The prevailing explanation for the transmission of the coronavirus – through direct exposure to infected people – leaves too much unexplained. Why do so many people get infected without evidence of direct exposure? How come individual cases of COVID-19 can be found everywhere, yet the major outbreaks are restricted to certain areas and facilities? What really stopped the outbreaks in Wuhan and South Korea? Perhaps something else is going on.

Evidence is mounting for another form of transmission: through polluted air. This finding was first reported in March by a team of researchers in Italy. They identified an association between atmospheric pollution and the rapid propagation of the virus: specifically, that minute particles of the virus attach to particles in polluted air. Judging by earlier tests on Zika, SARS and Ebola, the virus could remain active in the air for several hundred metres, and therefore infect people beyond a few metres’ distance.

This finding was picked up in late April by The Guardian, which quoted British scientists agreeing that “small droplets [containing the virus] could combine with background urban particles and be carried around.” The Italian findings were recently cited, with additional evidence, in a report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Air Pollution in the U.K.*

In its June issue, the Environment International journal calls on “national authorities [to] acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air.”

We can call this Level 2 atmospheric transmission, to contrast it with Level 1 proximate transmission. This new understanding can explain why, by early April, all 10 of the largest outbreaks of the pandemic – within China, the United States, Italy, Spain and Germany – occurred in places of heavy pollution. The evidence that the air in some cruise ships and seniors’ residences had high levels of contamination suggests further that the virus could circulate in indoor air, through ventilating systems (as was found with Legionnaires’ disease) or through the natural flow of inside air. How else to explain why so many people locked down in their rooms became infected?

Level 2 atmospheric transmission is the likely superspreader, indoors as well as outdoors. While Level 1 contact can explain how individuals get infected in the first place, Level 2 exposure may better explain how the wider outbreaks occur, and why that happens in some places and not others. An individual can carry the virus to a new place and infect people nearby. But from there, polluted air may take over and do the superspreading, as it carries the virus in the atmospheres of only some cities and buildings (depending on factors such as humidity, sun exposure and air movements).

Consider Level 2 in terms of the density and duration of the active particles. The density of these tiny particles in the atmosphere may be less than that of the heavier particles coughed into a room. But they can last longer – apparently up to hours instead of minutes – and be replaced continuously. We do know from the experience of healthcare workers that the longer people are exposed to the virus, the greater their chances of getting infected. Think, then, of all those people who are exposed to polluted air, some for as much as 24/7 (indoors as well as outdoors).

I am not a physician, but I do see myself as a pattern recognizer, especially in my books on management and organizations. And from the day in early April when I read about the Italian findings, I detected a pattern in a number of the anomalies around the spread of the coronavirus that I had identified in a blog post a few days earlier. Airborne transmission could explain this. It could also explain how we deal with the pandemic, as well as how we research it.

We require research that is grounded in learning, alongside the more formal procedures of proper research. When I asked several epidemiologists about the implications of Level 2 transmission, most were dismissive. All called for further research – one estimated two or three years of it. We can no more wait for that than we can continue to flatten the curve while waiting for a vaccine.

The evidence we do have for airborne transmission looks a lot sounder than whatever underlies the hodgepodge of reopenings currently being pursued. What evidence supports once again firing up our polluting cities? While proper research must unfold as it should, we require detective research, namely the investigation of every plausible option to deal with the virus. Is this risky? The course we are on – focusing on Level 1 transmission – is the truly risky one.

The stakes are high, while the options are few. By suspending that focus, we could discover all kinds of ways to proceed. Should we really be opening our windows to clear the air inside our buildings? Not if that brings in more dangerous air from the outside. Should we remove the masks when no one is nearby (as is now being done in some hospitals) or allow schools and plants to reopen so long as everyone can keep their distance? Not if the air inside is found to contain contaminants that could be carrying the virus.

By stopping the polluting, indoors and outdoors, we may be able to stop the pandemic. China and South Korea have been lauded for isolating their people to flatten the curve. But the greater benefit may have been serendipitous. With reduced traffic and industry, the outbreaks might have ended because the pollution abated. If so, then simply reopening our economies, however gradually, could turn out to be deadly if it triggers a second wave.

Must we force ourselves into this either/or impasse, between the flawed options of opening up and closing down? We can open up our economies selectively, where distancing is possible, by allowing the resumption of activities that barely pollute while keeping major sources of pollution closed until they can be cleaned up – if ever. If this sounds drastic, it may turn out to be not nearly as harsh as the alternatives we’re facing now.

Indoors, we should be investigating every problematic space – residences and schools, offices and arenas, factories and meatpacking plants – and allow no one back inside until experts declare the air to be safe from the virus.

Do the experts always get it right? When cholera broke out in London in 1854, the established belief was that the disease was transmitted through the air. Dr. John Snow’s belief about transmission through polluted water was dismissed by the medical establishment. Snow placed a pin on a map where each person had died and found that all but two casualties were clustered around one well in Soho. The two outliers turned out to have also drunk water from that well. While the physicians tried to cope with the outbreak, the handle was taken off the pump of the well, and the outbreak ended.

Still, it took another 12 years for medicine to accept that cholera is a water-borne disease.

The evidence suggests that we need to stop the polluting to stop the pandemic. By so doing, we will have done the right thing to preserve our health, as well as for the planet, which has had enough of our warming.

*On May 29, in a medRxiv preprint, researchers in the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge reported, “Our model indicated that exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 [pollutants found in outdoor and indoor air] increases the risk of COVID-19 infection.”

Henry Mintzberg is Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies in the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University and the author of Managing the Myths of Health Care.

A variation of this piece is co-posted on mintzberg.org/blog and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

The post Moving ahead of the pandemic appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The stock market’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic was swift and harsh, crashing more than 33% in about a month. The market has bounced back somewhat from those mid-March lows, sparking optimistic talk of a “V-shaped recovery,” where the economy quickly returns to normal, though RBC CEO Dave McKay suggests a longer downturn, with a “U-shaped recovery,” is more likely.

Bank CEOs warn that we should prepare for a recovery period that spills into next year, so let’s examine a handful of eco-friendly companies that will continue to profit during a longer period of pandemic-induced economic pain.

Note: These are investment ideas, not recommendations. Speak to a financial professional before investing and ensure that any holdings are part of a more diversified investment strategy.

Cascades

I would have never picked toilet paper to be the hot commodity as society faces a global pandemic, but here we are. Cascades is a Quebec-based company that makes tissue paper and packaging from recycled materials. The company is the most sustainable toilet paper manufacturer in Canada and is well positioned to take advantage of the growing demand for eco-friendly home-delivery and takeout packaging.

Long considered a leader in developing a closed-loop or circular economy, Cascades uses recycled fibres for 84% of its paper products. The remaining materials are sourced using a strict procurement policy that prioritizes fibre suppliers certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). In 2015, Cascades set ambitious sustainability targets for 2020, and I’m excited to see how much further they’ll push the targets with their next five-year plan. Cascades was #49 on the 2020 Corporate Knights Most Sustainable Companies in the World list.

Cascades’ share price didn’t dip much in the initial crash, and is up 16 % over the past two months. The stock is expected to pay a 2.54% annual dividend.

Microsoft

The pandemic is forcing everybody to work from home, and Microsoft — the world’s largest company — is perfectly placed to profit from this massive transition in our economy’s workforce. Consumer device sales will likely drop as unemployment rises and people are less likely to upgrade their phones and computers, but only about 36% of Microsoft’s revenue comes from personal computers and gaming. Its other segments include productivity and business processes and Intelligent Cloud. My instinct is that demand for these business-to-business segments will be resilient to the current economic current and will likely benefit as old-school businesses evolve to become completely or much more remote.

Microsoft is highly rated by environmental, social and governance (ESG) rating agencies including Corporate Knights, MSCI and Sustainalytics, and the company has pledged to become carbon negative by 2030. However, Microsoft did come under pressure last year when employees threatened to walk out after it signed a big contract with the U.S. military.

It’s hard to argue that Microsoft is leading us directly into a green economy, but it’s fair to classify it as “doing less harm” and ahead of the curve on corporate responsibility measurements.

Microsoft’s share price initially fell by 27%, but rebounded nicely such that it is only down 5% over the past two months. The stock is expected to pay a 1.19% annual dividend.

Brookfield Renewable Partners

Get the business news and analysis that matters most every morning, including the latest on what the coronavirus means for you, in our Star Business email newsletter.

Brookfield Renewable Partners, the renewable energy division of Brookfield Asset Management that generates electricity through hydro, wind and solar projects, is well positioned to resist the current economic storm. (Full disclosure: The author owns shares of Brookfield Renewable Partners).

I consider Brookfield Renewable Partners pandemic-proof because the company’s revenue comes from multi-decade purchase price agreements (PPAs) to sell electricity at a pre-set price. Electricity demand is falling as factories are locked down, yes, but that doesn’t affect the price that Brookfield Renewable gets paid for generating electricity. The weighted average remaining duration of these contracts is about 17 years, so investors can reasonably expect the company to maintain consistent cashflows. Brookfield Renewable Partners seems to be on solid financial footing, having just raised $350 million in green bonds.

I’ve criticized Brookfield Renewable Partners in the past for not reporting sustainability data, so I’m thrilled to see that it’s produced a detailed ESG report for 2019. Now that the company is finally disclosing data, I expect it to start popping up more regularly on lists of sustainability leaders. About 0.2% of its energy generation comes from relatively carbon-intensive natural gas co-generation (also known as combined heat and power), so although it isn’t quite 100% renewable, I still consider it to be green.

Brookfield Renewable Partner’s share price fell by 30% like the rest of the market during the crash, but has recouped more than two-thirds of that loss in the rebound. The stock is expected to pay a generous 4.82% annual dividend.

Tim Nash blogs as The Sustainable Economist and is the founder of Good Investing.

The post Pandemic Portfolio: Three companies well-positioned to weather the crisis appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The coronavirus is a whole different beast. Within 30 days of the first recorded death in Canada  (an 83-year-old man at North Vancouver’s Lynn Valley Care Centre on March 9), the federal government rolled out direct new spending of $105 billion to deal with the immediate fallout from shutting down vast parts of the economy in an attempt to contain the virus.

Just the $71 billion emergency wage subsidy to get Canadians through the next few months was more than the entire $70 billion the federal government had earmarked to address the climate emergency over the next 10 years – an amount that many considered bountiful just a few months ago.

The difference is the new coronavirus threatens all of our families today, whereas the climate crisis is more of a distant danger  – unless you live in growing wildfire, flood, heat wave, hurricane or drought  zones.

The human tendency to procrastinate is strong, but when the bell tolls, our survival instincts kick in.

Historic job losses triggered by the pandemic, combined with collapsing oil prices, will plunge every province in Canada into recession this year, according to RBC forecasts. As the conversation starts to shift from crisis relief to economic recovery, Canada has an opportunity to recover stronger than ever.

While in the past it has been difficult to make bold moves that would allow Canada to surf the clean economy wave rather than being wiped out by it, the Overton window of what is politically viable has shifted. It’s important that our policies be grounded in the new reality. The sheer scale of expected stimulus over the next two or three years will likely cast the die of our economy for decades to come.

As government makes this once-in-a-generation investment in the economy, it is vital that it look ahead and invest in building an economy that is ready for tomorrow, instead of spending large amounts of public money on infrastructure and technologies that will be outdated within a decade, as Smart Prosperity’s Stewart Elgie points out.

The last time officials at the federal Finance Department had to come up with a stimulus plan was in the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008/09. Just 8% of the stimulus had a climate dimension, compared to 12% in the U.S., 38% in China and 59% in the European Union, according to HSBC Global Research.

This time is different: we have a government that was elected with a strong mandate for climate action and a clear 2050 net-zero carbon emissions target. Just don’t expect that, on its own, to have much sway on the finance officials who will be crafting the stimulus. They will be preoccupied with a single objective: get the economy growing and people back to work as quickly as possible.

There is a strong economic argument that a conventional stimulus will not be good enough. If we use yesterday’s playbook, Canadians risk being left behind at a crucial time of transition, as global demand and technology shift in favour of a more efficient low-carbon economy.

Applying a climate lens to the recovery package can help us identify some of the best opportunities to get people back to work immediately while building a more resilient Canada for the long term, ready to capitalize on new global growth trends.

One 2009 study by the International Monetary Fund on climate policy and recovery found that “environmental measures have been a valuable part of fiscal stimulus packages,” emphasizing that “energy efficiency investments are particularly well-suited to stimulus spending,” because they can be executed quickly.

In April, leaders in Canada’s clean energy sector wrote to the prime minister calling for a clean-energy-focused stimulus in order to “build a better, more resilient economy,” noting a special need to invest most in those regions that have been hit hardest by the collapsing oil price, such as Alberta.

Encouragingly, there are signs that clean economy investments could take centre stage in federal economic recovery plans, said a spokeswoman for Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson in April,

“When the recovery begins, Canada can build a stronger and more resilient economy by investing in a cleaner and healthier future for everyone.”

Inevitably, there will be pushback from some of Canada’s more entrenched interests. The response must be clear and unequivocal: a sustainable path is the only way forward if we want Canada to thrive long term.

As Canadians, this is our moment to think and act big.

In that spirit, today, we are launching a Building Back Better Green Recovery report series with contributions from some of Canada’s most inspired minds. And over the next seven weeks, Corporate Knights and partners will hold a weekly series of live conversations bringing together people with the ideas and the power to explore how Canada can use a renewed climate-based approach to build a stronger, more sustainable economy.

Our web host will be economist and public policy expert Diana Fox Carney.

These conversations will revolve around six themes: Buildings, Power, Transport, Heavy industry, Forests and Energy. Each session will begin with a table-setting analysis prepared by energy and environment expert Ralph Torrie, covering capital requirements, job creation, energy savings, emissions reductions, and the measures required to enable fast rollout.

Our goal: to inspire Canadian decision-makers to seize this opportunity to Build Back Better.

The 60-minute weekly series kicks off on Wednesday, April 22^nd (the 50^th anniversary of Earth Day), at 11 a.m. EDT. The series will continue at the same time each Wednesday through to June 3.

Each event will include reactions and suggestions from expert panelists as well as an opportunity for attendees to make suggestions and ask questions. Following each discussion, updated proposals will be shared with all participants for further refinement to inform a synthesis document to be presented in June.

Here’s the schedule. We hope you can join us.

Building Back Better with a Green Renovation Wave

Wednesday, April 22, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m. EDT

Building Back Better by Topping Up our Green Power Sources, Storage and Connections

Wednesday, April 29, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.

Building Back Better by Electrifying our Cars, Trucks and Buses

Wednesday, May 6, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.

Building Back Better by Greening Heavy Industry

Wednesday, May 13, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.

Building Back Better with Forests

Wednesday, May 20, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.

Building Back Better by Fueling Innovation in the Energy Sector

Wednesday, May 27, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.

Building Back Better: The Wrap and Next Steps

Wednesday, June 3, 11 a.m. – 12 p.m.

The post The Canada we want: How a green recovery can help us bounce back stronger appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The global spread of COVID-19 is deeply affecting each of us. It’s taking a devastating toll on lives, businesses and communities. It’s upending how companies operate and is shattering supply chains around the world. Yet, even during this time of upheaval, there are companies mobilizing in unprecedented ways to protect lives and to defeat the disease. We are witnessing inspiring leadership, with so many companies – large and small – stepping up to help their communities and pivoting their businesses to supply essential products and to provide humanitarian relief.

Leading the way are social purpose businesses that have already defined an aspirational societal reason for being and that aim to create value for all stakeholders. They protect their employees, minimizing job loss and providing paid sick leave. And they go beyond simply donating to charity by redeploying their assets to address the most urgent needs. Whether small firms or multinational corporations, purpose-driven businesses are reimagining their role in the time of COVID.

How social purpose-driven companies have responded to COVID-19

Unilever, the global consumer-goods company, launched a sweeping Sustainable Living Plan in 2010 with the aim of improving the health and well-being of more than one billion people by 2020. It’s now leveraging its social purpose “to make sustainable living commonplace” by donating $155 million worth of soap, sanitizer, bleach and food to help protect people’s lives around the globe. It’s also providing $775 million of cash flow relief for early payments to its small suppliers and extending credit to small-scale retail customers to help them manage and protect jobs. According to its CEO, Alan Jope, “Our strong cash flow and balance sheet mean that we can, and we should, give this support.”

Google’s corporate mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” drives its global response. It’s providing a total of US$800 million to support small- and medium-sized businesses, the World Health Organization, governments and health workers. Nearly US$600 million of that comes in the form of ad grants and credits. It has established a US$200 million investment fund for non-profits and financial institutions to help provide small businesses with access to capital. It’s also making available US$20 million in Google Cloud credits for researchers to leverage Google’s computing resources to study potential therapies and vaccines to combat the virus. Its employees are bringing engineering, supply chain and healthcare expertise to facilitate increased production of ventilators, working with equipment manufacturers, distributors and government in this effort.

3M – with a mission “to improve lives” – established a unique partnership with Ford Motor Company to build respirators, including a new design that uses existing parts from both companies, such as the Ford F-150 truck’s cooled seating and 3M’s HEPA filters to increase efficiency and scalability. 3M has doubled its global output of N95 masks and is producing 100 million respirators per month.

HP Inc., whose purpose is “to create technology that makes life better for everyone, everywhere,” is mobilizing its 3D printing teams, technology, experience and production capacity to create 3D printing parts to help contain COVID-19. HP’s 3D R&D centers are collaborating with manufacturing partners around the world to increase production of face masks and shields, hands-free door openers, respirator parts and more. “HP and our digital manufacturing partners are working non-stop in the battle against this unprecedented virus. We are collaborating across borders and industries to identify the parts most in need, validate the designs, and begin 3D printing them,” said Enrique Lores, President and CEO, HP Inc.  Through its HP Foundation, the company also donated $1 million to direct COVID relief.

SAP, the European multinational software corporation, is leading through its purpose “to help the world run better and improve people’s lives” in its COVID response. It recently launched the SAP Purpose Network Live, a virtual platform that provides a space that brings together change-making companies, startups, government agencies, non-profits and consumers to co-innovate COVID solutions together. Through pro-bono consulting, SAP employees are also hosting webinars for non-profits on remote work and coaching social enterprises on business continuity. It set up a €3 million Emergency Fund to support the World Health Organization, the Centre for Disease Control and others working on the front lines. Recognizing the massive COVID disruptions impacting global supply chains, the company is offering free access to its SAP Ariba Discovery service so buyers can post immediate sourcing needs and suppliers can respond with their offerings.

With a mission “to raise the good in food,” the Canadian packaged meats and protein company Maple Leaf Foods donated $500,000 in financial and food contributions to food security organizations. It’s using its scale and reach to launch a matching campaign to raise an additional $2 million to support emergency food relief efforts. Maple Leaf has also contributed $2.5 million to the Canadian Frontline Healthcare Professionals Protection Fund, established by hospital foundations to provide support for frontline healthcare workers. As well, it’s contributing its food-safety know-how to others seeking to create pathogen-free environments.

Web Express, a Coquitlam, BC-based printing company, is pivoting its business to offer online publication services within a new Community Hub enabling ethnic media, industry publications, community centres, readers and advertisers to connect with one another. The Hub will be offered free for a time starting with ethnic community newspapers hit hardest by the pandemic, so they can continue their operations virtually – a matter of survival for small publications.

Traction on Demand, a purpose-led software company based in Burnaby, BC, partnered with Thrive Health, Salesforce and the BC government to create a new, life-saving healthcare app that has been deployed in almost 40 hospitals so far. The app, known as Traction Thrive, helps view, track and allocate critical healthcare personnel, personal protective equipment and ventilator availability in real time. Traction on Demand has since made the application available globally, at no cost, as a contribution to the global fight against COVID-19.

Hemlock Printers, a North American purpose-driven printing company also based in Burnaby, is printing Public Health Agency of Canada COVID-19 workplace posters for businesses and non-profits free of charge. Hemlock’s social purpose partner, Novex Delivery Solutions, is donating the “no-contact” carbon-neutral delivery of those posters. Hemlock is also printing floor decals (to indicate proper space apart while physical distancing), plexiglass shields and other signage products that protect employees and customers.

Within days of BC’s COVID shutdown, Community Savings Credit Union, a purpose-based regional financial institution headquartered in Surrey, BC, offered a range of services for people facing financial difficulty. Financial hardship services include an interest-free line of credit, postponement of loan and mortgage payment and service fees, and early redemption of non-redeemable term deposits so customers can gain quick access to needed funds. Its CEO, Mike Schilling, says, “We could do all this so quickly precisely because we are a purpose-driven organization.”

By focusing on their purpose, rather than on their bottom line, these businesses could make clear and quick decisions when they were needed. Purpose-led companies have a beacon they can turn to when steering through turbulence.

However, the bottom line will eventually benefit too, as pointed out by Larry Fink of BlackRock in his recent annual letter to shareholders. As the CEO of the world’s largest asset manager (with an estimated US$6 trillion in assets) says, “Companies with a strong sense of purpose and a long-term approach will be better able to navigate this crisis and its aftermath.”

As we head deeper into the COVID storm, and as our collective instincts rally, more and more companies will become humanitarian businesses. The time is ripe for all business leaders to reboot their companies along social purpose lines – or risk becoming irrelevant in the future marketplace. The rapid purpose pivots of these 10 leader companies shine a light on what’s possible. These and many other pivots are listed in this “COVID-19 Social Response Checklist for Business” we developed to help business leaders identify their unique COVID social response.

Let’s build a new future together. Now is not the time to be on the sidelines. We can envision the economy and society we want to live in in the post-pandemic era and make it happen. These purpose-driven businesses are showing us how.

Coro Strandberg is president of Strandberg Consulting and Mary Ellen Schaafsma is director of the Social Purpose Institute. Strandberg and Schaafsma partnered to create the Social Purpose Institute at the United Way of the Lower Mainland (SPI) in 2018. The SPI is creating a social purpose business movement in Canada and beyond and offers services that help business leaders, company boards, investors, industry associations and chambers of commerce advance social purpose in business.

The post Covid Knights: Corporate social purpose in the time of COVID-19 appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Women occupy a high percentage of positions in education, office support, social services and personal care, which are more likely to be suspended, laid off or forced to work reduced hours during the pandemic. PayScale noted that women “are also more likely to have to take time off work, or even resign their positions, in order to care for children who are no longer in school, as well as other family members.”

The report was released in advance of Equal Pay Day on March 31. With the stats saying that women earn on average only 75 to 80% as much as men, Equal Pay Day was founded to recognize the day of the year when women have finally made as much money over the past 15 months as their male colleagues earned in 12.

Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg spoke with Yahoo Finance about the impacts of the pandemic on women. “Because you have less savings, you have less ability to earn and so these problems we have that hit our most vulnerable — domestic violence, pay gaps — this is a wake-up call to fix them,” says Sandberg.

While that pay gap has been shrinking, it’s not happening fast enough to meet the goal of the Ontario-based Equal Pay Coalition: to achieve wage parity by 2025. Still, market forces are kicking in. As big companies today struggle to find talent, they’ve been adopting more formal structures, such as pay parity, special leadership programs and rules regarding sexual harassment, to promote equity for women and other disadvantaged groups.

Longer-term, the signs are more encouraging. Bloomberg publishes an annual Gender-Equality Index, which tracks the progress of public companies committed to supporting gender equality. This year’s list includes 16 Canadian companies, up from just 12 in 2019.

The full index includes 325 public companies around the world (up from 230 last year). Each company is worth at least US$1 billion, so it’s an exclusive list. But Bloomberg expects this project to accomplish two key objectives: encourage more businesses to adopt gender-equity policies and give investors more data on companies embracing progressive ethics.

Canuck companies on the list include all six major banks, plus insurance giant Manulife, as well as such outliers as Enbridge, Teck Resources and retailer Lululemon. Newcomers this year include Algonquin Power, Aurora Cannabis, toymaker Spin Master, engineering giant Stantec and electrical producer TransAlta.

Corporate Knights checked on a few of these firms to find out how they’re managing equality at the top. Our conclusion: awkwardly.

Only one of the 16 companies is headed by a woman: Dawn Farrell, CEO of TransAlta. The firm’s 12-person board includes only four women.

Kathleen Taylor chairs the board of RBC, and six women sit on the 14-seat board. But just one woman ranks among the bank’s 10 “executive officers.” She runs human resources.

Manulife lists 12 men on its senior leadership team and just three women. Marianne Harrison runs Manulife’s sprawling U.S. division, with assets nearing US$500 billion.

Lululemon is the only Canadian company with gender parity on its board: five men and five women. And its website lists a management team of six women and four men.

The post Female workers disproportionately affected by COVID-19 shutdown appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The federal government’s Canada Emergency Response Benefit was announced March 25 to the great relief of many workers and businesses across Canada. Regulations, released April 1, were quick to follow. But many vulnerable workers and people in insecure jobs who are afraid to keep going to work but can’t afford to stay home have no relief in sight.

At first glance, it looks promising. CERB will provide $2,000 in four-week blocks for up to 16 weeks for workers who “lose their income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.” It will be open to anyone who has earned at least $5,000 from paid work or Employment Insurance maternity or paternity benefits in the past year. Applicants must have COVID-related income loss for 14 consecutive days prior to application.

But who exactly qualifies for the benefit was the question on the minds of many workers in essential services, such as those who work at grocery stores across the country. The federal government said the benefit would apply to people in many different circumstances, including “Canadians who have lost their job, are sick, quarantined, or taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19, as well as working parents who must stay home without pay to care for children who are sick or at home because of school and daycare closures.”

CERB, we were told, would apply to “wage earners, as well as contract workers and self-employed individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for Employment Insurance (EI) . . . [and] workers who are still employed but are not receiving income because of disruptions to their work situation due to COVID-19.”

But, long as that list is, it’s not quite long enough. What about those who are not sick, don’t have kids at home to care for or don’t match any other criteria on that list but are afraid of going in to work but do so because they need the money? There’s no mention of those in essential sectors, such as grocery store clerks who come into contact with hundreds of people daily with little (if any) protective gear. Or pregnant women with little financial choice working in these essential jobs who see contradictory messages about the risks they and their babies face with regard to COVID-19. In Tennessee, pregnant women are being treated as a high-risk group. In Quebec, the latest word is that pregnant women are at higher risk of respiratory illnesses but should still be treated like the general healthy public. What’s a woman to believe?

Pregnant women with little financial choice working in these essential jobs see contradictory messages about the risks they and their babies face.

 

Earlier this week, Corporate Knights published an article on how grocery store workers should be treated as frontline workers, with a big bump in pay to time-and-a-half and at least 14 days of paid sick leave (21 would be more realistic in a time of pandemic) for every worker, regardless of their employment status. We argued that this kind of pay raise would ensure that people who are healthy and strong would keep coming in to work because that kind of pay would make a big difference in their lives. At the same time, people who need to stay home would stay home because they would not lose the income they and their families so desperately need.

Unfortunately, this is not what is happening for the majority of the most vulnerable. Grocery store workers are getting a $2-an-hour pay raise, not time-and-a-half. And few have access to any paid sick or emergency leave days, let alone 14. Most will not have the “choice” to stay home, and if they do, they risk having no job to come back to. The law does not yet protect jobs for workers who stay off work by their own choice because they feel their workplace is unsafe. A workplace has to be officially deemed to be unsafe, and the process for doing so is complex, takes time and puts vulnerable workers who raise the alarm at risk of reprisals. Employment Standards Act regulations have not been adjusted to take this COVID reality into account.

South of the border, we are beginning to see walkouts and strikes at Amazon, Instacart and Whole Foods. Better for Canada to act now to avoid that here.

What’s an employer to do? What should government do? Let’s start with government making provisions for the many extra-vulnerable workers out there, like low-paid, pregnant grocery store employees who need income support and health protection. Let’s also get our provincial governments to make emergency changes to employment standards to protect people who are afraid to keep going to work so that they won’t lose their jobs just because they “choose” to stay home. While they’re at it, the feds and provinces can work together to ensure that no one has to face 14 days of income loss before they can get help. And finally, let’s see all big employers, especially those still turning a healthy profit in the time of COVID, step up and give access to at least 14 days of paid sick and emergency leave. But if that doesn’t happen swiftly, let’s have our governments make them do it.

In a time where we all have to pull together, let’s share the burden among those that can handle it; let’s not put it on the backs of those whose backs are already breaking.

Michelynn Lafleche is a senior advisor to Corporate Knights. She is known for her research on precarious work and labour-market change in Canada.

The post What if you’re afraid of falling ill at work but can’t afford to stay home? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

While there are certainly parallels with the global financial crisis just over a decade ago, there are also signs of change – and evidence that some valuable lessons have been learned.

This time around, in response to the virus, we’re seeing values of community and mutual support shine through and a far more human-centric economic response from governments, business and the investment community alike. This evolution in response has been aided by the emergence of a more progressive mindset over the past decade, one that reflects a shift in values that has been embodied in the environmental, social and governance (ESG) philosophy. How corporations and finance respond to this new crisis will be more sharply judged against this ESG criteria.

The landscape has changed around us. Accountabilities will be redefined and some corporations and investors will be unmasked as the lack of substance behind their ESG rhetoric becomes clear.

Nowhere has this shift been more evident than in the announcement last year from the Business Roundtable in the United States. It released a formal statement seeking to redefine the purpose of corporations, moving away from shareholder primacy to include a commitment to all stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers and communities in addition to shareholders. Now is the time that this new purpose will to be put to the test. Will their statements prove to be worth more than the paper they’re written on? Only time will tell.

How responsible investors should respond

As for the responsible investment community, it’s time for us to step up and play our role as long-term holders of capital, to call corporations to account. It’s time for asset owners sitting at the apex of the investment chain to lead the financial sector through this crisis. We need to maintain a focus on long-term horizons and support collective action while trying to understand the real issues companies are facing from COVID-19 as well as the effects to our individual portfolios.

Most importantly, asset owners need to look to the interests of their beneficiaries and understand the impacts of the crisis at both an individual and systemic level. Short-term decisions up and down the investment chain all contribute to volatility and value destruction. Meanwhile, collective action by the financial sector and investors supporting sound government policies all reduce the overall impacts—another lesson from the last crisis.

As we attempt to deal with this new crisis, COVID-19 raises several challenges for investors, including how to deal with their normal stewardship practices. At PRI we recommend that most engagement with companies in the short-term is re-prioritized so that discussions not relevant to COVID-19 are postponed. Of course, even in COVID-19 related engagements, unless there is evidence of irresponsible behaviour, we must allow companies adequate time and capacity to crisis manage and put plans into place.

Investors can also begin publicly signalling their support for a “whole-of-economy” response. This will provide much needed backing to governments for critical interventions and unprecedented stimulus packages that will help to deliver a successful and just recovery. We should also be vocal in saying that there must be a green and sustainable backbone to the stimulus.

Aligning the recovery with social and environmental outcomes

The pandemic has temporarily shifted public focus away from the climate and biodiversity emergency, but they are intrinsically linked. Destruction of habitats and ecosystems only risk further pandemics as diseases spread between animals and humans. As COVID-19 is stabilized, efforts to address these systemic issues are more critical than ever.

The crisis has already shown us what is possible when government, business, investors and civil society all come together. It has also shown us that we need to listen to the science and post-crisis we need to apply these principles and the same sense of urgency to the climate emergency.

But it’s not just environmental issues that need to be prioritized following the crisis. The responsible investment community needs to step up its actions on social issues as well, particularly those around human and labour rights. For far too long we have ignored the modern forms of exploitation surrounding the gig economy. Now we’re seeing the desperate consequences for millions of workers in precarious positions, shadow economy roles and day-to-day existence workers as COVID-19 takes hold across the globe, exacerbating inequalities.

The road ahead: working with PRI signatories

To assist investors in working through both the short- and long-term implications of the crisis, PRI will be convening COVID-19-focused working groups. We will work with our global signatory base to deepen our position in response to the crisis and to seek practical inroads towards implementation. Our briefing, How responsible investors should respond to the COVID-19 crisis, is the first step in determining our response to the pandemic, including seven key actions for investors.

If there is any silver lining in such a devastating crisis, it’s the prospect it presents us for change. Looking ahead to the recovery from COVID-19, investors are offered a unique opportunity to re-evaluate our global financial system and to bring a wider, deeper drive towards sustainability issues.

Responsible long-term investment is more important than ever before. People talk about sustainability being mainstream, but as those of us who work in this space know, we are far from a world where all investors fully take account of ESG issues. This must change and when we emerge from the COVID-19 crisis, we need to ensure that responsible investment is the only acceptable norm.

Now is the time for decisive, collective action. It’s time to demonstrate that the global financial sector can respond to the immediate crisis while shaping a recovery which prioritizes social and environmental outcomes. The actions we collectively take over the coming weeks, months and perhaps even years will lay the foundations for a more stakeholder-driven and sustainable global economy—one that aligns people, profit and planet.

Fiona Reynolds is the CEO of the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment, or PRI. A version of this article was first published on unpri.org.

The post COVID-19: harnessing the power of collective investor action for change appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Whatever that stimulus looks like, it will need to accomplish two things: get Canadians back to work and address the climate crisis with strategic infrastructure investments. The smart approach would involve investing in infrastructure that leverages existing competitive advantages and builds on and secures that edge. Three moves would accomplish that.

First, in a carbon-constrained global economy, jurisdictions that produce goods and services with low embedded greenhouse gas emissions will have an edge over those that don’t. For a glimpse of things to come, think of Apple’s recent first purchase of aluminum from Quebec. Federal leadership, and collaboration with the provinces and territories, should be focused on cleaning our electricity supply first and foremost.

Provinces with significant hydroelectricity surpluses share borders with others still reliant on coal and diesel that are looking for cleaner alternatives. Ottawa can facilitate the simple solution of stringing new “extension cords” from clean and renewable energy supply to demand (i.e. new transmission lines), as it recently did between Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Ottawa could also help waterpower generators looking to optimize the performance and longevity of their facilities. By refurbishing and redeveloping existing generation facilities, some producers could increase annual output by a quarter or more. These investments represent a win-win: they typically yield a lower cost of electricity than investments in any other supply options do, and they increase clean and renewable electricity supply with a negligible additional environmental footprint.

Finally, like any savvy investor, Ottawa should be planning for the future. The falling costs of harnessing wind and solar energy means our electricity supply will be increasingly variable and weather-dependent. At the same time, Canada will need to significantly increase flexible and dependable generation and energy storage to balance supply and demand during periods of planned and unplanned wind and solar energy surpluses and deficits. Waterpower does this well. Augmenting our existing fleet with more energy-storage approaches, such as “pumped storage” and “green hydrogen,” will also be needed. Proposals for both are already being developed across Canada. For instance, five of the most promising pumped hydro projects could add up to 2,400 megawatts of installed generation capacity with an estimated capital cost of $6 billion.

Canada needs more investment in green infrastructure. It’s only common sense to focus on both our green and our blue (waterpower) economy. Six out of 10 Canadian homes and businesses are currently powered by clean and renewable hydroelectricity. Leveraging and building on our existing competitive waterpower advantages would add billions of dollars of investment and tens of thousands of new jobs each year, to a sector that already contributes more than $30 billion to the Canadian economy and supports a labour force 130,000 strong.

Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin is the president & CEO of WaterPower Canada, the national trade association for hydroelectricity producers and their goods-and-services providers.

The post Corona response: How blue power can spur a green recovery appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The pandemic has already hit many vulnerable workers hard and with hundreds of thousands already applying for EI, unemployment is set to rise very sharply. The federal government has responded with an appropriate first step by announcing major spending packages.

Recognizing that access to Employment Insurance benefits is highly problematic for many low paid employees and non- existent in the case of self-employed and gig economy workers, the federal government proposes two new temporary programs. These are the Emergency Care Benefit and the Emergency Support Benefit, intended to get cheques to impacted workers through the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). It’s important to acknowledge that these emergency benefits, as well as EI, cover a little more than half of earnings up to $450 and $573 per week, respectively. It will hardly be enough to pay for basic essentials of housing, utilities and food in many parts of the country. Imagine a minimum wage worker in Ontario accessing this program and seeing their income drop from about $550 a week to around $300. Improvements are clearly needed. That’s why the Broadbent Institute and others have called for benefits equal to at least 80% of earnings.

Regardless of the amount, it’s imperative that these cheques be distributed as quickly as possible. But the government has already stated this won’t happen before April 1, rent day for many. Top-ups to the Canada Child Benefit and the GST rebate for low-income individuals won’t come until May. These lag times and low levels of support could mean that many Canadians quickly end up in the dire straits these programs are meant to prevent. We’d like to see the federal government give workers the benefit of the doubt and get payments underway while verifying the claims.

Provinces have a big role to play too. Quebec, to its credit, moved quickly to provide an immediate income supplement. Ontario has put a moratorium on evictions tied to unpaid rent and a few provinces have now instituted job protection measures for any employee missing work due to sickness, self-isolation, quarantine or family care. Others are deferring utility bills. These are all helpful one-offs, but they need to evolve quickly into robust provincial packages that supplement income, provide paid sick leave and job protection, keep roofs over peoples’ heads and assist the most vulnerable in our communities.

The reality is the pandemic is bringing to light the gaping holes in our income security system that existed before COVID-19. The steady rise in insecure and low paid work, fueled in large part by a growing gig economy, leaves far too many individuals and families one pay cheque away from disaster. Some of the changes made now to help stem the economic fallout of the pandemic, such as paid sick days and unemployment income support for gig and contract workers, should become permanent features post COVID-19. Delivering these new emergency benefit programs through current CRA accounts sets an administrative precedent for how we could continue these programs in the future.

When it comes to support for businesses, the most pressing issue is to minimize the growing wave of layoffs and coming surge in bankruptcies caused by a collapse in revenue at companies which may already have high levels of debt. Lower interest rates and relaxed bank reserve requirements will help struggling companies in the short term, as will the federal government’s expansion of loans to smaller and medium sized companies through the BDC (Business Development Bank of Canada) and EDC (Export Development Canada), our state owned banks.

The danger here is that we will end up bailing out the owners of corporate assets rather than helping workers, something we saw in the last financial crisis. Yes, we need to help employers to save jobs, but not without conditions.

In 2009, the federal and Ontario government spent $10.8 billion of taxpayer money bailing out General Motors to save jobs. A decade later, General Motors closed down the Oshawa assembly plant. Learning from this experience, the government should consider taking up long-term equity positions in return for injections of public capital into large and normally profitable corporations.

Business support could also come in the form of more serious short-term wage subsidies for businesses that commit to keeping their staff on the payroll. The 10% subsidy recently announced by the federal government will unfortunately do little to stop lay-offs in many sectors facing significant downturns right now. Other countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand, are taking a more aggressive approach and subsidizing wages by half or more for businesses that don’t proceed with lay-offs. In doing so, they are smartly tying support for employers and employees together, making both more resilient during the crisis and therefore more capable of rebounding once it has passed.

There’s no denying we need a serious transition plan for workers in devastated sectors, but it should focus on major public investments in a Green New Deal rather than on bailouts to companies that won’t survive a long period of low oil and gas prices and serious global action to deal with climate change.

The federal and provincial governments deserves to be congratulated for actions to date. But we need a major national debate on the recovery package as it unfolds to ensure that it meets our shared goals for our economy and our society.

We should be careful about planning for the future we want rather than just shoring up the economy of today.

Andrew Jackson is a senior policy adviser and Katrina Miller is program director at the Broadbent Institute.

The post How to shore up workers struggling under COVID-19 and plan for the future we want appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Everyone now knows someone in isolation, on layoff or displaying concerning symptoms. Already, I have friends and students whose personal economic situations have been shattered. Their shifts, or jobs, are gone – and they are not coming back any time soon. And the crisis will likely last far longer than many leaders have officially told us.

What are the responsibilities of institutions, of institutional leaders, of system leaders and of working professionals at this time? It is a time for national mobilization – for each institution of society, each formally empowered leader and each person with those organizations to bring her or his resources, abilities and creativity to bear on this national crisis. And no institution can be on the sidelines.

In particular, leaders and institutions that are not delivering essential public health services need to ask a series of questions – to answer the question, quite simply, of what they can do for their country.

Which institutions and systems are doing which work?

Pretty much every aspect of the health and social services system, and every worker in these systems, is attending to the crisis with stretched resources. They are putting themselves at risk while continuing to attend to the populations and people who have other needs.

Many other institutions in society are doing their part. Some are racing (scrambling?) to provide essential services – food distribution, transportation, electricity and water, telecommunications, supply chain management – to deliver on those essential public health needs. Others are providing free access to information, entertainment and other services that they’d usually ask people to pay for.

It was heartening to see prominent members of Canada’s business community write an open letter urging that every leader in the country “immediately shift focus to the singular objective of slowing the pace of transmission of this coronavirus,” demonstrating their understanding of what is at stake. Friday’s federal announcement of a plan to mobilize Canada’s private manufacturing capacity toward public health needs is an important step, following on the work by some businesses and public institutions (for instance, in manufacturing hand sanitizer and donating supplies) earlier in the crisis.

Other institutions are still on the sidelines. As they struggle to keep up and serve their staff, constituents and clients, they will need to turn their attention to the greater good. They are proceeding with business as usual, though with greater uncertainty, and working remotely.

What other work could be done?

Every institution and institutional leader has to look within and ask a series of questions in this era of national mobilization. They need to answer them in relation to some of the essential systems we need right now, although this is surely an incomplete list: health and public health, social services, education, food distribution, transportation, customer service operations, electricity and water, telecommunications, supply chain management, media and entertainment.

Here are seven questions that leaders and institutions that are not in the core of the crisis response could run through with their teams and organizations:

1. What resources do I have that can be given up now for those essential systems?
2. What expertise is within my organization that can be made available to others?
3. What practices, resources or networks do I have access to that can be retooled for national mobilization?
4. Can I abandon any of the natural competitive impulses within my sector, in the name of co-operation and national mobilization?
5. Are any of my people better situated elsewhere – in those essential systems, or in those co-ordinating institutions, rather than staying in my organization?
6. What business-as-usual practices can we abandon to help us work quickly to answer questions 1 to 5?
7. For businesses and large public-sector institutions: to what extent am I willing to sacrifice the primary objective around shareholder return or client or staff satisfaction — beyond what will already happen due to the recession — to help me answer the five questions above? To help keep other key institutions afloat, am I willing to cut salaries, accept job loss or more? In the short run, many professionals are still getting paid and supported, though this will change.

One possible benefit of this work is that institutions will have to make true on their brand promises – or dispense with those claims they make that aren’t really true.

Some implications of answering these questions might lead to the following (again, this is a very partial list):

• a move by senior and technical specialists into governments and other coordinating institutions on a dollar-a-year basis to help lead the response;
• more manufacturing capacity being redirected toward adjacent system needs;
• more technologists working on public purpose technology;
• the sharing of distribution channels, mailing lists and other tools that reach deep into populations for public service messages;
• the retooling of a larger number of assets and asset classes – say, real estate (especially hotel and dormitory beds);
• the evolution of professional services work toward pro bono offerings for the main institutional players; and
• more attention from other players in society toward those public systems and public workers that could be the secret casualties of this crisis without immediate attention (especially K–12 public education).

Hopefully, posing these questions can spark discussions within organizations and unleash new creativity, and a new sense of mission.
Everyone will need to sacrifice, and we will be able to tell when leaders and institutions don’t make those sacrifices. We will need political leaders – the prime minister and premiers in particular – and other institutional leaders to make specific calls for people and institutions of means to make sacrifices and to turn their institutions toward the needs of national mobilization.

Without collective sacrifice and national mobilization, our ability to respond to COVID-19 and our social cohesion are at risk. I am confident that Canadians, and Canadian institutions and leaders, are up to the task.

Karim Bardeesy is the executive director of the Ryerson Leadership Lab and a board member of Corporate Knights, Inc. Please email kbardeesy@ryerson.ca with reports and stories of leaders and institutions that are doing the hard work of retooling their work in an era of national mobilization.

The post Corona response: 7 questions business leaders should ask themselves appeared first on Corporate Knights.