Easy rider: Can e-bicycles take off in America?

The Faraday Porteur e-bicycle

The Faraday Porteur e-bicycle

As a way to get from here to there, bicycles have a lot to offer. Biking is good for your health. It’s good for the planet. It’s cheaper than driving or public transit. Getting people out of cars and onto bikes eases traffic congestion, too.

But, for a host of reasons, not everyone can bike for transportation. Electric bicycles will expand the number of people who can — by making cycling easier, a bit quicker and less sweaty (which matters if you are commuting to work.)

Outside of the US, electric bicycles are doing really well–much better than electric cars, it turns out. Can they make it America? That’s the topic of my story which has just been published on the excellent YaleEnviromment360 website.

Here’s how it begins:

Most Americans know about Tesla, the Chevy Volt, and the Nissan Leaf. But what about Evelo, the eZip Trailz, and the Faraday Porteur?

The first three are, of course, electric cars. They benefit from a lot of media attention and generous government subsidies, including a $7,500 tax credit for buyers in the United States. The latter are electric bicycles, and they attract neither.

Yet Americans bought as many electric bicycles as they did electric cars last year. About 53,000 electric bicycles were sold, according to Dave Hurst, an analyst with Navigant Research who tracks the industry. Electric car sales came in at 52,835.

Globally, electric bicycles outsell electric cars by a wide margin. An estimated 29.3 million e-bicycles were sold in 2012, with perhaps 90 percent of those selling in China, which has more electric bikes than cars on its roads. E-bicycles are popular in Europe, too, selling about 380,000 a year in Germany and 175,000 in the Netherlands in 2012. By comparison, about 120,000 electric caris were sold worldwide.

You can read the rest of the story here.

I hope electric bicycles find a market here. They should appeal to  young people in bike-friendly cities and to aging baby boomers (like me!) I tested an e-bike from Evelo last week (here’s my account), and I’m hoping to check out some other models soon.

Walmart’s index: A real-life toy story

Is My Little Pony sustainable?

Is My Little Pony sustainable?

This is the third in a series of stories about Walmart’s supplier sustainability index. An overview is here, and a story about flour, bread and agriculture is here. Today’s topic: plastic toys and PVC.

Walmart wants to improve the sustainability of plastic toys. The giant retailer isn’t playing around.

The company wants to improve the safety of workers who make the toys. It wants to make sure that manufacturers are taking steps to use fewer so-called “chemicals of concern” in toys. It would like suppliers to deal with any issues raised when kids outgrow Barbie or GI Joe and throw them away. If paper or wood goes into toy packaging, Walmart wants to know whether it is “sourced in accordance with a credible certification system that addresses ecosystem impacts and biodiversity.”

Some critics think Walmart is taking this too far. That’s what this story is about.

Walmart’s supplier sustainability index, which is being rolled out to thousands of suppliers, is the biggest environmental initiative in the company’s history.  It will likely do enormous good–requiring companies that make consumer products to examine their environmental impacts in ways they have never done before. But the index also raises questions about how the world’s largest retailer (2012 revenues: $469 billion) is exercising its market power.

Is Barbie toxic?

Is Barbie toxic?

Consider, as an example, PVC, or polyvinyl chloride plastic, commonly known as vinyl. It’s a widely-used plastic, and it shows up in toys, including such iconic plastic toys as Hasbro’s My Little Pony and Mattel’s Barbie. It can be made soft or rigid, it’s rugged, moldable, low-cost and excellent at holding color.

What, if anything, is wrong with PVCs? That depends on who you ask. [click to continue...]

John Mackey, and the paradox of profits

conscious capitalism_book coverI’m reading an advance copy of new book  called Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business by John Mackey, the founder and co-Ceo of Whole Foods Market, and business school prof Raj Sisodia. It’s very good, with useful insights on almost every page so far. (I’m only 70 pages in.)

Mackey was a liberal hippie. He’s now a libertarian entrepreneur and cheerleader for capitalism. He’s also a vegan who meditates and practices yoga. Not your typical CEO of a FORTUNE 500 company.

One reason I like the book is that I agree with much of what Mackey says. This passage, about what Mackey and Sisodia call the “paradox of profits,” comes  from a chapter about how purpose, and not profits, is what drives all great companies:

Just as happiness is best experienced by not aiming for it directly, profits are best achieved by not making them the primary goal of the business. They are the outcome when companies do business with a sense of higher purpose, build their businesses on love and caring instead of fear and stress…

If a business seeks only to maximize profits to ensure shareholder value and does not attend to the health of the entire system, short-term profits may indeed result; perhaps lasting many years, depending upon how well its competitor companies are managed. However…without consistent customer satisfaction, team member happiness and commitment, and community support, the short-term profits will proved to be unsustainable over the long term.

The No. 1 competitive advantage of purpose driven companies (or values-driven companies, if you prefer) is that their workers are engaged, as I wrote in my own book, Faith and Fortune: The Quiet Revolution to Reform American Business, back in 2004. Mackey and Sisodia put it this way:

The difference in business impact and personal happiness between a team member who is inspired, passionate, and committed and one who merely shows up for a paycheck is enormous. The blame for this does not lie with ‘lazy and unmotivated’ workers but with companies that fail to create workplaces in which people are given the opportunity to find meaning, purpose and happiness…

They note that people devote enormous amounts of time, money, and effort to causes that often have nothing to do with their narrowly defined self-interest, and say:

To tap this deep wellspring of human motivation, companies need to shift their emphasis from profit maximization to purpose maximization. By recognizing and responding to the hunger for meaning that is a quintessential human companies, companies can unlock vast sources of passion, commitment, creativity and energy that lie largely dormant in their team members.

Makes sense, no? People who care a lot about food, health and the environment can pursue their passions at Whole Foods or Stonyfield Farm. People who love the outdoors can be fulfilled at Patagonia or REI.

Of course, a strong sense of purpose isn’t, by itself,  enough to assure profits. (Look at the newspaper industry.) But it  helps.

This book reminds me that there’s a big opening out there for a bank that is really, truly committed to serving its customers and workers.

Who’s responsible for factory conditions in poor countries? Has CSR gone too far?

garment-factoryJust who is responsible for the fire in a garment factory in Bangladesh that killed more than 100 workers in November?

The factory owner? The government of Bangladesh? US and European brands and retailers who bought the clothes made there? Shoppers who demand the latest styles at low prices?

And who deserves credit for the improvements in working conditions at Foxconn, China’s largest employer and Apple’s biggest supplier?

Apple? The Chinese labor market? Journalists at The New York Times?

Similar questions could be asked about paint factories that discharge pollution into rivers, toy factories that use dangerous chemicals or factories everywhere that run inefficient equipment or burn dirty fuels.

For nearly two decades, a core belief of the social-responsibility movement  has been that western brands and retailers must take responsibility for the social and environmental performance of the factories in their supply chain. This has created an immense infrastructure–an industry, really, of consultants who write codes of conduct for those factories, inspect the factories, report on them and deploy a combination of carrots and sticks that, at least in theory, bring about improved performance.

In essence, US and European brands have become quasi-governmental, undemocratic standards setters and enforcers of social and environmental norms.

So how’s it working? The year just past put a spotlight on a glaring failure of that system–the fire in Bangladesh, where factory conditions in the garment industry are widely deemed to remain unsafe–and on what has been cited as one of its successes–the new transparency of Apple’s supply chain, and the improved conditions at Foxconn, which supplies HP, Sony, Dell and other electronics companies, as well as Apple. [click to continue...]

PackH20: A startup to serve poor women

Haitian-woman

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words.

This picture could turn out to be worth a lot more.

It launched a business that could serve millions of poor women.

The photo was taken after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti by David Fischer, the chief executive of an industrial packaging company called Greif. You probably don’t know Greif but the company, with $4.2 billion in sales last year, has surely packaged something that made its way into your home. It makes steel, plastic, fibre, flexible and corrugated containers,  to ship a variety of products–food, grains, chemicals, ceramics and glassware, furniture, drugs, paints–all over the world.

Now, through a spinoff company called PackH20, Greif has begun to make containers that will make it easier and safer for the world’s poorest women to carry water to their homes.

Last week, I met with Tanya Baskin, the president of PackH20, and Scott Griffin, Greif’s chief sustainability officer, to talk about the new venture. I’m always interested in businesses that aim to solve big social or environmental problems, create jobs and generate wealth–and PackH20 falls squarely into that category.

Pack-BlueThe PackH20 pack is a deceptively simple innovation. It’s made of a durable and flexible polyethylene material that is seven times lighter than the jerry cans (like the one above) often used to tote water around. It’s ergonomic, distributing the weight of five gallons of water–about 42 pounds–across a woman’s back. Its inner liner can be dried and sanitized in the sun. That’s important because the women and children who carry water in poor countries typically do so in cans or buckets that get dirty. A test of jerry cans used by Haitians found more than 90% were contaminated with E.Coli, and 70% previously held oil or  toxic chemicals, according to PackH20.

Scott Griffin, the Greif executive, told me that the idea to make a pack to carry water came to Fisher,  who was volunteering in Haiti, when he snapped the photo. “That was the a-ah moment for Greif,” he said. “We knew we had the capability to design a better product. This is a shipping container, on a very micro level.” [click to continue...]

The point after: Why I’m done with football

If we, as a society, have chosen to keep sugary sodas out of schools, why not football?

That was one of the reactions to yesterday’s blogpost, Why I’m done with football. In the post, I explained why, as a lifelong football fan (and co-author of a book about ABC’s Monday Night Football), I can no longer watch the game. Being a fan of football is being a fan of violence, and self-destruction.

The timing of the post, sadly, was good. It ran on the day when Robert Griffin III, the Redskins’ star rookie quarterback, suffered a mild concussion. “Knocked out, left cold” was the headline atop The Washington Post sports page this morning.

After the blogpost ran, my friend Stuart Kerkhof asked by email:

You made it clear that your decision is personal in that you are simply choosing not to support/watch the sport. Does this mean you are against any government involvement? Does it matter whether it is professional versus amateur? If you think schools shouldn’t sell sugary sodas, certainly they shouldn’t be allowed to sponsor and glorify football?

That’s a tough one. Most people, I think, would be uncomfortable if middle schools and high schools had boxing teams. Is football really all that different?

I had a touching email from a reader named Rob Juneau who stumbled across the blog and suffered his own brain injury, although not from football: [click to continue...]

Why I’m done with football

No one can say that the NFL doesn’t take its corporate responsibility seriously.

NFL teams are putting solar panels on their stadiums.

The NFL supports the fight against breast cancer.

The league’s Play 60 campaign encourages kids to get active.

But the first obligation of a responsible business is to keep its workers safe.

The NFL hasn’t done that. The NFL won’t do that. The NFL can’t do that.

So I’m done with football.* I can’t and won’t watch it anymore.

Partly, this is personal. This summer, I’ve spent lots of time with baseball–my Washington Nationals have had an amazing year–and I need a break from sports. The choice between baseball and football is easy for me. As the late George Carlin said, famously (and you can read the whole routine here):

Football has hitting, clipping, spearing, piling on, personal fouls, late hitting, and unnecessary roughness. Baseball has the sacrifice.

…In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy’s defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! – I hope I’ll be safe at home!

But it’s more than that. Even the casual football fan now knows that he or she is watching a very dangerous game, and not just because of the bone-jangling hits that bring cheering fans to their feet. Evidence is accumulating that extended careers in football, and the repeated blows to the head that they entail, make people sick. Players who sustain concussions are susceptible to long-term brain damage, in the form of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative neurological disease with symptoms similar to Alzheimer’s. Their suffering has evidently  led several ex-players to commit suicides.

[To be sure, more study is needed--for a skeptical view of the football-brain trauma connection, see this, as well as a detailed but informal analysis by Grantland found that football players live longer than baseball players. But I've seen enough to persuade me that football is unavoidably violent and dangerous.]

I wrote about the NFL and brain injury in 2007 and again in 2009 [See The NFL's tobacco moment]. But I remained a fan. I’m not sure why. I think it’s partly because of the way we experience football on TV. The players are hidden under their helmets. They move around on screen like performers in a video game, not flesh-and-blood human beings who are inflicting long-term damage on one another. We don’t think of them as sons and fathers, with wives, children and parents.

But anyone who pays  even casual attention now knows about the pain and suffering that often come after the NFL. Consider: [click to continue...]

Unreal: A better-for-you candy

I’m not a fan of lite beer, low-fat cheese or sugar-free ice cream. If I want to indulge, I’ll go all the way. If not, I’ll abstain.

So I’m not the target audience for Unreal, a new candy company that says it wants to recreate America’s favorite candies–M&M’s, Snickers, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and Milky Way–without the junk. In its effort to “unjunk” candy, Unreal Brands says its candy will have no corn syrup, no partially hydrogenated oils, no artificial colors, flavors and preservatives, no GMOs and less sugar and fewer calories than conventional candy bars.

Unreal has an appealing back story — it was started by a 13-year-old boy — and prominent fans, including NFL star Tom Brady and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. The company says its key ingredients “need to be responsibly sourced, supporting farming communities and preventing destruction of the rain forests.” What’s more, Mats Lederhausen, a former McDonald’s executive who helped launch Chipotle, and is now chair of the the board of Business for Social Responsibility, has invested in the firm. Mats, who runs an investment firm called BeCause, told me by email:

Unreal is one of my favorite examples of a company born out of a “purpose bigger than their product” which as you know is the core of my mission. It attacks a huge social problem that cannot be fought by regulation but rather by developing a better product, free from the “nasties” and marketed to consumers with appeal rather than guilt

So I decided to take a look.

Getting an interview took some doing. A company spokeswoman told me that Unreal hadn’t worked out its “positioning” yet, and an interview scheduled with its CEO, John Burns, a private equity investor, was abruptly cancelled. But a few days later I got on the phone with Adam Melonas, an innovative young chef who practices “progressive cuisine” and, it turns out, was brought into Unreal by Nicky Bronner, the boy who started the company. Nicky got the company started, the story goes, because he loves candy and a couple of years ago, his parents wouldn’t let him eat what he collected on Halloween. Why not, they decided, try to create something better?

Chef Melonas,  who was then working in Madrid, got a phone call one day from Nicky, he told me. They were connected by a British physicist and author named Peter Barham, whose  research interests span polymer physics, penguin conservation and molecular gastronomy.

“The thing that struck me as odd in the beginning was that on the other end of the line was a 13-year-old child,” Adam said, when we spoke. “But I soon realized this was no ordinary 13-year-old. We talked mission, mission, mission and mission. By the end of the conversation, we felt like kindred spirits.”

And the mission was? “It was about better food for a better world,” Adam said.

Adam  flew to Boston, where Nicky lives, and agreed to become a co-founder of Unreal. Later, Carlos Canals, the former chief executive of Tribe, the hummus company,  joined Unreal. Other employees came from Google, Mars and P&G.

I’m not making any of this up.

To be sure, Nicky also had help from his father, Michael Bronner, a wealthy entrepreneur and investor who started a digital advertising company Digitas and a financial-rewards company, UPromise, which were sold for $1 billion and $300 million, respectively, according to The Wall Street Journal. Michael Bronner has introduced Nicky, who is now 15 and home-schooled,  to investors, food scientists and his friends including Tom Brady and his wife, supermodel Gisele Bundchen.

So let’s cut to the chase: How does Unreal taste?

To find out, I asked my nieces and nephews — four of them, ages 10 to 14 – to sample Unreal. (They didn’t have to be asked twice.) The candy got very mixed reviews–some were said to taste better than the conventional alternatives, others didn’t quite measure up. They were put off by the odd hues of the M&M-like candies, which is what you get when you take away artificial colors. Having said that, I thought the Unreal offerings were delicious (maybe because they aren’t as overwhelming sweet as traditional candy) and nothing was left over after our collective tasting. Overall grade: B, or maybe B-plus.

Which is impressive because, as Adam explained, the conventional candy industry “has spent the better part of 50 years engineering ingredients. This was about going back to basics, old-fashioned ingredients that your grandmother would recognize.”

Impressive, too, is the way Unreal has found its way into retailers, as a new brand in a competitive category. It’s being rolled out to more than 30,000 stores, including CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreen’s, Kroger and Ralph’s.

As for the mission, progress there is harder to gauge. On the plus side, Unreal candies have less sugar, less fat, fewer calories and more protein than conventional equivalents, as these side-by-side comparisons show. Other health claims are more questionable. “All ingredients needed to be non-GMO,” the company says, but it doesn’t explain why. Most scientists believe that food with GMO ingredients is perfectly safe to eat. Nor has Unreal take the extra step of buying organic or Fair Trade ingredients. Mars. which, of course, is a much bigger company, has a better-developed sustainability story to tell. [See my blog post, Why Mars is a sustainability leader]

Having said that, if you’re going to buy candy, why not try Unreal?

A question about GMOs for Naked Juice, Silk, Cascadian Farm, Kashi and Honest Tea: Which side are you on, boys?

Naked Juice says it doesn’t use ingredients produced using biotechnology as a matter of principle.

Silk, the company that put soymilk on supermarket shelves, says:

We’re proud to participate in the Non-GMO Project, a no a nonprofit, multi-stakeholder collaboration committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers and providing verified non-GMO choices.

Cascadian Farm (“We were organic before organic was a trend”) assures consumers that “you can know when you see the “certified organic” USDA seal on the front of our package that GMO crops have not been used.”

You’ll hear much the same from Kashi (“seven of our foods are now officially Non-GMO Project Verified“) and Honest Tea, which says:

Honest Tea doesn’t use any Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOS) and supports the idea that more transparent labeling will help consumers make clear choices.

The thing is, each of these upstart brands, which tout their commitment to natural or organic product, and to transparency, is owned by a big food conglomerate that opposes GMO labeling.

Think of it this way: Naked Juice (PepsiCo.), Silk (Dean Foods), Cascadian Farm (General Mills) Kashi (Kellogg) and Honest Tea (Coca-Cola) are like kids who don’t agree with their parents.

These, though, are family arguments with big consequences for food shoppers. Big food and agriculture companies funding a campaign which has raised more than $23 million to defeat California’s Proposition 37, a ballot initiative that would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages. PepsiCo, for example, has donated $1.7 million to defeat Prop. 37, while Coca-Cola has spent more than $1.1 million. Kellogg ($612,000), General Mills ($520,000) and Dean Foods ($253,000) are big donors, too. Biotech companies Monsanto and DuPont have given even more — $4 million apiece — according to data compiled by public TV station KCET. [click to continue...]

Soda, obesity and your tax dollars at work

Should food stamps be used to purchase soda? Here’s what a U.S. Senator said when Congress debated that question:

I do not want to include Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola or any of that family. I like them myself, but I do not believe they should be permitted to be substitutes for milk. They are not valuable for the diet. They can be a waste of money especially for young people. Personally, I think it is a great mistake to include them…

I want to help the poor and hungry and not sacrifice them for Coca-Cola….These have no nutritional value—none at all… Actually, they are bad for kids, rather than good for them. I hesitate to use such language, but the only benefit I can see in the present language is that it will increase the sales of the Coca-Cola and other cola and soft drink companies.

Senator Douglas

That was Paul Douglas, a liberal Democrat from Illinois, speaking in 1964 — decades before Americans began to worry about an obesity epidemic. Of course, he lost the argument, and the food stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, has been used to buy sugary soft drinks (although not alcohol or tobacco or fast-food meals) ever since.

Douglas is quoted in a new report called Food Stamps: Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans? [PDF, download] The report, by Michele Simon, an author, lawyer and consultant whose website is Eat Drink Politics, come as debate is picking up the role of soda in the obesity crisis.

“The federal government should not be fueling America’s epidemic of diet-related chronic disease with taxpayer money,” Simon told Reuters last week.

Her report is timely because SNAP is the biggest title in the five-year $480-billion Farm Bill now on the Senate floor.  SNAP expenditures grew to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier.

It makes some silly points (yes, lots of SNAP money is being spent at Walmart, but so what?) and a couple of useful ones.

First, the government has so far refused to disclose how the SNAP money is being spent, although the data is electronic and should be available. [click to continue...]