Search

The garment industry is the largest export sector in Bangladesh, and is the second largest contributor to the country’s foreign currency reserves after remittances from overseas workers. This sector has been instrumental in driving the country’s economic growth, with an approximate 3.6 million out of 156 million Bangladeshis working in the country’s approximately 5,000 garment factories.

But one study released earlier this decade suggests that, despite the garment sector providing 45 percent of the country’s industrial employment, it only contributes 5 percent to Bangladesh’s total national income. Low wages in the industry also correlated with notoriously unsafe conditions, leading to tragedies like the Rana Plaza disaster and a global shaming of many of the world’s largest fashion brands as, at first, denial and excuses superseded accountability.

Those 1,130 people who lost their lives at Rana Plaza -- and the shattered lives of untold family members and friends -- cannot be reversed, but to the garment industry’s credit, workers’ safety and job rights have seen improvement in Bangladesh. But in order to guarantee that transparency and compliance within this sector continues to improve, additional data that stakeholders can easily access is necessary to ensure another preventable disaster does not occur again. One project underway at a leading university in Bangladesh shows promise in helping those vested in the country’s garment sector to work together in order to bolster the safety of employees.

To that end, TriplePundit spoke with Mohammad Rezaur Razzak, associate professor of entrepreneurship and strategy, by telephone from his office at BRAC University in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Professor Razzak's team has developed a mapping tool that will include key information about the nation’s garment factories; that information in turn will ensure that the garment industry can grow responsibly and continue to contribute to Bangladesh’s growing economy.

Mapping Bangladesh's garment factories

The Participatory Factory Mapping Research (PFMR) tool became possible with the collection of data from over 450 factories in the Mirpur and Kaliakair districts of the greater Dhaka area.

One of the project’s first challenges was the identification of factories. Data about Bangladeshi factories was previously dispersed between a half-dozen databases, but all were hampered by inconsistent or duplicate data. As is the case with the garment industries in other countries, this sector in Bangladesh is one that includes massive manufacturing plants and mills as well as small shops that function as subcontractors for larger factories. Razzak, along with his team of professionally trained enumerators and graduate students, spent over a month last summer pinpointing these factories. The team then developed a set of data and questions that included the types of production, number of workers, export destinations and affiliated brands.

This project’s mission is an important one for BRAC, which has long been involved with Bangladesh’s garment industry. And after the Rana Plaza collapse, the university’s Center for Entrepreneurship Development, of which Razzak serves as director, saw an opportunity to use its expertise to bring tangible changes to the industry. “Our center was up to encourage entrepreneurship amongst students, but then the time came to make a contribution to society in terms of one of our country’s most important businesses,” Razzak told 3p.

Gaining industry buy-in to ensure transparency

Key to this project’s success was gaining the cooperation of the large industry groups, including the most influential one, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA). This project already had the buy-in of human rights organizations, labor unions, the C&A Foundation and representatives of some foreign embassies. But one issue, the degree of transparency and sort of information that this survey would reveal, was one that made several BGMEA members skittish.

Nevertheless, the reputation of BRAC, along with the understanding that the long-term survival of Bangladesh’s garment industry was at stake, convinced all stakeholders that access to data is crucial and could only prove to be a net-positive for everyone in the sector.

As of now, PFMR’s mapping tool provides a high-level overview of the factories included in this survey. Users can hover over a factory’s location and see the number of employees, its gender ratio, the types of products manufactured, as well as the brands and markets for whom these garments are made and then exported.

Queries can also be entered to ascertain which factories make what sort of products for which brands. While data on safety inspections and violations are not yet part of this database, users can assess whether factories are registered with organizations including the BGMEA, along with the agencies that monitor Bangladesh’s labor inspections and fire safety. At a most basic level, users can gauge which factories have made moves toward registering with garment industry associations and local authorities — versus others that are more opaque about the data they share.

“As far as transparency goes, the realization within the industry was that you cannot sweep these issues under the rug,” Razzak told us. “Workers are now more conscious of their rights and want to know which factories have better conditions and wages, as they will move to those factories. The fact is that market forces and trends in this industry will provide a huge advantage to factories that agree to be transparent over those that are not compliant.”

Rallying stakeholders around better information

The PFMR mapping tool is not yet in the public domain. As Razzak explained, collecting the data was the easy part: The larger challenge as gaining agreement from the garment industry’s various stakeholders on what kind of data will be included in this database, how that information will be presented, and the procedures covering how to update the information as it changes.

The C&A Foundation is funding this project, but if it scales to include the vast majority of Bangladesh’s factories, then discussions will need to be held with fashion brands and garment buyers on contributing to its cost.

As of now, this project covers less than 10 percent of Bangladesh’s garment factories, and the database would be far more robust if it included information on labor agreements and workplace violations. But in the murky world of garment manufacturing, PFMR’s researchers found that 80 percent of these factories are subcontractors, a huge step in allowing companies to improve the traceability of their garments within their supply chains. “We don’t have a limit as to how far we want to go,” Razzak said, “but we would like to cover 99 percent of exporting factories.”

Even if the long-term results cover 75 percent of Bangladesh’s factories, this project would be a huge step forward for the country’s garment sector, as more information would help empower workers while allowing companies to truly show their commitment to responsible sourcing.

Image credit: Flickr/Tareq Salahuddin

By Tony Shumpert

Over the past decade we have seen a dramatic increase in our collective environmental awareness. From municipalities enacting recycling and compost programs, to people looking for sustainably-sourced products, we are more conscious of our environmental footprint than ever. Or are we?

Through my work at Savers and with other recycling and reuse programs, I have noticed that we are consuming more and more clothing each year. In fact, we now purchase more than 80 billion pieces of new clothing every year, and North Americans alone buy four times as much clothing as they did in 1980. We’ve also gotten into the bad habit of throwing more clothing into landfills each year.

This gap between what appears to be a growing eco-friendly mindset and the increasing consumption of clothing is what led Savers to take a deeper dive into what people are doing with their unwanted used clothing and household goods.

The State of Reuse Report examines the public’s attitudes and behaviors regarding purchasing and disposal options around clothing and textiles, including opinions on donating and shopping thrift as ways to reduce their clothing footprint.

Our report found that misperceptions on reuse, the circular economy, donating used goods and buying pre-owned items still exist. Even though thrift stores, like Savers, have been living and operating in the reuse space for more than 60 years, the general public is still a little confused about options for clothing and textile reuse.

Rethink reuse

Since many synthetic fabrics cannot be recycled, reuse provides a second life, possibly even a third or fourth life, for clothing and other textiles and keeps them out of landfills. Confusion over what is recyclable and reusable plays a key role in adding to the 26 billion pounds of textiles people sent to landfills each year.

Ninety-five percent of unwanted or unneeded clothing can be reused or recycled. But our survey found that 1 in 3 people reported not knowing that more than 90 percent of textiles can be reused or recycled, and 17 percent believed they could not be.

This provides an opportunity to further educate people on their clothing footprint and what goods can and cannot be reused and/or recycled.

Encouragingly, 74 percent of respondents say they are more likely to donate clothing and textiles if they knew that donation centers accepted used clothing and textiles regardless of condition (with the exception of items that are wet, mildewed or contaminated with hazardous material). This provides an opportunity for nonprofits, governments and private companies in the reuse sector to educate people on what they can donate and recycle.

Saving the earth one reused item at a time

Considering that it can take over 700 gallons of water to make one new T-shirt and 1,800 gallons to make a pair of jeans, throwing away clothing that can be reused or recycled means throwing away the precious resources that went into making those items and has a tremendous environmental and economic cost.

When people extend the life of their stuff by donating used items to nonprofits or buying used goods at secondhand stores, they are contributing to the circular economy and helping reduce the solid waste in landfills, pollution and the use of finite water and energy resources. This is an important goal and one that raises the question of how we can engage more people in the reuse cycle.

This is another area where education can have a great impact on personal purchasing and reuse decision-making. What we found most promising was that more than half of North Americans surveyed say they are more likely to reuse after hearing about the amount of resources used to make their clothes.

While the State of Reuse Report identified both positive and negative data points on reuse participation in North America, a bright spot was that people seemed to embrace wanting to learn more about reuse and sustainability. In fact, most people (94 percent) thought concepts of reuse should be taught in schools. Making people aware of the impact of their clothing choices and the options for reuse and recycling can only help people make more eco-conscious decisions.

These misconceptions serve as an opportunity for the public and private sectors to work together to develop innovative solutions that promote and encourage reuse. Fortunately, awareness is the first step. From educating people on the reuse process to helping them understand the environmental implications of their clothing decisions, there appears to be ample opportunity to make inroads through increased/enhanced, heightened communication. It’s time to start the conversation about rethinking reuse.

Image credit: Pixabay

Tony Shumpert is Vice President of Reuse and Recycling at Savers.

Every time a tragedy on the scale of Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino and, now, Orlando occurs, there is more emphasis on whether we need to stall the sale of guns, or stop letting terrorists into the country, than on the people whose lives were cut tragically short. And of course, if the perpetrator is a white person, mental health advocates decry a broken system; if the shooters are of Middle Eastern backgrounds, they are quickly labeled terrorists.

The reality is that the perpetrators of mass shootings in America, including the would-be assailant in Los Angeles who may or may not have wanted to blow up a Gay Pride event in West Hollywood, are both. No person with their mental faculties completely intact decides to kill wantonly, and one’s calculated plan to murder innocent people rightfully pegs him as a terrorist -- whether his parents were born in Afghanistan or America’s heartland.

Then there is the conversation around the type of gun, which at first in the case of Orlando was widely assumed to be in the AR-15 family of semi-automatic rifles. But it turns out that the gun used to murder and wound over 100 people was a Sig Sauer MCX, a weapon that is relatively new on the scene compared to the 60-year-old AR-15. This gun uses a gas piston system that is arguably easier to operate than an AR-15, along with hand guards that “detach more quickly than a lectured teenager," according to one reviewer.

According to many Second Amendment defenders, the fact that the gun was misidentified in the first place lends credence to the argument that if you cannot even understand the differences between various guns, then any discussion over the regulation of gun sales is bunk.

And while many don't understand how a person who is barred from boarding a passenger airplane can still easily buy any gun, don't expect Congress to touch any legislation on that front any time soon. “Since 2004, more than 2,000 terror suspects have taken advantage of this loophole in our laws to buy guns,” said Erika Soto Lamb of Everytown, which describes itself as a movement aiming to end gun violence and build safer communities.

Of course, somewhere lost in this debate over gun rights is the fact that the second and third words of the Second Amendment are “well regulated.” Nevertheless, those remain who will fight any attempt to regulate this market.

To that end, the economics of gun control is a subject that has received little attention. Arguably, such data is difficult to quantify, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other organizations have lobbied hard over the years to cease any federal research related to firearms. Nevertheless, some studies have suggested the economic cost of gun ownership is creating its own burden on society. Even moderate controls designed to reduce illegal access to guns could result in lower social costs, and therefore economic costs, from gun violence, researchers found.

One such study, led by professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, combed over 20 years of county and state data to ascertain the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig acknowledged the argument that a high ownership of guns could deter criminal activity. But they also sought to examine other risks -- namely that those guns could be misused or transferred to people who pose a danger to society through theft or unregulated sales, the latter of which makes it difficult to even quantify the number of guns in the U.S., the researchers said. Cook and Ludwig evaluated the economic cost of homicides and injuries from guns. Depending on the assumptions used in their model, they posited that each gun-owning household cost society anywhere from $100 to $1,800 annually. Given the number of households in the U.S., at a minimum this study suggests an annual price tag of $15.3 billion a year.

Other analysts assigned raw numbers to the loss of life and suggested that both the toll on society and the economy are stratospheric. Therefore, one justification for an assault weapons ban, in the eyes of these advocates, would be to reduce the costs of such violence to $400,000 a year, according to an analysis published by Mother Jones.

But despite the raw emotion and disturbing figures that result from mass shootings, often at the hands of weapons such as the AR-15, focusing on assault weapons sheds light on only part of the epidemic of gun violence in America. “It’s important to note that despite the focus on [assault weapons] after major events, they are not used in the majority of mass shootings and are not in the big picture of gun violence in America,” Lamb explained. “Handguns are overwhelmingly the problem.”

It is clear that Congress is not going to act on gun violence any time soon, even though loopholes in gun laws, as they currently stand, clearly contributed to the early Sunday morning massacre in Orlando. So, why not make gun owners and dealers financially liable and require them to prove that they are responsible if they want to own any weapons?

A few years ago, Forbes contributor John Wasik suggested using the marketplace as a check on gun violence. Gun deaths in the U.S. run at an exorbitant rate compared to other fatalities, so those who own a gun should possess the means to account for both their social and economic costs.

Liability insurance, which exists for gun owners but is not mandatory, could help address this epidemic of violence. An 85-year-old married man or woman would get a cheap rate if he or she decided to get a gun. A single, 19-year-old guy who has had brushes with the law would have to pay far more, and many could not afford it. Variances in rates would be possible, as insurance companies have plenty of data to gauge who is a high risk and who is benign. And if you want that World War II-era gun, your insurance premiums would be negligible. For that MCX or AR-15, be prepared to pay far more if you want it.

Some would say that such an approach would be unfair, but in a country of 320 million, no insurance plan would be fair. But for a country that loves market-based solutions -- and let’s face it, they often work — mandatory liability insurance for gun owners would be a start to addressing gun violence, while allowing responsible gun owners to carry on with minimum interference.

Image credit: City of Orlando Police Department/Wiki Commons

In a long-awaited study, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that atrazine, the second most commonly used herbicide in the United States, can cause cancer in amphibians, and is likely to have harmful health impacts for humans as well. Despite this, no action will be taken until 2017.

Such is the way things work in Washington these days -- where big, deep-pocketed agriculture companies have, through campaign donations and an army of lobbyists, re-written much of our country's agricultural policy in their favor. This is why subsidies still enrich large farmers, and why highly intensive monoculture plantings remain. Despite well known and researched environmental risks, monoculture is a form of farming that is still promoted, indirectly, by the Department of Agriculture.

One of the largest companies receiving government subsidies is Syngenta, which argued firmly against the EPA's findings on one of its top products. And with good reason – the company makes millions selling atrazine and is loathe to see this market disappear, cancer and environmental impacts be damned.

Other countries do not subject their people to this risk. The European Union banned atrazine back in 2004 due to well-documented risks. Science has spoken, with studies dating back to 2000 highlighting the risks of the herbicide. But, due to the undue power of Big Ag, regulators have failed to act here in the United States.

“When the amount of atrazine allowed in our drinking water is high enough to turn a male tadpole into a female frog, then our regulatory system has failed us,” said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, in a press statement. “We’ve reached a point with atrazine where more scientific analysis is just unnecessary — atrazine needs to be banned now.”

What we need is a new system – one where the burden is not on civil society and scientists to prove a product is harmful after it is released, but on a company to prove -- with third-party oversight -- that its product is, without a doubt, harmless. We can't subject our environment, and our wellbeing, to the whims of companies that put profit over health. Hopefully the EPA comes to its senses soon and does what it should have done more than a decade ago – ban atrazine immediately, across the entire United States. Otherwise, we will pay for the agency's indecision for years to come.

You can do your part by sending a message to the EPA here during the comment period for its draft report, and let the agency know you want action now.

Image credit: Brian Robert Marshall via Wikimedia Commons

As his reactions in the wake of the Orlando massacre show, Donald Trump will say anything incendiary in order to push his agenda on America. Despite the caustic nature of his insults directed at everyone -- especially women, Muslims, failed Republican candidates and, of course, the media -- the reality is that fielding a barb from Trump is like getting nibbled by a goldfish: It happens to everyone, it is forgotten quickly, and it reflects more on him than those he disparages.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and now owner of the Washington Post, put it this way after being the subject of another Trump tantrum: “I'm very glad to have any of my body parts go through a big fat wringer, if need be.”

Nevertheless, as Bezos rightfully pointed out: Trump’s aim to “freeze or chill the media,” which has given him plenty of free press yet has a role to play in scrutinizing his candidacy, is disturbing. And now Trump has responded in kind.

It all started when the Post ran a story on Trump's comments following the tragic mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando over the weekend. In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Trump attacked President Barack Obama with more code-language, suggesting that Obama does not care or does not want to protect the U.S. against security threats. Upset over the coverage, Trump revoked the publication's press credentials and banned it from covering any of his campaign events. According to Trump, the original headline of the Post story -- which inferred that Trump linked Obama to the Orlando tragedy -- was too much for him to endure.

“We are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post,” Trump announced on Monday via Facebook.

A quick look at the people who Trump follows on Twitter, his preferred social media channel, paints a picture of a man who only wants to listen to people who think like him or will only tell him what he wants to hear. That posse, which includes the likes of Ann Coulter, Diamond and Silk, and his resorts and family members, is hardly one that will ever challenge him any of his views or statements.

Insisting on such a closed view of the world offers an odd strategy, considering the stumbles Trump has taken over the past two weeks, from this attacks on a “Mexican” judge to accusations that he attempted to use the Orlando tragedy for his own personal and political gain. Members of his own party, who seemed to warm up to him late last month, are now beside themselves.

Nevertheless, as NPR pointed out on Monday, the kerfuffle over the Post’s choice of headline is just another chapter in the ongoing battle between the newspaper and the presidential hopeful. Last month, Post reporter David Farenthold challenged Trump over his promise to donate money to military-related charities after a fundraiser. Trump made a donation only after that story hit the newswires, but that didn't stop him from painting Farenthold as a “nasty guy.”

But there is more to Trump’s name-calling than his tone or his behavior. His temperament follows the trend of his business record, one that is full of shortchanging suppliers and structuring his companies so that other investors take the fall while he reaps a high salary and bonuses.

And Trump’s attacks on a free press, long an American ideal, should worry citizens. No matter how obnoxious Trump or his followers may think that some in the media may be, the fact is that a free press is vital to American democracy, as it serves as a referee of information spewed out from candidates on the left and right. The removal of any such filter is a dubious sign of how Trump will run the country should he become the nation’s 45th president.

Image credit: Michael Vadon/Flickr

It’s around 4:30 a.m. and still pitch black as I arrive at the bus station in downtown Lilongwe. At this hour, this is a key center of distribution for Malawi’s fishing industry.

Waist-high heaps of fish transported overnight from Lake Malawi lay on tarps spread out beyond the length of a football field, at least as far as I can see in the darkness. Small fires flicker dim light for thousands of men hustling after their livelihoods. Some drag bags larger (and much heavier) than their bodies, sprinting to keep up their momentum until they arrive at an empty slab of tarp where they can pour out their bounty.

This is far from a mechanized industry. Instead, productivity is fueled only by sweat and desire. There are sellers and buyers of all kinds sorting through the piles with nothing but buckets, small flashlights and squinted eyes. Negotiations take place in Chichewa and other local languages.

This scene flies in the face of the popular foreign narrative of African men lounging lazily under the acacia tree all day. Still, by many World Bank metrics, it can be argued that Malawi is the poorest country in the world with a per-capita GDP stuck around a staggering $250 USD, well under a dollar a day.

No, laziness is not the primary culprit here. Instead, Malawi’s poverty has much more to do with neglect of long-term thinking. Most obvious is Malawi’s homogenous agriculture industry -- which, despite its great potential, is dominated by a terribly disproportionate concentration on maize. This is the nation’s only real staple crop on which 90 percent of the country depends for subsistence farming. The past year’s drought left maize fields withered and un-harvested across the country, with little to reap in its place.

The fishing industry is arguably Malawi’s second most important sector, providing its primary source of protein, contributing to the livelihoods of more than 1.6 million people, and even generating some export business for a nation that depends desperately on foreign aid.

As I learned on a visit to the Mangochi District, one of Lake Malawi’s major fishing regions, the industry also serves as a striking example of the short-term thinking that plagues the nation's economy. As a 2012 report indicated, Malawi is losing $28 million worth of fishery resources each year due to overfishing. Exacerbating this problem is Malawi’s rapidly growing population, which has doubled over the past 25 years. In the same period, the total fish supply has fallen by more than 20 percent.

Strolling through fishing villages along the lakeside at midday, I noticed an alarming number of young children debarking from boats, not school.

Later on, I met with Joseph Makwakwa, a former boat builder from the shores of Lake Malawi. He started a project aimed at building cages designed for sustainable aquaculture and employs 45 people from the community to execute the project.

However, understanding that his community suffers deeper issues, Makwakwa is resolved to tackle the roots of his country’s problems. Drawing upon his own money and spare time, he founded a nonprofit called CISER (Community Initiative for Self Reliance). “We are empowering communities to take charge of their own development,” Makwakwa explained. “We know that knowledge is power, so we start with education.

His community of Mangochi suffers from the highest secondary school dropout rate in the country – an issue largely and paradoxically fueled by the region’s wealth of natural resources. “Families here don’t understand the long-term value of education,” Makwakwa elaborated. “Instead, they only see opportunity for their children to make a little money today by fishing and selling things to tourists. Sending your 6-year-old boy to the lake instead of school means a few more fish in your net or coins in your pocket at the end of the day.” As a result, as they grow older, many young uneducated men leave for South Africa for the chance at unskilled work when they are unable to build a life and support a family in Mangochi.

But this problem is not exclusive to boys. As Makwakwa explained, young girls are also sent to the lake at the end of the day, only for a different reason -- to offer sex in exchange for fish. “As a result of what we call ‘fish for sex,' along with social pressure to marry early among Islamic families, we have many teenage mothers, as young as 12 years old.” Makwakwa proceeded to reel off a list of staggering statistics, ranking Mangochi at the bottom of all districts in Malawi: a 21 percent HIV rate, a 34 percent literacy rate, a 14.2 percent teenage pregnancy rate, and an average of 7.2 children per woman. “The culture here says the woman is basically worthless, so many young girls are married off to men living elsewhere who have multiple families.” With a population comprised of so many young, uneducated mothers, it’s no wonder so many children are pulled from the classrooms in pursuit of shortsighted gain.

CISER seeks to tackle these underlying issues with a diversified arsenal of programs. It all started with a small library to provide books, along with an after-school program available to local primary and secondary students. Recognizing the financial constraints that hamper many local youth, CISER developed a sponsorship program to support vulnerable children. The program now supports 24 students who are enrolled in both secondary school and local universities. The next big project is CISER's recently completed secondary school, set to open and enroll 160 students in August.

But the core engine of the organization’s anticipated future impact is its newly formed Youth Group, an idea initiated by youth who were already involved with CISER. This special group of more than 50 young people has pooled together its collective talent to focus on disseminating critical messages related HIV awareness, teenage pregnancy, and youth education at well-promoted community gatherings and via a variety of artistic media spanning music, drama, poetry, traditional dance and visual art. According to Chilu Chikolera, the youth group’s leader, “People our age are much more likely to listen to a message if it’s coming from those they can relate to in a way that interests them.”

Makwakwa raved about the limitless capabilities of his dynamic and driven youth group. “We want the youth themselves to build the models and take these messages to their community.” The youth group’s most recent event reached an audience of more than 250 people. Channeling the youth group’s energy and ambition, CISER also launched a vast array of community-empowerment programs, ranging from planting an organic community garden and greenhouse, to installing 3,300 wood-burning stoves in local homes, to training beach village committees about the importance of sustainable fishing.

Leveraging Mangochi’s unique positioning as a tourist getaway along the sandy shores of Lake Malawi, CISER also offers cultural tours through its partnership with the Responsible Safari Co -- a local tour operator specializing in sustainable, educational, philanthropic and experiential travel to Malawi. This partnership sparked new relationships that have contributed significantly to CISER’s development through both skilled volunteer work and funding support, Makwakwa said.

Toward the end of our visit, I asked Makwakwa about his longer-term vision for CISER and his country. “I believe these young people will become future leaders in our country. They will use their energy, education and skills to create a more diversified and sustainable economy for our future.”

Image credits: CISER

By Giles Hutchins

In times of turmoil, the danger lies not in the turmoil but in facing it with yesterday’s logic:

• Increasing volatility, complexity and uncertainty is the new norm, hence our organizations need to be able to not just survive but thrive amidst unceasing transformation.

• Too many of today’s organizations are locked in to hierarchic, KPI-obsessed, siloed, control-based, defensive, reactionary and fire-fighting mindsets that strangle the ability to adapt and evolve amid volatility.

• Isolated initiatives such as wellbeing-at-work, purposeful business, mindfulness and corporate social responsibility (CSR) often leave the underlying logic, culture and ethos of the organization unchecked.

• Only a fundamental overhaul of the underlying logic will enable our firms of the future to flourish amid these transformational times.

As well as all of this, there are complex shifts affecting each of us at deep and partly unconscious levels -- challenging how we perceive ourselves, each other and the world around us.

At once it is an immensely exciting, liberating, testing and unpredictable time to be involved in the future of business.

The ancient Greeks called such a time Kairos -- a supreme moment of indeterminable time which, if not adequately engaged and acted upon, may pass us by.

This crucial time bears witness to a profound window opening between two world-views, that of the out-dated yet still prevalent logic of yesterday (with its hallmark models, mindsets and metrics) and the dawn of our emerging future whereupon the perceptions and practices of yesterday melt amid the heat of the moment, alchemically reconfiguring new pathways, perspectives, principles and behaviors.

As Bob Dylan would say, "Times they are a changing!"

Over half the world’s population is now younger than 30 years old. Two generations have now grown up with the Internet. It doesn’t take a degree in anthropology to notice that the world is very different today than it was 30 years ago.

Whether it’s the shift to more purposeful business, dealing with climate change, embracing the digitized millennial generation, CSR, wellbeing-at-work, diversity in the workplace, the future world-of-working, employee empowerment, stakeholder engagement, etc., what underpins and interweaves all of these initiatives is a deeper underlying metamorphosis of epic proportions. Caught up as we are in our stressful schedules, we struggle to see the forest from the trees, perceiving these initiatives as disparate topics vying for our attention. Yet, the more conscious we are of the tectonic shifts these surface waves are symptomatic of, the more able we are to help our organizations become future-fit.

Becoming future-fit

So let’s cut to the chase. The root cause of our carcinogenic corporate mindset is a corrupting logic that sets us apart from, and in competition with, our own true nature, each other and the world around us. We have become inured in a flawed philosophic and socio-economic worldview which pervades our daily consciousness to such an extent that much of our collective activity assumes it to be just-the-way-life-is.

What we consider normal business practice is often pathological. We struggle to see beyond this pathology, caught up in our own illusory hall of mirrors creating what Albert Einstein called an optical delusion of consciousness.

We are engaged in a kind of deluding neurosis with devastating implications for human society and the wider fabric of life on Earth. And, our ingrained approaches to education, economics and organizational management are, in the main, infected by this neurosis, exacerbating the acculturation of our insanity.

Time is not on our side. If we wish to ensure anything resembling a successful outcome for our organizations, wider socio-economic systems and general civilization, we need to get radical and deal with root causes while also attending to downstream effects.

Such a shift challenges us at deep and partly unconscious levels. It challenges powerful and complex influences within our own psyche and cultural consciousness. It challenges the status quo structures of governance, engrained patterns of power relations, and dominant ways of leading, managing and operating within our organizations. It challenges the very way in which we relate as human beings in our more-than-human world.

Sounds daunting -- yet there is good news: this fundamental and profound metamorphosis is nothing more, nor nothing less, than an opening up to who we naturally are.

And with this emancipating shift in logic, we can experience what it really means to be fully human in our firms of the future.

 ‘Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.’ Bob Marley

Finding the meaning we crave

What many of us crave for are more meaningful moments and life-experiences. More time to spend following our curiosity; to feel alive and explore our authenticity. More time to build nourishing relationships; to really experience the world as well as what is around us here and now. More time to enjoy the simple things in life; to be present with our loved ones, with our friends, acquaintances and strangers we meet along the way. Yet much of the time our working life starves us of what is most precious to us, the time and space to become who we truly are: social, curious, playful, creative, loving and purposeful humans.

Imagine a business that creates the conditions conducive for life.  Imagine emancipating ourselves from our mental slavery: Let’s let-go of yesterday’s mentality and emancipate our minds for a moment ...

Imagine an organization that enhances the humanity of all its stakeholders and enriches the wider fabric of life in which it operates. In other words, imagine a business that creates real value, true value, not some narrowed-down definition of value that only benefits some while exploiting the many … a business that’s core purpose is to create real value, to serve life, to leave the garden richer than we found it … Imagine …

There is more good news …

The logic of yesterday is actually getting in the way of our organizations thriving or even surviving in these increasingly volatile times.  So even if we are slow in ‘getting it’ in terms of the shift in mind-set now required, we find ourselves being forced in to ‘getting it’ as our monolithic machine-mentality cracks under the strain of unceasing transformation. Only the organizations able to adapt to this unceasing transformation will survive and thrive in the years ahead.

Put simply: Business-as-usual is no longer an option.

The future of business

So, what is the future of business?

Well, to be sure, it is not a one-size-fits-all cookbook solution. It will be myriad styles for myriad ever-changing landscapes.  Yet, we can shed light on a profound shift that is occurring, a shift from ‘organization as machine’ to ‘organization as living system.'

The most important factor facing our leaders, managers and change agents today (according to business guru Peter Senge) is this shift in logic from machine to living-systems. In reality, this means creating the conditions for our teams to be more empowered to adapt at a local level, to deal with unceasing transformation where they are at, without having to rely on hierarchies of bureaucracy and control. It is about us embracing liberating structures and approaches that transcend the dysfunction of much of today’s decision-making and stifling culture.

These liberating approaches unlock our creative potential and empower us to become more purposeful and more conscious of the value and impact we are making. What helps bind these distributed, networked, self-organizing, locally-attuning teams is a deeper sense of purpose that resonates with us at a soul level because we are clear on our role in creating real value for our selves, each other and our more-than-human world.

This is a vitally important point that is often overlooked at our peril. Without a deep soul-sense of why we are here and the value we are contributing to the wider fabric of life, an emergent living organization will lack the cohesiveness to operate effectively, and will soon seek reliance on the old ego-crutches of control-based management. And that is not to say we will not need some of today’s control-based methods tomorrow. This is not about throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water it’s about opening ourselves up to more of our humanity, by balancing our left and right brain hemispheres, by bringing our head and heart into alignment, and by attuning our ego-attention with our soul-wisdom.

We still need to get the job done, manage the to-do lists, project manage and engineer solutions, deliver on time and to budget, yet we also need to bring in more freedom to be creative, to explore, to adapt on the fly, to have the difficult conversations with an air of authenticity, to listen deeply to what our collective intelligence is saying, and to sense the synchronicities of emerging pathways amid complexity.

This is what I explore in "Future Fit" as an attunement of ‘ways of doing’ with ‘ways of being.'

The ‘ways of doing’ for our firms of the future are based on living systems logic: resilience, adaptiveness, systems-based, life-supporting.

The ‘ways of being’ that underpin and infuse those ways of doing are: sensing, self-organizing, small steps, social, soulful, synchronicity.  Essentially, it is through our receptivity, our responsiveness and our reciprocity that we allow our organizations to become future-fit. It is the simple liberating techniques of how we listen, relate, engage and make decisions on a daily basis that enhances rather than hinders our becoming human in a firm of the future.

For instance, a supermarket in London ensures that every couple of months members of staff spend half a day sitting in a circle to embrace the ancient practice of Way of Council: a simple practice of speaking and listening from the heart.  This has profound implications for everyone involved and ensures the challenges and solutions worked through are bought-in to by different parties.

Another simple practice that requires no budget is what a multimedia company in North America now does: a minute’s silence at the beginning of every meeting. Imagine that at the beginning of every meeting in your organization?  It has profound benefit for the people, the team dynamics and the overall quality of attention and intention within the organization’s culture, helping each of us be more in service of the meeting, which is in service of the organization, which is in service of Life – rather than being embroiled in ego-battles and office politics.

And there is a legal federation in Canada that has embraced a simple, time-honored practice, called ‘the children’s fire’ an ancient indigenous practice of considering the impact each and every key decision has on the livelihoods of the next generation, the children.  Imagine the effect that simple change would have on the discussions in the board-rooms and corridors of power in organizations the world over. It begs the question - what kind of organization is it that doesn’t value the livelihood of our own children?

Graphics courtesy of Giles Hutchins

Giles Hutchins blogs at www.thenatureofbusiness.org and his latest book is "Future Fit."

‘Many books call for new ways of thinking for modern leaders but until Future Fit none have provided such wise, well researched and practical approaches to guide leaders facing deeply complex challenges. In this compelling workbook Giles Hutchins is at the forefront of synthesizing new logics for business with the natural rhythms of life and the human mind that will revolutionize business. Future Fit is a must-read for every leader who wants to continue being successful or to move beyond what currently feels like impossible challenges. As an experienced Chief Executive I cannot recommend this powerful work highly enough.’ Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE, Former Chief Executive of 157 Group, Centre for Excellence in Leadership UK, and ranked one of the UK’s most influential people in Debretts 2015 List.

By Andy Cummings

Your company is about to move into uncharted territory: It’s time to formalize a philanthropic program. You realize the importance of giving programs and the value they offer for your brand reputation. The question isn’t whether to invest in social change, but rather: Which route will have the most impact?

There’s a choice. You can set up a program focused on donations or make grants the focus. Both contribute to social change though each has its own unique benefits. Which path should you take, or should you have both grants and donations programs?

Quick rundown

Donations are forms of gifts. They have no requirements. Your company can specify how your donation is to be used, but the organization is not obliged to comply. Nonprofit organizations request donations to underwrite activities. For example, a nonprofit might ask a company for funds to attend a conference on how to promote its charitable mission. It’s a reciprocal agreement. The company receives public recognition for their donation. There are also product donations, for example, Kohler donates plumbing fixtures and SAP donates software to schools.

Grants are funds awarded to a nonprofit organization through an application process. In exchange for the grant, the nonprofit organization agrees to provide reports of progress toward the social goal. Your company is able to see and share the impact of your philanthropic contributions. There is also the opportunity for capacity building grants, designed to help nonprofit organizations carry out their missions more effectively. Many companies see grants programs as a way to demonstrate they are not just focused on making a profit.

Return on investment

After you look at these two basic definitions, it might seem obvious. One option may seem far more beneficial for your business. But this isn’t all about your business.

The optimal approach is to decide which path aligns your goals with the social change you want to support, ideally working with a partner to help determine and implement your plan. At Versaic, a partnership approach is integral to our beliefs and system, sticking with you on your continuous journey to impact. Upfront we ask questions such as: How can we better understand and help meet your goals? What is the impact you’re looking to cause? What outcomes tell you you’re achieving that impact?

It is only by putting effort into this type of planning upfront that you can make an informed choice to do grants or donations.

Why grants?

Grants are the tools that nonprofits use to grow and make innovation possible. It is an investment that will fund the purchase of quantifiable things to create programs that make social change. You can chart progress and impact with the reporting the nonprofit organization provides. You'll receive proof they’re managing your grant and achieving the impact you set out to make. Many of our grant making clients have found this reporting can foster a collaborative relationship with the non-profit. If needed, the grantmaker can help get the grantee back on track earlier in the grant cycle. Likewise, the grantee can showcase their past results to secure funding from other sources.

Another important benefit of a grant to a nonprofit organization is validation. You’re lending the credibility of your company. It can be said that the support of a recognizable company has just as much value as the grant itself. Sequoia’s Caring Community Grants Program provides grants to non-profits that offer critical health services to District residents. This giving program aligns with their mission to improve the health of residents by providing access to care and promoting wellness.

Why donate?

Donations are the unrestricted funds nonprofits use to pay for essential items such as rent, salaries, and other operational expenses. These needs are critical, but they’re seldom covered by grants.

Donations are also the tool many nonprofits use to ensure the future of programs launched by grants. Few grant-makers provide ongoing funds on an annual basis. Those funds come from donations.

The unrestricted nature of donations makes it possible for a nonprofit to use the funding wherever it’s necessary. Successful organizations can forecast a donation budget. They aren’t hampered by a lengthy application process, and there are no reporting or progress requirements.

The benefits of donating goods and services are plenty. Wyndham Hotels, for instance, donates hotel rewards points. This allows them to not only do good in the community but get the word out about their hotels. They are able to tie their donation program to their product and build their overall brand reputation.

Why both?

If you consider how key causes map to the interests of employees and business goals you can achieve the best of both worlds with both grants and donations programs. There are many reasons why companies implement both donations and grants programs. By incorporating both you have the opportunity to build a solid brand reputation, establish a relationship with consumers by supporting local communities where you work and show a strong commitment to philanthropy.

People notice how much effort you are putting into your philanthropy programs. According to a study by Deloitte, 70 percent of millennials strongly favor companies committed to the community. Wegman’s has been finding ways to give back to the neighborhoods in which it operates for over 90 years, and its commitment to philanthropy makes it one of the most loved grocery chains in the country.

Business decisions

Good philanthropic programs mirror good business practices. They start with defining your objective. In this case, the overall objective is that your company wants to contribute to social change. Your strategy then dictates an approach. The approach determines your level of involvement.

If you choose to make grants, you’re laying the foundation for an ongoing relationship. While the grant may be a one-time award, both you and the grantees must invest a significant amount of time in the process. Your reward is the ability to share the impact of your philanthropic efforts.

If you choose to make donations, your benefit can be much more dramatic. The funding has less stipulations. Nonprofits can use it where it will make the most sense. There’s far less interaction and involvement on your part.

Grantmaking provides you with more to leverage to promote your philanthropic efforts. Donations allow you to do less work. Both paths benefit nonprofit organizations equally. Both also contribute equally to social change.

Image credit: Flickr/Asenat29

Andy Cummings has been with Versaic since 2003 and has been instrumental in building Versaic’s leadership position in the sponsorship and philanthropy markets. Over the years, through his extensive knowledge of Versaic’s product architecture and thousands of conversations with clients, Andy has built a solid understanding of how the Versaic platform can be adapted to create the most relevant applications and client solutions.You can reach out to Versaic via Twitter (@Versaic) and Instagram.

Interested in learning more about Versaic and our solutions for grants or donations? Call 877-712-9495 or visit Versaic.com.

by Tom Idle — The people of the UK could wake up 24 June and find themselves in a very different political landscape. The European Union (EU) Referendum taking place on 23 June poses a question – whether Britain should leave or remain in the EU – that has truly divided the country, sparking conversations and igniting debates as to the pros and cons of being a part of a 27-nation collective.

The likely outcome is unknown, with opinion polls suggesting it is too close to call and the bookies edging only slightly better odds for a flutter on ‘remain’.

While immigration and the economy have dominated the media narrative, the impact on social and environmental issues should the UK choose to get out of the EU – to Brexit – cannot be overlooked.

If the prime minister David Cameron and his remain campaign is to be believed, Brexit will surely trigger economic uncertainty, as markets close and Britain slouches its way to the back of the export queue. Of course, it has been widely argued that the last time the UK was reeling from an economic downturn, back in 2008, the corporate sustainability movement benefited hugely. “The fall out of ‘casino capitalism’ has taught us the value of having values and prompted businesses to rethink their higher purpose…Much of this has been achieved not despite economic upheaval, but precisely because of it,” says Brunswick’s director of global business and society, Phil Drew pointing to stronger Dow Jones Sustainability index scores achieved since the crash.

But the real concern among activists and campaigners everywhere is how the Conservative government might rip the guts out of environmental regulation should the UK no longer have the EU overseeing planetary protection laws. “If you really think the UK is going to maintain its environmental legislation, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on,” says Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. “We have a prime minister who wants to get rid of what he considers to be ‘green crap’ and have a bonfire of regulation.

“The government has instructed its MEPs to obstruct laws to improve inspections on the real world emissions of vehicles. And, in Boris Johnson, you have a man that doesn’t even believe climate change is caused by human activity.”

Lucas, like many others in the ‘remain’ camp, are keen to point to the relative success of the Paris Accord reached last Christmas as evidence of EU membership being crucial in taking a strong position on tackling climate change. Dealing with issues such as air pollution – a cross-border problem by its very nature – can only be dealt with at a European level is another common argument. “There are 40,000 premature deaths caused by air pollution in the UK ever year,” says Lucas. “50% of the particulate matter comes from emissions created by other European countries. That’s why the clean air policy package is so important, with legal action looming if countries fail to deal with pollution.”

But not everybody is convinced that the EU has provided a panacea to all of our environmental woes. Michael Liebreich, the founder of New Energy Finance, the clean energy analysis business bought by Bloomberg in 2009, has been more vocal than most in challenging the perception that all good environmental things come from EU membership. “You have to look at deeds of nations, not words,” he says. “The US has made more progress on phasing out coal than any EU nations. And despite all the talk about how great Germany’s Energiewende programme is, the emissions coming from its energy sector have not budged in 17 years.”

Liebreich adds the three most important pieces of recent environmental legislation – a UK carbon floor price, a decision to phase out coal by 2025 and the Pitcairn marine reserve – were created without any interaction with the EU.

“We will solve our climate problem through innovation. But we have outsourced a lot of that innovation to the EU and it is spending Horizon 2020 money on social-economic research, rather than hard science,” he argues.

The EU membership debate also raises questions for the corporate sustainability profession, which has worked hard to legitimise itself and create business value in recent years. Like many professions, the sector benefits from the free movement of employees in the EU, enabling efficientrecruitment from a larger talent pool.

It has also prompted conversations about the role of business in the context of an ever-shifting governmental landscape at the mercy of political whims. Companies are much better placed to be creative, nimble, agile and innovative than governments. The propensity for business to taker a much bolder stance on sustainability issues than governments might well appease those fearful that Brexit will spell the end for the UK’s environmental protection efforts.

Whatever happens on 23rd June, few can dispute the economic, social and environmental value being created by corporate sustainability activities, campaigns and strategies across businesses throughout the UK – something that will need to be maintained whether voters opt to remain or Brexit.

Photo: Flickr/Creative Commons

Most brands claim to have some form of social mission, but few act on it. Today’s winning brands are not only starting contentious, uncomfortable and socially-relevant conversations about the issues that matter, but they’re also getting off their buns and actually doing something about them.

Huge corporate giants that value profit over the environment and human lives are a thing of the past. These businesses have no place in the economy of the future. In fact, 73 percent of millennials believe that businesses should not only take a stand about important issues, but also influence others to get involved in those issues.

We want the companies we love to not only give a crap about the world, but also to advocate for us and take a stand on the issues that matter the most. It's good for the planet and the people on it, and it’s super good for profits. To be competitive in the market of tomorrow, you have to be a company that cares.

Companies as policymakers

There are brands that truly care about the people they serve and the markets they operate in, and there are those that just say they do. Smart, forward-thinking brands are not only talking the talk, but walking the walk. They understand that the true bottom line is not just people, planet and profit but policy as well.

The American Sustainable Business Council is the leading business advocacy group working to implement public policies that build a sustainable economy. It advocates for legislation and other policy actions, commissions research on policy issues that involve sustainability, and provides a platform that enables policymakers to engage with business professionals.

“A lot of people come into business thinking that they need to leave their activism at home and that advocacy doesn’t have a place in business,” Bob Keener of the ASBC told TriplePundit. “Many people think they have to leave their politics at the door, but this couldn’t be further from the truth.” It is becoming increasingly important for brands to take a stand on political issues and ensure these issues are reflected through the policies they support.

“More and more companies are finding it essential for their business to engage in policy advocacy,” said David Brodwin, co-founder and vice president of media and communications for ASBC. “Today employees, customers and investors expect to see a company walking the talk. And not just internally, but also in their public policy stances. ASBC helps businesses easily translate their values into public policy engagement.”

Companies as feminists

Today’s consumers are increasingly looking to brands to expose gender inequality and empower women. Despite the basic principle that women and men should be paid the same wages for the same work, a gender-based wage gap still persists.

More than 50 years after the Equal Pay Act was signed, women who work full-time, year-round still earn 79 cents for every dollar paid to men. For women of color, the gap is even worse – 60 cents for African American women and 55 cents for Latinas.

MTV decided to address this issue head on. In April 2016, the global brand created the 79 Percent Work Clock, a tool which lets users calculate when 79 percent of their working day is over -- reminding them (and others around them) that they’re no longer being paid for their work.

The project is a component of MTV’s Look Different Campaign which is meant to draw attention to the issue of bias in our world, whether that be racial bias, gender bias or anti-LGBT bias. It invites people to go deeper into these issues and collectively take action against them.

“When we moved into the gender bias phase of Look Different, we knew we wanted to educate our audience on some key issues that are often misunderstood or simply unknown to many in our audience,” Ronnie Cho, MTV’s vice president of public affairs, told TriplePundit.

“The gender pay gap was one of these issues, and we worked closely with an agency called Party to create a provocative way to start a conversation around the 79 percent pay gap. We manufactured several hundred of these clocks and sent them to leaders in business, media, politics and sports.”

Companies as advocates

MTV’s Look Different Campaign is a great example of how a company can leverage its reach to advocate for certain issues. “From the very beginning MTV has always worked to bring light to the most pressing issues of the time,” Cho explained.

“From HIV/AIDS education in the '80s to spotlighting the crisis in Darfur in 2000s, MTV has always led with its heart not only because it was the right thing to do, but because our audience has come to expect it. Simply put, giving a damn about the world around us is baked into our DNA, and I’m proud to be part of continuing that legacy today.”

“When MTV set out to launch its next prosocial campaign, we asked our audience about what issues concerned them the most. Racial, gender and anti-LGBT based bias and discrimination kept coming up, and many felt ill-equipped to challenge them. The same year Look Different was launched, America was once again confronted with the issue of race in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and in the killings of several unarmed black people across the country.”

“The events angered, saddened and confused our audience as to why this was happening in America in this day and age. While many have been brought up with good intentions to be color blind, it’s clear that ignoring our differences was not making America more tolerant or accepting of one another. Look Different was designed to help our audience have those tough conversations to identify hidden biases that surround us, including our own, and to challenge them.”

Companies as mediators

Smart brands see tough times as an opportunity to step up. Reconciliation Brands are brands that bring people together to heal divisions. These companies are doing their part to promote dialogue, mend wounds and reconcile issues between the populations they serve.

A great example of this comes from Ben & Jerry’s. With Brazil deep in crisis around the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff and economic, political and social challenges taking their toll, the popular ice cream brand invited people to its São Paolo store for a political debate.

The idea was to bring people who love one another together, face-to-face, to discuss contentious issues they could not agree on, over ice cream. The campaign was featured on social media using the hashtag #amoréprogresso  —  meaning 'disagree with love.' This is just one way that brands around the world are working to mend the social fabric and be an active force for change.

Companies as champions of diversity

True sustainability cannot be reached without everyone included. "More and more companies are learning that diversity and inclusion helps businesses attract and retain top talent, especially millennials,” Pat Heffernan, CEO of Marketing Partners, told TriplePundit.

“Companies that have a better reputation for being inclusive also make more money,” added MaryAnne Howland, CEO of Ibis Communications and ASBC board member. “These companies are more innovative because they have a broader spectrum of ideas that are being brought to the table. They also have a smarter workforce. When you throw a wider net, the bar is higher. Diversity also yields a wider corporate network with more depth and richness in terms of languages, cultures and experiences.”

And diversity doesn’t just mean women and people of color, but also chronically underserved populations like people with disabilities and the elderly. “People with disabilities are an untapped market and no one is reaching out to them,” Howland told TriplePundit.

An estimated 1.3 billion people have some form of disability, making the differently-abled an emerging market the size of China. Together, they control over $8 trillion in annual disposable income globally. “Not only do they have money, but they have incredible ideas and unique perspectives,” Howland added. “It’s all about recognizing human value. Everyone needs to be treated with dignity and respect. Once we get there we’ll solve all the problems.”

Companies as activists

Everyone wants to be branded as a company that gets it. But it’s not enough to say it, you have to actually be doing something about it. Today’s companies need to be activists, feminists, policy makers, champions of diversity and mediators. They don’t ignore the issues that are plaguing the communities they serve. Instead, they see these issues as opportunities for social innovation.

Image credits: Shannon McGee and Robert Marschelewski via Flickr