 |
|
|
|||||
People know when a brand genuinely cares about well-beingfor employees, customers, and humanity at large. In many cases, its an intangible truth they can simply feelin how theyre treated, how decisions get made, and whether a companys stated values actually show up in practice. Plenty of brands talk about purpose and people. Fewer live it. And the difference is increasingly obvious. That gap is why brand well-being is emerging as a meaningful framework for companies that want to build durable growthnot just short-term performance. At its core, brand well-being recognizes that a brand isnt a logo or a campaign. Its a living ecosystem made up of people, culture, purpose, and consumer relationships. When one part breaks down, the entire system weakens. When all three are healthy, the brand becomes more resilient, trusted, and relevant over time. Importantly, this isnt abstract. Its a leadership choiceand one companies can control. What Is Brand Well-Being? Brand well-being is a holistic concept that encourages companies to prioritize wellness across three critical dimensions. Employee well-being asks a basic question: is work designed in a way that supports peoples physical, mental, and emotional health, or does it quietly drain them? Culture well-being examines whether a company operates with meaning and humanityand whether employees feel genuinely connected to each other and the work itself. Consumer well-being focuses on how brands show up in peoples lives: are they improving them in tangible ways, or simply competing for attention? If well-being is the equivalent of organizational health, the logic is straightforward. Healthier employees perform better. Purpose-driven cultures retain talent. Trust-based consumer relationships last longer. No business would argue against those outcomes. What company wouldnt want its workforce to be healthier, its culture more purposeful, and its consumer relationships more authentic? Yet many still treat well-being as a side initiative rather than a core strategy. The Business Case: Wellness Drives Work For years, wellness initiatives were framed as perksa nice box to check and a headline to score PR points. Too often, a companys wellness strategy is a daily app reminder that feels more like an annoying interruption or chore. The data tells a different story when well-being is approached consistently and strategically. A Cigna-commissioned study found that employer well-being programs delivered an average ROI of 47%, returning $1.47 for every dollar invested. According to Wellhub, 99% of HR leaders say wellness programs improve employee productivity. Meta-analyses show reductions in absenteeism and healthcare costs with ROI approaching 148%, saving hundreds of dollars per employee annually. Companies investing in well-being also see meaningful drops in turnoversometimes by as much as 25%. Well-being is no longer a bonus. Its a business strategyone that drives loyalty, retention, and performance at scale. One of the strongest validations comes from Indeeds Work Wellbeing 100, a data-driven ranking developed with Oxford University that evaluates publicly traded companies based on extensive employee survey data. Many of the companies that score highest on employee well-being also outperform the market and regularly appear on the Fortune 500. The correlation is hard to ignore: organizations that invest in well-being tend to outperform those that dont. Well-being isnt a costits a competitive advantage. Bringing Brand Well-Being to Life The challenge, of course, is moving from intent to impact. Brand well-being doesnt come from a single program or campaign. It requires expertise, lived experiences, and real feedback loopsinside and outside the organization. Done correctly, it can play a transformative role not only in deepening consumer relationships, but also in boosting cultural energy within the company itselfand yes, ultimately, productivity. Forward-thinking companies are starting to treat well-being as an integrated ecosystem. They bring credible experts into leadership and employee learning, focusing on sustainable performance, stress management, communication, and burnout prevention. They engage consumers through real-world experiences that foster connection rather than spectacle. And they create safe, personal environmentsevents, retreats, and small-group forumswhere people not only learn about mental and physical health, stress management, personal sustainability and nutrition, they feel comfortable sharing honest insights about their lives, needs, and expectations. Those insights, when fed back into product design, workplace culture, and brand strategy, become far more valuable than traditional surveys or focus groups. They allow brands to understand not just what people say, but how they actually feel. Importantly, the most effective brands integrate well-being naturally. Products and services show up as part of the experience, not as forced marketing moments. The goal isnt to sell wellness. Its to support it authentically. Ive seen brands like LOréal, the NBA, BlackRock, Bayer, Morgan Stanley, Volvo, Hackensack Meridian Health, and Wells Fargo experiment with this model through internal offsites, community experiences, and retreats hosted in well-being-focused environments. The result isnt just better moraleits stronger relationships, higher trust, and clearer insight into both employees and consumers. Over time, the impact drives increased happiness long after the event ends. The Leadership Question Every company says it wants to evolve. But evolution requires trade-offs. It means leading with care, connection, and long-term thinking in a system still optimized for speed and short-term returns. Some leaders already understand that investing in well-being is inseparable from investing in brand performance. Others still treat it as an optional expensesomething to revisit when margins allow. The market is increasingly clear about which group is winning. Brand well-being isnt about being nice. Its about building organizations that people want to work for, buy from, and believe inagain and again. The question facing todays leaders isnt whether well-being matters. Its whether theyre willing to lead knowing it does.
Category:
E-Commerce
A century ago, work was unsafe and openly adversarial. Strikes were common. Turnover was extreme. Productivity suffered. HRthen called personnelwas created to manage this instability. Its job wasnt to make work fulfilling. It was to reduce friction between employees and the company, keep people on the job, and protect output. As companies matured, so did HR. The function expanded to include hiring, pay, benefits, training, grievance handling, and legal compliance. On paper, this evolution gave HR a broad view of how people experienced workand the potential authority to shape it. But that authority was never fully claimed. Instead, HR generally settled into administering systems and policies designed by othersespecially the C-Suite. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, University of Virginia business school professor Allison Elias explains how this history is experienced today. Employees dont see HR as a driver of better leadership or a healthier workplace. They see a function that listens but rarely acts, collects feedback but seldom follows through, and lacks the authorityor the courageto intervene when leadership behavior is the root of the problem. Employees today doubt whether HR has the power and standing to influence how individual leaders actually leadespecially when leadership behavior openly undermines trust, clarity, dignity, or psychological/emotional safety. Over time, that gap between listening and acting has become the narrative. The good news: HR now has the opportunity to reinvent its role in organizationsbut it must step fully into it. Well-being drives performance Over the past year, remarkable research has shown that employee well-being has a direct and profoundly positive impact on organizational performance. The newest study comes from Irrational Capital: drawing on more than a decade of public and private data, they found companies ranking highest in employee well-being significantly outperform their peers in long-term stock appreciation. Over an 11-year period, firms in the top tier of employee well-being outperformed those in the bottom tier by nearly six percentage points. By contrast, companies that excelled primarily on pay and benefits outperformed by just over two points. Whats now empirically clear is that how people feel about their day-to-day work experienceand their direct managersmatters far more than what they are paid to tolerate it. And, if well-being drives performance, then feedback must be continuous, actionable, and tied directly to leadership accountability. A real voice What employees are craving is a real voice. They want to be routinely asked for honest feedbacknot once a year or even semi-annually via traditional engagement surveys proven to have little if any impactbut through focused pulse surveys that capture how they are experiencing work week-to-week. They want to know that their input is heard, considered, and has real influence. That feedback should flow not just to individual managers and senior leadership, but also to HR itselfso the function can monitor patterns, hold leaders accountable, and ensure employee well-being is protected at every level of the organization. When survey results show managers are consistently uncaring, unsupportive, or otherwise undermining employee well-being, HR must willingly intervenecoaching leaders to improve or, when necessary, removing them. This is where HR can finally claim the role it has long been empowered to play: shaping how leaders lead, embedding well-being into daily work, and ensuring organizations operate for people, not just for goal achievement. The ‘How’ The tools for this already exist. Pulse surveys can be deployed one day and summarized the next, delivering real-time insights to managers, senior leaders, and HR. This immediacy creates a rare opportunity: HR doesnt need to wait months for engagement reports to act. Every piece of feedback becomes a lever to correct course, reinforce positive leadership, and make tangible improvements in how people experience work. Whats critical is that HR canand mustbe the true guardian of this ecosystem. That means more than administering surveys or running reports. It means owning the operationowning well-being. It means creating a culture where employees know their voice carries weightand consequences. It means ensuring that workplace leaders understand the practices that contribute to well-being and that there are real teethaccountabilityin its oversight. It must celebrate managers who excel, coach managers who fall short, weed out those who dont improve, and embed well-being metrics into how leaders are evaluated and rewarded. It must be clearly understood that this is not merely a moral imperative; its a business imperative. When people have their needs consistently met for belonging, safety, growth, appreciation, and respect (the key drivers of well-being), organizations see measurable gains in retention, commitment, collaboration, creativity, and profitability. Claiming power The truth is workplace leadership practices are in dire need of transformation. Evidence abounds that traditional methods deplete people rather than energize themand HR has both the access and authority to lead the needed change throughout their organizations. For HR leaders, the question is simple: will you fully claim the power your role affords? Will you leverage real-time feedback, hold leaders accountable, and transform the employee experience? Doing so will not only improve performance and profitabilityit will permanently elevate HR from a back-office function to the strategic force every modern organization needs. The moment is now. Employees are speaking. The data is clear. The tools exist. HR, step into your power! Shape how leaders lead. Protect well-being. Drive performance. Make your mark: ensure work is safe, meaningful, humaneand create organizations that truly flourish.
Category:
E-Commerce
Economists increasingly describe todays economy as K-shaped: Households with higher incomes and assets are pulling ahead, while many middle- and lower-income families struggle to keep up. Prices for housing, healthcare, and everyday necessities have risen faster than paychecks, leaving millions of Americans feeling squeezed, exposed, and uncertain about the future. For many families, affordability is not an abstract concern, it is the daily challenge of covering essentials while trying to stay afloat. You would expect that reality to shape what Congress prioritizes in response to economic anxiety. Instead, affordability is being invoked to justify making crypto market structurethe rules governing how digital assets are regulated and integrated into the broader financial systema legislative priority, rather than addressing the more pressing sources of financial strain facing most families. Crypto offers a story about upside and progress, but it does not answer the underlying problems of unstable incomes, fragile savings, and rising exposure to risk. Affordability is not about access to new financial products. It is about whether households can reliably pay for basics, absorb shocks, and plan for the future without taking on more volatility. Supporters argue that regulation can turn risky markets into engines of opportunity, especially for communities long excluded from traditional finance. But while regulation may promise harm reduction, it cannot turn speculation into a vehicle for broad-based wealth-building. Congresss focus on conferring legitimacy on crypto reflects a troubling substitution of financial speculation for the harder work of rebuilding the real economy. Wealth that lasts The reason becomes clearer when you start with what wealth-building actually requires. Wealth that lasts is built on stability, not volatility. It looks like a paycheck that covers the mortgage, a retirement account that compounds quietly over decades, and savings that remain after a medical bill or a layoff. For most households, its accumulated gradually through retirement savings, pensions, and home equity. These systems are deeply imperfect, and trust in them has eroded for good reason. While wages rose after the pandemic, the cost of housing, healthcare, and other necessities rose faster, leaving many households feeling less secure. But the failure of existing systems does not make volatility a solution. It makes stability more, not less, important. Falling short Measured against those standards, crypto falls short. Crypto markets are organized around speculation rather than value creation. Tokens do not generate cash flows like businesses or bonds; their prices move on hype and momentum rather than economic fundamentals. An economy that already feels precarious does not need more ways for households to absorb financial risk. That speculative structure tends to reward those who can enter early and exit first. When crypto prices surge, new investors rush inoftn drawn by recent gainswhile larger, better-positioned holders are more likely to sell into the rally. Many ordinary households arrive later, buying at elevated prices amid extreme volatility. Research shows that lower-income investors in particular tend to enter later and at worse price points. Over time, this dynamic functions less as a wealth-building system and more as a wealth transfer from late-arriving households to earlier and more sophisticated participantsreinforcing the same uneven gains that already define todays K-shaped economy. The limits of regulation Regulation is often presented as the solution, but not all regulation reduces risk. Strong guardrails can in principle reduce fraud, limit spillovers, and protect the broader financial system. The problem is not regulation itself, but how its being pursued. Much of the current market structure debate is defined less by nonnegotiable safeguards than by pressure to reach a deal quickly, even if key protections are weakened, deferred, or left unresolved. Even strong regulation has limits. It does not change what crypto is or transform speculative assets into a reliable vehicle for long-term wealth-building. Even a well-regulated casino is still a casino. Rules can make gambling safer; they do not make it a retirement strategy. That distinction matters beyond individual investors. When volatile assets are granted legitimacy without firm safeguards, risk migrates into retirement systems, financial institutions, and local economies. And when those risks spread, they do not fall evenly. Communities of color are especially exposed to systemic shocks because they have far less generational wealth to fall back on when credit tightens or savings are hit. Losses are harder to absorb and recovery takes longer, even for households that never touch crypto. At the same time, these communities are often targeted directly by financial marketers and intermediaries promoting high-risk products. We have seen this pattern of predatory inclusion before. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, risky mortgage products were sold to Black and Latino households as pathways to opportunity, only to shift disproportionate risk onto families least able to absorb losses. Today, similar language surrounds crypto. Access is framed as empowerment, but access to volatility is not affordability, and exposure to risk is not safe wealth-building. Stablecoins are the point where these risks become policy. Congresss recent handling of stablecoins offers a case study in prioritizing crypto expansion over the real economy. Less than two weeks after passing sweeping legislation that cut healthcare, food assistance, and student aid, lawmakers moved quickly to advance stablecoin legislation framed as a consumer protection measure. In practice, it prioritized industry growth and speed over downstream consequences for credit, banking, and communities, leaving key safeguards weakened or unresolved. Real consequences Those legislative choices have real economic consequences. If deposits migrate out of banks and into stablecoins, some economists estimate the shift could translate into roughly $250 billion less lending across the economy. If stablecoins function as yield-bearing substitutes for bank deposits, potential credit losses could rise sharply, possibly into the trillions of dollars. Those losses would hit community banks first, along with the small businesses, rural areas, and communities of color that rely on relationship-based lending. Congress should not confuse legislative movement with economic progress. In an economy already split between those who are gaining ground and those struggling to stay afloat, lawmakers should be clear-eyed about what this legislation actually does. It does not make wealth more accessible or everyday life more affordable. It does not make families safer. It normalizes dangerous financial risk while leaving the real economys wealth-building failures unaddressedat a moment when ordinary Americans can least afford to lose.
Category:
E-Commerce
A week is a long time in politics. But in Donald Trumps world, even a day can feel like an eon. On Tuesday last week, the United States approved the export of Nvidias H200 GPUsthe second-most advanced computer chips powering the generative AI revolutionto markets that include China. The decision was granted with caveats. Supplies could be forestalled if the U.S. began running short, for one thing. But it was an approval. Then, 24 hours later, the White House levied a 25% tariff against the same chips at the point theyre imported into the United States. That matters because, under the rules Trump instigated on Tuesday, all those H200 chips that could be exported to mainland China after being fabricated in Taiwan must first make their way to the United States to be tested before being re-exported to customers. That adds up to a bigger bill for Chinese tech companies wanting to import cutting-edge chips into their country. (To avoid this, China is building up its domestic AI chip development and manufacturing capacity, and recently issued its own counterban on the import and use of H200 chips.) But it also causes chaos for the chipmakers themselves. Because AI hardware is now the backbone of national competitiveness, even small shifts in U.S. trade policy ripple across trilliondollar markets and global supply chains. The latest chopping and changing is a total overhaul of the normal way of doing business, says Willy Shih, professor of management practice at Harvard Business School. Business, like sports, is conducted on a playing field, where there are rules and regulations, and also norms, he says. These days, with the tariff situation changing almost every day, I tell people to imagine being a coach of a football team, and the rules change every minute, Shih jokes. Thats what it feels like. The impact on markets from such uncertainty can be significant, he adds. When you see people hold up investments waiting for some stability, thats why. Its hard to make long-term investment commitments when the rules could change tomorrow. Because companies dont know the price theyre going to have to pay to bring goods into their factories, theyre often reluctant to splash the cash on new purchases. A series of chip-adjacent companies has previously complained about lower-than-expected orders because of unpredictable tariff policy. European lithography firm ASML missed expectations in the first quarter of 2025 by more than $1 billion thanks to tariff uncertainty, their CEO said at the time. And markets reflected the chaos of Trumps tariff about-turns this year immediately: Nvidia dropped more than 3% after the 25% levy was introduced, suggesting investors were jittery about the repeated policy pivots. The issue is that it isnt just buyers who are making those long-term commitments on spending. Chip manufacturers rely on trying to understand future demand in order to build out their production capacitysomething that can be imperilled with quick-moving changes to tariffs implemented by Trump. My general belief is that most, or frankly all, semiconductor management and actual visibility of what is going on with demand is precisely zero, says Stacy Rasgon, managing director and senior analyst at Bernstein. They have absolutely no idea. All they see are the orders in front of their face. Being able to ramp up or ramp down production capacity in such a geopolitical environment makes things even more challenging. And Nvidias H200 chips are particularly tricky to make, meaning that the companyalongside other manufacturers of major chips affected by the Trump tariff changeshas to think carefully about how it plans the buildout of factories and capacities. Less than a month ago, Nvidia was asking its suppliers if they could step up demand to account for H200 demand totalling 185% of the firms current stock levels. The situation puts more pressure on the people running chip companies, says Srividya Jandhyala, professor of management at ESSEC Business School, and changes the skills they need to navigate the constant changes. As companies find themselves and their products squarely in the midst of geopolitical tensions, the job description of their top managers has changed, he says, pointing to the way that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has had to mutate how he works. His job today is about being an effective corporate diplomat, crisscrossing the world to convince policymakers that his companys products have a place in the vision policymakers have for their countries, Jandhyala says. But that vision may have to contend with rapidly shifting realities in a world where Donald Trumps whims dictate international trade.
Category:
E-Commerce
Electric bills are climbing almost everywhereand in some states, the increases have been staggering. If you live in the Bay Area, your average utility bill from PG&E went up nearly 70% over the last five years. Between 2024 and 2025, alone, bills grew by double digits everywhere from Utah to Massachusetts to Tennessee. The surge in AI data centers often gets the headlines as the main cause of the increase, but they’re just one of many factors. Heres whats driving soaring utility bills, and what could help fix it. Its not necessarily data centersyet In a Berkeley National Lab report published last year that looked at trends in electric rates from 2019 to 2024, researchers found that states that had the biggest growth in electricity demandfrom customers like data centersactually saw costs go down. Thats because the electricity market isnt just about supply and demand; its expensive to maintain equipment, and if costs can be spread out among more customers, everyone pays less. But thats starting to change as data centers use up the remaining room on the grid and start to need new power plants and other infrastructure. We are seeing utilities run out of that spare capacity, and new investments will need to be made to accommodate for the growth, says Ryan Hledik, a principal at the economics consultancy Brattle Group, which worked on the Berkeley Lab report. An analysis from Bloomberg News with more recent data found a strong correlation between higher energy costs and locations near data centers, with prices in some areas as much as 267% higher than they were five years ago. Still, new data centers dont automatically have to mean higher utility bills for households. A lot of this depends on what rates utilities are charging to those new data center customers, says Hledik. If the utility is charging them a rate that covers all of those incremental costs that theyre imposing on the system, then that protects other customers from rate increases. Microsoft recently announced that it plans to voluntarily cover the cost of any grid infrastructure thats needed when it adds a data center. Several states are considering policies that would require all data centers to pay their own way; some states, like Oregon, have already passed laws. Other new policies under consideration would require data centers to cut their power use when the grid is stressed. “They can connect to the grid, but they’re going to be interruptible,” says Jackson Morris, director for the state power sector at the nonprofit NRDC. “So they’re going to be the ones that get shut off first, not Grandma’s house, and not the hospitals.” If data centers can avoid creating new peaks, they can also help avoid the need to build as much expensive new infrastructure. The aging grid needs updates Data centers arent the only problem. The Berkeley Lab report pointed to outdated infrastructure as a widespread issue. Basically, our entire grid is getting older, says Hledik. Portions of the distribution system are 80 years old at this point. These parts of the grid need to be replaced just to continue to maintain the same level of reliability that we have. At the same time, utilities are struggling to deal with more disasters, from hurricanes to wildfires. As we’ve got more extreme storms, you’ve got more grid infrastructure that’s knocked out of service that has to be replaced. And then you have to harden existing infrastructure, too, says Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the nonprofit Public Citizen. In California, for example, 40% of the increase in energy bills over the past five years came from wildfire-related costs. Upgrades have been delayed in the past. Now, thanks to inflation, supply chain issues that started in the pandemic, and Trumps tariffs on critical materials like steel, equipment like poles, wires, and towers is expensive to replace. And it’s customers who are footing the bill. One thing that could help somewhat: pushing back on the rate of return that utilities earn as they build new infrastructure. Regulators let utilities bill customers for capital costs, but then they’re also allowed to make a profit for their investors. In California, that rate of return was recently dialed backjust by a tiny amount, 0.3%but that’s going to help slightly shrink home energy costs. We need more power The electric grid needs more access to power not just for data centers and other large customers, but as households begin to shift to heat pumps, induction stoves, and electric cars. Unfortunately, the process of adding power has been painfully slow; it can take five years for a new power plant to get connected to the grid. “When electricity demand is relatively flat as it has been for quite some time in this country, you can paper over the cracks pretty well,” says NRDC’s Morris. “You can afford to have a broken [interconnection] queue. It’s not ideal, but you can kind of limp along. What’s happening now is in the face of exploding load growth on the system, all those cracks are turning into canyons. And all the things that were broken about the system are now coming into stark relief.” Helping speed up the process to get permits would obviously help. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has been actively slowing down the process to build new wind or solar plants. “At the very time when you are seeing exploding load growth, [Republicans] just tried to kneecap the cheapest, quickest technologies to get on the grid to meet that demand, which is solar and battery storage,” Morris says. (New gas plants face long delays, with 5-7 year waits to get some parts; newer technologies like small modular reactors still aren’t ready for deployment.) A new analysis from the American Clean Power Association found that in the PJM grid, a region that sprawls from Illinois to Virginia, households could spend as much as an extra $8,500 over the next decadeand have less reliable access to electricityif new renewable power plants don’t keep growing. The Berkeley Lab report notes that states that have access to abundant solar and wind generally didn’t see their electric bills rise as quickly as in other areas. Onthe other hand, state with policies that require them to buy a certain amount of renewableseven at times when the price is higherdid see a slight increase in costs. “That’s to be expectedI think we’re developing those policies realizing that there’s a cost associated with dealing with climate change,” Hledik says. As large-scale infrastructure struggles, there are also other ways to add power more quickly. A technology called dynamic line rating, for example, can make better use of existing power lines, unlocking 40% more capacity from transmission lines. Heimdall Power, a Norwegian company that has been quickly expanding in the U.S., says that theres a huge opportunity for more deployment of its sensors and other technology, which make it safe to let more power flow through existing infrastructure. By making better use of transmission lines, utilities could avoid building as many power plants. Other companies are finding creative ways to build virtual power plants. Base Power, a Texas startup that recently raised $1 billion, owns a fleet of batteries that it installs at homes. Customers can save on electric bills by using the batteries when demand peaks; the system also helps utilities cut costs by easing strain on the grid. Similarly, companies like Renew Home use smart thermostats and other devices to let customers automatically tweak energy use to save money, while helping add new capacity to the grid. It’s far cheaper and faster to promote energy efficiency or shift when customers use energy than to build a new gas plant, and it also helps customers. Data centers could help pay for solutions like this. For example, states could “ask data centers to pay for energy efficiency improvements for low-income customers in the community where they’re developing a data center,” Hledik says. In some cases, large customers like data centers can also build some of their own power. That’s starting to happen in creative ways, like a new data center in Nevada powered by solar panels and used EV batteries. The catch, of course, is getting those projectsand new utility-scale power plantsto focus only on clean energy. As utilities struggle with making the grid resilient to extreme weather from climate change, they need to look at the long-term challenges, Hledik says. “When I look at this from an economist’s perspective, it does provide support for the idea of going out and continuing to invest in clean energy and decarbonization measures, even at a time when federal policy is not necessarily supporting that,” he says. “We have two options. One is to continue invest to invest money in the grid to make it more resilient in those situations. Two, try and address the bigger picture trend that’s driving the underlying cause of those wildfires and other natural disasters.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] next »