& Guidelines for use of Plastic Credits Dear Colleagues, As you know, the 3R Initiative has as its mission to catalyze zero plastic waste leadership. To that end, we support corporates using Plastic Credits as a way to address the plastic waste they cannot yet eliminate. Today we announce consultation on two different elements of our market-based approach to transparently and sustainably increase the value of plastic waste: methodologies of the Plastic Waste Reduction Program (Plastic Program), and the Guidelines for Leadership in Corporate Plastic Accounting.The Plastic Waste Collection and Recycling Methodologies set out eligibility and accounting requirements for informal and formal plastic waste collection and new or expanded mechanical recycling infrastructure, respectively. We need your input to ensure that the methodologies address relevant challenges and include robust accounting procedures for plastic waste collection and recycling projects around the world. For more information on the methodologies, how they fit into the Plastic Program, and links to the consultation documents, see the Verra website.Projects developed under the Plastic Program will accelerate and scale up the removal of plastic waste from the environment and increase plastic recycling. However, the Plastic Credits generated by those projects must be used together with corporate actions to reduce plastic footprints and waste. The 3R Initiative is working with partners to document best practices for corporate plastic stewardship, including guidance on how to make plastic waste leadership claims that involve use of Plastic Credits. We would appreciate input on the metrics for footprint and leakage assessment, mitigation measures and claims proposed in the draft version of the Guidelines for Leadership in Corporate Plastic Accounting. The draft Guidelines and a comment template are available here.
The public comment periods are open from 7 October through 8 November.
Thank you in advance for your time. We look forward to your feedback! Many thanks, The 3R Initiative Secretariat
08-Sep-2020 – Last updated on 08-Sep-2020 at 08:51 GMT
RTD Absolut Mixt will be one of the two products to trial the paper bottle. Pic: Absolut.
RELATED TAGS:Absolut vodka, Pernod ricard Absolut will start trialling a paper bottle prototype in the UK and Sweden: aiming to ‘turn the spirits industry upside down with packaging that invokes real and long-lasting behavioral change’.
A total of 2,000 bottles will roll out in November with Absolut Vodka (40% ABV) and Absolut Mixt (4% ABV): testing both the bottle’s functionality and how consumers respond to the new design. A second pilot production run is planned for Spring 2021.
The Pernod Ricard brand has been working as part of The Paper Bottle Company (Paboco) initative, which includes partners Coca-Cola, Carlsberg and L’Oréal.
Recyclability is key
Absolut’s prototype is made from 57% paper and 43% plastic. It uses a metallic crown cap closure, with a solid PVC free liner.
With its focus on sustainability, the bottle uses FSC sustainably sourced paper and Absolut says it is working with Paboco to ensure full traceability on the origins of materials. The prototype uses strong wood fibers from Swedish forests.
The plastic layer is still necessary to provide a barrier layer for the liquid. In Absolut’s prototype, it is made from 100% recycled content.
Niclas Appelquist, director of The Absolut Company’s Future of Packaging program, says one of the key criteria for materials was their recyclability – hence why the bottle is still using a plastic layer.
“Our key focus is on scaling and product functionality, prioritising materials and technology that the recycling industry is known to handle,” he told BeverageDaily.
“The aim is to ensure it’s as easy as possible to recycle and can fit into already existing recycling streams. You can put our bottle as a whole in the paper recycling stream and it will be separated at the recycling station. We will not go to scale unless we have a successful, recyclable, solution.
“We will continue to test and develop alternative materials for the liner with the ultimate goal to move to 100% bio-based. At the moment, the bio-based technology is not viable for us as we require materials that can fit into known recycling streams.
“It is a step-by-step journey and it’s exciting the bottle is no longer a concept, but firmly on track to be in the hands of consumers for testing, before the end of the year.”
The journey to a truly sustainable alternative
The mission of The Paper Bottle Project (Paboco) is to pioneer sustainable bottle packaging. It acknowledges there are challenges: but says a solution will evolve over time.
“A major challenge in the existing, mature and efficient market is the scaling of our technology to enable manufacturing of large quantities of paper bottles,” observes Paboco. “To have a working barrier is mandatory, but as often in innovation projects we improve details over time as we learn along the way to create an optimal solution.
“The first-generation concept will be partly renewable and fully recyclable, but it is the next and following paper bottle generations barriers that will create a truly sustainable alternative.”
‘You’ll recognize our brand – but it will have a different texture, touch and feel’
Appelquist says the project is driven by a clear desire among consumers and brands to become more sustainable.
“It is so exciting to work on leading innovation because you are part of creating something new. In the case of the Paper Bottle, there’s a clear ambition to spark change and move us all to become more conscious about what choices we make, and our habits when recycling waste to become more sustainable.
“This is also the biggest challenge. Where do you start? What materials can actually be recycled for real today? What recycled materials are available at scale today and already approved for food contact? This is why we chose this iterative process, with a long term goal but starting to test, learn and optimize today for the future.”
Coca-Cola, Carlsberg and L’Oréal are also part of the partnership: with Carlsberg unveiling two research prototypes for its Green Fibre Bottle last year. Like Absolut, its bottles are made from wood fibres with an inner plastic layer (one prototype uses a recycled PET polymer film barrier, and the other uses a 100% bio-based PEF polymer film barrier).
“Each company is developing and designing separate paper bottles to meet the needs of their category and feed the learnings back into all the projects,” explains Appelquist. “Technology transfers across the community to an extent. In our case, the high ABV in Absolut Vodka (40%) is a consideration we’ve been working on closely with Paboco, and collaboration is at the heart of this project.
“We all share knowledge to drive change in our respective industries and bring together experts in materials, design and technology which allows us to move faster towards the end goal of a commercially-available bottle.”
While a key aim of November’s trial will be to test the functionality of the bottle; it will also seek to understand how consumers respond to the novel design.
“We’ve been working with our designers to ensure our paper bottle still has the look and feel of our iconic Absolut identity, however obviously there will be differences because the material is not the same,” said Appelquist.
“You will recognize our brand but of course it will have a different texture, touch and feel to it. We’re looking forward to hear direct from consumers when testing exactly how it is perceived but from previous tests we have very positive feedback and excitement from consumers all together for this initiative.”
The energy sector is responsible for more than 75% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing the share of renewable energy across the different sectors of the economy is therefore a key building block to achieving an integrated energy system that delivers on Europe’s ambition of climate neutrality.
The European Green Deal moreover sets out the EU’s path to climate neutrality by 2050, through the deep decarbonisation of all sectors of the economy, and higher greenhouse gas emission reductions for 2030.
As Europe needed to increase the use of energy from renewable sources, the original Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) establishes an overall policy for the production and promotion of energy from renewable sources in the EU. It requires the EU to fulfil at least 20% of its total energy needs with renewable energy by 2020, to be achieved through the attainment of individual national targets. All EU countries must also ensure that at least 10% of their transport fuels come from renewable sources by 2020.
The recast directive moves the legal framework to 2030 and sets a new binding renewable energy target for the EU for 2030 of at least 32%, with a clause for a possible upwards revision by 2023, and comprises measures for the different sectors to make it happen. This includes new provisions for enabling self-consumption of renewable energy, an increased 14 % target for the share of renewable fuels in transport by 2030 and strengthened criteria for ensuring bioenergy sustainability.
Most of the other elements in the new directive need to be transposed into national law by Member States by 30 June 2021, when the original renewables directive will be repealed.
Renewable energy in the European Green Deal
With the European Green Deal, the EU is increasing its climate ambition and aims to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. The Commission has therefore pledged to review the existing legislation and revise it where necessary.
The aim of this revision is to ensure that renewable energy fully contributes to the achievement of the higher EU climate ambition for 2030, in accord with the 2030 Climate Target Plan, and to support implementing the vision on how to accelerate the transition towards a more integrated energy system outlined in the Energy System Integration and Hydrogen Strategies, adopted on 8 July 2020.
As the first step in the process of reviewing the Renewable Energy Directive, on 3 August 2020 the Commission published a roadmap and opened a seven-week period for public feedback on the concept. The feedback will feed in to the Commission’s further preparatory work for the review of the directive.
Timeline for renewable energy in the EU
Brexit
The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as of 1 February 2020. The Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and European Atomic Energy Community (OJ C 384I, 12.11.2019, p. 1) entered into force on the same date.
It provides for a transition period which will end on 31 December 2020. During the transition period, Union law, with a few exceptions, is applicable to and in the United Kingdom.
For the purposes of Union law applicable to it during the transition period, the United Kingdom is treated as an EU Member State, but will not participate in EU decision-making and decision-shaping.
In Bioenergy / By GAR / 1,437 views / Posted: January 9, 2020
There is so much in the news about European countries and palm oil producing countries at loggerheads. Is the EU really banning palm oil?
This point is often misunderstood. There is no ban of palm oil or of any of its derivatives. European food companies can still buy palm oil, European personal care and cosmetics producers can still use palm derivatives. Even European biofuel refineries can continue to source palm oil and blend it with diesel to make biodiesel.
Then what is the fuss about?
In 2018 the EU concluded their Renewable Energy Directive for 2021-2030. In the directive, each member state is given carbon emission reduction targets in energy and transport. Relevant to transport, the EU has been promoting the use of biofuels as long as they reduce carbon emissions, compared to fossil fuel.
However, due to palm oil’s association with deforestation, the EU considers palm oil a high risk emitter of greenhouse gases. Based on this consideration, the EU believes the use of palm oil undermines the intent behind the use of low-carbon biodiesel. It has decreed that member states must phase out their claims of emissions reductions linked to the use of palm oil-based biodiesel by 2030.
Palm oil is a highly efficient feedstock for biodiesel.
Still complicated? Let’s use the frequent flyer programme as an analogy. Say you are a member of Star Alliance and, for some reason, Lufthansa’s service levels drop resulting in their expulsion. You can still fly Lufthansa but now their mileage points do not count towards your Krisflyer status. Similarly, EU member states can still use palm oil-based biodiesel; however, starting 2030 this consumption will just not count towards achieving their climate targets.
Not all palm oil is the same Through the Delegated Act of 2019, the EU is considering regulations to exempt certain palm oil from the 2030 phase out. It has commissioned a consultancy to explore the concept of low Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) risk palm oil. Biodiesel based on certified low ILUC risk palm oil may be considered as a low-carbon fuel and then count towards member states’ climate targets.
We held a biofuel workshop in Brussels in 2019 on sustainable palm oil’s role in energy provision.
The idea behind low ILUC risk palm oil is to address the following challenge: Can palm oil for biofuel be produced with a low carbon footprint and without sacrificing palm oil for food production? So even though the precise certification definition isn’t ready yet, we can roughly identify what criteria low ILUC risk palm oil need to fulfil:
Palm oil plantation is developed on abandoned or unused land;
Palm oil volume results from yield improvement measures that cannot be linked to palm oil production for food;
If palm oil product originates from smallholders, the plantation size must be less than two hectares.
The consultancy is tasked with fleshing these criteria out into terms and conditions that the industry understands, and can be audited and certified.
While the precise technical definition of low ILUC risk palm oil and the criteria for certification are only due in June 2021, they have already begun to impact palm oil actors decision making today.
What is the impact? Despite the fact that the phase out is more than a decade away in 2030, its impacts can already be felt at all levels of the palm oil industry.
At the national level, the Indonesian and Malaysian governments have been accelerating regulations to reduce its dependency on overseas markets by increasing the mandate for domestic biodiesel. In 2020, the government will advance the biodiesel programme from B20 (20 percent palm oil, 80 percent diesel) to B30, thereby raising demand for palm oil domestically.
For businesses and smallholders, it is unlikely that the new requirements will be easy to implement. Already, existing sustainability certifications, such as RSPO and , are time-consuming and resource-intensive. Given how the EU already requires ISCC certification for palm oil used in biofuels, moving forward, the new requirements will require even more efforts. For instance, to determine abandoned or unused land will require extensive and expert satellite imagery analysis.
Unsurprisingly, smallholder groups and business associations have called on the government to push back on the EU. This past December, the government lodged a grievance against the EU at the World Trade Organisation. The story is still unravelling, and if left unresolved, there is risk of a trade war. GAR is still working to change mindsets by demonstrating through our operations and supply chain transformation efforts that palm oil can be a solution to global challenges, not a problem.
Want more on biodiesel? Check out our other blogs on the topic here.
Energy modelling can assist national decision makers in determining strategies that achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, three key challenges for the modelling community are emerging under this radical climate target that needs to be recognized and addressed. A first challenge is the need to represent new mitigation options not currently represented in many energy models. We emphasize here the under representation of end-use sector demand-side options due to the traditional supply side focus of many energy models, along with issues surrounding robustness in deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options. A second challenge concerns the types of models used. We highlight doubts about whether current models provide sufficient relevant insights on system feasibility, actor behaviour, and policy effectiveness. A third challenge concerns how models are applied for policy analyses. Priorities include the need for expanding scenario thinking to incorporate a wider range of uncertainty factors, providing insights on target setting, alignment with broader policy objectives, and improving engagement and transparency of approaches. There is a significant risk that without reconsidering energy modelling approaches, the role that the modelling community can play in providing effective decision support may be reduced. Such support is critical, as countries seek to develop new Nationally Determined Contributions and longer-term strategies over the next few years.
Key policy insights
Energy systems that reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions will be radically different to those of today, necessitating a modelling analysis re-think.
On modelled options for mitigation, a range of demand-side measures are often absent resulting in a risk of over-reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and leading to concerns over robustness of corresponding pathways.
Regarding models for policy, there is significant scope for improvements, including the use of scenarios that help imagine the radical change that will be required, techniques for improving the robustness of emerging strategies, and better alignment with broader policy goals.
Climate Policy is a leading international peer-reviewed academic journal, publishing high quality research and analysis on all aspects of climate change policy, including adaptation and mitigation, governance and negotiations, policy design, implementation and impact, and the full range of economic, social and political issues at stake in responding to climate change. It provides a platform for new ideas, innovative approaches and research-based insights that can help advance climate policy in practice.
After installing solar panels for the drying facilities, traditional farmers in Fakfak can now manage their nutmeg harvests in a sustainable and eco-friendly manner. The solar-powered drying facilities can reduce the risk of aflatoxin contamination and improve the quality of nutmeg harvests with smaller carbon footprints.
Renewable energy is powering far-flung forest villages in Kokas District, Fakfak, West Papua. The nutmeg farmers at the villages, namely Patimburak Village and Pangwadar Village, now can harvest the sun’s energy to power the heaters and dehumidifiers at the drying facilities.
The arrival of these solar panels in these two villages can be seen as a technology farming revolution. Other nutmeg-producing villages in Fakfak, in comparison, have yet to deploy renewable energy technology for their agricultural activities.
Patimburak Village is an area so remote that it can only be accessed by boat or on foot. Moreover, the village doesn’t have a telephone signal or internet connection, access to clean water, or electricity. The only electricity local residents can enjoy is the solar-powered lamps that illuminate their streets and homes at night. These solar-powered lights are part of the government’s program aiming to electrify remote villages across Indonesia.
Previously traditional farmers in these two villages used traditional drying techniques, such as sun-drying or smoking, making the nutmeg harvests more susceptible to aflatoxin contamination. Then, the nutmeg farmers switched to a more modern drying technique, using a heater and a dehumidifier powered by generator engines.
These methods, however, have a drawback. They still produce carbon emissions. To dry the nutmeg harvests with smoke, farmers need to cut trees to get firewood.
Meanwhile, using a generator engine requires gasoline, which produces carbon emissions and results in higher operating expenses. There is another factor that makes generators more difficult to use: the engine can only function effectively in a few hours, meaning that farmers often have to wake up in the middle of the night to restart the engine.
The solar panels provided by Yayasan Inobu are expected to improve the quality of the nutmeg harvests and eventually increase the incomes of the traditional farmers in the two villages.
The solar panels, which are equipped with a battery, is estimated to power the heaters and dehumidifiers for 17 hours per day. They will also reduce the operational expenses at the post-harvest stage. Currently, the nutmeg farmer groups in the two villages are in the process of testing whether this solar panel can efficiently dry the nutmeg harvests in the upcoming harvest season in mid-October.
Spending each morning at the kitchen sink scraping at the charred remains of breakfast gets tedious after a while. Non-stick cookware may seem like an appealing alternative — but is it safe?
Usually when people inquire about the safety of their non-stick cookware, they’re talking about Teflon, said Suzanne Fenton, a reproductive endocrinologist at the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina. Also known as polytertrafluoroethylene (PTFE), this clear plastic is used to coat metal pots and pans, giving them a waxy, easy-to-clean surface — and for decades, scientists have debated whether it’s safe for cooking.
Experts tend to agree that Teflon itself isn’t a problem. The coating itself is considered non-toxic. Even if you ingest small flakes of it, it passes right through you. But some experts are concerned about what happens when Teflon gets too hot. “When pans are overheated, that PTFE coating begins to disintegrate,” Fenton told Live Science. As Teflon breaks down, it releases a host of toxic gases. In rare instances, breathing in these chemical fumes can cause polymer fume fever, a condition characterized by a high fever, shortness of breath and weakness. These gases also deadly to birds — lightbulbs coated in Teflon have wiped out poultry houses. Of particular concern is perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), one of the chemicals released when Teflon pans heat up. Long-term exposure to PFOA is linked to a host of conditions from cancer to thyroid disease, Fenton said.
Join us at this half-day summit that will bring together thought leaders and leading sustainable finance experts from the public, and private sectors and intergovernmental organisations to discuss cross-cutting and pressing issues on Sustainable Finance in the region. The webinar series on Sustainable Finance Training Roadmap for Banks will be launched at this event.
While we grapple with the confluence of two pressing global health threats — Covid-19 and the evolving climate crisis — the deadline to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals is fast approaching. Asia and the Pacific regions are at risk of not achieving any of the 17 SDGs by 2030. Enhancing sustainable financing strategies and investments and transforming the financial system at regional and country levels is critical to direct the much-needed capital for sustainable development.
Banks play a pivotal role in creating a sustainable financial system. To encourage the flow of resources towards more inclusive and sustainable activities, while supporting low carbon climate-resilient development, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP), UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the Association of Development Financing Institutions in Asia and the Pacific (ADFIAP) are supporting banks in Southeast Asia and the greater Asia Pacific Region through knowledge sharing and capacity building workshops.
Please join us at the Sustainable Finance Forum: Financing the SDGs in Southeast Asia, 14 October 2020 9:00 am to 12:00 nn (GMT+7). The Forum is aimed at executives and representatives of banks, intergovernmental organizations, governments and financial institutions committed to the success of sustainable finance in Southeast Asia.
The webinar series “Sustainable Finance Training Roadmap for Banks” will be launched at this event and includes (9) webinars that will start on 20 October and every Tuesday thereafter.
Further details will be shared at the Sustainable Finance Forum.
Find below more information regarding the program and our line up of speakers at the Sustainable Finance Forum.
Forests are a major, requisite front of action in the global fight against catastrophic climate change – thanks to their unparalleled capacity to absorb and store carbon. Stopping deforestation and restoring damaged forests, together with other land-based actions, could provide up to 30% of the climate solution. Nevertheless, deforestation remains shockingly high and intractable without major policy and institutional reforms and corresponding governance and financing support in most countries. Agricultural expansion is responsible for over 70% of deforestation, making halting deforestation a complex task that requires taking action outside the forest sector, notably transforming agriculture and food systems.
In light of the key role of forests in fighting climate change, biodiversity loss and poverty, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is hosting a High-Level Dialogue on “Turning the tide on deforestation” as part of the 25th Session of the Committee on Forestry. The high-level dialogue will provide a platform for ministers, private sector and civic society representatives as well as other stakeholders to discuss solutions to turn the tide on deforestation, for the benefit of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring food security and tackling climate change.
Date: Tuesday, 6 October 2020
Time: 10:00 – 11:30 AM CEST
Languages: The event will be held in English, with simultaneous translation in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian.
Speakers: The High-Level Dialogue will be opened by FAO Deputy Director-General Ms Maria Helena Semedo.
The Right Honourable Lord Zac Goldsmith, Minister of State, Minister for Pacific and the Environment, United Kingdom, will set the scene for the discussion.
The high-level panel will be composed of ministers representing three Regional Forestry Commissions (RFCs):
Her Excellency Siti Nurbaya Bakar, Minister of Environment and Forestry, Indonesia;
His Excellency Virginijus Sinkevičius, EU Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries;
Her Excellency Jeanne Ilunga Zaina, Vice Minister, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Commentary will be provided by:
Ester Asin, Director, European Policy Office, WWF International;
German (Jerry) Velasquez, Director, Mitigation and Adaptation Division, Green Climate Fund (GCF)
Closing remarks will be provided by Mette Wilkie, Director, Forestry Division, FAO.
The panel will be moderated by Tim Christophersen, Coordinator, Nature for Climate Branch, UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
The Dialogue will provide strategic directions for FAO’s work to support its member states to undertake transformative actions to turn the tide on deforestation – particularly in the context of addressing deforestation in an integrated manner across agricultural value chains, tackling climate change, and in directing finance to a forest-friendly post-pandemic economic recovery. It will also provide guidance to FAO, the Committee on Forestry and member states in implementing the UN Decades of Action on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), on Family Farming and on Ecosystem Restoration.
For more information about the event, please contact:
Working as part of a remote team comes with plenty of upsides.
We Hotjarians get to work from wherever we want, choose our own work schedules, and spend more time with friends and family. But remote work isn’t always easy; for example, building a shared and inclusive culture with a distributed team takes a conscious effort.
Language plays a big part of that. Whether we realize it or not, our words can affect the people we care about, including those we work with. With team members from all over the planet, the way we address and talk to each other is important to make everybody feel included.
A few months back, we realized that a four-letter word we used a lot had the potential for making some team members feel excluded from the conversation—and this is the story of how we worked on gender-inclusive language at Hotjar and learned to say ‘guys’ less.
Gender-inclusive (or gender-neutral) language is language that does not discriminate against gender identities and/or groups. Using masculine pronouns or nouns for mixed-gender groups, or defaulting to ‘he/him’ when a person’s gender is unknown or unclear, are typical examples of language that is not gender-inclusive.
Why is gender-inclusive language important in the workplace?
Language is an important part of building a company where everybody feels welcomed and included—even before people join the team. Not asking about gender on application forms and using ‘they’ when the gender of a job applicant is unknown are gender-inclusive practices, as is having style guides in place that highlight the importance of gender-neutral language:
A SECTION OF HOTJAR’S CONTENT STYLE PRINCIPLES DEDICATED TO INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE
The Hotjar ‘guys’ challenge
‘Guys’ is one of the most common ways of addressing groups of people in the English language; we use it often in everyday conversation without giving much thought to its impact. But ‘guys’ can understandably be considered gender-specific, making it confusing or unappreciated when it’s used to refer to a group that includes women.
The first step to overcoming unconscious biases, such as using the word ‘guys’, is awareness. On the back of a conversation taking place in our Team channel in HipChat, my co-worker Diana and I began chatting about how we could build more awareness of our own language within Hotjar. Both of us were conscious of, and unhappy about, our own misuse of this word, and felt that its use was quite widely spread across the team.
We came up with the idea of creating a ‘guys’ jar—like a swear jar—where people could put in a euro every time they used the word in the wrong context. For us at Hotjar, this meant to a mixed-gendered or women-only group; referring to all men as guys is still absolutely fine!
So, in an effort to build awareness within Hotjar, we started a 30-day “Guys: The New 4 Letter Word” challenge to help us move away from using ‘guys’ to address mixed-gender groups. Here is Diana posting the rules in our company Discourse page:
The challenge was a team initiative—lots of things we end up taking on here at Hotjar are spearheaded by individuals wanting to make a difference, rather than being company-led. Everyone was free to choose whether they would participate or not, and many team members did join the challenge.
Finding alternatives and policing our own language for a month wasn’t easy, but the challenge worked out better than we’d planned. Most of us were able to massively curb our use of the word ‘guys’ at work and home—it turned out that both myself and Diana, who came up with the idea together, were among the worst offenders! Now we’re much more aware of our use of gendered words. Plus, we were able to raise some money for a great cause along the way (more on this below).
Before I get into the details of how we ran our ‘guys jar’ challenge, though, I’d like to explain why the word ‘guys’ has become so contentious in the first place.
The trouble with ‘guys’ when referring to women
The English language doesn’t offer many gender-inclusive alternatives, like the Spanishustedesor the Germanihr. With no good phrase for the plural of ‘you,’ the plural term ‘guys’ ended up evolving into the colloquial alternative to refer to a group of people, regardless of whether group members are male or female.
But many people quite fairly still see ‘guys’ as a gendered word—the dictionary defines the singular ‘guy’ simply as ‘man.’ Sherryl Kleinman, a former professor at the University of North Carolina, discusses in her 2002 essay Why Sexist Language Matters that gender-specific language like ‘guys’ can affect even children:
I worry about what people with the best of intentions are teaching our children. A colleague’s five-year-old daughter recently left her classroom crying after a teacher said, “What do you guys think?”. She thought the teacher didn’t care about what she thought. When the teacher told her that of course she was included, her tears stopped. But what was the lesson? She learned that her opinion as a girl mattered only when she’s a guy. She learned that men are the norm.
Sherryl Kleinman – Why Sexist Language Matters
Even though most people who use the term don’t do so with the intent of it being sexist or exclusive of women, it can and often does cause women to feel left out of the conversation. Imagine you used ‘gals’ to refer to a room full of men and women—do you think the men would respond?
The ‘guys jar’ challenge was our way of making a difference and increasing awareness of gender-neutral language. While only a small step, it brought us closer to making Hotjar a more inclusive company.
How the ‘Guys Jar’ challenge worked
The challenge was a version of a virtual ‘swear jar.’ For the entire month of July 2018, every time someone used the word ‘guys’ to refer to a mixed-gender group they would add another point to a shared spreadsheet. At the end of the month, everyone who participated would contribute one dollar (or one pound or euro) to the pot for each point they racked up. The person with the fewest offenses at the end of the month would take home the pot.
With the Hotjar team distributed across the globe, everyone was accountable for tracking their own language in their conversations both inside and outside of work. The challenge was very honesty-dependent—we all kept track of our own transgressions in our shared spreadsheet, and we relied on each other to keep an accurate count.
I DIDN’T START THAT WELL…
It was also very important to us that participation in the challenge was voluntary. Since this was a team initiative and not company-wide, and because we knew that not everyone at Hotjar felt the same way we did, we wanted to make sure people could choose not to participate.
It’s tough to break a habit such as the language you use, but we stuck with it. And with the challenge going strong, even people in the team who weren’t tracking their progress started correcting themselves. Those in and out of the challenge had some fun with calling each other out—after some meetings, multiple Hotjarians had to add more than a few points to our tallies.
Inclusiveness isn’t easy: struggles we encountered with the challenge
Creating change is never easy. We weren’t sure what to expect at the start of the month, but it soon became apparent that some of us used ‘guys’ a lot.
While the challenge was easier on some of our team members who spent most of their time working with groups of men, this could make it extra tough to break the habit outside of work!
Another struggle we encountered was finding gender-neutral terms to use instead of ‘guys.’ Any alternative had to feel natural enough to stick. Some of our team already had their own alternatives, along with new suggestions:
Folks: great for friendly conversations and feels gender-inclusive, but could be a little informal depending on your business environment
People: inclusive and good for formal conversations, but can feel impersonal
Humans: fully inclusive, but a little impersonal for some situations. We used it for our podcast, The Humans Strike Back!
They or them: short and sweet, although it could be confusing whether you’re referring to the group or to an individual
Everyone or everybody: inclusive, but longer and perhaps more difficult to fit into everyday conversation
Y’all: informal, rolls off the tongue, but the term struggles to overcome regional associations (‘Are you from Texas?’).
Peeps: less formal and more approachable than ‘people.’ “Cute and weird in equal measure,” according to one team member. This ended up being one of our favorite alternatives!
Playing a game like this with virtual teams was also a challenge. npm was the other example we found at the time, but their team had the advantage of being co-located. We had to come up with a kind of ‘virtual’ guys jar to collect everyone’s contributions.
At the start of the challenge, we thought the winner would receive payment through PayPal; in the end, though, we followed the advice of one of our winners and donated the money to a charity of their choosing:
The winners chose Bloody Good Period, a charity that gives menstrual supplies to asylum seekers, refugees, and other people who can’t afford them. It’s a wonderful cause that we’re proud to support. If only we hadn’t curbed our ‘guys’ use so well to rack up more points!
One step closer to becoming an inclusive company
Our 30-day ‘guys jar’ challenge was a success, creating lasting change in the gender-neutral language we use every day here at Hotjar. After a month of being acutely aware each time I used the word ‘guys’ in the wrong context, catching myself (and finding alternate words to use) has become second nature. The ‘guys’ challenge has made me more aware of my gender-neutral language overall; to this day, I hear people at Hotjar correcting themselves, and I find myself correcting my own terms outside of work as well.
While some obstacles to workplace inclusivity might be outside our direct control, we can control one very powerful component: the language we use with each other, our customers, and our applicants. Here at Hotjar, inclusivity and respecting others are a big part of our core values, and building an awesome and inclusive team culture starts with what we say to one another.
Everyone can benefit from becoming more aware of how we refer to others; for us, saying ‘people’ instead of ‘guys’ brought us one step closer to becoming an inclusive company. Hopefully, our story will inspire you to create similar changes in your company.
PS: for full transparency, thanks to the team at Animalz and our editor Fio who interviewed me and helped me structure my argument and drafts.
(Image: © Shutterstock)
