Search

As a company operating in almost every country around the world, it seemed as if there were no uncharted territories left for Airbnb. But the growing complaints about racial discrimination on Airbnb’s platform brought to mind a new territory the company has yet to explore – corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Stories began to pop up over the last couple of months in which Airbnb users claim they were rejected by hosts because of their race. The detailed profile of users and hosts on Airbnb’s platform, which was meant to create trust among strangers, apparently also allows people to discriminate on a racial basis.

People like Quirtina Crittenden, a young African-American woman, learned this firsthand when her requests were declined on regular basis. It all changed when she changed her name to Tina and her picture to a landscape. “Ever since I changed my name and my photo, I never had issues on Airbnb,” she told Shankar Vedantam of NPR.

This story and others, from both users and hosts, soon followed as Crittenden shared her experiences on Twitter using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack. Their complaints were supported by research published in January by three Harvard professors. In a field experiment conducted on Airbnb, the researchers found that “requests from guests with distinctively African-American names are roughly 16 percent less likely to be accepted than identical guests with distinctively White names.”

For its part, Airbnb seemed to be responsive to the discrimination claims. Earlier this month, the company hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s D.C. office, to lead a review of its practices. The company “plans to have a full report with proposed remedies in September,” Murphy told the New York Times. Eventually, Airbnb "wants to have a division to handle and resolve discrimination complaints,” she added. Already, as the USA Today reported earlier this week, the company has scheduled a meeting with civil rights leaders in Washington, D.C. to discuss how it can fight discrimination.

Airbnb showed in its response that it is committed to seriously addressing the issue. But it seemed to act reactively, not proactively. After all, Professors Benjamin Edelman and Michael Luca of Harvard published a working paper in January 2014 entitled “Digital Discrimination: The Case of Airbnb.com." In that study, they looked at a New York City landlords’ dataset and found that “non-black hosts charge approximately 12 percent more than black hosts for the equivalent rental." Their conclusion: "These findings highlight the prevalence of discrimination in online marketplaces, suggesting an important unintended consequence of a seemingly-routine mechanism for building trust."

So Airbnb was aware of this issue for at least 2.5 years, but nevertheless seems be acting very strongly only now after the issue received public attention. This type of action could indicate that the company is still somewhat a stranger to corporate social responsibility: “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance.”

Another indication that Airbnb is late to the “CSR party” its class-action litigation policy, asking guests and hosts to agree to arbitration in cases of disputes and to waive their right to sue or join any class-action lawsuits. As the New York Times reports, this policy makes it very difficult for Airbnb’s customers to push the company to make any substantial changes on the issue.

Law professor Jamila Jefferson-Jones is quoted in the article saying that this policy insulates Airbnb from the need to comply with the same laws that real estate brokers, for example, have to comply with. Airbnb’s response was that they believe it is a balanced policy that protects consumers. Overall, while consumers’ protection by the policy is debatable, there is no debate whatsoever that it protects the company.

These indications show that -- on a CSR continuum ranging from reactive to proactive (reactive, defensive, accommodative and proactive), where reactive CSR is when “the company’s integrity and ethical behavior mere meet the country’s laws and regulations” and proactive CSR is about going “beyond compliance and engages in actions that appear to further some social good” -- Airbnb is closer to the reactive end of the continuum. Given its past legal disputes, some might argue that in some cases even the company’s compliance with the law is questionable.

Overall thinking of Airbnb in terms of CSR might be confusing, as we usually tend to associate CSR with established firms that need to fix their long-time unsustainable behavior and culture, not young startups starting from scratch. However, the disruptive nature of sharing economy companies such as Airbnb has created not just business opportunities, but also ethical challenges. Some of them have already surfaced in the case of Airbnb, mainly in the context of regulatory issues and impact on communities. Now it seems that the relationships between the hosts and the guests are not immune to such issues either.

For Airbnb this is a design challenge. And that's reflected in the response of its CEO Brian Chesky, who said that the company “will be revisiting the design of our site from end to end to see how we can create a more inclusive platform.” That makes sense, especially as the platform was designed based on the idea that transparent information brings the best in people. Apparently it also brings the worst in people, and Airbnb needs to take that into consideration while looking to solve the discrimination issue.

At the same time this is also a CSR issue. And it might be the time for Airbnb to frame it as such and start thinking about its impact and responsibilities in a more holistic way, adopting a broader CSR framework and acting accordingly. To move from one end of the CSR continuum (reactive) to the other end (proactive), Airbnb should start with a materiality analysis of the issues important for the company and its stakeholders -- creating a clear, strategic and measurable CSR agenda that will be transparently shared and promoted by the company.

Brian Chesky is quoted in Arun Sandararajan’s new book “The Sharing Economy” saying: “Our culture is designed. I don’t believe in inevitability or destiny. I believe that whether you design a culture or not, it will be designed for you, so you better design it because you might not otherwise like where you end up.”

I think Chesky is right, and it is time for the company to start thinking on how to integrate corporate responsibility holistically and strategically in its culture. Otherwise, just like this week, it could find itself again and again at the eye of the storm, a place it surely doesn’t like to be.

Image credit: Flickr/Joanne Wan

The microfibers in your Patagonia jacket might be contaminating the environment. A study commissioned by Patagonia found that microfibers are prevalent in land and sea. Or as the study put it, “Microfibers are prevalent in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, from the bottom of the Indian Ocean to farmland in the United States.”

Patagonia enlisted the help of researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science and Management to study the microfibers in its jackets. Researchers conducted wash experiments with four types of synthetic Patagonia jackets and one budget fleece jacket for comparison. They found that when synthetic jackets are washed, on average 1.7 grams of microfibers are released from the washing machine. They then travel to wastewater treatment plants, and up to 40 percent of them end up in rivers, lakes and oceans.

Researchers also found that the type of washing machine and the age of the jacket matter. Top-load washing machines had 5.3 times the microfiber shedding of front-load machines. Aging jackets increased microfiber shedding by 1.8 times.

In addition to the experiments with washing the jackets, researchers conducted a literature review of previous studies. Here’s what they found:

• Microfibers are of particular concern because finished apparel products have “large quantities of chemical substances” from garment manufacturing, and many are released during washing. So, microfibers can potentially release hazardous chemicals into the environment.


• Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) end up with large amounts of microfibers daily. Most are removed, but still a significant amount end up released into the local environment. WWTPs are costly, so upgrading them to remove microfiber pollution is not a feasible solution.


• Microfibers are consumed by aquatic organisms throughout the food chain and they can cause problems, including reproductive problems.

Microfibers are a subcategory of microplastics. A recent article published in Outside mentions previous research on microplastics and microfibers. A senior lecturer at Plymouth University in southwestern England headed up graduate-student research into microplastics in aquatic environments at the turn of the 21st century. What they found is that many of the microplastic pieces came from fibers.

In 2011, Mark Browne, who had been one of Thompson’s students, published a study on his research from 15 beaches. What he found were high amounts of synthetic fibers, namely polyester and acrylic, in the samples near WWTPs. Browne reached out to apparel manufacturers, including Patagonia, but at the time they were not concerned about microfibers. Four years later, Patagonia commissioned this study.

Many people wear synthetic clothing. The Patagonia study states that the “vast majority of the public wears and washes synthetic clothing; this is not an isolated problem.” Researchers developed a protocol that Patagonia and other apparel manufacturers can use to understand the amount of microfibers that are shed by their garments. 

While manufacturers need to do their part to solve the problem, the Rozalia Project has a low-cost and simple way to capture the microfibers shed during washing. The company developed a microfiber catcher that can work in a top- or front-load machine. Early test results show that the microfiber catcher prevents 2,000 to 9,000 microfiber pieces from flowing out of washing machines and into public waterways per wash per household.

The patent on it is still pending, and it's expected to be available for sale by the spring of 2017. Once it is available to the public, sales of the microfiber catcher will go toward the work Rozalia Project does to clean and protect the ocean.

Image credit: Flickr/Hajime Nakano

The three Rs -- reduce, reuse, recycle -- probably ring a bell from your childhood. But most people don't know these repeating consonants represent the waste management hierarchy. Think of it as a comprehensive way to deal with waste in a way that is better for the planet and the people who dwell on it.

Reduction is the key to waste management

Reduction is first in the hierarchy for a reason. Reducing the amount of waste at its source is key to cutting impact.

Start with the basics -- Paper: Paper is a big place to start for most businesses. Although we live in the electronics age, a staggering amount of paperwork is still generated: Thirty billion documents are printed annually in the U.S. The average U.S. office worker generates around two pounds of paper and paperboard products every day, and around 90 percent of all office waste is paper. Approximately 500 paper documents are signed by the average authorized employee every year. So, reducing paperwork will go a long way to reducing office waste.

Reducing paperwork is simple, as a guide by North Carolina State University shows:

• Reuse manila envelopes.


• Make scratch pads from used paper.


• Circulate memos, documents, periodicals, and reports instead of printing individual copies. 


• Proofread documents before printing them out.

Companies like Adobe offer a number of services that help further eliminate paperwork. Through Adobe Document Cloud a document can be created, signed and stored. And doing so means that document has an environmental footprint that is 91 percent less than if it was printed, plus a cost savings of over 90 percent.

A waste management guide published by New Mexico State University lists ways to reduce waste, again with paper as a baseline item. A key suggestion from the university is to eliminate phone books. Just the white pages alone cost 5 million trees a year. And while phone books are delivered via snail-mail once a year, services like YellowPagesOptOut.com allow people to opt-out of automatic phone book delivery. And smartphone apps like YP can replace the yellow pages.

New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection swapped phone books for electronic phone directories and eliminated about 1.3 tons of paper every year. Plus, it reduced greenhouse gas impacts by 2.8 metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) a year. Recycling that amount would only produce a reduction of one MTCE a year.

The next level: Textiles: Items that pile up quickly in the trash can, such as paper, are a great place to start for both people and businesses looking to reduce waste. But other waste streams can pile up nearly as quickly, although we may not notice it. 

For example, Americans toss away 14 million tons of textiles every year. And while shoppers have their own role to play, corporate actors also took note of this figure. And many opted to employ upcycling as a way to address it. Instead of recycling a piece of clothing, through upcycling it is transformed into a new garment for someone else. The clothing retailer Reformation, for example, takes vintage garments, deadstock fabrics and sustainable fabrics and incorporates them into new pieces of clothing. Based in Downtown Los Angeles, about 40 percent of the fabrics that make up Reformation’s clothes are from vintage or deadstock.

Reuse to give new life to old products

There is an old saying that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. That is certainly true when it comes to waste management. For individuals, thrift stores are a prime example. They sell stuff that other people have deemed unusable, but instead of throwing the stuff away, they bring it to thrift stores. Clothing is a common item that winds up in shops like these, making them a vital component in the fight against textile waste.

Apparel companies are also rising to the occasion. Encouraging people to breathe new life into their clothes by repairing them is something that outdoor clothing retailer Patagonia understands. The outdoor gear label operates the largest garment repair facility in North America. The company boasts that it completed over 40,000 individual repairs in 2015 alone.

The company trains its retail staff to do simple repair jobs. And it partners with iFixit to publish over 400 free repair guides for Patagonia products so consumers can learn how to repair their gear themselves. As Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario wrote in a blog post, “We go to great lengths to provide our customers with opportunities to fix their gear themselves, find it a new home or recycle it if necessary.”

Recycle to avoid landfill waste

Some products just can’t be reused. But they can be recycled. Patagonia’s Worn Wear program is a good example. Through the program, Patagonia accepts all of its worn-out garments. Customers can bring their old, worn-out Patagonia gear to any of the company’s stores or mail them to the company. Patagonia has recycled over 82 tons of clothing since 2005.

Another waste item that doesn't receive nearly enough attention, despite its prevalence, is electronics. When it comes to electronics, we are encouraged to upgrade to the latest device as often as possible. However, that is not always the best thing to do. Take cell phones. Every time we upgrade our smartphone, the old one must be disposed. While they can be recycled, it is better to keep a smartphone as long as possible. Some phone companies encourage upgrading a smartphone every year. However, if we only upgrade every two or three years, we have extended the life of our phone and saved money.

Sometimes two areas of the waste management hierarchy will collide. Cell phones are one area. While it is best to hang on to a phone as long as possible, eventually it will need to be upgraded. So, finding a way to recycle your old device is of the utmost importance. Each of the four main cell phone carriers in the U.S. offer recycling programs. AT&T's trade-in program allows customers to bring unwanted devices, including smartphones, to a company-owned retail store to be recycled. The devices can come from any carrier. Through the trade-in program, customers who bring in an unwanted device receive AT&T Promotion Card, which can be used to either offset the cost of upgrading, toward buying AT&T products and services, or donating the value of it to an AT&T designated charity.

Most of us have numerous electronic devices we use daily in addition to our smartphones, such as laptops and tablets. An estimated three-quarters of all computers sold in the U.S. remain unused, waiting to be disposed. 

So, how do we recycle our laptops and tablets? Take AT&T’s trade-in program. Devices other than smartphones can be recycled through the program, including tablets. Another way to recycle unwanted but still working electronics is to give them to someone who can still use them, or the second R in the waste management hierarchy: reuse. Charitable organizations and thrift stores will usually accept computers that are still in working condition, as will many local community centers. 

The bottom line

For both individuals and businesses, it's great to start with the basics when it comes to reducing waste. But landfill space is dwindling and the planet is already being impacted by climate change. So, it's vital to move beyond that first stepping stone, look past commonly-recycled items (and even recycling itself), and rethink how we manage waste in every aspect of our lives. Whether it's an office memo, your favorite gadget or the shirt on your back, there's always a better option than the landfill.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Danielle Buma (cropped); 2) Flickr/Neil Barnwell

Republican nominee, presidential candidate, business mogul, TV personality and ... gardener? Donald Trump’s resume boasts many impressive accomplishments. But among the feats lies his negotiation to include somewhat secret but public gardens in his famous Fifth Avenue Trump Tower.

The garden conception came about in 1979, when Trump finalized a deal with New York City to increase his masterpiece by approximately 200,000 square feet -- 20 floors -- in exchange for 15,000 square feet of public space devoted to gardens and atriums. The additional 20 floors were contracted as condos and office space, and now represent just about all of Trump’s ownership of the tower (244,000 square feet), Crain’s New York reported on Sunday. Forbes appraised Trump’s remaining stake of the building at around $530 million — not a bad price considering it wouldn’t have been possible without the so-called “public gardens”

New York City is home to around 500 privately-owned public spaces (POPS), many of which were created by developers who, like Trump, were negotiating for taller buildings. At least five buildings donning Trump’s name, including Trump International Hotel and Trump Palace, have POPS with dedicated gardens and atriums.

While it seems like a reasonable deal for both the city and the developer to construct atriums in exchange for building expansion, it’s not always a fair tradeoff. And that’s the case with Trump Tower. While Trump profited off the 20 extra floors granted, the public gardens are tucked away, unassuming and unadvertised — leaving the city to question just how public these spaces really are.

The city government ensures that Trump Tower’s atrium must be available to the public seven days a week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., with the gardens’ doors open when the building’s stores are. But Trump has abused the public space to push his political agenda and advertise his campaign, setting up news conferences and shooing away tourists and city-goers, Crain's New York reported.

The atrium is granted four days a year for private events, reports Reuters, but the request must first be passed by city officials. Violations for closing off the 6,000-square-foot atrium, which features a gold lining and a waterfall, to the public without permission consists of a $4,000 fine. 

City officials will also meet to decide whether Trump faltered in the agreement after he swapped a 22-foot-long bench in the public space with kiosks selling apparel sporting his “Make America Great Again” slogan, Reuters reported earlier this month. The city already fined Trump $4,000 for removing the bench, but the fine could continue to grow if the bench is not returned.

The public gardens, situated throughout different floors of Trump’s 58-story tower, is one of the biggest secrets amid the hustle and bustle of America’s most populated city. What’s left to be seen is whether or not Trump continues to use his atrium as a private venue to campaign his run for the presidency, or if he keeps the public space public.

Image credit: m01229/Flickr

Do you know what the top driver is for a retailer to create social good? How about a manufacturer? Ketchum and Carol Cone On Purpose just released a report that will tell you that and more.

The study was published to start conversations between retailers and manufacturers about how to increase their return on social and environmental initiatives. The expectation is that they will see greater impact from their efforts if they collaborate. But first, retailers and manufacturers need to understand each other's perspectives. So, over 250 senior leaders at retailers and manufacturers took part in both a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. They hailed from the U.S., Germany, U.K., China and South Korea.

Here are five highlights from the Ketchum Global Business "Return On Purpose" Study.

1. Purpose-driven initiatives are strategic business moves

It’s impressive how many retailers (94 percent) and manufacturers (98 percent) say social good initiatives are important to their company. They also predict social impact will become even more critical in the next two years (93 percent). That’s great, as it’s better for the planet and means higher job security for us.

2. The top CSR motivators are (drum roll, please) reputation enhancement, business results, and competitive advantage

Retailers and manufacturers say based on their experience these factors drive the integration of corporate social responsibility (CSR) into operations, products and services. Of course, retailers are looking to manufacturers to increase sustainability and social good in their products and process without decreasing profit. That makes it a little tricky.

3. Add human resource and legal department workers to impact initiatives

It’s pretty obvious that C-suite executives are the biggest influencers on sustainability efforts. What is less well know is: “The most effective organizations bring all their resources to the table in a cross-functional team to amplify and ignite their meaning. When they do, magic happens,” said Carol Cone, CEO of On Purpose.

Right now 70 percent of teams include executives, marketing, external relations and operations. Who’s missing? Human resources and legal departments. They need to be added to the team because they are essential for implementing social impact and mitigating reputational risk.

Also, the people who don’t work at your company are powerful — consumers. Yes, retailers perceive customers to be one of the top three influences. In particular, millennials and Gen Z are big players in the marketplace and conscientious about spending their dollars on sustainable products from ethical companies. Lastly, European and United States manufacturers say regulators and legislators are also a top influencer. Makes sense.

4. Measuring business results gets easier when retailers and manufacturers collaborate

Four in 10 retailers say that social good initiatives only make sense when a return on investment can be measured. However, around half (48 percent of manufacturers and 44 percent of retailers) say ROI is too hard to measure.

To improve efficiency and effectiveness, retailers and manufacturers can partner to define, prioritize and share metrics. Retailers rank customer satisfaction is the most important measurement (60 percent). Manufacturers cite operational efficiency and customer satisfaction as the top metric (66 percent).

5. The top barrier to integrating social impact is poor storytelling

If you want purpose to be integrated into every fiber of your company, you need to tell a powerful story. Communications, marketing and sales departments should be sharing your company's social innovation story with external audiences. Tell them what you’re doing, how it impacts them and why it’s valuable to the rest of the world.

Ketchum and Carol Cone On Purpose say they hope this research will encourage manufacturers and retailers to discuss ways to collaborate.

“This study really underscores the importance businesses attach to their impact on the environment and support of social initiatives,” said Monica Marshall, SVP and director of sustainability and social impact at Ketchum. When companies discuss these findings, she recommended they be transparent about any challenges and honestly say, “‘Yeah, we have it’ or ‘No, here are some gaps and what can we do to make it more sustainable? How can we collaborate?’”

Image (cropped) courtesy of Ketchum

In the midst of an intense and acrimonious electoral process in the U.S., it is time to consider the corporate social responsibility of the media -- printed, social and broadcast -- beyond their traditional social and environmental responsibility as a corporate entity.  We will only address the key issue of the responsibility of their products in this process: news, discussion, awareness.

We, listeners, viewers, readers, are not only the object of their existence, of their products, but we are also their customers; we are the ones who, in general, pay for their costs; we are the ones who buy the products and services that are advertised in most of the communications.   What advertisers pay the media is directly or indirectly included in the prices of goods and services that we buy.  We, media users, fund most of the commercial media (with some exceptions).  We are their major stakeholder.  We, media users, have the right to receive responsible products.

What are responsible products in the media in this context?:  News that are well researched, balanced and clearly presented; opinions and discussions that are presented with due analysis and justification and that provide opportunity to consider different points of view and raise awareness about the most important issues for the future of society; reports that provide the necessary background to understand those points of view, their implications and their consequences.

The current electoral process has highlighted that a vast portion of the electorate has very little knowledge of the most important issues that affect their future, the possible alternatives and the impact of the different approaches taken to consider them.  This may have always been the case, but this electoral process has put under the limelight that large portions of the electorate are rather naïve, gullible, incapable of analyzing the consequences of the electoral promises. They seem to believe almost anything without questioning.  And this has put a strong focus on the responsibility of media products.

There are several reasons why any entity has responsibilities and one of them is derived from power.  Power brings responsibilities to use that power responsibly.  Media exists because of society, and society has conferred it large power.  Media must utilize this power to further the wellbeing of that society in which it operates.  And in the current electoral process it must exercise this power responsibly to provide it with instruments to make informed decisions.  Ideally, this power should be exercised impartially, without biases, although this is extremely hard to achieve in practice, not all the issues lend themselves to analytical, reasoned solutions, many are moral issues, many have to be dealt with very incomplete information.  Furthermore, some media are financially controlled by groups which want to promote their special interests. But at the very least media must make the effort to identify the issues which are most relevant and provide the necessary information for a discussion.

As an example, one candidate can promise debt and tax reductions and increases in expenditures without flinching, and a large part of the electorate buys it. It is it what they want to hear.  They do not concern themselves with the “vagaries” of the fundamental laws of arithmetics and economics that make that promise totally impossible.  Another candidate can promise free college tuition for all, which obviously will endear him or her with the electorate without it realizing the negative consequences of expending resources on unqualified students, the impact on the quality of research and teaching, the potential unbalances in the supply and demand of professions, the misallocation of resources, or the need to increase government revenues from somewhere.  Another one may offer free health care to all without realizing the abuses that this system will encourage and the consequent drop in the quality of attention in the medium term.  Many politicians offer a free lunch and the electorate likes free stuff.

The media has the responsibility to promote discussion and analysis of these issues as there is an obvious “market failure” in the market for electoral promises.  Consumers need consumer protection on this in the same way consumers need protection against irresponsible products like predatory lending, unhealthy products, unsafe driving cars, and the like.  Can the government regulate the marker for political spin?  Obviously not!   Can the media do it?  No, but it can and should make an educated and balanced contribution to the discussion of the issues. And here we are not advocating that media take one position or another, this would make their products even more irresponsible.

And unfortunately there is another “market failure” in the electoral market and it refers to the difficulty of the market in deciding on the “right” products. As in the consumer market we may prefer sweet, fattening foods to healthy products, in the market for politics we may prefer light stuff, gossip, entertainment, anecdote more than in-depth discussion of relevant issues.  We have enough problems with a complicated life as is, to complicate it further with having to deal with complex electoral issues. In this case the public has the choice to choose its own poison.  Again, this market failure cannot and should not be regulated by the government but again, the media has the power, the capabilities and social responsibilities to intervene and select the relevant issues and the relevant format for the discussion and analysis.

The major constraint in the media is time and space and all entities would like to make the most out of scarce resources.  They may prefer to use them to feature programs, news, discussions that will have a higher audience (the metric for revenue).  They need to consider the impact on the bottom line of presenting one issue versus another.  A panel discussing the personal escapades of some politician may bring a larger audience than one discussing the implications of a proposal to slap a tariff on Chinese goods.  And these institutions, being for profit, make “rational economic decisions” and schedule programs with the aim of increasing audience.  This is particularly exacerbated by the competition form social media, which are not subject to some of the restrictive rules.

But a responsible media, assuming its responsibility towards society, must not only ask what will be the impact on the bottom line, but also what is the contribution of the time and space devoted to the issue in the advancement of society´s well-being.  Society is their major stakeholder.  Here is where there will most likely be a trade-off between profits and society’s well-being, and that is why these decisions are not straightforward.

In the electoral process, responsible media companies have the responsibility to select the issues that are more relevant for the long-term future of society and to discuss them in their context analyzing the consequences, to enable the public to make informed judgments.  This has always been a responsibility of media toward society, but in this peculiar and tense electoral process this responsibility is further highlighted.

This is not to say that this is not the case right now. Many media outlets strive to do so, but there are many more that sacrifice rigor and completeness for the sake of a larger audience, compounded by a seemingly endless supply of pseudo experts.  According to the Washington Post (June 5, 2016), 602 pundits appeared on the three major cable news channels over an eight-day span.  And the ones I had a chance to watch were very, very lightweight with little if any analysis.

And while we are it, given that we are discussing media´s societal responsibility it would also be desirable to allocate space and time to the discussion of the environmental and social implications of the proposals in this electoral process.

Media has a responsibility to give society, which is their raison d’etre, responsible products.  Society deserves responsible products, and as in many other cases, society does not know who provides responsible products.  Maybe one day we will have responsibility ratings for the media.

Image credit: Flickr/Tom Woodward

Antonio Vives is Principal Associate at Cumpetere, a CSR consulting firm.  He is also Consulting Professor at Stanford University and a member of the Sustainability Advisory Panel at several multinationals.  He was the Sustainable Development Manager at the Inter-American Development Bank. Has published seven books, dozens of academic papers and more that 300 blog articles on CSR and financial management (www.cumpetere.blogsport.com) and is a frequent speaker at conferences and universities. Holds a Ph.D. in Corporate Finance from Carnegie Mellon University. Follow him on twitter @tonyvives

By Larry Weil

I was watching the U.S. Open on Fox this past weekend when I heard Joe Buck, the lead announcer, repeatedly tell the audience about how Oakmont Country Club had removed 15,000 trees since the last U.S. Open was held there in 1983. I was stunned. Why would they do that? I went online the next day to do some fact-checking. Here is what I found.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last week: “During the mid-1990s, a dozen groundskeepers would set out at 4 a.m. most days and take aim at a tree. Guided only by the headlights of a cart, they would cut the tree down, grind the stump, conceal the area with sod and remove all evidence of what they had just done.”

Today there is only one tree on the entire course. Apparently this is a trend to move back toward “links style” courses. The WSJ article went on to say that this didn’t happen without a lot of heated discussions and disagreements, but ultimately the “chainsaw group” won.

Is golf that out of touch with the issue of climate change? Do golfers really believe that a perceived improvement in the form of eliminating trees isn’t, at least symbolically, the wrong way to approach improving the game?

Golf has been shrinking for some time. “The nation now has just fewer than 15,000 courses," said Rick Lucas, director of Clemson University’s PGA golf management program. "Industry figures show more courses have closed than opened for eight straight years with an average of 137 closing annually since 2011." Lucas said another 500 to 1,000 courses will have to close within the next decade without "new growth in golf's popularity.”

Will creating landscapes that look more like moonscapes bring more people to golf? The biggest dip in golfers is among 18- to 34-year-olds. Maybe golf doesn’t know that the environment and climate change are especially important to those who will be around to deal with the consequences.

There are plenty of issues for golf to address if they want to lessen environmental impacts. Writing for the nonprofit Decoded Everything under the headline, "Why the Decline of Golf is Good News for the Environment," Elisabeth Klusinske itemized daily mowing, runoff, erosion, removal of native species, extreme water usage and reliance on pesticides as just some of the issues.

I can’t help but think of the irony. America is clearcutting golf courses to “improve” them, while we wring our hands over the destruction of the South American and Asian rainforests for timber and palm oil. It would be hypocritical to criticize these offenders in poor countries while we tinker with our golf courses.  

The United States Golf Association website has a section on environmental planning with links to three articles from the Green Section Record (USGA publication) written by the same three or four people, published in 2007. The group also provides a page on Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, published in 1996. Time for an update.

I’ve been engaged on the topic of sports and the environment for about seven years. During that time, I have seen a lot of progress. I fully realize that there are plenty of places to focus on for environmental bad actors and that in the total picture this isn’t the worst by a long shot. But here is the big problem: When you go on TV in front of millions of people proclaiming the greatness of the golf course you have just scalped, you don’t seem to understand your importance as an influencer.

Other sports seem to get it. I attended the Green Sports Alliance Summit for the past four years and have seen amazing progress by teams, leagues and venues. The Alliance is made up of 15 leagues, 184 venues and 175 teams -- and zero are from golf. This group didn’t even exist until 2011. It started with a few people who thought it would be a good idea to at least exchange information and learn from each other. It is impossible to be perfect or to please everyone, but there is so much golf could do beyond what it does now. Here are my suggestions to make more progress faster:

1. Participate in the broader 'sports and the environment' community. This is where you will learn from others who have been there.


2. Recognize that virtually every major corporate sponsor has a corporate social responsibility platform and is highly in tune with environmental issues. They will support your progress.


3. You want millennials back in the game. Show them you care about what they care about, particularly the environment.


4. If you are going to chop down trees, purchase carbon offsets to at least balance out the impact. The NFL has been offsetting the Super Bowl for years.

Look, I get it; no one wants to get called out. But in this case, you asked for it by repeatedly and unapologetically proclaiming on national TV that cutting down 15,000 trees improved the course.

Update: There will be one break-out session at the Green Sports Alliance Summit: Golf’s Sustainability Agenda: The Power of Collaboration. Here is the description:

Golf is a sport and industry with deep traditions and global reach, that is beginning to embrace sustainability around the world. The golf industry plays a critical role in enhancing natural green spaces within communities and providing an outdoor activity for millions, and it is also responsible for driving more than $70 billion in revenue into the global economy. This interactive panel discussion incorporates the expertise of golf, sustainability, and marketing industry professionals, translating individual knowledge and experience into useful insights on the power of partnership. The panelists have firsthand, compelling insights on the power of partnership, on topics including diversity challenges within golf, marketing and corporate social responsibility opportunities, natural resource management and waste reduction, sustainable events, private/public golf club management, and the industry’s global (positive) impact opportunity. The goal of this panel conversation is to enlighten the audience as to the benefits of the golf industry and its partners/supporters working together toward a common goal rooted in sustainability.              

Larry Weil is a veteran sponsorship executive who has worked extensively with brands, venues and teams to create successful partnerships. Through his companies, The Sponsorship Guy and Sponsorship Green, he helps his clients navigate the complexities in the world of buying and selling sponsorships.

Image credit: Pexels

By Jake DiRe

Out of the 125,000 K-12 schools in the United States, over 3,700 are running on solar power. Three-thousand of these schools installed their solar power systems within the past six years, as solar technology continues to become less expensive and more sophisticated.

This trend in powering our schools reflects the growing recognition by district and state officials that photovoltaic electrical systems offer significant financial and environmental benefits. Here are four key reasons why more schools are making this transition.

Solar-powered schools are more affordable

Each solar-powered school saves an average of $21,000 per year in utility bills, which totals $77.8 million per year nationwide. Schools can pass these savings on to the students in the form of subsidized laptops, tablets and other classroom resources, or savings can be used to provide over 2,000 teaching jobs throughout the United States.

A financial analysis notes that 450 more school districts could each save approximately $1 million in energy costs over the next 30 years if they installed a solar electric power system. Schools could realize further savings if they added solar thermal water-heating systems to their existing infrastructure.

Architecturally, most schools are well-suited to the addition of solar panels. They are frequently one-story buildings with broad, flat roof surfaces that make the installation of solar electric or water-heating systems easy. Schools can also install solar canopies in parking lots, providing the benefit of shade while producing substantial amounts of electricity on land that is already in use.

Solar power is better than other alternative energy sources

As the nation moves forward with sustainable energy, wind and hydropower are also receiving fresh attention. While these energy sources have a place in the overall long-term picture, the attributes of solar power continue to keep it at the forefront of alternative energy sources.

Hydropower: Unlike solar power, which can be generated on an individual site, hydropower requires a collective regional effort and a substantial expenditure on infrastructure. Furthermore, the building of dams and other waterways creates environmental disruptions that offset the effort toward sustainability.

Wind power: While large-scale wind farms are one valuable element in our nation’s energy future, wind power tends to be impractical on a single-site basis. Wind power systems require expensive construction and maintenance, and they include many moving parts that can wear out or break. Furthermore, the tall towers are often considered unsightly and generate a push-back from neighbors who object to the disruption of the visual landscape. Additionally, the noise of the windmill’s blades impinges on people’s awareness, and they can cause a high mortality rate in the local bird population. Given these objections, school districts are unlikely to find strong support for wind-powered systems to generate electricity.

Solar power: Solar power has few of the drawbacks of other sustainable energy sources. With no moving parts, solar electric systems require almost no maintenance. They are completely scalable, down to the smallest building or even to individual appliances. Entirely silent, photovoltaic systems don’t create a sensory distraction to people nearby, and they are free of environmental hazards to water supplies or wildlife.

Solar-powered schools help the environment

Every hour, the sun radiates enough energy onto the Earth to cover the entire planet’s energy needs for a full year. This abundant, unlimited energy supply is the power source of the future, and schools that make use of it are setting an example by reducing water pollution and greenhouse gases.

Solar-powered schools reduce water pollution

Traditional power plants require a large amount of fresh water, which is quickly becoming a scarce resource. Furthermore, 72 percent of water pollution is created by coal-fired power plants, and these water-borne toxins contaminate the environment and cause health problems in people who use the water. Hydraulic fracturing, which uses massive amounts of water to extract oil and gas from the ground, can also cause contamination of drinking water. Solar power avoids the need to use fresh water for extraction or cooling purposes and positions schools in the role of responsible guardians of shared natural resources.

Solar-powered schools reduce greenhouse gases

Scientists consider fossil fuels to be the primary cause for global climate change. Each new solar power system reduces our total dependence on fossil fuels and decreases the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Current methods of generating electricity are responsible for 31 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the EPA states that the electricity generation industry is the single largest source of excess carbon dioxide gas being released into the environment.

Schools have a natural role within their communities to display leadership in building a future that is environmentally sustainable. The project of installing a solar panel array at a school does more than simply save money and reduce environmental pollution. It provides an educational opportunity for students to learn about alternative energy production, become more scientifically literate and increase their awareness of our planet's limited resources.

Image credit: Flickr/BlackRockSolar

Jake DiRe is the co-founder of EcoMark Solar, a solar panel installation and financing company in Colorado. For more on solar energy, follow EcoMark on Twitter.

Say bye-bye to nuclear power in California as it will be phased out in less than a decade. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the San Francisco-based utility company, announced it will phase out its nuclear power production in California by 2025. That means the power produced at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the state’s lone remaining operational nuclear power plant, will be replaced.

PG&E announced the proposal to phase out nuclear power in the Golden State with several organizations on Monday. They include the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environment California and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. The joint proposal will also increase investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy storage beyond the current state mandates.

The biggest reason for the move is that California’s new energy policies reduce the need for the nuclear power that Diablo Canyon produces. Specifically, PG&E cites the following as factors:

• The increase of the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 50 percent by 2030.
• Energy-efficiency goals doubling under the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350).
• The challenge of managing over-generation and intermittency conditions under a resource portfolio that is increasingly influenced by solar and wind production.
• The growth rate of distributed energy resources.
• The potential increases in the departure of PG&E's retail load customers to Community Choice Aggregation.
• PG&E’s commitment to a 55 percent renewable energy target by 2031.

Why will it take so long to say adios to nuclear power? It will take years to procure, construct and implement “a greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and storage,” PG&E said in a press release. Diablo Canyon’s operating licenses with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expire in November 2024 for one of its nuclear reactors and in August 2025 for the other. The nuclear power plant has operated for 31 years and. It generates about 20 percent of PG&E’s annual electricity production in its service territory and 9 percent of California’s annual production.

“California's energy landscape is changing dramatically with energy efficiency, renewables and storage being central to the state's energy policy,” said Tony Earley, PG&E chairman, CEO and president. “As a result, we will not seek to relicense the facility beyond 2025 pending approval of the joint energy proposal.”

“It’s great news that PG&E will replace the lost electricity generation from Diablo Canyon with a portfolio of zero-carbon resources, including energy efficiency, renewables, demand response and energy storage,” added Laura Wisland, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), in a statement.

NRDC President Rhea Suh echoed Wisland's praise: “The Diablo Canyon solution is the way of the future. Even as nuclear plants near retirement, we can cut our carbon footprint with energy efficiency and renewable power. Our families, our businesses and our children will be the better for it."

Diablo Canyon plagued with problems

Diablo means devil in Spanish. It's a strange name for a nuclear power plant. As NRDC pointed out in a blog post on Tuesday, “Naming a nuclear facility after Lucifer himself is asking for trouble.” But the name only scratches the surface of the power plant’s problems.

While under construction in the 1970s, 2,000 protesters occupied the site and were arrested as a result. The reason they protested is that the nuclear power plant is near a seismic fault. The problems didn’t end with the protests, but continued well after the plant began operating.  It withdrew ocean water to use for cooling, killing 1 billion fish in early-life stages each year.

The problems persisted. In 2010, a safety review of Diablo Canyon by the NRC found that the nuclear power plant operated with some of its emergency systems disabled for over a year. The World Business Academy's Safe Energy Project released a report in January called the “Diablo Canyon Health Study.” The report claimed that residents near the power plant have "been getting sicker every year" because of the radioactive isotopes released into the atmosphere.

And one more aspect of Diablo Canyon, and the entire nuclear power industry, presents a problem. Nuclear power is not viable without government subsidies, as a 2011 UCS report found. Nuclear-industry subsidies are estimated to be more than than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). That's about 140 percent of the average wholesale price of power from 1960 to 2008 -- making the “subsidies more valuable than the power produced by nuclear plants over that period,” the report concluded.

In 2025, Californians will be able to end the state's nuclear power era for good. And they will be able to look ahead to an era of renewable energy and safe electricity.

Image credit: Mike Baird via Wikimedia Commons

Forced labor is a massive global problem. It generates around $150 billion worth of illegal profits annually. And $34 billion of that is in sectors like manufacturing, construction, mining and utilities. An estimated 21 million people globally are victims of forced labor.

So, what are companies doing about the problem? KnowtheChain released its first report on the efforts of tech companies to mitigate forced labor in their supply chains. The report evaluates 20 global information and communications technology (ICT) companies, including Apple, HP and Microsoft, in seven categories: commitment and governance; traceability and risk assessment; purchasing practices; recruitment; worker voice; monitoring; and remedy.

KnowtheChain found both good and bad news. Eighteen of the 20 companies have a public commitment in place to address forced labor.  Two companies had the highest score: HP with a score of 72 and Apple with 62. But the average score was only 39 out of a possible 100 -- not exactly high marks. And three companies scored under 15 points: Canon, BOE Technology and Keyence.

“While we recognize that some companies are trying to meaningfully address the issue of forced labor in their supply chains, this report demonstrates that far more can and should be done,” said Ed Marcum, managing director of Humanity United, the foundation leading KnowTheChain, in a statement. “For investors and consumers, this report also shines a light on those lagging companies who are doing little to fulfill their ethical and legal obligations.”

Why start with the ICT industry? Workers that make the components in ICT companies’ supply chains are often migrant workers who are “particularly vulnerable to exploitation during the recruitment process and in their workplaces,” according to the report. A 2014 report by Verité found that almost a third of migrant workers in Malaysia’s electronics sectors are victims of forced labor. Migrant workers end up owing money to recruitment agents, find their passports seized, and are forced to work long hours for little pay until the debt is paid off. They are trapped in a nightmare.

Good and bad news

Commitment and governance had the highest average company score (64). This category evaluated both a company’s awareness of and commitment to addressing forced labor, supply chain standards, management processes, training programs and engagement with stakeholders. The high average score shows that companies have high levels of awareness about addressing forced labor in their supply chains. HP is one company cited as a notable example: It provides first-tier supplier training, but has also trained 422 of its sub-tier suppliers.

Even though commitment and governance is the highest scoring category, problems remain. Six companies (ASML, BOE, Canon, Keyence, Murata and SK Hynix) lack publicly-available codes of conduct requiring their suppliers to follow international standards that prohibit forced labor. KnowtheChain recommends that companies consult local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and experts on forced labor risks. It also recommends that companies extend supplier training to high-risk suppliers.

Worker voice is the category with the lowest average company score (16). It is a one that “is critical to reducing instances of forced labor in supply chains,” the report states, so it is imperative that the ICT industry work to improve it.

Over half of the companies evaluated (11 out of 20) said they have a grievance mechanism in place that is available to suppliers’ workers. However, only four of them disclosed how the mechanism is “proactively communicated" to these workers. And not one of the companies gave examples of the steps they took to create an environment in which workers can organize when freedom of association is constrained. They also didn’t provide examples of engaging supply chain workers on their labor rights outside of the workplace. The report recommends that companies take steps to ensure that workers within their supply chains are able to organize.

Image credit: Flickr/Karlis Dambrans