We have written frequently about the internal Clinton Foundation power struggle between Chelsea Clinton and Doug Band over the previous couple of weeks (see here, here and here). It all started back in 2011 when, as Chelsea started to take a more senior role at the Clinton Foundation, she became increasingly concerned about an internal audit that exposed glaring conflicts of interest throughout the Foundation with an emphasis on Doug Band and his company, Teneo, who she thought had inappropriately sought favors from the State Department during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. A Politico article from March 2015, summarized Chelsea's rise at the Foundation and how it threatened some long-time Clinton allies who had grown quite accustomed to the status quo. But Chelsea Clinton’s rise at times has seemed to threaten some veteran Clinton aides who had carved out influential—and lucrative—positions after long service with her parents. She is blamed in some quarters for marginalizing both Lindsey and Doug Band, who rose from the president’s body man to build and help run the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative. A third Clinton veteran, Ira Magaziner, saw his portfolio at the foundation diminished during Braverman’s tenure, and sources say Magaziner’s role remains under scrutiny. Now, new WikiLeaks emails reveal additional details behind the the man, Eric Braverman, who was brought in as CEO by Chelsea to change the controversial practices of the Foundation but abruptly resigned a short time later after being pushed out by long-time Clinton loyalists who had apparently grown very comfortable with the status quo. Below is the new email exchange which begins when Neera Tanden warns John Podesta to "keep tabs on Doug Band" who she assumed was the insider who told NBC to "follow the money and find the real HRC scandal." Interestingly, John Podesta writes back quickly to identify the real source as former Clinton Foundation CEO Eric Braverman which seems to be shocking to Tanden who replies simply, "Holy Moses." So who is Eric Braverman? The following excerpts from a Politico article offer the best summary of Braverman and his efforts, as a newly installed CEO, to breakup the Clinton Foundation scandal machine only to be pushed out by Clinton loyalists after only a year and a half in his new position. In December , the board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation approved a salary of more than $395,000, plus bonus, for its Yale-educated CEO, Eric Braverman, while voting to extend his board term through 2017, according to sources familiar with the arrangement. Braverman, who had worked with Chelsea Clinton at the prestigious McKinsey & Company consultancy, had been brought in with the former first daughter’s support to help impose McKinsey-like management rigor to a foundation that had grown into a $2 billion charitable powerhouse. But in January, only weeks after the board's show of support and just a year and a half after Braverman arrived, he abruptly resigned, and sources tell Politico his exit stemmed partly from a power struggle inside the foundation between and among the coterie of Clinton loyalists who have surrounded the former president for decades and who helped start and run the foundation. Some, including the president’s old Arkansas lawyer Bruce Lindsey, who preceded Braverman as CEO, raised concerns directly to Bill Clinton about the reforms implemented by Braverman, according to sources, and felt themselves marginalized by the growing influence of Chelsea Clinton and the new CEO she had helped recruit. The previously untold saga of Braverman’s brief, and occasionally fraught tenure trying to navigate the Clintons’ insular world highlights the challenges the family has faced trying to impose rigorous oversight onto a vast global foundation that relies on some of the same loyal megadonors Hillary Clinton will need for the presidential run sources have said she is all but certain to launch later this year. Already, a spate of recent news stories in Politico and elsewhere have highlighted questions about the foundation’s aggressive fundraising both before and during Braverman’s tenure, including the news that the foundation had been accepting contributions from foreign governments with lax oversight from the State Department when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The foundation has been Clinton’s main public platform since she left State in February 2013. The hiring a few months later of Braverman, who had been a partner in McKinsey’s Washington office, was seen as validation of Chelsea Clinton’s view that the foundation needed to address recommendations from a 2011 audit for tighter governance and budgeting, as well as more comprehensive policies to vet donors and avoid conflicts of interest. When Braverman arrived to replace Lindsey as CEO, he moved quickly to adopt the auditor’s recommendations, and then some. He diversified the foundation’s board beyond the Clintons and their longtime political allies and restructured its finance department. He oversaw the creation of a $250 million endowment and implemented data-driven analytics to measure the effectiveness of foundation programs. No public explanation was offered for Braverman’s resignation. Of course, given that the email exchange between Podesta and Tanden, and the following tweet from NBC's Joe Scarborough, occurred just days after Braverman was relieved of his duties in March 2015 it does seem likely that he was the "source close to the Clintons" who told Ron Fournier "to follow the money and find the real HRC scandal." "@JoeNBC: A source close to the Clintons tell @ron_fournier to "follow the money" and find the real HRC scandal. http://t.co/lPTQY0L0o4" Ironically, Braverman's resignation also came shortly after the following email from Huma Abedin showing that Hillary directly approached the King of Morocco to host a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. In return, the King had promised "$12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting." Huma concludes her email by saying "she [Hillary] created this mess and she knows it." So was this the questionable "contribution from foreign governments with lax oversight" that ultimately caused Braverman to resign? More importantly, where is Eric Braverman now? Clearly, at one point, Braverman expressed some interest in exposing the deep corruption within the Clinton Foundation...now, with all of the new WikiLeaks disclosures, would seem like an opportune time to do just that.
Authored by Danielle DiMartino Booth, More haunting even than the terrified screams of lambs being led was the silence that followed their slaughter. Such was the searing pain of relentless recollection for FBI agent Clarice Starling, the tortured lead played to Oscar perfection by Jodie Foster. In an agonizingly whispered scene that has forever left its imprint on the minds of horrified audiences, we hear the bleating of Starling’s long-dead tormentors. Clarice’s hushed revelations to Hannibal reveal a desperate act by her young orphaned self. Unable to bear the horror, she’s running away from the bloodbath of spring lambs being slaughtered and her cousin’s sheep ranch. Desperate to do something, anything, she struggles to drive them from their pens to freedom: “I tried to free them…I opened the gate of their pen – but they wouldn’t run. They just stood there confused. They wouldn’t run…” A recent, reluctant re-viewing of the film, only the third in history to win the “Big Five” Oscars, Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director and Screenplay, fed fresh food for thought. The image of captives rejecting their freedom brought to mind another flock of corralled and stunned lambs — bond market investors. They too have been given the opportunity to escape their fate. But so many choose instead to stay. Such is the reality of a world devoid of options, with time ticking ruthlessly by. Against the cynical backdrop of bulls and bears manipulating data to plead their case, Salient Partners’ Ben Hunt’s insights stand out for their indisputability. In his latest missive he points to one chart that’s incapable of being “fudged,” to borrow his term – that of U.S. household net worth over time vis-à-vis U.S. nominal gross domestic product. Suffice it to say we’re farther off trend than we were even during the dotcom and housing manias. Hunt asks in what should be rhetoric but is lost on so many: “Is it possible for the growth of household wealth to outstrip the growth of our entire economy? In short bursts or to a limited extent, sure. But it can’t diverge by a lot and for a long time. We can’t be a lot richer than our economy can grow.” And yet we are. The culprit, which too few identify as such, is runaway asset price inflation led by debt markets that have grown to be unfathomably immense in size and scope. At $100 trillion, the size of the global bond market eclipses that of the $64 trillion stock market. A bigger discussion for another day comes from McKinsey data that tell us the worldwide credit market is over $200 trillion in size. Zero in on Corporate America and you really start to get a picture of pernicious growth. According to New Albion Partners’ Brian Reynolds, U.S. commercial paper and corporate bonds have swelled by $3.1 trillion, or 63 percent, since the 2008 financial crisis. “This compares to nominal GDP growth of only 27 percent, so we are leveraging the heck out of the economy.” For a bit more historic context, consider that U.S firms are more levered today than they were at the precipice of the financial crisis. According to Moody’s data, the median debt/earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is five times today vs. 4.2-times in 2008 for high yield companies. For comparison purposes, investment grade companies’ median debt/EBITDA is 2.6-times today compared to 2.2-times in 2008. Michael Lewitt, the leading authority on all things credit and creator of The Credit Strategist, worries that companies are sitting on this pile of debt with not much more to show for it than, well, being in hock up to their eyeballs. “Much of this debt was incurred for unproductive purposes – buybacks, dividends to private equity owners, etc. – rather than for things that grow these businesses. Many high yield companies are not generating much, if any, free cash flow and are dependent on the ability to roll over their debt.” On that count, there’s trouble brewing. Moody’s publishes a Refunding Index which gauges the bond market’s ability to absorb high yield bonds maturing over the next 12 and 36-month periods at the current pace of issuance. In the quarter ending in September, the one-year index was down 50 percent over the prior year while that of the three-year index was off by 40 percent continuing a protracted two-year slide. In dollar figures, three-year high yield maturities are up 45 percent year-over-year; they now total $156 billion vs. $108 billion a year ago. The flip side of these coins is that issuance is down by $13 billion. “Debt maturities continue to increase at a rapid rate and are expected to rise to historic peaks within the next couple of years,” said Moody’s Senior Analyst Tiina Siilaberg. “And defaults are getting up there. Along with weak refinancing conditions, default rates for US speculative-grade issuers have been above five percent since May and ended at 5.4 percent in September. This compares to just 1.9% in May 2015.” Siilaberg expects defaults to peak at six percent in the coming months. We can only hope Siilaberg is not being overly optimistic. A separate data set released by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) tallies the “weakest links,” or companies that are 10-times more likely than the broad high yield universe to default. In September, this count hit a seven-year high. For the moment, with an eye on recovering oil prices, investors seem to be operating under the assumption that stress in the pipeline is dissipating. Fair enough. But only one-quarter of the weakest links are energy firms. Chances are defaults, already at the highest level since 2009, will continue to climb. As for the much bigger investment grade (IG) market, it’s not an energy story but rather one entangling the financial sector that promises to capture headlines in the coming months. S&P Managing Director Dianne Vazza recently warned that financials dominate the fallen angel universe, as in IG firms likely to be downgraded to high yield. The culprits include their exposure to energy firms, the fallout from municipal mayhem in Puerto Rico and weakness in global growth. The immediate fallout for these fallen firms is a spike in borrowing costs. But even for those that manage to remain in the celestial, expenses could be poised to rise. “The market is not waiting for Janet Yellen to raise rates on corporate debt,” warned Lewitt. “The risk is not default, but lower earnings as these investment grade companies borrowed enormous amounts to fund buybacks and dividends and have enjoyed an interest rate holiday that will sooner or later come to an end.” That’s saying something considering that even with interest rates near their lowest on record, the interest expense among companies in the benchmark S&P 500 Industrials has been on the rise since bottoming at four percent of nonfinancial earnings in the third quarter of 2010. According to data compiled by S&P’s Howard Silverblatt, interest expense first topped six percent in the quarter ended March of this year. It remains above that level, the highest since recordkeeping began in 1993. Since then, we know borrowing costs have started to tick back up. With record debt loads, it’s safe to say many companies can simply not afford interest rates to rise off the floor. As tenuous as the situation appears, this credit cycle may have one last rally in its gas tank. “I don’t think this is the big one,” said George Goncalves, Nomura’s Head of U.S. Rates Strategy. “However, I do view any sort of unwind of the ‘portfolio rebalancing effect’ hurting both stocks and corporate and sovereign bonds initially.” Once that panic sets in, though, expect sovereigns to regain the flight-to-quality status and stage a rally. Goncalves does foresee one potential fly in the ointment of the relatively happy ending: “Ironically, a second Fed rate hike could trigger more currency devaluations from overseas, notably China. If the secondary markets cannot handle the volumes, it could lead to broad-based selling.” New Albion Partners’ Reynolds doesn’t figure even an exogenous event could put the brakes on the current credit cycle. Pensions and insurers simply have too much in the way of fresh funds to deploy to allow that to happen; they’ve absorbed half of the $3.1 trillion in new issuance. Given more funds are expected to flow into pension coffers in the coming years as Baby Boomers retire in droves, there should only be more to come. So we go from the mammoth to the monumental when it’s game over. “The cherry on top of the sundae of this credit boom is the shift away from money market funds to cash funds that take ten times the risk to get ten times the yield,” cautioned Reynolds. If you’re still game for a bit more irony, “This shift has nothing to do with the fundamentals. It is occurring solely because of the money market rule changes.” It would appear to be only a matter of timing, and in turn, magnitude. The outcome though is undeniable. With defaults on the rise, refinancing capability in increasing danger and more distress building in the pipeline, you would think we would be hearing investors screaming. But we don’t. Just the deafening sound of silence as most in the herd refuse to be early, even if waiting with the gate to the pen open offers them ultimate salvation.
Vomit. Poison. Agony. These are among the words participants used to describe their feelings in two 2010 University of Pennsylvania experiments. Researchers measured more than 200 peoples' reactions to creative proposals for dealing with stubborn problems. They overwhelmingly found that rather than embracing these potential solutions, participants reported strong negative reactions. Researchers concluded that the drive of participants to reduce the very uncertainty upon which creative ideas appear to thrive resulted in feelings of potential failure and social rejection - hence the reactions. Sadly, not only are creative ideas dismissed, but the people who come up with them are less likely to be promoted, recognized as leaders, or deemed to be reliable teammates. The paradox of this bias against creativity lies in the fact that creativity - along with its close cousin innovation - is frequently celebrated in business as a most desired organizational trait. Reports of management excellence from McKinsey to KPMG state that creativity among the workforce is a basic requirement for long-term business success. Why then does the organizational immune system kick into high gear whenever exposed to the very thing it needs to survive? From the classroom to Silicon Valley As a lifelong product maker and trafficker in all things creative, I was struck by the routine rejection of creativity described in these studies. I rationalized that corporations would certainly be the most obvious places where creativity would wither (admittedly, not very generous or creative thinking). The sheer burden of managing uncertainty leads to friction-reducing behaviours. It seems unfortunate but not unexpected that corporate leaders cry for creativity, while the calculus employees make favours practicality over novelty. I wondered if the same was true in non-corporate environments. In elementary schools, teachers rate creativity as a highly regarded quality, yet they overwhelmingly favour their "satisfier" students, and actually discriminate against students who exhibit creativity. Disturbing, but perhaps a survival tactic for overstretched teachers in under-supported schools. Most staggering were my conversations in classrooms and at conferences and workshops with members of the creative class. My unscientific results were always the same. It didn't matter if I was asking the question of academics in the arts, colleagues at prominent innovation-driven tech businesses like Google, Uber or Apple, or many of the usual non-unicorn but still in-it-to-win-it start-ups that are the flesh and blood of Silicon Valley, the answer was always the same: Are you disturbed by the findings from the bias against creativity studies? Yes. Have you found yourself at [insert mega-mythic innovation company] exhibiting similar behaviour? Yes. Even though people claim creativity is a liberating force for markets and revenue - and even when their careers and reputation depend on creativity - they routinely reject creative ideas and the people those ideas come from. What is our problem with creativity? Education guru and TED-charmer Sir Ken Robinson describes creativity as "the process of having original ideas that have value." How did the value piece get separated from the creative? Starting in the mid-2000s, innovation consultancies went from using design methodology to create toothbrushes and teapots, to using it to build cities and systems. In doing so, they heavily promoted their methods as a business panacea. While I was an executive at innovation leaders frog design and IDEO, I hugely favoured this democratization of design thinking and advocated for its broadest adoption - who wouldn't support applying this thoughtful methodology built around empathy and rapid iteration to our most intractable challenges? I was stopped in my tracks when a healthcare client showed me a laser-printed certificate of completion from an online 3-hour Design Thinking course. "Now I'm creative!" she crowed. Sigh. With the rapid popularization of "designing" business, we had built a frothy cottage industry around the romance of creativity and mystique of innovation with none of the accountability, rigour and - to be honest - sweat that comes from making products. Our experiment in teaching creativity from the playbook of reverse-engineered success stories had led to a decoupling of creativity from actually solving problems. We need creativity now more than ever Faced with colossal human, economic and environmental challenges, we need ideas that reach far and disrupt the status quo. We need to recast creativity into an engine of impact, not a source of distraction. In my work with governments and organizations in tech, health and education, I've seen the following strategies ensure that creativity's value is recognized as a critical, competitive problem-solving tool in businesses, schools and communities. Here's how. Show, don't tell Creating is not the last mile in creativity - it's the last 25 miles in the marathon. Without building, iterating and reflecting, the process of creativity - and all its powerful yield - evaporates. There is value in creating tangible, actionable outcomes because they concretize our opinions and experiences. Simple prototypes make ideas visible, and observing a user's reaction to that prototype incredibly persuasive. Know the difference between a process and a goal "Encourage wild ideas" is a favoured battle cry in brainstorming. It's been interpreted as meaning that somewhat silly ideas are the most promising in this creative exercise. In reality, the purpose of this phrase is to signal to participants that the session is a safe, non-critical space for everyone to share ideas without judgement. Inviting "wild" ideas creates the space for a more thoughtful concept to emerge. Interrogate the idea Creativity studies posit that great ideas are built by making leaps in received logic, and by seeing connections that are not immediately obvious. These epiphanies are brilliant when you have them, but maddening when someone else does - often they simply don't make sense at first blush. It's incumbent on the author of an idea to bring people along and clearly articulate their thinking. It may not be easy at first, but the discipline only strengthens great concepts. Reimagine authorship The innovation business flogs the myth of the lone inventor, who toils away through the night to create game-changing ideas. The reality is that all great products, services and organizations are co-created by systems of people. The concept of authorship in creativity is a powerful one, but it needs to be treated more as a responsibility to bring an idea to fruition, not as a right to control. You can never own an idea, but you can cultivate it. Celebrate resiliency, not failure Silicon Valley ill-advisedly celebrates the brow-beating joy of failure. I have found that discussions of failure mislead people into believing creativity is not connected to business intelligence. Also, failure doesn't create insights, and insights don't fuel next steps. Our stories instead need to tell of resilience - the ability to be flexible enough to transform observations into learning and then new opportunities. These mantras of healthy, effective creativity do work. They transform that fear of failure into practical, actionable approaches that meet challenges. We must stake a claim on creativity's core pillars of critical thinking, making connections between disparate ideas, and resourcefulness in order to be able to conceive of and build meaningful solutions to the problems that lie before us. Valerie Casey is a Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum. The Young Global Leaders and Alumni Annual Summit is taking place from 18 to 21 October in Tokyo. This article was orginally published on the World Economic Forum's Agenda. -- 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.
Today’s executives are dealing with a complex and unprecedented brew of social, environmental, market, and technological trends. These require sophisticated, sustainability-based management. Yet executives are often reluctant to place sustainability core to their company’s business strategy in the mistaken belief that the costs outweigh the benefits. On the contrary, academic research and business experience point to quite the opposite. Embedded sustainability efforts clearly result in a positive impact on business performance. Drawing from our own research and our colleagues’ research in this area, we have created a sustainability business case for the 21st century corporate executive. Hoping to alleviate their concerns, this article also provides concrete examples of how sustainability benefits the bottom line. For the purpose of this article, we define sustainable practices as those that: 1) at minimum do not harm people or the planet and at best create value for stakeholders and 2) focus on improving environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance in the areas in which the company or brand has a material environmental or social impact (such as in their operations, value chain, or customers). We exclude companies with a traditional CSR program that supports employee volunteering in the community – this does not by itself qualify as sustainability. Driving competitive advantage through stakeholder engagement Traditional business models aim to create value for shareholders, often at the expense of other stakeholders. Sustainable businesses are redefining the corporate ecosystem by designing models that create value for all stakeholders, including employees, shareholders, supply chains, civil society, and the planet. Michel Porter and Mark Kramer pioneered the idea of “creating shared value,” arguing that businesses can generate economic value by identifying and addressing social problems that intersect with their business. Much of the strategic value of sustainability comes from the need to continually talk with and learn from key stakeholders. Through regular dialogue with stakeholders and continual iteration, a company with a sustainability agenda is better positioned to anticipate and react to economic, social, environmental, and regulatory changes as they arise. When firms fail to establish good relationships with their stakeholders, it can lead to increased conflict and reduced stakeholder cooperation. This can disrupt a firm’s ability to operate on schedule and budget. A study of the gold mining industry, for example, found that stakeholder relations can heavily influence land permitting, taxation, and the regulatory environment, thus playing a substantial role in determining whether a firm has the right to transform gold into shareholder capital – therefore, as the study authors wrote, stakeholder engagement “is not just corporate social responsibility but enlightened self-interest.” Improving risk management Supply chains today extend around the world, and are vulnerable to natural disasters and civil conflict. Climate change, water scarcity, and poor labor conditions in much of the world increase the risk. McKinsey reports that the value at stake from sustainability concerns can be as a high as 70% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. In the largest study on climate change data and corporations, 8,000 supplier companies (that sell to 75 multinationals) reported on their level of climate risk. Of the respondents, 72% said that climate change presents risks that could significantly impact their operations, revenue, or expenditures. Unlike traditional forms of business risk, social and environmental risks manifest themselves over a longer term, often affect the business on many dimensions, and are largely outside the organization’s control. Managing risks therefore requires making investment decisions today for longer-term capacity building and developing adaptive strategies. In the agriculture, food, and beverage sector, the impacts of climate change have the potential to alter growing conditions and seasons, increase pests and disease, and decrease crop yields. Disruptions in the supply chain may affect production processes that depend on unpriced natural capital assets such as biodiversity, groundwater, clean air, and climate. These unpriced natural capital costs are generally internalized until events like floods or droughts cause disruption to production processes or commodity price fluctuation. For example, Bunge, an agribusiness firm, reported a $56 million quarterly loss in its sugar and bioenergy segments due to drought in 2010. Flooding in 2011 in Thailand, harmed 160 companies in the textile industry and halted nearly a quarter of the country’s garment production, increasing global prices by 28%. To address these threats along their supply chain, companies like Mars, Unilever, and Nespresso have invested in Rainforest Alliance certification to help farmers deal with climate volatility, reduce land degradation, and increase resilience to drought and humidity—all of which ensure the long-term supply of their agricultural products. Certification also improves productivity and net income: According to an independent study by COSA, Rainforest Alliance reported that certified cocoa farmers in Cote d’Ivoire, for example, produced 1,270 pounds of cocoa per hectare, compared with 736 pounds per hectare on non-certified farms. Net income was also significantly higher on certified cocoa farms than noncertified: $403 versus $113 USD per hectare. Companies are also experiencing risks in their manufacturing due to resource depletion – particularly water. Water has largely been considered a free raw material and therefore used inefficiently, but many companies are now experiencing the higher costs of using the resource. Coca-Cola, for example, faced a water shortage in India that forced it to shut down one of its plants in 2004. As the 24th biggest industrial consumer of water, Coca Cola has now invested $2 billion to reduce water use and improve water quality in the communities in which it operates. SabMiller has also invested heavily in water conservation, including $6 million to improve equipment at a facility in Tanzania affected by deteriorating water quality. Water-related risks threaten to strand billions of dollars for mining, oil, and gas companies. “Stranded assets” are investments that become obsolete due to regulatory, environmental, or market constraints. For example, social conflict related to disruptions to water supplies in Peru has resulted in the indefinite suspension of $21.5 billion in mining projects since 2010. Fostering innovation Investing in sustainability is not only a risk management tool; it can also drive innovation. Redesigning products to meet environmental standards or social needs offers new business opportunities. 3M, for example, integrates sustainability into its innovation pipeline through its “Pollution Prevention Pays” program, which aims to proactively minimize waste and avoid pollution through product reformulation, equipment redesign, process modification, and waste recycling. 3M’s Novec fire suppression fluids are the first viable, sustainable alternative to hydrofluorocarbons. Nike embedded sustainability into its innovation process and created the $1 billion-plus Flyknit line, which uses a specialized yarn system, requiring minimal labor and generating large profit margins. Flyknit reduces waste by 80% compared with regular cut and sew footwear. Since its launch in 2012, Flyknit has reduced 3.5 million pounds of waste and fully transitioned from yarn to recycled polyester, diverting 182 million bottles from landfills. Recognizing the growing consumer interest in sustainable products and looking to solve consumer challenges such as high energy costs, CPG companies have developed new products to gain access to this market. Proctor & Gamble, for example, conducted a life cycle assessment of its products and found that U.S. households spend 3% of annual electricity budgets on heating water to wash clothes. In 2005, they launched a U.S. and European line of cold-water detergents that require 50% less energy than warm water washing. Facing strict regulation on chemical release and competition from flowers from Africa, the Dutch flower industry developed a closed-loop system that grows flowers hydroponically in greenhouses, lowering risk of infestation and reducing the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The system also improves product quality by creating regulated growing conditions. Their innovative system has increased productivity and quality, reduced environmental impact and costs, and increased global competitiveness. Improving Financial Performance Many business leaders have the erroneous perception that one can have profits or sustainability, but not both. This probably has its roots in Milton Friedman’s 50-year old, but still influential, thesis that the only business of a business is profit as well as a hangover from the 1970s and 80s, when low quality, high priced environmental products failed in the market and early socially responsible investing delivered low returns. That conventional wisdom has now reversed. In addition to the financial benefits that accrue from increased competitive advantage and innovation as discussed earlier, companies are realizing significant cost savings through environmental sustainability-related operational efficiencies. Moreover, investors are now able to track the high performers on ESG (environmental, social and governance factors) and are correlating better financial performance with better ESG performance. Significant cost reductions can result from improving operational efficiency through better management of natural resources like water and energy, as well as minimizing waste. One study estimated that companies experience an average internal rate of return of 27% to 80% on their low carbon investments. Since 1994, Dow has invested nearly $2 billion in improving resource efficiency and has saved $9.8 billion from reduced energy and wastewater consumption in manufacturing. In 2013, GE had reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 32% and water use by 45% compared to 2004 and 2006 baselines, respectively, resulting in $300 million in savings. A focus on sustainability can also unlock opportunities for process and logistics savings. Wal-Mart, for example, aimed to double fleet efficiency between 2005 and 2015 through better routing, truck loading, driver training, and advanced technologies. By the end of 2014, they had improved fuel efficiency approximately 87% compared to the 2005 baseline. In that year, these improvements resulted in 15,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided and savings of nearly $11 million. Mounting evidence shows that sustainable companies deliver significant positive financial performance, and investors are beginning to value them more highly. Arabesque and University of Oxford reviewed the academic literature on sustainability and corporate performance and found that 90% of 200 studies analyzed conclude that good ESG standards lower the cost of capital; 88% show that good ESG practices result in better operational performance; and 80% show that stock price performance is positively correlated with good sustainability practices. Here are some other datapoints to consider: Between 2006 and 2010, the top 100 sustainable global companies experienced significantly higher mean sales growth, return on assets, profit before taxation, and cash flows from operations in some sectors compared to control companies. During the 2008 recession, companies committed to sustainability practices achieved “above average” performance in the financial markets during the 2008 recession, translating into an average of $650 million in incremental market capitalization per company. Additionally, companies with superior environmental performance experienced lower cost of debt by 40-45 basis points. Studies also suggest that companies with strong corporate responsibility reputations “experience no meaningful declines in share price compared to their industry peers during crises” versus firms with poor CSR reputations whose reputations declined by “2.4-3%; a market capitalization loss of $378M per firm.” Investors are paying attention. According to the 2015 EY Global Institutional Investor Survey, investors are increasingly using companies’ nonfinancial disclosures to inform their investment decisions. In its survey of over 200 institutional investors, 59.1% of respondents view nonfinancial disclosures as “essential” or “important” to investment decisions, up from 34.8% in 2014. Some 62.4% of investors are concerned about the risk of stranded assets (i.e. assets that lose value prematurely due to environmental, social, or other external factors) and over one-third of respondents reported cutting their holdings of a company in the past year because of this risk. Building Customer Loyalty Companies are skeptical about consumer interest in sustainable products – especially where willingness-to-pay is concerned. Some of that is self-inflicted, as early on companies tended to increase “sustainable” product prices substantially and in some cases sold inferior products (e.g. pricy natural cleaning products that did not work). However, a shift is occurring in the minds of consumers. Today’s consumers expect more transparency, honesty, and tangible global impact from companies and can choose from a raft of sustainable, competitively priced, high quality products. In fact, one study found that among numerous factors surveyed, the news coverage regarding environmental and social responsibility was the only significant factor that affected respondents’ evaluation of a firm and intent to buy. Nearly two-thirds of consumers across six international markets believe they “have a responsibility to purchase products that are good for the environment and society” — 82% in emerging markets and 42% in developed markets. In the food and beverage industry, a growing number of consumers are considering values beyond price and taste in their purchasing decisions, such as safety, social impact, and transparency. Far from feeling skittish about buying sustainable products, today’s consumers perceive a higher level of product performance in products from sustainable companies and sustainability information has a significantly positive impact on consumers’ evaluation of a company, which translates into purchase intent. The results of these studies support that consumers in a post-Recession era are shifting purchasing decisions to brands with integrity, social responsibility, and sustainability at their core. In fact, Unilever claims its “brands with purpose” are growing at twice the rate as others in their portfolio. Companies can also charge higher price premiums based on positive corporate responsibility performance. These premiums can reach 20% according to some estimates. Moreover, some studies show that overall sales revenue can increase up to 20% due to corporate responsibility practices. Another study found that revenues from sustainable products and services grew at six times the rate of overall company revenues between 2010 and 2013, among the 12 members of the S&P Global 100 sampled (Singer, 2015). GE’s Ecomagination division, for example, has generated $200 billion in sales since 2005. IKEA’s line of sustainable products like LED bulbs and solar panels from its Products for a More Sustainable Life at Home now generate a billion dollars. Attracting and Engaging Employees Corporate sustainability initiatives aimed at improving ESG performance and proving value to society can increase employee loyalty, efficiency, and productivity and improve HR statistics related to recruitment, retention, and morale. Research is finding that 21st century employees are focusing more on mission, purpose, and work-life balance. Companies that invest in sustainability initiatives tend to create sought-after culture and engagement due to company strategy focusing more on purpose and providing value to society. In addition, companies who embed sustainability in their core business strategy treat employees as critical stakeholders, just as important as shareholders. Employees are proud to work there and feel part of a broader effort. One study found that morale was 55% better in companies with strong sustainability programs, compared to those with poor ones, and employee loyalty was 38% better. Better morale and motivation translate into reduced absenteeism and improved productivity. Firms that adopted environmental standards have seen a 16% increase in productivity over firms that did not adopt sustainability practices. Corporate responsibility performance also positively impacts turnover and recruitment. Studies show that firms with greater corporate responsibility performance can reduce average turnover over time by 25-50%. It can also reduce annual quit rates by 3-3.5%, saving replacement costs up to 90%-200% of an employee’s annual salary for each retained position. *** The preponderance of evidence shows that sustainability is going mainstream. Executives can no longer afford to approach sustainability as a “nice to have” or as solid function separated from the “real” business. Those companies that proactively make sustainability core to business strategy will drive innovation and engender enthusiasm and loyalty from employees, customers, suppliers, communities and investors.
HBS Election Poll: 85% of HBS Votes For Clinton, Stark Contrast Against National Mood, More Socially Liberal and Optimistic, Mixed on Wealth Redistribution
By Jeremy Au, Harvard Business School, Class of '17 and Rafael Riveria, Harvard Business School - Harvard Kennedy School, Class of '17 & Harbus Contributing Writer As the United States debates on who to choose as the next President, the students of Harvard Business School (HBS) have a clear favorite: Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 82% in the student population, according to The Harbus' pioneering electoral poll. Clinton tops Trump with 85% to his 3% support among HBS first-year students. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson has 10% support, followed by Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 2% support. American and international students did not show a statistically significant difference in their preferences. These results stand in stark contrast against the national mood, where 45% of U.S. voters would vote for Clinton and 40% for Trump. Four key factors contribute to Clinton's lead. First, Obama has a very high approval rating among HBS students (88%) relative to U.S. voters (52%). Second, the Democratic Party holds more affinity with HBS students (53%) relative to U.S. voters (36%). Third, a greater percentage of HBS Democrats support Clinton (94%) than HBS Republicans support Trump (52%). Fourth, independent students overwhelmingly break for Clinton (80%) rather than Trump (0%). HBS students are more socially liberal than U.S. voters. The majority of students support stricter gun controls (93%, compared with 56% of U.S. voters) and believe that women do not have the same opportunities for achievement that men have (83%, compared with 55% of U.S. voters). Furthermore, HBS students are thrice as likely to support increased immigration (63%, compared with 21% of U.S. voters). American and international students did not show a statistically significant difference in their preferences. HBS students are also more optimistic than U.S. voters. HBS students are over twice as likely to believe that life will be better for the next generation of Americans (43%, compared with 21% of U.S. voters). A lower proportion of students think that U.S. race relations are getting worse (43%, compared with 65% of U.S. voters). American students are more optimistic about America's future and race relations than international students. HBS students, like most U.S. voters, believe in fairer wealth distribution but not through taxes. 62% of HBS students believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed, similar to 63% of U.S. voters. However, only 41% of students support heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, similar to 45% of U.S. voters. International students were significantly more likely to support the use of taxation than American students. Overall, these poll results could be attributed to three factors. HBS students have higher levels of education, higher levels of household income, and are younger than the general U.S. population. Most HBS students have work experience in the private sector, and are thus more exposed to workplace issues, international markets, and diverse work teams. First-year HBS students have also undergone 2 months of daily interactions within 90-student sections, which are sorted for high diversity in nationalities, ethnicities, and experiences. The Harbus Presidential Election poll was conducted from September 19 to October 3. 236 first-year HBS students were surveyed across multiple sections via in-class voting with privacy screens. The data was weighted for nationality and gender. For results based on the total sample of HBS students, the margin of error is ±5.5% at the 95% confidence level. Credit goes to NBC, Gallup, SurveyMonkey, Steven Shephard of Politico, Josh Lerner, & Ulrike Malmendier for survey design, benchmarks and descriptions. View survey methodology, complete question responses and weightage here: http://bit.ly/harbuspoll ------------------------------------ Jeremy Au (HBS '17) is an entrepreneur empowering families with affordable childcare at CozyKin. Prior to HBS, Jeremy worked for Bain & Co and was recognized by Forbes Asia "30 Under 30" for co-founding Conjunct Consulting, Singapore's leading social enterprise for social sector consulting. He also led the Quad.sg team in running Singapore's first pre-electoral polls. In his free time, he hosts dinner discussions, mentors, and goes for long walks. Rafael Rivera (HBS-HKS '17) is an EC from Old Section C who loves dancing salsa, traveling, and talking about politics. Prior to HBS, Rafael worked for McKinsey & Company in the offices of Mexico City, Mumbai, and Dubai, and for the World Bank in Cambodia. He spent this summer at Goldman Sachs in New York. He's the Head Senator of the HBS Senate and he plans to work in the public sector in Mexico some day in the far future. -- 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.
When the students in the MBA course I teach on the gig economy ask me for the best thing they can do to prepare for their future careers, I tell them: “Stop looking for a job.” This may sound like odd advice to give MBA students. After all, their degrees are designed to catapult them directly into the upper echelons of corporate America, and most students begin their studies with the goal of getting a job. The problem is, jobs aren’t what they used to be. Growth in the number of jobs is stagnating and full-time jobs are both insecure and risky. Companies no longer make promises of either professional or financial security to today’s workforce. Increasingly, both companies and workers prefer and choose the gig economy’s more flexible and independent work arrangements and, in the process, are transforming how, where, and when we work. Twenty–30% of the working age population do some form of independent work, according to McKinsey’s Global Institute, and that share is growing rapidly. The best preparation I can offer students is to help them cultivate the mindset, skills, and toolkit to succeed in this new world of independent work. In the MBA class I teach, there are three specific reasons why I tell my students to stop looking for a job. The first is that full time jobs are disappearing. The private sector used to create and add full-time jobs to the economy at a rate of 2-3% per year. In 2000, during the dot-com crash, that rate fell below 2%. In 2008, the rate of job creation fell even further—below 1%—and has remained at that historically low level through 2015. Economists Larry Katz and Alan Krueger found that all of the net employment growth in the U.S. over the past decade came from alternative work arrangements, not full-time jobs. Another cause of the decline in jobs is that our engine of job growth has stalled. Young businesses, not small businesses, as is widely believed, create the most new jobs. The growth of new young businesses is at historically low levels and the businesses that do start are creating fewer jobs. Startup businesses used to create about 3 million jobs a year in the U.S. but that has declined to barely over 2 million per year. Instead of creating jobs, companies are increasingly disaggregating work from a job. There are fewer full-time journalist jobs available anymore, for instance, but there is plenty of freelance reporting work. Similarly, that former director of marketing job has now morphed into the work produced by a social media contractor, an outsourced PR agency, and a marketing strategy consultant. Where there once were jobs, in the gig economy there is now just work. The advice I give my students is to look for plentiful work, not increasingly scarce jobs. The second reason I tell my students to stop looking for a job is that full-time employees are becoming the worker of last resort. Instead of preferring full-time employees, many firms now actively avoid them, and look for ways to build their business models and run their firms with as few full-time employees as possible. Full-time employees are the most expensive and least flexible source of labor, qualities that make them unattractive to corporate America and Silicon Valley startups alike. Our policymakers have perpetuated an outdated labor market structure in which companies pay the highest taxes for full-time employees, and are required to provide certain benefits and protections only to full-time employees, which means that hiring an employee costs significantly more (30-40%) than an equivalent independent worker. In addition, both the public and private capital markets have a strong track record of rewarding companies with higher valuations when they either limit or reduce the number of employees. Not unexpectedly, the trends of hiring part-time workers and independent contractors, automating, and outsourcing have become persistent, widespread, and are growing. That doesn’t mean that full-time employees will disappear entirely — they won’t. There will always be the need for a small, core group of essential workers, in-demand talent, and senior management roles that companies will want to fill with full-time employees, for reasons of quality, consistency, and continuity. Beyond that core, however, companies face powerful economic and market incentives to keep full-time employee headcount low. The best strategy my students can follow is to prepare themselves to be independent workers, not full-time employees. The third reason is that it’s clear that traditional work isn’t working for most Americans. Job security no longer exists, and the good wages, generous benefits and secure retirement that used to be guaranteed with full-time employment are in decline or have disappeared. Nearly 70% of Americans aren’t engaged at their jobs, according to Gallup. In contrast, a recent McKinsey survey of more than 8,000 workers found that independent workers are more satisfied with nearly every aspect of their working lives than employees.. A Future Workplace/Field Nation survey of 959 freelancers found that 74% prefer being an independent worker and have no intention of returning to a full-time job. Inherent in the gig economy is the choice, autonomy, flexibility, and control that drive worker satisfaction, but which full-time employees often lack. My students have a better chance of creating an engaging and satisfying work life if they focus on getting great work instead of a good job. Despite the emergence and rapid growth of the Gig Economy, MBA programs have been slow to adapt. Business schools themselves are increasingly staffed with part-time adjunct faculty, yet their degrees are still designed to prepare students to be full-time employees in full-time jobs. Instead of spending summers helping students build a diverse portfolio of gigs, they offer full-time internships and traditional jobs with a single employer. Campus recruiting partners make offers to full-time employees for full-time jobs. Graduates interested in pursuing contract work, consulting projects, and freelance assignments are on left on their own to find or create opportunities. This needs to change. MBA programs owe it to their students to prepare them to succeed in the gig economy of the future, not the jobs economy of the past.
Submitted by Irinia Slav via OilPrice.com, Apple has all but thrown in the towel on its self-driving car endeavors. Its project Titan, which was supposed to release a fully autonomous vehicle in the early years of the next decade, has been scaled back substantially and will from now on focus on developing just the self-driving software used in autonomous cars. In an extensive report on project Titan, Bloomberg notes that since its inception two years ago, it has been plagued by a variety of problems, from disagreements among leaders about the direction the project should take, to supply chain challenges, and the consequent outflow of managers and employees alike. It seems one of the world’s leaders in consumer electronics plunged headfirst into the deep waters of the nascent autonomous car market without first learning how to swim. Only now, after two years of strategy, have rows among the leadership, an absence of a clear concept as to how to approach the whole thing, and growing competition made the company realize that it may have made a mistake. Let’s look at the competition: all the big carmakers are spending heavily on autonomous and self-driving cars, from Tesla to Volvo, from BMW to Daimler. Here’s a roundup of 19 automakers that have more or less detailed plans to release a self-driving vehicle. Some of them have joined forces with other companies – GM and Lyft, for example, and Volvo and Uber – while others are going it alone. What they all have in common are plans to launch a driverless car or at least a semi-autonomous car within the next four years. All this while Apple’s Titan is still deciding which direction it should head with its own self-driving idea. As disappointing as it may be for loyal Apple fans, the company was a bit slow and a bit unclear about its new surroundings when it decided to reach for a piece of a market that has been estimated by McKinsey to reach $6.7 trillion by 2030. So slow and unclear, in fact, that it now might be better for it to cut its losses and shutter Titan entirely. As Yahoo Finance tech editor Daniel Howley notes, an Apple self-driving software system is nowhere near as attractive for iPhone devotees as an Apple self-driving car. Plus, Howley adds, those other companies that are working on their own driving cars are naturally developing their own software systems as well, so Apple must be able to come up with something far superior in quality and cost efficiency to all of those systems in order to survive in this line of work. The Titan project’s leaders have about a year to prove the commercial viability of Apple self-driving software. If successful, the company would be able to choose between offering it to third parties or—and it’s a longshot—building its own self-driving car, provided the tide turns and most of those 19 carmakers working on their own self-driving cars fail spectacularly. The likelihood that most will fail, however, is remote. Nissan alone is scheduled to launch not one but 10 self-driving vehicles in four years. In three years, according to BI Intelligence, 2,487 fully autonomous cars will hit the roads, rising to 5,494 the next year. This will be just the start. The regulatory waters around self-driving cars are still pretty murky, and there’s a long way for carmakers and regulators to go until autonomous vehicles become an ordinary part of morning traffic. Still, there seems to be a general agreement that it is a market with a lucrative growth potential, which is why everyone in the car-making business is racing to get in on the self-driving action. It’s difficult enough for even an experienced automaker to build a reliable car that will drive itself; for a consumer electronics company, even one as colossal as Apple, it seems to be a bit too far out of their wheelhouse.
Leadership is one of those skills that continues to elicit studies by social scientists of almost every persuasion. From business and law to finance and government, it is essential for leaders to exist—and it is crucial for a culture of leadership to flourish. As this presentation by the London Business School reveals, U.S. companies spend at least $12 billion on leadership development. The same report also finds that nearly 60% of companies face leadership talent shortages which impede performance. These numbers, along with this information from a trio of Harvard Business School graduates about the emphasis on the ethical dimensions of leadership, underscore the importance of identifying the skills necessary for building—and sustaining—an environment that rewards leadership. According to columnist Peter Economy, quoting Zenger-Folkman: "Great leaders create a vision of the future that is vivid and compelling, and that motivates employees to want to achieve it. Everyone wants to work for a company that makes a difference in the world. As a leader, you are best able to help the members of your team connect what they do to the impact it has on customers and communities." That advice complements the insight of Dr. Camille Preston, a fellow contributor to The Huffington Post and the founder of Create More Flow, which champions tactics and strategies that help leaders achieve what they want faster and better, with optimal effort. Dr. Preston's focus on "flow hacking" enables would-be leaders to develop a flow hacking mindset that allows them to create actionable hacks to achieve their goals, while facing adversity with clarity and conviction. She says: "At the core of a hacking mindset is the belief that we have choices and that the actions we take can shape the outcome. There is a tremendous energy that comes from creating your own reality (and simultaneously, if your life doesn't match your dream life, it can be very frustrating)." I second that sentiment because, after having read this piece from McKinsey & Company, I recognize that one of the most unresolved issues among executives is what sort of leadership behavior organizations should encourage. Which is to say, and here I return to Dr. Preston's point about creating more flow, without the right mindset—without the ability to make the right decisions—everything else is moot; it is irrelevant without an approach that works, based on the testimonials of leaders who know how to go with the flow, so to speak. We need to do more to ensure consistency of quality involving leadership. We need leaders—and yes, we need professionals like Dr. Preston to show us the way forward—because I know of no business that can survive without, and I know of no enterprise that can succeed in the absence of, sound leadership. We need leaders to inspire us; to goad and guide us. We need leaders to show us when, and why, to adopt their principles. Indeed, we need to create more flow. -- 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.
«ВымпелКом» решил нанять McKinsey для консультаций о разделе «Евросети», сообщил «Ведомостям» один из партнеров оператора. Человек, близкий к ретейлеру, подтвердил это, но предупредил, что вопрос не решен. Человек, близкий к оператору, признал, что соглашение с McKinsey подписано, и объяснил: консультант нужен, чтобы уточнить стратегию развития ретейла.
Операторы хотели бы разделить салоны "Евросети" поровну и присоединить к своим розничным сетям, утверждает источник "Ведомостей". Рассматривается при этом и ликвидация бренда. "ВымпелКом" намерен нанять компанию McKinsey для консультаций о разделе "Евросети", сообщил "Ведомостям" один из партнёров оператора. По оценке старшего аналитика "Альпари" Романа Ткачука, рыночная стоимость "Евросети" могла бы составить около 30 млрд руб. В "ВымпелКоме", "Мегафоне" и "Евросети" отказались от комментариев.
«Вымпелком» решил нанять McKinsey для консультаций о разделе «Евросети», сообщил «Ведомостям» один из партнеров оператора. Человек, близкий к ритейлеру, подтвердил это, но предупредил, что вопрос не решен. Человек, близкий к оператору, признал, что соглашение с McKinsey подписано, и объяснил: консультант нужен, чтобы уточнить стратегию развития ритейла.
«Вымпелком» решил нанять McKinsey для консультаций о разделе «Евросети», сообщил «Ведомостям» один из партнеров оператора. Человек, близкий к ритейлеру, подтвердил это, но предупредил, что вопрос не решен. Человек, близкий к оператору, признал, что соглашение с McKinsey подписано, и объяснил: консультант нужен, чтобы уточнить стратегию развития ритейла.
Madame President or Mrs. President, which should it be? We are on the cusp of developing a whole new vocabulary for describing the first woman to be the leader of the free world yet, there has been strangely little focus on just how historic this is. I know I share the sentiment of so many women, and men, in saying my heart leaps for joy thinking about uttering the words Madame President for the first time. I see three reasons why electing Hillary is so momentous. Competence prevails Women are regularly held to a higher standard than their male counterparts in proving they are qualified for a job. Studies document that while men are promoted and compensated for future potential, women are promoted and compensated for previously demonstrated competency. This election may be the ultimate example of this phenomenon in action. Hillary Clinton is among the most, if not the most, qualified person to ever be elected to the presidency. But Clinton is not just qualified, she is uniquely qualified to be both the next president and the first woman president. Hillary is qualified in the way the principal of my sons' high school is qualified. Our principal grew up in my town, sent her children to the high school, taught at the school, was a dean at the school (four deans coordinate 2000+ students), served as assistant principal at the high school, and ultimately became principal. She is so fantastic at her job because her experience emanates from so many perspectives. She can appreciate the concerns of parents, the challenges of teachers, and the demands of administrators all from lived experience. Similarly Clinton will bring a kaleidoscope of experience to the presidency: as a working mother balancing the complexities of care and career, as a First Lady trying to change the rules of engagement, as a wife deeply hurt and publicly shamed, as an elected official wholly committed to supporting women and families, as a foreign policy leader with a front row seat to the most difficult decisions a president must make, and as a grandmother reveling in the potential of her grandchildren and wanting to ensure all children have that same chance. Most importantly, Clinton has walked the extraordinarily challenging road of redefining who women can be in the world over more than four decades. Her life story is the story of middle class America leading to great things with an enormous twist, like Ginger Rogers she's done it walking backwards and in high heels. Clinton has been a leader her whole life registering many firsts across the decades. At Wellesley College, she was elected class president and was the first student to address the class at commencement. She entered corporate law practice in her late 20's and at 32 became the first woman partner at her firm. Her political work on the national stage began in her mid-40's when Hillary became the First Lady of the United States and felt the sting of a country not ready for a president's wife to play a policy role. Despite huge opposition to her efforts to reform health care, Clinton triumphed with bi-partisan support for a children's health insurance program that continues today. As First Lady she captivated the world at the UN Women's Conference in 1996 first uttering the words, "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights." She began her race for the U.S. Senate, the first First Lady to run for elected office, by crisscrossing the state of New York to listen and learn. As a brand new senator when tragedy struck, she became an advocate for 9/11 victims and handily went on to win a second senatorial term. Next up Clinton confronted another first, running for president. Her loss in the primaries was followed by an unexpected invitation and acceptance to join the President's cabinet as Secretary of State. In the current election, Clinton channeled all she had learned in her 2008 presidential run to capture the 2016 Democratic nomination, the first woman ever to do so. Now let's consider Trump's background. Supported by family money, Trump started rich and has always been rich not only with the first $1 million dollar loan from his father but with multiple infusions over several decades. Lauded as a successful business man, his main purported credential, his track record hardly paints a picture of success. He has driven several businesses into bankruptcy, he's touted endless businesses that closed (Trump steaks, Trump magazine, Trump airlines, you get the pattern), he regularly abused contractors paying them only a fraction of their bill, if any at all, and when the going got tough, he made sure he collected his share while leaving his partners, suppliers, and employees out in the cold. How can this possibly be construed as a profile of business leadership? That wasn't the definition of leader I learned about in business school. How about political experience? Trump has never even been the county recorder and seemingly has no clue how laws get made or how they work. Remember those checks and balances you learned about in social studies? Apparently Trump missed that class. He is going to make America great again single handedly, just ask him. And he lacks even a basic understanding of sexual assault and the notion of consent. Trump has no demonstrated ability to work across difference, responds to criticism like a cornered animal, and shows little ability to learn new skills, like listening for a start. If ever there was a contest between competence and inaptitude, this presidential election would be it. Throw in Trump's volatility, vindictiveness, arrogance and destructive nature, all currently on full display as he follows his torch-the-earth strategy. The contrast between how extraordinarily unqualified and unsuitable Trump is in comparison to how extraordinarily qualified and suited Clinton is to be president makes one's head spin. Does that mean Clinton is a perfect candidate, or that she hasn't made mistakes through time, some egregious? Of course not. Who in 40 years of public service could claim that completely unrealistic standard? Yet Clinton's record of possible transgressions pales in comparison to Trump's. Turning over arguably the most important job in the world to a man lacking the baseline skills and qualities ahead of a woman with an astoundingly full set is sexism gone mad. Based on a 25 year analysis, Clinton's favorability rating crashed each time she reached for power, something women are not supposed to do, while once she was in power being her competent self, her ratings shot up. Just ask yourself, would a woman with Trump's profile and personality have even been elected to the local city council? Clinton's victory will validate the experience of so many women by demonstrating that competence can overcome bias. The power of role modeling Clinton has been labeled as the establishment candidate in this race, yet this description is dead wrong. Yes she has been involved with politics for many years, and in several different roles, but that is where the comparison ends. A few days after the first presidential debate I read yet another article characterizing Clinton as a steady hand who can keep the country on its current course while Trump is a radical agent of change. As someone who has spent more than 20 years researching and consulting on gender diversity, I am certain that Clinton's election WILL constitute radical change. Clinton's victory will be a game changer for women and the world. Clinton's presidency will constitute radical change because for the first time every little girl in the U.S. can say I want to be president, just like Hillary Clinton. They will see her on television, they will hear people talk about her, and they will know girls can be president too. It will be a radical change because for the first time in American history a woman will be the one setting the vision for our country, a vision that reflects her lived experience as a female. While women have made great gains over the last 50 years, they continue to remain sparsely represented as the top leader in all public domains: business, academia and government. Based on a recent McKinsey/ LeanIn research report, at the current rate of progress women in corporate America will not see parity for more than 100 years. Clinton's election will be radical because for the first time ever we will have a First Gentleman in the White House which will redefine the vision of that important role. It will be radical because in 20 years or 50 years or 100 years, girls will be able to read about our first woman president in their history books. Role models are incredibly powerful. In a visceral way, they make the impossible seem possible and symbolize that someone like me could aspire to that future. An intense irony of the election is that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have been characterized as change agents but let's consider that assertion. Bernie is a self-declared socialist and has spent the better part of his life as an Independent. He ignited a movement, particularly among young people, to shift the country considerably further to the left with key platforms like a universal health care system and the elimination of tuition at state colleges. But the reality is, Sanders has spent the better part of 40 years in politics. How can a white male career politician suddenly become an outsider? Yes Bernie has been a very liberal, powerful left leaning voice but, he's been an insider none the less. Clinton has been criticized by liberals for being too moderate in her positions yet her moderation has enabled her to work across the aisle, be effective, and craft legislation that actually became law. I have no doubt that without being politically moderate, Clinton would have been marginalized and expelled from the system long ago. Instead she stands a whisper from the presidency. Interestingly, Hillary too looked down on compromise as a young woman, imagining a world where the impossible could be possible. Part of the problem with just empathy, with professed goals, is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have viewed politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible. From Clinton's 1969 Wellesley graduation speech The dominant narrative has been of Trump as the business man who will show those politicians how to run the country like he's run his business (shudder at the thought). Trump certainly likes to sell himself as the outsider, the voice of the every-person, but in Trump's case the every-man. Yet what does Trump know of the every-man? He's mistreated endless every-man workers just trying to make a living and he failed to pay millions of dollars taxes over two decades to fund the vast array of supports that the every-man depends on: health insurance, education, veterans' benefits and more. Trump minimizes the crucial role that his father's connections, and his access to readily-available cash over several decades, played in enabling his business success. Are these supports even a pipe dream for the every-man? And now Trump' policies - the few he has articulated - reflect HIS priorities with few benefits for the every-man and nearly none for the every-woman. Trump may be a political outsider but he is the epitome of an enormously privileged white man whose success has been fueled by so many advantages he can't even see. Trump in his words and deeds is anathema to empowering women. He is the ultimate gender status quo! The beacon of feminine power Perhaps the most exciting part of Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States is that she will bring her feminine world view to the job which powerfully connects to so many of the issues and priorities that women value. Women, especially millennial women, hew strongly Democratic because they see in the policies what matters to them in their lives. I am acutely aware that women are hardly one big monolithic group all wanting the same thing and sharing the same priorities. That said, what I do know as someone connected to women's leadership for decades is that Clinton's lifelong priorities speak to the challenges that women face and enable women to live most fully. Clinton's influence will help create a world that so many women want to inhabit. A world where: Women can no longer be economically short-changed, relative to their male counterparts, and can count on equal pay for equal work. As a result, they will have greater resources to care for themselves and their families. Care work is supported by providing paid time off for critical life events such as personal illness or caring for a child or family member. Care work is no longer marginalized and compensated at poverty level wages (held overwhelmingly by women.) Instead it is seen as, and funded as, an important element of infrastructure enabling our citizenry to work. Women can count on access to safe, accessible reproductive care and no one has the right to legislate a woman's reproductive decisions. (How is it that the GOP stridently opposes the government's right to control guns yet simultaneously espouses the right to control women's bodies? Do guns not threaten human life?) It is broadly understood that a woman's control over her reproductive decisions is among the most critical determinants of her economic well-being. (How is it that the GOP argues for the sanctity of life but has no trouble abandoning that life post-utero by devaluing and persistently cutting funding for support services?) Health care is no longer seen as a privilege to be earned but as a basic requirement of one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Reliable, affordable health care enables women to care for their children and supports far greater flexibility in their careers. Adequate resourcing is funneled toward education and healthcare rather than the endless need for bigger and better weapons. We never forget that America and immigration are synonymous and we realize that diversity is the lifeblood of who we are as a nation. Military policy is thoughtful, measured, collaborative and slow to violence. We evolve our mindset to see ourselves as nurturers of our planet rather than as malevolent masters extracting resources at our whim. Trump reflects all the worst stereotypes of male power. It is power over characterized by aggression, hierarchy, entitlement, unrecognized privilege, and fear. It is about winning and losing and ego. Let me be absolutely clear that many men do not see or use power in this way but those that do, like Trump, are a disaster (his favorite word). Perhaps most importantly, Clinton's victory will demonstrate feminine power - power with - that is far more oriented toward collaboration, compassion, shared purpose, caretaking and hope. My heart sings with the vision of Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office where feminine power can burn bright. -- 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.
Terry Tyrrell, Worldwide Chairman, Brand Union As politicians debate the consequences of a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit, the implications from this historic move are unavoidable. The pound has hit the lowest levels in three decades and uncertainty is prolific. However, for those looking towards the UK, a weak pound makes for an attractive market for acquisition. Meanwhile, a landscape of uncertainty spreads caution. Whatever the outcome, M&A activity continues to be high on the agenda. M&A activity worldwide reached $4.6 trillion in 2015, the highest ever recorded. Despite the impression, this has not stemmed from a healthy global economic outlook. The appetite, on the whole, has bred from necessity as businesses combat difficult economic conditions and look to M&A to provide stability, consolidation and ultimately drive sales. The picture in 2016 is looking very similar. This year we have already seen major deals such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) merge its non-core software assets with Micro Focus International and the back and forth of AB InBev and SABMiller finally come to fruition for £79bn. However, are these companies truly prepared for the huge change acquisition can have on both companies? And what about all the hundreds of other mergers and acquisitions that didn’t manage to end with a deal? According to strategy consultants McKinsey, nearly 70% of all M&A are unsuccessful. The Society for Human Resource Management state that 50% of mergers fail because of cultural incompatibility. If the latter statistic is correct, then a huge proportion of potential mergers can pre-empt failure by examining each company’s cultural compatibility before closing the deal. With this in mind, it is even more shocking that only 27% of businesses surveyed in the KPMG 2015 M&A Outlook survey analysed the cultural compatibility of the firms set to merge. Financial and structural synergies are championed as the key ingredient for successful M&A. However, striking a successful long term partnership goes far beyond this. Understanding in advance how and whether or not the two company’s cultures can be effectively merged will help to migitgate risk and avert potentially millions of pounds worth of costs and lost value. When Publicis and Omnicom failed to make their merger dreams a reality, Omnicom’s CEO John Wren said that, “We knew there would be differences in the corporate cultures. We underestimated the depth of the differences”. To avoid an M&A disaster such as this, ensuring the two cultures are compatible, before signing the dotted line, is vital. Cultural compatibility might seem like a subjective and intangible concept to measure. However, there are in fact scientific ways to analyse it across the two companies and even place a financial figure on the cultural incompatibility gap. A small percentage gap can be rectified. However, there are some instances where, if the gap is too significant, it will simply be too challenging to make the merger function effectively. A huge financial saving can be made by working out this ‘value at risk’ prior to M&A taking place. If the cultural challenges are identified early, there are steps that can be followed to bring about the desired outcome. Unite your organization around a clear and compelling purpose In order for the merger to be successful leadership and staff need to be aligned and know where they stand within the company. It’s important to develop a shared, clear and compelling purpose for the merged organisation. You then need to align your culture building on mutual strengths capabilities and business plans around that one purpose. AB InBev and SABMiller’s merger had been rumbling on for months before finally coming to completion this month. However, as we all know, this isn’t AB InBev’s first experience of M&A. In 2008, InBev, the global beverage company acquired Anheuser-Busch.. Early in the integration process, an important part of the successful acquisition derived from the leadership team focusing on the most effective way to introduce InBev's long-term global strategy to Anheuser-Busch employees, utilising InBev's "Dream-People-Culture" mission statement to excite the imagination of the AB organization. Only time will tell whether the current AB InBev – SABMiller merger will see a smooth transition. Create a tailored action plan to achieve organisation–wide alignment Once your purpose is in place, you need to have a clear plan of how the two companies will work together moving forward, with a united goal in mind. When Disney and Pixar finally merged in 2006 after years of negotiations, it proved to be a huge success. Why? Because each company knew their responsibility and how they would move forward together. Under the merger, Steve Jobs became the majority shareholder of Disney and a board member. Pixar co-founder, Ed Catmull, became the president of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios. Pixar executive vice-president John Lasseter became the Chief Creative Officer of both studios. This was something Jobs had fought for throughout the merger talk. It was imperative for him that Pixar would not lose its independence and be eclipsed by Disney. Coach leaders to inspire and unify the merged organisation An acquisition or merger needs a strong leader across the two companies. He or she must have the authority to make crucial decisions, coordinate taskforces and set the pace. In 1998, Mercedes-Benz manufacturer Daimler Benz merged with U.S. auto maker Chrysler to create Daimler Chrysler for $37 billion. The logic was obvious: to create a trans-Atlantic, car-making powerhouse that would dominate the markets. But by 2007, Daimler Benz sold Chrysler to the Cerberus Capital Management firm, which specialises in restructuring troubled companies, for a mere $7 billion. So what happened? Many felt that Daimler strutted in and tried to control the team at Chrysler. Such clashes tend to undermine a new alliance. A leadership team needs to be in place to ensure that the two companies are merging in unison and working together. Therefore, it is clear that making sure that both company’s cultures can work together is a fundamental part of the overall integration process. However, this isn’t to be taken as an afterthought once other – usually financial - decisions have been made. It needs to be one of the first questions asked by both parties before considering the M&A and it requires its own rigorous financial measurement to assess the ‘value at risk’. If not, you are putting your business’ reputation and finances in serious danger -- 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.
Консультанты Strategy Partners Group, McKinsey и Bain рассказали Forbes об опыте российских компаний по сокращению издержек
On October 11th, we celebrate Day of the Girl but we have a long way to go before achieving gender parity. Fifteen million girls are married before their 18th birthday; 62 million girls are not in school; and 1.1 billion girls and women around the world are excluded from the formal financial system. Yes, progress has been made over the past several decades, but it hasn’t been enough. And if we want to accomplish Global Goal #5 – achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls – by 2030, we need to make a move now. Just about one year ago, McKinsey & Company released a report entitled “How advancing women’s equality can add $12 trillion to global growth.” Yes, you read that correctly: $12 trillion. So let’s focus for a moment on the financial gender gap. In the U.S., The Census Bureau calculates that the median woman makes 79 cents for every dollar paid to the median man. In developing countries, there are 200 million more male cell phone owners than women, excluding an unprecedented amount of women from access to mobile financial services. Closing the gender gap entails giving women access to employment and financial mechanisms. And giving women the chance to become financially independent and make the most of their talents is the key to higher living standards and stronger economies. But advancement is going to take all of us: the nonprofit, private, and public sectors together. At SHE, we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how to get women into jobs that are they aren’t usually seen in. We thought of different ways to describe and promote (manufacturing) jobs that are typically filled by men, sourced different recommenders, and pushed back on typical recruitment channels. For example, the head of the national technical we work with in Rwanda initially gave us only male candidates for manufacturing production positions because he assumed manufacturing would only suit men. We pushed back and asked for female candidates (who were only given vocational sewing classes initially). Because we wanted female candidates, the technical schools nationally started including women in more diverse classes like the brickmaking/laying class. There was a ripple effect as more gender balanced recruitment, retention, and promotion came from gatekeepers, but also girls and women themselves started confirming their identity in their new roles. Marie-Louise, our new lead production manager stated, "I never thought I could work in production, but once I did I have such pride in the things I make that are helping my fellow Rwandans." And at PIMCO, cultivating an inclusive and cognitively diverse culture is a top priority. For us, this initiative is not about quotas, affirmative action, or creating special benefits for any group of employees. We believe that our objectives can be achieved through recognizing, learning, and changing our behaviors and beliefs, resulting in better business outcomes. We’ve spent a lot of time working to reduce biases in our talent management processes and ramp up leadership development. We bring in experts like Mahzarin Banaji, Herminia Ibarra, Joanna Barsh, Stewart Friedman, Lori Nishiura Mackenzie, and Scott Page to educate our staff about centered leadership, unconscious bias, cognitive diversity, and seeing/blocking bias. We offer mentoring programs to both women and men, and in our recruitment process, we are more aggressive now about getting women onto the candidate slates and among those who interview. The firm also recently hired a new Inclusion, Diversity and Culture Officer – this position will sit in our Executive Office and report to our president. We are all responsible to change the status quo which is why SHE and the PIMCO Foundation, PIMCO’s philanthropic arm, formed a partnership reinforcing their commitment to gender parity in 2015. While we each take action in our separate institutions, we pursue disruptive innovation together. The PIMCO Foundation provides the financial support for SHE to design opportunities to benefit Rwandan girls and women. But our partnership is not transactional, nor is it limited to check-writing. Team members from the PIMCO Pro Bono Corps are helping SHE create a growth plan for franchising. We also support each other by serving as inspiration catalysts. By partnering together, we're hoping to collectively produce greater returns for women, our organizations, and communities. If we want to live in a world where there are no more child brides, where girls can stay in school and learn, and where girls and women are financially empowered, then we need to work together. We can’t do this work alone and in silos – it’s much too important and much too large. Together, we must pursue a more integrated approach that enables girls and women to thrive. The key to advancing girls and women is partnerships; it’s challenging, and it will make all the difference. So, in honor of Day of the Girl, let us recognize the achievements made and let us forcefully commit to ensuring girls and women live safe, educated and healthy lives. After all, our collective future is tied to the status of girls and women. -- 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.
Продажи автомобилей в России, которые с 2012 г. сократились почти вдвое, не превысят до 2020 г. 2 млн автомобилей в год, говорится в докладе Минэкономразвития. «Ведомости» ознакомились с документами. Похожие прогнозы ранее называли McKinsey & Company, BCG и PwC. В среднесрочной перспективе разрыв между емкостью авторынка в России и созданными здесь мощностями будет составлять примерно 1 млн машин в год, оценивает Минэкономразвития. То есть не меньше трети будет простаивать.
Продажи автомобилей в России, которые с 2012 г. сократились почти вдвое, не превысят до 2020 г. 2 млн автомобилей в год, говорится в докладе Минэкономразвития. «Ведомости» ознакомились с документами. Похожие прогнозы ранее называли McKinsey & Company, BCG и PwC. В среднесрочной перспективе разрыв между емкостью авторынка в России и созданными здесь мощностями будет составлять примерно 1 млн машин в год, оценивает Минэкономразвития. То есть не меньше трети будет простаивать.
Alison Griswold, QuartzMaybe Uber isn’t that innovative after all. A new study from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), finds that the “gig” economy model popularized by Uber has a lot in common with the economies of poor countries today, as well as the US and Europe before the Industrial Revolution
Бестселлер Мартина Форда "Восхождение роботов: технологии и угроза будущего без работы" назван лучшей книгой для бизнеса 2015 г. по версии издания Financial Times и консалтинговой компании McKinsey & Company.
Richard W. Fisher, President and CEOFederal Reserve Bank of DallasDallas, Texas February 11, 2014 - - - - - - - 05 Февраль 2014 О ценах на газ в США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/997777.html 23 Октябрь 2013 U.S. Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2011. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/956077.html 28 Август 2013 McKinsey: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal (Energy) http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931584.html 26 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931067.html 24 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа http://iv-g.livejournal.com/929565.html 17 Январь 2013 IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012. Presentation to the press http://iv-g.livejournal.com/818512.html 26 Декабрь 2012 forbes: Влияние нетрадиционных газа и нефти на экономику США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/806390.html 25 Июль 2012 Занятость в США и добыча углеводородов http://iv-g.livejournal.com/715320.html 28 Март 2012 Citigroup report. Energy 2020: North America as the new Middle East http://iv-g.livejournal.com/633928.html