FAQs

Costing for the initiative needs to include training of facilitators (if you wish to run the events yourself - particularly recommended for organizations with large numbers of staff), venue (if offsite), and provision of plant based foods for each occasion on which the initiative is delivered (if this option is chosen (highly recommended).

The cost of using the app depends upon the size of your business and the number of users. Consulting on the initiative is charged at a daily rate.

It should be noted that PBF did not commence this initiative with the intention of profiteering in a time of crisis. Our principle intention, as enshrined in our mission statement, is to help make a difference in this time of crisis. We will go to great lengths to make it affordable for your business. Our services are priced accordingly.

How much time does it take?

The education program itself can take as long as you allow for the presentation of all educational elements, ensuing discussion, commitment and the social aspect of the event,(which is recommended to include plant based food).

We recommend allowing no less than two hours for all components.

Are there any grants/government support available for this initiative?

At the time of writing, we know of no national governments that are incentivizing climate change education or promoting dietary change initiatives financially.

We will update this answer if this situation changes.

How will doing this initiative impact a company's ESG goals?

ESG reporting mandates do not specifically highlight a need to promote dietary change.

However, since the initiative touches upon both the Environmental and Social elements, its implementation will certainly serve to highlight any business's genuine concern for the future of the planet, and would be a noteworthy contribution in a company's annual report.

It may also be reasonably anticipated that investors with an environmental protection focused mindset will favor organizations that take the initiative in proactively leading their employees towards sound climate change effecting choices.

Will we be able to show this initiative on our sustainability reporting?

Not only will this be possible, the app will show the specific contribution your staff members are making on an incremental basis, year upon year.

Are there any direct benefits for my business?

By being seen to be one of the first to be proactive in launching such an initiative, any organization may be presented with numerous opportunities to both increase awareness and alter public perception of itself, in the most positive of ways.

From a purely PR perspective, these would include the following:

Heighten awareness.
Rise above the negative, self-serving image that beleaguers corporates.
Distinguish the company in their specific marketplace.
Be perceived as a leader in the sector.
Be seen as an altruistic, world leading organisation.
Be seen as a people’s champion in the fight against global warming.
Be perceived as having a serious social conscience.
Be perceived as having a world view that extends considerably beyond making money.
Gain the support of environmental groups.
Increase eligibility for numerous environmental awards.

This would in turn have the following beneficial impacts on the business:

Generally encourage potential customers.
Specifically increase the appeal of the organization for Generation Z and increasingly, Generation Alpha.
Open a greater number of business collaboration opportunities.
Strengthen intra-business relationships.
Increase the company's ability to influence and/or collaborate with governments, the public, charities in other areas. (e.g., challenge governments to tax animal products in the way they do tobacco to promote even greater impact).

And the following benefits within the business:

Increase attractiveness to new employees.
Raise staff morale.
Improve retention levels.
Create a “we’re making a difference” and “we’re all in this together” ethos, that translates into an increase in overall teamwork.

Whilst many of the externally focused benefits would apply most impactfully to those involved at the outset, the general inwardly focused benefits would accrue to all businesses becoming involved.

It is also reasonably foreseeable that there will come a time that not being involved will be detrimental to a company's image.

How many staff do I need to do this initiative?

There is no minimum requirement for participation in the initiative. We would encourage all businesses, of all sizes in all industry sectors to get involved.

The only proviso is that for maximum impact, all staff members of business should be involved.

A key objective is to bring about widescale change in dietary habits. This involves businesses influencing one another. Therefore, it could be argued that the larger and more impactful their market presence is, the greater the potential to encourage others to become involved.

Must all my staff follow the program at the same time?

We strongly recommend that groups of people undertake the program at the same time. This does not mean that all of them have to participate at the same time. With larger businesses, it may be anticipated that the implementation could take months. In the case of a small business, it is possible that all employees could be involved at the same time.

I am an individual who would like to make a difference, can I follow the program?

Whilst the initiative is designed for corporate implementation, there is no reason why an individual should not sign up for the app.

The disadvantage of engaging in this way would be that they would not be able to plot their impact as part of any larger corporate effort.

Is there any need for people who already identify as vegan/vegetarian to be involved?

It may be the case that those who already identify as being plant based in their dietary choices would still welcome the opportunity to/benefit from attending. Their input could be invaluable in supporting their colleagues in many respects.

What if someone already eats plant based once per week?

That individual is to be congratulated for already playing their part in helping to reduce GWP gases. in much the same way as vegans and vegetarians can be involved as 'champions' for the purpose, these individuals would be asked to share their experiences of plant-based eating.

However, the initiative would ask them to go further and increase their commitment.

What about people with dietary restrictions that preclude their participation?

Those who are unable to participate in making a commitment to dietary change would simply not do so. However, there is no reason why they should not be involved in the educative process, or asked to support their colleagues in the commitment they make.

How is this initiative different from our internal climate awareness program?

The majority of internal education initiatives provide participants with knowledge that would allow them to make informed choices about their future actions. Many will highlight the different ways in which we may manage or reduce our 'carbon footprint' as a direct result of those choices. At the time of writing, we know of none that actively request participants in a learning intervention to change their diet, and ask for a monitored, measurable commitment to do so.

Do everyone have to commit to change?

The initiative creates circumstances and the ethos that supports entering into commitment to change and asks participants to consider eating a plant based diet for just one day per week.

However, it does NOT insist upon it. Ultimately, the choice is left to individuals.

Research indicates that it would be reasonable to expect a minimum of 80% of participants to register on the app.

Is the education program compulsory?

There is a case for arguing that those who are not indigenous occupants of this planet could be excluded from knowing what will befall their world and having the opportunity to participate in saving it.

However, we strongly recommend that everyone, at all levels within the organisation participate. Not only does this evidence corporate commitment, it also helps engender the wholesale commitment to a purpose and feeds a sense of mutual support.

And at least notionally, it's everyone's planet!

Is an individual's dietary choice really the responsibility of my business?

Of course not!

But is their attitude towards colleagues from the LGBTQ+ community? Or their personal behaviour with regards to respecting and not bullying colleagues? Or their stance on the skin colour of their colleagues?

The same could be said of any DEI or socially impacting initiative enacted in the workplace. Workplaces have become de facto champions or proponents of what is 'right' and acceptable for the benfit of all society.

In the light of the scientifically proven impacts of dietary choice, and the warnings of the need for change that have been issued, it begs the question, whose responsibility is it?

Consider the following.

There were once four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done, and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about it because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody, when Nobody did what Anybody could have done, and Everybody should have done.

Can you see the parallel?

There are no large scale efforts being made anywhere in the world to actively educate the mass populous about this simple way to make a difference.

Governements may not be relied upon to act.

Somebody needs to seize the initiative.

If not employers, then who? If not now, when?

How can dietary change possibly make a difference?

There is now a wealth of impartial, peer reviewed, meta-analysis, produced by some of the most respected organisations in the world, all of which conclude that we need to radically transform our food system, move away from animal product production, and embrace plant-based diets, as an essential component of addressing climate change.

This is covered on the page The Case for Dietary Change

Should any employer be telling their staff what to do?

The workshop facilitators would NOT be telling anybody what to do. They would be:

ensuring that their audience is fully aware of the importance of dietary choices in global warming.
making them aware of the absolute need for change
acquainting them with their personal opportunities to make a difference
demonstrating the impact that the individual may have
enabling them to make informed choices
empowering them to take ownership of the problem
inviting them to help make a difference to what is everyone’s problem

Freedom of choice would be respected at all times.

If a more aggressive response were deemed appropriate, it could be argued that people are constantly being told what to do in their lives. With particular regard to this initiative, the animal agriculture industry and its off shoots spend billions of dollars to ensure that the public is bombarded by imagery and selling techniques that serve the interests of their products and their income stream, whilst ignoring their global impact.

As the tobacco industry once did, they actively engage in practices designed to lead the public to a disassociation between what they do and its effects upon the planet.

Is it not appropriate for a caring employer with an altruistic agenda to also make suggestions about what should be deemed important?

As previously noted, other initiatives that the companies have felt comfortable supporting have also aimed at informing choices and altering behaviours. And these have not been geared towards bringing about benefit for the whole planet.

Why not deliver the workshops virtually?

Quite simply, the results will not be anything like as effective.

The nature of the event requests that attendees accept ideas that challenge and confront their own deeply held beliefs and personal norms.

Delivered via internet comms link, within the comfort of the home or workspace, the comfort zone afforded to the individual makes resistance to the input significantly easier, psychologically.

When utmost attention is required, it is already known that people’s concentration levels suffer during virtual meetings and that they are inclined to multi-task.

The methodology and duration of the event do not lend themselves to virtual delivery because the facilitator would be unable to:

Monitor the emotional journey of the participants.
Manage the group’s attention levels.
Recognise body keyed objections within the group.
Avoid unspoken concerns not being dealt with, that can lead to withdrawal of commitment.
Recognise and manage any form of disingenuity.
Lead individuals to the point where they willingly commit to personal change
Avoid event spoiling technical issues.

What are the advantages of attendees being physically present?

The physical presence of the audience allows the facilitator considerably more effective management of the workshop.

It affords the opportunity to recognise and deal with all of those things that virtual delivery denies (listed above).

Being physically present removes the comfort zone for the audience and makes them more willing to face/challenge their own beliefs and actions.

Attending with others physically present gives participants a key sense that 'we're all in it together', evidences the support they will get, and introduces an appropriate element of positive peer pressure.

What if our staff are too geographically distributed to participate in groups?

In circumstances where physical presence is not possible, although it is far from ideal, a remote delivery alternative is possible.

Is this initiative intended to replace our drive towards achieving Net Zero?

Absolutely not!

As explained in Why Net Zero will never be enough, although vital to our planet's wellbeing, Net Zero initiatives alone will not reduce GWP gas emissions quickly or completely enough.

The PBF initiative is intended to complement these efforts by principally targeting the Nitrous Oxide and Methane emissions that are more damaging in their impact than the CO2 emissions Net Zero initiatives target.

The initiative is a way of engaging the mass popolus, as scientists tell us we must do. And by involving employers, we are helping them to maximise their contributions to positive change.

We need to attack the problem from all fronts. Citizenry are currently not being engaged. This initiative, if spread worldwide, combined with Net Zero efforts will make a substantial difference on a global scale.

Why is there a need to try to influence people?

All major organisations already run or sponsor attendance on active learning events for their staff. Such adult education has the intention of bringing about change; affecting personal choices so as to make the individual more effective, and potentially more productive, from an organisational perspective. Hence the investment in training.

The objective of this initiative is simply to bring about change. The beneficiary is the world at large. Its delivery would be an act of altruism.

Participation in the event would be mandatory; commitment to its objectives would be optional.

No penalty would result from not agreeing to making personal commitments. There would be no affect upon the individual’s career, unlike the outcome of a training event where, if the individual is unsuccessful in applying the skills imparted, the investment is wasted, and their career progression may be impacted.

The circumstances faced by the world are sufficiently dire that a proactive approach to instigating change is not only wholly justified, but wholly necessary.

There is simply not enough time to NOT bring the truth of global circumstances to the attention of as many as possible and have them own their part in averting disaster.

Reliance upon self-guided, passive education methodologies have prompted virtually no change in our circumstances. Active measures must be taken.

In the light of what it written above, it would be a cowardly stance to shrink from taking action when something needs to be done.

The ends justify the means.

Isn't everyone already sufficiently aware of the problem?

Are they?

Research suggests that the knowledge level of the average person extends to the following:

There is a global warming problem.
It is caused by CO2.
CO2 is created by the actions of big businesses and the burning of fossil fuels.
Our diet somehow plays a role in this.
There are numerous initiatives to sort this out.
Time is getting short.
The climate is changing.
It could be disastrous.

Awareness about global warming is gleaned by most people through stories in the media.

Research further suggests that the average person is either unaware of, or choses to ignore the following:

CO2 is not the only GWP gas we need to be concerned about.
Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 25% of GWP gases.
GWP gases produced in the animal agriculture industry include Nitrous Oxide and Methane.
Nitrous Oxide and Methane are far more damaging than CO2.
The impact of animal agriculture is disproportionately destructive in its creation of GWP gases.
Animal agriculture means the food we eat.
If everyone changed their diet to a plant based one, if only once per week, it could make a substantive difference to climate change.

Can we afford to let people be ignorant of these facts?

Can we afford that people do not act on this knowledge?

Why not just leave it to the individual’s freedom of choice?

When presented with a range of information that is not delivered specifically to them, adults chose to ignore what:

challenges their comfort zone.
does not meet with their liking.
mismatches with their currently held opinions.
does not directly offer what they perceive to be personal benefits to them.

Whilst there are those who will feel a personal level of ownership for the problem of global warming, people may view the data that is presented to them in many ways, including:

Indifference based upon over familiarity
Stubborn disbelief (often borne out of fear)
Dull acceptance that global warming is an inevitability
A genuine (but self-serving) belief that the individual is powerless to make a difference
A belief that the blame and therefore the responsibility for global warming lies elsewhere (somewhat endorsed by corporate initiatives which can appear as the culprits cleaning up after themselves)
Denial that global warming is real

Yet even amongst those who protest and demand action over global warming, there is still a disconnection between a strongly held conviction that something needs to happen, and a realisation of what they may do personally, daily.

To date, passive education about the climate crisis has done virtually nothing to affect the dietary habits of the mass populous.

The average understanding of the issue is cursory.

What about cultural or political issues?

Globally, eating a plant-based diet once a week is only potentially at odds with the South American cultures. South America is traditionally known as a ‘carnivore’s Utopia’, but personal choices that differ from the norm do not present a problem.

Politically, the initiative would need to ensure that the message given did not ‘put people in fear of foodstuffs or their means of production.’ This is particularly the case in the US, and to a certain extent, China.

On a global scale, isn’t the impact going to be meaningless?

Let's use an example of a global bank.

HSBC employs only around .00286% of the world’s population, therefore it can be argued that such an intervention would indeed be meaningless.

However, the event is only intended as a beginning.

Reference to the objectives make it clear that a large component of the purpose of the initiative relates to prompting others to follow suit.

The numbers alter radically if a percentage of Dunbar’s number groups and potential allies in the initiative join in. For instance:

Add 10% of their Dunbar’s number to the HSBC employees, and the initiative reaches .0457% of the world’s population.
Add together the employees of HSBC, plus just a few of the other members of the Terra Carta Sustainable Markets Initiative Financial Services Taskforce (who arer already committed to Net Zero) Citi, BNP Paribas and Bank of America and 10% of their Dunbar’s number, and the initiative reaches .16% of the world’s population.
Add to this figure the employees (and 10% of their Dunbar’s number) of the founders of Race To Zero (IKEA, Kingfisher, H&M, Walmart) and the initiative reaches .71% of the world’s population. (56,294,016 people)
That would result in a reduction of 12,026,766 tonnes of GWP gases per annum if each of these people ate only plant-based foods for just one day per week.

Aren’t the estimates for impact overly ambitious?

On the contrary.

The estimates fail to consider the real potential for the spread of the initiative.
The widespread media interest that can be expected regarding the initiative should bring the issue of personal ownership firmly to the attention of the public.
It should ignite a spark of interest in those who have been concerned but hereto failed to make or ignored the direct connection between their dietary choices and the need for action.
A far broader range of businesses than have hereto engaged in Net Zero initiatives could be expected or encouraged to embark upon their own initiatives.
Broader lobbying activities that could be undertaken in the business world have not been considered.
Figures for influencing Dunbar’s number groups have been conservatively estimated.
The number of days of eating a plant-based diet that individuals may wish to commit to, or work up to, has been conservatively estimated.
The potential for individuals to take the initiative to heart and commit to total dietary change has not been considered or factored into the estimates.

What will happen to the animals bred for animal agriculture, that will no longer be required

A reduction in demand for meat and dairy products will result in a corresponding reduction in the numbers of animals bred for consumption and food production usage. There would not be an immediate cessation of animal agriculture, resulting in unwanted animals.