so far Uber is losing money -- a lot of money. In the first nine months of the year, Uber lost “significantly more than $2.2 billion,” Bloomberg reported. Other reports claim the unit economics of an Uber ride is still flawed with “passengers on average only paying 41 percent of the actual cost of a trip.” The investors that sunk so far $11.46 billion into the company are aware that their money is used to subsidize rides as part of Uber’s monopolization strategy and probably believe this strategy will prove itself over time.

Given that Uber likely has little appetite to increase its rates and that drivers represent the highest share of its overall costs, the only realistic way for Uber to keep its valuation high and its investors happy is to move quickly toward using self-driving cars on a greater scale. It’s not just that “when there’s no other dude in the car the cost of taking an Uber anywhere becomes cheaper than owning a vehicle,” as Travis Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder and CEO put it, but also that the company will no longer need to deal with the ‘headache’ of labor issues and the risk that the costs will actually go up due to court decisions.

Given these circumstances it couldn’t be clearer why Uber will let no one stand between the company and its only path toward profitability: self-driving cars.

Image credit: Flickr/Foo Conner

IBM CEO Ginni Rometty sent an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump a week after the U.S. election. In the second paragraph, Rometty proclaimed: “I know that you are committed to help America’s economy grow in ways that are good for all its people.” There are many who disagree, and her own employees are among them.

IBM employees expressed their disapproval of Rometty’s letter to Trump through an online petition launched this week. In the petition addressed to the CEO, the employees wrote, “We are disappointed that you did not reaffirm the core values which differentiate both IBM as a company and us collectively as IBMers.”

While the employees affirmed Rometty’s desire to “engage in constructive dialogue with the president-elect,” they underscored that IBM’s “shared culture and values" must "remain not only constant, but also central to our transformation underpinned by cloud and cognitive initiatives.”

One IBM employee became so concerned about Rometty’s letter that she resigned. Elizabeth Wood, a senior content strategist within the IBM corporate marketing department based in New York City, posted her own letter to the CEO. “Your letter offered the backing of IBM’s global workforce in support of [Trump's] agenda that preys on marginalized people and threatens my well-being as a woman, a Latina and a concerned citizen,” Wood wrote. She added that her knowledge is “too valuable to waste at an organization where we are not respected.”

Wood told The Intercept that she resigned because she found Trump’s “entire campaign repulsive” and that Rometty’s “willingness and eagerness to be involved made me think I want no part in this.”

IBM employees are not the only ones concerned about their CEO's coziness with Trump. George A. Polisner sent a resignation letter to Safra Catz, CEO of software giant Oracle, after she joined Trump’s transition team. The letter was posted to LinkedIn and went viral.

Polisner, a 23-year Oracle veteran, listed the reasons he can’t work for a company whose CEO supports Trump -- citing the president-elect's tax and economic policies, his anti-environmental policies, and his cabinet appointees. “I am not with President-elect Trump and I am not here to help him in any way," Polisner wrote. "In fact –when his policies border on the unconstitutional, the criminal and the morally unjust –I am here to oppose him in every possible and legal way."

By contrast to his counterparts at IBM and Oracle, Apple CEO Tim Cook personally responded to questions posted on the company’s internal employee information service, Apple Web, after he attended Trump's "tech summit" last week.

Tech Crunch obtained some of the text, in which Cook basically said Apple needed to keep the line of communication open with Washington in order to make a difference. “Personally, I’ve never found being on the sideline a successful place to be,” Cook wrote. “The way that you influence these issues is to be in the arena." He said Apple will continue to engage “whether it’s in this country, or the European Union, or in China or South America.”

After the tech summit, the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) took out a full-page ad in Wired magazine addressed to the tech community, warning about the dangers of a Trump presidency. “Your threat model just changed,” the letter states, and mentioned that Trump has “praised attempts to undermine digital security, supported mass surveillance and threatened net neutrality.” The group also mentioned that Trump has “promised to identify and deport millions of your friends and neighbors, track people based on their religious beliefs, and suppress freedom of the press.” The letter calls on the tech community to unite with EFF “in securing our networks against this threat.”

It is safe to assume that Trump’s presidency will not be a smooth one, if these reactions are any indication. The tech community's opposition to Trump's agenda can lead the way for the American people who care about the environment, diversity and the economy to stand up and make their voice heard. 

Image credit: Flickr/Michael Cote