What if the law changes?
Governments as well as legal persons such as companies are undoubtedly important players in this whole societal shift towards climate mitigation and adaption. When it comes to corporates though, and notably stock quoted companies, there is a group of people that is most prominently exposed in regards to the legality and societal ‘license to operate’ of a company: the Board of Directors (BoD). The question hence for this blog post is: How is this climate litigation business shaping up to affect the Board of Directors of publicly listed companies?
What if the law changes?
Governments are undoubtedly important players in this whole societal shift towards climate mitigation and adaption. Equally important though, and by the argument of some possibly even more important: companies, the corporate world. The largest number of cases on a global level are brought forward against governments. But about a forth of all cases are filed against corporations. This is not negligible - and, maybe more importantly, a number on a brisk raising trajectory. The question hence for this blog post is: How is this climate litigation business shaping up to affect corporate players?
What if the law changes?
Litigation, going to court, is by definition not a fun business. And yet, in this 2023 several Climate Litigation cases have already caught the headline – and many more are in the makes. Among all the court cases, one particular case sticks out like – depending on the political viewpoint – either a lighthouse of hope, or a sore thumb: Urgenda vs Government of the Netherlands. In this blog post we dig deeper into this case: Who was going to court against whom? And why exactly? How come the plaintiffs won? And: is this just a one off local phenomenon in the Netherlands?
Two planets meet
Media hell broke loose when Greta Turnberg a few days ago dared to mock global politicians with her ‘blablabla’ speech. Personally, I thought it was time for celebration. I envy her boldness, her fearlessness. Because we all know: she’s right. Very, very, right. Sadly, in Greta’s shadow Vanessa Nakate went unappreciated: she made a very good point about social inclusion to achieve the energy transition. I raise a glass to both of these ladies! Watch their speech in full. P.S: the only two note worthy responses - from Italy, strange as it may sound ...
Sustainable Business Leadership in 2030 - Four Scenarios
If you’ve ever been part of a bigger discourse about how to scale out sustainability economically and globally, you’ll have been quick to notice that by and large you’ll be faced with representatives of four distinct camps of advocates: The Grassrooters; the 'Setting the tone at the top' people; those in support of government regulation driven by civil society; and the 'Fiduciary Duty Advocates'. But which camp owns the driving leadership role? Funnily enough, that role does get handed around as if it was a game of musical chairs ... or the proverbial hot potato.
Oversimplification
The KISS Principle is a design principle that stems from the 1960. It originated in engineering and its view point is that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided. But what about complex systems such as nature? How simple can we go before oversimplification results in incomplete, or biased data? Before absence of consideration of relevant factors inherently lead to regrettable substitutions? And before we willingly accept that there will be collateral damages to a decision, without knowing (or wanting to know) of what nature and in what order of magnitude these may be? One example that illustrates where this challenge may rear what is its ugly head: upcoming Swiss political referenda on agricultural practices.