BigLake, a new data lake storage engine that resembles data lakehouses built by newer data companies, will be at the center of Google Cloud’s data platform strategy.
BigLake allows enterprises to unify their data warehouses and data lakes to analyze data without worrying about the underlying storage format or systems, according to Sudhir Hasbe, Google Cloud’s senior director of product management for data analytics.
Google Cloud plans to launch a new data lake storage engine based on its popular BigQuery data warehouse to help remove barriers preventing customers from mining the full value of their ever-increasing data.
BigLake, now available in preview, allows enterprises to unify their data warehouses and data lakes to analyze data without worrying about the underlying storage format or systems, according to Sudhir Hasbe, Google Cloud’s senior director of product management for data analytics.
“The biggest advantage is then you don’t have to duplicate your data across two different environments and create data silos,” Hasbe said in a press briefing prior to Wednesday’s Google Data Cloud Summit, where BigLake is being announced.
With BigLake, Google Cloud is extending the capabilities of its 11-year-old BigQuery to data lakes on Google Cloud Storage to enable a flexible, open lakehouse architecture, according to the cloud provider. A data lakehouse is an open data-management architecture that combines data-warehouse-like data management and optimization functions, including business intelligence, machine learning and governance, for data lakes that typically provide more cost-effective storage.
BigQuery is a Google Cloud-managed, serverless, multicloud data warehouse that lets customers run analytics over vast amounts of data in near real time. It processes more than 110 terabytes of customers’ data every second on average, according to Google Cloud.
“We have tens of thousands of customers on it, and we invested a lot in all the governance, security and all the core capabilities, so we’re taking that innovation from BigQuery and now extending it onto all the data that sits in different formats as well as in lake environments — whether it’s on Google Cloud with Google Cloud Storage, whether it’s on AWS or whether it’s on [Microsoft] Azure,” Hasbe said.
BigLake will be at the center of Google Cloud’s data platform strategy.Image: Google Cloud
BigLake will be at the center of Google Cloud’s data platform strategy, and the cloud provider will ensure that all its tools and capabilities integrate with it, according to Hasbe.
“We are going to seamlessly integrate our data management and governance capability with Dataplex, so any data that goes into BigLake will be managed [and] governed in a consistent fashion,” he said. “All of our machine-learning and AI capabilities … will also work on BigLake, as well as all our analytics engines, whether it’s BigQuery, whether it’s Spark, whether it’s Dataflow.”
Enterprise data sets are growing from terabytes to petabytes, while the types of data — from structured, semi-structured and unstructured data to IoT data collected from connected devices including sensors and wearables — also are increasing. That data typically is stored across different systems with different capabilities, whether in data warehouses for structured and semi-structured data or data lakes for other types of data, creating so-called data silos that could limit access and increase costs and risks, particularly when the data must be moved.
BigLake will support all open-source file formats and standards including Apache Parquet and ORC and new formats for table access such as Iceberg, as well as open-source processing engines such as Apache Spark.
“When you think about limitless data, it is time that we end the artificial separation between managed warehouses and data lakes,” said Gerrit Kazmaier, Google Cloud’s vice president and general manager for database, data analytics and Looker. “Google is doing this in a unique way.”
Gig Workers Rising released a report Wednesday on gig worker deaths, citing families who say they haven’t received compensation.
Gig workers have been sounding the alarm on the dangers they face for a while now.
Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She’s a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school’s independent newspaper. She’s based in D.C., and can be reached at [email protected].
More than 50 gig workers have been killed on the job in the United States since 2017, according to a new report from Gig Workers Rising. The report has been over six months in the making, but lead organizer Cherri Murphy said the real research comes from her lived experience: She’s been a Lyft driver since 2017, and has seen the dangers firsthand.
“Driving around without workman’s compensation was a looming threat,” Murphy said. “Driving around and not having bathroom access. The picking up of passengers who decided to accost me based on the color of my skin, or stealing my phone and running out in the middle of traffic.”
Upon meeting other drivers, she soon found she wasn’t alone. “This was a systemic problem around workplace violence that needs to be addressed,” Murphy said.
Gig workers have been sounding the alarm on the dangers they face for a while now. Last May, the Gig Workers Collective petitioned the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs to classify gig workers as employees so they would be eligible for workers’ compensation and occupational death benefits. Uber and Lyft drivers have demanded more safety protections as violent crime has risen in some cities.
The report (PDF) stems from the dissonance between companies’ public statements of sympathy and some families’ struggles to get compensation or acknowledgement. It dives into several accounts, including that of 26-year-old Isabella Lewis, who was murdered while driving for Lyft. Her family told Gig Workers Rising they never received compensation from the insurance company Lyft works with, Liberty Mutual. Reading Lyft’s condolences in the Dallas Morning News, but never hearing from the company directly, cut deep, Lewis’ family said.
“We appreciate the kind words, but it would have been more heartfelt to receive those words directly as a family from losing our loved one that was in the hands of a company who was supposed to do what they could to protect all their drivers,” the family said in a statement.
Lyft told Protocol it always attempts to reach out to the driver or the driver’s family as soon as a safety incident is reported. After this story was published, Lyft clarified that it attempted to reach out to Lewis’ family but failed to make contact.
Sometimes, companies will dispute whether workers were actually on the job when they were killed, such as in the case of Ahmad Fawad Yusufi, a 31-year-old Afghan refugee who in November was killed in the car he drove for Uber. Uber told Protocol that Yusufi was not driving for Uber at the time of his death. His family says Uber is lying to the press.
Of the 50 slain workers, more than 63% were people of color. Murphy said Gig Workers Rising has struggled to collect worker demographic data, as well as injury and death statistics, from companies. “No one’s talking about this; we can’t even get data about what’s happening,” Murphy said. The majority of workers listed in the report were Uber and Lyft drivers, with some delivery drivers from DoorDash, Instacart, Grubhub and Postmates.
The above companies told Protocol they’re constantly working to keep workers safe. They listed existing in-app safety features, such as emergency 911 buttons and direct lines to ADT security agents. Gig Workers Rising called some of these safety features “half-measures,” expressing concern that they might prevent workers from reaching out to law enforcement directly. Regarding compensation, DoorDash cited its free occupational accident insurance, as did Instacart. Uber also referenced its occupational accident insurance, though drivers outside of California must pay for the product. Lyft and Grubhub offer occupational accident insurance only to workers in California. Proposition 22 solidified this type of benefit for California workers, but also classified gig workers as independent contractors. Gig companies poured millions into lobbying for the law, and are now spending big bucks on a similar fight in Massachusetts.
Mandatory binding arbitration clauses are a way companies try to keep death or injury-related claims out of the public eye, Gig Workers Rising said. Several app-based companies have arbitration clauses baked into their terms of service, requiring that certain claims be settled privately rather than through lawsuits.
“No forced arbitration” is one of the four demands at the conclusion of the report. Gig workers are also demanding compensation for affected workers and families, transparent data on injury and deaths and an app-worker union to make gig work safer. The campaign is planning a rally on Wednesday outside Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi’s mansion, where members will read out the names of killed workers.
“Workers clearly are shut out of safety nets, like worker compensation, despite how dangerous the work is,” Murphy said. “They’re left on their own to figure out the strategies to protect themselves. They’re murdered on a job, injured on the job, sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, and that that needs to change. We need more than just thoughts and prayers.”
Update: This story was updated April 6 to clarify what type of insurance Lyft and Grubhub offer and to include a statement from Lyft.
Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She’s a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school’s independent newspaper. She’s based in D.C., and can be reached at [email protected].
The world of work is undergoing a revolution – but workplace communication tools help businesses adapt.
Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of “YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars.” His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.
This is part one of a three-part series exploring the experience of frontline workers and new workplace tools being deployed to support them.
The last two years have seen deep, significant changes to the world of work. The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted business leaders’ focus from maintaining their bottom line to the front line. Employee experience has become more important than ever to keep good workers happy – and to keep them within a business.
Frontline workers have borne some of the heaviest burdens during the course of the pandemic, asked to work in person while many others work from home. They’ve kept our economy running, grocery stores stocked, and water and power pumping to our homes. Yet that’s come at a price. Frontline workers are leaving the workforce in increasing numbers – testament to the stresses and strains they’ve faced in recent years.
“Expectations of what people are looking for within their workplace has changed,” says Abby Guthkelch, Head of Global Executive Solutions at Workplace from Meta. “People have had a lot of time to reflect during the pandemic about their situations. They want to get more out of work.”
Seven in 10 frontline workers have suffered burnout because of the burden that’s been placed on them during the pandemic — or feel at risk of burning out. Nearly half of those surveyed by Workplace said the stress was so bad they’d have switched jobs by 2022. In the United States, 2.9% of the workforce resigned from their jobs in what was called ‘the Great Resignation’, says Guthkelch. And two-thirds of executives expect high rates of employee attrition — or are waiting for the wave of resignations to wash over them.
It’s all a mortal threat to the future of work and to plenty of big businesses that have seen too many people walking out the door in the last two years. But there is a way to support and empower frontline workers while improving collaboration with colleagues. It’s asynchronous communication, keeping people in the loop in a non-intrusive way — the kind of contact enabled by Workplace from Meta, the tech giant’s workplace communications platform.
“What asynchronous communication and products actually allow you to do is actually get frontline employees up to speed on information at a time that works for them on a device that works for them,” says Guthkelch. Investing in a quality communications platform pays dividends in the long run, she adds. “If you start with your people, investing in your people, they will, in return, turn up to work. They will perform better, which will in turn enable customer success and customer experiences, which will in turn drive business growth. And that really comes from communication.”
Workplace Tech on the Frontline youtu.be
Businesses big and small are using tools like Workplace from Meta to try and foster those closer connections with employees that stop the rot and revolutionize the way workers can communicate while on the frontline. Millions of employees at businesses around the world were not able to work at all during the COVID-19 crisis. They were furloughed and sent home for a year and a half. But bosses bringing back their workers are utilizing workplace tools to reorient employees who haven’t been working for prolonged periods.
Businesses are placing more priority on ensuring there are clear lines of communication for frontline workers to raise issues — something that’s vital given 43% of employees told McKinsey one of their fears about remote work was a reduction in collaboration with colleagues.
Such consistent, constant communication acts as a pulse check for the health of an organization, enabling bosses to step in and fix issues before they fester and grow. It’s also a real-time pressure valve for frontline workers — who are often placed in the most stressful customer-facing situations — to let off steam, raising issues and feeding back opportunities for improvements in operational efficiency as they see them. Beyond that, asynchronous communication platforms allow employees to feel more valued and part of a community. Rather than being left out on a limb to face the general public, constant communication means people feel like they’re a member of a bigger team pulling in the same direction — giving workers a sense of purpose they so desperately crave in uncertain times. In a survey of workers by Workplace, 57% of frontline workers felt their ability to keep in touch with colleagues through communication tools helps improve their mental health.
For businesses looking to face 2022 on the front foot, rather than reacting to a wave of disquiet, it’s vital to take steps now to improve workplace tech to enable happier, healthier, more efficient workers.
Forward-thinking firms are putting their money where their mouth is, supporting workers and enabling them to feel empowered about the future direction of the company — shaping its future from the front line. They’re doing so by taking steps to drastically improve frontline teams’ experience, reviewing internal communications strategy, processes and the accompanying tech stack and addressing the importance of mental health and factors that can contribute to burnout.
Read the series:
Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of “YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars.” His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.
An expanded AI and tech initiative with Singapore is part of a broader effort by the U.S. to re-engage Asian countries and reduce their reliance on China for AI development.
One key focus of the expanded U.S.-Singapore pact is a plan to develop ethical AI governance approaches that facilitate interoperable cross-border connections.
Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of “Campaign ’08: A Turning Point for Digital Media,” a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.
The White House reaffirmed its mission to increase AI collaboration between the U.S. and Singapore last week. But during those talks, another country was on everyone’s minds: China.
When President Joe Biden hosted Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on March 29, he acknowledged the bilateral strategic partnership between the two nations — and the 5,400 U.S. companies with locations in Singapore. On the sidelines, U.S. Commerce Department representatives met with Singapore officials to expand the countries’ economic efforts related to trustworthy AI, data privacy, digital trade standards and advanced manufacturing. Those efforts build on a previous Memorandum of Understanding, called the U.S.-Singapore Partnership for Growth and Innovation, the two countries signed in October.
Alex Capri, a researcher and consultant studying trade flows and competition in tech innovation who has taught at the National University of Singapore Business School, said the expanded plan is part of a much broader U.S. strategy aimed at China. The partnership is designed to rebalance and re-engage Asian countries including smaller tech powers such as Singapore — “absolutely with the intention of reducing reliance on China for AI development, and also because of the strategic implications,” Capri said. “Singapore is a logical choice as a tech hub.”
The drumbeat in the U.S. to slow China’s mission to dominate AI is growing stronger. Not only are tech industry leaders such as former Google CEO and AI investor Eric Schmidt turning up the anti-China volume in political and defense circles, but also legislators have asked the Commerce Department to further restrict export of AI and other U.S. technologies to companies with connections to China’s military.
One key focus of the expanded U.S.-Singapore pact is a plan to develop ethical AI governance approaches that facilitate interoperable cross-border connections. “One practical example of our digital cooperation is on aligning our respective AI governance frameworks,” said Josephine Teo, Singapore’s minister for Communications and Information. “Companies can expect to deploy AI across borders with greater ease, to seize innovation opportunities while managing the risks.”
In their agreement to expand their partnership, the U.S. and Singapore also announced plans for more collaboration on tech standards and advanced manufacturing. These efforts reflect both nations’ goals to foster data and tech interoperability and connectivity related to digital trade, Capri said.
What all this means practically speaking, from either a geopolitical or a technical standpoint, is not yet clear. But the general sentiment behind official statements reflecting last week’s meetings indicates the countries aim to streamline open data and technology supply chain flows.
“The United States and Singapore affirm the importance of ensuring that critical and emerging technologies foster an open, accessible, and secure technology ecosystem, based on mutual trust, confidence, and respect for a rules-based international order,” Biden and Hsien Loong said in a joint statement. “To this end, we commit to increasing resiliency in our technology supply chains, and developing robust approaches to data governance and security, seeking consistency and interoperability where feasible.”
A Commerce Department spokesperson told Protocol the U.S. and Singapore will compare Singapore’s industry-aimed Minimum Viable Product for AI Governance Testing Framework with a risk management framework in development by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology to determine how the two might align.
While the U.S. does not have any laws or blanket regulatory regime to address AI governance or related data use, Singapore created its Model AI Governance Framework for ethical AI approaches in 2019, which addresses explainability, fairness and the need for AI to be “human-centric.”
China itself has begun to implement its own rules restricting use of algorithmic recommendation systems. However, the country’s efforts to develop — and in some ways, control — corporate AI and other emerging tech have people throughout Western governments concerned about its use of facial recognition, algorithmic social scoring, flagrant human rights abuses and the increased potential for AI-fueled military dominance.
Broadly speaking, by emphasizing collaborative AI governance and data frameworks, the U.S. and Singapore were speaking what Capri called “code language for the formation around ideological values.”
In essence, while China has established strict data controls requiring companies operating there to localize data and share data decryption keys, the U.S. and Singapore have reiterated their commitment to a more-open approach taken by liberal democracies when it comes to data use and tech interoperability. In the U.S.-Singapore relationship, those sorts of controls would not apply, Capri said.
Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of “Campaign ’08: A Turning Point for Digital Media,” a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.
Twitter’s no longer just a place for him to tweet outlandish things.
The Tesla CEO calls himself a “free speech absolutist” who wants Twitter to open-source its algorithm.
Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal announced Tuesday that Elon Musk would be joining the platform’s board of directors a day after it was revealed that Musk is now Twitter’s largest shareholder. As a long-time Twitter user with a following of more than 80 million, Musk has become a favorite among the company’s higher-ups: Former CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted Tuesday morning that he’s wanted Musk on the board “for a long time.”
Musk has complained that Twitter limits free speech, even teasing that he was giving “serious thought” to starting his own social media platform. Instead, he could be bringing these ideas to Twitter. Agrawal seemingly sees Musk’s problems with Twitter as a plus, calling him both a “passionate believer and intense critic of the service.”
Twitter may no longer be just a place for Elon Musk to make outlandish promises and Tesla announcements. Now, it could be a place for him to make changes — potentially problematic ones, at that.
Musk’s ideas might be bad for business. The Tesla CEO calls himself a “free speech absolutist” who wants Twitter to open-source its algorithm. Both of those concepts would destabilize Twitter’s existence as a money-making enterprise.
Musk’s status as Twitter’s troll-in-chief could open the floodgates. Critics of Musk’s appointment to the board are concerned that Musk’s influence will revert the platform back to a darker time, before the company got serious about content moderation and abuse prevention. Folks still face harassment on Twitter, and rolling back those efforts would make the user experience worse.
But Twitter does have some safeguards in place. The company’s corporate governance for its board of directors states that certain topics are “unrelated to (their) duties and responsibilities.”
This is Elon Musk we’re talking about, though. He’s notorious for not playing by the rules — not even the federal regulations that his companies are required to follow by law. Will he take over Twitter, start his own social network (as he tweeted about in March) or tire of being a social media star and go back to shooting rockets into space? Knowing Musk, all of the above.
Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.
Reducing consumption is a key way to deal with climate change. Regeneration.VC, though, wants to make what we do end up needing more climate-friendly.
Regeneration.VC general partner Michael Smith shares the fund’s aims.
What do Dick’s Sporting Goods, HVAC systems and leather have in common? They’re all getting an assist in cutting their emissions from companies backed by the venture capital fund Regeneration.VC.
The firm has a splashy strategic adviser in actor Leonardo DiCaprio as well as architect William McDonough, and it has big ambitions for funding retail-focused climate innovation. Regeneration.VC’s early-stage fund closed its first $45 million round on March 28.
Michael Smith, who has a background in impact investment and as a global touring DJ (yes, really), is one of the firm’s general partners. He said the fund’s goal is to reimagine what we buy: from what materials go into the products, to the services using those materials, to the technology that could keep those materials in circulation. The firm decides what to invest in based on what Smith describes as a project’s “circular regenerative potential” across five themes: their resource footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, material waste, toxicity and human impact.
In an interview with Protocol, Smith unpacked the fund’s philosophy, a few of the first companies it backed and whether its focus on consumer goods is compatible with the fact that we all should probably be limiting our consumption. After all, the just-released Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found demand-side changes could reduce emissions up to 70% by mid-century. To Smith, though, we’ll never stop consumption completely. “[W]e think there’s better ways to consume,” he said.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
What is the rationale behind Regeneration.VC’s focus on decarbonizing consumer products?
With apparel accounting for 10% of global emissions, and food and agriculture accounting for one-third of global emissions, we see that there’s an opportunity to focus on the underlying supply chain of those businesses, as well as those products that are traveling through various consumer touchpoints. And we think that there will be a lot more funds and a lot more capital focused on this in the future. There have been some specialist funds, but we’re the only fund to our knowledge that is focused on consumer applications of circular and regenerative technologies today.
It is relatively common to hear that individual actions have such a vanishingly small impact on the climate crisis that changing our consumer habits should not be our priority. How does Regeneration.VC contextualize its consumer-focused approach, given the enormity of the challenge?
We firmly believe every person can play a part in the climate emergency, and each one of us can shift the conversation in the supply chain and vote with our wallets. The CEOs of companies, the folks voting on climate legislation: All of those are individual consumers as well. And the more that momentum occurs in apparel or in food systems, the more it sets the table for major regulatory shifts. But there are also great businesses to be built, and to service the underlying needs to get there and make change. If people aren’t demanding alternative packaging or food products or apparel products, how can we attack the embedded emissions in the supply chain by regulation alone?
We need to treat everything on the planet as vital and important and connected, and find new ways of consuming that look a lot more like our grandparents’ and generations before us.
To say that our individual actions don’t matter, I think is just wrong. There is an opportunity to educate and to be mindful of how we consume things. That can drive our decision-making with our families, with our communities, with the companies we work for, with the countries we are a part of. And hopefully that trickles up to [United Nations climate talks called] the Conference of the Parties and has real, meaningful impact and outcomes.
What has the reaction from consumer brands been so far to your work?
We’ve been very encouraged by the reactions from larger holding companies and larger corporations. Because they’ve made really bold claims around circularity, they are eagerly looking for options to meet their targets and a lot of our investments are well-positioned to help service those goals for larger consumer brands.
We’re investing alongside major corporations in a number of our companies, and I would characterize their interest as very high and vital to their future. We think in the next year or two, there will be major commercial agreements announced; in fact, a number of our portfolio companies have direct partnerships or commercial agreements with large corporations.
Can you walk me through some examples of the companies Regeneration.VC has invested in so far?
Our first investment is a company called CleanO2, a commercialized micro carbon capture company that’s based in Calgary. The business revolves around a patented CarbinX unit, which is about the size of a refrigerator. It’s installed into natural gas heating systems, where it captures emissions and converts them into carbonates. These carbonates are high-value, energy-intensive ingredients that are used in many industrial products like soaps, detergents and fertilizers. So we are taking emissions from HVAC systems and converting them to things like soap and fertilizers that are directly usable in those buildings or nearby buildings.
To say that our individual actions don’t matter, I think is just wrong.
Another example is a company called Arrive. They’re accelerating the transition to the circular economy for retailers by providing turn-key rental and resale services to big-box retailers. One of their launch partners was Dick’s Sporting Goods; if you go to the Dick’s site, you can purchase things or you can rent things. If you rent, that’s Arrive on the back end handling shipping, receiving, cleaning and related packaging. And the idea here is that if a garment or a tent or golf clubs can be reused multiple times — instead of remade multiple times — there’s a great potential for emissions savings there.
Most environmentalists and climate scientists say we need to be purchasing fewer things altogether. Do you think the projects that Regeneration.VC is investing in could result in more consumption in a way that could prove counterproductive?
The minimum viable opportunity for us is that we are a drop-in replacement for something that’s already being made, and are able to reduce emissions associated with it or even apply regenerative thinking and draw down carbon in the soil and make materials from it.
The maximum — and what you’re getting at is something that really excites me — is getting more from the things we have. How do we extend the life of products? How do we make heritage products? When you and I were kids, you’d have pieces from the grandparents passed down through generations. We want to encourage that, and we’re looking for companies that are building things that are not single-use and going to landfills. We need to treat everything on the planet as vital and important and connected, and find new ways of consuming that look a lot more like our grandparents’ and generations before us. Are we out to eliminate consumption? No, that’s not viable; but we think there’s better ways to consume.
Is there a different time scale associated with decarbonizing these consumer sectors, like leather or plastic, as compared with, for instance, heavy industry?
The good news about apparel and food is, because they are driven by consumer tastes and preferences, we can more rapidly move the underlying supply chains within them. And you’ve seen this happen in food, you’re seeing it happen in fashion, you’re going to be seeing it happen in packaging. That kind of change can happen much more rapidly than decarbonizing heavy industry, and that gives us encouragement. This is a climate emergency that we’re in, and we think we can very quickly make change happen on the ground in these industries.
To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. If you continue browsing. you accept our use of cookies. You can review our privacy policy to find out more about the cookies we use.
