Search

Feefo has released its list of companies that have been accredited with “Trusted Merchant” status for 2016. Over 1,400 national and international businesses were awarded, including Axa, Hiscox, Expedia, Phase Eight, Charles Twyritt, Radley, Thomas Cook, Party Pieces, and Trafalgar. The awards are based on scores in Feefo customer service reviews throughout 2015. To make the list, businesses must achieve a customer satisfaction service rating of 85-100%. On the 2016 list, the qualifying merchant’s average service rating is 91.5%, meaning that over nine out of 10 of their customers received a positive experience. Only customers who have made a purchase are invited to leave feedback, eliminating the phenomenon of fake or biased reviews. Feefo believes that independently collected, purchaser verified reviews can deliver accurate measures of a businesses’ success.

 

“What makes the Uber experience truly great are the people behind the wheel,” Uber writes on its website. “Our partners drive their own cars — on their own schedule — in cities big and small. Which is why more than one million people worldwide have signed up to drive.”

Well, apparently some of these drivers feel that while Uber is very generous with compliments, it is far less generous when it comes to compensating them for their hard work.

Earlier this week Uber drivers rallied in New York City against the company’s decision to cut fares by 15 percent for the popular UberX and UberXL services. According to Uber, this move is supposed to result in an increase in ridership (price goes down, demand goes up) and therefore drivers will benefit too as they will “waste less time driving around without a fare.”

Uber claimed on its website following the rallies that “we have already seen a 20 percent increase in hourly earnings for partners. This means that for every hour a partner was online they earned more money than they did two weeks ago.” In addition, the company implemented hourly guarantee for UberX drivers of $30 to $40 under certain conditions.

Some drivers welcomed this move, according to the New York Post, but it seems that many others weren’t convinced by the Uber math. One driver told the New York Times he predicted “the fare cuts would force him to work 10 to 14 hours a day to make his rent and car payments.” Other drivers also estimated they are going to work harder for less money.

In terms of pure economics it’s a question of elasticity, similarly to the classic question -- ‘If I lower the price of a product, how much more will sell?’ It will therefore take some time to see who is right about the impact of the fare reduction – Uber (everyone wins) or the drivers (everyone wins but us). However, the backlash against Uber seems to be about something much greater than price elasticity.

As one driver put it: “They call us partners, but they’re treating us like slaves.”

Uber is a manifestation of a dominant sharing economy design model, in which companies perceive themselves as an algorithm with a very clear goal -- maximizing customer satisfaction. “Neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation,” Uber described itself to the court in the case of Barbara Ann Berwick v. Uber.

What about the service providers? In this model they’re perceived almost as friction, which should be eliminated to improve the user experience. As Uber CEO Travis Kalanik once explained: “The reason Uber could be expensive is you’re paying for the other dude in the car. When there is no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere is cheaper.”

This model focuses on the needs of users and shareholders in terms of creating and capturing value respectively. It is inherently unsustainable as it addresses service providers not as an equal partners or even human capital that should be managed with respect and care, but more as an exploitable resource.

This is manifested in the fact that Uber, in this case, didn’t involve the New York drivers in the decision-making process, not to mention its seeming unwillingness to sit down with the protesting drivers and listen to what they have to say. I suppose it is not too surprising that Uber didn’t offer to reduce its commission, which increased last year in New York and some other markets from 20 to 25 percent – after all, in this model when it comes to value capturing, shareholders come first.

Overall, the message that Uber seems to be sending its network of about 35,000 New York drivers is crystal clear: We have no relationship with you and no commitment to making your Uber experience better. Working conditions? You must be kidding -- this is an algorithm you’re dealing with after all, one that proves the point Van Jones once made: “Technology is making an awful lot of consumers happy and an awful lot of the workers sad.”

Looking at my Uber app (with the new design!) it seems that not many drivers have joined the call of the protest organizers to go on strike and shut down their app. This effort, as the Verge noted, is similar to what happened two years ago in New York, also following fare reductions. The effort back then didn’t seem to change Uber’s decisions, although there are also examples of protests and strikes of Uber drivers (outside New York) that actually did succeed.

So, what could change the current model eventually? Judging from conversations I had with Uber drivers, it seems that competition could be a catalyst for change. In other words, if drivers have better alternative that could provide them with the ability to make a decent living, while treating them humanely, then there’s a greater chance they will leave Uber. Until then they’re trapped -- like so many workers in the gig economy -- in a job that has a great premise, but eventually falls short of their expectations, although it does so in an incremental way that still leaves the drivers with hope that things will get better and this will one day be the dream job they were promised.

Uber's ridesharing rival Lyft made some steps in the right direction in the settlement agreement it reached last month with its drivers in California, but it still falls short of creating a viable humane alternative to Uber. Right now Uber drivers seem to have two options – either they wait until Lyft will take more steps toward becoming a humane business focusing on creating great peer experiences and adopting a balanced approach when it comes to value capturing (i.e. this is not just about maximizing shareholder value), or they collaborate and design their own network, where they will have the opportunity not just to create the type of company they really wish to work for, but also to show Uber how wrong it is when it treats them like friction.

Image credit: Flickr/Jason Newport

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

This weekend is all about Super Bowl Sunday. While some people are eager to watch the Carolina Panthers ambush the Denver Broncos, others are in it for the Puppy Bowl. But most everyone wants to see what crazy spots are being dropped in the year's most expensive commercial breaks. Of course, the TriplePundit team couldn't wait to dive in and see how these advertisements fare when it comes to the triple bottom line. Among the top ads, did any of the world's biggest brands choose to showcase their more sustainable product offerings? Did they put a progressive spin on their pitches, or was it the same old same old?

Among the 41 brands that have already released their advertisements, we don't see any sustainable product promotions. But four ads -- 10 percent -- include a values message. Regardless of who takes home the rings, having so many important causes up on those big screens means sustainability takes the win.

Axe, #FindYourMagic

Axe body spray isn't known for its progressive gender politics. We were excited to see the fragrance company challenge traditional notions of masculinity in the spot below. While the company has done its part to perpetuate gender stereotypes in the past, here it aims to shake things up during the most macho television event of the year.

https://youtu.be/WzTSE6kcLwY

Colgate, #EveryDropCounts

In Colgate's first-ever spot for the Super Bowl, the toothpaste company tackles one of our own pet peeves -- leaving the faucet running while you brush your teeth. With droughts on the rise around the U.S. and 3 to 5 gallons wasted every time you let the faucet run for your two-minute session, kudos to Colgate for using its spot as a teachable moment!

https://youtu.be/z5Ar0eCp6uE

Helen Mirren for Budweiser, #GiveADamn

Budweiser also chose to focus on a material issue: drunk driving.

"I'm Helen Mirren, a notoriously frank and uncensored British lady," Mirren says in the Super Bowl spot. "If you drive drunk, you — simply put — are a shortsighted, utterly useless, oxygen-wasting human form of pollution, a Darwin award–deserving selfish coward."

Pantene, #DadDo

Pantene showcases the #DadDo: hair-dos dads create for their daughters. While this spot could easily have taken a bad turn toward the "dumb dad" meme, this one heartwarmingly emphasizes that active dads make their daughters strong -- a message we can all get behind.

https://youtu.be/KXPvh8kMFek
Share your favorite ads in the comments!

Image credit: Flickr/Sonny Abesamis

TriplePundit is tracking the ongoing drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Follow our coverage here. 

In the weeks since the Flint water crisis gained national attention, we've read numerous stories about who or what is to blame.

To recap: The city of Flint, Michigan, switched drinking water sources from Lake Huron to the Flint River to save money while a new pipeline was being constructed. The river water is 19 times more corrosive than the lake water and was not treated with an anti-corrosive agent. Over time, the water damaged the pipes, sending enough lead to qualify as toxic waste into the city's drinking water and causing hundreds of people (including children) to get lead poisoning.

The governor and the emergency manager law played a big part, but the blame goes further

At the top of the list is Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, enabled by the one of the broadest emergency manager (EM) laws in the country and determined to treat Michigan like a failing business that needs to be fixed no matter what the (human) cost. There is also enough blame to go around to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for dismissing concerns and failing to treat the water properly, as well as the EPA for its failure to act.

However, the roots of this disastrous decision, the determination to ignore citizens asking for help for more than a year, the failure to act, and the deflection of any responsibility lie in the rotten political culture that exists in Michigan.

Our state is ruled by a government lacking in accountability and transparency (ranked dead last of all 50 states), and lawmakers that pass laws without voter input -- repeatedly ignoring the needs and wishes of the voters and catering to business interests over individuals. Our governor has gone even further by passing budgets that have put a heavy financial burden on lower- and middle-class residents, as well as cities and school districts, while exempting businesses. Gov. Snyder also abused the emergency manager law to centralize as much power as possible within a small select group -- taking away the choice and voice of a large number of residents, while giving these appointed rulers immunity from any consequences.

That these factors created an environment which resulted in an enormous catastrophe that devastated an entire community isn't a surprise -- with these conditions, it was a virtual certainty.

Snyder made use of the emergency manager law immediately to give him (and an entitled few) a lot of power.

It's well known by now that the emergency manager law allows the governor to appoint a single, unelected fiscal manager to take control of a municipality or school district that the state decides is in financial trouble. The original emergency manager law was passed in Michigan in 1988 and strengthened in 1990. Before Snyder, an emergency financial manager had only been appointed 10 times in more than 20 years. Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (2003–2011) used it to implement removal hearings for Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Detroit mayor who stepped down and was later convicted of corruption.

When Snyder took office in 2011, he immediately strengthened the EM law (Public Act 4), giving it even broader reach. Between 2011 and 2015, Snyder used the law seven times, far more than any other governor, and EMs presided mostly over cities with low-income, minority residents. In 2013-2014, more than half of Michigan's black residents were under emergency manager rule.

Emergency managers don't usually live in the city that they are sent to fix, yet they possess extremely broad powers to make significant decisions over that community and are not accountable to the city leadership or residents if they don’t agree or express dissatisfaction. After Snyder's EM expansion in 2012, Michigan Radio reported:

"An emergency manager can:

• Hire/fire local government employees


• Renegotiate, terminate, modify labor contracts with state treasury approval


• Sell, lease, or privatize local assets with state treasury approval


• Revise contract obligations


• Change local budgets without local legislative approval


• Initiate municipal bankruptcy proceedings


• Hire support staff

"An emergency manager cannot raise taxes.

"According to Joe Harris, Benton Harbor’s emergency manager, Public Act 4 effectively removes power from local, elected officials once an EM is appointed.

"Harris told Michigan Radio in May that, 'the only authority that they can have is the authority that's provided to them, or is given to them by the emergency manager.'

"Under Public Act 4, emergency managers have removed the legislative powers of elected officials, suspended their pay, fired city officials, and imposed pay cuts that violate union contracts."

The residents have no recourse to be heard as they would with elected officials. Emergency managers also receive immunity from liability under the law. They are selected by the governor, but they're not required to have any specific qualifications outside of being fiscally savvy.

Snyder says if he has more power, he will protect everyone and prevent disasters.

Snyder says that the emergency manager law is really for the benefit and protection of Michigan citizens.

“[If] a financial emergency exists … the governor can appoint an emergency manager who will be accountable to the governor and the legislature … Appointing an emergency manager is the last thing I ever want to do. That's why this law provides a way to prevent a financial crisis from ever getting this far. But if worse comes to worse, the state has a responsibility to protect the health, welfare and safety of its citizens. We can't stand by and watch schools fail, water shut off or police protection disappear. Without the emergency manager law, there is precious little that can be done to prevent those kinds of nightmare scenarios. But with it, we can take positive action on behalf of the people to quickly avert a crisis.” [emphasis mine]

In 2012, during a town hall meeting, residents expressed concern about the sweeping power of Public Act 4 -- saying it overrides elected representative government. Snyder disagreed and responded, “The emergency managers ultimately report to me, and I am an elected person.”

When Michigan voters overwhelmingly rejected the use of emergency managers and struck down Public Act 4 in 2012, Snyder and the Michigan legislature went around voters and put another EM law in its place within weeks. Although it reined in emergency manager powers slightly, this EM law was written specifically to be immune to voter challenge, and voters have not been able to repeal it with either lawsuits or petitions. (Laws that cannot be challenged by voters are a large part of the bigger problem in Michigan.)

Everyone in Michigan knew the finger-pointing dispute over the water switch was silly.

There have been a lot of accusations back and forth between Flint's leadership and the emergency managers about who was responsible for the water switch. (You can read a detailed timeline here.) The ultimate decision-making power rested with the emergency manager, no matter what voting formalities the city council went through or what fine print the current emergency manager law has.

By fighting to expand the law's reach and reinstating it against voters' wishes, Snyder made his feelings clear. Emergency managers have absolute control. Flint resident Connor Coyne described the atmosphere in Flint during the four years of EM rule. "From 2011 to 2015, Flint officials had no real control over municipal policy."

After seeing Snyder's use of the emergency manager rule in other cities to dismantle leadership, sell assets, fire employees and dissolve school districts, Michigan city leaders know what it means to be under EM rule. It is the same as being in a company that was just bought. You have a job, but you'd better toe the new company line, or you won't have one anymore. After all, Snyder is, first and foremost, a businessman.

Coyne indicated that certainly was the case. "Indeed, campaign aides working for locally elected officials told me that they had been pressured by the state to enforce the priorities of the managers or face an indefinite continuation of the state takeover," he told Vox.com.

Is Snyder saying he's an incompetent supervisor, or that he just doesn't care? Or both?

No matter when he claims to have learned of the conditions in Flint, due to his own actions, and by his own words, Gov. Snyder should have known all along exactly what was happening.

To grab all this power, appoint dictators over cities and then fail to supervise them -- claiming to not know what they were doing for more than a year while residents were crying out for help -- is utterly inexcusable. He is either a grossly incompetent supervisor who never bothered to check on what his appointed managers were doing, or he knew and did nothing. Or both.

Snyder's strongest justification for the EM law was that he could save communities from crisis faster with just a few people in charge by cutting through the red tape and bureaucracy. We have heard no reason for why this approach failed so thoroughly here.

Snyder has apologized for having incompetent people beneath him and in the MDEQ, but not for any role he played in establishing the conditions that made this disaster not only possible, but probable.

Will there be any consequences?

So far, there have been no consequences for Snyder or any emergency managers (who have immunity), although Michigan residents are calling for Snyder's resignation and criminal charges.

Snyder never mentions the emergency managers' failure: the failure to make an informed decision; the failure to implement it competently; the failure to follow up; the failure to act in the best interests of citizens and not bottom lines; and most of all, the failure to report directly to him the issues in Flint (as he claims).

But the tide may be turning. Heads have rolled at the MDEQ and the EPA. The FBI has launched an investigation. Congress declined to invite Gov. Snyder to testify about this issue, but ordered Flint emergency manager Darnell Earley to appear.

Earley initially declined, citing his work with as emergency manager of Detroit's public schools. He has since resigned from that post as criticism intensified over how he handled both emergency manager roles. Since Earley didn't show up for his testimony, U.S. Marshals are now looking for him. Calls for Snyder to testify are getting louder while he continues to dodge responsibility and explanation.

Snyder refuses to resign. Recalls so far have been unsuccessful. (Snyder also strengthened the laws governing legislator recalls, making it harder to remove him from office.)

He did all he could to give himself as much power as possible, since he believes only his judgment can save Michigan, yet he failed the people of Flint miserably.

For years, Michigan voter outrage has fallen on deaf ears. But now, with the world watching, Snyder is loosening the grip of the emergency manager rule that has held so much of our state hostage. Now that his decisions are being examined under a national microscope, it isn't just Michigan residents who are calling foul. For too long, Snyder has enjoyed a huge amount of power over Michigan residents and never admitted that he has made any mistakes -- even after everything that has happened. Now we'll see what the world thinks.

As for Michigan, the emergency manager law is only one of its major problems. Michigan government's lack of accountability, as well as recent laws and budget decisions, all contributed to the environment that caused the Flint water crisis. In the next articles, we'll examine those factors.

These images are used with permission by Michigan photographer Petra Daher.

As reported yesterday by the Associated Press and other news outlets, world leaders convened yet again in an effort to arrive at a solution to the Syrian refugee crisis. The one-day meeting in London promised $10 billion to help fund housing, education programs and jobs for refugees. Nevertheless, the $6 billion pledged for this year and another $5 billion promised through 2020 will fall short of what the United Nations and other organizations say is needed.

The U.N. estimates about $9 billion is needed this year alone to assist the 4.6 million Syrians who have fled their country and the 6.6 million who have been displaced within Syria — and, of all these people, half are children. When the tragic photo of Alan Kurdi surfaced in September, many NGOs, including World Vision, reported a massive uptick in donations. Fundraising may have spiked, but these people have faced rejection in most of Europe (with the exception of Serbia and Germany), vilification in the U.S. (thanks to Donald Trump and other politicians), and are used as propaganda by the likes of Daesh (otherwise known as IS, ISIS or ISIL).

Once these refugees manage to escape hell in the Middle East, they often end up landing in another one in Turkey, the Greek Islands, the Balkans and elsewhere in Europe. Reports have surfaced that Syrians “lucky” enough to find work in Turkey’s garment factories have been exploited and abused. In Denmark, legislation that could allow the government to seize asylum seekers’ possessions in order to cover the cost related to such expenses recently became law.

But while these Syrians (repeat, they are refugees, not migrants, as most want to go home but have fled for their lives and are not seeking economic opportunities) have become caught in a cruel game of political football, there are some organizations that are going against the grain and doing what they can to help. The list is long, but here are few that stand out, and all are in need of donations:

Islamic Relief USA: While the Red Cross and other well known NGOs have been bogged down by poor administration and even corruption, there is one organization that prides itself on transparency and efficiency. Based in the Washington, D.C. area, IRUSA has worked in over 30 countries. In the U.S., it is helping with the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In Syria, this organization’s workers have helped to deliver medical supplies, food, water and goods crucial during the harsh winters in the refugee camps strewn across Lebanon and Jordan.

Karam Foundation: One of the largest long-term threats from this crisis is that as many as 3.3 million children have not been able to attend school, stunting their development and putting them in danger of a lifetime of poverty. Operating out of the Chicago area, this organization has led a bevy of projects in the Middle East, including recent initiatives to fund scholarships for displaced Syrian children and to rebuild schools within the war-torn country.

Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS): Taking on one of the most dangerous tasks, MOAS is a group of medical professionals, maritime officers and humanitarian aid workers who lead search-and-rescue operations across the Mediterranean. MOAS says it has rescued approximately 12,000 people over the past two years.

Refugees Welcome (Flüchtlinge Willkommen): An “AirBnB” for displaced Syrians, this German nonprofit helps matches refugees with those who have spare rooms. The program has since spread to eight additional European countries with another 20 nations establishing groups to assist refugees who need a roof over their heads.

Small Projects Istanbul: Another organization focused on education to prevent a “lost generation,” SPI raises money so that Syrian children can attend school in Turkish or Syrian schools, provides skills classes so that women can support their families, and also offers English classes.

This is hardly an exhaustive list, and to be fair, plenty of large companies, including Google, have contributed funds and logistics during this refugee crisis. Even professional soccer clubs have donated money toward this cause.

Overall, however, it is the work of many unheralded not-for-profit organizations that have helped make a difference on the ground while global leaders exult big promises, but look nervously over their shoulders as far too many citizens respond to the war in Syria with fear instead of compassion.

Image credit: World Bank Flickr

Amazon, the world's largest e-commerce retailer and provider of cloud-computing services, has, for the first time in its history, created a team to move the organization forward on sustainability. From the Guardian:

"Dara O’Rourke, a leading expert on global supply chains, has joined the company’s sustainability team ... and join[s] Kara Hurst, the company’s director of worldwide sustainability and social responsibility ... Christine Bader, author of 'The Evolution of a Corporate Idealist' ... and Christina Page, who led energy and sustainability strategy at Yahoo for eight years."

While the new hires must be welcomed, it also is quite strange to commend anyone for something like this in 2016. Amazon is very, very late to this, as setting up sustainability departments was something forward-thinking companies were doing at the turn of the century.

Even the big-box retail industry, which was slow to hop on the green bandwagon, has made dramatic changes. Kohl's leads the country with an astounding 104 percent of its energy consumption coming from renewables, with other retailers like Best Buy and Walmart not far behind. Other champions include REI, which donates a large portion of its profits to environmental causes, and Nike, which has been greatly expanding its use of organic cotton.

When compared to its tech brethren, Amazon is even worse. Look at its fellow huge technology companies, and all of them have taken sustainability seriously for years. Google has been a leading user of renewable energy pretty much since it was founded, while Dell pioneered one of the earliest electronic waste recycling programs in partnership with Goodwill. Even Apple -- a laggard, which for years refused to open up its supply chain to outside scrutiny -- has made massive strides under new CEO Tim Cook, who is far more progressive on ethical and sustainability issues than his predecessor. Amazon is dead last.

This bring up the obvious questions: Is Amazon serious about sustainability, like the companies mentioned above? Or is this mere lip service, like what we see from certain companies like Chevron or BP that use sustainability primarily as a marketing tool to divert attention away from the fact that their businesses are doing far more harm than good?

One worrisome sign is that, thus far, none of the new staff have been available for interviews, and there are, as of yet, no changes in company operations. Considering that one of the major changes that Amazon must implement is transparency, this is not a good sign.

Only time will tell if Amazon is serious about going green, but I believe as long as Jeff Bezos, the CEO who has ignored the company's long-withstanding labor, environmental and sustainability challenges, remains at the helm, little will change. That is, unless consumers began to choose green retailers over Amazon, and force the company to shift.

Image credit: Álvaro Ibáñez via Wikimedia

ExxonMobil is trying to exclude a climate change proposal from this year’s proxy ballot, and if the oil and gas giant succeeds, its shareholders won’t be able to vote on the proposal at the company’s annual general meeting on May 25.

The resolution calls on ExxonMobil’s board to “adopt a policy acknowledging the imperative to limit global average temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which includes committing the company to support the goal of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.” Led by the Sisters of St. Dominic from Caldwell, New Jersey, the co-filers of the resolution include 34 institutional investors.

ExxonMobil is less than thrilled with the proposal. In a letter, the oil and gas giant recommended that the proposal be omitted from the 2016 proxy materials. The company cited two reasons: the proposal is “so inherently vague and indefinite as to be materially misleading,” and ExxonMobil “has already substantially implemented the proposal.”

The Sisters of St. Dominic and other filers don’t agree with ExxonMobil’s assessment. “We certainly do not believe the ask of the resolution is vague,” Sister Patricia Daly, OP, of the Sisters of St. Dominic told TriplePundit. “We could not be more specific about the pathway they should pursue given the SEC rules.” 

ExxonMobil’s rejection of the proposal and attempts to omit it “demonstrates another way that Exxon is differentiating itself from peers and refusing to look​ toward the transitions needed within the business model for the low carbon economy,” Daly said.

The proposal mentioned that, back in October, 10 of ExxonMobil’s oil-industry peers, including Shell and BP, supported the American Business Act on Climate Pledge. The companies that signed it, 81 in total, pledged to support action on climate change and a climate change agreement in Paris.

ExxonMobil claims on its website that its “scientists have undertaken climate change research and related policy analysis for 25 years.” However, the company is being investigated by the California and New York attorneys general for failure to report climate change risks to shareholders and lying to the people about those risks.

Given ExxonMobil’s recent media attention on climate change, the company likely does not want conversation on the subject. “They are likely not eager to open any contemplation of a conversation of what their responsibility might be -- moral or otherwise -- for contributing to climate change,” Daly said of Exxon execs.

The trouble is that climate change risks to ExxonMobil’s operations exist -- and they're outlined in the emissions profile of the company’s 2015 Outlook for Energy report. “ExxonMobil believes that changes to the earth’s climate, including those that may result from anthropogenic causes, pose a risk,” the report stated.

The risks outlined include the costs of future regulation. “A key factor in assessing the world’s energy outlook is the impact of public policies,” the report reads. Specifically, policies that limit greenhouse gas growth are cited. The cost of “carbon as a proxy model” is estimated to be about $80 per ton in developed countries and about $30 per ton in developing countries by 2040.

Given the risks to ExxonMobil’s operations, it is important for the company to include the shareholder resolution it seeks to omit. The resolution differs from past proposals sponsored by the Sisters of St. Dominic, Daly pointed out. Past resolutions on climate change risks “referred to stranded assets as 'serious material, financial risks,'” she said. However, this proposal “takes a different direction and refers to [Exxon's] added responsibility due to their financing of disinformation on climate science.”

“Climate change is an important consideration for ExxonMobil and its board, and the board is updated at least yearly on developments in climate science and policy,” the company declared in its Outlook for Energy report. Meanwhile, the oil and gas giant seeks to keep shareholders from voting on climate action.

Photo: Mike Mozart

TriplePundit is tracking the ongoing drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Follow our coverage here. 

In April 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan, switched drinking water sources from Detroit's system to the Flint River to save money while a new pipeline was being constructed.

The river's water is highly corrosive, and it was not treated with an anti-corrosive agent. The result was the leakage of enough lead to qualify as toxic waste into the city's drinking water -- poisoning hundreds, including children.

How could this have happened? What has become of Michigan's leadership that it could poison an entire city? We took a look back to see where it all went wrong.

Pre-EPA

A General Motors factory in Flint dumped industrial waste in the Flint River for decades before the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean-up attempts have been successful, but the water remains 19 times more corrosive than Lake Huron -- Flint's former drinking water source.

1999

GM moves operations and eliminates jobs, resulting in a higher unemployment and crime rate in Flint.

2011

Rick Snyder takes office as governor of Michigan.

Snyder expands Michigan's emergency manager law (Public Act 4) to give EMs more power.

Nov. 29: Snyder appoints an emergency manager for Flint. The city will have four emergency managers before its EM rule ends in 2015 (Michael Brown, Edward Kurtz, Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose).

Snyder's budget is passed, increasing taxes on individuals and lowering them on businesses.

A study finds that the Flint River needs an anti-corrosion agent to be drinkable at a cost of around $100 a day. This agent is not added when the city later switches to the Flint River in 2014. Experts say using this agent from the beginning would have prevented 90 percent of Flint's water problems.

2012

Voters repeal Public Act 4. Within weeks, Snyder and the Michigan legislature pass PA 72 in its place, attaching an appropriation to it and making it voter referendum-proof.

2013

Flint water rates are among the highest in the state. Residents want relief.

March: The Flint City Council votes to stop using water from Lake Huron through the Detroit system, join the Karegnondi Water Authority, and get water from Lake Huron through that pipeline (but there is no mention of the Flint River). The state agreed with the water switch to save $19 million over eight years ($5 million in two years).

April 16: Emergency manager Ed Kurtz signs the agreement.

April 17: Detroit notifies Flint that although it will be three years before the new water source is available, Flint can pay a temporary higher rate, or it will stop selling water to Flint in a year (April 2014). There is some dispute as to whether or not this was made up by Snyder's administration to excuse the switch.

2014

March: Flint announces that it will use the Flint River for drinking water until the KWA pipeline is complete.

April 25: The city flips the switch to begin sending Flint River water through its pipes. No anti-corrosive agent was used. As officials celebrate, Mayor Dayne Walling hails it as a "historic moment." He says "the water quality speaks for itself," and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) says "residents won't notice any difference."

May: Residents begin complaining about the water. It looks funny, smells funny and tastes bad. MDEQ says its tests show it meets state standards.

June: Water rates continue to be astronomical: No financial relief for residents, and now the water is bad.

June: Flint mother LeeAnne Walters notices rashes on her children. They also start to lose their hair and get sick.

June 12: City officials say they are treating the water with lime due to complaints, but the mayor scoffs at residents' concerns about safety. "I think people are wasting their precious money buying bottled water," he tells the Flint Journal.

August/September: The city issues a boil advisory for part of the city after the water tests positive for E. coli bacteria (fecal coliform bacteria). Other advisories follow. The city decides to add high levels of chlorine to fix it.

Oct. 13: The Flint General Motors plant refuses to continue using the river water because its operators believe it is rusting car parts. The plant reconnects to the Detroit water system. Around the same time, a local hospital also raises concerns that the water is damaging their instruments and changes their water filters. The city continues to tell residents the water is safe.

November: Another Flint mother, Melissa Mays, who also complained about the drinking water from the start, becomes suspicious when her son falls off his bike and shatters his wrist. Brittle bones are a sign of lead poisoning. Her whole family would later test positive for heavy-metal poisoning.

December: LeeAnne Walters refuses to let her children drink the water.

2015

Jan. 4: Officials now say that Flint's water contains such a high level of trihalomethanes (TTHM) that it's in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, they assure residents that people with normal immune systems have nothing to worry about.

Jan. 7: In government offices in Flint, the administration delivers bottled water for workers to drink because of the TTHM water tests. Officials continue to tell residents that the water is safe to drink.

Jan. 12: The Detroit Water and Sewage Department offers to reconnect Flint and waive the $4 million connection fee. Flint's environmental manager, Darnell Earley, says no.

Jan. 13: Protesters rally outside City Hall to demand lower water bills and a return to Detroit's supply. Hundreds turn out at a forum, some complaining of rashes on children. Detroit offers to let Flint switch back, but Earley says it would cost too much.

Jan. 20: Flint Mayor Dayne Walling asks Gov. Snyder for help with several water problems, including lower rates for new customers and more frequent reporting on water test results statewide. "Both the state and federal government need to be actively involved in improving Flint's water system. The governor has a particular responsibility due to Public Act 436," (the state's emergency manager law).

The mayor sends his request to Snyder and asks his supporters to contact the governor as well if they want "to implement my plan and ensure Flint's water is safe."

Jan. 20: Environmental activist Erin Brockovich speaks up, severely criticizing local, state and federal officials for making "excuses" for the bad water.

Feb. 17: Water expert Bob Bowcock (sent by Erin Brockovich) tells the city to switch back to Detroit water.

Feb. 18: The city hires a consultant to investigate the water quality. They say it contains sediment and is discolored but is safe to drink.

Feb. 26: A manager at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tells Michigan officials that the chemistry of the river water means contaminants from pipes, including lead, are leaching into the water system.

March: City council votes to "do all things necessary" to reconnect with Detroit water. Emergency manager Jerry Ambrose calls the decision "incomprehensible" and overrules it.

April 2: The city tells residents that adding too many disinfectants have caused it to violate the Safe Drinking Water Act again. Mayor Walling tweets: "(My) family and I drink and use the Flint water everyday, at home, work, and schools."

April 29: Emergency manager Jerry Ambrose announces the end of Flint's emergency financial management. In an exit interview, the water issue never comes up.

June 5: Activists file suit in attempt to stop the city from using river water. The city gets it moved to federal court, where a judge denies a preliminary injunction. The suit is eventually dismissed.

June 24: EPA water expert Miguel del Toral sends an internal memo to his bosses flagging Flint's failure to use chemicals to control corrosion, which can cause lead to leach from pipes into drinking water. The warning was not made public until the ACLU leaked a copy of the memo weeks later. In July, regional EPA administrator Susan Hedman tells Flint's mayor "it would be premature to draw any conclusions" based on the memo.

July: MDEQ spokesman Brad Wurfel dismisses the memo. He told Michigan Radio, "Anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax."

July 22: Gov. Rick Snyder's chief of staff says in an email to the state Health Department that he believes the Flint residents are "concerned and rightfully so" about lead in the water. "These folks are scared and worried about the health impacts and they are basically getting blown off by us (as a state we're just not sympathizing with their plight)," he says. The agency says the data shows no increase in lead poisoning.

July 28: An epidemiologist for the state Health Department identifies a three-month spike in lead levels in Flint during the previous summer, after the switch to river water. She recommends further investigation in an email to her bosses, but they decide it was a seasonal anomaly.

August 7: A judge issues an injunction ordering the city to roll back water and sewer rates by 35 percent and stop shut-offs.

August 31: Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards reports that 42 percent of 120 water samples he tested in Flint had elevated lead levels, and 20 percent had levels that require water systems to take action. Edwards explains that the water from the river is "very corrosive" and is leaching lead from plumbing in the city's homes.

September: MDEQ dismisses Edwards' findings and says the water meets state and federal safety standards, but it says it will introduce a lead-reduction plan by 2016.

Sept. 24: Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician at Hurley Children's Hospital, says a comparison in blood samples she undertook shows a jump in lead poisoning in Flint's children. The state immediately attempts to discredit her. State officials insist their own samples don't show the same results. MDEQ spokesman Brad Wurfel calls her findings "unfortunate."

Oct. 1: After days of denials, state officials walk back their criticism and announce that a new analysis of their data shows Hanna-Attisha is correct after all. More children have lead in their blood since the water switch. Genesee County officials declare a public health emergency and urge residents not to drink the water.

Oct. 2: Gov. Snyder announces the state will buy water filters and test lead in schools. Within a week, he recommends that Flint reconnect to the Detroit water system.

Oct. 16: Flint switches back to Detroit water. But the damage is done.

Oct. 19: MDEQ director Dan Wyant says his staff made a mistake. They thought they employed a federal corrosion-control protocol that they believed was appropriate, and it wasn't.

Nov. 3: Walling is ousted as mayor. Karen Weaver, who ran on the promise of solving the water crisis, is elected.

November: Residents file a federal lawsuit against the governor, the state of Michigan, MDEQ Director Wyant, the city of Flint and other defendants.

November: Sara Wurfel, Snyder's press secretary, resigns to become public affairs vice president at Lansing, Michigan-based lobbying firm Truscott Rossman.

Dec. 14: Mayor Karen Weaver declares a state of emergency in Flint.

For the second year in a row, telecommunications company AT&T is selecting five education technology companies to participate in its six-month Aspire Accelerator program. The program is open to any ed-tech venture working to develop technology to support students’ education and career success. Throughout the duration of the program, ventures will receive financial, mentoring and business support. Final applications are due today, Feb. 5.

Aspire Accelerator was launched last year as part of AT&T’s $350 million commitment to improving student education and outcomes. Funds have also supported online education portals such as Udacity and Khan Academy.   

Last year’s inaugural class included five for- and not-for-profit organizations hailing from Baltimore, Washington, D.C, California, North Carolina and New York. Their products have reached more than 2 million students, 200,000 teachers and 4,500 schools across the country, according to a press release from AT&T.

LearnTrials, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, provides an ed-tech platform management system where verified educators post recommendations and best practices to give teachers and administrators tailored insights that improve instruction and budgets.

San Francisco-based mobile platform GradGuru, designed to increase community college retention, delivers notifications to students’ smart phones with reminders of academic and financial aid deadlines and provides encouragement and guidance through academic milestones.

Tools and technologies with a direct focus on building solutions for students at-risk of dropping out of school will be given special consideration for the program. Candidates will not need to relocate to participate.

“The Aspire Accelerator shows how we use the power of our network to build a better tomorrow,” said Nicole Anderson, assistant vice president of social innovation at AT&T. “The inaugural class’ results continue to amaze us and are being used by students, teachers and districts daily. I can’t wait to see the game-changing solutions this year’s class will bring.”

Advisors and collaborators to the program include notable names from leading education and technology companies comprised of DonorsChoose.org, Black Girls Code, EdSurge, Kapor Center for Social Impact, GSV Summit, Declara and Tipping Point Community.

The Aspire Accelerator’s customized six-month program includes the following resources for selected ventures:

• Aspire investment: A $100,000 AT&T investment and an additional $25,000 for each venture to cover costs of the program. For nonprofit companies, the investment will be a general contribution. They receive this in exchange for participating in the Aspire Accelerator and meeting certain requirements, including submitting impact measurements.

• Mentorship: Access to AT&T and external mentors from education and technology.

• National platform: Inclusion in the broader AT&T Aspire initiative, which is committed to driving innovation in education.

• Flexible location: Organizations can participate from where they are, without relocating.

“We need to welcome ideas from every corner that use technology in innovative ways to help students succeed,” said Nancy Poon Lue, executive director of GSV Summit. “The Aspire Accelerator’s unique focus on helping both for- and non-profit ed-tech ventures thrive is already having an impact. I’m excited to join the Board of Advisors and see what the 2016 class will achieve.”

The Aspire Accelerator application is open through Feb. 5. Selected ventures will begin May 2016. Candidates must complete their projects by the end of the program and demo their work in October. For additional information and to apply, visit the AT&T Aspire Accelerator website.

Images courtesy of AT&T

By Jeff Sutton

In spite of recent advances, the reality of life for many CSR and sustainability officers is still pretty disheartening. Many senior executives and key internal stakeholders still think of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an afterthought – another box to check on the corporate checklist. One recent study found that over 71 percent of companies in the U.S define their CSR spending as in-kind donations and free product giveaways. Another 16 percent define it as cash donations, and the remaining 13 percent as employee volunteering and giving.

The challenge we see for CSR and sustainability teams is the need to sell embedded sustainability programs internally -- convincing their peers and leadership teams that the true benefit of corporate sustainability cannot be unlocked by well-intentioned, but siloed initiatives that focus only on philanthropy and volunteering.

When an organization’s sustainability strategy clearly connects to its mission, vision, ethics and long-term financial goals, it will protect a company’s reputation, drive innovation and employee engagement, satisfy consumers, attract and retain top talent, demonstrate compliance, and lead to market differentiation – all of which are key ingredients for long-term growth and profitability. All of this hinges on a shift in perspective: Sustainability is less about mitigating risk than it is about finding opportunity. And therein lies the rub.

Change isn't an easy process in any organization. But for a large business (with thousands of concerned stakeholders and a P&L with millions of dollars hanging in the balance), sustainability initiatives often don't seem like a sound investment. So, the challenge for many CSOs is getting their boards and corporate leadership to think beyond short-term quarterly and yearly earnings and realize the substantial value that sustainable thinking can have on mid- to long-term growth.

To move this conversation forward, here is a list of seven benefits organizations have seen after integrating sustainability into overall business strategy:

1. Increase in sales

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever states, “We recognize, for the first time, and in pure monetary terms, that the cost of inaction is now far greater than the cost of action.” For giants like Unilever, the proof is in the bottom line. Of the more than 400 brands Unilever sells, those with the strongest sustainability credentials have seen sales grow at or near double-digit rates since 2012.

2. Innovate and differentiate

Embedded strategies help business rethink the way existing products are being created, opening up opportunity to boost corporate image, reduce material costs, gain an edge over competition, or carve out market share with an entirely new demographic of customer – all while reducing their impact on the environment. The success of Nike's Flyknit running shoes and Levi’s Water<Less jeans provide two two striking examples of innovation driven by sustainability.

3. Enhance and build reputation

Warren Buffett once said, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." Although sustainability is as much about opportunity as it is about risk, organizations that can identify and communicate their greater brand purpose have historically outperformed their competition.

According to the 2015 Meaningful Brands Report from Havas Media, a meaningful brand has a 46 percent higher “share of wallet” (defined as how much a person is willing to spend on a particular product) than a less meaningful brand. This observation holds true on a macro scale too; the top 25 meaningful brands outperform the stock market by 133 percent.

4. Future-proofing

Good business practice demands that organizations understand and embrace the impacts and risks that external forces can have on their business – both today and in the future. (Will legislation affect raw material supplies? Will new environmental policies impact operational costs? Etc.)

For better or worse, the world is changing and evolving at an unprecedented pace. An embedded sustainability strategy will identify the material issues that impact your business so that you can get ahead of change. By fully embracing external challenges and looking for ways to reduce impact, sustainability strategy can move a business’s outlook for the future from reactive to proactive.

5. Recruit and retain

The 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey reports that nearly 44 percent of millennials have turned down a job offer because the company's values did not match their own. Nearly half (49 percent) said they have rejected assignments at work because of conflicts with their ethics. And 56 percent have sworn to never work for specific companies because of the organizations' values.

It’s becoming abundantly clear that the next generation of talent are looking beyond financial compensation when choosing a job and seeking out organizations that understand their role in protecting our planet.

6. Cut costs

Whether it’s the reduction of materials in your manufacturing process or finding innovative ways to reduce energy and water consumption, businesses that have fully integrated sustainability have seen dramatic decreases in overall costs – both internally and externally. A business can find additional cost savings and impacts when similar reductions occur across their the supply chain.

7. Unify teams and align decision making

A clearly-defined strategy that highlights a comprehensive outline of the economic, social and environmental challenges impacting its future success can be used as a decision-making framework that unites business units – ensuring that individual strategies and tactics are aligned. This increases consistency of decision-making across the entire organization.

The takeaway

CSOs and CSR teams looking to push their strategies forward can take solace in knowing that they are not alone. Global leaders like Nike, Unilever, BMW and Adidas have lived through the experience and realization that, in order for business to truly integrate, all parties must realize that sustainability and profitability are not mutually exclusive. Thankfully, they also believe it’s in everyone’s best interest to share insights on the challenges they’ve have had to overcome along the way. Learn what you can from the companies that are further along on their journey, but realize that every business is unique and that no strategy is one-size-fits-all.

Image credit: Pixabay

Jeff Sutton helps businesses and organizations transform for the better with purposeful visions, strategies, and stories. As Vice President of thinkPARALLAX, he works alongside a team of strategists and creatives to cultivate knowledge, spread awareness, and create powerful, connections for businesses and organizations striving to make a positive impact. thinkPARALLAX is a culture driven creative communications consultancy committed to building brands with purpose. They work at the intersection of business strategy, corporate responsibility, and communication. Their focus is to create communication strategies, campaigns, and stories that influence behavior and drive positive change in the world and greater business community.