Search

Here we go again. Pump prices are down from the painful historic highs of just a few years ago. In response, Americans are buying trucks and SUVs in record numbers with comparatively low MPG. Have you noticed that gasoline prices are going up?

We are repeating history. After the 1974 oil embargo, we bought fuel-efficient vehicles that reduced gasoline demand. Reduced demand, along with increased supply, contributed to reduced pump prices in the 1980s. Then, with lower gasoline prices, we started buying gas-guzzlers again. That created the demand that led to $5 per gallon gasoline.

And now, we are doing it again!

This is evidence of what I call worse-information economics. This is where we use the “worse” information versus “better” information to make a decision. For example, we buy cars and trucks based on today’s pump prices. That is “worse” information compared to “better” information based on either historical experience or an understanding that the price-cycle for gasoline ultimately trends higher over time.

Worse information economics, the economic community calls it behavioral economics, attempts to understand why we make these types of consumption decisions. It is a valuable path for explaining why we have global warming. It also explains what we will do about it.

Worse information economics

You do not have to be an economist to know we do not always make rational decisions. An obvious reason is that we act on emotions. In the retail industry this is called impulse buying.

Research points to much of our consumption not being based on need. It is driven by the desire to create a good feeling. Shopping feels good when we land a bargain. Retailers, by design, have made shopping into one big bargain hunt. Shopping is also fun when it is a social experience. Retailers have turned shopping mails into social platforms including theaters, exercise centers and dining. Online retailers create a similar atmosphere using social media.

All of this is worse information decision-making. In pursuit of fun we often lose sight of the financial, societal and environmental implications of our consumption. We use credit cards rather than cash to delay the financial reality of our purchases. We ignore that the bargain piece of clothing we just bought is manufactured in a foreign country’s sweat shop. Too often we buy with little regard of the environmental impacts of a product’s production and its likely disposal in a landfill.

We make these types of decision even when we attempt to be analytical. For example, the average car price is $30,000. Most fully-equipped models easily reach $40,000 to $50,000. Most of us would not pay these prices if we had to pay in cash out of our savings accounts. But we are now annually buying 17 million of these vehicles because we use worse information. We compare a six- or seven-year car payment to the cash purchase price. We make a purchase based on “I can afford a $800 per month car payment” rather than "I am paying $50,000 for a vehicle that will be worth half that in 24 to 36 months."

Worse information economics is driving climate change

Sixty-five percent of us believe that we confront a global crisis based on human actions generating climate-changing gases. Yet few of us significantly modify our decisions to stop global warming. Why?

The answer is worse information economics. On an individual basis, the fossil fuel industry -- and fossil fueled utilities -- work great for us. We enjoy our cars, homes and businesses fueled with fossil fuels. The technological challenge and cost of reducing our fossil fuel consumption appears daunting or even suspect. The cost of change pails against today’s benefits from doing nothing.

We are caught in using the “worse information” in our consumption decisions. We concentrate on what optimizes our welfare today. We rationalize, or just ignore, the data that says we are creating global warming with very costly consequences.

Worse information economics optimism

The history of removing lead from gasoline provides reasons for optimism. Consumers and industry actively resisted removing lead from gasoline for fifty years. Consumers feared how removing lead would hurt their engines. Industry saw it as a threat to their profitability.

But the reality was that we were poisoning our children. Change happened only after American parents finally focused on the truly meaningful issue (the “better” data) tied to protecting America’s children and not on the issue of maintaining mechanical and oil industry benefits.

The result was captured in a CDC chart that measured lead levels in children's blood before and after we removed lead from gasoline. The curve was shaped like a cliff. We removed lead from gasoline, and the lead in our children’s blood was dramatically reduced. And today our gasoline engines, fueled with unleaded gasoline, deliver superior performance with longer service lives.

This is the potential for solving global warming. Unfortunately, we are still caught in a decision-making cycle of using the “worse” information rather than the “better” information. But this type of decision-making is increasingly being exposed. It is increasingly difficult for consumers to ignore global warming’s externality cost measured by enhanced severe weather, famine and disease.

This will erode consumer use of “worse information” in making decisions. It will push us to adopt disruptive technologies that will reduce or eliminate green house gas emissions. Adopting these technologies will create economies of scale that will propel them to price-competitive leadership compared to fossil fuel technologies. Economics does work. Too often it is a painful process like we are experiencing with global warming.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Coffee is mainly grown in developing countries. The global coffee industry is valued at $100 billion a year, but many coffee farmers just don’t earn much because they are paid poorly for their coffee beans, according to Rainforest Alliance. So, sustainability programs that benefit farmers and help them earn more are badly needed.

Enter global coffee giant Starbucks, which recently announced it has issued $500 million worth of notes whose proceeds will benefit its sustainability programs in coffee-growing regions. Called Senior Notes, they include the first U.S. corporate sustainability bond. The Senior Notes due in 2026 have a 2.45 percent annual interest rate.

The estimated net proceeds from the sale of the Senior Notes will be about $495.6 million. Starbucks expects to allocate most of the proceeds to sustainability projects “within one year of the date of issuance,” according to the SEC filing.  Annual updates of the allocation of the proceeds will be published through the term of the bond until all proceeds are fully allocated to projects. The updates will be published on Starbucks’ website.

“The longevity of the coffee industry is directly linked to the social, economic and environmental conditions of coffee communities around the world,” said Craig Russell, executive vice president of Starbucks Global Coffee, in a statement. “This new sustainability bond offers a way for investors to better understand the work we are doing to help ensure that there is a future for farmers and our industry.”

“Coffee is at the core of our business, and we intend to continue to finance initiatives that will make a positive social and environmental impact in our coffee supply chain as well as other areas across our business,” said Scott Maw, chief financial officer of Starbucks. “Issuing a bond focused on sustainable sourcing, demonstrates that sustainability is not just an add-on, but an integral part of Starbucks, including our strategy and finances.”

One of the  sustainability programs that will benefit from the proceeds of the Senior Notes includes coffee purchased through Starbucks’ ethical sourcing verification program, Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices. One of the standards of the CAFE Practice program is economic transparency. Suppliers are required to submit evidence of payments made throughout the coffee supply chain, so Starbucks knows how much of the price it pays for green coffee actually makes it to the farmer.

In 1999, Starbucks partnered with Conservation International (CI) to help the company "promote environmentally responsible growing methods,” Starbucks states in its latest Global Sustainability Report. Two years later, CI helped Starbucks develop “broad quality, social, environmental and economic guidelines for the sustainable production of high-quality coffee.” In 2004, Starbucks launched CAFE Practices and that year, the company bought 43 million pounds of green coffee through the program, or 14.5 percent of its total green coffee purchase.

Starbucks set a goal in 2008 that all of its coffee would be sourced ethically, which includes all of CAFE Practices and Fairtrade. In 2014, 96 percent of its coffee met that goal, with 95.5 percent sourced through CAFE Practices. Last year, Starbucks met its goal to source 100 percent of its coffee ethically.

Another program that the Senior Notes will benefit is Starbucks’ farmer support centers in coffee-growing regions. Starbucks has eight farmer supports centers in Rwanda, Tanzania, Colombia, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Guatemala and Ethiopia.

The first farmer support center began in San José, Costa Rica, and in 2013 Starbucks bought a farm close by the center. The 240-acre farm, Hacienda Alsacia, is a “fully operational coffee farm,” according to the Global Responsibility Report, but it also serves as an agronomy research and development center. A year after purchasing the farm, Starbucks released a limited-time offering coffee, Starbucks Reserve Costa Rica Geisha La Ines, which was a product of a six-year collaboration between its agronomy team and a local cooperative to grow a more disease-resistant coffee variety that also has good quality.

The Starbucks Global Farmer Fund, through which the company provides short- and long-term loans, will also benefit from the proceeds of the Senior Notes. The company began to invest in programs that provide loans to coffee farmers in 2011 through Root Capital, Verde Ventures and the Calvert Foundation.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

By Meg Murphy

The ancient Greek economist, Hesiod, had a low opinion of the young people around him: “They only care about frivolous things. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly … impatient of restraint.”

More than 2,000 years later, we still hear the same tired and overblown rhetoric about how the newest generation just doesn’t get it.

Millennials aren’t the enigma everyone makes them out to be. They want what every generation before them wanted: to feel appreciated, to know their work is making an impact, and to feel part of something bigger than themselves. The only difference between millennials and other generations is that millennials actually expect their employers to provide a fulfilling work life. If this demand is not met, millennials aren’t afraid to ask for change or leave for another company that promises more.

Millennials’ age and inexperience are working against them. Detractors point to millennial struggles and argue that they are lazy or entitled, but the reality is that these are growing pains, not incompetence. Millennials want to work and expand their skills, and companies have to invest in their growth if they want to reap the rewards. The challenge is ensuring millennials’ needs are fulfilled.

There’s strong incentive to meet that challenge. According to Dale Carnegie and MSW, companies with engaged employees outperform others by 202 percent.

Engagement and the new professionals

Company culture exists on a spectrum. On one end is the drab 9-to-5 company: It’s plagued by disingenuous or nonexistent connections among co-workers, unhealthy competition, and opaque management strategies, and employees go home as soon as they’re allowed. Any emphasis on “culture” comes from the top and feels insincere.

On the other end is the company that prioritizes culture above all else. These companies’ commitments to their employees are genuine and pervasive. It’s not just from upper management; it’s from everyone. They offer flexible hours because they trust their employees. Workers stay engaged not necessarily because they love everything they do, but because their work is appreciated and has a visible impact on the company, their co-workers and their clients.

Engagement is more than the warm fuzzy feelings that accompany getting along with co-workers. An engaged workforce delivers serious ROI for its company. Today, with millennials making up the largest part of the workforce, it’s more important than ever to ensure they’re actively engaged with their work.

As with any large group, it’s impossible to apply a one-size-fits-all strategy. This is especially true for millennials, who are the least homogenous group the American workforce has ever seen.

With so many different people to please, what is the secret to keeping millennials engaged?

How to keep millennials engaged

It’s no secret at all. The same rules apply to them as everyone else — they’re just more in tune with their needs and more empowered to ensure those needs are met. To keep millennials engaged, leaders should provide these six things:

1. A Mission

Our company operates under the belief that we can’t motivate people on our own. Instead, we hire people who are already motivated to solve the kinds of problems we’re working on. If our mission resonates with an employee, that employee is much more likely to stay engaged and stay with the company for the long term.

More money isn’t always the answer. Millennials work for a purpose, not a paycheck. Many younger millennials also don’t yet have responsibilities like children or mortgages, so much of their energy is devoted to finding fulfillment. It’s important to give them opportunities to do something meaningful to keep engagement and retention rates up.

2. Growth opportunities

As the youngest demographic in today’s workforce, millennials are the lowest on the totem pole. They are the unpaid interns and entry-level workers, and they are eager to get to the next step quickly.

Capitalize on this drive by letting them work on cross-departmental projects or mentor a new recruit, and make sure they understand what must happen to push their careers to the next level. Benefit managers need to think creatively and holistically about unique opportunities to help young workers grow.

3. Empathy

Business is about more than numbers. Empathy from management, among colleagues, and for customers and clients makes workers feel more connected to the people around them. Leaders should recognize that they work with humans, not numbers, and treat their employees as the people they are. Companies that prioritize relationships and emphasize genuine human connections reap the greatest rewards of engagement.

4. Transparency and honesty

Marketing-wise, no other generation has been targeted quite like millennials have — they can spot deception from a mile away.

The more opaque, bureaucratic half-truths they get from a company, the less likely they are to buy into the company’s mission or stick around for longer than a couple of years. Honest and consistent messaging from management helps employees feel valued.

5. Ownership

Millennials, like the generations before them, want to be treated with as much respect as the older members of the workforce. They want opportunities to own their work and to be recognized when that work is done well. The more grunt work they have to do and the less appreciation they receive, the more likely they are to look for other opportunities. Instead, provide opportunities to contribute to, or run a project on their own.

6. Diversity and interconnectedness

Millennials are digital natives, so they are accustomed to being connected with everything, everywhere, all the time. They care about other parts of the world and social issues affecting the globe. Companies have to create diverse workplace environments that allow millennials to connect to the larger world through their work.

No generation has ever been perfect, and every new generation takes flak from those who preceded it. But millennials aren’t “impatient” or “entitled.” They’re also not a riddle. They do have great potential, though, and it’s up to leaders to bring it out of them.

Image credit: Flickr/University of the Fraser Valley

Meg Murphy runs communications at Maxwell Health, a revolutionary operating system for employee benefits. She is passionate about transforming the health care industry for the better and sits on the Institute for Healthcare Consumerism’s Editorial Advisory Board and graduated from Bates College in 2013. Connect with her on LinkedIn or find her on Twitter @megalegamurph.

Corporate volunteering is on the rise. Tom Idle reports on the emergence of skills-based volunteering schemes for senior managers.

Mahatma Gandhi once said “the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others”. Generally, people like to help others. When the company you’re working for gives you the freedom and blessing to take time off to help others, they love it.

As such, corporate volunteer programmes have become hugely popular in recent years. In the UK alone, around 11 million people are given paid time off to volunteer within charities or in community and neighbourhood projects. The Office for National Statistics recently estimated the annual value of regular formal volunteering to be £23.9bn.

Volunteering schemes aid the recruitment and retainment of the best employees. When Millennials apply for a job, their top priority is what the company actually sells or produces. But as the Millennial Impact report suggests what matters most to them — beyond compensation and benefits — is the company’s work culture, and its mission and purpose. Volunteering offers a fairly easy way for companies to present and practice their brand values and foster community engagement at the same time. A recent survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) says that 65% of people are more likely to work for an employer that encourages and promotes volunteering.

Giving staff time to volunteer makes good business sense, too. The same CIPD analysis points to communication (66%), confidence (59%), mentoring (51%), resilience (51%) and teambuilding (40%) as the most popular skills and competencies people say volunteering has helped them to develop.

However, what often gets overlooked in this mission for companies to find their soul and for employees to fill their hearts is senior management. In the pressure-cooker environment of the boardroom, managing directors, directors and other senior managers commonly miss out on all the fun—and value—created by volunteer programmes despite, arguably, having the most to give when it comes to skill sharing between the corporate world, and third and public sectors.

An initiative developed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Trustees Unlimited is designed to change that. The board-level volunteering programme, Step on Board, trains and places business professionals onto non-profit boards as trustees.

The UK bank Barclays, which has worked hard in recent years to foster better relationships with the communities in which it operates through its Citizenship Plan, has pioneered the approach. The Barclays Board Placement Programme, a forerunner to Step on Board, has placed 60 staff from the bank into charities as trustees.

One of those 60 is Andy Challis, a 17-year veteran of the London-headquartered bank who is currently head of strategic investments. With two young children, the work of local charity Dreams Come True – giving children with life-limiting medical conditions a memorable experience that fulfils their dreams, like swimming with dolphins – had long been close to Andy’s heart. A simple screening and filter process matched his interests with the right charity and Andy jumped at the chance to become a trustee. “To be able to help the charity continue to grow and achieve its aims is an honour,” he says.

The truth is, as Andy says, charitable boards and school governor boards are getting more sophisticated. Where once a board might be made up purely of retirees with time on their hands, a more diverse group is now required, with the commercial skills to back up ambitious plans.

Dreams Come True is now able to make use of Andy’s skills. As part of his job, investing in companies of strategic importance to the bank, he already sits on a number of company boards. His business acumen and experience in financial analysis, strategic planning, sales and relationship management will, no doubt, financially support the charity, contributing to long-term success. “It’s a two-way thing: charities get access to senior management skillsets from commercial businesses – and Barclays managers get to develop a more rounded skillset,” says Andy.

“My commitment is about four days a year and I help the charity’s finance committee understand business plans and give them guidance on how they can measure success and the outcomes of initiatives in a way that creates a positive feedback loop to those that are donating to the charity.”

In return, Andy says the experience of working within a charity has taught him how to be more collaborative and how to use the ‘softer’ skills needed to work closely with management and the CEO – something that isn’t so easy to do inside the large employer. “It’s taught me the power of teamwork – where everybody has a clear vision and is working towards that. It’s something that perhaps I would have paid less attention to in my day job without this experience.”

Crucially, the volunteering scheme has been an effective tool for fostering an improved connection between senior management and the company’s day-to-day CSR activity. Before the Board Placement Programme was place, Andy says he hadn’t been involved in any of the big Citizenship schemes his colleagues had organised. Now, he’s motivated to do more and is certainly more aware of the broad range of programmes the bank operates.

The NCVO’s Cristina Tiberian adds that Step on Board works not only for established senior professionals, but for aspiring leaders too. “Trusteeship is the perfect spring board for a non-exec role further down the career path,” she says.

All of the evidence points to the fact that volunteering creates enhanced internal engagement; and better engagement produces higher performance. It is no wonder more and more companies are getting in on the act. According to Benevity, the number of companies providing skills-based and pro bono programmes like the one Barclays is running has jumped 40% since 2012 in the US. The company’s director of employee engagement solutions, Janelle Saunders, says that skills-based volunteerism is about “recognising that the employees within your company have a variety of skills that they can lend to charitable organisations”.

And with more companies trying to overlay what people are doing in the community, the skills that they might be developing and their core competencies within their company, “it’s a win-win-win situation,” she says.

 

 

 

By Sangeeta Haindl — It is predicted that one in four of us will be affected by mental illness within a year. Though the effects are as real as a broken arm, it is an invisible and silent illness. This is why Mental Health Awareness Week 2016 is taking place in the UK from 16-22 May, helping raise awareness about this taboo issue. This year’s theme is "relationships."

Mental illness is still surrounded by a certain prejudice, ignorance and fear. These negative attitudes mean it is harder for mental health suffers to work, make friends and live a normal life. The stigma surrounding this type of illness makes all these things harder, because the stigma isolates them. It stops people from getting and keeping jobs, as people with mental health problems have the highest ‘want to work’ rate of any disability group, yet have the lowest in-work rate. One-third report having been dismissed or forced to resign from their job, and 70 percent have been put off applying for jobs, fearing unfair treatment.

This stigma has a negative impact on physical health. People with mental health problems tend to have poorer than average physical health; their physical health problems are often misdiagnosed. Sadly, as a result, people with the most severe mental health problems die, on average, ten years younger. Now, using the power of art during Mental Health Awareness Week to help break down this shame is the ‘Behind The Smile’ exhibition by the artist Toby Brown at Samir Ceric’s Debut Contemporary gallery, with a private view in London on 19 May. Two years in the making, the exhibition is supported by several well-known names:  Alastair Campbell, journalist, broadcaster, and author, and former Communications Director for Prime Minister Tony Blair; BBC TV presenter and vocal coach Carrie Grant; the lead singer of the indie group Embrace, Danny McNamara; "This Morning" presenter Anna Williamson; former "Coronation Street" actress Georgia Taylor; and singer-songwriter Sandi Thom, all of them sufferers from mental health issue. Brown has also painted the singer Amy Winehouse, from a photograph that was found on her computer after her death in July 2011. Campbell came up with the hashtag for the show, #ArtToChange.

Each portrait took nearly six weeks to complete. Brown, the artist, says, “It has not been easy taking a person back to a dark time, as often it is not where they want to go,” adding “I am so thankful that the people I have painted let me take them there. I want people to know that there is no shame in having a mental illness . . . if people in the public eye can open up, so can anyone.”

Brown wanted to capture Alastair Campbell’s openness to share his personal story of mental illness within the painting. The photo Brown took of Campbell captured him with “red eye,” which gave him a sense of devilment, and the painted red eye in this portrait sets it apart from more realistic portraits. Campbell likes the mood that Brown has captured of him: his vulnerability entwined with his strength, the compelling stare. This art exhibition, along with the rest of Mental Health Awareness Week, is working hard to forge a society where mental health problems are not hidden in shame and secrecy. 

Photo: EP Contributor Sangeeta Haindl, artist Toby Brown, subject Alastair Campbell, Debut Contemporary gallery owner Samir Ceric

Photo Credit: Toby Brown at The Debut Contemporary 

Source: Justmeans

Carnival just launched a social impact cruise line that carries vacationing volunteers to work with social enterprises, nonprofits and communities in the Dominican Republic. The cruise line is called Fathom, and it’s essentially voluntourism (volunteering + tourism) on steroids.

Voluntourism is growing rapidly. NPR estimates that over 1.6 million volunteer tourists spend $2 billion each year. People are starting to demand purpose in all aspects of life, and travel is a natural fit.

For many, the more you travel and see the world, the more you care about people and the planet. When Bill and Melinda Gates traveled to Africa and saw deep poverty for the first time, they said it was “a turning point” in their lives. Thousands of other people could say the same thing, and I experienced this heart shift myself while traveling in Kenya and Tanzania a few years ago.

Eager to learn more about impact travel on such a massive scale, I joined the Fathom press trip. Here’s the scoop on what’s working and what isn’t.

What Fathom does right: Local partners, local buy-in

First, the good news. Fathom partners with two organizations, IDDI and Entrena, which have strong local roots. They know the people, the culture, the needs and opportunities. When Fathom passengers reach the Dominican Republic, these organizations lead the volunteer experiences at nonprofits, social enterprises and in the communities.

Under their guidance we planted over 2,400 trees and produced 50 water filters for clean drinking water. We worked with a women’s chocolate cooperative to sort 200 pounds of cacao and wrap 6,000 chocolate bars. We created nearly 600 sheets of recycled paper at a crafts social enterprise, poured concrete floors for two homes and taught English to nearly 650 locals. This work will be done over and over again as Fathom returns every other week with a fresh load of 700 volunteers.

The second smart choice Fathom made is ensuring the community has skin in the game by not giving away freebies. This empowers the locals and ensures there’s a market demand for the products. For example, if locals want a concrete floor in their home, they have to help pour concrete floors for their neighbors. If someone needs a $50 water filter, they can purchase it at the subsidized price of $8, trade in another product like a bunch of bananas, or do community service.

Volunteers are mentally prepared for the social-impact projects through on-board programming. For example, one class uses Ashoka’s social entrepreneur case studies to discuss how to become a change-maker. These workshops are entry level and great for people who are learning about social entrepreneurship for the first time (i.e., pretty much everyone).

Fathom’s ship, the Adonia, is refurbished which is better for the environment than building a new ship. The library shelves are filled with books like "The Promise of a Pencil," a story about a nonprofit that builds schools in developing countries. The gift shops sell products such as Krochet Kids bags, which empower people in Uganda and Peru.

The design of this cruise experience clearly shows the leadership team has significant experience working in social impact. Reading their bios proves this assessment to be true. Fathom president Tara Russell co-founded three social enterprises, and the vice president of operations, Kurt Kroemer, formerly served as senior vice president of the American Red Cross and chief operating officer of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The list goes on.

What Fathom has accomplished is incredibly difficult and worthy of respect. However, like most innovative pursuits, there are some serious kinks. Since constructive feedback is essential for improvement, here are some areas that could use some TLC.

Suggested improvement: Throw a life jacket to the environment

First, the ship needs environmental upgrades. Cruise ships like the Adonia are bad for the environment. Really bad. The Adonia’s Captain Box said the ship burns a minimum of 70 tons of fuel per day. Even when the ship sits in port, it burns fuel to power the electricity.

The heavy fuel the Adonia uses in international waters is hundreds of thousands times worse than truck diesel fuel. It’s so toxic that it’s banned in the United States, so the Adonia is legally required to switch to a cleaner diesel fuel when entering U.S. waters. The Adonia also burns trash which, according to Scientific American, “can cause lung and neurological diseases, and have been linked to heart attacks and some cancers.” So much for breathing fresh sea air.

According to Transport and Environment, an organization that represents 50 European environmental groups, “Air pollution from international shipping accounts for around 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe, at an annual cost to society of more than 58 billion euros [around US$66.9 billion].” And that’s just Europe. Global figures would be much higher.

Fathom and all other Carnival brands could make huge environmental improvements on the ship if they wanted to. Last year the company's profits rose 44.5 percent to $1.76 billion.

During a press meeting onboard the Adonia, one reporter asked about the ship’s environmental impact. Arnold Donald, Carnival's CEO, replied: “Look, people have attacked the cruise industry for years. But just think about it for a second. You know, the cruise industry broadly. What do we do? We’re at sea. We’re in a marine environment, and we go to destinations. So, who wants to be in a yucky marine environment? Nobody.”

“What he’s trying to say is that doing good is also good for business,” interjected Tara Russell, the president of Fathom.

Donald continued: “We have a self-interest in protecting the marine environment and contributing to the ports we go to … What we’ve got is years and years of investment in advanced water treatment, advanced waste management, all that stuff. And the industry overall has it … And Fathom is way beyond that; that’s just what everybody does.”

Later, when 3p interviewed Russell and mentioned the ship's environmental impact, she responded by saying she used to think the cruise industry was bad for the environment before she started working for Carnival, but now that she works in the industry she thinks it's very responsible. She explained it like this: "For me, from the outside, I didn't have any understanding and perception. Then I got on the inside and I'm like, 'Holy crap, wow! This is unbelievably thoughtful and intentional.' I've just been so impressed and learned a lot."

What Donald and Russell did not say was that, on an environmental scale of A to F, the Adonia is rated a C- by Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit that creates report cards each year to rate the environmental impact of cruise ships. Its mission is to give vacationers information so they can choose a greener cruise. Although the Adonia has an advanced waste-water system, it doesn't include any improvements in other areas. Other cruise ships, such as some of the Disney ships, have made a lot of upgrades and earn an A.

This isn’t the first time Donald has refused to acknowledge the environmental damage the cruise industry can have on the environment. Last year Donald told cruise executives: “On the green side, in terms of environmental stewardship, I give us an A+.” However, that same day he was handed 100,000 signatures requesting Carnival ships clean up their sewage treatment.

Carnival was also petitioned last year to stop running over and injuring hundreds of whale sharks with cruise ships. Then last month Carnival decided to increase the number of whale shark encounters through tourism, which is the opposite of what environmental organizations recommend.

The environmental damage caused by the Adonia is happening in some of the most beautiful and pristine places on the planet. Just a couple of days ago, it was the first cruise ship to travel to Cuba (not for voluntourism but for cultural immersion). The New York Times reports Cubans are concerned that cruise ships and tourists will ruin the island nation's “pristine coral reefs, mangrove forests, national parks and organic farms.”

This fear is well founded. Cuba’s Caribbean neighbors have suffered beach erosion, forest destruction, river pollution, and other environmental degradation because of cruise ships and tourism. Also, beautiful undeveloped coastlines once dotted with local fishing boats have turned into touristy condos and souvenir shops.

Be transparent about crew wages, benefits, working hours and accommodations

A second downside is Fathom’s lack of transparency regarding its treatment of the crew. The Adonia flies a flag of convenience. What that means in this case is that, instead of being registered in the United States where Carnival is headquartered or in England where sister company P&O is headquartered, the Adonia is registered to Bermuda.

According to the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF): “A flag of convenience ship is one that flies the flag of a country other than the country of ownership. For workers onboard, this can mean: very low wages, poor on-board conditions, inadequate food and clean drinking water, long periods of work without proper rest, leading to stress and fatigue.” It also means “ship owners can take advantage of: minimal regulation, cheap registration fees, low or no taxes, freedom to employ cheap labor from the global labor market.”

I asked Fathom about the treatment of the Adonia crew: How much do they make per month? How many hours per day do they work? How many days a week do they work? The company responded: “We pay our crew a fair and appropriate wage for their excellent service,” but it refused to give details.

A quick Google search shows that the Adonia crew are employed by P&O Cruises (another Carnival Corp. brand). In 2012, the Guardian called out P&O for its low wages. The cruise company paid crew members a minimum of $366 per month in 2012, with the potential for a $219 bonus if they exceed customer ratings ranging from 92 to 96 percent, the paper reported. A few years ago P&O also fired 150 employees who protested their low wages, so apparently not everyone thinks the company's income is fair.

One Carnival salary we do know, though, is Donald's: Last year he was paid close to $9.4 million, the St. Louis Business Journal reported.

Most crew members come from countries with much lower incomes, and whether they should be paid U.S. wages is controversial. But, considering the expensive flights to visit families back home, the fact that the ship sails out of Miami, and their long-term separation from their families, it seems the crew should be paid quite a bit more than they would make back home even if it's not U.S. wages.

Another concern regarding the Adonia's crew is their working hours and conditions. In the cruise industry, it’s common for employees to work 11 to 16 hours a day, seven days a week. During the Fathom trip, I heard a couple of passengers say they were uncomfortable not knowing how workers were treated.

The bottom line is that Fathom needs to be transparent regarding the working hours, living conditions, health care benefits, vacation time and salary of its crew. This would allow passengers to decide for themselves whether their cabin steward and dining room waiter are being treated fairly and help them decide how much to tip.

Voluntourism: It's one way to help, or is it?

The last main issue with Fathom's cruise is the concept of voluntourism itself. Whether people are voluntourists with Fathom or another organization, it’s tricky to create an effective program.

To evaluate Fathom’s social impact, I chatted with co-passenger Aaron Hurst, founder of the volunteer organization Taproot Foundation and talent analytics platform Imperative and author of "The Purpose Economy."

Hurst said the best thing someone can do from an environmental impact standpoint is to stay home and help their neighbor. It’s also more effective to donate money than to do manual-labor volunteer work.

If you calculate the cost of your flight to Miami to go on the cruise and the amount you spend on the cruise ($1,400 to $5,000), you could easily donate the money and pay a local the minimum wage ($167) to work on a development project full-time for as long as 30 months. And they would accomplish far more during that time than you do working a couple of hours for three or four days.

The issue here is that if you don’t travel the world, then you don’t understand it as well. And donations aren’t life-changing like experiences are.

But, if someone is going to volunteer while traveling, the second best thing they can do is work on one project for as long as possible so the effort it took to train them pays off and they have time to become good at their job.

When traveling with Fathom, the partners on the ground spend a lot of time planning for us to visit, giving us a tour of the facilities and teaching us how to do the work. They cooked lunch for us while we worked for a few hours, and cleaned up after us when we left. We didn’t accomplish much work within those few hours that organizations couldn’t have done on their own in about the same amount of time. “In my work I’ve found that it takes about 40 hours of doing something before you get a return on investment for the organization,” Hurst told 3p.

So, why are these organizations partnering with Fathom? For several reasons. For one, Fathom has invested in them, and they are paid to accept volunteers. A percentage of each passenger’s ticket goes to the organizations.

Fathom declined to say how much the company invested in its on-the-ground partners and in what ways it invests. However, it did say the partners are contracted and it’s a fee-based engagement. So, when passengers go make water filters, the nonprofit benefits not as much from the manual labor, but because the cost of materials is paid for by Fathom.

Another reason this arrangement works well for partners is because their contract with Fathom ensures a continual flow of income, which makes it easier for the organization to plan for the future. Fathom also brings in more customers for at least one of the social enterprises. The faster these organizations can scale up and accept more volunteers, the better it is for Fathom. So, Fathom is happy to leverage its network and influence to create additional demand for water filters, etc.

The last reason it’s good for organizations is that they create relationships with volunteers and may receive donations on down the road. The water filtration nonprofit, Wine to Water, definitely made a pitch for donations at the end of the educational experience.

Should you book the cruise for your summer vacation?

Maybe, if you’re definitely going on a cruise. “If people are coming from a traditional cruise experience ... I think this is substantially better and worthy of being celebrated,” Hurst told 3p. “Everyone I’ve met who has been on cruises before thinks this is amazing and so different … It’s a very safe way to have a values-driven, intimate trip with your family.”

If cruising is your jam, check out the Ecoship. It features solar panel-covered wind sails, a closed-loop water system, on-board garden and nontoxic hull coating that mimics fish skin. It’s an educational cruise launching in 2020 to take passengers to various countries to promote peace and sustainability.

For the people who want to try out voluntourism but aren’t attached to the idea of a cruise, there are many other non-cruise voluntourism programs that are far better for the environment and offer a more immersive experience.

Hopefully those who decide to go on the Fathom trip realize it is less about creating positive impact for others and more about educating yourself. By putting yourself in an environment that may change you and make you a better person, you are better equipped to change the world when you return home.

“I really care about what happens to travelers when [they] get home,” Russell told us. “How are they perhaps different in their family, in their community, in their workplace? Or are they? Because if they go back and nothing has changed, then I don’t believe that we’ve done an effective job of delivering on this experience. We actually believe it’s a before, during, after and ongoing relationship that we’re trying to cultivate."

Image credits: Renee Farris

Ed Note: Accommodations, travel and guidance were courtesy of Fathom and Carnival Corp. Neither the author nor TriplePundit was required to write about the experience. Opinions are our own.

The rise of organic farming is analogous to the clean-energy revolution: As is the case with renewables, organic products’ growth is rapid, but it still comprises only a tiny segment of the overall market. Part of the problem is that for many smaller farmers, who operate on thin margins, the organic certification process is time-consuming and expensive. Organizations such as Northern California-based CCOF say they are trying to make the transition to organic more cost-effective, but the process involved is still lengthy one.

One challenge for the organics movement is the development of a certification, acceptable to both consumers and farmers, which recognizes the switch from conventional farming methods to those that finally allow for that coveted “organic” certification. CCOF operates a certified transitional farming program that recognizes farmers’ efforts to go organic during that three-year transition period. But the fact that it is difficult to even find these labels on products demonstrates the lack of traction such certification has with consumers and retailers.

Meanwhile, depending on the source cited, the amount of farmland worldwide devoted to organic agriculture only totals about 1 percent. Organic crops are raised on over 14,000 farms in the U.S., covering 3.7 million acres. Sales of organics keep increasing, up to $39 billion in 2014, a 10-fold increase from two decades earlier. Nevertheless, while the agriculture sector recognizes transitional ingredients, consumers often overlook them while farmers struggle financially during that three-year window.

Kellogg subsidiary Kashi, the cereal and snack bar maker that has found success landing its products on shelves in many supermarket chains, is trying to solve this conundrum.

This week, Kashi announced a partnership with Quality Assurance International (QAI) and South Dakota-based Hesco to launch a “certified transitional” standard to recognize “organics in training.”

QAI led the development of this protocol, with additional advice from agricultural suppliers, an NGO, experts on organics, retailers, distributors and food brands, according to a press release issued by Kashi.

This protocol, which will soon be available on QAI’s web site, can apply to any crop -- from grains to berries to cotton. Kashi says it will support any farmer that is transitioning to organic certification so that they can maintain ownership of their land. But no details were offered other than what was disclosed publicly in the company’s press statements.

“Farmers face steep barriers to converting to organic – including financial uncertainty during the three-year transition period required to be eligible for USDA Organic certification," said Nicole Nestojko, senior director of supply chain and sustainability at Kashi.

"During those three years, farmers have to make big investments – from purchasing fertilizers allowed in organic farming, to developing new farm business plans and making capital investments in infrastructure like on-farm storage. Those expenses start from day one, but farmers cannot sell crops at organic prices until at least three years later.

"[The Certified Transitional standard] creates a market where consumers can choose to directly support farmers looking to make this conversion. Kashi is the first company to offer a Certified Transitional product.” 

Kashi says it has already started incorporating wheat grown on farmland in transition to organic within one of its products. A varietal of red winter wheat is the mainstay of a dark chocolate-flavored wheat biscuit cereal that will be available next month. Kashi claims at least two farmers grew transitional wheat for this product. The company has not announced whether it will source more transitional ingredients for other products in the near future.

What Kashi says it will do is make this new protocol available to any organization that sources or grows agricultural crops. Other brands not necessarily owned by Kashi may also adopt this transitional sourcing standard. The company insists that the overarching goal is to boost financial support for farmers who have committed to growing organic crops, so that acreage for organic crops surges past that current 1-percent ratio of total farmland.

Of course, something is in this for Kashi, too. In order to get consumers involved, the company is encouraging shoppers to join this bandwagon — by buying its new Dark Cocoa Karma Shredded Wheat Biscuits cereal. “When you buy a box,” the company stated in one of the documents it made available to the press in announcing this new protocol, “you are playing an active role in changing our food system.”

Kashi’s food labeling, and and that of its parent company Kellogg, have raised eyebrows in the past. While Kashi is known for “natural” products, its corporate parent irritated many advocates of GMO labeling with its contributions totaling $790,000 to the 2012 'No on Proposition 37' campaign, which opposed mandated GMO disclosures on food products in California. Kashi is also one of many companies nailed in recent years for its proclivity to label its food products as “natural,” the actions of which resulted in a class action lawsuit in 2014.

Do not be surprised if many consumers view this latest initiative by Kashi with, at a minimum, some healthy skepticism. But what this program does highlight is the need for consumer education when it comes to organic agriculture. If many farmers could afford changing their ways in order to benefit financially from the premiums organics can afford, many would have done so already.

Image credit: Jurema Oliveira/Wiki Commons

The automobile industry is changing, as evident in the rise of electric cars from just about all brands, despite low oil prices. Ford Motor Co. is one example of big automakers' transformation from once-stodgy manufactures that were resistant to change into agile technology and lifestyle companies. But this change in the automotive sector is not just about moving from conventional gasoline or diesel engines to electric power trains. These companies have very complicated supply chains, and Ford is one company looking beyond alloys and plastics as it figures out how to assemble these next generations of automobiles.

To that end, the Dearborn, Michigan-based company announced it will soon use captured carbon dioxide to make some of the foam and plastic required for its vehicles.

Ford says it is the first company to develop and make components using CO2 as a feedstock for materials such as plastic. Ford worked with East Coast company Novomer to develop these carbon dioxide-based polyols -- alcohols that comprise polymers, which are the base of synthetic materials such as polystyrene. The Novomer polyols, branded as Converge, could end up in Ford’s vehicles within five years.

As of now, the foam Ford and Novomer researchers are developing is 50 percent CO2-based. But even if the end products remain half captured carbon and half conventional base materials, that is still a massive step. Assuming that the production of these materials can scale, Ford claims it could reduce its petroleum consumption by as much as 2 million barrels annually.

While environmental groups have long pressed automakers such as Ford to improve their cars’ fuel efficiency, the manufacture of automobiles remains highly carbon-intensive. Auto manufacturers are aware that more consumers want recycled and bio-based products in their vehicles, but of course, the convergence of performance and liability behooves these companies to ensure that sustainable materials can also last for the length of these vehicles’ lives, from when they roll out of the dealership to dismemberment in the junkyard.

Ford (and its competitor, General Motors) is active on this front and has experimented with a variety of upcycled and plant-based materials. The company’s scientists tinkered with plants, including soy, for seat cushions. The seats in one of Ford’s pickup trucks is upholstered with fabric made out of recycled plastic bottles. Even something as benign as window trim went under the microscope as Ford tries to find ways to not only mitigate its environmental impact, but also reduce costs for the long term. Coconut fibers, the tropical plant kenaf, recycled denim and even shredded paper currency have all undergone testing in Ford’s Dearborn laboratories.

These moves in Detroit may not be fast enough for those who still remember the auto companies’ refusal to adapt any changes in the interest of public safety or the environment, a history that includes just about everything from catalytic converters to seat belts and air bags. But as consumer habits change and more people view driving as more of an annoyance than privilege, efforts such as this one by Ford are necessary for these companies to stay relevant in the 21st century.

Image credit: Ford Motor Co.

George Zimmerman, who four years ago shot and killed unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin and was acquitted of murder charges due to Florida’s “stand your ground” gun laws, is a gift that keeps on giving -- and not in a good way.

Just when we thought he disappeared from the nation’s consciousness, Zimmerman jumped back in with his announcement last week that he would sell the gun that he used to, depending on your perspective, kill Martin in cold blood or defend himself from perceived danger.

Describing it as an “American Firearm Icon,” Zimmerman claimed he was well within his rights to sell the gun so he could raise money for a variety of purposes, including derailing the careers of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as well as Angela Corey, the special prosecutor assigned by Florida Gov. Rick Scott to investigate the killing of Martin. Other causes named by Zimmerman include "defending law enforcement officers” from Bureau of Land Management “violence” (we at TriplePundit are not sure to what he's referring, although it could be the long-running Oregon standoff).

Of course Zimmerman, who has had a reportedly checkered employment history and blamed the February 2012 incident for a bout of homelessness, never said exactly how much money would go to such aforementioned causes.

This is not exactly the kind of spokesperson the gun lobby and industry need as they justify unrestricted gun ownership as necessary for self-defense. But as the cliché goes, this is a free country — as Zimmerman was reported to have said as he harassed some black teenagers in, of all places, Ferguson, Missouri. “I’m a free American; I can do what I want with my possessions,” he told an Orlando, Florida television station last week.

And those who are continually horrified by Zimmerman’s apparent lack of empathy, his behavior over the past four years and his decision to jump on the “murderabilia” bandwagon have decided to show that this is indeed, a free country.

The results are embarrassing for any gun dealer who chose to be associated with Zimmerman. The first auction site, GunBroker.com, hastily removed the firearm soon after posting it on its site. Not long afterward, another site, Missouri-based United Gun Group, launched its own auction, but then quickly deleted the listing. But the same company decided to start another auction, and that is when the fun, or trolling, began.

The $5,000 gun soon soared in “value” to $65 million, with phantom bidders showing what they thought of Zimmerman and his latest publicity stunt. United Gun Group put the kibosh on that auction. But give Zimmerman credit -- he’s determined. Earlier this week, the company launched its third attempted auction. At press time, the gun is currently fetching over $100,000, because, as the company’s owner explained to a St. Louis television station, this is about “standing firm for individual rights as adults to make their own decision.”

The problem with Zimmerman’s adult decision is that he is giving “defenders” of Second Amendment rights, who already look ridiculous when toddlers seem to be accidentally shooting adults on a weekly basis, even more public-relations problems.

The stubborn fact is that, like it or not, image -- and tone -- matter. During the closing days of the hapless Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004, I confronted, and offended, a group of campaigners because I told them if they wanted to convince people to vote a certain way, they had to be both articulate and groomed. That bunch did nothing but spit out anti-Bush invective and looked as if they had not showered in days (one activist screamed at me that she was going to call the police after I told her not to hand out campaign fliers while looking as if she had partied for a week, but hey, this is a free country). One reason why the “Occupy” movement failed is because many of its followers looked as if they could not occupy much of anything. “Black Lives Matter” activists turn off otherwise empathetic citizens when they heckle and interrupt speakers. And while Donald Trump has his core believers, one reason why so much of the electorate will not consider voting for him is that as soon as he seems reasonable, his foot enters his mouth and refuses to leave.

Zimmerman had a chance to redeem himself, simply by staying out of trouble and perhaps even doing some form of community service to show that he was not the despicable ogre many make him out to be. Unfortunately for his future prospects, he has chosen to behave as a petulant teenager. And for a lobby that talks so much about “personal responsibility,” having Zimmerman in the news helps move the “gun rights” movement in one direction: backward.

Image credit: Fibonacci Blue/Flickr

By Alex Newman

It has been six years since five Supreme Court justices ruled that nonprofit corporations had the right to spend huge amounts of money through funding Super PACs in the infamous Citizens United decision. It is hardly a coincidence that, since the decision, Republicans and their corporate allies gained control of state and local offices throughout the United States, where campaign spending becomes more important.

But what has changed? How has campaign spending changed over the past six years, whether through federal campaign contributions or through Super PACs? And what sort of effect will it have on the current presidential election?

Tracking the rise of money in politics

It should be remembered that spending for political campaigns and causes is not necessarily a bad thing. Witness how the Bernie Sanders campaign mobilized millions of young voters to donate to his cause. If that clean money -- along with the legion of Bernie supporters -- can stay mobilized and promote progressive causes in the future, then Bernie’s campaign is a success even if he may not necessarily become president.

But the rise of Super PACS creates a new monstrosity. In the 2000 presidential election, outside groups spent just $51 million in what was one of the closest and most pivotal elections in most of our lifetimes. In 2012, Super PACs spent $609 million. And while the 2016 general election campaign has not even begun, Super PACs have already raised $710 million and spent $301 million, according to Open Secrets.

So, who are the prime beneficiaries of this incredible largess? Out of that $301 million, about $270 million went to conservative organizations. Two Super PACs, Right to Rise USA and Conservative Solutions PAC, each spent more money than all the Super PAC money used for the Democratic candidates combined.

Now, this does not mean that the Republicans are absolutely swamping the Democrats with a tidal wave of money. The Clinton and Sanders campaign committees have each raised more than twice the candidate committee money of any GOP candidate, though that may be disfigured by how many more GOP candidates ran in the primary.

But what does matter is that political campaigns are now stuck in a financial arms race without end. At the time, even campaign spending in 2000 was perceived as large compared to the almost total lack of campaign spending in elections in the 1960s and 1970s, and even those totals are minuscule compared to the money flung about today.

Does money matter?

All of these aforementioned numbers show how much campaign finance spending has increased. So, the so-called “free speech” backers and their corporate allies have switched to a different argument. The new argument is that all that money does not matter.

The common narrative being used is to point out the GOP primary. After all, the aforementioned Right to Rise USA and Conservative Solutions PAC respectively helped the Bush and Rubio campaigns. Meanwhile, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is largely self-financed, as Open Secrets shows that 75 percent of his campaign spending comes out of his own pocket, with the rest coming from individual contributions. And Trump spent far less than Bush and Rubio. If Super PACs are so all powerful, the argument goes, why didn’t Bush or Rubio win instead of Trump?

To begin with, this argument defies common sense. Do you honestly think that the Koch brothers and Shelden Adelson just donate their money out of the good of their hearts? They and other groups donate because they know they can get something in return, namely political favors of some kind. Even if some rich men donate because they believe in their political cause so badly, that does not exclude the vast percentage of those who donate to curry benefits from Washington.

And away from that, the simple fact is that the candidate who raises the most money is the one who wins most of the time. Congressmen know this, which is why Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) said he was told he needed to raise $18,000 per day. Jolly, one of the representatives of the most powerful nation on Earth, was reduced to a glorified telemarketer -- calling rich people according to a script and begging for donations.

If money really didn’t matter in politics, one would think that Mr. Jolly would not need to do all of this and could instead focus on actually serving his constituents.  But the fact that he and the Republican Party go to such lengths show that, whatever those willing to defend the system may cry, money matters to the party leadership more than votes.

The Citizens United decision is a disaster for the United States, as it has turned elections into nothing more than a financial arms race where the candidate who raises the most money wins. Until real change is implemented to strike down the decision and destroy Super PACs, it is troublesome to suggest true democracy exists in this country.

Image credit: Flickr/United for the People Georgia

Alex Newman is a U.K.-based journalist and blogger who has a deep interest in the intersection between big data, statistics and the news. He writes about politics and finance and the reach of big business.