Monthly Archives: June 2022

The invasion of Ukraine shocked the world and challenged the liberal world order based on the Idealist approach which seems to be now at stake. International institutions were introduced and agreements were signed under the leadership of the United States to promote global cooperation, free trade, and peace. Undoubtedly, the peace was maintained for decades. However, now the world is again tilted towards authoritarianism and anarchy. Countries like Russia and China emerged as great powers in global power politics and the US dream of expanding global democracy is fading. It is very obvious that US dominance on the world is not now in the state as it was before. It is to be observed that how US designed the international order and maintained its influence as worlds great power.

After the First World War, the US tried to institutionalize the world by establishing the worlds first international organization, the League of Nations (LoN), to restore peace and prevent war. Unfortunately, the organization failed and a 6-year-long second world war happened. In 1945, the US, with the collaboration of the UK, issued a declaration that was signed by 51 countries, naming it the United Nations Organization (UNO). The charter of the UNO included the maintenance of peace and security, the development of friendly relations among states, promotion of social well-being, and enhancement of living standards and human rights. Furthermore, the US established different alliances, gradually and eventually when the world was divided into two blocks due to ideological differences between capitalism and communism. The Cold War era was a psychological clash between two blocs (1945-1990).

The end of WWII changed the international structure and moved from multi-polarity to bipolarity which resulted in Cold War. Both great powers competed for dominance in international politics during this period. In the era of the cold war both the US and the Soviet Union entered into various treaties and established numerous organizations in the sectors of the economy, trade, and security to maximize their power. Mutual security alliances were formed by great powers at that time, like the US-backed NATO (1949) and, in response, Russia formed Warsaw Pact (1955). The US expansion does not stop there, it took economic measures too.

Meanwhile, the trend of sanctions was introduced in the new world order, primarily by the US to trap countries and deter them through financial sanctions. The US approach apparently was to address and prevent the conflict that led to wars and establish a system based on cooperation, peace and harmony. For the time being, it was effective. As time passed, the United States used it as a soft weapon to influence developing and underdeveloped countries to fulfil its hegemonic designs. To keep perceived rival states at bay the US sanctioned different countries for various reasons through economic sanctions. Recently, Afghanistan has been sanctioned by seizing its 7 billion dollars in international reserves. The same is happening and will happen with Russia and its ally, Belarus. The US realized that the tactics of sanctions and embargoes were more dangerous than war.

The US tried hard to deter Russia with major diplomatic and financial sanctions in the current Ukraine crisis, however, Russia invaded Ukraine. If the US maintained its hegemony, as it always does, Russian economy may suffer badly due to the imposed sanctions on it. Some analysts describe the Ukrainian issue as geopolitics rather than a territorial dispute. According to them, the US is attempting to contain Russia through security alliances, and also trying to harm its economy. For example,along with other economic sanctions, the Nord Stream 2 project between Russia and Germany was explicitly targeted in the Ukraine crisis. They also believe that all the misery was created on purpose to entrap the Russian mega project of a pipeline that connects Germany directly through the Baltic Sea.

Russia, particularly in Europe, is one of the worlds top energy suppliers. The Russian economy has long been dominated by oil and gas exports. Additionally, Russias resource-based economy is exposed to global resource market instability and restrictions on the energy trade, inany worst-case scenario, are critical to Russias economy. Similarly, the expulsion of Russia from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is also a tool to contain Russia. According to the BBCs report, in March, seven Russian banks were expelled from SWIFT, and now three more banks are planned to be dismissed. Sberbank, the third largest banking sector in Russia is one of the three banks that are supposed to be excluded. During the Crimean crisis in 2014, Russia was threatened to be expelled from SWIFT. Consequently, it encouraged Moscow to establish a parallel international money transfer system, a System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS). Russia is also trying to join the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) to tackle the transnational payment system crisis that would likely be emerged after the expulsion from SWIFT.

In a nutshell, history is repeating itself. The world is leading towards multipolarity again. The US, which was trying to maintain power among European and Asian countries, is facing the challenge of Chinas economic rise. During the course of recent history, the US and its allies were never on the same page regarding any situation as they are now. The US and its allies are strengthening their collective security and economic alliance. The US has tied knots with Australia, the UK, Japan, and many others, while Beijing gets closer to Moscow. The question is: will the US be successful in its strategies to contain and counter the major powers, as it did during the Cold War through its so-called liberal world order tactics? Or, will the Russia-China partnership win the power balance game as they are now expertized in the perceived US made rules of the international system? This and a lot worth waiting scenarios are supposed to be unfolded as no nation on Earth is afraid of American concerns as it used to be in the 1990s or early 2000s.

Pairman Bazai Research Assistant at Balochistan Think Tank Network, BUITEMS, Quetta

Continued here:

Ukraine Crisis: A Triggering Factor In Shifting The International Structure OpEd - Eurasia Review

This years World Environment Day theme Only One Earth was also the slogan for the 1972 Stockholm Conference the worlds first conference on the environment. Fifty years down the line, as we face the climate emergency, the actions we take today will determine how our future generation will co-exist with nature. As we commemorate this day to emphasise the importance of conserving our planet, addressing climate challenges while keeping sustainability in mind is the key to a better future.Today, natural disasters are occurring more frequently, displacing millions of people and causing significant economic losses. In 2020 alone, India reportedly faced a staggering loss of $87 Billion due to natural disasters. Climate change is a reality that we are facing in our daily lives. For instance, March 2022 was Indias hottest March in the last 122 years.Therefore, today is a reminder for all of us to act on the climate emergency causing socio-economic disruptions globally. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India is the world's fastest-growing major economy, and we must safeguard ourselves from future climate disruptions that can affect its growth prospects.This will only be possible through a strong climate action plan that will enable broader adoption of renewable energy, restore natural ecosystems, promote biodiversity and focus on water conservation and decarbonisation. Safeguarding our natural resourcesAs we experience a global shortage in raw materials, we need to rethink our approach toward using natural resources. Today, industrialisation and overpopulation are creating excessive demand for natural resources, threatening the balance of our ecosystem. The continued extraction of raw materials would disrupt the organic foundations of our ecosystems, which may undo the years of sustenance maintained between the planet and the life on it.An impactful alternative to the current linear method of consumption and production is a circular economy. A circular model can help contain the demand for newer materials and effectively utilise the available resources. This is where we design supply chains, products, manufacturing, and distribution for circularity and resource recovery, to reduce the amount of virgin raw materials in products and reclaim old products from the market to be refurbished and reused.Collective initiatives by organisations can help create a faster impact on restoring the planet, sharing ownership between every stakeholder of the planet. For instance, in cities like Chennai, which witness severe water scarcity, activities like waterbody restoration campaigns will offer long-term, sustainable solutions for better-nourished ecosystems. Multiple private, non-profit and academic organisations have come together to restore the 100-acre Sembakkam Lake in Chennai. Such efforts can holistically enhance the resilience of the ecosystem while recharging groundwater and restoring essential resources. A less carbon-intense economyToday, as businesses bounce back to pre-pandemic levels, supply chains are becoming stronger and more connected. There is energy and water consumption involved in various stages of the supply chain ecosystem, leading to increased carbon and water footprints across product lifecycles.To move towards an economic structure that is less carbon and water-intensive, we should implement policies that help businesses adopt green supply chain models, formulate material assessment strategies, and make a mandatory framework for sustainability finance to power their green initiatives. These should be included in the company policies related to materials purchasing, logistics and packaging.Technology can play a key role towards ushering in such a transition. For instance, a recent tech partnership to build a blockchain-based Circular System for Assessing Rare Earth Sustainability (CSyARES) is expected to help companies improve the transparency and sustainability of their supply chains when it comes to critical and rare earth materials. Preparing for the futureAs we strategize to build a sustainable future, it is essential to cultivate environment-friendly behaviours across various levels of society. Businesses need to understand the direct and indirect impact they are creating on the planet and need to shift to making their operations more sustainable.Customers need to be sensitized about the benefits of using products with longer lifecycles and how to responsibly handle them to reduce their footprint. There is no planet B, hence individuals, in their capacity, should start adopting sustainable living practices to make a difference.All stakeholders, public and private need to work together to help protect our only one Earth!George Rajkumar is the Country President at Grundfos India.Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are of the author/interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of Business Insider India. The article has been partly edited for length and clarity.This column is part of June 2022s month-long awareness campaign on the theme Only One Earth: Sustaining People, Planet and Prosperity by Business Insider Indias Sustainability Insider.

See the article here:

OPINION: We only have one Earth! Lets act together to safeguard resources, decarbonise economy, and transitio - Business Insider India

All through history, the development of technology has been a force that has propelled humanity forward. The invention of tools for cultivating, harvesting, and processing crops was instrumental in ushering in the agrarian age, and the formation of the first civilizations approximately 10,000 years ago. In more recent history, the discovery and application of scientific principles of mechanics and physics led to the invention of machines that advanced humanity into the industrial revolution of the 1700s and 1800s. The current computer/information technology age is yet one more leaf in the pages of humanitys history turned by technologys hands.

Although technology has been pivotal to humanitys survival and growth on the planet, the wrong application of our technological knowledge, exploitative behavior of humans as the supposed top boys of the food chain, and ecological egoism have disrupted the stable climate described by naturalist David Attenborough to have given birth to civilization. According to the World Health Organisation, between 2030 and 2050, it is projected that around 250,000 additional deaths per year will result from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress as global temperature continues to rise. In the same vein, environmental experts warn that the climate crisis is triggering mass displacement of human settlement, especially in coastal areas, while extreme weather and environmental degradation are contributing to the wastage of nearly a third of food grown.

To arrest the present and looming climate disaster, the consensus among experts is that humanity must rethink technology and ensure that its application is sustainable. Previously, technology was viewed from narrow lenses with cost-benefit analysis solely based on economic and commercial frameworks. This resulted in unintended net negative social and environmental outcomes that widen inequalities, and lack of access and transferred negative spillovers of industrialization to poorer countries. Therefore, the role of technology must be understood to ensure sustainable and equitable development by equipping us with the right tools to make maximally beneficial choices.

The first argument for innovation and innovative technologies revolves around the problem of scarcity of resources and how it can be adequately addressed. It is common knowledge that human wants surpass the resources to fulfill them, and this lack has provoked competition and wastage, rather than cooperation and efficiency. Where there has been less conflict over resource ownership, concerns about resource depletion and their non-renewable nature have been paramount. By adopting technology and circular economy thinking, alternatives can be developed to ensure availability, while natural resources are preserved. A good example is the use of renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and biofuels to provide electricity and the positives such innovation holds in the quest to fast-track decarbonization and improve quality of life.

Another important argument is that sustainable technology will create more meaningful and inclusive work opportunities. In a 2019 article, Stears Business a Nigerian economic business publication established the nexus between crude-oil dominance and the diminishing of womens role in the economy in Nigeria. By creating the right technologies there would be a democratization of access to inclusive economic opportunities, and the availability of more jobs would open the labour market to women and marginalized groups. Based on the International Labour Organisation (ILO) projections, a greener economy could create 24 million new jobs globally by 2030 which would mean better per capita GDP and improvement in some of the key development indices.

Also, green technologies will result in cheaper production which would create competitive advantages for forward-thinking corporations and deliver direct benefits to consumers globally. In 2021, the World Economic Forum in an article, based on research by the University of Oxfords Institute of New Economic Thinking, noted that renewable energy prices have declined more rapidly than anticipated and they are becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. In the same breath, it was argued that a rapid transition to emissions-free green energy could save many trillions of dollars in energy costs and help combat climate change. The expectation of even cheaper solutions in the future is premised on a virtuous cycle that more deployment of green solutions would result in lower prices which, in turn, creates competitiveness in new markets, then boost demands and results in even lower prices.

While the arguments for technology in sustainable development are inexhaustive, a final case I would make is the effectiveness of technology in predicting, measuring, tracking, and correcting harmful effects of human production activities. It is through the integration of technology into the production processes that we can forecast and forestall climate disasters and tackle the root causes that often seem benign. The IBM Environmental Intelligence Suite unveiled in 2021 is an example of how Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) can aid businesses in assessing the impact of their activities on the environment, improving regulatory environmental compliance, and reporting, and taking adequate steps to ensure their business operation is not unduly affected by adverse climate events.

With new research and better frameworks for assessing the impact of our activities, the UN argues that readily available technological solutions already exist for more than 70 percent of todays emissions. In my opinion, while there is the need to accelerate research and development into technologies of the future, efforts must be put in place to ensure that people utilize the available green technologies.

My view is that the difference between what can be achieved by integrating these nature-friendly solutions into our production activities and lifestyles, and the current reality of worrisome carbon footprints is the lack of political willpower and misplaced incentives that exist on a macro scale. This issue must be addressed and policies to drive a top-to-bottom implementation of the climate agenda is key. From a micro and individual person perspective, there is the need for greater awareness of what the stakes are when non-renewable resources are depleted and why we must take more responsibility for our future.

Idam is Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Zen Ideas & Solutions Limited.

Read more from the original source:

Role of technology in sustainable development | The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and...

Andrea Pien is a 35-year-old millionaire. A wealth manager once warned her to carefully steward her money, saying that inherited wealth was often squandered away in just a few generations. But my partner and I arent planning on having children, Pien said. What are we hoarding money for? Especially when the world is literally burning.

So in March 2020, Pien hired Phuong Luong, founder of financial planning firm Just Wealth, to help her redistribute some of her wealth back to society. That means taking some of it out of Wall Street and investing it in ventures that promote human well-being and economic fairness over profits.

Pien is one of a small but growing number of wealthy people seeking a more radical approach to investing. Some call it the seemingly contradictory term anti-capitalist investing; others refer to it as transformative investing. In general, proponents are going beyond merely disincentivizing unethical behavior in companies. Theyre trying to shift more of the balance of financial power into the hands of the working class, transforming an economic system that they believe has unjustly given just a few people control over a majority of the capital. Some investors want to spend down all of their wealth through anti-capitalist investing, while others still want to get a return on their investments but make sure these investments are into ventures they feel promote social justice.

Financial professionals in the space say theyve seen rising interest in this kind of investing strategy in recent years, and they attribute some of the interest to social justice becoming a bigger priority in the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice reckoning and a deeply unequal pandemic that killed so many Black and brown working-class people.

Another factor fueling this small shift: A lot of money is changing hands in the US right now. Over the next 25 years, American baby boomers will pass on some $68 trillion to their children. It will be the biggest wealth transfer in US history, but the money wont be handed out evenly. Even more wealth will get concentrated at the top.

Kate Barron-Alicante, a financial adviser and director of impact at wealth management firm Abacus Wealth Partners, who helps some clients with transformative investing, told Recode, What Im seeing are more people who are on the other side of that wealth transfer who want to do it differently, she said.

I sometimes joke that there are way more socialists who need a financial adviser than there are socialist financial advisers, said Zach Teutsch, a financial adviser and founder of Values Added Financial, a financial advisory firm for progressives. People are really yearning for this. They want an adviser who shares their disdain for a US economy thats dominated by obscenely wealthy multi-billionaires.

The yearning is there, but an important question to ask early on is how much of an impact anti-capitalist or transformative investing will have.

Attempts to invest ethically arent exactly new. The concept of socially responsible investing dates back centuries, and today there are a variety of approaches that fall under this umbrella. In recent years, theyve attracted increased skepticism about their efficacy and ethics. The positive impact socially responsible investing strategies claim to have is often hard to measure, and there isnt a single rigorous definition for what socially responsible means whats ethical to one person might be unforgivable to another.

Theres been a huge amount of interest, but also a huge amount of competition and marketing dollars spent by those larger investment firms that are basically looking to make a quick buck, said Sonia Kowal, president of Zevin Asset Management, an investment management firm that focuses on socially responsible investing. Theres a lot of impact washing going on.

Because its a relatively new idea, anti-capitalist investing doesnt yet have a clear-cut definition. Anti-capitalist investments and efforts fall across a spectrum, and not everyone would use the term anti-capitalist to refer to them. As Pien told Recode, I wouldnt go so far as to describe myself as anti-capitalist because I still participate in this economy. But I would like a world thats different from the current capitalist system that we have.

Making up part of this spectrum is transformative investing, whose goal is to transform the extractive economy meaning the system we have now, where finite resources are extracted and only a few people are rewarded with profits into a regenerative economy where capital is spread more equitably and controlled more democratically. Its a concept popularized by Resource Generation, a social justice organization whose members are wealthy young Americans who have made a commitment to redistributing all or most of their money.

Operating at the more radical end of the anti-capitalist investment spectrum is a firm like Chordata Capital, which offers an explicitly anti-capitalist approach to wealth management. Some of Chordatas clients dont want any return on their investments, and they might work on a plan to spend down their wealth over a period of 20 years.

Sometimes when we use that language, [anti-capitalist investing], people say its a paradox. I think that comes from a place of people believing that theres no real alternative to capitalism, said Kate Poole, who leads Chordata with co-founder Tiffany Brown.

Poole advises clients on making investments into worker cooperatives, which are businesses that are owned by workers whose profits are shared among them, or community-controlled loan funds, like the one run by the Boston Ujima Project, which gives working-class members a vote on which participating businesses in their community should get funding.

However, the financial services industry currently isnt built for transformative investing. The general principle of investing is to minimize risk and maximize profit by holding different kinds of assets instead of putting all your eggs in one basket. Its more difficult to maintain asset diversity when youre avoiding all publicly traded stocks. Financial advisers are also required by law to manage their clients investments through custodians, which are often large banks, that safekeep assets. Many of these firms dont custody investments outside of Wall Street, said Luong. That means investing into a small, community-based business requires investment advisers to do more research and paperwork than when youre investing in traditional investment vehicles that include many publicly traded companies.

It can also be a challenge to find worthy non-Wall Street options that align with transitioning to a regenerative, more equal economy. Kelly Cahill, a 34-year-old Resource Generation member, told Recode, I liked the idea of moving my money to community-based investments instead of the stock market, but ... where do I put it? While an increasing number of retirement funds which are the most common way that most Americans hold stocks are offering socially responsible investment options, unless you can hire a financial adviser, its unlikely youll have the knowledge and access to do community-based investing.

Cahill, who received a significant settlement due to an accident, initially followed common financial advice and put half of her money into the stock market. I ignored it for a year, she recalled. And then when I finally did look at it, I was just blown away by how much it grew in that time. She realized she didnt need all of it, so she joined Resource Generation and found a financial adviser who could help her redistribute a third of it into community-based investments.

Resource Generation offers a database of financial professionals and firms qualified to help people with transformative investing. For now, the list is still small, with fewer than 30 investment firms able to provide at least some off-Wall Street investment options and transformative investing support. But Nadav David, an organizer at Resource Generation who helped create the database, told Recode theres been an uptick in interest.

Within the last several years, Ive definitely seen much more conversation about actually fully divesting from Wall Street and from public markets, and more in communities, he said. Meanwhile, Resource Generations membership has grown. According to the organization, at the end of 2019, it had 702 members; by the end of 2021, it had 1,155.

Were interested in ending inheritance as we know it, and being the last generation of people to be able to accumulate wealth in this way, David said.

As transformative investing grows, even if it remains a niche part of the financial market, emphasizing how its different from other kinds of ethical investing will become even more important, especially if it wants to avoid the haziness that surrounds socially responsible investing. As of now, the latter is vastly more popular. In 2020, almost 36 percent of professionally managed assets globally were classified as socially responsible investments. Within this category, environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) integration was the most popular strategy a little over $25 trillion in assets used ESG integration in 2020. This includes factoring in a companys carbon footprint or how well it treats employees when calculating the risk or return on an investment, because such factors could impact the financial performance of the business. ESG doesnt necessarily prioritize social values over financial performance.

In comparison, only $352 billion went toward impact or community investing. Still, that $352 billion is a 42 percent increase since 2016. It speaks to the growing appetite for alternative investment strategies beyond the surface-level impact washing often associated with ESG investing.

While no one seems to be under the illusion that radical investing alone will solve the problem of wealth inequality, the emergence of this trend suggests that the next several decades may be transformative for the financial services industry. For a small number of wealthy young Americans coming into inheritances, it isnt enough to donate to a few charitable causes one of the loudest critiques of big philanthropy is that it lacks transparency and is undemocratic. Theyve recognized a need to move beyond feeling guilty about their own privilege and the profound inequality that exists in the world. Theyre attempting to alter the power imbalance in the relationship they have with others, and feel as though theyre part of a community thats not just connected by wealth.

Pien recalls her late fathers advice on how to manage money. He said, Listen, Andrea, I know you like to redistribute money, but know that you need to have at least $13 million to be absolutely secure, which I thought was absurd, she said. Part of why I want to participate in this movement of redistribution is that my dad worked really, really hard and was really isolated. He didnt have a lot of close friends.

I want the future to look like everyone having a little bit more than enough, Pien continued. Everyone being able to feel affirmed in their identities and feel connected to their communities around them not isolated.

See more here:

Is anti-capitalist investing the new socially responsible investing? - Vox.com

As we approach the second quarter of the 21st century, the American economy continues to evolve. Our free market is being reshaped in part by changing public expectations about the nature of work and the responsibilities of corporations. Technology is contributing to these changes, and the tech sector itself is addressing anew a facet that has long been important to the U.S. economy and American democracy the right of workers to organize.

Recent unionization campaigns across the country including in the tech sector have led us to conclude that inevitably these issues will touch on more businesses, potentially including our own. This has encouraged us to think proactively about the best approach for our employees, shareholders, customers, and other stakeholders.

Our employees will never need to organize to have a dialogue with Microsofts leaders.

But we also recognize the workplace is changing. Thats why we are sharing principles to guide our approach with labor organizations.

Today we are announcing a new set of principles around employee organizing and how we will engage with our employees, labor organizations, and other important stakeholders in critical conversations around work.

Two factors are guiding our thinking.

First, while relationships with labor organizations are not new to Microsoft, we know that we have a lot to learn. Many other industries have vastly more experience and knowledge than we do. In recent months weve talked with and worked hard to learn from prominent labor, business, and academic leaders. We have built on our companys own collaborative experiences with works councils and unions in other countries, something I learned about myself in the 1990s when I was responsible for our European corporate and legal affairs. But mostly, we recognize that we have far more learning ahead of us than behind us.

Second, we recognize that the right approach for Microsoft may be different from what will work best for others. Each industry and each company is unique. We approach these issues with a deep appreciation of the vital and innovative role our employees play in the development and adoption of new technologies. This depends on a shared company culture that is grounded in a growth mindset focused on listening, learning, and evolving our approaches together, especially on important issues in a rapidly changing world.

Reflecting these factors, we believe Microsofts stakeholders will be served best with an open and constructive approach based on the following four principles:

We believe in the importance of listening to our employees concerns. Our leaders have an open door policy, and we invest in listening systems and employee resource groups that constantly help us understand better both what is working and where we need to improve. But we recognize that there may be times when some employees in some countries may wish to form or join a union.

We recognize that employees have a legal right to choose whether to form or join a union. We respect this right and do not believe that our employees or the companys other stakeholders benefit by resisting lawful employee efforts to participate in protected activities, including forming or joining a union.

We are committed to creative and collaborative approaches with unions when employees wish to exercise their rights and Microsoft is presented with a specific unionization proposal. In many instances, employee unionization proposals may open an opportunity for Microsoft to work with an existing union on agreed upon processes for employees to exercise their rights through a private agreement. We are committed to collaborative approaches that will make it simpler, rather than more difficult, for our employees to make informed decisions and to exercise their legal right to choose whether to form or join a union.

Building on our global labor experiences, we are dedicated to maintaining a close relationship and shared partnership with all our employees, including those represented by a union. For several decades, Microsoft has collaborated closely with works councils across Europe, as well as several unions globally. We recognize that Microsofts continued leadership and success will require that we continue to learn and adapt to a changing environment for labor relations in the years ahead.

We acknowledge that this is a journey, and we will need to continue to learn and change as employee expectations and views change with the world around us. And we recognize that employers and employees will not always agree on all topics and that is okay.

Perhaps as much as anything, we bring a sense of optimism grounded in an appreciation that success in a competitive global economy requires that businesses and labor strive to work together well.

When I visit officials in Washington, D.C., I sometimes think back to the fact that President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 created a single cabinet agency, the Department of Commerce and Labor. A decade later, this department was divided so two different federal agencies could each focus more squarely on their distinct needs. But then, as now, real progress for companies and the country alike has so often required dialogue, collaboration, and trust between business and labor.

None of us ever knows precisely what challenges the future will bring. But were willing to bet that a company that listens to and works well with its employees is likely to have a winning hand.

Tags: economy, employees, employment

View original post here:

Microsoft adopts principles for employee organizing and engagement with labor organizations - Microsoft On the Issues - Microsoft