By Rick Alexander 

Defending maneuvers to limit tax liability, Donald Trump cited “fiduciary” obligations to his businesses. While this excuse makes little sense for a family-held entity, public companies also cite fiduciary obligations as an excuse to avoid social responsibility. Many corporations make extraordinary efforts to reduce taxes, and appear unconcerned with paying their fair share of the price for a functioning government.

Outside the confines of a family business, Mr. Trump is right: Corporations maximize shareholder return, regardless of the burden on others. And that burden is a heavy one: Corporations control most of our financial capital, too often using it to drive climate change, increase inequality and risk our future. There is an urgent need to repair our broken system of capital allocation. The good news is that structures like benefit corporations can help us do so, but the clock is ticking.

Milton Friedman crystalized the “shareholders only” idea in the title of his 1970 article, “The Social Responsibility of Corporations is to Increase Profits.” On its face, this makes sense. If a 401(k) investor entrusts her retirement savings to an asset manager, shouldn’t the manager -- and the executives of companies that the manager invests in -- make sure her investments are delivering the best return possible? And won’t this lead to an “efficient” allocation of capital? Actually, no, and no.

Consider the run-up to the financial crisis: Banks sought profits for their shareholders, but created a financial crisis that cost trillions of dollars. However, most investors own many stocks, so these banks hurt their own investors by degrading the value of their portfolios, as well as reducing the quality of their lives. Similarly, lax emission controls may increase a corporation’s profit, but they decrease overall productivity in the economy by contributing to climate change. Because companies can retain benefits for shareholders while socializing losses, they are motivated to take actions with net negative values, inefficiently allocating capital, and collectively lowering returns for investors.

If blind pursuit of profit actually hurts investors, why does the Trump view of fiduciary duty survive? Two powerful but artificial constructs sustain it. The first is modern portfolio theory. MPT judges institutional investors (who control most of our financial capital) by whether they beat the market. This creates pursuit of individual company performance, even as it drives down the performance of the entire market.

The second artificial construct is shareholder primacy. This theory posits that corporations must deliver the best possible returns to shareholders, paying no regard to the effect on other assets the shareholders own or any other aspect of their lives. As a result, corporate executives make decisions oriented toward maximizing the return on their stock -- even if those decisions harm other companies owned by their shareholders, and even if those decisions create instability in the world in which they live.

We must address this imbalance: NGOs and governments cannot repair the damage done by a system that encourages irresponsible behavior across the private sector. Investors must focus on the whole market, and we need to give corporations the tools to join with investors and act responsibly.

Such a tool now exists: benefit corporation governance. When a corporation becomes a benefit corporation, shareholder primacy is not an option; instead the company must account for the effects of its decisions on all stakeholders, as well as shareholders. Thirty states, including Delaware, now authorize benefit corporations. And legislation is moving forward internationally: Italy adopted a benefit corporation statute, and statutes are under consideration in a number of other countries. Traditional corporations can easily make the switch.

Benefit corporations dovetail with the movement to require corporations to act more sustainably. However, this movement treats the symptom (irresponsible behavior), not the root cause (focus on individual corporate financial performance). Proponents of corporate responsibility thus often emphasize only those “responsible” actions that benefit the corporation individually, by protecting reputation or decreasing costs. Enlightened self-interest is an excellent idea, but it is simply not enough. As long as investment managers focus on individual companies, corporate executives will “go low’ if it increases shareholder value. This means, among other things, avoiding fair taxes.

We deserve better. Thoughtful investors and benefit corporations can help shift the focus of our economy to creating durable, shared value that recognizes the external harms -- and benefits -- created by their operations.

Corporations enjoy great privileges, such as limited liability, as well as access to our courts and our transportation and communications systems. They also enjoy the privilege of access to our capital. We have every right to insist corporations use that capital in a manner that preserves our financial future, and the future of society and the planet we live on.

Image credit: Flickr/Charlie Phillips 

Mr. Alexander is the Head of Legal Policy at B Lab, a non-profit organization that serves a global movement of people using business as a force for good.

If you feel as if your travel to an exotic destination just will not be the same without a chance to pet lions and tigers, swim with dolphins, or ride an elephant, you will soon have to purchase a ticket from a company other than TripAdvisor.

Last week the $1.5 billion Massachusetts-based travel company, which was one of the first adopters of user-generated content, announced it will pull tickets for hundreds of animal attractions from its site.

In a lengthy press release, the popular travel review portal explained that it will stop listing bookings for any attraction at which tourists could come into close contact with wild animals by early next year. Reviews of venues will still be posted; but any featured and reviewed animal attractions will reveal a paw-shaped icon, which links to a portal aimed to educate people about animal rights issues.

Viator, which partners with TripAdvisor to sell tickets and tours, has a longstanding policy that bans any excursion bookings involving the killing or injury of animals. Now, however, any business that scores revenues from activities such as riding, petting and swimming with wild animals will be excluded from booking on TripAdvisor -- which claims 350 million Web visits monthly. The policy will soon affect venues such as this nature reserve in South Africa, which makes it clear that the petting of wild animals is allowed.

TripAdvisor and Viator said they consulted with animal welfare NGOs including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and World Animal Protection in developing this new policy. Conservation groups such as Global Wildlife Conservation and Think Elephants International also served as advisors.

TripAdvisor’s new policy does include several exemptions, including activities involving domesticated animals. Children’s petting zoos, horseback riding excursions, supervised aquarium touch pools, and animal feeding programs staffed by zoo or wildlife conservation professionals will still be able to offer tickets through the site.

Many animal welfare groups, along with publications including National Geographic, have long criticized TripAdvisor’s policy of permitting the sale of tickets to animal attractions. National Geographic, for example, pointed out that elephants trained to give tourists rides suffer through a process called a “training crush,” during which these young animals are trained to lift their feet on command. Those orders often involve jabbing at these elephants’ legs and feet with sticks affixed with a nail at the end. Beating elephants as a punishment for making a mistake is also common in countries such as Cambodia and Thailand.

TripAdvisor is following the trend of educating consumers and tourists that wildlife is to be treated as wildlife, not as entertainment. Florida-based SeaWorld, for example, confronted years of protests over the treatment of sea mammals that performed in events such as its popular “Shamu” whale shows. And for decades, outrage over how wild animals are treated by circus companies such as Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey boiled to a point at which a proposal to ban such shows from New York City is on the table. TripAdvisor’s new policy is a step in reducing animal cruelty while educating people that behavior we may see as benign is in reality a form of torture that needs to stop.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

By Lara Koritzke

Over the last 20 years, sustainability standards have been used successfully across many industries -- supporting millions of workers and tens of thousands of companies that are committed to working responsibly.

However, in recent years it became clear that there is no single solution to the sustainability challenges we all face. Certification is one of the most proven tools in the toolbox. But the planet is still suffering, and we need a range of approaches to completely reverse the trajectory.

So, certification leaders are building on what’s good, innovating to respond to new challenges, and also adding other approaches to the mix. They already have a good solid base to build on – and we need this.

True cost to planet and society lower

The sustainability movement must break through when it comes to taking and making things from our Earth. And, despite some criticism, certification is doing just this.

Several reports show certification brings benefits compared with business as usual. A recent (and fairly cool) set of reports by True Price and IDH even show the cost to people and the environment is considerably lower with certified farming. New reports also indicate certification has yet to reach its limits. The State of Sustainable Markets report showed that some eco-labels saw six-fold, seven-fold and even 30-fold growth in a recent period.

The tipping points are getting up there too. According to research by ISEAL, the global umbrella group for the sustainability standards movement, 12 percent of the world's cotton is now Better Cotton; coffee has reached 38 percent of the global market certified; forestry is at 30 percent; seafood is at 14 percent; and palm oil is at 17 percent.

But now comes the hard part. All sustainability tools, including certification, need to engage the companies that are the late-comers. Yes, I mean those companies with lower scores on the Oxfam Behind the Brands Scorecards and low ratings (or lack of response) on the WWF Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard. Sadly, they are probably not reading this blog. And it will require new laws for some to take any steps. It also means that certification schemes need to evolve, ensuring they are accessible to small producers and developing partnerships to maximize collective strength.

Credible certification organizations are doing this already. To help, the Swiss government recently announced a major investment in testing certification innovations.

Certainly, some criticism of certification remains. However, many industry leaders are not fazed, and instead are newly discovering the approach -- one that may have emerged two decades ago but which seems to be more popular than ever.

New standards emerging: From steel to eels

Multi-stakeholder initiatives are popping up all over the globe, working to define what responsibility looks like for everything from leather, goose down and scrap metal to adult undergarments. Will they succeed in greening these industries? Well, if they follow an open process that consults with stakeholders, they are more likely to have meaningful requirements in their standards. If they have independent, transparent certification, they will more likely assure people that changes are real.

This month, a group of 21 certification organizations will embark on a campaign to remind people what good certification looks like. Groups such as the Forest Stewardship Council, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ, and others are reminding companies, governments and other stakeholders that they are ‘making a real mark’ on the world, while at the same time continuing to improve. And, they launched a new one minute video (see below) to make their point.

New public website on impacts

Businesses are responding as well. Two recent surveys show that the majority of companies plan to increase their use of certification in the future. Now a new website hosted by ISEAL is trying to pull all the credible impact reports – both positive and negative – together on certification. The site allows visitors to search by sector, topic, or region and get resources such as videos and infographics, as well as full reports by researchers or by certification organizations.

Soon we will have 9 billion people on the planet. If we don’t look after our resources now, we will create serious problems for future generations. We tell our children to learn from their mistakes, and in life we make decisions based on past experiences. So, as we look to the future we need to learn from the past. Let’s build on what’s working – and make good even better.

https://vimeo.com/183809381

Image courtesy of Marks & Spencer

Lara Koritzke is Director of Development & Communications at the ISEAL Alliance. Prior to joining ISEAL in 2011, she spent 11 years with Rainforest Alliance, where she developed global strategy for partnerships. She is based in Toronto.

By Eric Griego

As Kerri Moore of Booster pointed out in an op-ed on TriplePundit, more than 87 percent of consumers say they would choose a product that supports a good cause over a direct competitor’s product that didn’t offer the same benefit.

But how will consumers be aware of the philanthropic currency of your product without proper communications?

That’s why it’s vital to the success of your cause marketing campaign to have the most up-to-date communications strategy. Here are five tips to get you started.

1. Upgrade your existing email marketing campaigns

Some studies show the average American spends upwards of 6.3 hours per day checking their email inbox — and that number doesn’t even include response time.

The point is: It’s important to communicate your cause marketing ideals. And given email's continued prominence, it is an expedient and effective means to that end.

All of that being said, your current email strategy could probably use a revamp.

Not to worry — we have some of the quickest, most actionable tips around:

a. Make sure your emails are being sent from an actual person.

Pick someone from your team like “Jimmy Marketer.” Input his name (and his position in the company) in the “from” field. Then, when someone receives your email, they’ll see it as a friendly message from “Jimmy Marketer, Director of Marketing at [Your Company].”

Subscribers are dozens of times more likely to engage with an email that’s from an actual human being rather than a large corporation.

b. Write as though you were addressing one reader.

People want to feel as though they’re having a one-on-one conversation with someone – not that they’re receiving mass marketing.

So, make sure that when you start crafting an email marketing message, you’re keeping one individual reader in mind. Build an audience profile to help you visualize your average subscriber.

c. Embed little extras like videos or donation buttons.

Your business should also invest in engaging extras like premium video content and donation buttons to help support the cause you’re championing.

The best videos are ones that are to-the-point. They last no more than a minute, and they have a clear purpose and message.

Easy-to-use donation buttons allow recipients of your emails to give directly to the cause you’re helping to support.

Adding these two useful and informative tidbits will surely boost your cause marketing communications.

d. Bump up your use of the personal pronoun “you.”

One of the best ways to engage with your readership is to speak to them in a personal way. And you can easily achieve this by shifting your language from “I” and “we” to “you.”

Ramp up your use of the word “you,” and frame your advertising narrative around how your customers are the ones making the impactful waves in society.

If you keep these four tips in mind, you’ll be well on your way to email cause marketing success.

The point is: Make sure that your emails are as fresh as possible, chock full of engaging extras, and stuffed to the brim with “you.”

2. Boost your cause marketing through social media.

Your social media strategy should be a top priority.

How do you take advantage of social media sites to boost your cause marketing efforts? So glad you asked!

We’ve got some great answers for you right here, sorted by the top three social media sites with the most monthly active users:

a. Facebook (1.65 billion monthly active users)

As we mentioned earlier, video content adds an undeniable “something extra” to your emails. The same is true of videos on Facebook.

Because people are able to intake and comprehend videos thousands of times faster than they are the written word, video content is the most shared, liked, and commented on content on Facebook.

Thus, the best advice for capturing attention on Facebook is to invest in video cause marketing.

b. Instagram (400 million monthly active users)

Since being acquired by Facebook, Instagram changed up a few of its primary features.

For one thing, the platform incorporated an algorithm that boosts the posts of more active users. What this means for your business: In order to remain relevant on Instagram, you have to participate.

The second major change was adding a feature akin to Snapchat’s “My Story” option. It allows users to share instant updates in the form of videos and pictures that disappear shortly after being viewed. This ephemeral content provides your business the opportunity to share multiple updates a day without overwhelming potential customers.

The bottom line is: You have to be an active participant in all aspects of Instagram in order to get the maximum benefits of the site.

c. Twitter (313 million monthly active users)

If you can, you should absolutely share content on Twitter that’s eye-catching and engaging — content like stunning photos or captivating videos.

But, in addition to the attention-grabbing bonuses, you should also focus on the language that you use in your tweets.

The best cause marketing tweets aren’t preachy. They get the point across in a way that’s informative, if somewhat informal. Twitter is the place to showcase some personality.

Be true to your brand and your voice on Twitter, and you’ll be sure to make a splash.

Although it may seem like a passing fad, social media is actually one of the most impactful tools of the current century. And that’s why it’s worth paying attention to — and worth getting right!

The point is: Learn the ins and outs of each unique social media site in order to get the most out of this incredibly pervasive communication platform.

3. Look into newsletters as an alternative communication

We’ve already spoken in-depth about the benefits of revamping your existing email marketing strategy.

The other piece of that puzzle is creating a newsletter — with an email component as well as a physical (paper) counterpart.

While it may seem as though paper correspondence is “dead media,” the actual ROI of most traditional media efforts, such as FSI (Free Standing Inserts), is as high as 11:3.

That means that for every $3 spent on resources, the company sees $11 in return for a net total of $8.

Now, of course, not every piece of paper promotional material is that lucrative, but it’s certainly hard to argue that print media is dead in the face of such staggering numbers.

Here’s a great example of a direct mail flyer that has ties to digital outreach:

The flyer has three key elements that make it outstanding for its purposes:

1. It uses bright colors and images effectively.


2. The flyer highlights two distinct ways for recipients to get actively involved.


3. Its message is clear and focused on making tangible change in the community.

Your business can easily replicate these three tactics in your own communications.

The point is: Make print media a part of your overall strategy to help elevate your other efforts.

4. Include the voices of your supporters in your efforts

One of the most amazing facets of the human race is the natural inclination to collaborate.

We love to form teams, and we really love to share our ideas with one another. It’s a large part of why social media is so ubiquitous.

Take, for instance, these school fundraising ideas. They wouldn’t be nearly as effective if not for the input of the trifecta alliance of the PTA, the organization that brings together teachers, parents, and students.

Incorporate the ideas of your supporters into your communications by starting with outreach to any and all existing contacts. Let them know that you’d like to hear their voices and amplify them in your future communications.

Send out a survey that lets them express their thoughts and feelings about the direction of your cause marketing campaign.

Once you’ve received a sufficient number of responses, sift through them and look for the best ideas to eventually incorporate into your marketing efforts.

The point is: In the end, you’ll extend your reach well beyond your current communications, simply because your hand will be on the pulse of the community.

Curious about more ways to involve individuals in your cause marketing? Take a look at Booster’s fundraising ideas.

5. Optimize all cause marketing communications for mobile

In this day and age, mobile devices are a force to be reckoned with.

Mobile searches now significantly surpass desktop and laptop searches — which means that, whether you like it or not, all of your communications must be mobile-responsive.

Mobile-responsiveness simply refers to a website’s or email’s ability to load well on a smartphone or tablet screen.

For a long time, the Mobile Giving Foundation cornered the market on all things mobile, especially with regard to mobile fundraising. But luckily, the advent of next-generation mobile giving service providers has allowed for a greater diversity in the market.

Which, in short, means your business has a wider variety of fantastic mobile communication and fundraising packages to choose from.

Through these packages, you can give consumers the option to donate quickly on their mobile phones to the causes that you’re marketing.

For instance, if you’re supporting the Disaster Relief Fund, you can disseminate information via mobile email about the cause, and you can include an email donation button, like so:

That way, recipients know all about your latest humanitarian efforts, and they’re able to do something about it straight through their mobile devices!

The point is: The future (and present) of communication has gone mobile. Your business should, too.

---

As this article points out: The top barrier to integrating social impact is poor storytelling. With the tips you’ve likely gleaned from this post, you can rest assured that that will never be your business’s issue.

---

Image credit: Thomas Lefabvre via Unsplash

Eric Griego is the Director of Business Development at @Pay, a simple and secure giving platform that provides donors a seamless way to give on a mobile device. He has implemented effective fundraising strategies for hundreds of Nonprofit & Church organizations. 

Solar power is no longer a boutique industry. At least 900 million solar panels are deployed across the globe. Eighty-one percent of those came online within the last five years. From rural villages in India to the rooftops of suburban America, photovoltaic solar is fast becoming a mainstream source of energy.

Every one of those panels is only as good as the materials used to make it. The life of a solar panel isn’t an easy one. Pounding rain, blistering sun and bitter cold hammer away at them day after day, year after year.

The expected lifespan of a solar panel is 25 years, and most of the panels now in the field should have many years of useful life ahead of them. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case. The surge of solar power installations and ensuing rush to market exposes problems; weak links in solar module durability and reliability are now coming to light.

Every industry has growing pains. When too many solar modules begin to degrade or fail in less than five years, folks in the industry will start to ask: How do we prevent this from happening again? Over the course of two interviews, TriplePundit spoke with experts from DuPont Photovoltaic about this crucial step in continued healthy growth for global PV solar.

Materials matter

Dupont plays a foundational role in the PV solar industry. Its research and development in materials stretch back more than 40 years, long before anyone but NASA was talking much about solar panels.

“We donated materials to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in a project funded by the Department of Energy to build and develop a 30-year lifetime module,” Dr. Alexander Bradley, principal investigator for DuPont Photovoltaic Solutions, told TriplePundit in an interview at the Intersolar North America conference in July. Those original modules given to JPL are “still cooking” to this day.

Among the many lessons DuPont learned from its decades of experience -- and particularly cogent today -- is that materials matter.

Ongoing field studies by DuPont and others show a “significant and alarming” increase in solar modules failures, particularly with the backsheet: the unsung hero of a solar panel that provides protection and electrical insulation for the module.

"What we’re starting to see more of are quality issues for (backsheet) materials that have been in the field for a relatively short period of time,” particularly in Europe and China, Robert Olsen, Dupont’s global marketing director, said in a follow-up interview.

DuPont's research, as well as reports from downstream customers, reveal persistent cracking, discoloration, and delamination in backsheets made with the polyamide-based material exposed to cycles of UV, temperature and humidity -- the very elements bearing on a solar module's reliability and endurance throughout its lifetime.

While no longer sold into the market, polyamide was "popular five or six years ago," Olsen explained, and "is a really good example of how we’re seeing failures today of something that was untested at the time.”

Polyamide passed the basic IEC quality standards in place at the time: "mostly fixed-stress tests" geared at "day one performance," Olsen said. They didn't pass the "sequential testing that is more indicative of lifetime performance." If such criteria had been in place at the time to simulate real-world conditions, "these kinds of things would have been flagged, and these growing increases we might not be seeing today."

MAST: Testing beyond day-one performance

DuPont's Fielded Module Program collects data for location, manufacturer, materials and relative performance from 2 million modules spread over 70 global installations and representing more than 30 module manufacturers. “That’s how we learn and develop our products,” Olsen said.

“We share this information with the industry to create awareness and education of the types of issues that are out there and what can be done about them.”

Bill Gambogi, a research fellow based at DuPont's Experimental Station in Wilmington, Deleware, leads that program.

To date, the research shows that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the failures are related to Tedlar, a backsheet material developed by DuPont. The remaining failures are of polyvinylidene fluoride, PET, and "a large percentage from polyamide."

The current IEC standards for PV solar modules look to "flag early failure,” Gambogi said, "and don't speak to long-term reliability or durability."

"They are aimed at identifying things that really shouldn’t go outside at all,” he continued. “There are multiple stresses in the field and those work together to cause the kind of failures that we’ve seen."

With more than five years of data from the Fielded Module Program, Gambogi and his research team can see beyond day one performance and focus on reliability "over the 25-year market period." And it doesn't take 25 years to do it. MAST, or Module Accelerated Sequential Testing, simulates these multiple, cyclical stresses.

DuPont published several papers, with Gambogi as co-author, demonstrating the correlation between MAST test protocols and expected long-term reliability.

As Dr. Bradley told TriplePundit at the Intersolar conference, the colloquial term for MAST is "heat and beat." Accelerated exposure thermal, UV and moisture pummeling a module in relatively rapid sequence goes far beyond current IEC testing standards.

Testing beyond day-one performance is key to "the strength and health of the industry," Gamogi said. Growing awareness of this problem inside the industry, he projected, will eventually lead to better standards. “Various industry stakeholders must come to an agreement for pushing it forward and what the specifics are. That takes time to get established."

Standards can enforce system reliability, but Olsen says it “doesn’t take a standard” when individual stakeholders understand the economics.

Understanding the economics

Any major energy infrastructure project assesses costs over an expected lifetime of the system. Solar is no different. The economics work for solar when the system lasts 25 years. When all stakeholders understand the "economics of this,” Olsen explained, the industry can correct mistakes made by only considering day-one costs.

The reliability and durability required by the economics of any energy system should theoretically make sufficient standards of production and materials inherent to the market. For stakeholders with a tendency for short-term thinking, the recent “bubbling up” of failures and quality issues have a silver lining for the industry in general.

“A downstream customer -- an installer, owner or a finance company -- [must understand] that when they look at cost, they need to look beyond the ‘day one’ installation cost and look at the lifetime cost of the system,” Olsen said.

DuPont's research proves that point. No need to wait for the standards to catch up to make sound economic decisions.

At the cusp: Building a new energy economy

The common argument among critics of solar power is its intermittency. I argue that in an integrated new energy economy, this is a red herring. The real issue is confidence.

"Solar is still in its infancy," Olsen told us. What the industry needs to "really take off" is, among other things, confidence in the public domain; confidence in government and policy incentives; confidence in the financial institutions that are working to provide capital; confidence in the reliability of the system.

"We're approaching that cusp," Olsen said, where steps the industry take now to these address issues will bear on public confidence. DuPont's message is that fostering the "confidence, health, and growth that we need in this industry" requires an awareness that "preventing a lack of confidence" by adopting higher standards is "critical" to the industry.

Cost pressures, untested materials finding their way into the market, lagging standards: These and other issues now confront an industry still finding its way in a burgeoning marketplace. It needn't be any more than a bump in the road. DuPont and many other have laid the foundation to overcome the inevitable challenges of the new energy economy.

Growing up is never easy.

Images courtesy of DuPont

Levi Strauss & Co. announced last week that it would aggressively expand its worker well-being initiatives. The expansion is set to reach factories across Levi's entire supply chain, as well as other brands within the global garment industry. According to the San Francisco-based company, well-being programs will reach more than 300,000 workers worldwide by 2025.

The broad program, which Levi’s calls Worker Well-Being, first started in 2011. The company shared its best practices publicly so other brands in the global fashion industry can follow suit in order to make this sector more sustainable, responsible and responsive to its employees.

This move comes as the global apparel industry continues to face criticism that it is not doing enough to respect local environmental laws and human rights, despite evidence that more brands are striving to become more sustainable and socially conscious. Guaranteeing human rights within a company's supply chain has long been difficult as clothing companies seek to keep the costs of labor low -- which correlates with an increased use of sub-contractors to manufacture clothing. This is challenge especially true in a company with such a broad reach as Levi's, the iconic American clothing brand that closed its last U.S. factory in 2003.

Levi’s insists its outreach to these factories will have a bottom-up approach. The company says it will partner with a Harvard University program to develop a dashboard with the lofty aim of gauging what employees at various factories need in order to be both healthy and engaged. This initiative will also survey workers to understand what their most important needs are, which could range from healthcare to gender equality to financial literacy.

The company has already produced fact sheets it says demonstrate the pressing local needs, and how Levi’s and its partners will address those challenges. Employee health needs in Bangladesh, for example, include no-cost reproductive health and family planning services; awareness and education about various diseases are the priorities in Vietnam. When it comes to financial programs, Cambodian workers asked for financial literacy programs and classes; in India, workers wanted ATM access and access to other conventional banking services. Training programs on gender equality and preventing harassment on the job are the norm at many of Levi’s factories in both Cambodia and Bangladesh.

All of these programs combined will help the company produce 80 percent of its items in these “worker well-being” factories within 10 years, Levi's says. The company now assesses its vendors by ranking them within three different tiers. “Compliant” vendors simply meet basic legal and sustainability requirements. "Independent" vendors have more stringent management and compliance systems in place. "Model" vendors, however, are more proactive when it comes to sustainability and going beyond the ethical treatment of workers – and those are the vendors that can make robust “worker well-being” a reality.

Levi’s infers that these programs are about more than altruism, branding or mitigating risk across the company’s supply chain. A 2011 study issued by Levi’s and BSR made the case that companies also reap financial gains when workers are healthier, more financially secure and feel safe in the workplace. Suppliers benefit as well, as they are more productive while enduring fewer losses stemming from absenteeism, attrition or late arrivals to factory shifts. Levi's claims that at one supplying factory in Egypt, funds spent on health education services scored the vendor a 4-to-1 return on investment.

The question companies such as Levi’s must ask, however, is how employees would benefit if they were paid higher wages. In the aftermath of the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, workers and the labor organizations supporting them increasingly demanded higher pay for what is often difficult and monotonous work. That same report in Egypt revealed Levi’s vendor paid $70 to $100 a month on average. In recent years, more developing countries have reduced food, fuel and other subsidies in order to balance their budgets, which makes it even more difficult to raise a family on such wages.

Social programs have their benefits and allow companies to appear progressive; nevertheless, a survey on what workers are paid, contrasted with what they need to earn in order to become financially secure, deserves a close look as well.

Image credit: ILO/Flickr

By John Mandyck, Chief Sustainability Officer for UTC

As incomes rise with the global middle class growing from 25 percent today to 60 percent in 2030, the remaining 82 percent of the world who have yet to step foot on an airplane will start flying in big numbers. So big the number of commercial airplanes is expected to double to around 44,000 in the next 20 years. Conventionally speaking, more air travel means an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes. But must it? I don’t think so.

Last week I released a white paper with Dr. Alan Epstein from jet-engine maker Pratt & Whitney. The paper details exciting new trends in green aviation technology that can allow the tremendous growth in air travel to happen more sustainably. With new international carbon dioxide regulations just adopted for airplanes, green aviation technologies must now lead the way.

Earlier this month, the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) passed the world's first carbon dioxide emissions-reduction mandate for air travel. This is the COP21 Paris climate treaty equivalent for aviation. The new ICAO regulations:

• Aspire for carbon neutral growth for international air travel after 2020. Beginning in 2021, participating countries must not exceed carbon dioxide emissions levels consistent with carbon neutral growth by adopting new fuel efficient technologies, utilizing lower net carbon fuels, and/or investing in certified carbon offsets.


• Require that new airplanes certified after 2020 reduce carbon dioxide emissions substantially based on a metric accounting for aircraft size and weight.

How do we meet these new regulations? With technology:

1. Bet on gas turbines

The modern gas turbine engine is already the most fuel-efficient device for air transportation. In fact, the worldwide commercial gas turbine fleet averages 15 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions than a future grid-charged electric propulsion system, which will optimistically require several inventions and many years to reach fruition. Even so, the industry could find 1.5 to 2 percent of its annual carbon emissions reductions from enhancements in gas turbine propulsion.

Typically, equipment manufacturers have improved fuel efficiency and carbon reduction by 1 to 1.5 percent on an annual basis. Enhancing gas turbine technology can increase that by at least a half percent. That’s a huge number! What’s more, Pratt & Whitney just released its Geared Turbofan engine that reduces carbon emissions by 16 percent, particulate emissions by 50 percent and noise footprint by 75 percent.

2. Enhance design, operations and infrastructure

Another 0.50 to 1 percent improvement in annual emissions could come from new efficiencies and enhancements to general operations and industry infrastructure, such as:

• Application of different equipment to reduce wing drag


• Lighter cabins through the use of lighter materials, enhanced airframe design and even small weight reductions like paperless manuals


• Improved air route efficiency


• Increased focus on sustainability at airports

3. Integrate lower net carbon fuels

Biofuels are increasingly being adopted by airlines. They have the potential to cut lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions by up to 80 percent compared to traditional jet fuel. Right now, it is a challenge to produce and distribute new energy sources like this on a large scale, but alternative fuels hold great promise. All together, these enhancements could recapture the entire 4 to 5 percent growth in emissions based on expected demand through 2050.

Although I see the realities and challenges of climate change and sustainability every day, I am encouraged by the knowledge that we can make a difference in just a few short decades. It is certainly promising to see that we have the resources and technology in sight to meet the international regulations set by ICAO.

Sustainability indeed works.

Image credit: ©2016 United Technologies Corporation, reproduced with permission, all rights reserved.

John Mandyck is the Chief Sustainability Officer at United Technologies Corporation (UTC).

Tell me what you think! Tweet me @JohnMandyck. You can also sign up to receive notifications when new blogs are posted.

Silicon Valley tycoon Peter Thiel's continued support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been raising eyebrows since last spring, when he emerged as a designated Trump delegate during the primary campaign.

His most recent expression of support came over the weekend. According to the New York Times, Thiel is planning to make a $1.25 million donation to the Trump campaign. The Times reached out to a Thiel spokesperson and received -- you guessed it -- no comment.

Most players in California tend to swing Democratic, at least publicly. But Thiel continues to throw support behind the self-described success story who turned a gift from his father into a quarter of what he would have made in a mutual fund. In many ways, libertarianism is at odds with a sustainability agenda. While we believe in the value of business to power change, businesses require a robust regulatory environment in order to incentivize good action. Otherwise there is no business case for sustainability. But we digress ....

This follows the ringing endorsement of Trump's "you're fired" managerial style, which Thiel made in an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post  on Sept. 6. The timing appeared designed to lay out the case that Trump would be fit to serve as commander in chief of the armed services, in advance of the Commander in Chief Forum televised by NBC on Sept. 8.

Since then, though, there has been radio silence from the Peter Thiel camp.

Last week, New York Magazine reported that it and several other news organizations have reached out to Thiel for some insight into the recent events roiling the Trump campaign. They did not receive a response as of this writing.

Thiel's reticence has not fully protected him from fallout from the Trump campaign. Earlier this year, political observers began to note Trump's proclivity for echoing fascist turns of phrase, an affinity apparently shared by Thiel. (Thiel was reportedly scheduled to speak at a conference affiliated with the white nationalist movement in Europe in September, but later reports indicated he withdrew.)

Another point of intersection with the Trump campaign is a nascent movement to repeal the 19th Amendment, in consideration of a gender gap that would provide Trump with a path to victory if women did not have the right to vote.

Here's what Thiel had to say about the 19th Amendment in a 2009 essay published in the Libertarian journal Cato Unbound:

"... Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron."

The editors at Cato received so much blowback that they provided Thiel with an opportunity to expand upon these thoughts in a brief follow-up published that same year. Here's the money quote:

"It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."

That's hardly a reassuring take on democratic governance.

Thiel penned those words almost seven years ago. However, if he still doesn't think voting serves any practical purpose, now might be a good time to explain what other solution he has in mind.

That's an important question for a high-level Trump supporter, considering that the Trump campaign has also encouraged supporters to resort to violence because voting doesn't "make things better" if the entire election system is "rigged."

But like the saying goes, money talks. And it appears Thiel is still firmly in the Trump camp.

Paving the way for another Gawker lawsuit

Earlier this year, Thiel was revealed to have secretly funded the Hulk Hogan "sex tapes" lawsuit, which bankrupted the online news organization Gawker Media. Such an attack against a media organization that reported unfavorably on Thiel in the past is big concern for us at TriplePundit, since it amounts to a private assault on the First Amendment.  Now it seems Gawker is fighting back. In court papers filed last week, Gawker alleges that Thiel continued to interfere with its business even after it declared bankruptcy.

Peter Thiel justified his backing of the Hogan lawsuit by framing himself as a champion of the right to privacy against "media bullies." Now he faces the prospect of having to testify, in public, about the real motives that prompted him to target Gawker for extinction.

According to a report in Forbes magazine last week, the new filing is designed to gather enough evidence for Gawker to file suit against Thiel on charges that he purposefully sought to harm the company.

The legal basis behind the filing is something called Rule 2004: a bankruptcy proceeding that, in this case, would enable Gawker to examine the relationship between Thiel and several unsecured creditors, with the aim of determining whether or not they may cast their votes in bad faith.

The filing explains:

"As this Court is aware, one of the grounds for vote designation is a creditor acting with a motive to 'put the debtor out of business ... , destroy the debtor out of pure malice, or ... obtain benefits available under a private agreement with a third party which depends on the debtor’s failure to reorganize.'”

These unsecured creditors would include Hogan and at least two other persons with lawsuits against Gawker. According to the filing, Gawker has evidence to suggest these persons also received financial support from Thiel:

"If true, this indicates that three of the unsecured creditors are acting at the behest of Mr. Thiel. But Mr. Thiel is an individual who is not a creditor and who reports say is driven to a greater or lesser degree by a desire for revenge and the aim of putting the Debtors [Gawker] out of business."

Evidence suggests Peter Thiel steers activity

You can read the full 39-page Gawker filing on Document Cloud (posted by Forbes reporter Matt Drange). For those of you on the go, the filing lays out several specific instances in which Thiel apparently sought to undercut Gawker's efforts to settle its affairs after declaring bankruptcy.

Gawker alleges that after it declared bankruptcy, the activities of Thiel and his legal team were "arguably timed to affect the sales proceeds that [Gawker] could obtain in the auction."

One example is the cease-and-desist letter Gawker received from Thiel attorney Charles Harder last spring, "just days" after the media organization filed for bankruptcy. The letter demanded withdrawal of a story about Donald Trump's $60,000 hair treatment.

"At the least, these reports suggest that Mr. Thiel, who has no claim against the Debtors and is not otherwise a creditor, may be (directly or indirectly) controlling key aspects of these chapter 11 cases or otherwise be playing a large role in the economics of these cases."

Another example occurred in August, the day before the Gawker bankruptcy auction was scheduled, when an op-ed appeared in the New York Times under the Peter Thiel byline titled, "The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker."

In the op-ed, Thiel attempted to link his funding of the Hogan lawsuit to the proposed Intimate Privacy Protection Act, an effort that was promptly slapped down by the bill's main sponsor.

The bankruptcy auction went forward and was a success after all, though -- as the Gawker filing alleges -- Thiel's legal team sent four cease-and-desist letters to the eventual buyer, Univision.

Gawker further alleges that the harassment of Univision continued into September.

All in all, Gawker concludes that these efforts, "while ultimately unsuccessful in foiling the sale to Univision, appear to have been aimed at undermining it."

Less privacy for Peter Thiel

The activity described by Gawker may seem like clear evidence of interference to a lay person, though according to a legal expert cited by Forbes, it's not likely that a bankruptcy judge would approve Gawker's request for testimony and documents. At the very least, a hearing would take place before there is a ruling on the motion.

In the meantime, the Gawker lawsuit is just one area in which Peter Thiel has opened himself up for scrutiny.

Image credit: Stephen Brashear (http://www.stephenbrashear.com) via flickr.com, creative commons license.

 

Ed note: Join @BenandJerrys, @Symantec, @NetImpact & @TriplePundit to talk CSR & social inequality, Oct. 25 9am PT on Twitter to talk #BLMandBeyond! http://bit.ly/BLMandBeyond. New to Twitter Chats? Don’t worry! Read this.

Ben & Jerry’s has taken on so many social and environmental issues that it is easy to forget the quirky brand has been making ice cream for almost four decades. The Vermont-based company is not shy about its activism. And Ben & Jerry’s parent company, Unilever, has long stayed out of the way as consumers continue to buy its iconic pints with a massive side of consciousness. From climate change to Fair Trade, to LGBT equality and freeing elections from moneyed interests, Ben & Jerry’s continues to polarize literally and figuratively, with both its politics and frozen treats.

Ben & Jerry’s latest cause is full alignment with the Black Lives Matter movement, notwithstanding the calls for a boycott due to what opponents say is a “dangerous” campaign.

That criticism comes despite Ben & Jerry’s statements that it respects the law enforcement community; but the company says it also believes society needs to work on addressing systematic racism and “admit that there is a problem.” On that point, the ice cream giant posted an article on its website outlining seven points which make the case that systematic racism is a problem across U.S. society. From disparities in income level, education, housing, healthcare and, of course, the criminal justice system, the company encourages customers to challenge their assumptions about each other, and offers suggestions on how citizens can confront this ongoing struggle.

When it comes to equality and overcoming racism, Ben & Jerry’s has taken its strongest action on voting rights. In response to a 2013 Supreme Court decision that reversed much of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the company supported same-day voter registration, encouraged voting by mail and joined forces with Democracy Awakening. Ben & Jerry’s also urged Congress, while extolling citizens to pressure Washington, D.C., to reauthorize the now-gutted Voting Rights Act, which a half century ago ended poll taxes, property-ownership requirements and other restrictions on African-Americans’ right to vote that dated back to the Jim Crow era. And in a move that turns the idea of cause marketing on its head, the company launched a flavor of ice cream, Empower Mint, that highlighted its commitment to voting rights while funneling donations to the North Carolina chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Ben & Jerry’s focus on voting rights, a large part of the fight against racism, flies in the face of the latest narrative in this year’s presidential election. Down in the polls and flailing after two miserable debate performances and accusations of past sexual assault, Donald Trump’s latest dog whistle (some would say screaming siren) is his insistence that next month’s election will be “rigged.” Trump’s attempt to suppress the vote, especially of younger Americans, Latinos and African-Americans, has amplified despite the fact that Republican attorneys say the evidence of fraud in elections is practically non-existent. A former operative, who attempted to rig the 2002 U.S. Senate election in New Hampshire, said such a feat would be impossible.

Ben & Jerry’s insists it wants to encourage debate and is respectful of all parties vested in the Black Lives Matter debate and movement. But the pro-police movement Blue Lives Matter accused both the BLM movement and Ben & Jerry’s of spreading misinformation. In a blog post last week, the organization asked consumers to boycott the products of both Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever. Never mind that the company is not condemning law enforcement officers, only that it is asking for greater transparency and accountability – Ben & Jerry’s stand has provoked much backlash on social media and vitriolic rehash of its past political positions (some of which have been proven untrue by websites such as Snopes).

Landing in the middle of a race debate is always a risk for companies and brands. Starbucks' Race Together campaign in early 2015 came across as more awkward than enlightening. Airbnb took a huge hit on its already battered reputation as it tried to prevent what critics say is systematic racism among hosts offering rooms and properties. But in an era in which employees increasingly wish to work for companies with a conscience, having that frank discussion about race is a way to move society forward – especially with the current disintegration of honest discourse in U.S. politics.

Image credit: Ben & Jerry’s