For centuries, the Roncal Valley, in the Navarrese Pyrenees, has pleased the world’s palates through the unique cheese that bears its name. The first Spanish cheese to receive Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status, Roncal owes its signature piquant bouquet to a closely guarded production process, which has historically used the milk of an indigenous breed of sheep called the latxa. This breed, named after the Basque word for “sour,” is productive enough to satisfy the artisanal needs of the local cheese-making industry.

Problems arose, however, when some family farms in adjoining villages began importing assaf sheep from Israel, which could yield more—about seven times more—milk with far less labor. From a profit-driven perspective, replacing the homely latxa with the powerhouse assaf would appear a no-brainer.

Indeed, the Roncal Regulatory Council, with strong representation by the cheese processors, successfully appealed to the European Union to open the PDO to include cheese produced with assaf milk. But the farmers of Roncal protested, winning the next Council elections, and successfully lobbied the EU to rescind the inclusion of assaf milk.

On the surface, centuries-old cheese-making traditions in a remote valley in northern Spain might seem worlds apart from modern business practice. But Sarah Wittman, assistant professor of management at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at George Mason University, argues that the Roncal farmers represent a common type of organizational activity overlooked by past researchers.

Her recent paper in Organizational Theory, co-authored by Frédéric Godart of INSEAD, investigates what motivates “purist” organizations, like the Roncal cheese artisans, for whom success is not entirely defined by market-driven metrics.

Speaking of the world-renowned Trappist monks, who brew what many claim is the best-tasting beer in the world out of monasteries in Belgium and the Netherlands, Wittman explains, “They’re not doing it because they’re in the market. They’re doing it because that’s what enables them to be monks.”

At the same time, they take great pride in their ales because the quality of their product is bound up with their religious vocation. Wittman summarizes their working ethos as, “I brew beer as a religious object, and I’m going to give everything to it because this is my religious task.”

Purists, then, march to a very different drummer than more “rational,” or conventional, organizations. Instead of crafting a brand identity to woo consumers, purists find fulfillment through activity that affirms their firmly held sense of self. While they will go to great lengths to preserve their purity when it is threatened, they will not take a single step that would possibly compromise their integrity.

Wittman’s paper teases out how purism can affect organizational structure, strategy and success. The researchers posit that a compartmentalized structure may emerge within larger organizations, whereby pockets of purism are allowed to exist amid more conventionally motivated businesses. An example would be the most innovative R&D units at 3M, which are largely insulated from market pressures so as to safeguard their creativity.

The researchers further theorize that because purists’ real motivation—affirming their sense of identity—often has little to do with the business they happen to be in (e.g. monks brewing beer), purists are more likely to be game-changers in their field, rather than following established industry practice.

For purists to be successful in the marketplace, they need to find an appreciative audience that doesn’t mistake their scruples for snobbery. Tastemakers in relevant fields, whose refined sensibilities respond well to purism, can make a big difference by conferring higher status upon purists. This, in turn, can help influence the opinions of consumers, shareholders, etc.

Additionally, purists can let their results speak for them, as with the Trappist monks. Ordinary beer-drinkers may or may not care about the monks’ religious devotion, but will nonetheless pay a premium for a beverage that meets the highest taste standards.

However, purists can attract contempt if their way of working is seen to conflict with basic norms that the audience holds dear. ESG investment funds which follow a social rather than capitalist logic, for example, have alienated some in the conventional finance world for upholding a set of standards perceived to deviate from the core task of making money. One could imagine that an NGO whose purism centered around chasing big-money donors instead of providing services would be condemned just as readily.

Wittman hopes her research will widen the scope of conversations around the organizational mission and meaningful work. “We cannot explain everything with this market-economy survival motive, because there exists a logic outside of that.

“What we most often study (and teach) in business schools is that everyone succumbs to the market and plays the competitive positioning game or goes out of business. But if purists have enough power, gain enough status, then there is this bolstering of support that says either they’re legitimate or they’re authentic—then they’re the ones who create the market.”

Artificial intelligence (AI) is curating your social media feed and giving you directions to the train station. It’s also throwing the fossil fuel industry a lifeline.

Three of the biggest tech companies, Microsoft, Google and Meta, have reported ballooning greenhouse gas emissions since 2020. Data centers packed with servers running AI programs day and night are largely to blame.

AI models consume a lot of electricity, and the World Economic Forum estimated in April that the computer power dedicated to AI is doubling every 100 days. Powering this boom in the US, where many AI tech pioneers are based, have been revitalized gas power plants once slated for closure.

First, what actually is AI?

AI sucks (power and water)

“At its core, the kind of AI we are seeing in consumer products today identifies patterns,” say Sandra Peter and Kai Riemer, computing experts at the University of Sydney.

“Unlike traditional coding, where developers explicitly program how a system works, AI ‘learns’ these patterns from vast datasets, enabling it to perform tasks.”

While AI programs are being “trained” and fed huge sums of data over several weeks and months, data processors run 24/7. Once up to speed, an AI can use 33 times more energy to complete a function than traditional software.

In fact, a single query to an AI-powered chatbot can consume 10 times as much energy as a traditional Google search according to Gordon Noble and Fiona Berry, sustainability researchers at the University of Technology Sydney.

“This enormous demand for energy translates into surges in carbon emissions and water use, and may place further stress on electricity grids already strained by climate change,” they say.

Data centers are thirsty as well as power-hungry: millions of liters of water have to be pumped to keep them cool.

These enormous server warehouses are vying with people for an increasing share of power and water, a situation which could prove deadly during a heat wave or drought.

A dubious solution

Experts only have a partial picture of AI’s resource diet, Noble and Berry argue. One survey showed that just 5% of sustainability professionals in Australia believed data center operators provided detailed information about their environmental impact.

Its fierce appetite aside, AI is feted as a Swiss army knife of fixes for our ailing planet.

AI’s ability to process mountains of data means it could spot the warning signs of a building storm or flood and track how the environment is changing say Ehsan Noroozinejad and Seyedali Mirjalili, AI experts at Western Sydney University and Torrens University Australia respectively.

“For example, it can reportedly measure changes in icebergs 10,000 times faster than a human can,” they add.

Kirk Chang and Alina Vaduva, management experts at the University of East London, highlight hopes that AI might make simulations of Earth’s climate more accurate.

AI could closely monitor an entire electricity grid and coordinate generators so that they waste less energy while meeting demand. AI models could identify materials for sorting in a recycling facility and analyze air pollution to pinpoint its sources. On farms, AI systems could track weather and soil conditions to ensure crops receive only as much water as they need.

However, AI’s claims to efficiency are sadly undermined by a well-worn problem. When humanity makes an activity more efficient through innovation, the energy or resource savings are generally plowed into expanding that activity or others.

“The convenience of an autonomous vehicle may increase people’s travel and in a worst-case scenario, double the amount of energy used for transport,” says Felippa Amanta, a Ph.D. candidate in digital technologies and climate change.

And while there is value in imagining what AI might help us do, it is important to recognize what it is already doing. An investigation by Scientific American found AI was deployed in oil extraction in 2019 to substantially increase production. Elsewhere, targeted advertising that uses AI creates demand for material goods. More mass-produced stuff, more emissions.

Does our answer to climate change need to be high-tech?

During a climate disaster like Hurricane Helene, which claimed more than 150 lives in the south-eastern US over the weekend, a reliable power supply is often the first thing to go. AI can be of little help in these circumstances.

Low-tech solutions to life’s problems are generally more resilient and low carbon. Indeed, most of them—like fruit walls, that used renewable energy to grow Mediterranean produce in England as early as the Middle Ages—have been around for a very long time.

“‘Low-tech’ does not mean a return to medieval ways of living. But it does demand more discernment in our choice of technologies—and consideration of their disadvantages,” says Chris McMahon, an engineering expert at the University of Bristol.

“What’s more, low-tech solutions often focus on conviviality. This involves encouraging social connections, for example through communal music or dance, rather than fostering the hyper-individualism encouraged by resource-hungry digital devices.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The next time you’re looking to cheer up a friend or loved one, giving them a small gift—flowers, candy, a homemade treat—may lift their spirits faster and better than a supportive talk.

A new research paper co-authored by Hillary Wiener, assistant professor of marketing at UAlbany’s Massry School of Business, finds that receivers of support “perceive a gift to be a larger sacrifice” by the support giver rather than a conversation. This perceived difference in sacrifice results in gifts being more effective at “promoting emotional recovery” or, in other words, making recipients feel better.

The paper, “Money can buy me love: Gifts are a more effective form of acute social support than conversations,” was published in August by the Journal of Consumer Psychology. Co-authors are Holly Howe from HEC Montreal and Tanya Chartrand from Duke University.

“A gift that’s given—outside of a birthday or holidays—feels more like they were really thinking about you. They went out of their way to do something special for you,” Wiener says of the findings. “And it’s that feeling of being cared about that makes people feel better.”

The research deployed seven studies, including a behavioral analysis of live interactions between 81 pairs of genuine friends with actual sacrifices of time and money. In that study, the friends were assigned roles of “support givers” and “support receivers.”

The latter group wrote private notes, unseen by researchers, about situations for which they wanted support. The former group, the givers, were further divided to either give a small gift or to have a talk with their friend. Researchers checked to ensure the gifts and time were of comparable value. As expected, the support recipients reported feeling better after receiving the gifts versus having the talks. The six other studies examined aspects such as why recipients perceive gifts as a larger sacrifice, the intentionality of the gift and how direct enjoyment plays a role.

Wiener knows that the finding may seem counterintuitive, perhaps even controversial to some.

“I think there’s this idea in society that … talking to others can be difficult and that you shouldn’t just buy your way out of doing it,” says Wiener. “What I really like about this finding is that it’s kind of a win-win where the thing that feels easier for the giver is actually more beneficial for recipient.”

Wiener and her researcher partners acknowledge more studies need to be done and caution that constant gifts and higher perceived levels of sacrifice could actually cause feelings of indebtedness or even guilt in the recipient. If you’re thinking that springing for a shared gift experience, like a spa treatment or kayaking trip is the perfect answer, the researchers say to consider that the gesture could be perceived by the recipient as partially self-motivated.

Still, the next time you want to help lift someone’s spirits and you’re tempted to talk it out, maybe reach for the gift wrap instead.

British online bank Revolut on Thursday urged Facebook owner Meta to reimburse victims of password security breaches, blasting the US tech giant’s data-sharing partnership with several UK banks as “woefully” inadequate.

“Revolut is calling for Meta to commit to the reimbursement of fraud victims, arguing its data sharing initiative with UK banks and financial institutions falls woefully short of what’s required to tackle fraud globally,” the UK fintech firm said in a statement.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, unveiled in a press release on Wednesday a partnership with British banks NatWest and Metro Bank designed to help protect customers against cyber fraud—including fake job, purchase or identity scams—by sharing data.

But with a Revolut consumer security and financial crime report showing that Meta platforms are the source of 62 percent cyber fraud attacks reported to the UK firm, Revolut’s head of financial crimes Woody Malouf said “these are baby steps when what the industry really needs is giant steps forward” to tackle such scams.

“These platforms share no responsibility in reimbursing victims and so they have no incentive to do anything about it. A commitment to data sharing, albeit needed, simply is not good enough,” Malouf added in a statement.

“Revolut is deeply concerned that the initiative does not address what’s required to tackle fraud.

“The emphasis is once again being placed on financial institutions to supply data on scams seen on Meta platforms, rather than Meta investing more to monitor their own sites” while “this initiative is only focused on the UK, when fraud is a global issue impacting consumers and businesses across many countries.”

Revolut said that Meta “potentially” profits from fake and fraudulent adverts.

“Fraud is a multi-sector spanning issue that can only be addressed by working collaboratively,” said a Meta spokesman in response.

The company said its data sharing program was designed so it could work with banks “to protect people using our respective services”.

It urged Revolut, which was founded in 2015 and has 45 million clients worldwide, to join its program.

© 2024 AFP