Tag: Sound

When a company’s enviro claims sound convincing …

Many companies contribute to the climate crisis and make a profit doing so. As consumers and governments pressure them to reduce their carbon emissions, they look for ways to make themselves appear environmentally friendly. This is called green marketing.

As a journalist, you need to learn to spot what a business really means by its green marketing.

Greenwashing is when a brand makes itself seem more sustainable than it really is, as a way to get consumers to buy their product. For example, let’s look at fashion, an industry that is responsible for between 2 and 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

In the absence of environmental legislation around the fashion industry a business might get themselves certified under a sustainability certification scheme — these are standards developed by governments or industry groups or NGOs to measure such things as energy efficiency or processes that are low carbon or carbon neutral. There are more than 100 different such certification programs.

Companies tout these certifications. But a 2022 study by the Changing Markets Foundation (CMF) found that the standards set by the majority of the 10 or more popular certification initiatives for the fashion industry aren’t difficult to meet and lack accountability.

Artificial claims about sustainability

Fast fashion relies on cheap synthetic fibers, which are produced from fossil fuels such as oil and gas. And while you might assume that clothing with labels such as “eco” or “sustainable” might have fewer synthetics, you’d unfortunately be wrong.

Another study by CMF found that H&M’s “conscious” clothing range, for example, contained 72% synthetics — which was higher than the percentage in their main collection (61%). And it’s not just H&M. While the same study found that 39% of products made some kind of green claim, almost 60% of these claims did not match the guidelines set out by the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

The same is happening in the meat and dairy industry. Companies say they are reducing their environmental footprint by engaging in “regenerative agriculture”, a farming approach that aims to restore and improve ecosystem health. They argue that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps store carbon in the soil.

But relying on carbon storing in soil is not enough. An article in Nature Communications found that around 135 gigatonnes of stored carbon would be required to offset the emissions that come from the agriculture sector. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon lost due to agriculture over the past 12,000 years, according to CMF.

But companies grab onto these empty promises, perhaps knowing that the general public might only see regenerative agriculture and other “green narratives” as promising.

Look for real solutions to climate change.

For example, Nestlé tells their customers that it is addressing the carbon footprint of the agriculture industry by supporting regenerative agriculture, stating on its website that in 2024, some 21% of the ingredients they source come from farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices.

When you understand that regenerative agriculture is not the solution it has been made out to be, only then can you see through Nestlé’s branding.

So how can you spot greenwashing?

Let’s say you saw a press release from a company in an industry that has historically relied heavily on fossil fuels. It tells its readers that it plans to be carbon neutral by a certain date, or that it’s using recycled materials for a large portion of its production, or that its future is “green”.

You might first wonder, is this an example of how companies are moving away from fossil fuels and towards a green future? How can you tell?

1. Be skeptical.

When something has to tell you that it is green, it might not be. Start your investigation right there.

For example, if you were looking at Nestlé’s regenerative agriculture campaign, you would need to find out what regenerative agriculture is and how much it is indeed reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You can do this by starting with a good Google search: e.g “regenerative agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions”.

Once you click on a number of articles that report on this topic, you’ll be able to read about the different studies and data into the topic. Follow the sources used when an article cites a study or data. The article should hyperlink or list the sources. But those hyperlinks might take you to other secondary sources — other articles that cited the same data.

For example, an article might cite this statistic: sustainability certifications increase consumer willingness to pay by approximately 7% on average. The article might cite as the source this study published in the journal Nature. But that article isn’t the original source of that data. It came from a 2014 study published in the Journal of Retailing.

So try to find the primary source and see how credible or reputable it is. Who conducted the research in the first place?

If you wanted to find out what H&M’s “conscious” range really meant, you would start by looking at H&M’s website and reports to look further into their claims. Then, follow those claims.

2. Research the wider industry.

Whether you’re reporting on fashion, agriculture or any other industry, look into where its emissions are coming from, which companies are claiming what and what the evidence says needs to be done in order for these industries to reduce their emissions.

Providing context is important. What percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions is this industry responsible for? Is it getting better or worse? What legislation is in place to reduce emissions from these industries? In order for you and your audience to understand the greenwashing of any company, this background information is vital.

3. Go straight to the company.

Once you’ve conducted some initial research, follow up with the company if you are using it as an example or focus for your article. On Nestlé’s website, for example, you can find contact details for their communications, media or PR department. Send them an email saying something like the following:

“I am writing an article on regenerative agriculture and I’ve found some studies that show that soil sequestration through these practices are in fact not enough to be a real climate solution. Can you please provide me with a comment on what Nestlé thinks about this?”

They might not answer, but that also says a lot. If they don’t reply to you after one or two follow-up emails, you might try calling them.

If you try several times and in different ways to contact them and they failed to respond, you can state that in your article. That way your readers know you made the effort.

Claims from corporations that they are doing all they can to help the planet are easy to make. But if we really want to slow down climate change, significant efforts have to be made. And it is the role of journalists to hold companies to account for the claims they make.

Questions to consider:

1. What is “greenwashing”

2. What is one example of greenwashing?

3. What criteria do you use when deciding whether to buy a company’s product?

Source link

October 31, 2025
Can you make your podcast sound great?

Emotion and identity

The third layer gives a podcast emotion and the three elements, together, make the sound of a podcast, he said.

“So, it’s not just music,” he said. “These three elements move together during the narration.”

The goal is to combine music and sound effects to create a “rhythm of narration.” After an important word, he might create a pause and in it increase the music. After that, come sound effects.

Caminero wanted to know what Micheli considers when creating music to give a podcast emotion and identity. Micheli said that an important part of the process is to re-listen to what you have done to try to create consistent sound.

“It’s very important because we spend a lot of time on the timeline,” he said. “We work a lot in depth on the details, but at a certain point you have to change your position and change your mind and you have to become not a creator, you have to become a listener.”

You don’t always need to create original music for your podcast soundtrack. Micheli suggests combining original music with music you can find in a sound library, but note that it isn’t easy. “It is quite a job to find the right music, right sound in this gigantic archive and match together original music and other music,” he said. “I think it’s the best way for creating the sound for a podcast.”

Creating original music makes the most sense for podcasts that are documentaries or fiction, Micheli said. But most important is that the podcast must have a good story and script first.

Questions to consider:

1. What does Micheli mean by a “rhythm of narration”?

2. How can you add great sound to a podcast if you can’t compose music yourself?

3. If you were to create a podcast series what would it be about and what kind of sound would you use?

Source link

July 30, 2025
OfS continues to sound the alarm on the financial sustainability of English higher education

For the third year in a row, the English higher education sector’s collective financial performance is in decline.

That is the conclusion of the latest annual assessment of the sector’s financial sustainability from the Office for Students (OfS), based on finance returns for 2023-24.

Overall, after stiff warnings this time last year about the risks of system-wide provider deficits if projected student number growth failed to materialise, OfS says that many providers are taking steps to manage their finances, by reducing costs and downgrading recruitment growth projections. It remains unlikely, says OfS, that a large provider will become insolvent in the coming financial year.

But 43 per cent of providers are forecasting a deficit for the current financial year 2024–25, and there is an overall decline in overall surplus and liquidity – albeit with the expectation of growth in the years ahead. While larger teaching-intensive and medium sized providers were more likely to report a deficit, there is also quite a lot of variation between providers in different groups – meaning that institution type is not a reliable guide to financial circumstances.

Recruitment woes

Student recruitment is the most material driver of financial pressure, specifically, a home and international student market that appears insufficient to fill the number of places institutions aspire to offer. The broad trend of institutions forecasting student number growth in hopes of offsetting rising costs – including national insurance and pension contributions – makes it unlikely that all will achieve their ambitions. There’s evidence that the sector has scaled back its expectations, with aggregate forecast growth until 2027–28 lower than previous forecasts. But OfS warns that the aggregate estimate of an increase of 26 per cent in UK entrants and 19.5 per cent in non-UK entrants between 2023–24 and 2027–28 remains too optimistic.

Questioned further on this phenomenon, OfS Director of Regulation Philippa Pickford noted that there is significant variation in forecasts between different providers, and that given the wider volatility in student recruitment it can be really quite difficult to project future numbers. The important thing, she stressed, is that providers plan for a range of possible scenarios, and have a mitigation plan in place if projections are not achieved. She added that OfS is considering whether it might give more information to providers upfront about the range of scenarios it expects to see evidence of having been considered.

Storing up trouble

While the focus of the financial sustainability is always going to be on the institutional failure scenario, arguably an equally significant concern is the accumulation of underlying structural weaknesses caused by year-on-year financial pressures. OfS identifies risks around deferral of estates maintenance, suspension of planned physical or digital infrastructure investments, and a significant increase in subcontractual (franchising) arrangements that require robust governance.

All this is manifesting in some low-key emergency finance measures such as relying on lending to support operating cashflow where there is low liquidity at points in the year, selling assets, renegotiation of terms of covenants with lenders, or seeking injections of cash from donors, benefactors or principal shareholders. Generally, and understandably, the finance lending terms available to the sector are much more limited than they have been in the past and the cost of borrowing has risen. The general increases in uncertainty are manifest in the increased work auditors are doing to be able to confirm that institutions remain a “going concern.” Such measures can address short-term financial challenges but in most cases they are not a viable long term strategy for sustainability.

OfS reiterates the message that providers are obligated to be financially sustainable while delivering a high quality student learning experience and following through on all commitments made to students – but it’s clear that frontline services are in the frame for cuts and/or that there is a limit to the ability to reduce day-to-day spending or close courses even when they are loss-making if there is likely to be an impact on institutional mission and reputation. Discussions between OfS and directors of finance point to a range of wider challenges around increased need for student support, the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff, the increasing costs of conducting research, and shifts in the student accommodation rental market. Some even pointed to the cost of investment in AI-detection software.

The future is murky

The bigger picture points to long term (albeit unpredictable) shifts in the underlying financial model for HE. Philippa Pickford’s view is that institutions may need to shift from taking a short-term view of financial risks to a longer-term horizon, and will need to grapple with what a sustainable long term future for the institution looks like if the market looks different from what they have been used to. Deferral of capital investment, for example, may keep things going for a year or two but it can’t be put off indefinitely. There’s a hint in the report that some institutions may need to invest in greater skills, expertise and capacity to understand and navigate this complicated financial territory – and OfS is taking an increased interest in multi-year trends in financial performance, estates data and capital investment horizons in its discussions with providers.

The situation remains, however, that OfS is primarily empowered to monitor, discuss, convene and, if necessary, issue directives relating to student protection. Activity of this nature has ramped up considerably in the past year, but financial sustainability remains, at base, individual providers’ responsibility – and system-level intervention on things like changing patterns of provision, or management of the wider impact of institutional insolvency, nobody in particular’s. Government is, of course, aware of the problem but has not yet given a steer on whether its upcoming HE reform measures, expected to be published in the summer after the spending review, will grasp the nettle in delivering the support for transformation the sector hopes to see.

OfS has now said that it is talking to government to put forward the view that there should be a special administration regime for higher education. This signals that while the immediate risks of institutional closure or “disorderly market exit” are low, the pressures on a small number of institutions remain considerable. On the assumption of little or very modest changes in the funding model in the upcoming spending review, and ongoing competitive pressures, there will almost inevitably be losers.

Source link

May 8, 2025
Accreditors Sound Off on Executive Order

President Donald Trump followed through on his campaign trail rhetoric Wednesday, taking aim at accreditors in an executive order that targets diversity, equity and inclusion standards; makes it easier for institutions to switch accrediting agencies; and opens the door for new entrants.

In May 2023, Trump said in a campaign video that accreditors had failed “to ensure that schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.” He promised to “fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics,” adding that his administration would accept applications for new accreditors to “impose real standards.” Nearly two years later, he revealed his plan to “fire” accreditors in the executive order.

The directive accused accreditors of failing to hold institutions accountable for mediocre graduation rates and for leaving students with “enormous debt.” Trump also charged accreditors with having “unlawfully discriminatory practices” related to DEI standards.

In response, accrediting bodies have suggested that the executive order’s conclusions about their approach to DEI are sweeping and untrue, and argue that new accreditors should be held to the same standards as existing bodies. They also noted their willingness to work with the Trump administration.

Higher education experts and support organizations were much sharper in their critiques, save for some conservative commentators who applauded the accreditation reforms as necessary.

Accreditors Weigh In

The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, which represents all major institutional accreditors, pushed back on Trump’s order in a statement Wednesday.

“Accrediting agencies are instrumental to promoting quality assurance and protecting student and taxpayer investments in higher education,” C-RAC president Heather Perfetti, who also leads Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote in the statement. “While we firmly reject President Trump’s mischaracterization of accreditors’ role in the nation’s postsecondary education system, we stand ready to work with the Secretary of Education on policies that will advance our shared mission of enhancing quality, innovation, integrity, and accountability.”

In an accompanying fact sheet, C-RAC disputed Trump’s claim that DEI standards conflict with state and federal law and that accreditors had failed to hold institutions accountable, among other allegations.

Other accreditors released their own individual statements.

“Contrary to claims of lax oversight, [the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges] has taken necessary action against institutions that fail to meet ACCJC Standards and has seen continued improvements across the membership in financial stability, completion rates, and compliance with ACCJC Eligibility,” ACCJC president Mac Powell wrote on Wednesday.

While the Higher Learning Commission quoted from the C-RAC letter, officials also emphasized in a Thursday statement that HLC’s standards “require compliance with all applicable laws.”

“HLC’s requirements do not mandate decision making or preferences based on federally protected characteristics; prescribe any specific training or programming involving concepts related to diversity, equity or inclusion; nor require that an institution have elements as part of its curriculum involving concepts related to diversity, equity or inclusion,” agency officials wrote.

The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities also emailed a statement from Interim President Jeff Fox on Thursday in which he emphasized that any changes to accreditation as proposed by the Trump administration must not weaken the core mission of accreditors.

“Accreditation ensures institutions remain accountable to their missions and the students they serve,” Fox wrote in a statement. “NWCCU strongly supports thoughtful reform in higher education that expands access, improves outcomes, and supports all students. At the same time, such reforms must preserve the foundational safeguards of accreditation, which are critical for upholding academic quality, institutional integrity, and the responsible use of public resources.”

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission wrote in an emailed statement that it was assessing how the order might affect its standards.

“WSCUC remains committed to assuring educational quality, institutional effectiveness, and the success of every student. Our Standards emphasize academic excellence and institutional integrity in service of student success and meaningful student outcomes. We are working diligently to provide clear guidance on our Standards for all accredited and candidate institutions, maintaining our focus on student success,” WSCUC officials wrote.

(In December WSCUC rejected a proposal to drop DEI language from its standards.)

In Trump’s Crosshairs

The executive order also called out three organizations by name.

The Trump administration specifically took aim at the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, over DEI standards.

Trump accused the ABA accreditor of violating federal law by asking its members to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion, which includes efforts to recruit a diverse student body in terms of race, gender and ethnicity. (ABA, as noted in the executive order, suspended enforcement of its DEI standards in February.)

Contacted by Inside Higher Ed, ABA declined to comment.

Trump leveled similar criticism at LCME and ACGME, arguing that both maintained an inappropriate focus on diversity and that “standards for training tomorrow’s doctors should focus solely on providing the highest quality care, and certainly not on requiring unlawful discrimination.”

LCME struck a conciliatory tone in an emailed statement.

“In agreement with the Executive Order, the LCME shares the Administration’s goal that medical education programs and their graduates be of the highest caliber. In pursuit of this shared goal, the LCME will work with the Administration to provide requested information and to provide evidence of our ongoing commitment to outcomes-based evaluations of medical education program quality with the goal of producing outstanding physicians,” LCME officials wrote.

An ACGME spokesperson wrote by email that the organization is “currently evaluating the President’s Executive Order and its implications for our accreditation standards.”

A Range of Reactions

Trump’s executive order spurred both positive and sharply negative reactions across the higher education sector.

Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute, argued that the possible revocation of recognition of “accreditors that require their colleges to discriminate” was “on more solid ground” than “other anti-DEI initiatives from the [Trump] administration.” He also noted that the executive order directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon “to launch an experimental and voluntary quality assurance program,” arguing that “such an experiment could serve as a prototype for a much better accountability system in the future” if properly implemented.

Career Education Colleges and Universities, a trade association for for-profit institutions, celebrated the executive order on accreditation, as well as another that landed the same day in which Trump promised federal investments in workforce development and to expand apprenticeships.

“These long-overdue reforms will expedite America’s leadership in manufacturing and the skilled trades, greatly expanding the pipeline of qualified workers for in-demand jobs,” CECU president and CEO Jason Altmire wrote. “With these actions, President Trump has taken a significant step in providing increased opportunity for students to pursue their goals and life passions, while ensuring educational programs are held accountable for student outcomes.”

Other groups were less sanguine.

Officials at the Institute for College Access and Success blasted the executive order, arguing that it would open the door to accreditation shopping, allow inappropriate political pressures to seep into college classrooms and undermine data collection to improve student outcomes.

“The federal government should not dictate what is taught in college classrooms or prevent universities from collecting data that will help them serve their students better,” TICAS president Sameer Gadkaree wrote. “Without data disaggregating performance by race, ethnicity, or sex, accreditors—along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers—will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.”

The American Association of University Professors also struck a sharply critical tone, casting the executive order as “yet another attempt to dictate” classroom instruction on college campuses.

“Threats to remove accreditors from their roles are transparent attempts to consolidate more power in the hands of the Trump administration in order to stifle teaching and research. These attacks are aimed at removing educational decision-making from educators and reshaping higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda,” AAUP officials wrote in a statement.

The AAUP also noted the historic role of accreditors in policing predatory institutions, such as the president’s own Trump University, a for-profit institution that shut down in 2010. In 2017, a federal judge approved a $25 million settlement for 6,000-plus students who alleged they were misled by the then–real estate mogul. Trump did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement.

“Accrediting agencies have protected both students and the government from wasting money on scam institutions—like Trump University—that engage in deceit and grift. Trump’s executive order makes both students and the government more vulnerable to such fraud,” AAUP officials wrote.

Source link

April 25, 2025