• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2172
      • Показать ещё
      Разное635
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы389
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации36
      • Показать ещё
      Издания41
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели79
      • Показать ещё
      Формат33
      Люди100
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
Выбор редакции
25 мая, 16:30

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Alphabet, Morgan Stanley, Abbott, Waste Management, General Mills and Raytheon

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Alphabet, Morgan Stanley, Abbott, Waste Management, General Mills and Raytheon

24 мая, 20:48

Analyst Reports for Alphabet, Morgan Stanley, Abbott & Others

Analyst Reports for Alphabet, Morgan Stanley, Abbott & Others

22 мая, 18:06

Oil Giant Shell Warns U.S. Not To Withdraw From Paris Accord On Climate

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Royal Dutch Shell has issued its starkest warning yet to the Trump administration to not pull out of the Paris Agreement addressing climate change. The Anglo-Dutch oil behemoth said withdrawing from the historic 2015 deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions “would be unhelpful on a number of fronts,” sacrificing diplomatic leverage in international trade deals and impeding U.S. companies. “What I think would happen as a consequence of [withdrawal] is that the U.S. would weaken its own hand by basically uninviting itself from a number of [negotiating] tables,” Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told the Financial Times in an interview published Monday morning. President Donald Trump vowed on the campaign trail to “cancel” the pact, signed by all but two countries. The White House is split on whether to move ahead with that promise, but sources told HuffPost earlier this month he is leaning toward withdrawal. He could announce a decision by next month, after the conclusion of a G7 summit of the world’s most industrialized democracies. U.S. departure from the Paris Agreement would weaken the accord, despite pledges by other countries, including China, to forge ahead, van Beurden said. “The U.S. has a major crop of companies that deliver technologies that are going to be relevant in the energy transition, and one way or another they will also find themselves probably more disadvantaged than advantaged by the U.S. pulling out” of the agreement, he said. “So I cannot see where the upside is.”   Shell did not respond to a request from HuffPost for comment. Most Americans support the agreement, with 61 saying the U.S. should stay in the deal, while just 17 percent supported backing out, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll taken last week. Even deposed Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly urged Trump to keep the U.S. in the pact last November. Most major oil, gas and coal companies, including U.S. giant Exxon Mobil Corp., back the deal. So do a bevy of other corporate titans, such as Walmart, General Mills and DuPont. But Shell may be the pact’s most vocal proponent in the fossil fuel industry. And with good reason ― the company has money on the line. “With the U.S. being the largest investment destination for a company like Shell, yes, I think I would regret having a lot of business here that potentially could be at a disadvantage because of [the] implications of that decision to pull out’’ of the accord, van Beurden said. It takes years, sometimes decades, for oil and gas firms to yield profits on drilling exploration, and the White House has little effect on current investment decisions that van Beurden said would “probably only become economically relevant after the current president’s term.” But he said the company would consider drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, an area Trump reopened to offshore exploration with an executive order last month. Last December, President Barack Obama blocked offshore drilling in the Atlantic and the Arctic oceans with an executive order the Trump administration has since reversed. In 2015, Shell failed to find a big enough oil reserve in the waters off Alaska, and van Beurden said the company would not return to the region. “Arctic offshore? No. We’re done with that,” he said. “We had our episode there. We know what it takes, how difficult it can get.” Shell’s loud opposition to a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement comes amid a growing fight at the United Nations over fossil fuel companies’ role in climate negotiations. Environmental groups and negotiators from developing countries most at risk from climate change proposed new rules on lobbying and conflicts of interest that could limit the corporate presence at the talks. Big companies cannot participate directly in the negotiations, but nearly 300 industry groups attended the talks this month in Bonn, Germany, potentially influencing the scope of regulations and agreements developed there. “With the U.S. being the largest investment destination for a company like Shell, yes, I think I would regret having a lot of business here that potentially could be at a disadvantage ... Proponents of the new guidelines cite the exclusion of cigarette companies from the global tobacco treaty that came to fruition in 2003. Fossil fuel firms play a much more critical role in the global economy than tobacco companies, so the situations are not perfectly analogous. Tobacco firms spent years undermining studies that linked smoking to lung cancer and other diseases, and negotiators disqualified the companies from joining treaty talks based on admissions that they covered up evidence. Shell publicly denied fossil fuels’ role in global warming for years, but a corporate film, published by a Dutch news site last February, showed that the company understood the link between burning oil and climate change as far back as 1991. Still, Shell has more of a stake in a low-carbon future than cigarette companies do in ending the smoking epidemic. “Successful outcomes of climate policymaking will have a big impact on the fossil fuel industry,” Lawrence-Samuel, international policy director at the watchdog group Corporate Accountability International, told HuffPost. “We have to be realistic and recognize that economies are largely dependent on the fossil fuel industry still.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=591f1134e4b03b485cb119cf,5908f524e4b05c397683d404,582e0043e4b058ce7aa9c938,590a0729e4b02655f8433860,58b5e9ade4b0a8a9b786d428 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 мая, 18:06

Oil Giant Shell Warns U.S. Not To Withdraw From Paris Accord On Climate

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Royal Dutch Shell has issued its starkest warning yet to the Trump administration to not pull out of the Paris Agreement addressing climate change. The Anglo-Dutch oil behemoth said withdrawing from the historic 2015 deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions “would be unhelpful on a number of fronts,” sacrificing diplomatic leverage in international trade deals and impeding U.S. companies. “What I think would happen as a consequence of [withdrawal] is that the U.S. would weaken its own hand by basically uninviting itself from a number of [negotiating] tables,” Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told the Financial Times in an interview published Monday morning. President Donald Trump vowed on the campaign trail to “cancel” the pact, signed by all but two countries. The White House is split on whether to move ahead with that promise, but sources told HuffPost earlier this month he is leaning toward withdrawal. He could announce a decision by next month, after the conclusion of a G7 summit of the world’s most industrialized democracies. U.S. departure from the Paris Agreement would weaken the accord, despite pledges by other countries, including China, to forge ahead, van Beurden said. “The U.S. has a major crop of companies that deliver technologies that are going to be relevant in the energy transition, and one way or another they will also find themselves probably more disadvantaged than advantaged by the U.S. pulling out” of the agreement, he said. “So I cannot see where the upside is.”   Shell did not respond to a request from HuffPost for comment. Most Americans support the agreement, with 61 saying the U.S. should stay in the deal, while just 17 percent supported backing out, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll taken last week. Even deposed Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly urged Trump to keep the U.S. in the pact last November. Most major oil, gas and coal companies, including U.S. giant Exxon Mobil Corp., back the deal. So do a bevy of other corporate titans, such as Walmart, General Mills and DuPont. But Shell may be the pact’s most vocal proponent in the fossil fuel industry. And with good reason ― the company has money on the line. “With the U.S. being the largest investment destination for a company like Shell, yes, I think I would regret having a lot of business here that potentially could be at a disadvantage because of [the] implications of that decision to pull out’’ of the accord, van Beurden said. It takes years, sometimes decades, for oil and gas firms to yield profits on drilling exploration, and the White House has little effect on current investment decisions that van Beurden said would “probably only become economically relevant after the current president’s term.” But he said the company would consider drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, an area Trump reopened to offshore exploration with an executive order last month. Last December, President Barack Obama blocked offshore drilling in the Atlantic and the Arctic oceans with an executive order the Trump administration has since reversed. In 2015, Shell failed to find a big enough oil reserve in the waters off Alaska, and van Beurden said the company would not return to the region. “Arctic offshore? No. We’re done with that,” he said. “We had our episode there. We know what it takes, how difficult it can get.” Shell’s loud opposition to a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement comes amid a growing fight at the United Nations over fossil fuel companies’ role in climate negotiations. Environmental groups and negotiators from developing countries most at risk from climate change proposed new rules on lobbying and conflicts of interest that could limit the corporate presence at the talks. Big companies cannot participate directly in the negotiations, but nearly 300 industry groups attended the talks this month in Bonn, Germany, potentially influencing the scope of regulations and agreements developed there. “With the U.S. being the largest investment destination for a company like Shell, yes, I think I would regret having a lot of business here that potentially could be at a disadvantage ... Proponents of the new guidelines cite the exclusion of cigarette companies from the global tobacco treaty that came to fruition in 2003. Fossil fuel firms play a much more critical role in the global economy than tobacco companies, so the situations are not perfectly analogous. Tobacco firms spent years undermining studies that linked smoking to lung cancer and other diseases, and negotiators disqualified the companies from joining treaty talks based on admissions that they covered up evidence. Shell publicly denied fossil fuels’ role in global warming for years, but a corporate film, published by a Dutch news site last February, showed that the company understood the link between burning oil and climate change as far back as 1991. Still, Shell has more of a stake in a low-carbon future than cigarette companies do in ending the smoking epidemic. “Successful outcomes of climate policymaking will have a big impact on the fossil fuel industry,” Tamar Lawrence-Samuel, international policy director at the watchdog group Corporate Accountability International, told HuffPost. “We have to be realistic and recognize that economies are largely dependent on the fossil fuel industry still.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=591f1134e4b03b485cb119cf,5908f524e4b05c397683d404,582e0043e4b058ce7aa9c938,590a0729e4b02655f8433860,58b5e9ade4b0a8a9b786d428 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

19 мая, 20:16

A Majority Of Americans Wants Trump To Stay In The Paris Agreement

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); By next month, President Donald Trump will decide the future of the Paris Agreement, the historic climate deal signed by all but two countries. He pledged during his campaign to “cancel” the accord, which commits the United States to cutting planet-warming emissions, and sources told HuffPost he is leaning toward pulling out. But a majority of the country wants the U.S. to remain in the pact, according to HuffPost/YouGov poll taken this week. Sixty-one percent of Americans said the country should stay in the agreement, while just 17 percent supported withdrawing. Another 21 percent said they were unsure. The ratio reflects the overwhelming support the Paris Agreement has among big players trying to influence the president’s decision. Within the administration, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and familial White House advisers Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump support keeping the U.S. in the deal. Corporate giants, including Walmart, General Mills and DuPont, as well as coal companies and oil majors BP, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell, urged Trump to support the accord. Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups, naturally, are on that list, too. The vocal minority that opposes the deal includes Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, hard-line chief strategist Steve Bannon and a bevy of House Republicans. “The majority of members of the House Republicans would not cry if we left the Paris accords. I think it would be a large majority of our conference,” Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the environment subcommittee under the Energy and Commerce Committee, told Axios. Quitting the Paris Agreement could have major economic consequences. The United Nations warned that the U.S. would lose jobs in the rapidly-growing clean energy industry ― estimated to be worth $6 trillion by 2030 ― to Europe, India and China. Countries that tax emissions could put a tariff on American-made imports. And even if Trump pulls out of the pact, big companies expect future U.S. leadership to regulate carbon at some point, and procrastinating the inevitable by ditching the deal only sows the sort of instability to which investors are generally averse. Abandoning the agreement, which the U.S. took a lead role in brokering, would brand the nation as a 'rogue country' and a 'climate pariah.' The diplomatic effects could be worse. Only Nicaragua and war-ravaged Syria are not included in the accord. Abandoning the agreement, which the U.S. took a lead role in brokering, would brand the nation as a “rogue country” and a “climate pariah,” diplomats have said. Without a seat at the table, the U.S. would lose leverage over policy action on global warming. Plus, the U.S. risks ceding global influence to rival superpower China, which has vowed to support poorer countries’ efforts to adapt to climate change. Refusing to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions places a huge bet on a tiny and frequently-debunked segment of researchers and policymakers who argue that climate change may not be closely linked to human activity or that its effects won’t be as bad as current forecasts predict. That’s a risk the majority of Americans don’t want to take. Fifty-nine percent said the climate is changing as a result of humans’ burning fossil fuels, industrial farming and deforestation, the HuffPost/YouGov survey found. That compares to 21 percent who said climate change is not linked to human activity, and just 6 percent who argued the climate hasn’t changed at all. Just over half the country ― 51 percent ― said the U.S. is not taking a leadership role in addressing climate change, and 58 percent said it should. For context, 20 percent said the U.S. is leading the charge, and 22 percent said it ought to take a backseat role. Another 29 percent weren’t sure where the country stood, and 20 percent remained undecided on what kind of role the U.S. should play. ​ The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted May 15-17 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. HuffPost has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls.You can learn moreabout this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. Data from all HuffPost/YouGov polls can be found here. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here. Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some, but not all, potential survey errors. YouGov’s reports include a model-based margin of error, which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample, rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling. If these assumptions are wrong, the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate. Click here for a more detailed explanation of the model-based margin of error. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58dec29ae4b0b3918c837cca,58dc412ae4b05eae031d0199,5909ee4ce4b02655f842f072,5908f524e4b05c397683d404,5919c109e4b0fe039b3646ca -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
17 мая, 07:00

5 «голубых фишек», которым не место в вашем портфеле

Бретт Оуэнс, главный инвестиционный стратег Contrarian Outlook о том, что плохого в акциях Wal-Mart, Kellog, General Mills, IBM и Ford.

16 мая, 14:03

Tuesday's Morning Email: Breaking Down Trump's Reported Classified Disclosure To The Russians

TOP STORIES (And want to get The Morning Email each weekday? Sign up here.) TRUMP REPORTEDLY REVEALED HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DURING MEETING WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS President Donald Trump allegedly discussed information that “jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State,” according to The Washington Post during a meeting last week with Russian officials. The newspaper withheld the specific details discussed in order not to further jeopardize the intelligence. And here’s everything you need to know about declassification. [HuffPost] CRITICS PILED ON ACROSS THE AISLE GOP Sen. Bob Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said the White House needed to reverse its “downward spiral.” House Speaker Paul Ryan put out a statement asking for a full explanation from the administration. Democrats fumed, with Sen. Mark Warner calling this a “slap in the face to the intel community.” The former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Dan Rather and Twitter also weighed in. [HuffPost] NORTH KOREA SUSPECTED IN GLOBAL RANSOMWARE ATTACK Although the investigation is far from over. [Reuters] U.S. ACCUSES ASSAD REGIME OF BUILDING CREMATORIUM In the Sednaya prison to cover up mass murders. [HuffPost] WHY POSSIBLE 2020 CANDIDATES ARE SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON ONLINE ADS “The opportunity is there to get out of the traditional fundraising rat race and to make a direct appeal to donors on a widely distributed small-dollar basis.” [HuffPost] EXPERTS PUSH TO END LEAD POISONING BY 2021 After all, nearly 3,000 areas in the U.S. have higher lead poisoning rates than Flint. [HuffPost] EVEN ANN COULTER CAME FOR TRUMP “Everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque,” she told The Daily Caller in an interview Sunday. “I’m not very happy with what has happened so far,” Coulter added. “I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But ... if he doesn’t keep his promises I’m out.” [HuffPost] WHAT’S BREWING CALLING ALL AVID MORNING EMAIL READERS! We’re giving away an Amazon Echo to three lucky winners who correctly answer the question below. To enter for a chance to win, please send your answer [email protected] will be chosen at random. Check out the official rules and legal stuff here. North Korea’s latest missile launch landed 60 miles south of what region of Russia? LOVE (ON REALITY TV) IS DEAD Ben Higgins and Lauren Bushnell from season 20 of “The Bachelor” have called it quits. [HuffPost] THIS OFFICER OVERDOSED ON FENTANYL Just by brushing it off of his shirt. [HuffPost] HACKERS STOLE THE LATEST ‘PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN’ And are demanding a massive ransom from Disney. [Deadline] GENERAL MILLS IS GIVING AWAY 10,000 BOXES OF ONLY MARSHMALLOW LUCKY CHARMS And they’re going full-scale Willy Wonka to do it. [HuffPost] WINTER ISN’T COMING FAST ENOUGH So now we get a fifth “Game of Thrones” spinoff. [HuffPost] BEFORE YOU GO Trump has dramatically expanded the “global gag rule” on abortion. This mom gave up her life on Mother’s Day to save her daughter. Sean Hannity wants to get rid of the daily White House press briefing as you know it. The New York Daily News cover is brutal to Trump this morning. How the White House tries to prevent fake news from reaching the president. Abby Wombach has married Christian mommy blogger Glennon Doyle Melton. We’re mildly obsessed with these teeny-tiny gourmet meals. Stranded on a stopped Amtrak train? Your pizza guy will save you. Possibly the scariest part of “The Handmaid’s Tale”? The fact theydisregard the rules for Scrabble. This woman carried twins for her sister, who had suffered nine miscarriages. What it’s like when the guinea worm living in your body burrows out. TV nerds, rejoice: All the trailers for the 2017 pilot season are trickling in. Check out the most beautiful colleges in each state ― we’re biased about the winner for D.C. Of course Russian President Vladimir Putin whipped out his piano skills while casually waiting to speak with the president of China. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

15 мая, 16:30

Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: General Mills, Procter & Gamble, Church & Dwight, Kraft Heinz and Tyson Foods

Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: General Mills, Procter & Gamble, Church & Dwight, Kraft Heinz and Tyson Foods

12 мая, 22:43

Consumer Staples Stock Outlook - May 2017

Consumer Staples Stock Outlook - May 2017

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
04 мая, 17:52

General Mills shares up 6.8% in Thursday trading

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

04 мая, 14:30

Kraft Heinz (KHC) Q1 Earnings & Sales Fall Shy of Estimates

The Kraft Heinz Company (KHC) posted first-quarter 2017 results wherein both earnings and revenues missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate.

04 мая, 07:05

19 Favorite ’90s Foods You Can’t Buy Anymore

Want to take a walk down memory lane? Check out the best 1990s foods, snacks, candy, and desserts that you can't find at the grocery store anymore.

04 мая, 00:19

Are You Beating the Market This Year?

Are You Beating the Market This Year?

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
03 мая, 16:03

General Mills names Jeffrey Harmening CEO, effective June 1

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
03 мая, 16:03

General Mills CEO Ken Powell to retire within the next year after about 10 years in the role

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

26 апреля, 11:33

Why Is General Mills (GIS) Down 1.9% Since the Last Earnings Report?

General Mills (GIS) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the company? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.

21 апреля, 14:30

There’s a Leadership Vacuum on Climate Change. Business Should Fill It

NASA/JSC This Earth Day is different. The world’s largest economy is governed by a president who has called global warming an “expensive hoax” on multiple occasions. He has threatened to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement, and appointed a head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who as recently as last month has reported not believing that human activity or carbon dioxide are primary contributors to climate change, contradicting 150 years of basic physics and decades of scientific consensus. The Trump administration has proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by over 30%, and the agency’s staff by 15,000 jobs. This major shift in the executive branch’s attitude toward climate change leaves a big void in the U.S.’s — and the world’s — environmental stewardship, one that the private sector must fill. Every Earth Day it’s tempting to write that “every day is Earth Day” and that we need to protect our shared resources. It’s trite…because it’s true, of course. A stable climate, clean air, clean water, safe food, and on and on, are not just nice-to-haves, but are critical for our well-being. Yet it seems to surprise many in the “environmental regulations kill business” camp that these basic biophysical supports for life also support business. We could endlessly debate the merits of the costs and benefits of specific regulations, but at the macro level, a law as important as the Clean Air Act not only is not expensive — it’s probably the most profitable regulation in human history. Some sectors and companies bear more of the up-front expense of tackling carbon emissions, with the energy sector being the most obvious one. But many studies have estimated that the reduction in health care costs saves the economy, and thus all companies and citizens within that economy, tens of trillions of dollars. And that’s just direct health care benefits. There’s much more to keeping the economy clean. It’s increasingly strange to have to say this, but workers struggling to breathe are not productive, places without access to safe water, like Flint, Michigan — not to mention 3,000 other U.S. counties where lead rates are even higher — have trouble building a strong economy, and people in cities fighting rising seas or extreme drought do not make great customers. In short, the economy can’t thrive if people and the planet suffer. Weakening air, water, and climate protection is a lot like smoking two packs a day and eating mostly sugar, and then wondering why you feel awful. And yet this administration seems hell-bent on allowing our air to become less clean (when 40% of us already live in areas with “unhealthful levels of ozone (smog) or particle pollution”), allowing toxic pesticides to remain in our food system, and allowing our burgeoning climate collapse to accelerate. (For example, the Great Barrier Reef is dying fast, a harbinger of a dead global coral system, which could cost the world a trillion dollars and make the planet noticeably less rich and vital.) Even though many people around Trump are telling him to go slow on pulling the U.S. from the global climate agreement, his clear disdain for climate discussions sends a dangerous signal to the world. Business leaders can choose to send a different signal. The week of Earth Day has always been a time for business to come out in support of the planet. For years, it was mainly about employees volunteering to plant some trees, but as companies have grown more sophisticated about the role of sustainability in their strategies, and about the dangers and opportunities in a changing climate, their announcements have gotten bigger and bolder. Just this week, three large companies demonstrated serious commitments to reducing emissions across their value chains (where most companies’ emissions lie): Walmart announced that it would ask suppliers to reduce greenhouse gases by 1 billion tons by 2030. And while 1 billion is only a fraction of global emissions, which run in the 40-billion-ton range annually, it’s a lot for one company to take responsibility for. It’s 50 times Walmart’s 2010 supply chain goal, and it sets a high bar for others to aspire to. Apple, which already sources renewable energy for nearly all its operations, announced that three more suppliers were committing to 100% renewable energy. (Disclosure: I’ve done paid speaking for executives at Walmart and Apple.) Swedish clothing giant H&M set a “carbon positive” goal for its entire supply chain by 2040. In apparel, this is more than aggressive. These announcements follow some greenhouse gas goals that food giants General Mills and Kellogg set for their supply chains last year. And even without the added element of supply chain targets, there are now hundreds of large companies with science-based carbon targets or 100% renewable energy goals. I realize that many firms are fighting for environmental protection with one hand and trying to claw back environmental rules with the other. For example, the major auto companies are investing in new technologies and electric vehicles while asking the Trump administration to weaken fuel efficiency standards. But companies have some new opportunities to let the world know where they stand. The next week will be bookended by two big marches on Washington. Scientists, feeling pressured by anti-fact rhetoric on many issues, have organized a March for Science on Earth Day (the need to publicly say “science matters” is terribly sad, but apparently it’s necessary these days). A week later, there will be a Climate March, on April 29, and hundreds of thousands are expected to march in different cities around the country. So far, companies have been more comfortable supporting the science march, but even though some anti-corporate rhetoric will be on display at the climate event, companies should stiffen their spines and step into the fray. (Here are 16 ways companies can support the climate march.) I realize that some CEOs will see speaking out in favor of environmental protection as a partisan issue, especially in our politically charged environment. But the science on this isn’t blue or red, and the needs of customers, suppliers, and shareholders are clear. GE CEO Jeff Immelt framed some recent remarks along these lines, saying, “We believe climate change is real and the science is well accepted. Our customers, partners, and countries are demanding technology that generates power while reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, and reducing cost.” I hope more business leaders in the U.S. will follow his lead. A growing understanding that they need climate protection to save their physical assets, supply chains, and the economy at large should be significant motivation to step out. And the quicker they realize that an administration that impedes progress toward a clean economy is not serving their interests, the faster they’ll rush to fill a leadership vacuum — before their global competitors do.

02 сентября 2014, 04:21

10 компаний контролирующих мировую пищевую индустрию

  В сельском хозяйстве и пищевой промышленности занято более одного миллиарда человек в мире или треть всей рабочей силы. И хоть данный сектор играет ключевую роль в жизни человечества, как это ни парадоксально, его контролируют крайне небольшое число транснациональных компаний. Согласно докладу компании Oxfam International, 10 компаний, специализирующихся на производстве продуктов питания и напитков, могут формировать продуктовую корзину большей части населения планеты, влиять на их условия труда, а также окружающую среду.  Associated British Foods Выручка: $21,1 млрд Расходы на рекламу: неизвестно Прибыль: $837 млн Сотрудники: 112,6 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Лондон, Великобритания  Associated British Foods – это британская компания-производитель продуктов питания, которой удалось выстроить глобальную сеть с помощью приобретений. В результате постоянного прироста за счет покупки новых компаний, Associated British Foods производит практически все виды продовольствия, начиная от сахара, заканчивая кукурузным маслом и чаем. ABF один из основных поставщиков важных пищевых ингредиентов, в том числе эмульгаторов, ферментов и лактозы.   Coca-Cola Сo. Выручка: $46,9 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $3,0 млрд Прибыль: $8,6 млрд Сотрудники: 130,6 тыс. Штаб-квартира: тланта, Джорджия, США  Coca-Cola является одним из самых дорогих брендов в мире. Совокупный объем продаж в 2013 финансовом году в стоимостном выражении превысил отметку $47 млрд. Coca-Cola Сo. крупнейший мировой производитель и поставщик концентратов, сиропов и безалкогольных напитков. Крупнейшим акционером этой компании является фонд Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (8,61%), контролируемый легендарным инвестором Уорреном Баффетом.   Groupe Danone Выручка: $29,3 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,2 млрд Прибыль: $2,0 млрд Сотрудники: 104,6 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Париж, Франция  Французская компания Groupe Danone имеет обладает колоссальным присутствием в во всем мире. Его крупнейшим рынком, по объемам продаж, является Россия, далее следуют Франция, США, Китай и Индонезия. Компания является крупнейшим в мире продавцом свежих молочных продуктов, больше половины от всего объема продаж данной продукции в мире в 2013 году пришлось на Groupe Danone.   General Mills Выручка: $17,9 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,1 млрд Прибыль: $1,8 млрд Сотрудники: 43 тыс./LI] Штаб-квартира: Голден-Вэлли, Миннесота, США  Компания General Mills владеет рядом одних из наиболее известных американских брендов, таких как Pillsbury, Colombo Yogurt, Betty Crocker, «Зеленный великан». Производственные мощности компании размещены в 15 странах, однако, продукция реализуется более чем в 100. Полоска продукции компании невероятно широкая : хлопья для завтрака, йогурт, замороженное тесто, консервированные супы, пицца, мороженое, соевые продукты, овощи, мука и др.   Kellogg Выручка: $14,8 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,1 млрд Прибыль: $1,8 млрд Сотрудники: 30,2 тысячи Штаб-квартира: Батл-Крик, Мичиган, США  Американская компания Kellogg зарабатывает меньше всех среди пищевых гигантов, по итогам 2013 года объем выручки составил лишь $15 млрд. Kellogg является одним из крупнейших в мире хлебообработчиков и производителей печенья. Компания специализируется на производстве сухих завтраков и продуктов питания быстрого приготовления.   Mars Выручка: $33,0 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $2,2 млрд Прибыль: нет данных Сотрудники: 75 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Маклин, Виргиния, США  Из всех компаний, представленных в данном списке, Mars –единственная, которая находится в частной собственности. Mars владеет такими "шоколадными" брендами, как M&Ms, Milky Way, Snickers и Twix. Компания владеет продовольственными брендами, такими как Uncle Ben's, а также производителем жевательных резинок и конфет Wrigley.   Mondelez Выручка: $35,3 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,9 млрд Прибыль: $3,9 млрд Сотрудники: 107 тысяч Штаб-квартира: Дирфилд, Иллинойс, США  Компания Mondelez появилась в результате разделения пищевого гиганта Kraft Foods. Во время разделения мировые бренды (Oreo, TUC, Cadbury, Milka, Alpen Gold, Jacobs) достались Mondelez, вто время как американские - Kraft Foods Group. По итогам прошлого года, выручка компании составила $35 млрд выручки при капитализации более чем $72 млрд.   Nestle Выручка: $103,5 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $3,0 млрд Прибыль: $11,2 млрд Сотрудники: 333 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Веве, Швейцария  Nestle по всем показателям является крупнейшей пищевой компанией в мире. Выручка компании за прошлый год составила 92 млрд швейцарских франков. Компания производит растворимый кофе, минеральную воду, шоколад, мороженое, бульоны, молочные продукты, детское питание, корм для домашних животных, фармацевтическую продукцию и косметику. Более 2000 товарных знаков на 461 фабрике в 83 странах мира.   PepsiCo Выручка: $66,4 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $2,5 млрд Прибыль: $6,7 млрд Сотрудники: 274 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Пёрчейз, Нью-Йорк, США  Помимо известных "содовых" брендов, PepsiCo владеет рядом продуктовых торговых марок, таких как Tostitos, Doritos, Quaker. Более того, компания является крупнейшим рекламодателем в мире, расходы компании в этой области в 2012 году превысили $2,5 млрд.   История вопроса Выручка: $68,5 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $7,4 млрд Прибыль: $6,7 млрд Сотрудники: 174,3 тысячи Штаб-квартира: Лондон, Великобритания и Роттердам, Голландия  Unilever трудно назвать пищевой компанией, так как большую часть ее прдуктовой линейки представляют средства личной гигиены и бытовая химия. Однако, на еду и напитки проходится более трети выручки. По итогом прошлого года выручка компании составила 50 млрд евро. Компания владеет такими брендами, как Lipton, Brooke Bond, Calve, Rama, Creme Bonjour и другие.