Thursday, March 31, 2016

U.S. Oil Industry Giant Paid Millions To A Company At The Center Of Huge Corruption Scandal

The American engineering and construction firm KBR hired Unaoil -- an obscure Monaco-based company now involved in a massive international bribery scandal -- to help it win oil and gas contracts in Kazakhstan. KBR, which until 2007 was part of the oilfield services giant Halliburton, paid Unaoil millions of dollars from 2004 until at least 2009, according to thousands of internal documents obtained by The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media.

Halliburton and KBR have been in trouble for bribery in the past. After a years-long federal investigation, KBR pleaded guilty in 2009 to multiple criminal counts of violating U.S. foreign corruption laws by bribing Nigerian officials. KBR agreed to pay $402 million as part of a settlement. Halliburton and KBR also paid $177 million to settle SEC civil charges related to the same conduct. Three years later, Albert “Jack” Stanley, KBR's former CEO, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for his role in the scandal. As part of the deal with the Justice Department, KBR agreed to waive many of its legal rights if it was caught violating bribery laws again.

In the midst of the DOJ investigation, a KBR employee emailed Unaoil to warn the American company was "tightening" anti-corruption controls in response to the federal probe. Despite this, KBR continued to pay Unaoil for work in Kazakhstan for years afterward.

[Read more: There's A Huge New Corporate Corruption Scandal. Here's Why Everyone Should Care.]

Throughout the emails, Unaoil and Halliburton/KBR employees use code words to refer to partners in Kazakhstan. In February 2005, Richard Stuckey emailed Unaoil executive Peter Willimont from a Halliburton email address, urging him to start “hobknobbing” [sic] with insiders immediately. “My feeling is that a good spaghetti house is where it is at of course a little shashlik for lunch is good to digest also,” Stuckey wrote.

The code names -- which referred to an Italian oil company (spaghetti) and Kazakhstan’s state oil apparatus (shaslik, a form of kebab popular in Kazakhstan) -- won't protect Halliburton or KBR.

"If those emails were written after KBR was under investigation by the DOJ for prior violations, then the penalty will be far higher than it would be if this was a first-time violation," says Andy Spalding, a law professor at the University of Richmond who runs a blog on foreign bribery. "It doesn't matter what they're going to argue, because a third-party law firm is going to come in and read all these emails and interview all these employees and they're going to detect really quickly that they're not talking about food."

In 2004, Unaoil began trying to win a joint contract for KBR and Petrofac, a British firm, to work on the massive Kashagan oil field. The Kazakh Institute of Oil and Gas (KING), a wing of Kazakhstan's state-owned oil company, had been paying a man named Leonida Bortolazzo as a consultant, according to a memo a Halliburton/KBR employee sent bragging about Bortolazzo's influence in the country. But Unaoil was also paying Bortolazzo as much as $80,000 a month, according to a contract between the Monaco firm and Bortolazzo's consulting company. In one instance, Unaoil bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-end furniture for Bortolazzo, according to emails. Unaoil's contract with Bortolazzo also included a $165,000 signing bonus.

Halliburton had tried unsuccessfully since 1998 to secure contracts in Kazakhstan but hit repeated roadblocks. The development of the Kashagan field, one of the biggest reserves discovered in decades, is managed by the clunky bureaucracy of Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev with the help of a clique of international energy giants.

KBR's partnership with Unaoil was designed to give it an advantage in the Kashagan contracting process just as the international oil companies that were managing the field began moving ahead on their final plans to develop it.

Unaoil's focus on Italians, including Bortolazzo, shows that it knew whom to target. Bortolazzo was a former manager at ENI, an Italian oil firm that's been repeatedly accused of corruption. ENI -- the "spaghetti house" in the emails  -- is one of the smallest oil companies involved in managing the Kashagan field, but it has taken the lead on the reserve's development under a 2001 agreement between the foreign conglomerates and Kazakhstan's state-owned oil company. Leaked Unaoil emails indicate that Unaoil executives were trying to convince Halliburton/KBR managers they could procure confidential information from paid sources within ENI and the Kazakh government.

“We need to convince Richard [Stuckey, of Halliburton/KBR] … that we own the spaghetti house & have a lease on the shashlik takeaway,” Unaoil's Willimont wrote, forwarding Stuckey’s February 2005 email to Cyrus Ahsani, the CEO of Unaoil and the son of the company's founder. “This done we can get our deal signed.”  

Convincing Halliburton/KBR of its influence in Kazakhstan required Unaoil to accommodate some unusual requests. In August 2008, after KBR had split from Halliburton, Unaoil spent tens of thousands of euros on hotel rooms for Kazakh officials visiting Monaco, where Unaoil is headquartered, according to emails. That particular expense shows just how much suction Unaoil won in Kazakhstan for its American client: Among the officials it hosted was Kairat Boranbayev, at the time the chairman of the board of the Kazakh state oil company's joint venture with Gazprom, Russia's state-owned gas monopoly. Unaoil officials were at pains to find him space at a "Prestigious Hotel" given that he was visiting right as Monaco was hosting high-profile soccer matches. Boranbayev ended up in a suite at the Fairmont worth €1,700 a night. His aides stayed in more basic rooms that only cost €900 nightly. Boranbayev is today known for his ties to the Kazakh dictator (his daughter married Nazarbayev's grandson at a 2013 wedding featuring Kanye West), lavish moves like paying Pussycat Dolls star Nicole Scherzinger more than $100,000 to perform at his posh London home and his control of Kazakhstan's McDonald's franchise.

The expenses were worth it for Unaoil because of KBR's high profile. "This is the best agency we have have ever had," Willimont wrote in a June 2008 email to Cyrus Ahsani. "Our ability to live from the reputation of working with KBR is immense." Unaoil would tout its work with KBR in marketing materials for years to come.

Did Unaoil bribe public officials? "The answer is absolutely no," Ata Ahsani, the company's founder, told The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media.

The "alleged behavior" of "some" of "Eni's employees is in detriment of the company, as well as in direct and obvious conflict with Eni’s code of ethics that any employee is required to fully comply [with]," an Eni spokeswoman said in an email. "We do not comment … on the results of possible internal investigations." The spokeswoman was not referring to Bortolazzo specifically.

Bortolazzo did not respond to a request for comment. 

Kazakhstan's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the role of the state-owned oil company and associated officials. A spokesperson for Boranbayev said he was on vacation and not available for comment.

Halliburton and KBR deny wrongdoing. "Halliburton maintains an active, comprehensive Ethics & Compliance Program which includes business practices and policies to ensure that Halliburton and its employees are compliant with all regulatory laws and requirements globally," Halliburton said in an email to The Huffington Post. "We have no current or recent relationship with [Unaoil]. Halliburton has not owned KBR since 2007 so we have no knowledge of its business relationships."

KBR "is committed to conducting its business honestly, with integrity, and in compliance with all applicable laws," the company said in a statement. "We do not tolerate illegal or unethical practices by our employees or others working on behalf of the Company."

But emails between Unaoil and Halliburton/KBR employees during the Justice Department's investigation into previous bribery allegations show a company rushing to discontinue practices that could raise red flags with investigators, but not severing the underlying partnership. In July 2005, Tony Fossey, KBR’s finance manager for the Kashagan Project, emailed Willimont to discuss KBR’s “Nigerian agent problem,” referring to the Justice Department’s investigation into the group bribing Nigerian officials to win contracts. Fossey, who left the company that year, refused to comment on the record.

At the time, Unaoil listed a London address on its contract with KBR, but requested payment from KBR through a wire transfer to Monaco. “A part of the fall-out from [the DOJ investigation], is a considerable, ‘tightening’ or our US management’s approach to controlling the whole arena of agent payments,” Fossey wrote to Willimont, explaining that sending payment to Monaco, a country not listed on the contract, could violate FCPA rules. It's not clear from the emails whether the payment ever went through.

In 2006, Halliburton objected to making a payment to a bank account in the Channel Islands, a notorious offshore tax haven, on the grounds that the Unaoil subsidiary named in their contract was in fact based in Monaco, according to emails. Unaoil agreed to accept payment at its Monaco bank account.

In 2008, Unaoil employees determined the company needed a new bank account in Kazakhstan to receive payments from KBR. "We need to open a new Bank Account… in Kazakhstan into which our future KBR revenues will flow," Sandy Young, Unaoil's finance manager, wrote to another employee in February of that year. "More and more our principals are asking to have the right to audit our companies as part of their governance rules and it is much easier for us to comply with this request if we use a separate bank account (this way we can limit the access we give them to information about our company activity)."

As late as January 2009, KBR was making payments to Unaoil. That month, it paid $936,713.37 to Unaoil's new account in Kazakhstan, according to a bank transfer record included in one of the emails.

A few weeks later, on Feb. 11, KBR entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department regarding its activities in Nigeria, and agreed to pay a $402 million criminal fine. Its work with Unaoil didn't come up.

Patrick Stokes, one of the three lawyers who prosecuted the Nigeria case against KBR, is still a top official at the Justice Department division charged with cracking down on foreign bribery. 

Fairfax Media
Read The Huffington Post and Fairfax Media's full investigation here.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Apparently, There's A Place In Hell For Women Who DO Help Each Other

Madeleine Albright came under fire earlier this year for telling women to support Hillary Clinton because "there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other," said the former secretary of state.

Turns out there’s also a place in hell for women who do help each other.

Apparently, when women and minorities promote and hire other women and minorities, they are viewed less favorably by their supervisors and peers, according to some depressing new research published in the March edition of the Academy of Management Journal. 

People assume that women and minorities go out of their way to hire people like them -- but who might not be the best candidates for the job. The only kind of person who can hire a woman or person of color and not face negative consequences at work is a white man, according to the study.

“Basically everyone [surveyed for the study] got penalized for hiring somebody who looked like themselves -- except white guys,” said David Hekman, an associate professor of management at the University of Colorado-Boulder's Leeds School of Business who coauthored the paper.

That’s because white males are unconsciously and consciously still considered model leaders and workers -- they get more leeway, he explained to The Huffington Post. And no one minds much if you hire white guys.

That's partly the reason that a stunning 85 percent of top executives and board members on the S&P 500 are white men, Hekman and co-athor Stefanie Johnson, also a Leeds professor, point out in a piece they wrote for the Harvard Business Review.

This is not a case of the most qualified candidates rising to the top, they said. It's a case of unconscious bias in favor of white men. "You don’t assume that a white guy hires a white guy because they're a white guy," Johnson said. That's because they're de facto, unconsciously considered the best candidates. And now we know, based on this research, that you'll be judged in the best light as a leader if you hire white men.

Hekman and Johnson surveyed 350 executives, asking whether they respected cultural, religious, gender and racial differences. Those executives were then evaluated by their peers and bosses, who judged women and minority executives as less competent when they hired candidates who looked like them.

The researchers also conducted a lab study to gauge what people thought about minorities hiring other minorities. The results were the same: Minorities and women were judged unfavorably for hiring diverse candidates.

You can also look to the real world for examples. Sam's Club CEO Rosalind Brewer was called a racist for explaining to CNN last year that she is committed to hiring diverse candidates for her team, the researchers point out.

The study comes at a time where more and more companies and executives are committed to hiring for diversity. Hekman and Johnson emphasized that the results shouldn’t discourage these efforts. Indeed, the research highlights the urgency with which organizations need to figure out how to hire and promote all kinds of people.

The key to doing this, Johnson said, is to figure out ways to remove unconscious biases from the hiring and promotion process. Organizations that do this will end up with more women and minorities. 

You want to make the pathways to hiring and promotion very clear and objective, removing the possibility that these decisions are made based on any reason besides competency. So you don’t promote people for being a “cultural fit,” an ambiguous term that often winds up meaning “guy who looks just like me and also likes beer and golfing.” Instead, you promote the person who increased profits or had the best code. “This way every player has an equal chance,” Johnson said.


Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Businesses Are Joining The Fight Against North Carolina's Anti-LGBT Law

  • PayPal, Dow Chemical, the NBA, the NCAA, Google and other businesses oppose North Carolina's new anti-LGBT law.
  • The law effectively legalizes discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual people.
  • Some of the state's biggest businesses have yet to speak up.

Companies are taking a stand against North Carolina's new anti-LGBT law, which Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed on Wednesday.

House Bill 2, approved by the state's General Assembly in a special session, prevents cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people. The law came in response to an anti-discrimination ordinance recently passed in Charlotte, which allowed transgender people to use the bathroom designated for the gender with which they identify. Conservatives, including McCrory, vowed to take down the so-called bathroom bill, arguing the law would give predators license to enter women's bathrooms. (As HuffPost's Amanda Terkel reports, this rhetoric has doomed many equal rights initiatives.)

The resulting legislation is a wide-ranging measure that blocks local governments from passing laws protecting LGBT people, requires schools to designate single-sex bathrooms based on "biological sex" and preempts city policies involving wages, benefits and other workplace regulations.

Corporate leaders in the state have been swift to condemn the law, echoing the backlash that helped take down Indiana's "religious freedom" law last year.

Dow Chemical, which has several factories in the state, tweeted its opposition to the law:

Biogen, a biotech company that employs more than 1,000 North Carolinians, also opposes HB 2: 

PayPal, which just announced a new 400-person office in Charlotte, offered a similar message:

The law also drew opposition from the NCAA, which had planned to host at least 20 high-profile games in the state in 2017 and 2018, including the immensely popular Division I men's tournament. The association hinted that HB 2 could change its mind.

"We’ll continue to monitor current events, which include issues surrounding diversity, in all cities bidding on NCAA championships and events, as well as cities that have already been named as future host sites," the organization said in a statement. "Our commitment to the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has not changed and is at the core of our NCAA values. It is our expectation that all people will be welcomed and treated with respect in cities that host our NCAA championships and events."

American Airlines, which has a major hub in Charlotte, also condemned HB 2.

“We believe no individual should be discriminated against because of gender identity or sexual orientation,” American Airlines spokeswoman Katie Cody said. “Laws that allow such discrimination go against our fundamental belief of equality and are bad for the economies of the state in which they are enacted.”

The NBA, which has scheduled the league's 2017 All-Star Game in Charlotte, said its leaders "do not know" how the law will affect plans for the game:

 Google, Apple, IBM and Bayer weighed in as well: 

Another big name going after the law is Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who fought Indiana's anti-LGBT bill and is battling a similar bill in Georgia. Benioff told The Huffington Post he is lobbying Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Charlotte-based Bank of America, to speak out against the law. The bank, one of the largest employers in the state, has not specifically condemned the legislation, but did release a statement to the Charlotte Observer saying the company has "been steadfast in our commitment to non discrimination and in our support for LGBT employees through progressive workplace policies and practices.

Equality groups are also pressing Bank of America, along with BB&T and Burt's Bees (a subsidiary of Clorox) to break their silence on the law.

"As three of the largest corporations in North Carolina, all of which proudly protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees through LGBTQ inclusive non-discrimination policies, we believe these corporations have a moral obligation and responsibility to voice their opposition when state legislatures put the communities they serve in danger of discrimination," said Brad Delaney of One Million Kids For Equality in a Wednesday statement.

Facebook, which has a data center in Forest City, said it was "disappointed" by the law. "As a company, Facebook is an open and vocal supporter of equality. We believe in ensuring the rights of LGBT individuals and oppose efforts that discriminate against people on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation,” a company spokesperson said.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was among those from outside the business community to express disappointment.

On Thursday evening, demonstrators gathered outside the governor's mansion on North Blount Street in downtown Raleigh. Several were arrested, according to posts to Twitter and Facebook.


Sunday, March 27, 2016

Why Levi's Is Giving Away Its Trade Secrets

Levi Strauss & Co. is giving away its special sauce.

The blue-jeans behemoth said Tuesday that it plans to reveal its strategies for reducing water use by 96 percent when making denim, so the tactics can be adopted by competitors across the industry. The announcement came on World Water Day, the holiday designated 23 years ago by the United Nations for celebrating the availability of fresh water. 

“Water is a critical resource for our business, the planet and people around the globe, but usable supply is becoming increasingly scarce,” Michael Kobori, vice president of sustainability at Levi's, said in a statement. “We’ve long been committed to being water stewards, but realize more needs to be done. We’re setting competition aside and encouraging others to utilize these open source tools.”

Levi's introduced its suite of 21 water-saving methods in 2011, including strategies like buying only sustainable cotton and using less water when finishing and washing denim. Since then, the company has conserved more than 1 billion liters of water. If its techniques were to become industry standard, Levi's estimates they could save 50 billion liters by 2020. 

"Making the jeans we wear is a very thirsty business," Brooke Barton, water program director at the nonprofit sustainability group Ceres, told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Levi's commitment to open source this technology means that others in the apparel sector have no excuse but to step up their game."

Levi's, whose CEO Chip Bergh famously eschews washing his jeans, said Tuesday that it plans to double-down on its sustainability efforts by 2020, the year many companies have set for overhauls in their supply chains and environmental policies.

By then, the company aims to source 100 percent of its cotton from farms certified by the nonprofit Better Cotton Initiative or from recycled material. Up to 80 percent of all Levi's products will be made with water-saving techniques, trademarked under its Water<Less brand. As part of its partnership with nonprofit The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Foundation, it will eliminate all hazardous chemicals from its supply chain in the next four years. And, as part of an initiative backed by the White House, all corporate employees at the company will complete Project WET water education training.

The idea of allowing competitors behind the curtain in hopes of fostering higher industry standards isn't new.

As far back as the 1960s, Swedish automaker Volvo invented the three-point seat belt and promptly gave away the design to other manufacturers to make all cars safer -- not just its own. 

More recently, in 2010, Nike released a tool featuring many of its environmental design techniques, for free use by other clothing manufacturers. Three years later, the company folded the tool into a free app called Making that draws data from the Nike Materials Sustainability Index.

In June 2014, Tesla pledged not to sue anyone who used the electric carmaker's patented technology "in good faith," in hopes of cultivating a bigger industry for rechargeable vehicles. The argument was that copycat companies would expand the market, and the rising tide would raise all ships.

Levi's move is less about increasing competition and more about sharing strategies it's already developed. It's a refreshing perspective in a time of water crises. 


Saturday, March 26, 2016

Having A Bad Day/Week/Month At Work? Here's How To Turn That Around

Michelle Gielan is a big fan of positive thinking. A former journalist for CBS News, Gielan believes that focusing on good news goes much further than harping on the bad.

Gielan, now a positive psychology researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Broadcasting Happiness, previously examined the impact that solution-based news reporting had on readers. She found that people don't necessarily favor depressing or sensational stories. They also enjoy stories that present society's problems as opportunities for improvement -- and they were more likely to share those stories with friends and family.

Intrigued by the results, Gielan decided to take a look at whether a solution-based approach would help solve problems in the workplace too. Her latest research, conducted in partnership with The Huffington Post, focuses on how managers can better talk about issues in the office and get people to think creatively.

The key, once again, is to not just highlight what’s going wrong, like poor quarterly results or a change in management, but to offer solutions for those specific problems. That way, team members are thinking about how to improve going forward, rather than becoming dejected by less-than-ideal results at work.

“Managers struggle with telling their teams about bad news, but you don’t have to isolate your team from bad news,” Gielan told HuffPost. “You have to do it in a way that gets their brain moving from problems to potential solutions.”

For the study, 248 participants were asked to read an article that either revolved around a problem or explained both the problem and solutions. One article, for example, looked at food insecurity in the United States, while another discussed ways in which food bank shortages could be avoided.

Those who read a solution-based article reported feeling less hostile, less uptight and less agitated than those who had read a problem-based article. But the researchers didn't just observe a difference in participants' mood: When individuals read about solutions or actions that would be easy for them to recreate (like donating to a food bank), they improved by 20 percent on a task they were asked to complete later.

“When you remind people of their ability to control specific things, people do better” on tasks, she said.

In a way, she added, putting forward solutions among team members in an office isn’t too different from a news outlet highlighting positive stories for its readers.

“We’re constantly broadcasting info to people, as team members, as managers, as parents, and it can fuel people to success or hold them back,” Gieland said. “How can a business change what it’s broadcasting to its employees?”

Positive thinking can go beyond the office, too. A growing body of research has supported the benefits of this optimism to physical health, including reducing the risk of heart disease and improving immune system function.

But some caution against getting carried away with positive thinking. A recent study published in the journal Psychological Science posits that leaning too heavily on optimistic fantasies could, in the long run, exacerbate symptoms of depression.

Instead, those researchers suggested that positive thinking be taken in the right doses -- and that people remain realistic about achieving their goals.


Thursday, March 24, 2016

Having A Bad Day/Week/Month At Work? Here's How To Turn That Around

Michelle Gielan is a big fan of positive thinking. A former journalist for CBS News, Gielan believes that focusing on good news goes much further than harping on the bad.

Gielan, now a positive psychology researcher at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of Broadcasting Happiness, previously examined the impact that solution-based news reporting had on readers. She found that people don't necessarily favor depressing or sensational stories. They also enjoy stories that present society's problems as opportunities for improvement -- and they were more likely to share those stories with friends and family.

Intrigued by the results, Gielan decided to take a look at whether a solution-based approach would help solve problems in the workplace too. Her latest research, conducted in partnership with The Huffington Post, focuses on how managers can better talk about issues in the office and get people to think creatively.

The key, once again, is to not just highlight what’s going wrong, like poor quarterly results or a change in management, but to offer solutions for those specific problems. That way, team members are thinking about how to improve going forward, rather than becoming dejected by less-than-ideal results at work.

“Managers struggle with telling their teams about bad news, but you don’t have to isolate your team from bad news,” Gielan told HuffPost. “You have to do it in a way that gets their brain moving from problems to potential solutions.”

For the study, 248 participants were asked to read an article that either revolved around a problem or explained both the problem and solutions. One article, for example, looked at food insecurity in the United States, while another discussed ways in which food bank shortages could be avoided.

Those who read a solution-based article reported feeling less hostile, less uptight and less agitated than those who had read a problem-based article. But the researchers didn't just observe a difference in participants' mood: When individuals read about solutions or actions that would be easy for them to recreate (like donating to a food bank), they improved by 20 percent on a task they were asked to complete later.

“When you remind people of their ability to control specific things, people do better” on tasks, she said.

In a way, she added, putting forward solutions among team members in an office isn’t too different from a news outlet highlighting positive stories for its readers.

“We’re constantly broadcasting info to people, as team members, as managers, as parents, and it can fuel people to success or hold them back,” Gieland said. “How can a business change what it’s broadcasting to its employees?”

Positive thinking can go beyond the office, too. A growing body of research has supported the benefits of this optimism to physical health, including reducing the risk of heart disease and improving immune system function.

But some caution against getting carried away with positive thinking. A recent study published in the journal Psychological Science posits that leaning too heavily on optimistic fantasies could, in the long run, exacerbate symptoms of depression.

Instead, those researchers suggested that positive thinking be taken in the right doses -- and that people remain realistic about achieving their goals.


Wednesday, March 23, 2016

What The US Can Learn From UK Supermarket Donating Unsold Food

One of the U.K.’s -- and the world’s -- biggest grocery store chains announced big news on the food waste front this month.

In the coming months, Tesco, which boasts some 6,800 stores worldwide but is headquartered in England, will expand its 14-store trial run of an initiative that saved the equivalent of 50,000 meals worth of food from heading to a landfill, donating that food, instead, to charity groups.

The company plans to have the program, powered by a digital food-redistribution platform called FareShare, in place across all of its U.K. stores by the end of 2017. By that time, the chain aims to partner with 5,000 different charity recipients of its unsold food.

Tesco’s announcement comes on the heels of a number of new developments on food waste to come out in recent months.

Last week, Italy followed in France’s footsteps by becoming the second country in the world to require that supermarkets donate their unsold food to charities instead of throwing it away. And earlier this year, Denmark became home to its first supermarket dedicated entirely to “surplus” food.

Compared to the momentum happening around food waste abroad, U.S. efforts on the issue make for decidedly less eye-grabbing headlines.

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture announced an ambitious goal for the U.S. to cut its food waste by 50 percent by the year 2030, but progress toward that goal has felt slow.

Emily Broad Leib, director of Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic, says that is because the U.S. has arrived at the issue later than countries like France and the U.K., where efforts to address the issue have gotten a significant head start on the U.S. and are, just now, coming to fruition.

Still, Leib noted, Americans are making significant progress.

“I do think it’s on the radar of more and more stores,” Leib told The Huffington Post.

A handful of states have already passed some kind of legislation aimed at reducing food waste, with encouraging results. In Vermont, some food charities reported a 50 percent surge in donations after a new law capping the amount of food companies can bring to a landfill went into effect in 2014. A similar law also went into effect in Massachusetts last year.

Perhaps more notably, companies themselves are being proactive on the issue.

Credit: Toby Talbot/Associated Press
In this Nov. 15, 2013 photo, a truckload of food scraps is dumped at Vermont Compost in Montpelier. The state's food waste legislation puts a cap on the amount of food that can be sent to a landfill.

Walmart announced, last year, that it had asked its private brand suppliers to switch to standardized labeling stating, only, “best if used by” dates rather than the endless variations of alternative labels that often cause consumers to throw out food that was still perfectly safe to eat.

“It doesn’t seem like a big change, but part of the challenge when labels are not standard is that consumers aren’t sure what to gather from that,” Leib said, “but standardized labeling resonates with consumers.”

William Fisher, vice president of science and policy initiatives at the Chicago-based Institute of Food Technologists, agreed.

A paper Fisher co-authored in 2014 argued that inconsistent date labeling on food products not only led to consumer confusion and food waste, but also an unneeded financial burden for consumers and retailers alike. The paper concludes by calling for uniformity in date labeling and increased consumer education on what different terms on date labels actually mean.

More generally, Fisher added, he believes the industry is more willing “than ever before” to tackle sustainability issues like food waste.

“It’s not a fad and it’s clearly not a trend,” Fisher told HuffPost. “When I talk to people even around the world on this, I see progress being made every day.”

David Fikes, vice president of the Food Marketing Institute, which helps operate the industry-led Food Waste Reduction Alliance, said the alliance's members are not only open to the idea of taking action but are already doing so.

Members of the group, co-operated by the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association and National Restaurant Association and FMI, also include industry heavyweights like General Mills, McDonald’s and Kellogg’s. One member company, Kroger, is using food waste to help power one of its distribution centers in California via an anaerobic digester. Another, Wegmans, has made significant strides with its composting efforts.

Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Peppers are displayed for sale at a Kroger store in Peoria, Illinois, on June 16, 2015.

Frankly, Fikes added, caring about food waste is just not a tough sell to the industry at this time.

“There is no one in this business who wants to see food go to waste,” Fikes said. “It’s bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for the environment. Everyone in this industry would like to see food waste reduced if not completely eradicated.”

Though the industry is largely aware of the strategies available for addressing the problem and willing to give them a go, there are still significant obstacles to them doing just that.

According to Fikes, the U.S. is at a disadvantage at dealing with food waste compared to European countries due to the layers of regulations presented by local, state and federal government.

Infrastructure like storage capacity and transportation methods are also a concern, as Fikes pointed out that it takes time to prepare for a surge in donations between food retailers and charities like what was seen in Vermont.

And though current federal law already protects “good Samaritan” food donors in the event of donated food “causing harm” to its recipient, Fikes said those laws could be stronger.

Still, Fikes says his group and other industry leaders are keeping a close eye on how European initiatives on food waste pan out.

“It’s a bit of a different environment, but there’s no reason we can’t take success stories from there and apply them to what we’re doing here,” Fikes said.

The need for action is significant. According to the EPA, the U.S. sends approximately 30 million tons of food to landfills each year, waste that emits methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

And addressing food waste in retail environments is just part of the battle. American consumers, in their own home, shoulder the largest portion of the blame, tossing out an estimated $640 worth of food per household each year.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

This Trick For Saving More For Retirement Works. But There’s A Catch

Automatically enrolling employees into retirement accounts is a small, initially almost unnoticeable change, but it's proving successful in achieving its main goal of getting people to save.

The United Kingdom has phased in a law requiring companies to auto-enroll workers in retirement schemes, and 90 percent of employees keep their plan, rather than opt out.

A new report from investor watchdog ShareAction shows that success has created a new challenge: ensuring there is proper oversight of how companies invest workers' money. The charity found that the largest auto-enrollment retirement plan provided scored a dismal average of just 24 out of 80 on governance and responsible investing.

ShareAction

One company The Huffington Post contacted, NOW Pensions, has a very good reason for its low score: how the retirement plans disclose what stocks they own and how they vote on corporate issues at those companies was a big part of the score. A spokesperson told HuffPost that its funds are invested in equity index futures that have no voting rights. (ShareAction told HuffPost in an email that this would only marginally change NOW's score by seven out of the possible 80 points.)

Elsewhere, Royal London requires all its fund managers to sign the United National Principles on Responsible Investing, Lorna Blyth, the company's investment strategy manager, told HuffPost. A spokeswoman for Standard Life said it continuously looks for ways to improve and pointed out that only one company, Aviva, scored higher than it. A spokeswoman for L&G said they already provided strong governance and would continue its dialogue with ShareAction. Paul Todd, NEST's director of Investment Development and Delivery, said the report had praised the company but there was still work to do. Todd  noted that ShareAction uses NEST for its internal auto-enrollment plan. The other companies that ShareAction scored did not return requests for comment.

Auto-enrollment has gained support in recent years because as the number of people with traditional pensions continues to shrink, saving money in individual retirement accounts becomes increasingly more important. But many people find saving for retirement to be an overwhelming swirl of information and emotion. So why not just automatically sign people up? Then if they decide they really don’t want to save they can opt out.

That idea is rooted in what economist Richard Thaler calls a “nudge.” It’s a small change in how a choice is presented that has an outsized result. President Barack Obama signed an executive order that essentially requires the federal government to use the tactic -- and it’s the law in the U.K. For the past four years, British employers have been required to auto-enroll their employees in retirement plans that are similar to 401(k)s in the U.S. (The requirement was phased in starting with the biggest companies.) 

ShareAction’s report shows that while the auto-enrollment law is succeeding in getting people to save more, there is still significant work to be done to ensure that workers' saved money is being invested according to best practices of governance, sustainability, and human rights. There is a “serious gulf in performance between the best and worst when it comes to managing conflicts of interest, good governance and responsible stewardship of assets,” said ShareActions chief executive Catherine Howarth in a statement. For example, one provider, Aviva, has a detailed policy describing how it deals with the single issue of climate change. Yet another, The People’s Pension, simply has a four-sentence policy that hands over all responsibility to individual asset managers.

That’s far from best in class oversight, particularly given that workers are being automatically enrolled to invest in such plans.

This article has been updated with a response from ShareAction about NOW's score.


Sunday, March 20, 2016

Investing Advice For Women Isn’t Sexist; It’s A Necessary Corrective

Sallie Krawcheck, at one time widely considered the most powerful woman on Wall Street, was fired twice from high-profile banking jobs, partly, she believes, because she was a woman.

"It wasn’t as though the boss said, 'We don’t like female parts,'" she told The Huffington Post recently. It was, according to Krawcheck, because she took an approach to business that she has since come to believe is inherently female -- focusing on long-term goals and relationships. (There was also a lot of office politics at play, to be sure.)

The "women are different" theory is now driving the 51-year-old's second act. Krawcheck has founded Ellevest, an online investing platform targeting women. Women do not invest their money at the same rate as men. The reason for this is up for debate; while some believe women are risk-averse, others note that they simply earn less money than men. 

Krawcheck has a different take: Women simply face different challenges -- like financing long career breaks for care-taking, paying for maternity leave, living longer than men, etc.

The new site is still in beta mode, with a launch planned for later this year. Krawcheck also chairs Ellevate, a women's networking company. HuffPost talked to her recently about women, Wall Street and why we’re more likely to want to have a beer with the guy running JPMorgan than with Hillary Clinton.

Why don’t women invest as much as men?

Wall Street is for men by men, I like to joke. I know lots of outstanding financial advisers who do a great job for women, but overall the industry does a great job for men. CNBC looks a lot like ESPN. The goal of investing is beating the market. It’s male. It feels competitive. When you speak to women about investing, they rarely talk about beating the market. Women talk about what they want to do in life and how investing can help them get there.

Doesn’t creating an investing company targeting women specifically just serve to keep the financial industry male dominated?

For years, I bristled at the idea that women would need their own thing. Well-intentioned journalists would say we need more hand-holding. We need simple. That’s not it. Women’s needs are different. What do I mean? We talk about the cost of a career break. That’s not something men grapple with. Women on average take breaks of up to 11 years and they are extraordinarily expensive. Another issue that impacts women more is not having mandated parental leave.

You talk about how the retirement crisis is a big women’s issue.

It is an insight I had a year ago when I was putting on my mascara one morning. We retire with two-thirds of the money that men have -- and we live longer.

If we cast retirement as a gender issue, the solution becomes about keeping women in the workforce, mandating parental leave, helping women invest more -- all of which can help grow the economy. The solutions go from depressing to pretty much all positive.

Aren’t I better off just putting my money into a low-fee index fund, rather than letting a so-called expert pick stocks for me and charge higher fees?

Over time, if investing is your only goal, yes you are better off putting your savings into a diversified low-fee index fund. That is the portfolio that we will use. I would say advisers can bring other capabilities to bear. For example, there is enormous value in a financial plan. It’s hard to go where you want to go, if you don’t know where you are going.

What was it like to be a young woman on Wall Street when you were starting out in the '80s? How do you think it’s changed?

It was outwardly hostile. I was left with a Xerox copy of male parts on my desk every morning. I don’t believe that happens now.

All those guys who were hazing you back then probably run things now.

Your theory may be correct, but when I go person by person I don’t know where they are. 

Does it ever frustrate you that for all your success, people still keep asking you “how do you do it” and “tell us about being a woman”?

Not at all. Because when I was in my 20s. Even in my 30s, there were so few female role models. When I would look around, I couldn’t see a path forward. I remember working at Salomon in London and being literally the senior woman there. I am really always very happy to talk about how I did it and how I didn’t do it and the approach, because there still aren’t enough role models.

The percentage of women in C-suites and in boardrooms is still absurdly low. Why?

If there were an answer, well-meaning people would have closed the gap. Some part is not mandating parental leave and that women don’t make it through the funnel [to the top]. Some is inherent gender bias. Likability and success in men is positively correlated. Think Jamie Dimon, you want to have a beer with him. [Editor’s note: Nope.] It’s inversely correlated for women; think Hillary Clinton. Men and women both have biases like this.

My mother told me, "I’m not going to vote for Hillary. She’s too ambitious." I said, "Mom, hello?" She said, "You do it in a nicer way, honey."

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated Krawcheck's role with Ellevate. She runs the organization but is not a founder.


Thursday, March 17, 2016

The Federal Reserve Holds Off On Interest Rate Hike

The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday that it is leaving its benchmark interest rate unchanged, a move designed to encourage recently robust job creation to continue.

The decision by the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank panel charged with adjusting its influential federal funds rate, means Americans will likely avoid paying higher interest rates on their mortgages, car payments and other loans.

The influential federal funds rate, or the interest rate banks charge one another for overnight lending, will remain at a target range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent. The Fed raises the interest rate to head off rising price inflation by slowing the pace of job market growth.

“With appropriate monetary policy, we continue to expect moderate economic growth, further labor market improvement and a return of inflation to our 2 percent objective in 2-3 years,” Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said at a press conference announcing the decision. “However, global economic and financial developments continue to pose risks.”

The last time the Fed raised the federal funds rate was in December, the first time since the 2008 financial crisis. It is a testament to the tenuous state of the economic recovery eight years later that the Fed is still exercising so much caution.

Wednesday's decision was widely expected, in light of modestly gloomier global economic conditions and lackluster U.S. wage growth.

As investors have become more anxious, credit has become harder to obtain in the United States. The tighter lending had the same depressing effect on the economy as a 1 percentage point Fed rate hike, according to economists at Goldman Sachs.

The dollar also continues to rise relative to foreign currencies, making U.S. exports less competitive.

And while the U.S. economy continues to produce jobs consistently, wages declined in February.

Yellen acknowledged that the robust job market had yet to produce significant wage growth.

“I must say, I do see broad-based improvement in the labor market and I’m somewhat surprised we’re not seeing more of a pickup in wage growth,” she said. “It is one of the factors that suggests to me there is continued slack in the labor market.”

Inflation is finally approaching the Fed’s 2 percent target, however, indicating that the Fed may soon have the evidence it needs to raise the interest rate when the FOMC meets again in April.

The price of consumer goods, excluding food and energy, rose 1.7 percent growth in the 12 months ending in January, according to the price index favored by the Fed.

SAUL LOEB/Getty Images
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen speaking at a press conference on Wednesday after the Fed announced that the benchmark interest rate will not rise.

Indeed, all ten sitting members of the FOMC, as well as the seven regional Federal Reserve bank presidents not on the committee, believe economic conditions will allow for an interest rate hike before the year's end.

The 17 officials' predictions, however, released in a survey known as the "dot plot," show greater pessimism about the economy than when the Fed last met. The officials' median projection is that the Fed will raise the interest rate to 0.9 percent by the end of 2016, compared with the December 2015 median projection of 1.4 percent.

One sitting FOMC member, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Esther George, voted against the decision, favoring a 0.25 percent rate hike at this time.

In a week dominated by presidential election and Supreme Court nomination news, the Fed’s announcement stands to draw only moderate attention.

But the lack of a rate hike, which gives the economy more leeway to grow unencumbered, is probably good news for Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy. The putative Democratic front-runner is poised to benefit from a positive economic outlook, since voters are more likely to return an incumbent party to power if the economy is doing well.

Public opinion polls and the populist electoral mood in both political parties suggest that voters still do not feel their economic fortunes palpably improving, despite a record streak of job growth. Many analysts argue that the lack of a political upside to the high-performing economy is because Americans are, on average, not making much more money.

That is why progressive economists and activist groups have been calling on the Fed to allow unemployment to dip even lower, so employers will begin raising wages more significantly in order to compete for workers.

The progressive Fed Up coalition, comprising groups representing low-income workers and communities of color, is calling on the Fed not to raise the benchmark interest rate at all in 2016.

“The Fed needs to connect the dots with reality: involuntary part-time work is still almost double pre-recession levels, labor force participation rates are still low, Black unemployment is more than double white unemployment and Latino unemployment and underemployment is still at crisis levels, and wage growth is almost non-existent,” Dushaw Hockett, executive director of SPACES, a Washington, D.C. community group that is part of the Fed Up coalition, said in a statement.

“Rather than slowing down progress, the Fed should do all it can to facilitate growth in 2016 and beyond.”


Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The Financial Crisis Film 'Boom Bust Boom' Falls Prey To The Big Problem It Addresses

Can a group of portly, middle-aged puppets explain the financial crisis?

They certainly can try.

In the new Terry Jones documentary, "Boom Bust Boom," which premiered Friday in New York City, the Monty Python comedian uses puppets, cartoons and interviews with real people to turn a difficult and often boring subject into a lively lesson on history and the human biases that drive huge swings in the economy. Think of it as a whimsical version of "The Big Short." 

Set for a national release on March 18, the film shows how markets can boom and bust with regularity. Over the course of centuries, we see this cycle play out over and over, and yet, before each bust, we learn how people convince themselves this time is different. It's frustrating. Why can't humans just get it right? 

Unfortunately, the film falls prey to its own thesis, almost shutting out the voices of anyone who isn't a middle-aged white man, leading to a narrow view of this complex topic. It's not very helpful for thinking critically about how we might change things, and perhaps that's why the film offers few solutions.

"Boom Bust Boom" is at its best when illustrating some of history's worst economic meltdowns. It has informative and fun depictions of the 1637 tulip mania in the Netherlands, the crash of the South Sea Company in early 18th-century Britain, and the 19th-century speculation in (and fantastic crash of) British railroad stock. It also describes how the heights of speculation in the 1920s led to the lows of the Great Depression, and, finally, the hard lessons of the 2008 mortgage crisis. Every time is the same: Euphoria over rising prices leads to speculation, which ends with a crash.

Humans are not rational, the movie tells us. We are hardwired, from the time of our primate ancestors, to have certain biases and blind spots. When it comes to capitalism, those blind spots lead to financial crises. And when someone sees the issue clearly, they are often disregarded until long after it's too late.

The problem is, the film doesn't take the next step and ask why policymakers and economists continue to think the same way and follow the same patterns from one crisis to another.

Here's one reason: The world's top economists (and government officials) more or less all have the same background. They went to a handful of schools, studied under a few dozen of the same professors, have read the same books and mingle in the same circles. Oh, and, to a large extent, they're all white and male. That doesn't encourage diversity of thought. 

Neither does this film. I counted about a dozen puppets woven into the story, and nearly all of them depicted middle-aged (or older) white men. Activist-actor and Huffington Post blogger John Cusack makes several somewhat puzzling appearances in this movie, too. (No disrespect to Mr. Cusack.)  

Nick Rutter

Women and minorities are almost entirely left out of this film -- not unlike the way they've been left out of financial and economics professions. Yet, we know that women are slightly better at managing financial risk than men are. Study after study over the last five years has found that female financial managers consistently outperform their male peers. They think differently.

The two expert women the movie manages to talk to are Lucy Prebble, a playwright who once wrote a play about the collapse of Enron, and Laurie Santos, a Yale psychology professor who studies how monkeys make decisions. Neither have a background in economics, or in the 2008 crisis. 

But there is a long list of people -- who aren't white men -- who would have made great interview subjects for the filmmakers.

Where was Christina Romer, who wrote a paper in 2015 examining the impact of financial crises on advanced economies? Where was Brooksley Born, who warned against the danger of unregulated derivatives -- which ended up creating the 2008 financial crisis -- when she was head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the 1990s? Where was Harvard economist Carmen Reinhart, who literally wrote a book called This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly? Where was Raghuram Rajan, India's top central banker, who warned of a potential financial crash way back in 2005, when he was working at the International Monetary Fund? 

If the world is to develop a framework for thinking differently about economics, it might help to start with more diverse sources.


Monday, March 14, 2016

Here’s A Sign That The Coal Industry May Be In Trouble

This week brings us yet another indicator that coal may be on the decline worldwide.

JPMorgan Chase announced on March 4 that it will curtail the amount of coal projects it finances worldwide. The bank joins several competitors, including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, which have all distanced themselves in some way from coal financing.

Environmental activists had a positive, if muted, response to the news. 

JPMorgan's new "environmental and social policy framework" outright bans the bank from financing new coal-fired power plants in high-income countries, as defined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a Paris-based think tank. Only 32 countries, including the U.S., Japan, Australia and most of Europe, qualify as high-income according to the OECD.

JPMorgan will continue to finance coal-fired power plants in developing countries like China, India and Indonesia, but only if the plants use the most efficient technology available to burn its coal. 

In addition, the new framework also prohibits the bank from financing completely new mines in rich or poor countries around the world. 

JPMorgan will also reduce the amount of credit it extends to coal mining companies, although the policy doesn't have many details. The company declined to comment. 

The Rainforest Action Network, which calls on banks to completely end the financing of coal-based projects, called JPMorgan's move "a step in the right direction of moving away from some of the dirtiest carbon-based fuels." However, the group noted that the bank hasn't completely stopped financing coal projects.

"It’s important that the institution continue to address this issue by ending its support for coal [completely]," Ben Collins, a senior campaigner at the Network, told The Huffington Post.

In the last decade, JPMorgan has been one of the largest lenders to coal companies globally, providing $18.8 billion in funding for mining and coal-fueled power plants around the world, according to to a 2015 study on coal financing.

But the market for coal has fallen off a cliff in the United States over the last decade, thanks to the rise of cheap natural gas, with many of the country's biggest coal companies filing for bankruptcy protection over the last two years. 

Even in China, which is the world's largest coal consumer, demand has fallen off. That's partly because its economic growth has cooled, but partly because the country knows it has a smog problem and has vowed to get its emissions in line by having at least 20 percent of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.


Friday, March 11, 2016

4 Things You Need To Know About The Latest Jobs Report

The monthly jobs report came out on Friday, and things are pretty good overall.

The big headline numbers were great: The economy added 242,000 jobs in February, much higher than the 195,000 that economists estimated, and the unemployment rate remained at 4.9 percent, which is nice and low. 

But if you drill down into the data, the picture is a little murkier.

Here are four things we know about the economy from the details in this report:

1) Wages aren't growing much, and it's hard to say why.

Average hourly earnings were down by 3 cents in February, to $25.35. Year-over-year, wages are up about 2.2 percent. That's not great -- although, thanks to very low oil prices and low inflation, it's not terrible either. But it's worth asking why wage growth since 2010 hasn't been as robust as growth in previous recoveries. 

Shane Ferro/Huffington Post

2) Nonetheless, people are coming back into the labor force.

As we said earlier, the economy added 242,000 jobs this month. But perhaps more importantly, details in the household survey show that more than 500,000 entered the labor force by starting to look for work again. In order to be officially unemployed, a person must not have a job and must be looking for work. Discouraged workers, who have given up looking for jobs, aren't counted as part of the labor force. It's a sign of a healthy economy when those people start looking for jobs again, even if they don't find work immediately.

3) But the unemployment rate for blacks is twice the unemployment rate for whites.

The unemployment rate for whites in the United States is 4.3 percent. For blacks, it's 8.8 percent. This is an economic dynamic that has been persistent since the Labor Department started tracking unemployment by race back in the 1970s. The chart below is not really America's best look: 

Shane Ferro/Huffington Post
There's a huge racial disparity in the unemployment rate in this country.

4) There is a lot of growth in low-wage industries.

The retail industry added 55,000 jobs last month, and food service added 40,000. These have been some of the strongest growth industries over the last few years, which means the economy is adding a lot of low wage, service sector jobs. That said, the economy also added a lot of health care (38,000) and construction (19,000) jobs in February, which tend to pay quite well. 


Wednesday, March 9, 2016

How Americans Get Duped Into Buying Endangered Animal Items

You might be contributing to the decimation of endangered animal species without even realizing it. 

When illegal ivory, tiger pelts or rhino tusks make their way to markets and e-commerce sites, traffickers may try to conceal how the products were obtained. They'll use terms like "bone" or "walrus tusk" to describe ivory, duping retailers and customers alike. What's more, uninformed shoppers or tourists might not know that tortoiseshell and certain types of coral or wood are also part of this illicit trade network, which is estimated to be worth between $50 and $150 billion per year. 

Major companies across the e-commerce, retail and travel industries are now banding together to raise awareness and reduce the amount of illegal wildlife products Americans buy. 

Google, eBay, Etsy, JetBlue and Tiffany & Co are among the 16 firms committing to eliminating these products from their supply chains, the U.S. Wildlife Trafficking Alliance and the Obama administration announced Thursday.

“A lot of Americans are just not aware that they could be buying illegal products and adding to this global problem,” David J. Hayes, chair of the alliance and former chief operating officer at the Department of Interior, told The Huffington Post.

Each company will take action within its own sphere of commerce. Some will warn customers about the impacts of illegal wildlife products, while others will flag items on sale that potentially violate wildlife policies or provide educational videos on sustainability for travelers.

ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images
Illegal ivory and ivory products confiscated in China. 

Several online retailers have already taken steps to block harmful items from their sites. eBay and the online bidding platform LiveAuctioneers.com have banned illegal ivory sales. Etsy has banned all ivory and prohibited sellers to list goods made from threatened or endangered animal parts. 

"It's hard for the consumer to know what's legal and what's illegal, and it can be hard for the retailer to know," said Beth Allgood, U.S. campaigns director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, a conservation nonprofit that has worked with eBay, Etsy and LiveAuctioneers to remove illegal ivory listings. "We can be partners to retailers who don't know all the regulations."

For JetBlue, the awareness campaign will primarily inform passengers traveling to and from the Caribbean and Latin America, said Sophia Mendelsohn, JetBlue’s head of sustainability. In videos to be shown on JetBlue’s flights, residents and small business owners from the region will speak about how sustainable tourism practices can support wildlife diversity.

“We want to stop this issue at its root cause,” Mendelsohn told HuffPost. “We’re going to cut out unwitting demand so there’s less profit in drawing out these natural resources, whether it’s for tech, necklaces or special meals” at local restaurants.

Lam Yik Fei via Getty Images
Leopard skins seized by Hong Kong customs officials.

Other corporate partners that have pledged to work with the alliance include Ralph Lauren and Royal Caribbean Cruises. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums will exhibit seized illegal wildlife products in its parks to highlight the threats posed to various species. Discovery Communications will produce virtual reality content focusing on trafficking and conservation. 

The household brands committed to this new effort will work to establish best practices for smaller names in the travel, e-commerce and retail industries.

“These companies are accepting industry leadership and making sure smaller ones aren’t involved in wildlife trafficking,” Hayes said. “These are true industry-wide efforts.”

Stockbyte via Getty Images
An illegal haul of rhino horn.

Awareness of wildlife conservation has been growing for some time. President Barack Obama issued an executive order to implement a wildlife taskforce in 2013. The corporate alliance announced this week is a result of that effort.

Public interest in the issue spiked last year following the killing of Cecil the Lion. The backlash against the Minnesota dentist who shot down the lion in Zimbabwe heightened scrutiny of trophy killings and spurred action from the travel industry.

American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta Airlines announced last summer that they would ban transport from Africa of the “big five” game animals -- lion, elephant, rhino, leopard and buffalo.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
A lion in an enclosure of the Lion Park, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Monday, March 7, 2016

Watchdog Group Kept Out Of Nike Supplier's Factory After Worker Strike

A prominent labor rights group that monitors working conditions in overseas factories says apparel giant Nike refused to let it inspect a plant in Vietnam roiled by employee strikes.

Workers at the Hansae Vietnam factory who produce university-branded Nike clothes held a pair of walkouts over working conditions late last year. The Worker Rights Consortium, an independent monitor affiliated with nearly 200 U.S. colleges, says it wanted to inspect the factory on behalf of its member schools to find out what the problem was.

What Nike and the WRC can agree on is that Nike didn't help facilitate any access for the group. Nike says that it can't control who inspects a supplier's factory, and that it wouldn't normally assist an outside group like the WRC. "These are not our factories to control," Hannah Jones, Nike's chief sustainability officer, told The Huffington Post.

But the WRC says the rebuff from Nike signals a turnabout after years of reasonable cooperation from the brand. Scott Nova, the group's director, said he was "surprised and concerned" that Nike "effectively refused to let us in the door."

"What it boils down to is Nike prefers not to be accountable to an independent investigative body," Nova said. "They want to police the working conditions themselves. The reason there are mandatory standards is it's not prudent to allow companies to police themselves."

To understand the row, you have to understand Nike's long history with labor watchdogs and activists. The company's public image was battered by a series of sweatshop scandals back in the 1990s. Tales of paltry wages and harsh conditions for foreign workers producing Nike shoes, clothes and athletic equipment led U.S. students to protest the iconic brand. At the time, Nike said it shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of suppliers it doesn't own.

The company eventually took major strides toward transparency. It became the first big U.S. retailer to publish a list of the overseas factories producing its goods, and it took a far more active role in monitoring the working conditions inside factories. The company evolved into something of a poster child for corporate social responsibility, the concept in which brands are accountable to the working conditions at the bottom of their supply chains.

Despite the progress that's been made, independent watchdogs like the WRC have never been comfortable with the system of monitoring adopted by Nike and other brands. Most U.S. retailers devise their own voluntary monitoring plans that critics say leave them without much skin in the game. And though they subject themselves to audits, those audits are often done by monitoring groups that are funded at least in part by the retailers themselves. Such monitoring came under heavy scrutiny after 2012 press coverage of conditions at Foxconn, the Chinese supplier to Apple, and the collapse of Rana Plaza, which killed more than a hundred garment workers in Bangladesh in 2013.

Nike's Jones said the company works closely with the nonprofit Fair Labor Association. The group has corporate board members and receives much of its funding through its corporate affiliates -- including Adidas, Apple, Fruit of the Loom and Under Armour -- though it also counts many universities and nongovernmental organizations among its members. Jones said the FLA runs factory assessments over which Nike has no control. She also said Nike works with the International Labour Organization, an agency of the United Nations, to address complaints at its factories.

In the case of the Hansae factory, Jones said, Nike products account for about 9 percent of what's manufactured in the facility. She said Nike was first notified about the worker strikes by the WRC. The company then did its own investigation, relying on the FLA and the ILO, finding that the strikes resulted from "a very poor relationship between workers and a new manager" at the factory, she said.

"That's how we've always operated with the WRC. We went in, did our own monitoring, and we asked the FLA to come in and do an independent assessment, which they are about to do," Jones said. "We don't have a formal relationship with the WRC, and it's quite important that brands have an arm's length with watchdog institutions."

The WRC says that Nike has helped facilitate its factory audits in the past, and that, in the case of Hansae, it has an obligation to. Scores of universities have contracts with Nike, licensing their school logos to go on Nike apparel. Many of those schools are WRC affiliates who have their own codes of conduct that suppliers are expected to adhere to.

Two weeks ago, hundreds of college faculty members signed onto a letter criticizing Nike for not assisting the WRC in investigating the situation at Hansae. The letter, led by Richard Appelbaum, a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, accused the company of "attempting to turn back the clock on transparency and worker rights."

Rutgers, too, has waded into the tiff. In a December letter to Nike obtained by The Huffington Post, Rutgers' president, Robert Barchi, said that if Nike didn't help the WRC access the Hansae factory, the company would be taking "a step backward" on its labor rights record. "Rutgers feels that it is essential that all companies producing Rutgers branded products not only adhere to all applicable labor codes of conduct but also be perceived as maintaining the highest standards of labor rights," Barchi wrote.

"We have reversed nothing," Nike's Jones insisted. "Nike remains firmly committed to transparency."

College students have considerable influence on apparel makers because of how lucrative the college licensing contracts are. The pressure at Rutgers has come from students affiliated with a group called United Students Against Sweatshops, which has been agitating on campuses since the late 1990s.

In 2012, the group succeeded in getting Rutgers to drop its relationship with Adidas after students criticized the company for not paying severance to laid-off workers at a supplier in Indonesia. (Adidas later agreed to pay into a fund for the employees.) Morgan Currier, an organizer with USAS, said students are adamant that Nike assist the WRC in investigating any problems at Hansae.

"Students are very upset with Nike," Currier said. "They're undermining 19 years of work by garment workers and students."

Nike has learned there were two strikes that lasted three days each at Hansae. According to Jones, some of the worker unrest there stemmed from how production bonuses were being awarded. She said that she would not call management there "gold star," but that they were in the process of "full remediations."

Nova, of the WRC, said his group was doing labor rights research in the area when it learned of the strikes last year through local sources.    

"We only have limited information because of Nike," Nova said. "But we do have enough information to have serious concerns about it."


Friday, March 4, 2016

Warren Buffett Is Wrong About Climate Change

Warren Buffett doesn't want you to know how his empire is preparing to deal with the disastrous effects of climate change. In fact, he said in a letter released Saturday, he isn't exactly sure this whole "climate change" thing is real, anyway.

In his annual letter to investors in his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, the billionaire investor fought back against a proposed shareholder resolution demanding his insurance subsidiaries measure and disclose the risks that climate change poses to their business and how the company is responding to the threat. Buffett compared fears over climate change to the brouhaha around apocalyptic Y2K predictions.

“It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet,” the 85-year-old wrote in the letter, released Saturday morning. “I say ‘highly likely’ rather than ‘certain’ because I have no scientific aptitude and remember well the dire predictions of most ‘experts’ about Y2K.”

Insurance companies take on losses after major weather disasters (think droughts, Hurricane Katrina and other big storms), so it makes sense they'd be concerned about climate change. If that's true, why would Buffett say he's not so sure this is real? Because skepticism is better business.

Buffett isn’t denying climate change, but rather using language climate deniers feel comfortable with and will likely cite in future attempts to derail environmental policy. Climate change affects Buffett's business: He owns a Nevada utility that has fought and won against solar development in that state, and his railroad, Burlington Northern, in large part depends on the demand for coal and oil.

Buffett argues in favor of seeing climate change as a likely risk to the world, but against the need for more oversight, transparency or regulation of his companies. It’s a position he’s taken before -- Buffett argued against designating reinsurers, of which he owns the world’s fifth-largest, as too-big-to-fail institutions. Though he said he never spoke directly to regulators about the issue, he made his views public. Regulators, thus far, have agreed.

Why Buffett's Words Matter

Markets, governments and companies aren’t properly pricing the risk of climate change. For instance, are beachfront homes in low-lying areas as valuable as their owners believe? Experts reckon that only once markets and others attach a price to the threat of climate change will the rest of the world finally move to limit the potential consequences. If insurers -- which must grow their assets in order to make good on their guarantees -- measure the potential losses they could incur as a result of climate change, they can then price that risk. Then everyone else could follow.

Buffett's views against disclosure put him in sharp disagreement with Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has said that financial markets can help limit the effects of climate change, but only if companies -- such as insurers -- supply the kind of information that Buffett doesn't want to disclose. 

In September remarks to the insurance industry, the chief overseer of the world’s third-largest insurance sector warned about the numerous economic and financial risks posed by climate change. Carney urged companies, particularly insurers, to start taking seriously their responsibility to measure their potential losses. Their own solvency could be at stake, Carney warned.

Insurance companies invest their money in places like the stock market. But “stranded" oil, gas and coal reserves, left in the ground due to the world’s commitment to halt rising temperatures, could render related financial assets worthless. Or the disruption of trade resulting from an extreme weather event could affect related investments.

Cynthia McHale, director of the insurance program for Ceres, a nonprofit group that pushes investors to pay attention to the financial risks of climate change, said in an interview earlier this month that neither insurers nor their government overseers have a good handle on the risks that climate change poses to insurers’ various financial assets.

McHale compared the situation to the one faced by big banks in 2008, when few sufficiently realized the magnitude of potential losses from the U.S. property bust. 

Weathering Heights

Buffett's case against the resolution boils down to this: “Thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.”

First, he said, his company can handle any possible losses thanks to rising premiums. Because insurance policies are typically written for one year and repriced annually, Buffett's company can hike premiums to better account for the heightened risk of climate change-driven losses.

Second, Buffett asserts that climate change has produced neither “more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance.”

But eight of the 10 costliest hurricanes in U.S. history, in terms of insured losses, have occurred since 2000, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Nine of the 10 costliest floods in U.S. history, when measured by payouts from the federal government’s National Flood Insurance Program, also have occurred since 2000, according to the insurance group.

NOAA
The U.S. experienced five different types of extreme weather last year. 

Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurer, estimated that extreme weather events led to $510 billion in insured losses from 1980 to 2011.

Carney said that according to Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest insurance market, the roughly 8-inch rise in sea level at the tip of Manhattan since the 1950s increased the insured losses from Hurricane Sandy by 30 percent in New York alone.

PAUL J. RICHARDS via Getty Images
A house in Staten Island, New York, hit in Hurricane Sandy. Scientists say we should prepare for more weather events like the massive storm.

Insurance companies should care about climate change from a selfish perspective if they want to stay in business. Carney has warned that insurers that jack up premiums or exit markets after realizing the potential losses associated with climate change could unwittingly cause the value of their own assets to shrink.

He also warned about potential losses from claims on policies written by insurers. For example, insurance companies could be forced to make massive payouts if victims of climate change successfully hold accountable companies that contributed to it. He likened the situation to the one faced by U.S. insurers stung by tens of billions of dollars in losses from asbestos claims.

In fact, Carney said that as a result of recent weather trends, some now estimate that insurers are undervaluing their potential losses by as much as 50 percent.

Insurance companies caught unprepared for the effects of climate change could cause problems for government officials and put taxpayers at risk.

For example, governments may have to cover markets that insurers dump as a direct result of climate change, the Bank of England chief said, putting taxpayers on the hook.

Bloomberg via Getty Images
Mark Carney, the U.K.'s top central banker, says insurers may be undervaluing their potential risks by 50 percent. 

What Could Change If Insurers Opened Up About This Risk

Disclosing climate change information would improve policymaking, Carney said. It could make climate policy more like monetary policy, where officials who set interest rates often tinker with their stance based on markets’ reactions.

The Financial Stability Board, a global group of the world’s financial regulators, wants financial companies to disclose their risks, too.

Some state insurance regulators in the U.S. are demanding insurers take the threat posed by climate change into account when investing their customers’ money and underwriting insurance policies. Washington state’s insurance regulator, Mike Kreidler, has criticized some insurers for failing to take climate change risks seriously, arguing their own solvency was at risk.

Buffett sounded more alarmed by the prospect of climate change in 2007, when scientific evidence of the impacts of climate change was less well-understood. In his annual letter that year, Buffett wondered aloud whether the deadly and expensive hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 marked the first warning of a new type of climate.

“It would be a huge mistake to bet that evolving atmospheric changes are benign in their implications for insurers,” Buffett wrote in his letter.

He warned that it was “naïve” to think of Hurricane Katrina -- the costliest hurricane in U.S. history -- “as anything close to a worst-case event.”

“These could rock the insurance industry,” Buffett added.

 

Thursday, March 3, 2016

White House Predicts Robots May Take Over Many Jobs That Pay $20 Per Hour

The White House is worried that robots are coming to take your job.

In a report to Congress this week, White House economists forecast an 83 percent chance that workers earning less than $20 per hour will lose their jobs to robots.

Wage earners who receive up to $40 in hourly pay face a 31 percent chance they'll be replaced by robots, while workers who are paid more than $40 an hour face much lower odds -- about 4 percent -- of losing their jobs to automation.

The estimates underscore the myriad threats facing low-wage workers in America, who in recent years have been buffeted by stagnant wages, decreasing employment prospects and higher education costs if they wish to obtain additional credentials in pursuit of better-paying jobs.

In an economy increasingly defined by the yawning gap between rich and poor, White House economists worry that increased automation could exacerbate inequality as the well-paid enjoy the fruits of robot-fueled gains in productivity while everyone else is left to fight for scraps.

One study cited by the White House found that automation has particularly hurt middle-skilled Americans, such as bookkeepers, clerks and some assembly-line workers. A lack of additional training and education opportunities led these workers to settle for lower-skilled positions, and likely lower wages.

Already, the White House noted in its report, most economists reckon that changes in technology are "partially responsible for rising inequality in recent decades."

Robots and other advances in technology are forecast to displace a significant number of blue- and white-collar workers, according to 48 percent of experts surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2014. They also said that robots and so-called digital agents will displace more jobs than they create by 2025.

Many experts surveyed by Pew said they are concerned that the rise of robots and other technological advances "will lead to vast increases in income inequality, masses of people who are effectively unemployable, and breakdowns in the social order."

It's not a new worry. The famed economist John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1930 about "technological unemployment," or the theory that workers could be displaced due to society's ability to improve labor efficiency at a faster rate than finding new uses for labor.

But White House economists said they don't have enough information to judge whether increased automation will help or hurt the U.S. economy. For example, new jobs could emerge to develop and maintain robots or other new forms of technology.

"While industrial robots have the potential to drive productivity growth in the United States, it is less clear how this growth will affect workers," the White House said in its report.

There are two important questions, according to White House economists. First, if robots replace existing workers, will workers have enough bargaining power to share in their employers' newfound gains? Second, will the economy create new jobs fast enough to replace the lost ones?

Falling union membership -- some 11 percent of U.S. workers belonged to a union last year, down from about 20 percent in 1983 -- suggests that workers may not have much power to demand higher wages from employers who are automating them out of a job.

The economy could create enough new, good-paying jobs to help those displaced by robots, but the plight of manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs in recent decades as manufacturers moved abroad suggests that this, too, could be a challenge.

Instead, according to the White House, the key is to maintain a "robust training and education agenda to ensure that displaced workers are able to quickly and smoothly move into new jobs." With most Americans now financing higher education through debt -- about 1 in 8 Americans collectively owe $1.3 trillion on their student loans -- amid an era of sluggish wages, it's unclear whether higher debt burdens will lead to a better economic future.


Wednesday, March 2, 2016

White House Predicts Robots May Take Over Many Jobs That Pay $20 Per Hour

The White House is worried that robots are coming to take your job.

In a report to Congress this week, White House economists forecast an 83 percent chance that workers earning less than $20 per hour will lose their jobs to robots.

Wage earners who receive up to $40 in hourly pay face a 31 percent chance they'll be replaced by robots, while workers who are paid more than $40 an hour face much lower odds -- about 4 percent -- of losing their jobs to automation.

The estimates underscore the myriad threats facing low-wage workers in America, who in recent years have been buffeted by stagnant wages, decreasing employment prospects and higher education costs if they wish to obtain additional credentials in pursuit of better-paying jobs.

In an economy increasingly defined by the yawning gap between rich and poor, White House economists worry that increased automation could exacerbate inequality as the well-paid enjoy the fruits of robot-fueled gains in productivity while everyone else is left to fight for scraps.

One study cited by the White House found that automation has particularly hurt middle-skilled Americans, such as bookkeepers, clerks and some assembly-line workers. A lack of additional training and education opportunities led these workers to settle for lower-skilled positions, and likely lower wages.

Already, the White House noted in its report, most economists reckon that changes in technology are "partially responsible for rising inequality in recent decades."

Robots and other advances in technology are forecast to displace a significant number of blue- and white-collar workers, according to 48 percent of experts surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2014. They also said that robots and so-called digital agents will displace more jobs than they create by 2025.

Many experts surveyed by Pew said they are concerned that the rise of robots and other technological advances "will lead to vast increases in income inequality, masses of people who are effectively unemployable, and breakdowns in the social order."

It's not a new worry. The famed economist John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1930 about "technological unemployment," or the theory that workers could be displaced due to society's ability to improve labor efficiency at a faster rate than finding new uses for labor.

But White House economists said they don't have enough information to judge whether increased automation will help or hurt the U.S. economy. For example, new jobs could emerge to develop and maintain robots or other new forms of technology.

"While industrial robots have the potential to drive productivity growth in the United States, it is less clear how this growth will affect workers," the White House said in its report.

There are two important questions, according to White House economists. First, if robots replace existing workers, will workers have enough bargaining power to share in their employers' newfound gains? Second, will the economy create new jobs fast enough to replace the lost ones?

Falling union membership -- some 11 percent of U.S. workers belonged to a union last year, down from about 20 percent in 1983 -- suggests that workers may not have much power to demand higher wages from employers who are automating them out of a job.

The economy could create enough new, good-paying jobs to help those displaced by robots, but the plight of manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs in recent decades as manufacturers moved abroad suggests that this, too, could be a challenge.

Instead, according to the White House, the key is to maintain a "robust training and education agenda to ensure that displaced workers are able to quickly and smoothly move into new jobs." With most Americans now financing higher education through debt -- about 1 in 8 Americans collectively owe $1.3 trillion on their student loans -- amid an era of sluggish wages, it's unclear whether higher debt burdens will lead to a better economic future.