Thursday, December 3, 2015

UK launches first Syria air strikes - BBC News

UK launches first Syria air strikes

  • 2 minutes ago
  •  
  • From the section UK
Media captionMichael Fallon: "I can confirm that four British tornados were in action attacking oil fields in eastern Syria"
RAF Tornado jets have carried out their first air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
Four Tornados from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus took part in the operation soon after MPs voted to approve bombing.
The strikes targeted the Omar oil fields in eastern Syria, which is under IS control, and were "successful", Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said.
He had personally approved the targets ahead of the Commons vote, he said. 
On Wednesday, MPs voted by 397 votes to 223 for UK military action against IS - also known as Daesh - in Syria after a 10-hour Commons debate.
Mr Fallon said the Ministry of Defence would be assessing the damage done by the bombing later, but the aim was to strike "a very real blow on the oil and revenue on which Daesh depends".

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The deadly contest between Isis and al-Qaeda - Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/297def12-9819-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f769.html#ixzz3tAiogLxp

December 2, 2015 11:27 am

The deadly contest between Isis and al-Qaeda

Scathing dismissal of its rival is one way Isis highlights status as the number one terrorist group
Isis fighters in Syria©AP
Isis fighters in Syria
D
abiq makes for chilling reading. Isis’ slick-looking magazine celebrates the killing of innocent people and offers sordid advice to jihadis. But reading Dabiq can also prove useful, giving rare insight into the warped mindset of the world’s chief terrorists. 
In the latest issue, number 12, I found an article devoted to al-Qaeda, the rival group that once dominated global terrorism. “Sahwa fever”, the article claims, is spreading through the ranks of al-Qaeda. 
The Sahwa movement comprised a group of Iraqi tribesmen that collaborated with the US a decade ago to root out the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. That branch took its revenge: it eventually became the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, better known as Isis. 
Such scathing dismissal of its rival is Isis’ way of highlighting its status as the world’s number one terrorist organisation and setting out its claim as the true heir to Osama bin Laden. The message to readers: al-Qaeda has lost its way. The future belongs to Isis.
Isis seems obsessed with al-Qaeda, from which it split in 2013 following disagreements over the goals of jihad in Syria. Since then Isis has distinguished itself from its parent through its savagery (there is no limit to the violence it is willing to inflict) and its move to create a caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria. 
Whereas al-Qaeda’s killing machine operated in the name of jihad abroad, Isis at first looked within, calling on jihadis around the world to join in building its caliphate. Indeed, because Isis appeared to pose a greater threat to the Middle East than to the rest of the world, western reaction towards it was at first relatively muted. 
In the past few months Isis has changed tack. To maintain momentum in the face of intensifying military pressure, it has accelerated its attacks abroad. Within weeks it claimed responsibility for the bombing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai and the atrocities in Paris, for a bomb attack in Beirut and a bus explosion in Tunis. Its objectives and those of al-Qaeda are now in alignment. The impact is terrifying.
Your opinion
Should the UK join the US, France and other allies in a Syria bombing campaign?
Al-Qaeda’s response to Isis came days after the Paris attacks, with the storming of a luxury hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali. Re-asserting itself in the jihadi world, al-Qaeda’s social media highlighted that, unlike Isis, it had spared Muslim hostages in the siege at the Radisson Blu hotel.

FT series

Inside Isis Inc series
An investigation into how a sprawling oil operation has become fundamental to the jihadis’ survival and why the group has struck a Faustian bargain with the Assad regime over gas and electricity
Fortunately al-Qaeda is not what it was when bin Laden ordered the attacks of September 11 2001. But, while its core group is greatly diminished, its franchises have survived the global “war” on terrorism. 
“What has not really sunk in yet is that we now have two problems — Isis and al-Qaeda — as global terrorist networks that are competing but also growing,” says Hassan Hassan, co-author of Isis: Inside the Army of Terror. 
Rohan Gunaratna, an expert on terrorism, says one should think of al-Qaeda through its various theatres of operation. The franchises are still strong in the Maghreb and the Sahel, in the Horn of Africa and in Yemen, as well as in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in Southeast Asia. 
Isis, meanwhile, is more dominant in the Levant, Libya, west Africa and the Caucasus. “[Isis] is a child of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda still has capacity to drive and produce clones,” says Mr Gunaratna.
Isis and al-Qaeda are not fighting over ideology. Their differences are partly over strategy and tactics. Mostly they are about leadership. Some experts predict that if one of the two leaders disappeared — either Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of Isis or al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri — the groups could merge again. In the meantime, competition will be fierce.
“The terrorism picture today is very complicated for two reasons: first because of all the different players involved . . . and second because of the regional vacuum that exists after the Arab spring, which gives groups a territory to operate,” says Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent who now heads the Soufan Group, a security firm. 
The picture could become more complicated still. As it defends its self-proclaimed state, Isis will grow more dangerous. Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, is entrenching itself and establishing local alliances that will make it harder to destroy. Both groups will be seeking to expand their power through terrorism.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

The slow death of hope for America’s loyal friends in Iraq - Financial Times

  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/19f0eece-9539-11e5-8389-7c9ccf83dceb.html#ixzz3t4u9o9LB
The phone calls in the past week were tearful. I spoke to two Iraqis, former colleagues who had risked their lives for Americans, to tell them I doubted they would ever be welcomed in my country. As France mourned murders by Islamist terrorists, and US politicians thousands of miles away spewed anti-refugee rhetoric, I realised my friends probably had no friends in Washington. 
For years after the 2003 invasion, Americans relied on Iraqis to navigate a country whose terrain we barely knew and whose sectarian loyalties it was vital to understand. 

Journalists could not have survived without them. Neither could the troops, aid workers or diplomats. The goodwill of those caught in the middle of these war zones — whether in Iraq or now perhaps in Syria — allowed us to stay safe and do our jobs.
The men I knew had been translators and drivers for the Chicago Tribune, then my employer. They reported through mortar attacks, even a car bomb. Then Sinan Adhem and Nadeem Majeed decided they wanted to live in the US. They applied 10 years ago for visas. As they waited, they became fathers, perfected their English and found better jobs. Sinan is now a security analyst for the UN. Nadeem works for Nissan Motors. Both live in Baghdad. 
Last year, both Sinan and Nadeem received emails from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services stating that they could not be trusted. No one disputed they had presented all the proper papers or that the visa applications were credible. Yet form letters dismissed Sinan, then Nadeem, with vague finality: “Denied as a matter of discretion for security-related reasons.” 
“Are the Americans calling me a terrorist?” Sinan sputtered over the phone. 
I calmed him down; it had to be a clerical error by USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security. I was sure I could sort it and I knew we had to work fast. Neighbouring Syria was falling apart; my friends could soon be vying with thousands of desperate refugees.
In the weeks that followed, though, I found few people in my government willing to help. No single bureaucrat wanted to accept responsibility. 
I sought help in congressional offices; filed Freedom of Information Act requests for explanations. I have called USCIS officials who, in the face of repeated emails, now ignore me. I am trying, still, to make the case: these men are why America said it was liberating Iraq. If Sinan and Nadeem are deemed suspicious — men who served the US cause — what chance do others have who are now seeking asylum? Indeed, Nadeem sacrificed more than most. His sister was murdered in a random shooting in 2006, a death that sparked his search for a visa.
Sinan sputtered: ‘Are they calling me a terrorist?’ I calmed him down. Surely it had to be a clerical error
I found an aid group, the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, which filed legal appeals for both men. One retired general I knew warned against false hope. “The Department of Homeland Security is a ‘black hole’,” he said. “It has become a hall of mirrors where there are no answers.”
Sinan and Nadeem last week ended up trying to comfort me when I called to offer my apologies. As former journalists they track US and European news websites, and perceived growing hysteria in the debate over refugees. “To be honest, I lost hope,” Nadeem said. “After this week — and what I saw in Washington — I can’t have hope.” 
Sinan, so often the peacemaker during turbulent times in Iraq, told me he does not feel especially alone in his despair; many people in Iraq feel abandoned. Before I called, he had been working on a security brief for the UN and he shared what he knew: 10 bodies, riddled with bullets, had been found dumped in various places around Baghdad.
Yes, he said, he wished for a better life. “But it is not your fault, my dear. Don’t be angry. I think the whole world has gone crazy.”
The writer is the FT’s investigations editor

Monday, November 30, 2015

E.U. will give Turkey an ‘initial’ €3 billion to stem migrant flows and unfreeze its bid to join the bloc. - Fortune


E.U. will give Turkey an ‘initial’ €3 billion to stem migrant flows and unfreeze its bid to join the bloc. 

Desperation makes for strange bedfellows.
On the one hand, the European Union, whose attempts to stop the biggest movement of migrants in Europe since World War 2 have failed dismally. On the other, Turkey, which finds itself under sudden and potentially acute economic pressure from Russia after shooting down one of its warplanes last week.
After weeks of behind-the-scenes haggling, the two sides formally agreed a deal Sunday that will see the E.U. pay Turkey an initial €3 billion ($3.3 billion) to help it stop the flood of refugees and other migrants ‘not requiring international protection.’ Turkey had asked before the meeting for that amount to be paid every year, but the two sides left the issue of any future payments open.
“We do not expect anyone to guard our borders for us,” E.U. Council president Donald Tusk said after them meeting. “That can and should only be done by Europeans. But we expect a major step towards changing the rules of the game when it comes to stemming the migration flow that is coming to the E.U. via Turkey.”
A more radical outcome of the summit was the decision to revive talks on letting Turkey join the E.U., a process that has been effectively moribund for years.
The irony is acute. Above all, it was popular hostility to Turkish migration into the E.U. that led the bloc to effectively suspend accession talks in 2010, although the formal reason was concerns about Turkey’s worsening record on human rights and judicial issues. If anything, the latter has deteriorated even further since 2010, as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has cracked down on political opposition and dissenting media.
But the flow of refugees and other migrants, largely from Syria, but also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, has pushed concerns about Turkish immigration and domestic repression way down the list of European concerns. Of much more concern now is the near-collapse of the E.U.’s internal border-free regime, as one member state after another has reinstated border checks and, in some cases, built physical barriers to stop illegal immigration. E.U. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker warned last week that if the “Schengen” agreement on open internal borders falls apart, then Europe’s monetary union would soon follow.
One of the first ‘chapters’ regarding Turkey’s accession to be revived will be an agreement on visa-free travel to the E.U. for Turkish citizens. The two sides said they will try to launch formal talks on this within a year (on the implicit conditions that Turkey meets conditions on tightening its borders in the east to Asian migrants). That development comes only two days after Russia unilaterally suspended its bilateral agreement with Turkey on visa-free travel.
“Today is a historic day in our accession process to the EU,” Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters on arrival. “I am grateful to all European leaders for this new beginning.”

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Silicon Valley Has Jus Arrived at a Major Turning Point - TIME


Posted: 12 Nov 2015 07:59 AM PST
This year has been an unusual one for corporate finance–record M&A dealmaking, a drought in IPOs–but as 2015 wears on, things are starting to get downright weird.
The trend is especially noticeable in the tech industry, where startups have been shunning the IPO market for a few years, hoping instead to tap into mega-rounds of private financing. Only now are they moving into the IPO queue, with Square, Match Group and Atlassian aiming for IPOs by year’s end.
The trouble is, they are going public just as public investors are growing finickier. And that’s costing them potential capital. Square now plans to go public with a valuation of about $4 billion, down from the $6 billion valuation it enjoyed during its last private round a year ago.
Square is seen as a test case for other tech startups that will likely feel pressure to go public now that the private venture financing is starting to dry up. It’s already setting one not-so-great trend: marking down IPO prices below the exuberant private valuations. Tech companies that have fought for years to stay private may end up wishing they had gone public when the going was good.
Elsewhere, there’s a sense that companies are scrambling to do something–anything–to position themselves when the inevitable downturn hits. After years of arguing why it would never split up, HP did just that. HP now says severing itself in two is the best way forward. Even as two of its rivals–Dell and EMC–are moving in the exact opposite direction.
The whole tech sector, flush for years with confidence and talk of disruption, suddenly has an air of desperation about it. The Fed will raise interest rates soon, an incremental move that could have an outsize impact on investment strategies. Some tech startups are securing financing where they can, while others are trying to burn less cash. Tech giants are reorganizing, hoping to get a foothold in a promising market like cloud computing.
Nothing illustrates just how desperate tech companies are feeling these days than the ambitious merger of Dell and EMC. Valued at $67 billion when it was announced, the Dell-EMC will rank not only as the largest tech M&A in history but also the largest leveraged buyout ever staged to take a company private. To pull it off, the companies need to use creative financing – a polite way of describing a hairily complex deal.
In addition to new equity from Michael Dell, EMC and Dell have lined up nearly $50 billion in loans from eight banks, an impressive accomplishment given the rising concerns in the corporate lending market and waning demand for high-yield debt tied to mergers. When Dell financed its buyout in 2013, it secured a 4.6% interest rate. Today, that rate could be as high as 7%. Like those tech IPOs, Dell and EMC may have waited too long to make their move.
EMC shareholders will get paid in cash as well as shares in a tracking stock of VMware, of which EMC owns 81%. The tracking stock is a controversial provision. It will be “linked to a portion of EMC’s economic interest in the VMware business.
Owners of the tracking stock won’t be able to vote and they won’t even own a piece of a company, but of an entity that mimics actual VMware shares. In effect, there will be two stocks for VMware, the one currently trading (and falling, since this deal was announced) and a virtual one given to current EMC shareholders.
Confused yet? An excellent (but long) explainer can be found on Andreessen Horowitz’ blog. There are plenty more details, but here is a simple test to gauge the complexity of a financial deal: Is it harder to explain to someone than the plot of Lost? The Dell-EMC merger is. It is much, much easier to explain what the Dharma Initiative did or what exactly that smoke monster was than it is to explain why a tracking stock for VMWare is necessary to help Dell sell cloud computing.
Which raises an interesting question about Dell-EMC. Why exactly does the deal need to be this complex? The apparent answer is to better position both companies in a competitive market for enterprise tech. But IT budgets have been dwindling, and cloud computing is favoring a select companies, like Amazon, Microsoft and Google.
Mega-mergers also distract companies for years while they integrate, a distraction that a more focused company like Microsoft doesn’t face. And there are bound to be layoffs. When Michael Dell and EMC CEO Joe Tucci announced the merger to EMC employees, Dell assured them, “that’s what this is all about, continuing the great innovations and success that you all have created.”
When, in a separate call with reporters that same day, someone asked about layoffs, Dell became both vague and tetchy. Layoffs would come in 2016, he said, lecturing reporters this was a “normal course of business.” Then Dell snapped at the reporter, “I think there’s some other companies in our industries that are maybe far better at reducing head count than we are. So maybe jump on their calls.”
Shareholders, meanwhile, aren’t thrilled with the deal either. EMC is down 10% since its announcement and VMware is down 23%. None of Dell’s potential rivals are inclined or able to wage a takeover battle, so the merger and buyout is likely to happen, barring any regulatory moves that could complicate it further.
So if no one but Michael Dell and Joe Tucci are thrilled with the deal, why is it happening? A clue can be found in the transcript of the announcement to EMC workers. After striding onto a stage, Tucci had a bizarre request. “I’ve never used a selfie stick… where’s that selfie stick?” As the two posed with another EMC executive, Dell had his own request: “Get the logos in here.”
That’s right. In announcing the largest tech M&A–and what may be the most complex in structure–the executives brought in a prop that is synonymous with narcissism and self-absorption. In front of employees who may be laid off in a few months–and who weren’t even in the selfie photo that the companies later tweeted.
And that image, as much as anything, shows just how weird things have gotten in the world of tech corporate financing this year.

Saturday, November 28, 2015

1 Exercise That Will Make You Feel More Powerful - Business Insider


Posted: 20 Nov 2015 12:23 PM PST
Plenty of leadership books and seminars promise to educate you in the mysterious ways of the powerful.
But for those who’ve got minimal time and attention to spare, there’s a simpler strategy that can help you stand out in virtually any circumstance: Channel the confidence to act like a leader by recalling a time when you felt powerful.
The technique is based on a study by Gavin Kilduff, Ph.D., and Adam Galinsky, Ph.D. The research is cited in the new book Friend and Foe by Galinsky and Maurice Schweitzer, Ph.D., in which the authors argue that both competition and cooperation are crucial to success in business and in life.
In one experiment featured in the study, researchers divided 60 undergrads into 20 groups of three. One third of the participants were asked to recall and describe a time when they had power over other people. Another third were asked to describe a time when someone else held power over them. The rest of the participants were asked to describe a recent trip to the grocery store. Each group was made up of one participant from each condition.
When the groups convened, they were videotaped working together on an “arctic survival” task for 20 minutes: They had to rank 12 items based on how useful they would be to survival in a snowstorm.
Afterward, everyone completed a survey in which they had to rank each group member on the degree to which they had status in the group, led the group, and had influence in the group.

Two days later, the same groups assembled and were given two tasks: coming up with an idea for an environmental organization in 20 minutes and estimating some statistics for five minutes. Then they completed the same survey as before.
Results showed that participants who were asked to think of a time they were powerful were perceived as having higher status in both the first and second group meetings.
When independent coders reviewed the video tapes, they noticed that the individuals who wrote about having power were more likely to speak in the first few minutes of the meeting and spoke more assertively. In other words, they were perceived as leaders because they acted like leaders.
“Put simply,” Galinsky and Schweitzer write in Friend and Foe, “we can all achieve significantly higher status if we adjust our psychological states at the outset of a group interaction.”
Of course, there are downsides to becoming overly taken with your own leadership abilities. Galinsky and Schweitzer note that it’s equally important to show deference to others and try to take their perspectives so that your confidence doesn’t become off-putting.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider

Friday, November 27, 2015

This Could Be Google’s Next Move to Fight Apple - TIME


Posted: 06 Nov 2015 06:53 AM PST
There are many differences between Android and Apple’s iOS, but among the biggest is that each Android phone is slightly different than the next. While every generation of iPhone runs the same type of software and features similar hardware specifications, most Android phones come with different processors and software that’s been slightly tweaked or modified by the phone’s manufacturer, like Samsung or HTC.
Google, however, wants to create more consistency within the Android universe, according to a new report from The Information’s Amir Efrati. The company is said to be in talks with microchip companies about developing chips based on Google’s own preferred designs, the report says.
This likely won’t impact whether Android phone makers decide to modify software on Android phones. It just means phones running on these Google chips would likely offer similar performance and consistent features since they’re powered by the same processors.
The move would also give Google’s Android more ammunition to combat Apple’s iPhone at the high end. Many flagship Android phones, such as the Samsung Galaxy S6, LG G4, and HTC One M9, come with software that looks and feels entirely different from one another. Samsung, for instance, layers its own software called TouchWiz over Google’s basic Android. HTC adds its Sense software to its Android phones, too. These phones also come with different features and run on different processor models, which makes the experience of using one Android phone noticeably different than using another made by a separate manufacturer.
That’s not the case with the iPhone. Provided they’re all running the same version of iOS, the software experience between an iPhone 6s, an iPhone 6, and an iPhone 5 is exactly the same. That’s because Apple doesn’t deal with other hardware manufacturers that add their own apps and services to phones. And, since all iPhones run on processors designed by Apple, they offer the same level of power and similar features.
However, based on The Information’s report, it sounds like Google is looking to change this in order to better compete with the iPhone at the high-end of the market. That’s a space where Android had some trouble. One of Android’s benefits is that there are phones available in various price ranges. Chinese startup OnePlus, for example, saw wide success with its first Android phone in 2014 because it was priced much lower than phones made by Samsung and LG while offering similar high-quality hardware.
Samsung, which creates more expensive Android phones that are meant to compete directly with the iPhone at the high end, has seen its profits decline over the past two years. But the company had a turnaround in October, when it announced that its operating profits increased by 80%. Still, those numbers were thanks to its component-making business, not because of Galaxy phone sales.
This isn’t the first time reports have suggested that Google is brainstorming ways to help Android better compete at the high-end. Google was reportedly working on a program called Android Silver last year, which Efrati also reported for The Information. It was meant to be a re-branding of Android that would make the platform more premium and unified like the iPhone. However, it was reportedly delayed due to the departure of former Google executive Nikesh Arora.

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Why Hillary Clinton Is Right About Pfizer - TIME

Posted: 24 Nov 2015 07:14 AM PST
Three cheers for Hillary Clinton and other politicians who are decrying Pfizer’s tax “inversion” deal that would allow it to take over an Irish pharma company and relocate there, thus saving $21 billion in American taxes. Tax inversion deals—mergers done pretty much for the sole purpose of saving tax money by moving to a foreign tax jurisdiction—have been on the rise for a while now. One of the many reasons they are so egregious is that the very firms that are most able to do them—including pharmaceutical and tech companies that have most of their value in intellectual property that can be easily relocated elsewhere—have also been the biggest beneficiaries of government help.
Pfizer and other such firms will argue that they need to pay lower taxes to fund the research that results in miracle drugs. But that is a myth. We credit the private sector for the innovation and growth in our economy. But a number of academics and policy thinkers, including University of Sussex economist Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, argue powerfully that it is the government (and thus taxpayers) rather than the private sector that deserves the credit for such innovation. “Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state,” says Mazzucato, who backs the claim up with powerful statistics and anecdotes in her book. Most parts of the smartphone that make it smart–GPS, touchscreens, the Internet–were advanced by the Defense Department. Tesla’s batteries came out of a Department of Energy grant. Google’s search algorithm was boosted by a National Science Foundation innovation.
Likewise, many new drugs that have made big money for firms like Pfizer have come out of NIH research. The National Institutes of Health have spent almost a trillion dollars since its founding on the research that created both the pharmaceutical and the biotech sectors—with venture capitalists only entering biotech once the red carpet was laid down in the 1980s.
So why the mythology that the private sector deserves all the profits and the credit for innovation? Because there are huge profits to be made with that narrative. It was the National Venture Capital industry that in 1976 convinced the government to reduce capital gains tax by 50% in only five years. Likewise, says Mazzucato, “It is Big Pharma that is able to charge exorbitant prices in the name of recouping their high innovation costs—and also lobby for massive tax reductions related to patents that have no effect on their investments.”
There are better models. Israel and Finland retain equity in firms that come out of basic government research. And the U.S. government in the past has dictated that companies reinvest money in Main Street rather than give it to Wall Street. That’s how Bell Labs was born, after the federal government pressured AT&T to reinvest profits in innovation. We got the C++ programming language and cell-phone calling technology, among many other advances, out of that. Not a bad precedent.
The NIH invests $30 billion per year in research that enriches companies like Pfizer. Meanwhile, Big Pharma spends more on marketing than R&D, and is the leader, along with the tech and energy sectors, in share buybacks that make investors wealthy without creating any real growth or jobs. Clinton and others should keep the pressure on Pfizer and other such firms—and the next president should make both buybacks and inversions, which cheat the true economic makers in this country, illegal.
Posted: 24 Nov 2015 07:08 AM PST
(NEW YORK) — A nonprofit founded to combat obesity says the $1.5 million it received from Coke has no influence on its work.
But emails obtained by The Associated Press show the world’s largest beverage maker was instrumental in shaping the Global Energy Balance Network, which is led by a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Coke helped pick the group’s leaders, edited its mission statement and suggested articles and videos for its website.
In an email last November, the group’s president tells a top Coke executive: “I want to help your company avoid the image of being a problem in peoples’ lives and back to being a company that brings important and fun things to them.”
Coke executives had similarly high hopes. A proposal circulated via email at the company laid out a vision for a group that would “quickly establish itself as the place the media goes to for comment on any obesity issue.” It said the group would use social media and run a political-style campaign to counter the “shrill rhetoric” of “public health extremists” who want to tax or limit foods they deem unhealthy.
When contacted by the AP about the emails, Coca-Cola Co. CEO Muhtar Kent said in a statement that “it has become clear to us that there was not a sufficient level of transparency with regard to the company’s involvement with the Global Energy Balance Network.”
“Clearly, we have more work to do to reflect the values of this great company in all that we do,” Kent said.
The Atlanta-based company told the AP it has accepted the retirement of its chief health and science officer, Rhona Applebaum, who initially managed the relationship with the group. It said it will not fill the position as it overhauls how it goes about its health efforts. It also said it has stopped working the Global Energy Balance Network.
It’s just the latest example of Coke working with outside experts to promote messages that benefit the company.
Coke has long maintained that the academics and other experts it works with espouse their own views. But the collaborations can be fraught and blur the lines between advertisements and genuine advice. In February, several health and fitness experts paid by the company wrote online posts with tips on healthy habits. Each suggested a mini-soda as a snack idea.
One dietitian wrote five such posts in less than a year.
The Global Energy Balance Network came under fire in August after The New York Times reported it was funded by Coke. On Nov. 6, the University of Colorado School of Medicine said it was returning $1 million from the company because of the distraction it was creating. The University of South Carolina said it plans to keep $500,000 it received from Coke because one of its professors is also among the group’s leaders. The school said there was no misuse of funds.
On its website, the Global Energy Balance Network says it received an “unrestricted gift” from Coke, but that the company has “no input” into its activities.
Behind the scenes, however, Coke executives and the group’s leaders held meetings and conference calls to hash out the group’s mission and activities, according to emails obtained through a public records request. Early on, Applebaum informed the group’s president, James Hill, that those involved would need to be open about collaboration with private industry.
“That is non-negotiable,” she wrote.
Relatively minor matters, such as the group’s logo, were also covered.
“Color will not be an issue — except for blue. Hope you can understand why,” Applebaum.
Coke’s cans are red, while Pepsi’s are blue.
“It seems like another one of these classic cases of money coming from industry with no strings attached — that’s the official message. But it’s a very different kind of story taking place,” said Leigh Turner, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, who studies academic integrity and conflicts of interest.
The exchanges weren’t strictly limited to discussions about the group, and included Applebaum expressing approval or disapproval of health articles, and talk of other work with Coke. In an email to another Coke executive, Hill proposes research on “energy balance” that would be “very specific to coke interests.”
Coke has long stressed the idea of “energy balance,” or the need to offset calorie intake with physical activity. It’s a basic concept few would disagree with, but critics say the company uses it to downplay the effects of sugary drinks by shifting more attention to the need for exercise.
In an introductory video, one of the Global Energy Balance Network’s leaders said the media focuses on “eating too much, eating too much, eating too much — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on.” The video has since been taken down, and the group said the idea that it only focuses on physical activity is inaccurate.
Hill declined a request for a phone interview, but said in an email that the group’s strategy benefits “all who are concerned about obesity.” He said Coke provided input into the group’s “organizational structure,” but that it was understood the company would be “hands off.”
The group wants to continue its work, he said.
Since 2010, Coke said it gave $550,000 to Hill that was unrelated to the group. A big part of that was research he and others were involved with, but the figure also covers travel expenses and fees for speaking engagements and other work. It does not include money from Coke’s overseas divisions or industry groups such as the American Beverage Association.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

4 Ways Richard Branson Makes Difficult Decisions - Business Insider


Posted: 20 Nov 2015 11:13 AM PST
In the summer of 2012, the British government informed Virgin Trains that it had lost the bid to retain the operating rights to the U.K.’s West Coast rail franchise. Virgin Trains had been running the £7 billion ($10.9 billion) franchise for 15 years, expanding the line and growing its annual passenger numbers from 13 million to 30 million.
Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Train’s parent company the Virgin Group, writes in his book The Virgin Way that he was “stunned and baffled” that he could have lost the bid to the company FirstGroup.
He decided to stay quiet for awhile, meeting with lawyers and advisers to see if Virgin had actually been beaten fairly. Everyone he spoke with seemed to conclude that FirstGroup’s numbers were unsustainable, meaning the British government had made a mistake in calculations. Regardless, many of his senior team told Branson that he’d only be wasting his time and hurting his image with a lawsuit. But, after carefully weighing the facts, he decided to move forward with it.
A week before he was scheduled to meet the Department for Transport in the U.K.’s high court, Branson got a phone call from the department’s secretary. The secretary told him that on further review, the department had indeed made grave miscalculations and Virgin had offered the better deal.
Branson considers his decision to sue the government, which ultimately saved his rail business, to be one of the best high-stakes decisions he’s ever made. In his book he highlights four rules that he’s used to make tough decisions like this one throughout his business career, and we’ve described them below.
1. Don’t act on an emotional response
Branson says he was flabbergasted when he first heard that the Virgin Trains deal had not gone through, but he was experienced enough to know that he should take some time to settle down and collect data instead of letting his feelings take control of him.
Had he made a statement to the press out of frustration or demanded to sue the British government solely out of instinct rather than fact, he would have increased the likelihood of having his case dismissed and appearing reckless.
It’s just as bad to act on a positive emotion, he says. Give decisions you’re considering enough time to lose the influence of your first impressions.
2. Find as many downsides to an idea as possible
Branson carefully considers everything that could go wrong before he goes forward with a decision.
Regarding the rail case, Branson’s lawyers initially told him he had a 10% chance of winning a case against the government. But after collecting proof that some numbers in his competitor’s deals were off, he was convinced he had truth and customer support on his side.
“Nothing is perfect, so work hard at uncovering whatever hidden warts the thing might have and by removing them you’ll only make it better still,” he writes.
3. Look at the big picture
Before he makes a decision, Branson takes a look at how it will affect his other projects in both the short and long term.
“This one may be a ‘too good to miss’ opportunity but how will it affect other projects or priorities and, if now is not the best time to do it, what risks if any are there in putting the thing on hold for an agreed period of time?” he writes. “If you cannot manage this project in addition to another that’s waiting in the wings, which one gets the nod and why?”
Branson’s latest project is Virgin Hotels, which he hopes will take advantage of a booming American hotel market.
With every project he undertakes and manages, he considers how the Virgin brand and his own name will be represented.
4. Protect the downside
In a LinkedIn blog post from 2014, Branson writes that the best lesson his father ever taught him was to protect the downside; that is, limit possible losses before moving forward with a new business venture.
Branson’s father told him that he would allow him, at age 15, to leave high school and start Student magazine only if he sold £4,000 worth of advertising to cover printing and paper costs.
It’s a strategy he repeated in 1984 when he made a huge leap from the music business into the airline business with Virgin Atlantic. He was only able to convince his business partners at Virgin Records to agree to the deal after he got Boeing to agree to take back Virgin’s one 747 jet after a year if the business wasn’t operating as planned.
These four simple guidelines can become habit, whether you’re about to approach a prospective client or sue the British government.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider