[This column was first published in Shift Age Newsletter #22]

One of the three major consumer trends I have been speaking about during the past few years is conscious capitalism.  Conscious capitalism is when a company takes on an altruistic cause, charity or practice and applies revenue ...]]>

[This column was first published in Shift Age Newsletter #22]

One of the three major consumer trends I have been speaking about during the past few years is conscious capitalism.  Conscious capitalism is when a company takes on an altruistic cause, charity or practice and applies revenue to that endeavor.

Initially this behavior was mostly about creating a feel good halo around a brand.  Donating to or underwriting a charity has long been a way to allow a company to point to something that it was supporting to benefit it’s hometown community or a national charity.  Supporting a 10k run or walk for charity, or volunteering employees for a day of community clean up became very popular in the latter part of the 20^th century.  The message was, “look at us, we do good work.”  Okay, fine and good to do, but since every company now does this whether supporting the fight against cancer or sponsoring a little league team, it is no longer anything other than normal behavior that is expected.

This then led to creating a campaign or product line where a percentage of proceeds, usually miniscule, went to a larger cause.  The best example of this was the Red campaign a few years ago that gave a small percentage of revenue to the fight against HIV and AIDS.  The problem with campaigns like this is that the actual amount of money, as a percentage of total revenues, was small.  So the perception developed, particularly among younger generations, was that this was an activity that used the feel good participation of consumers to drive sales.  The response to such behavior was no longer “that’s great, here’s my money!” to “ before I spend, how much of my money actually goes to the cause to which you are aligning?”

Then companies like Tom’s Shoes came along and changed the game.  Tom’s shoes position was basically:  buy a pair of shoes from us and we will donate a pair of shoes to people who have no shoes in the developing world.  Not a small percentage of revenue or effort, but a one to one ratio of contribution.  This is the new paradigm if you want to be perceived as making a difference in the world.

Another company that has chosen to change the world with compassion is the Panera Bread Company.  Currently in six locations around America, Panera has opened or converted stores under the Panera Cares brand.  These are now non-profit places serving the communities.  Walk into a Panera Cares, as I did last month, and when your food or beverage order is rung up you are told something like “this is a suggested donation, please put your donation in the donation box [in front of the cash register]  if you can’t make the full donation, donate what you can.  If you want to support our efforts to help the community, feel free to make a larger donation”  Well, in went my $10 bill for my $7.98 salad.

Then, while enjoying a catch up meeting with a friend, people came around to ask if they could clear the table and to thank us for dining at Panera’s.  As a largely self-pick up and clean up restaurant this was different.  I looked around at the fuller than usual restaurant and, in addition to those intent folks with ear buds and laptops or office mates sharing a meal, I saw a number of people who were older, clearly down on their luck and, as I found out, having a free meal.  The people who were clearing the tables were other people who were working an hour or two in return for the free food they had consumed.  One free serving a week and if you need more you have to work for more.

Entering Panera Cares one is greeted by an “ambassador” who clearly explains the non-profit, contribution model in place.  The mission however goes beyond simply providing free food to those in need.  One ambassador proudly told me that this was not only the best job she has ever had, but showed me a reason why.  On a bulletin board were photographs of former recipients of both free work and good work training at Panera Cares who had moved on.  One former patron, she pointed out with pride, had been released from a “home” due to a budget cutback, then had been given works skills help at Panera Cares, had gone on to gainful employment and had just won “employee of the month”.

The name over the door is Panera Cares.  They do.

Companies such at Tom’s Shoes and Panera for Panera Cares are at the leading edge of what will be a huge move to conscious capitalism.  The two largest driving forces of this are global and generational.  Global in that the climate change fundamentals are dramatically increasing our “Spaceship Earth” mentality of sense of fragile preciousness of this lone planet of ours.  Generational in that the Millennial generation sees conscious capitalism as one of the first influencers of what and where they buy.  I guest lecture at the Ringling College of Art +Design where some of the most creative and talented 18-23 year olds grace me with their attention.  It is not far from the truth to say that almost every class I have been in, there is a Tom’s decal on a laptop.

Increasingly in the future, if you seek money from customers, expect them to ask first what your contributory vision is of making the planet a better place.

Note #1:  “Spaceship Earth” is a term both Buckminster Fuller and Marshall McLuhan used.  Best quote is from McLuhan:  “There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth.  We are all crew”

Note #2  I will address the other two major consumer trends in the next Newsletter.

Did you know that 65 percent of the U.S. workforce of 2020 – a date to which so much planning about the future tends to be pegged – is already outside the reach of our elementary and secondary education schools?

Did you also know that for the slice ...]]> Guest Columnist:  Jeff Cobb

Did you know that 65 percent of the U.S. workforce of 2020 – a date to which so much planning about the future tends to be pegged – is already outside the reach of our elementary and secondary education schools?

Did you also know that for the slice of that 65 percent lucky enough to earn a college degree, the shelf life of that degree is only about five years?

There is a lot of passionate debate these days – and rightly so – about improving our K-12 and higher education systems, but even as these debates rage, the vast majority of our workforce now and in the coming decade will be minimally impacted by whatever changes we make.

What then, are the prospects for this group leading the way forward in the fast-paced, complex world in which we now live? Unless we move rapidly to provide the necessary support for lifelong learning, I’d argue they don’t look very good.

Life in the Learning Economy

Readers of EvolutionShift no doubt appreciate that we no longer live in what Peter Drucker presciently called a “knowledge economy.” With the sheer speed, scope, and scale of global change these days, the shelf life of knowledge is decreasing rapidly. We now live in a learning economy, an environment in which we must learn and re-learn on a daily basis to thrive.

The challenges for workers in this context are daunting. Most of us exit the system of formal education in our early-to-mid twenties and enter what I call “the other 50 years” that long stretch of life in which we are largely on our own to determine how we will continue to learn and grow.

During this period, we switch jobs more than 10 times on average, and many of us switch careers multiple times – sometimes because we want to, often because we have no choice.

During this period, an increasing number of us – currently 42 million in the U.S., or one third of the workforce – will find ourselves working as freelancers.  There will be no corporate training departments or human resource people to support us.

The options for ongoing education and learning during this “other fifty years” are increasingly fragmented and confusing: a patchwork of trade and professional associations, college and university extension programs, community learning centers, free online courses of every type and quality level imaginable, info product pitches from self-appointed “gurus,” and a flood of videos, tweets, posts, and likes.

None of this would be an issue, of course, if the K-12 and higher education systems already mentioned had prepared us to be highly effective lifelong learners. But, for the most part, they haven’t. And so, we’re left to figure things out largely on our own in the learning economy.

So What’s the Solution?

As with any complex problem, there are no easy fixes, but there are clear steps we can take to improve our support system for lifelong learning.

A key initial step is to improve government investment in this sector education substantially. As a recent report from the McGraw-Hill Foundation argues, adult education has traditionally been the “the poor step-child of the education system,” receiving less than 10 percent of the amount that goes to K-12 and less than 5 percent of the amount that goes to higher ed.

Along with additional funding, we need to see much more visible and active participation in the discussion about adult learning from the people who should be leading the way. I’d like to see leaders of trade and professional associations, for example, be much more vocal and visible in addressing the issue. These are, after all, organizations that are tax-exempt because they are supposed to be serving the public good.

We need to recognize, also, that much of our learning now happens through non-traditional channels like MOOCs, YouTube, social networks, and any number of Webinars and online courses offered by entrepreneurial subject matter experts.  The value – along with the cost – of traditional degrees has become inflated. Employers, in particular, need to move quickly to embrace alternate forms of credentialing like certificates and badges (see, for example, the Mozilla Open Badges project).

Finally, there is no denying an element of personal responsibility in this new era of learning. As I have argued in 10 Ways to Be a Better Learner and elsewhere, we all need to develop our skills as lifelong learners if we expect to thrive in the learning economy.

None of this, of course, means that we should not focus on transforming our systems of K-12 and higher education. But with the limited impact these systems will have on the workforce of the coming decade, the time to invest dramatically in adult lifelong learning is now.

###

A frequent speaker to business audiences and a vocal advocate of lifelong learning, Jeff Cobb (http://www.jeffthomascobb.com) has nearly two decades of experience in the world of learning technology and innovation. His most recent book, Leading the Learning Revolution (www.learningrevolution.net/book/) was published by AMACOM in January 2013.

“The view here is that when the U.S. does emerge ...]]> More than four years ago, in early 2009, I published a column saying that the great recession we had just entered would be a green recession.  In February 2009, in a column titled  “This Great Recession is Actually Green” I wrote:

“The view here is that when the U.S. does emerge from this recession in 2010-11 it will be a greener country with a new vision actually taking root in the realm of alternative and renewable energy.  It will prove to be true that this recession will change habits, stop rampant consumerism, increase conservation and provoke investment in renewable and alternative forms of energy.   It is ironic that this Great Recession will actually accelerate the country into a greener future faster than if it had not happened.”

It has been well documented that during the recession the amount of miles driven in cars in America actually dropped for the first time in decades.  In addition, the number of people using public transportation reached numbers not seen since the middle part of the last century when the true love affair America had with the automobile began.  Increased gas prices, unemployment and general economic hardship made people really think about the cost of transport for the first time.

It has recently been reported that in recent years, since the beginning of the great recession, America has actually led the world in cutting greenhouse gases.  This has been due to three general trends.  First the recession and desire to spend less as gasoline prices stayed high.  Second, a growing awareness of the necessity of alternative energy, primarily solar and wind, in an age of climate change.  Third, the dramatic changes and collapsing prices in the natural gas sector of energy.

In a very good article about this in the New York Times,  Eduardo Porter writes that American emissions of CO2 have dropped 13% since the beginning of the recession in 2007.  Even more significantly he points out that the United States uses 9% less energy for each $1 of GDP than it did five years ago and that total energy use has fallen about 5% in the same time frame.  A no pain no gain scenario to be sure.

Back in 2007, the general view of scientists and energy experts – and of this futurist as well- was that overall energy consumption in the United States could be cut by 20-25% through conservation, retrofitting, insulating and applying basic knowledge of energy use and waste.  Well, we have cut use by 5% so far.  Given the recent realities of natural gas replacing coal and continued intelligent conservation and energy use, the United States will be energy independent before the end of the decade.  This is something the country has spoken about for many decades and now this green recession has brought us close to that goal.

In that column I wrote four years ago, I listed four words that would define and shape the use of energy during the great recession:  contraction, cleansing, reorganization and transformation.  It is worth it to take a quick look back at these four words.

Contraction is obvious as economic activity contracts in a recession.  In fact that is the definition of a recession.  A deep fall in output and consumption obviously cuts energy use.

Cleansing is the ridding of the casino capitalism that existed in the first seven years of this century.  The dramatic overuse of debt to fuel growth and consumption is now scar tissue on most of us.  We now look back at this behavior and see is for what it was, completely unsustainable, in every sense of the word.

Reorganization is larger than just in the energy sector.  As I wrote in a column two years ago, the best way to understand the recession of 2007-2010 was that it was a reorganizational recession between two ages.  It was actually the rough transition between the Information Age and the Shift Age.  Any full social, cultural, and economic reorganization will affect the energy sector.

Transformation As long time and loyal readers of this column know, on 01-01-10 I coined the name Transformation Decade for the 2010-2020 decade.  The simple dictionary definition of transformation is “ a change in nature, shape, character or form”  Well, as Porter clearly points out in his article, the entire US energy sector is in that process of transformation.  This of course is a much larger concept for the United States and all of humanity than simply energy, but energy is one of the largest areas to be transformed.

As we now move fully out of the recession and into the slow growth recovery, at least in the United States, we can look back on the brutal economic contraction as a painful birth to a new energy landscape.  One that is just a beginning, but a beginning nevertheless.

Note:  Next week this blog will host it’s first ever guest writer, Jeff Cobb.  Jeff, a friend and co-author of “Shift Ed:  A Call to Action for Transforming K-12 Education” is a thought leader about the radically changing education landscape.    We recently recorded a podcast that has just be uploaded.