Here is my absurd attempt to make this happen 😁 carrotmob.org/campaign/elo...

Here is my quixotic quest to make this happen in hilarious fashion carrotmob.org/campaign/elo...

Agreed it’s unlikely to happen, but yesterday I created this campaign to try, in the funniest way I can imagine 😂 carrotmob.org/campaign/elo...

Yesterday I launched a new site, focused on a campaign to prank Elon Musk and try to get him to go to therapy, while also feeding Mexican immigrants. With you, I seem to have found my perfect target audience 💞😂 carrotmob.org/campaign/elo...

Yeah, working on this! There are 3 methods to try. The 1st one can work on small businesses and I want to try creating a test campaign in the next few weeks. Then we’ll start using the Hijack Capitalism app to discuss good target businesses. Later we’d try the second and third methods. More soon!

5) As a back up or alternative to any of these methods we should just have an army of activists and we can punish them in all the good old fashioned activist ways.

Overall, I hope that the need for enforcement will be rare, since we should be designing win-win scenarios where they want to change.

4) In some cases if we're operating in the stock market context, we get the company to publicly promise to continue this. When they break the promise, we attack them, their stock price drops, and both us and Wall Street could team up to successfully sue them for securities fraud

2) In some cases we can actually sign a contract with the company so they are legally required to continue
3) In some cases we can have them put $20m in an escrow account and then if the third party (ie: PwC) determines that the company violated the agreement, they donate the $20m to a climate org

You have such good questions!! Enforcement options vary depending on the approach we take. Here are some methods we may use in different scenarios:
1) If companies believe they are actually getting great marketing from the action, they may still want to keep doing it even without enforcement...

...before both companies would have said "we can't possibly comply with these impossible regulations!" but now that Target did it, Walmart can no longer claim that it's impossible so the law is easier to pass. We can kind of blaze the trail so government intervention gets easier.

...however, just by successfully getting Target, we have: 1) gotten this on many customer's radars, so even without another campaign 2) those customers now have higher expectations of Walmart and Walmart looks worse for dumping, plus 3) it's easy for congress to pass a law banning dumping since...

...or start out with a competition, like we are going to give our business exclusively to whichever one of you makes the most impressive commitment. It's possible that we could pull off rewarding both at once, but I'd bet against it. I think the model kind of needs to declare one winner at a time...

There will be a lot of complexity here but I think you're probably correct. This will work best in a competitive dynamic, and Target would find it most compelling if they knew they were getting a long-term competitive advantage. So we could promise them that we wouldn't reward Walmart for 3 years...

13/ So those are some reasons why I believe the simple act of moving the battlefield from Congress to commerce will increase the power of progressives relative to conservatives. What do you think?

12/ The most valuable employees in the most important companies tend to be urban, educated, open-minded, creative, and hold more progressive mindsets. That’s already a favorable bias among the decision makers, but biz must also make sure those employees feel that their employer matches their values.