Department store John Lewis has come out top in a survey of the best companies to work for. Almost 11,000 adult workers were asked who they most wanted to work for in the UK for the Randstad 2015 Awards, the world’s largest study into employer branding. The popular department store came out top with 59% of workers voting for them, narrowly beating off competition from BMW at 57% and British Airways at 55%. It is the fourth consecutive year John Lewis has been named in the top three, indicating a consistently strong employer brand with high awareness and high attractiveness to employees.
Money important but not the only consideration for the most desirable employer
Twenty per cent of those asked listed salary and benefits as their top factor when considering where they wanted to work and 62% cited it in their top five criteria for job selection.
However, this wasn’t the only consideration with workers when considering John Lewis’ attractiveness as an employer. 54% said long-term security was important, 49% looked for a pleasant working atmosphere, 45% wanted a good work/life balance and 44% also wanted interesting job content.
While research carried out by Randstad as part of the award showed that salary and employee benefits dominated the most important aspect of employment for respondents when looking for a job – money led the way with 20% of respondents listing it as the single most important factor and 62% giving it a place in their top five – John Lewis’ attractiveness was based on a combination of long-term job security, a pleasant working atmosphere and a good work-life balance – the three categories most likely to appear in respondents’ top five motivating factors after monetary concerns.
Ruth Jacobs, managing director of Randstad Business Support, who’s specialisms include retail, said: “John Lewis clearly offers employees much more than good remuneration. They know they won’t be earning investment banker money there but that’s not what they’re after. Instead, they get a sense of belonging, they know it is a good place to work and that John Lewis is an employer who rewards its staff not only financially, but holistically too.
“Money is a great motivator but it isn’t the be all and end all when it comes to job satisfaction. As experienced recruiters, we have seen time and again that whilst money is often the driving force behind looking for a new job it isn’t the only thing. A great atmosphere, job security and a good work/life balance can mean the difference between an average employer and a brilliant one and as much as the financial reward is nice, it doesn’t always override those other elements.”
John Lewis more popular with women than men but offers wide appeal for all ages
Although overall John Lewis was seen as the most attractive employer it didn’t make it into the men’s top three with most men preferring to work for BMW. The Award research also found that John Lewis was particularly attractive to workers aged 25-65 but held less appeal for 18-25-year-olds.
The survey result showed younger people were more attracted by higher salaries in professional services companies such as accountancy or consultancy firms.
Ruth Jacobs said: “John Lewis is particularly popular with women, an indication perhaps of the positive work it has done in helping women by offering them flexibility, especially if they are working parents.
“John Lewis is well-known for consulting its staff and for allowing employees to move at a pace that feels right for them. Rather than dictating their promotions, career moves and so on, John Lewis encourages and supports them on career breaks, allows them to return to more flexible roles that promote positive work/life balance and helps them to secure promotion when it feels right. For women who may have encountered inflexible attitudes with other employers it is a very attractive proposition.”
A challenging year for retail
John Lewis was the only retailer that made it into the top five with the rest of the 2015 Randstad Award key players hailing from the technology and engineering fields, compared to 2014 when two retailers occupied the top positions
Ruth Jacobs concluded: “John Lewis’ unique Partnership structure is much admired by other companies but not often emulated. Yet, it puts the focus firmly on their employees and their value to a company. This positive approach to staff treatment has led to them being a beacon of retail excellence amongst a raft of talented and attractive technology and engineering firms.
“John Lewis has bucked the trend as the retail sector as a whole continues to face difficulties. What workers want from an employer is changing as shown by the shift away from retail to other sectors in the Randstad Award. Retailers need to make sure they take on board this change if they want to continue to attract the best and most talented staff.”
Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?
Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?
But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?
The Big Picture
The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.
That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.
One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.
As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.
Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.
Make and Model of Car
Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.
On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.
The Bottom Line
Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?
Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.
New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035
New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.
New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.
Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.
Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”
The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.
Zero net emissions by 2050
Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.
Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.
She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.
Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”
A worldwide shift to renewable energy
Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.
Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.
Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.
Economy2 weeks ago
Report: Green, Ethical and Socially Responsible Finance
Energy1 week ago
5 Easy Things You Can Do to Make Your Home More Sustainable
Sustainability4 weeks ago
Worldwide Cities Leading the Way in Sustainability
Economy6 days ago
New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035