Public Health + Care Economy

Recap

In May’s Public Health+ Webinar, OSB design innovation strategist Sophie Becker sat down with Sara Gardner and Meghan Kluth from the Center for Public Partnerships and Research at the University of Kansas. In their conversation, they discussed the care economy, a sector that considers the multiple types of care across lifespans and its economic implications.

With a background in working at nonprofits as a fundraiser, Gardner has an economic approach to how to address the problems that affect caregivers, care receivers, and their families. Kluth’s journey in this space started with her diagnosis of a chronic illness in college, which has since strengthened her passion for supporting the accessibility and affordability of care for all those in need of it. 

"There are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers, and those who will need caregivers.” - Rosalynn Carter

Both Kluth and Gardner emphasized that caregiving touches every person’s life. It can look like a parent taking care of their newborn, a teenager caring for their neighbor with dementia, or a family that works together to support someone with limited mobility. Because it is so pervasive, care is one of the biggest sectors of the economy. According to Kluth, it is worth an estimated 648 billion dollars.

In this conversation, Gardner and Kluth focused on the value of accessible quality care, explaining how investing in caregivers will have positive returns in improving the wellbeing of communities. Gardner emphasizes the importance of seeing caregiving as something that doesn’t just affect those in need of care, but the community as a whole.

“We are social beings, we are interconnected, whether we want to think of it or not. To not recognize the ripple effects of our connections when it comes to need for care is really short-sighted” - Sara Gardner

Overall, Gardner and Kluth believe that improving care in communities has to start with involvement from the local level. Attached to the idea of caregiving are many stigmas that challenge community investment in care.

“Slowly chipping away by having a conversation, asking and normalizing the conversation around caregiving is one thing people can do today to push the boulder slowly to break down that stigma” - Sara Gardner

Reflection 

1. Care is universal, almost everyone will be impacted by caregiving in their life.

We will all experience being a part of the care economy. Finding ways of caring that allow people to share that burden can only help improve the experience for everyone.

“When you look at care roles and care needs across life spans, it really represents a significant portion of the population in the United States and across the world. ” - Meghan Kluth 

In public health, we often talk about the importance of examining issues across lifespans. Despite the relative unfamiliarity of the term care economy, it truly is a sector that we all interact with and is prevalent in all our lives. At the start of our lives, the vast majority of us will receive care from a parent or relative as children and adolescents. As we age into adulthood it’s likely that we will join the 53 million Americans who are looking after a friend or relative - with 61% of us doing so while we might be employed in some other capacity (Caregiving in the U.S. 2020). Finally, as we enter old age, particularly in our late 70s and beyond, many of us will receive anywhere from an average of 25-38 hours of care per week from another relative. Most of this will be uncompensated and informal. Addressing issues like caregiver burnout, loneliness, and isolation would benefit us all either now or in the future. Additionally, given that many of us will both give and receive care, finding ways of caring that allow people to share that burden can only help improve the quality and sustainability of that care. 

2. There needs to be consensus and legitimacy around caregiving language.

As noted by Meghan Kluth, one of the issues around intervening in the care economy is the issues that come with defining a caregiver. Many people take on the role of caregiver at various points in their lives. However, only a small percentage of them formally take on the title of ‘caregiver’ or even consider themselves one.

Not having that shared language can make it difficult to assess their needs and formulate a strategy to address those needs. For example, the needs of a stay-at-home mother of four will look very different from a middle-aged man taking care of his elderly parents. Yet, both fit the role of caregiver and will experience stresses and challenges because of that role. As Kluth noted, “We tend to try to put caregiving in a box, but it doesn't tend to fit in one simple box, it’s a complex issue.” 

Kluth noted that there's sometimes a stigma attached to the role that makes people reluctant to consider themselves part of that group. This can also particularly affect those who are being taken care of or helped by a caregiver. Especially if the title isn’t designated as part of a formal job, it can be odd to consider oneself a caregiver.  Yet, the only way to start addressing those needs is to start looking more expansively at the role of caregiving and preparing people for what to expect when they enter into that space, rather than if. 

3. Caregivers deserve adequate compensation.

Another difficulty in understanding and negotiating the care economy is adequate compensation. One of the issues raised in the seminar concerned identifying productivity. After all, there’s a reasonable challenge in identifying how much someone’s time and money is worth without any external reference to work off of. 

This isn’t a new realization. In a phenomenon noted by economists several decades ago, working mothers were noted to put in “second shifts” when taking care of their families after work. All of this work usually goes uncompensated, even though it helps the economy and society as a whole. After all, well-fed and educated children tend to eventually turn into productive members of society (broadly speaking). However, at no point in time do they get compensated for this time spent. 

“We already have the mechanisms to pay caregivers, it’s called Medicaid and Medicare. We have to make some policy changes to open up the billing code. We have to generate the public will to make that happen… I think change happens from the ground up, it's about informing people about giving people the language to use, it's about communities demanding different ways of doing things." - Sara Gardner

Fixing this unjust oversight will require reimagining ways of measuring productivity. Collecting, aggregating, and sharing data will be important for this effort. It will also require a broader reorientation of our ideas around just compensation and what roles in society need to be valued more. While this won’t address all the stresses and challenges that caregivers face, it would be a start toward healthier participation in the care economy for all caregivers and their loved ones. 

---

Writing By:

Odiraa Okala, Public Health Innovation Analyst  & Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice

The OSB Guide to Eco-Conscious Innovation

Reflecting on our experience supporting startup and corporate partnerships has given us insights into scaling sustainable technologies. We are sharing some of those insights that we have developed over the years to spark ideas in others or give context to the current landscape of sustainability as it relates to business and innovation. 

Here are 3 strategic opportunities that make environmentally-sustainable technology implementation successful.

Assess areas of opportunity, then start small. 

Hannah Ranieri has been an innovation and strategy consultant for OSB since 2021. She has worked in the food service space to guide pilots that implement carbon-neutral food delivery across the country. In her experience, many of the obstacles to implementing sustainable technology within an industry are not shortcomings of the technology.

“For sustainable technology like autonomous delivery or compostable packaging, the technology solutions exist, but most corporations do not have the business model or existing infrastructure to integrate these new solutions. By piloting, we are able to gradually chip away at those existing barriers and prove the feasibility and necessity in an incremental way,” Ranieri.

For startups and corporations alike, pilots can be invaluable. Pilots allow us to test, at a small scale, the feasibility of the technology. Many times new technology can seem promising but isn’t actually suitable in a real-world scenario. So, before dedicating significant money, time, materials, and energy to scale technology across an industry or organization, conducting a series of small tests beforehand can be financially savvy and environmentally resourceful.

Even so, there is a lot of background work that goes into starting a pilot. “Typically, we begin with a market landscape scan to identify and understand the types of technology that exist, existing legislation/regulations, key partnerships within the space, relevant trends, and existing opportunities. With that background information, we look at how this technology could apply to our client’s business and identify potential use cases. We’ll make a roadmap of how we want to strategically test use cases. From there, we’ll identify interesting/innovative startups in the space and structure pitches and deal flows to hear their proposals for what a pilot could look like. Once we pick one, or several, we’ll begin piloting,” Ranieri.

Lean on what makes the technology different and communicate it simply.

Sophie Becker has been a design innovation strategist for Orange Sparkle Ball since 2020 and has experience working with alternative energy startups. She knows many companies in this industry default to greenwashing practices that highlight sustainable values, without explaining what differentiates their technology. 

“Making sure that companies in this space are able to differentiate themselves and have impact requires benchmarking both competitors and the market landscape. Once you have that baseline understanding, then you can strategically examine how to position the client. Where will they stand out? What are their differentiators?” says Becker. 

Distinguishing what makes the technology stand out is important, but translating those differentiators into an easily understandable offering is equally important. To ensure constructive partnerships between startups and corporations, the values and vocabularies used to explain the technology and its differentiators must be clear enough for both parties to understand. That’s where strategic translation, the work we do at OSB, becomes important. By understanding the points of view of the start-up and corporation, we help to contextualize the startup’s technology within the broader scope of the corporation's organization. 

“Being generalists, we are great facilitators since we can see outside perspectives and translate ideas and language between groups. Startups can often be so in the weeds of their offerings that they don’t grasp that everyone else isn’t even clear on the basics of their products. We can come in, take the time to understand, and then translate it more broadly. You don’t want a [partnership] to fail because of a simple communication error,” Becker.

Utilize change management strategies to guide all stakeholders.

Diego Pérez has been an innovation and strategy consultant for OSB since 2017. In his role, he has worked with food service organizations to guide the implementation of sustainable packaging. When integrating new technology, Diego has seen the success of creating a roadmap and accompanying toolkit for all in the organization to use.

“This approach provides a collection of tools, steps, and strategies that when used collectively, can be very effective for implementing new programs, projects, initiatives, and proof of concept pilots.”

This approach provides clarity on the project and action steps for all stakeholders. Because we are always introducing something new, we utilize this approach to keep all stakeholders on the same page when implementing a technology that's never been used in the organization before. 
“When we think about roadmaps and toolkits, we are looking to bridge the gap between implementation and practice. This change management approach provides an action plan so people know what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and why to do it, as well as what language to use. Sustainable goals can be obtained by providing a well-thought-out plan that can be understood and followed by all stakeholders,” says Pérez.

Conclusion

Ultimately, strategy is vital to implementing sustainable technology. Not only does it help get the technology to market, but it also helps get stakeholders on board to try something new that might feel risky. 

“I think the main way strategy can support eco-conscious innovation is by making it more easily digestible to people who are risk-averse. By creating a roadmap for strategically testing use cases within an overarching initiative, it’s more actionable and directional and can help outside stakeholders understand more clearly how they may fit into the process,” Ranieri.

It's easy to forget that behind every new, sustainable technology, there was a strategic process that helped that technology get to the market. This is the work that we do at OSB, and we are proud to continue accelerating sustainable startups and challenging corporations to prioritize sustainability in their practices.

---

Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.

Illustration by Hannah Ranieri, Design Strategist.

Science and Society: The role of the academic community in climate resiliency

A largely undisputed fact in the scientific community is that human activity accelerates climate change, and the ramifications of this are causing extreme weather conditions that put populations across the globe at risk of food scarcity, displacement, and disease (NASA). 

However, academics and researchers haven’t come to a consensus on what they should do with their scientific insights. Some scientists feel that their only responsibility is to come up with the data, and contributing any more would be succumbing to the humdrum of politics, which can immediately soil their reputation as biased and take focus away from their actual work. 

In addition, there are climate-change professionals with experience as data analysts, visualization experts, infographic designers, and journalists who make it their whole life’s work to communicate complex scientific data to everyday people. Bearing all this in mind, why then, should scientists be morally responsible for sharing information with the public and advocating for climate change?

In short, scientists and researchers have credibility, which makes their perspectives influential in society. Hearing straight from the people doing the research, in a way that is digestible and engaging, inspires the public. Emily Zheng, a former public health innovation analyst for OSB, tells us that speaking in a common language is the first step scientists and researchers need to take to bridge the gap between data and discourse.

“In academia, we fall into this trap of using language or terminology that reflects the degree of education to which we have achieved. But then we forget that not everyone has had that privilege. Some [research] never leaves the academic community, and I challenge the academic institution to not only train their students how to relay information to the common people but also use it to take action.”

To Emily’s point, students in academic institutions should be trained to speak to the public in a way that is informative and useful, so the future generation of scientists feel like they can and should contribute directly to public debate. One of the three pillars of the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists is responsibility. The ethical code states that scientists have a responsibility to, “...discuss the issues that science raises for society, [and] listen to the aspirations and concerns of others”.

We have seen research stimulate discourse before. American marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, a book on the harm of pesticides on wildlife biodiversity and health, that left a huge impact on how America views pollution and climate change. Before her book was published, no government on the planet had a department or ministry of the environment (Academic Matters). Following Carson’s book, protecting the environment from toxic chemicals has become a common-sense issue that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees.  

What stalls climate action is the gridlock of many seemingly conflicting elements: science and politics, supply and demand, equity and limited resources. Academia alone cannot create the framework to protect communities vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis. Ultimately, scientists and researchers must stimulate conversation within academic and non-academic communities. When academics empower people of all education levels with their research, they build bridges of understanding that can be the first step to social change. 

---

Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Research by Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst Intern. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.

Public Health + Social Entrepreneurship

RECAP

In April’s Public Health + Season 2 Webinar, Isabelle Swiderski, Founder of Seven25, sat down with Dr. Ndunge Kiiti to discuss the intersection of public health and social entrepreneurship. Dr.Kiiti currently serves as an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Global Development at Cornell University and at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health. With more than 30 years of experience in international development, she has expertise in education, communication, health, and entrepreneurship. To date, Dr. Kiiti has worked across numerous communities in Kenya, Rwanda, and Ethiopia.

 “A human becomes a human because of other humans.” - African Proverb 

Growing up in rural Kenya, this proverb was the cornerstone of Dr. Kiiti’s upbringing and has largely influenced her career path. She learned at an early age that “life is about people, it’s about relationships.” Within her work, she recognized that the key to success is being willing to engage in mutual learning and humility with others.

She uses this quote from colleague Ravi Jayakaran at Medical Assistance Program (MAP) International to describe development as “a process of reducing vulnerabilities and increasing capacity.”

For Dr. Kiiti, helping create sustainable businesses that will actually make an impact on the ground means creating intentional partnerships. She believes in the bottom-up approach to “work and walk alongside people… asking them what their needs [and] what their issues are.“ 

Throughout her years of experience, what continues to give her hope are young people. Her call to action for young people is “to remain open, to engage globally… understand the world as is.. to put volunteerism and service into their educational process and to stay engaged.” 

Reflection: 

From her experience working globally and across different cultures, Dr. Kiiti reminds us that we are all human beings. Regardless of our education level or experience, we can learn from one another. It is critical to recognize the biases and assumptions we hold when trying to help people. In order to accelerate social entrepreneurship and deal with challenges faced across communities, here are some key lessons we want to highlight:

1. Focus on assets not deficits

An important takeaway from Dr. Kiiti’s experience is that one of the keys to successful development is focusing on assets. “There are so many assets we ignore because we are not listening.” Many of us are trained to identify the problem and develop a brand new solution. Rather, we should shift our thinking to recognize that it’s not about trying to change existing systems but instead “build and strengthen what they already do.”  

2. Invest in people 

Dr. Kiiti believes it’s important for development approaches to have a long-standing impact. She makes a point to consider “what is doable, what is sustainable, and what will really make a difference on the ground …”  For Dr. Kiiti, investing in people is key to creating lasting social change and education is a prime example.

“We’re seeing [educated youth] turning back and saying ‘let me educate my younger sister, my younger brother, and the community.’ That is what is sustainable to me in helping these families come out of poverty.”

3. Build intentional partnerships

Dr. Kiiti has learned over the years that  “the most unique partnerships are those who you never expected to work with.” However what many people fail to remember is that partnerships take time, resources, and in actuality are a lot harder to do and maintain. Both Swiderski agrees with Dr.Kiiti, noting in her own work that “collaboration in practice is a lot more difficult than collaboration in theory.”  To build successful and sustainable partnerships, one needs to be able to listen, willing to learn, and ready to invest in growing mutual relationships. 

Social entrepreneurship is the future of many economies and so it’s critical that we operate within the cultural context of the society rather than working against it. Dr. Kiitti reminds us that openness and humility are key. 

---

Writing By:

Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Emily is a Master of Public Health student at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health. She is part of the Behavioral, Social, Health Education Sciences department and is also pursuing a certificate in Social Determinants of Health.

Liris Stephanie Berra, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Liris is a Master of Public Health student at Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. She is part of the Global Health department, pursuing a concentration in Community Health Development and a certificate in the Social Determinants of Health.

Public Health + Clinical Medicine

Recap

In March’s Public Health+ Season 2 webinar, our very own Meaghan Kennedy, Founder of OSB and epidemiologist by training, sat down with Dr. Michael Mina, the Chief Science Officer at eMed Digital Healthcare to discuss the intersections of public health and clinical medicine. 

Dr. Mina comes from an incredibly diverse background with cross-sectoral experiences that positions him to work at the crossroads of public health and clinical medicine. 

He began his undergraduate studies at Dartmouth University’s School of Engineering, Dr. Mina took a pivotal career shift, opting to practice Buddhism as a monk in the mountains of Sri Lanka. During that time a tsunami caused Dr. Mina to evacuate to a refugee camp. There he recognized his experience in engineering with his interests in public health and medicine could come together. 

He returned to pursue an MD and Ph.D. at Emory University, where he studied bacterial co-infections and live attenuated vaccines. The culmination of his studies led him to a professorship at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and School of Medicine. When the pandemic struck, Dr. Mina had a unique opportunity to use his experience as a physician, epidemiologist, and immunologist in the midst of a public health crisis. He decided to leave academia once again, but this time to join eMed, a pioneering digital health company. eMed offers telehealth services and at-home test kits that empower people with affordable and convenient access to healthcare.  

He joined eMed to “break down barriers to keeping people healthy” and join their mission to democratize healthcare, because he believes that “if there’s any human right that we should have, it should be knowing what’s going on inside our own bodies, on our own terms.” 

Dr. Mina spoke greatly on the failures and successes of public health and medicine. It had been made very clear during the pandemic that medicine and public health are “not always in sync with each other” and the decisions made are a “reflection of the erosion of public health and medicine and being able to bring them together in a constructive way.”  

He believes that “public health thinking and medicine [need to be brought] together in a constructive way.” In order to produce the problem-solvers that transcend disciplines, we need to transform educational systems to avoid being too dogmatic in thinking that their training is the only “right way.” In the meantime, Dr. Mina hopes to continue to build sustained public health initiatives that combine all his cross-disciplinary training to build momentum to accelerate applied public health solutions.  

Reflection

Dr. Mina gave us a breadth of information to think about, but there were two takeaways we wanted to focus our attention on: 

1. Public Health and Clinical Medicine are not in sync with each other. 

As Dr. Mina stated, the poorly defined roles of both these disciplines have led to poor decision-making and confusing messaging for the general public. An example given in the webinar is the recommendation of quarantining someone (i.e. isolation). 

“That is absolutely not a medical practice, that is purely a public health practice. I have never met a doctor who has prescribed isolation for [the patient’s] own benefit. It gives [their]  family a benefit and it gives the people around [them]  the benefit that [the patient doesn’t] infect them.” 

That’s where there has been tension. The role of medicine is focused on the individual, the patient sitting in your exam room, whereas public health is looking broadly at the entire community. “Medicine comes in when public health has failed.” The two disciplines are undoubtedly intertwined in that they both are working to achieve the same thing: to keep people and communities alive and healthy. 

The problem is there needs to be a better way to work together and the pandemic was not the ideal time to figure that out. As Dr. Mina says, “A pandemic is not a time to be tunnel visioned, it’s not a time to keep silos up, it needs people being able to talk across the table to each other, it needs economists, public health people, physicians to all carry equal weight.”  

2. Cross-disciplinary thinking is the way forward. 

As students and professionals, we find ourselves isolated in the thinking and teachings of our respective majors, departments, or fields. We hold our new knowledge as convention and the only “right” way of doing something. Dr. Mina claims that:

“The most important challenges are going to be solved today and in the future by bringing disciplines together… We've done a lot of fundamental research over decades and centuries and millennia to really understand pieces. But the real change that has happened in society has come when disciplines are woven together.“  

It’s important to remember that each discipline and field only offers a single perspective or framework for problem-solving. So imagine how much more powerful the solutions can be when these disciplines are brought together. To put it simply, we need more team players who are committed to life-long learning and are willing to go against what we are traditionally taught and trained to do. 

Rather than this webinar just being about how public health and clinical medicine intersect, it is a wake-up call for all of us to examine in our own lives and professions how to break down silos and better work together to accelerate impact. 

---

Writing By:

Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Emily is a Master of Public Health student at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health. She is part of the Behavioral, Social, Health Education Sciences department and is also pursuing a certificate in Social Determinants of Health.

Liris Stephanie Berra, Public Health Innovation Analyst 

Liris is a Master of Public Health student at Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. She is part of the Global Health department, pursuing a concentration in Community Health Development and a certificate in the Social Determinants of Health.

How to Build Sustainable Communities

U.S. residents have a carbon footprint four times the international average (Nature magazine). It's no surprise considering how the U.S. government incentivizes the burning of nonrenewable fuel for energy, despite the environmental repercussions, as we discussed in our last blog.

Every region of the world has different social, economic, technological, and regulatory barriers that make their environmental impact unique. Even still, in investigating the efforts of the world’s most sustainable communities, we determined commonalities that could serve as a blueprint for U.S. cities that struggle to reduce their environmental impact. 

Across the board,  all the sustainable communities we investigated emphasized the importance of having community members at the forefront of climate action. The residents of the Brickland community in Singapore participated in the Towards Sustainable Living: Role of the Community and Consumers workshop, which gave them leadership skills to lead local climate action. These workshops were led by Nanyang Technological University students and served to “connect and engage residents with interests in sustainability to channel… initiatives [from the] ground up within the community” (EurekAlert). Workshops teaching project management skills enable locals to spearhead culture shifts through their own sustainability projects.The value of workshops in building sustainable communities is further understated in Stockholm Sweden’s Royal Seaport community. 

Royal Seaport, Stockholm is one of the largest urban development localities in Northern Europe (Stockholms stad). The city has laid out a Sustainable Urban Development Program that serves as a roadmap for the community's trajectory to reduce environmental impact. Royal SeaPort’s comprehensive program shows the importance of having a plan that substantiates actions made during development. For example, one tier of this plan is to “encourage participation and learning” among community members. To satisfy this, the city hosts workshops for local entrepreneurs and developers that communicate new urban development requirements (Stockholm workshop report). One such international innovation workshop was co-led by climate action organizations, private sector stakeholders, and the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth. The goal of the workshop was to “identify potential technical solutions for seasonal storage of electricity” and discuss innovative partnerships in this space (Stockholm Royal Seaport 2019 Sustainability Report). As Royal Seaport continues to grow, workshops empower city stakeholders to be adaptable and embrace infrastructural changes that reduce environmental impact. 

Being adaptable is not just a trait specific to the Swedish city of Stockholm. As natural disasters become more volatile as a result of climate change, the sustainable cities we investigated underlined the need to design communities that are resilient to climate volatility such as dramatic changes in landscape and weather. A community’s resilience is determined by its ability to prepare for anticipated hazards and adapt to changing conditions through preparedness that focuses on prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery (National Institute of Standards and Technology).  Similar to Royal Seaport, Uruguay has developed a comprehensive plan in response to the climate crisis. Called the National Adaptive Plan (NAP), it focuses on creating communities that can adapt to the extreme weather events using “urban greening” strategies (Relief Web). According to the plan, these NAP cities will develop resiliency solutions on a case-by-case basis through community workshops, communication strategy, and analysis of adaptation options. One example of a solution occurring in Uruguay’s coastal region is the offering of alternative “activities in coastal areas to mitigate the impact of sun and beach tourism” (Uruguay NAP). 

Ultimately, every community has to self-determine the most reasonable way it can tackle climate change. Documenting this self-assessment in a holistic climate resiliency plan is a great way to start. Furthermore, hosting workshops to engage the community members who are impacted by changes in culture or policy can further solidify the plan and garner support. There is no one way to respond to the climate crisis, but being proactive and unified in the mission is the first step to building climate resilient communities. If you are interested in knowing how resilient your community is, explore this US climate resiliency map, by the Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center, to determine where your community might stand in the face of a crisis.

---

Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Research by Nia-Simone Eccleston and Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst Intern. Illustration by Hannah Ranieri, Design Innovation Strategist.

Who Holds the Power to Change the Power Grid? Government's Role in the Climate Crisis

Before there was technology to effectively harness renewable energy, crude oil and coal produced the power on which our economy still heavily relies (Environmental and Energy Study Institute).  Not only is there a limited supply of oil and coal, but burning these resources for energy emits harmful gasses that accelerate climate change. 

In the United States, abandoning these fossil fuels straight away would be impossible, but as the climate crisis continues to grow more inescapable, it's paramount that the government acts to subsidize, lead, and encourage the transition to alternative energy. 

This is why understanding the government becomes imperative when determining a way to phase out fossil fuel consumption since, in the US, the government encourages the use of fossil fuels for all citizens and large corporations. 

Rather than a single entity that can unilaterally create change, the government operates like a puzzle of interchanging bodies, composed of pieces like local committees and federal agencies, that have unique motivations and finite degrees of power with which to influence society. 

Despite their differences, many of these governing bodies are influenced by lobbying. Entities with financial power such as large corporations can invest in lobbying strategies, pushing for certain bills to become law, and when these bills are relevant to the environment, they can have major benefits or consequences to climate action. 

For example, ExxonMobil is one of the top emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the world (PERI). In their 2025 trajectory to reduce carbon emission, they claim to “continue support for sound policies that put a price on carbon.” However, In October 2021, the House of Representatives released a memo stating “less than 0.4% of Big Oil’s legislative lobbying over the last decade was on carbon pricing legislation” (Committee Analysis).

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2021 was an effort by the federal government to tax companies for every metric ton of their carbon pollution, but it did not pass through congress. A carbon tax such as this would negatively impact ExxonMobil’s bottom line because they would get charged for the pollution they create.

ExxonMobil’s positioning shows how corporations can claim to support climate policies publicly, but behind closed doors are lobbying against any innovative climate action that gets in the way of their bottom line. In fact, in the United States, 70% of government subsidies in the energy sector support fossil fuel consumption, basically making fossil fuel a more accessible resource, a plus for Big Oil (Nature Journal). 

Government is not only influenced by lobbying, but also the nature of political elections. The switch to alternative energy requires long-term investment and collaboration from all levels of government, but politics does not always work that way. 

Politicians hold positions for a limited time, so citizens tend to vote them in based on their ability to make short-term, definitive changes.  As a result, there is little political incentive to endorse alternative energy legislation when compared to other social issues. 

Ultimately, a lot of factors interplay to give us the energy infrastructure we have today, and while the science is clear that we need to change the source of our energy system, the way to solve that is not so straightforward.

Despite the fact that we have the technology for renewable power, fossil fuel is so ingrained into current infrastructure that social, economic, technological, and regulatory barriers make the switch both timely and costly (Seetharaman). 

To protect people from the impact of the climate crisis, we need to build momentum for positive action within government and society, even if it means just influencing one powerful person or group at a time. 

---

Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.

Case Study on Loop: How Social Enterprises Can Further Corporate Sustainability Goals

In the previous blog, The Movement Towards Corporate Circularity and Sustainability,  we discussed economic circularity as it pertains to large businesses and corporations. However, corporations are not solely responsible for the climate crisis. In fact, opportunities between emerging socially driven platforms and profit-driven companies create the potential for scalable, sustainable solutions. 

The Loop initiative, launched in 2019 as a derivative of the social enterprise Terracycle, has partnered with Kroger to mitigate the need for single-use packaging in the retail grocery industry (Loop). Social enterprises can help reorient large corporations towards economic circularity, an economic system that minimizes waste and maximizes reuse during all phases of operation.

A social enterprise can be thought of as a hybrid between a non-profit and a standard business. It utilizes market-based, profit-maximizing strategies to address socio-environmental problems (Social Enterprise Alliance). A form of socially-conscious capitalism, social enterprises are businesses, large or small, that are motivated by sustaining revenue and targeting specific social objectives (Investopedia). 

In Kroger’s 2020 sustainability report, the company aims to “transition to 100% recyclable, compostable or reusable Our Brands packaging by 2030” (Kroger). Loop advances Kroger’s sustainability goal by shipping brand-name products in durable packaging that the consumer can send back to a facility to be cleaned and reused for another shipment. They provide packaging for products of major brands such as Febreze, Tropicana, and Gillette (Loop). 

The 2020 Acumen report asserts that social enterprises can further corporate sustainability by providing “concrete and measurable progress” through social impact measurements. Impact metrics are any way companies quantify the influences manufacturing, distribution, and disposal of a product have on society (Harvard Business Review). 

Loop claims to assess their impact through “Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) on transportation, product use, cleaning and more, and have them independently reviewed by third party agencies”  (Loop Impact). More testing and pilots will have to be done to determine if the material, transportation, and disposal of Loop’s durable packaging is actually more environmentally friendly than the single-use model (WasteDive).  However, Loop’s vice president of research and development claims that the Loop business model resulted in a 35% reduction in global warming potential (WasteDive).  

Social enterprises like Loop further their sustainable progress by connecting impact metrics to  United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, social enterprises are 37% more likely than corporations to do so (Acumen Report). The Loop initiative supports SDGs 11 and 12:  Sustainable Communities and Responsible Consumption, respectively. By extension, partner companies like Kroger can advance these goals as well, contextualizing their impact metrics to a universal sustainability framework. 

Loop is still in the early phases of implementation, and it is still unclear how far-reaching their impact will be in solving the single-use waste issue. However, even small efforts are going to make a difference, in the next blog we will discuss the ramifications of companies who don’t make an effort to protect the environment.  

---

Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.