Author: Charlotte Gill

Motivating the masses: 7 tested workplace productivity initiatives

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

40%

of office hours are spent dealing with internal emails

2/3

of workers claimed a four-day week made them more productive

60%

increase in output from walking meetings compared to the sit down variety

When The Guardian reported in April that a radical new law would ban French employees from checking work emails after 6pm, the Anglo internet community erupted in dismay, reverting to the national stereotype that the country’s workers were ‘lazy’. The report was promptly discredited by the French press, but that doesn’t mean some companies aren’t using similarly radical workplace initiatives, designed to boost that most sacred of business tenets: productivity.

Corporate culture is seen by many as stale, with bosses strictly abiding by the belief that long hours will bring greater financial rewards. The results of the 2014 National Study of Employers did little to dispel this – a paltry three percent of employers questioned allowed “all or most” of their employees to work from home frequently.

However, exciting initiatives from forward-thinking bosses are stirring up rumours that the world of business is more dynamic than it ever has been. So, if you’re looking to shake things up in your workplace, here are some of the more radical productivity initiatives.

The four-day week

One of the more extreme productivity initiatives is a four-day week. Understandably popular, a shorter week is believed by some to not only enhance productivity but also yield macroeconomic benefits when employed on a national scale. The arguments are that workers are more motivated to work, and more likely to spend on a three-day weekend, while businesses are saved the costs that come with running for a fifth day. As simple as this may seem in theory, the vast majority of businesses are yet to be convinced. The system has been trialled by a number of companies and governments: among the most notable is the state of Utah, which implemented a four-day week for 18,000 of the state’s 25,000 workforce at a month’s notice. Of the 18,000 individuals affected, two-thirds claimed it made them more productive, while one in three state inhabitants believed the scheme actually improved access to state services. In addition, the arrangement eased congestion on the roads and made the commute easier for the remaining workers, in effect cutting emissions by 14 percent. Mainland Africa’s smallest country, Gambia, also implemented a four-day week for public sector workers, to allow more time for prayer, social activities and agriculture.

Transparency on pay

These days, businesses are expected to be transparent. Companies across the world have taken pains to distance themselves from a longstanding tradition of secrecy and foster a culture of openness. Some have gone so far as to disclose everything about their dealings, including the salaries of every employee. This is a radical departure from the generally accepted policy of pay privacy, but companies such as KnowledgePay, SumAll and Buffer reckon it’s an effective means of boosting morale. Generation Y employees came of age in the digital era, when privacy is perhaps not as closely guarded as it once was: increased disclosure seems a natural progression for young businesses. “Organisations have to face it,” says Chris Kelley, founder and Chief Executive of the compensation advisory service KnowledgePay, “compensation is no longer a secret.” Those in favour of increased transparency argue it brings with it trust and motivation, and does away with the possibility of privacy breeding inequality. “After all, how can you know you are being discriminated against if you can’t discuss your pay?” says Linda Barrington, Executive Director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University.

Doing away with managers

Another radical approach that has been employed by a few forward-thinking enterprises is doing away with the customary command-and-control structure entirely by ridding the firm of management positions. The approach marks a complete departure from the conventional corporate structure and sees employees becoming more accountable for the work they do and the decisions they make. Those employing this particular structure, such as the video game development and distribution company Valve, and online shoe and clothing store Zappos, see it as a means of boosting employee flexibility. Instead of managers delegating jobs to individuals, employees are free to choose from a database of tasks and take on the ones they feel best equipped to manage. The no-management approach is founded on the principle that businesses should employ workers who are capable of looking after their own workload, and require little in the way of managerial oversight. While the structure may well be less cohesive than a traditional one, various case studies show that it boosts both motivation and productivity. What’s more, with a flatter organisational structure comes a valuable departure from traditional workplace dynamics, where most strive to take a step up to a more senior position. As a result, the absence of management positions could get rid of the backstabbing and office politics that so often arise among those climbing the corporate ladder.

Banning internal emails

In some organisations, internal emails account for three quarters of email traffic, forcing employees to comb through masses of often-meaningless information for fear of missing that vital titbit. What’s more, research conducted by Atos Origin recently found that, on average, employees spend 40 percent of their working week dealing with emails from colleagues. Realising this, some companies have opted to outlaw internal emails, either temporarily or permanently, to boost productivity and scale back time-wasting. To the surprise of sceptics, those partaking in these schemes have often found that workers tend to be more deliberate and direct in the way in which they communicate problems. IT services company Atos, for example, was heavily criticised when CEO Thierry Breton announced such a plan in 2011, but its ‘zero email initiative’ has yielded positive results and inspired many executives to follow suit. Ryan Holmes, Chief Executive of social media management tool Hootsuite, believes email is an “unproductivity tool” and sees in-house social media interfaces and instant messaging, which replicate face-to-face conversation more closely, as the way forward for enterprising companies. His stance is understandable, given firms such as his are the ones that look most likely to profit in the event of such a shift away from email.

Flexible working hours

Most of us spend 40 or so hours in the office each week, more or less equally divided between each day. However, many companies are now beginning to acknowledge the fact that employee productivity rates vary extraordinarily from day to day, and that the best approach may be to build more flexibility into the work schedule. “Flexible working can be viewed as making work into an activity, rather than a place you go,” says a spokesman for telecommunications provider O2, who introduced flexible working a few years ago. The argument is that managing a workload is made far easier when people are given a greater degree of flexibility. Last year, 22 of Britain’s biggest companies signed a commitment to flexible working rights after finding the policy could potentially cut costs by 13 percent. Nonetheless, many remain unconvinced by the idea, knowing that it requires a large amount of coordination and communication to implement and maintain. Some organisations, Yahoo and HP included, are concerned that flexible working hours reduce face-to-face communication, which could stifle creativity and collaboration. Compounding the uncertainty is that, for every study that shows the benefits of flexible hours, there is another that argues the opposite. The policy should not be seen as a fix-all method of cutting costs, and what’s clear from the flexible hours debate is that a lot depends on the specific organisation and individuals in question.

No working from home

Couple huge technological strides with lengthy commuting times and it’d be reasonable to assume that the number of those working from home has increased. The Telework Research Network estimates the number of workers based at home will increase by 63 percent over the next five years. Therefore, when Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo declared early in 2013 that she would effectively ban working from home, employees came forward in their droves to criticise the newly appointed executive. The overriding complaint was that Mayer’s decision failed to take into account the flexibility that had made the tech sector so great. She responded that: “Being at Yahoo isn’t just about your day-to-day job, it is about the interactions and experiences that are only possible in our offices.” Many managers argue that bringing people together in one place fosters a greater spirit of creativity and allows collaborative thinking. Mayer cited the Yahoo weather app as an example of the importance of workplace collaboration, as it was created by two engineers working in the same space. The company has since posted impressive results and many of Mayer’s most vocal critics have been forced to concede that they may have been wrong. Some chief executives, such as HP’s Meg Whitman, have gone so far as to introduce similar policies.

Walking meetings

The importance of health and wellbeing in boosting productivity has been made clear by multiple sources over the years, but a new study by researchers at Stanford University has shown an unusual way of increasing output. Evidence put forward by the group suggests ‘walking meetings’ can increase creative output by as much as 60 percent, and talks in detail about the relationship between walking and creativity. “Walking opens up the free flow of ideas, and it is a simple and robust solution to the goals of increasing creativity and increasing physical activity,” says the report, co-authored by Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz. This is not to say all office appointments should be scheduled to take place in the park, but it does shed new light on the ways in which we are mistaken in setting the stage for productivity. No doubt, many in the corporate world would assume a productive meeting is best held in a specially kitted-out conference room with comfy seats and state-of-the-art technology. However, these new findings show the extent to which our thought processes are linked to our physical movements. “Whether one is outdoors or on a treadmill, walking improves the generation of novel yet appropriate ideas, and the effect even extends to when people sit down to do their creative work shortly after,” says the Stanford report.

Tesla considers patent giveaway to speed up electric car adoption

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

One of the pioneers behind electric cars is considering offering its patents to rivals for free in an effort to speed up adoption of the technology. Tesla’s Elon Musk has hinted that the firm is seriously looking at allowing rivals to use its patents so that the market for electric cars can rapidly grow.

The attractiveness of electric cars has been discussed for years, mostly as a result of the low emissions of the vehicles and subsequent benefits to the environment. However, adoption has so far been low. In a speech to investors last week, Musk said he had been disappointed in how rivals had adopted the technology. “I was hoping other companies would engage more in serious electric car programs.”

Musk’s company is hoping that by allowing rivals to use its patents, it will help to dramatically transform the auto industry

He added that as a result, he was likely to do something with regards to the company’s patents, although would announce it in more detail in the future. “I’m contemplating doing something fairly significant on that front which should be kind of controversial with respect to Tesla’s patents.” It’s thought that the technology Musk is specifically thinking of offering to rivals is its Supercharger system that it hopes will become an industry standard charging technique.

While the potential for electric cars has been apparent for a number of years, the market has struggled to gain traction within the global auto industry because of difficulty in charging vehicles and the high cost of developing the technology. One of the main criticisms of electric cars is their inability to run for long journeys. While Tesla’s new Model S sports car claims to be capable of driving on a single charge with just 300 miles, some reviewers have questioned whether this is actually the case.

Another problem for the industry is the lack of infrastructure across many countries. The limited number of charging stations has deterred widespread adoption, although a number of regions in the US and Europe have announced plans to heavily invest in this infrastructure in the coming years.

John Gartner, Research Director for Smart Transportation at Navigant Research, told The New Economy one of the main problems facing the industry is the lack of a technology standard for charging vehicles. “The electric vehicle industry has thus far developed two competing fast direct current (DC) charging standards, through the Society of Automotive Engineers and the CHAdeMO standard originating from the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The Supercharger technology, while providing faster charging than has currently implemented by these standards, would have to be evaluated for its impact on the battery performance of competing electric vehicles, and this would take several years to determine if it is compatible.”

Gartner believes that rival carmakers would be wary of developing yet another way of charging vehicles due to the cost. “Automakers and electric vehicle charging companies would likely would be hesitant to support a third charging technology given the additional vehicle equipment cost, infrastructure cost in deploying more chargers, and potential for confusion in the marketplace for consumers from adding a third option for public electric vehicle charging. A single charging standard would be optimal to grow the electric vehicle market, but this will take many years given how fractured the market is today with hundreds of public DC chargers already in place.”

Giving away patents is certainly a controversial strategy for a private firm. While other industries fiercely protect their intellectual property, Musk’s company is hoping that by allowing rivals to use its patents, it will help to dramatically transform the auto industry into one dominated by electric vehicles. Although the move looks like an incredibly generous strategy from one of the industry’s leading firms, the reality seems to be that Tesla wants their tech to become the market standard.

BSGCT delves further into gene and cell-based therapy research

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Gene therapy has long since established itself as the cornerstone of modern medicine, and the first step into the field of personalised medicine. The British Society for Gene and Cell Therapy (BSGCT) has worked tirelessly since its inception in 2003 to promote the global reputation of UK gene therapy research.

Gene therapy research in the UK cuts across a broad arena of both inherited and non-inherited diseases, utilises a range of viral and non-viral gene transfer approaches, and, importantly, has been at the leading edge of translating experimental gene therapy to the clinic. This is exemplified by clinical trials, for example, in patients with severe combined immunodeficiency and haemophilia B. These experiments have led the field internationally, provided direct measurable benefit for patients and provided mechanistic insight into the function of gene therapies in patients.

22,000

pages in the report submitted by Geron to the FDA

£125m

funding for the CTC

Latterly, the synergy between research efforts in the gene and cell therapy communities triggered the change of name to include ‘cell’ therapy and the adoption of the new society aim. Initial engagement with stem cell researchers is expanding via active engagement of BSGCT members from the stem cell community, including the election of several high-profile stem cell researchers to the BSGCT board.

Gene therapy is a relatively mature field of research. Following the initial early positive pre-clinical data in the 1990s, gene therapy suffered from a series of events that had a dramatic effect on the field, both at the industry and commercial level, and at the level of academic funding. These included the death of Jesse Gelsinger on a gene therapy clinical trial in 1999, and serious adverse events on trials using integrating viruses on children. The reactions were profound but the field reacted positively and has, in the last decade, made substantial progress at the scientific and clinical levels. This has shaped the landscape for new engagement by large pharma, and small and medium enterprises alike.

Today, the BSGCT engages the UK’s academic and industrial sectors in both gene and cell therapy. The formation of the field of gene therapy predates that of human pluripotent stem cell biology by about 10 years, but many of the lessons are the same. In both cases, early media expectation created an unrealistic fantasy that a ‘cure for all within five years’ was forthcoming. However, this was soon followed by the realisation that slow and cautious progress towards the clinical treatment of specific diseases was required. Long timelines allow high-quality, safe products to be developed, funding to be secured, and the public and regulators to be fully engaged.

Overcoming hurdles
The cost of research and development, and progress to clinic is high. Geron Corporation pioneered the first-ever human embryonic stem cell trial in 2011 into spinal cord injury. Monumental effort was required to make this happen, including a 22,000 page submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Even then, the trial only came about after the election of Barack Obama, who is significantly more open to stem cell research than his predecessor George W Bush. Phase 1 clinical trials were completed successfully but later the same year Geron was forced to shut down its stem cell operation due to insufficient funds. It has since sold rights to a San Francisco-based company, BioTime. Advanced Cell Technology has also experienced a series of financial missteps that may jeopardise the future of its clinical trials.

It is within this context that the UK has made several regulatory and strategic decisions over the last 20 years. Recognising the special status of the human embryo, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was established in 1982, leading to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act being passed by Parliament in 1990. The act has since been twice revised: first in 2001 to permit isolation and research on human embryonic stem cells for strictly regulated purposes; and then in 2009 to permit the strict but facilitating regulatory regime for embryonic stem cell-based regenerative medicine.

Though the UK remains a much more favourable environment for stem cell research than the US, there are still severe regulatory and structural limitations to advancement of the field. Recently, the government announced the HFEA was to be disbanded and its activities consolidated into the Care Quality Commission – however, strenuous opposition from organisations including the British Medical Association and the Wellcome Trust forced a reversal. The HFEA will remain but is expected to make numerous cuts because of governmental spending plans.

In parallel to these changes, the UK government commissioned the Pattison report – also known as the UK Stem Cell Initiative – in 2005 to set out a long-term vision for UK stem cell research. The report made 11 key recommendations aimed at consolidating the UK’s current position of strength in stem cell research and turning it into a global leader in this technology over the next decade.

A BSGCT public engagement day, where students, patients and members of the public are educated on the science behind gene and cell therapy
A BSGCT public engagement day, where students, patients and members of the public are educated on the science behind gene and cell therapy

However, the impact of the report has been slow to materialise and has since been superseded by a more proactive report from the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), which urged the government to continue to facilitate the adoption of cell therapy in the National Health Service. The process has been long and convoluted as opposing parties seek to have their views represented every step of the way.

Securing progress
The BIS report led to the inception of technology ‘catapults’, ranging from satellite applications and future cities to renewable energy and regenerative medicine. This was termed the ‘Cell Therapy Catapult’ (CTC) and has attracted £125m funding from the Technology Strategy Board and UK government. The remit of the CTC is to promote and build the UK cell therapy industry by bridging the gap between basic research and clinical translation. This transition often stalls due to lack of funding, resources, experience, regulatory skills and/or manufacturing skills, as well as the unwillingness of large pharmaceutical companies to engage with early stage products.

For the BSGCT, guidance through the quagmire will be required to ensure good manufacturing grade products, to engage with the regulators and to recruit patients into early phase clinical trials. The CTC should also lead and lobby on other regulatory areas, such as developing a pan-European consent form for taking biopsies to produce human pluripotent stem cell lines. A review in this area has already been undertaken by the Californian Institute for Regenerative Medicine in the US, but needs to be addressed in the UK and EU.

In time, the CTC will also find the right strategy to consolidate a wide range of knowhow into manufacturing cell products within its facilities at Guy’s Hospital in London. To this end, in 2013, the UK Research Councils provided £20m to five regenerative medicine hubs, aiming to create a complete process line from bench to bedside. This has been a significant step in the development of UK-based R&D, however limited the funding.

The fact is that, despite being largely explored in the media as a promising technology with the potential to save countless lives, the high cost of research has meant gene therapy remains costly on an industrial scale. Between 2000 and 2010, there was significant dropout from research by big pharma, as companies became reluctant to invest in R&D with so little promise of returns. The global financial crisis resulted in the collapse of many small biotech companies and associated funding streams. This has led to gene therapy being mainly driven by publicly funded academic groups for the past decade. Relative restrictions in grant funding from research councils, charities and industry groups resulted in a comparatively difficult and very competitive decade – although it was clear governments and funders were still interested in promising areas of gene therapy.

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel as positive results consistently emerge from clinical gene therapy studies. The knock-on effect has been that the field of gene therapy is now on a steep upward trajectory. In a number of disease areas, gene therapy has led to improved clinical outcomes, which has restored confidence in the basic concept of gene-based therapeutics. In turn, this has led to renewed investments in small biotech companies and the interest of big pharma. The interaction between industry and academia appears to be improving, and research is increasingly structured in a more collaborative fashion.

Safeguarding the future
The development of clinical gene therapy is expensive and traditional short-term funding models are not best suited to ensure the successful transition from lab bench to bedside, which often takes a decade or more. A major obstacle is the production of clinical grade gene transfer vectors.

Access to suitable manufacturing facilities and high costs of production are key bottlenecks that should be addressed with a national and international agenda.

However, funding bodies frequently require a prediction of real costs for new gene therapy-based treatments, even during pre-clinical phases of development. These are difficult to calculate and can be prohibitively high at the onset of a project. However, as shown numerous times, technological advances will reduce manufacturing costs over time and theoretical calculations, in very early phases of a research programme, should perhaps not be an important factor when deciding on funding.

It is important, however, to balance such arguments against costs of competing technologies, as these will ultimately determine if a product will go to market. The provision of the first fully approved gene therapy in the Western world, Glybera, for a very rare condition known as lipoprotein lipase deficiency, has furthered interest and improved the outlook for both academic and industrial sectors in gene-based medicine.

As the technology develops and becomes more widely used, the BSGCT aims to educate and engage with the public on all issues relating to the development, testing and implementation of gene and cell therapies. This spans research progress on emerging technologies and pre-clinical studies together with current legislation that governs clinical testing and implementation of gene therapies. The importance of public education is to both highlight current research and discuss the associated ethics – such as the use of animals as models of human disease, and the implementation of clinical trials on healthy volunteers and patients.

Public engagement
For the BSGCT, educating the public about the critical issues relating to new medicines is very important when responding to key findings – whether positive or negative. The society holds annual public engagement events where students, patients and members of the public are educated on the science behind cell and gene therapy through informative talks, hands-on activities, interaction with actual researchers and panel discussions.

“Our audience increases year-on-year and we look to expand our events through collaborations with other societies and organisations,” says a spokesperson for the group. “In addition, we encourage the development of young scientists in the field by providing financial support for laboratory placements and registration to our conference. We are keen to expand the number of bursaries by collaborating with relevant organisations as well as the industry.”

As more and more gene and cell-based therapies emerge in the clinical industry, the BSGCT wants to be at the forefront of educating the public and increasing awareness on regulatory issues. This is particularly relevant when the recent House of Lords Report of Regenerative Medicine is considered. It targets the regulatory landscape in the UK for streamlining: a decision that could be hugely advantageous for research. This is in agreement with a report from the Academy of Medical Sciences that suggests the importance of a “one-stop shop” for regulation.

“We have formed partnerships with organisations such as the Nuffield Foundation, Progress Educational Trust and Society of Biology in our effort to expand our reach,” says the BSGCT. “We hope to work closely with the Cell Therapy Catapult to foster awareness of the key issues in development of cell-based therapies in the UK. We want to be directly involved in gene and cell therapy regulation development in the UK.”

How attractiveness became a new type of currency in the workplace

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Since American Psycho hit our screens at the turn of the millennium, the idea that bankers and financiers are vain and self-obsessed has permeated discourse. And though Patrick Bateman – the business card-obsessed narcissistic protagonist of the picture – might be stretching the stereotype to breaking point, the ‘beauty premium’ is real and pervasive in the banking and financial services industry.

“All the piss is about how you look,” one trader from an unnamed company told researchers from the British Sociological Association. His colourful language might suggest he is simply fitting into the industry conventions without giving it much thought, but research suggests there is in fact a link between good looks and financial rewards. A recent study by the University of Wisconsin has taken it one step further and established a correlation between a company’s stock performance and the ‘facial geometry’ of members of the C-suite. Looking good is actually a business matter now.

Since Marissa Mayer’s appointment, Yahoo shares have risen over 150 percent

The University of Wisconsin study is by no means the first to back up with science the idea that good-looking people have an easier time of it than their plainer-looking colleagues. In Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People are More Successful, Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas, suggests conventionally attractive people make three to four percent more money than less attractive people, and that it can amount to up to a quarter of a million dollars over a lifetime.

Joseph Taylor Halford and Scott H C Hsu, authors of Beauty is Wealth: CEO Appearance and Shareholder Value, devised a ‘facial attractiveness index’ to value the looks of hundreds of executives in S&P 500 companies. Results were compelling: when a CEO with a high scoring facial attractiveness was appointed to a top role, shares went up. They continued to jump with every TV appearance the good-looking chief made. Halford and Hsu singled out Marissa Mayer, the Yahoo CEO, who scored 8.45 out of 10 in the index. Since her appointment, Yahoo shares have risen over 150 percent.

Confidence vs beauty
The study also picked apart 1,830 mergers and acquisitions that took place between 1985 and 2012, and concluded that more attractive CEOs generally negotiated better terms for their companies than their average looking counterparts. “The evidence thus suggests that more attractive CEOs receive more surpluses for their firms from M&A transactions, a finding consistent with the hypothesis that more attractive CEOs improve shareholder value through superior negotiating prowess,” say Halford and Hsu.

Of course, these studies did not take into consideration skill and strategy, which must play some role in the increase in a company’s performance. But the results are revealing – and somewhat worrying. If the message is that only conventionally attractive people will make it to the top and succeed, it is no surprise that the young traders interviewed by the British Sociological Association are so concerned about their appearances.

Halford and Hsu might have identified a deterministic pattern in which only attractive people will succeed in business, but that does not mean that those less naturally blessed with the beauty gene will give up. The British Sociological Association paper claims many traders admit to dyeing their hair, and going on ‘boot camp’ fitness holidays to change or ‘fix’ their bodies. There has also been an increase in the number of bankers and finance professionals seeking cosmetic procedures to enhance their natural attributes.

“People tell me they need to have something done just to keep their jobs,” Dr Andrew Douglas, a facial aesthetics doctor in London’s famous Harley Street told the European Foundation Centre. He also claimed to have treated between 40 and 50 men working in finance over the course of 2013, earning himself a reputation as the ‘go-to guy’ for male plastic surgery for City workers. Similarly, in New York, Dr Stafford Broumand, a surgeon based on Park Avenue, says the majority of his clients work in the financial services industry, and that around 50 percent are male. Though the clients seeking plastic surgery are generally aged 40 to 50, according to Douglas, the wider trend of physical self-improvement is by no means restricted to older finance workers; younger workers will work out hard at the gym and invest in expensive labels.

3-4%

Salary premium for looking good

Skin deep
Of course, all these studies must be taken with a pinch of salt. Measuring attractiveness is not an exact science, and there is nothing to suggest conventional attractiveness and professional competency can’t coincide without influencing each other. It might not be physical attractiveness per se that makes professionals more successful, but the confidence and self-esteem that comes with it.

More important than the actual results is what these studies represent for the industry. The results of the study validate questionable attitudes such as the over-emphasis of physical attractiveness in the recruitment process and can encourage some of the more negative behavioural traits already associated with industry leaders, such as arrogance and narcissism. Individuals who attach too much importance to superficial attributes such as physical attractiveness tend to display other, more problematic, traits, such as an over-inflated sense of self-importance; they are generally also vain and grandiose. While a healthy measure of self-confidence can be a favourable characteristic for a banker to have, unmitigated arrogance can be an issue.

A narcissistic CEO can have the confidence to drive a company forwards and inspire employees – but too much arrogance can alienate others and lead to trouble. Fred ‘the Shred’ Goodwin did not single-handedly demolish the Royal Bank of Scotland through lack of initiative; it was his spectacularly misguided arrogance that did. For more junior employees in the financial sector, arrogance can lead to excessive risk-taking and a disregard for rules and authority – and we all know where that ends. It is this kind of behaviour that leads to the ‘too big to fail’ mentality: in a bull market it will go a long way, but quickly becomes a problem when the bears come out.

It helps to look the part when occupying certain positions: a sharp suit, shoes shining like mirrors and a well-maintained physique will certainly help create an image of confidence and success, even when one or both are lacking. But it doesn’t help to cover deep-rooted flaws with a tummy tuck and bravado; the person others think they are investing in will simply not be there.

Sony console sales beat Nintendo’s for first time in eight years

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

After three straight years of net losses, Nintendo took another hit this week as it was announced rival Sony had overtaken the company in annual video games sales.

Sony sold 2.4 million more (18.7 million total) video game consoles than Nintendo, according to data from Nikkei business news site. The figures take into account sales of older Playstation and Wii models, as well as Nintendo 3Ds, and were collated using information released by the two companies.

The news is not entirely surprising to industry insiders following reports that Nintendo made a net loss of £135m for the financial year ending March 31. The Japanese electronics company has struggled since its touchscreen Wii U, an evolution of its original Wii, failed to replicate the success of its predecessor. Nintendo has recently made known plans to close European headquarters in Germany, resulting in the loss of 130 jobs, in an effort to get finances back on track.

With smartphone gaming on the rise, it has never been more important for the two companies to innovate in order to keep consumer interest high – and the battle looks to be tight.  With Nintendo due to release its Super Smash Bros 4 – the latest incarnation of its classic Mario Brothers franchise – later this year, it will be interesting to see if this highly anticipated game could put Nintendo back on top.

Online shopping all the rage as teens snub traditional retail outlets

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

In the 1990s, you could find pretty much every American teenager hanging out at the mall like in any of their favourite TV shows. Now, a new outlet is replacing these temples of retail: online shopping. Unable to keep up with cheaper online prices and the multiplatform shopping experience teens crave, traditional retailers are under pressure like never before. What’s more, teens are becoming harder to target. The demographic’s abilities to pick and choose between modern retail forms is revealing some major differences between the habits of boys and girls.

Brain research supports that boys are generally more focused in their actions and see shopping as less of a recreational activity compared to girls

According to the annual Taking Stock With Teens report from investment bank Piper Jaffray, the number of teens who go to malls has dropped by 30 percent in the past decade. The decline has been quickened by improvements in digital technologies as well as teens becoming more interested in ‘experiences’, as opposed to clothes or accessories, spending more money on food and events.

Crucially, teens are shopping less in stores than ever before. The report revealed that their physical shopping frequency declined from a peak rate of 38 annual trips a year to 29: a 10 percent drop in mall traffic year-on-year. Teens are browsing more via their mobile devices, shopping with purpose, buying when they have a real or perceived need, and visiting the mall less for entertainment value.

It’s all about online
This development comes as no surprise to experts. “Teens are so accustomed to interacting on and through technology that it is, for many, a more familiar and comfortable ‘environment’ than that of bricks and mortar,” says Philip Graves, a leading expert on consumer behaviour. “With more of their world existing online, it makes sense for them to make purchase decisions and purchases there, and the broad advantages of online shopping in terms of ease and price are also helpful.”

In this respect, the internet is the top influencer of teens’ shopping behaviour, ahead of television. Social networking in particular is driving teens online, leading to a preference for viewing product images and focusing on so-called ‘sound bite communications’, similar to those on teens’ two most preferred social media: Instagram and Twitter. This need for multiple stimulation ties in well with teen preferences says Graves, who argues teens find it easier to shop online because digital platforms offer more diversity and choice.

“The nature of the online world means that, as teenagers move through the psychological life stage where they are seeking an identity that is separate from their parents’, there is much more diversity than used to be the case when teenagers were reliant on mainstream mass media to define trends and styles,” says Graves.

Net shop boys
Teens have become more demanding of the products they want, when they want to shop for them, and how they want them delivered or viewed. The plethora of choices in front of them has essentially given young girls and boys the opportunity to pick their consumer habits depending on what suits them at the time. More importantly, as retail flexibility grows, major differences in shopping habits between the sexes are becoming increasingly clear.

The report, which polled 7,500 US teens, revealed a quarter of female teens prefer to shop online over stores: up from 18 percent a year ago. In comparison, almost half of males said they prefer to shop online: up from 20 percent in late 2013. According to consumer experts, this is not surprising, as brain research supports that boys are generally more focused in their actions and see shopping as less of a recreational activity compared to girls.

“As a generalisation, boys are more intensely focused on activities and girls are more interested in interconnected ideas,” says Graves. “The focused nature of the online retail experience is more likely to appeal to someone who is pursuing a specific target; girls are more likely to prefer a less focused retail experience. In some ways this can be aligned to the stereotypes of male hunters and female gatherers.”

Shops must take on tech
Bricks-and-mortar stores should not lose heart. The survey also revealed that, even though more teens prefer shopping online, the chosen shop needs to be a recognisable one. An overwhelming majority of females and males said they prefer to shop on sites operated by retail store chains instead of sites operated by web-only merchants.

However, the number is still a decline from in previous years, indicating traditional retailers cannot continue to assume teens will prefer stores in the future. With teens showing they want the flexibility to shop online – often via mobile devices – as well as in stores, chains must continue to focus on making it easy for consumers to shop across multiple channels.

“Bricks-and-mortar retailers need to continue to invest in their sites and create frictionless shopping experiences in order to maintain this top-of-mind status among teens,” says the Piper Jaffray report. “Key to this strategy, we believe, is wrapped up in a mobile strategy.”

Graves says: “Technological advancements will, I believe, bring the bricks-and-mortar and online worlds much closer together. If you look at technology like IVAs (intelligent virtual assistants that are able to have natural language conversations with people) and iBeacon (which can push personalised messages to customers in a store via their smartphone) there is the potential for each person to have a guided shopping experience that is personalised to them, their tastes and their psychological drives. This will enhance the retail experience for shoppers and help retailers learn more about their customers.”

The death of the teen mall-rat need not be as alarming as assumed. Yes, traditional retail is facing some major challenges in the face of the on-going onslaught from online and mobile consumerism. However, by making shopping a more interactive and stimulating experience, retailers will fulfill the needs of current retail customers, making the internet a fortuitous business partner, rather than a destabilising market enemy. Online shopping is here to stay, at least for teens, and retailers can opt in or out at their own peril.

Eltel on the future of infrastructure globally | Video

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

After becoming a leading infranet company in northern Europe, Eltel is now vying to become a household name across the continent. The New Economy speaks to Hannu Tynkkynen and Fredrik Menander, from Eltel Group Corporation, to discuss infrastructure in its wider geographical context, how the organisation is promoting environmentally sustainable solutions, and what the ‘Eltel way’ means for business.

The New Economy: Well Hannu, if I might start with you: for our viewers out there who are not familiar with the term, what exactly is the infranet?

Hannu Tynkkynen: The infranet means simply, infrastructure networks. Today we have more and more smart devices that are connected in large amounts, and in the future we will talk about the ‘internet of things’.

[W]e need to improve energy efficiency, we need to cut emissions, and we need to increase the share of renewable energy sources

Smart devices also need more intelligent networks, and we’re adding more functionalities to networks like electricity or communications. This is simply the evolution of how the infranet concept is developing.

The New Economy: So why would you say it’s important to approach infrastructure needs holistically?

Hannu Tynkkynen: First of all we have this technology evolution, which has an impact on the architecture. Secondly the geographical focus is moving from local, to national, to international.

Thirdly, our societies are largely dependent on electricity and telecommunications: the lifelines of society, as we have called them.

Then, our customers expect that their partners have multi-technology competencies to implement the networks, provide support to their operations and maintenance needs, and upgrade the networks.

And finally, as their business concepts are changing and developing, they need to leave something out. And they are outsourcing more of these kinds of services to our kinds of companies.

The New Economy: And how important would you say environmental sustainability is in developing the infranet?

Hannu Tynkkynen: It is very important, because we know what is happening with the climate. So we need to improve energy efficiency, we need to cut emissions, and we need to increase the share of renewable energy sources.

In order to make all this happen, we need smart grids. Eltel is very well positioned in this, because of our service portfolio and our huge experience in these networks.

For example, we have implemented 3.5 million metering points in Finland, Sweden and Denmark. We build wind power parks and we connect them to the electricity grid. And then we also implement charging networks for electric vehicles.

The New Economy: You also talk about the Eltel way; what exactly does this mean, and why is it important?

We can pick up the best practices and processes

Hannu Tynkkynen: It is the system, the way that we manage our business. And our ambition is to be a world-class service organisation. The elements are:

Structure, how we are organised.

Then we need to have transparency of our performance, which is based on uniform reporting, meaning that we can benchmark the performance of our 400 teams in the field. We can pick up the best practices and processes.

And finally we can develop and empower our people so that they become more proactive and they can take a larger responsibility of their daily work.

The New Economy: Well Fredrik, over to you now; and power transmission is Eltel’s most significant growth area. What’s powering this growth?

Fredrik Menander: We have a very old network all across Europe which needs to be rebuilt. We also have renewable energy sources; most countries now coming up need to be connected to the grid, which means we also need to reconfigure what the grid looks like. And thirdly there are a lot of interconnections being made across Europe between countries.

The New Economy: Well Africa is of course investing heavily in infrastructure right now, so what experience do you have on this continent?

Fredrik Menander: We have had experience for many years actually, and presently we are operating in seven countries.

Overall it’s been a very positive experience; there’s a lot of risk, but also a lot of opportunities.

I think to be successful you need to mix being an international company, but also a local company – I mean, employing a local workforce, and so on.

The New Economy: Well would you say then that political instability has made it more difficult to set up telecom services? And what unique challenges have you faced?

Fredrik Menander: Africa, you have to understand, is several countries. And we are picky when choosing the countries where we operate. So we’re not operating in the less stable countries. We’re operating in Angola, and in Liberia; but we’re not operating in countries like Zimbabwe or South Sudan. That’s too early.

There’s a benefit to being early into a market, however normally we come in some time after the oil companies and after the boom, who are normally the first ones.

[Our] business is becoming more exciting, and there’s also room for much more innovation

The New Economy: So what are some of the key trends in the electricity and telecommunications sectors in Africa to look out for?

Fredrik Menander: In the power sector there will still be great need for investments. You have natural resource exploration, which is energy intense. There’s also a need for electrification; in some countries less than 10 percent of the population have access to electricity. And thirdly there’s more money available. I think that will continue.

Today the price of energy is extremely high in most countries, related to the burning of diesel. These connections of electrification will help that and reduce the price.

The New Economy: And what trends do you see across Europe?

Fredrik Menander: We see a lot more of these divestments of the grid to financial investors. That is one trend. We will see the difficulty of deciding where and when to connect these renewable energy sources. And we also see that the infrastructure’s getting smarter. So a lot more to come there.

Now our business has been quite stable for tens of years, but now with these changes, business is becoming more exciting, and there’s also room for much more innovation.

The New Economy: Fredrik, Hannu, thank you.

Hannu Tynkkynen, Fredrik Menander: Thank you.

Windows XP-ocalypse leaves many vulnerable to hacker attacks

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Napa Valley, from its rolling hills and lush plains to its cloud-scattered skies and green horizons, is supposedly the most-viewed image of all time. Entitled Bliss, the scene was photographed in 1996 by Chuck O’Rear and later put to use by Microsoft, who, at the turn of the century, selected it to be the default desktop wallpaper for Windows XP.

XP’s success, however, was not due to positive critical reception or usability, but to timing

On April 8 Microsoft said it would no longer offer support for the operating system (OS) that made the photograph so famous. ‘Microsoft provided support for Windows XP for the past 12 years. But the time came for us, along with our hardware and software partners, to invest our resources toward supporting more recent technologies so that we can continue to deliver great new experiences,’ read the system’s final send-off.

XP’s success throughout its almost 13-year history is unparalleled, and its place as the seminal system of the century so far is plain to see. It’s unsurprising therefore that many have been unwilling to move on, but such technological immobility has consequences.

The birth of XP
When the system was released in 2001, consumers were impressed by XP’s intuitive interface and subtle details, while those more in the know were quick to praise the system’s increased security, functionality and networking capabilities. The operating system was seen as a significant departure from those that came before it and well worth the hype.

XP’s success, however, was not due to positive critical reception or usability, but to timing. Between 1998 and 2000, the number of US households with access to a computer grew by almost 10 percent, and the percentage of those with a computer tipped 50 for the first time in history. That growth continued into the new millennium, and most of those buying a PC for the first time installed Windows XP as a default.

XP’s success was such that it wasn’t until August 2012 that it was finally superseded – by Windows 7 – as the most widely used operating system. Even in March of this year, XP was still being used on close to a third of all desktop computers – far and above the meagre 4.89 percent market share of Windows 8.1, Microsoft’s latest OS.

The difficult follow-up
The relative failure of later operating systems has served only to further XP’s success, as the tech giant has time and time again failed to replicate the immediate impact it had at the turn of the century. The release of XP was followed by a lengthy spell of inactivity, and by the time its immediate successor, Windows Vista, was released five years later, users had become accustomed to the old system to such an extent that the process of switching was too problematic for many to stomach.

The prospect of doing away with XP has disconcerted well-acquainted consumers, whose short computer history had been spent with XP and XP alone. This is indicative of a wider issue with tech consumers: users by-and-large aren’t yet used to the transience of technology. After all, if a product works and works well, why upgrade it?

Most users are at a loss when it comes to how technical changes affect their day-to-day lives, and this is perhaps no more the case than in computing. It’s the same reason many retirees still own a hi-fi with a tape deck, a VCR recorder and a Nokia 3310 – and why computers still running Windows XP are increasingly vulnerable to security risks.

Security concerns
Unfortunately, Windows XP is loved not only by computer users, but also by cyber-thieves and malware-writers who see the system’s newfound vulnerability as low hanging fruit. An unwillingness on the part of users to upgrade to a newer operating system brings with it an increased chance of infection.

‘If you continue to use Windows XP now that support has ended, your computer will still work but it might become more vulnerable to security risks and viruses,’ says the Microsoft memo. And while there have been multiple awareness campaigns, most have fallen on deaf ears.

The biggest threat to those still with XP is that the system’s vulnerabilities, once detected, will be exploited time and time again, and there will be no anti-security measures equal to the clout of Microsoft to rectify the situation. While a number of small security firms have promised to patch what they can, even the most committed plan to bring their XP-related businesses to an end at some point.

While there exists an option for hackers to exploit weaknesses on an individual basis, the real opportunity is for those supporting larger organisations. Already, the UK government has signed a £5.548m deal with Microsoft to secure the company’s services for a further 12 months, in order to provide critical security updates for those in the public sector still using XP, Office 2003 and Exchange 2003. The Dutch government has signed its own multi-million euro deal to protect the 34,000 to 40,000 civil servants still using the system.

The biggest security concern is that large organisations will be left with no option but to concede increased cyber security threats, given that upgrading a large part of their systems would be expensive and time-consuming.

What’s more, most of the world’s ATMs run on XP. While any threat to bank accounts is clearly a concern, this particular danger of the ‘XP-ocalypse’ has been overstated; many commentators have failed to take into consideration the extra security precautions with which ATM systems are equipped.

The scare has, however, been positive for cyber security overall, given that many users have rushed to upgrade their unsupported systems for fear of leaking personal information. And although many systems today remain safeguarded against cyber attacks for the time being, the scare should be seen as a lesson in how technological immobility can have lasting consequences for users. The XP success story was one dictated by chance, but the relative failure of later systems underlines the importance of perpetual improvement if computers are to remain protected against security threats.

SoftBank’s human-like robot Pepper will transform history, says CEO

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Tokyo-based software and internet conglomerate SoftBank expects to release the “first robot with emotions” by February 2015. Named Pepper, the robot is reportedly capable of growing more sophisticated over time, and, if successful, could mark one of the most significant developments in robotics to date.

“One hundred years from today, or two hundred years from today, the people will say that the history of computing changed from today,” said SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son at a Tokyo press conference shortly after unveiling a prototype Pepper.

Pepper is capable of sophisticated human interactions and can upload any lessons learned to the cloud for other units to heed

Priced at 198,000 yen, or little under $2,000, Pepper is capable of sophisticated human interactions and can upload any lessons learned to the cloud for other units to heed. “Anything good is going to be collected, collective wisdom, learned by everyone. They are all going to evolve through the collective wisdom, by reading situations,” said Son.

The SoftBank CEO also took time to stress the distinction between Pepper’s humanlike programming and the so-called “left-brained” nature of robots available on the market today. Combining voice recognition with a computer capable of understanding complex human responses, Pepper is well equipped to undertake a number of challenges, whether it be babysitting, nursing or simple companionship.

Developed in partnership with Aldebaran, a French robotics company in which SoftBank bought a share back in 2012, the robot will be manufactured by Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Industry.

“The emotional robot will create a new dimension in our lives and new ways of interacting with technology,” said Aldebaran’s founder and CEO Bruno Maisonnier in a press release. “It’s just the beginning, but already a promising reality.”

Japan’s market for robotics came to approximately $8.38bn in 2012, and is forecast to expand threefold by 2020, according to a trade ministry report cited by Reuters. In a country ripe with labour shortages and an ageing population, robotics are seen as a vital contributor to Japan’s economic development moving forwards.

Silicon Valley’s sexist brogrammer culture is locking women out of tech

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

There might not be anything inherently masculine about computer and software programming, but over the years, the profession has been dominated by men. Much like science and maths, somewhere down the line it became the norm to just accept that women were not as interested in programming as men were. And while this generates countless issues of representation, gender-based discrimination and outright sexism, the dearth of female programmers has also led to another phenomenon: the rise of the brogrammer.

33%

of programmers were women in 1990

27%

of programmers are women in 2014

The portmanteau is an amalgamation of ‘programmer’ and ‘bro’; the latter a term of endearment members of fraternities in American universities and party enthusiasts use to refer to each other. The brogrammer differs from others in his profession in that he lives up to The Social Network stereotype of what a programmer should be: full of ambition, using his skills and success as a way to boost his social cred on campus.

A recent thread on discussion site Quora answered the question “How does a programmer become a brogrammer?” with a string of suitably snide responses: “Lots of red meat, push-ups on one hand, while coding on the other, sunglasses at all times, a tan is important, popped collar is a must. It’s important that you can squash anyone who might call you ‘geek’ or ‘nerd’ and that you can pick up girls, but also equally important that you know the Star Wars movies by heart, and understand programming ideas, like recursion and inheritance.”

It has long been rumoured Silicon Valley has morphed into a fraternity house of sorts: parties, alcohol, drugs and women, all for the enjoyment of the soon-to-be tech millionaires who roam the streets of Palo Alto. Not all of these rumours are true of course, but the limited number of women in Silicon Valley is indeed starting to cause some trouble for start-ups. There are tales of star coders being invited to parties where topless models serve drinks, and one particular social media executive wooing his first employers by sending them ‘bikini shots’ from a ‘nudie calendar’ he had created. Only last week Snapchat’s 23-year-old founder, Evan Spiegel, was forced to apologise to the public after a series of misogynistic emails he penned were leaked. It might seem amusing, but the alienation of women coders is no laughing matter, and consumers will attest to that.

Not enough women
According to a US Census report, women remain underrepresented in science, maths and engineering jobs, where just 26 percent of workers are female. But when it comes to computer workers, the number of women has actually decreased over the past three decades: whereas in 1990 around 33 percent of programmers were women, that number has dropped steadily to just 27 percent today. What are perhaps even more shocking are the divisions of labour within computer occupations: in 2013, only 22.1 percent of software developers and 23 percent of computer programmers were women. Clerical sections of the industry have a better female representation, with women making up 40 percent of database administration roles.

Regardless of the wider societal issues that have been keeping women away from pursuing tech jobs, it is clear that a deeply sexist culture has been taking over Silicon Valley. “There is always built into a lot of startups the mentality of the barbarians at the gate… the disruptive nature that the startup ethos is supposed to be all about,” Tasneem Raja, Digital-Interactive Editor for Mother Jones magazine told CNN. “It’s sort of lame that it’s being expressed as kegs at the office and beer pong and, unfortunately, also sexism.”

Despite the obvious gender inequality, the clear loser in all of this is the consumer. Non-white, non-male tech users are being let down by a group of creatives who will never be able to provide for them. Brogrammer groupthink is churning out apps like Bang With Friends, SkinnyCam and BroApp (“I feel that there’s simply an impedance mismatch between the intensity of contact that a typical girl requires and the intensity of contact that a guy will naturally supply,” says one of its creators. “BroApp helps minimise that mismatch”) thus alienating whole classes of consumer who want to engage with apps and social media, but remain underserved.

In May, Zeebox, a TV-focused social networking app, relaunched as Beamly; according to its CEO, its male programmers were not delivering an app that appealed sufficiently to its 65 percent female audience. “When we started the company, we were super served internally with male geeky guys, essentially people like myself. And this meant we automatically leaned to engineering the utility side of Zeebox,” Stuart Rose told TechRadar. It is an affliction common to many tech start-ups: due to a lack of diversity in their creative and executive teams, final products end up not catering to a broad enough audience.

A disappointing legacy
The fact Zeebox managed to attract this largely female audience despite being created for and pitched tirelessly towards bros, goes to show women are looking for spaces online. This is a tremendous wasted opportunity for developers such as Rose, who needn’t have limited their product to a younger male demographic to begin with. However, the fact Rose felt he needed to relaunch his app as Beamly – the pink social networking app for TV loving-women – exemplifies exactly why a dearth of female programmers is harming the industry. The majority of his audience was already female, making the app pink will not help attract more women: adapting to the needs of his existing users will.

However, as with most industries, there are faint signs of progress. Women such as Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Meyer are leading the industry, and sending the message to younger girls and women that the tech industry is not just for boys. Social initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic are encouraging girls to take an interest in coding and computer science from a young age. Increasingly, young people are being taught these fundamental skills in school, and such measures help challenge the stereotype that STEM (science, tech, engineering and maths) professions are the preserve of boys. However, progress is slow and it will take a much more concerted effort to overturn these long-held beliefs.

The issue is by no means limited to Silicon Valley. In the UK, where a burgeoning tech sector has been making headlines, the goal is for women to make up 30 percent of the STEM workforce by 2020: a pitiful target that speaks volumes about the state of the sector. Women and girls are being let down by this booming industry all over the world – and it is especially tragic that bros now dominate the creative capitals of tech when we remember the first coder in history was actually a woman. Ada Lovelace, the Victorian woman credited with writing the first piece of code for Charles Babbage’s analytical engine in 1842, would surely be disappointed to know women have failed to follow in her footsteps, and that instead the industry has been overrun by single-minded bros.

US imposes steep duties on Chinese solar imports

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

The US Commerce Department has imposed steep duties on importers of Chinese solar panels made from certain components, after the department suggested that the manufacturers had benefited from unfair subsidies.

The duties will range from 18.56 to 35.21 percent, depending on the manufacturer and addresses a key charge in a petition by SolarWorld Industries America. This follows the US imposing duties of roughly 24 to 36 percent on imported panels made from Chinese solar cells in 2012 after concluding that Chinese solar companies had received unfair subsidies from their government and dumped cheap products on the US market. Despite this, several Chinese companies avoided the duties by assembling panels from cells produced in Taiwan, even if those cells were derived from components from China. Essentially, SolarWorld petitioned to close that loophole.

“Today is a strong win for the US solar industry,” said Mukesh Dulani, President of SolarWorld Industries America in a statement. “We look forward to the end of illegal Chinese government intervention in the US solar market, and we applaud Commerce for its work that supports fair trade.”

While the latest duties are preliminary, the ruling means that the US authorities will begin collecting tariffs ahead of the final decision in August.

The decision comes against a backdrop of increasing trade conflicts between the US and China, as well as a stiff fight over a solar industry, which has shifted manufacture and installation from Europe to Asia. However, the dispute has also caused friction in the US solar industry. While many manufacturers are close to bankruptcy thanks to intense competition from China developers, installers and consumers have been helped by the availability of inexpensive panels.

“Although…we are working with all segments of the industry to find a consensus solution – we’re quickly running out of time,” Rhone Resch, Chief Executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement. “These damaging tariffs will increase costs for US solar consumers and, in turn, slow the adoption of solar.”

What’s more, there’s no suggestion that the dispute will end any time soon. China imposed tariffs in January on American and South Korean polysilicon, which is used for conventional solar panels. And last month the Justice Department indicted five Chinese military personnel for online attacks on US firms, which included SolarWorld as a prime target.

Meat is murder on the environment

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

We as consumers have become accustomed to cheap meat to such an extent that ever-so-slight price increases have prompted nothing short of outrage from protein-hungry buyers far and wide. Price elasticity is incredibly low and consumers are especially unforgiving when it comes to the cost of meat.

Consumers across America complained when the McDonald’s Dollar Menu ceased to be, and a great many fast-food chains have come up against choruses of discontent after outlining similar plans to bump up prices. Elsewhere, a report co-authored by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat prices will remain well above historical averages for the medium term, while the US Department of Agriculture believes the increases will constrain sales for some time yet.

We should all come to terms with the fact that our most beloved of foods will no longer be as cheap as it once was once. But even after taking into account today’s inflated rates, the market price of meat does not in any way reflect its true cost.

It is a sad fact that meat consumption at its current level is entirely unsustainable and
even harmful

Growth in consumption
Behind every supermarket-stacked, cellophane-wrapped cut of meat is a story of hidden costs and untold consequences.

Global demand for meat in 2020 is projected to be more than double what it was in 2000, as changing macroeconomic conditions spark a so-called food revolution in lesser-developed countries. China, for example, last year accounted for over half of the 107 million tonnes of pork consumed in the world, and the country’s total meat consumption was twice that of the US.

The rise is impressive, but the journey from pasture to purchase in developed and developing nations alike is riddled with inefficiencies. Livestock farming demands a huge amount of land, grain and water to adequately sustain a herd to the point of slaughter. It is a sad fact that meat consumption at its current level is entirely unsustainable and even harmful.

Damaging man and the planet
Meat remains a highly sought after foodstuff for billions of people worldwide. In order for the damage to both the individual and the environment to be overturned, the issue of demand must first be addressed – and quickly.

Currently, 40 percent of the Earth’s land surface is dedicated to keeping us fed, and three quarters of that is used not for grains, fruits or vegetables, but for livestock. Granted, the industry constitutes 40 percent of the global agricultural GDP, and is a vital source of income for 1.3 billion people, but it comes accompanied with far too many negative consequences for it to be considered sustainable or in any way efficient.

For one, livestock farming accounts for approximately eight percent of the world’s total water use, and UN studies have recently found that methane emissions from livestock equate to as much as 14.5 percent of all human-caused greenhouse gases. What’s more, a study published in the Cell Metabolism journal showed that protein-heavy diets result in a much greater risk of cancer (equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes a day), heart disease, kidney stones and asthma, among other health risks.

In simple terms, reducing consumer demand for meat would free up precious land for crops – not to mention resources used for animal feed – and significantly reduce the health risks associated with meat-rich diets. However, the question of how exactly the global population addresses spiralling demand remains unanswered, and largely unaddressed.

A study published in the Cell Metabolism journal showed that protein-heavy diets result in a much greater risk of cancer (equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes
a day)

Meat tax
For us to consume the amount of meat we do today, we must forsake personal and environmental wellbeing in favour of greed, and do little more than take the unseen costs on the chin. The central issue here is that the consequences of excessive meat consumption are not reflected in shop prices, and until the issue of cheap meat is dealt with, consumers will continue to gorge themselves.

One argument that is steadily gathering momentum is the prospect of a meat tax. So-called ‘Pigouvian’ or ‘sin’ taxes have in the past clamped down on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline, which have all at some stage or another been deemed a health hazard. Proponents of the policy believe the consequences of excessive meat consumption rank on a similar scale, and that some form of taxation would help curb demand and more accurately reflect the true price of meat.

One report, published in Nature Climate Change, makes a very similar argument, emphasising that changes in consumption will only be brought about by extreme policy measures. ‘Influencing human behaviour is one of the most challenging aspects of any large-scale policy, and it is unlikely that a large-scale dietary change will happen voluntarily without incentives,’ write the authors. ‘Implementing a tax or emission trading scheme on livestock’s greenhouse gas emissions could be an economically sound policy that would modify consumer prices and affect consumption patterns.’

Various scientific studies have proven meat consumption is an extremely unhealthy habit, and one in need of a sustainable solution. However, it remains to be seen whether any government will go so far as to introduce a meat tax and clamp down on consumption in quite such an extreme way. What is certain is that the way in which the issue of meat overconsumption is dealt with will play a decisive part in whether or not we meet ambitious emissions targets in the years to come.