Nearly a year ago I wrote about how the terminology we use abstracts from the fact that there are living and sentient human beings doing 'supply chain' work. Listening to a recent podcast it dawned on me that language can be just as useful to gloss over the seriousness and impact of scientific facts. And the resulting necessary actions. Climate Change vs Climate Emergency? Green energy vs renewable energy vs clean energy? Hence, some more thinking about the role of language.
Carbon – together with biodiversity – is one of THE most critical dimensions among the Planetary Boundaries. Because the already existing overshoot is putting our civilisation at risk. So far nothing new under the sun. The food and agri sector is - possibly together with the energy sector - one of the most important industries in this regard. Not only does it impact our living environment significantly - by how our food is grown - but also they play a key role to feed our global population. The big elephant in the room is of course: How well or badly do agri food companies perform right now in terms of their carbon footprint? And: Do they have at the least commitments to work on a Paris Agreement trajectory? I look into these questions. Spoiler Alert: There is not much to cheer about. Not at all.
Knowledge and data are two interesting entities: essential for decisions at any one time. And yet evolving with time. And with that, decisions taken some time ago, possibly decades earlier, may prove flawed – in hindsight.
But what if years down the road these insights are resurfaced and either proven to be partially or fully inaccurate? What if the nuggets are suddenly being used in a context that has shifted significantly since? What if our best intended and best-possible informed statements of the past are called out years, decades later?
A few thoughts on this dilemma.
Anger … a strong, passionate emotion. Sometimes conducive as it gives loads of strength to fight for what we see as a ‘better world and society’. But also sometimes a shot into our own foot.
In the sustainability world extemists views are common - on either side of the spectrum. Both sides advocating for fundamental change.
But as it the choice of words suggests: fundamental change is only possible if we change fundamentally. All of us.
Including the advocates and campaigners themselves.
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.
Reducing humanity’s footprint on this planet is a journey of decisions.
Some of them tough, some of them very clear. And some of them – let’s just say: with very limited available data.
The journey we’re on, is the proverbial Designer’s Paradox. More scientifically speaking of course, we are faced with the ever lasting conundrum of Regrettable Substitutions.
So: Is there a best possible AND least bad option (combined) at this very moment?
It is quite astonishing: all the different contexts that the term ‘circularity’ or ‘circular economy’ is being used. They key point mostly is of course the waste reduction promises inherent in the term, and the subsequent lower dependency on finite resources.
But, in addition to reducing waste, carbon – or rather carbon footprint – is a key factor.
Unfortunately, the reality is sobering: taking fashion as example, at best between 3% and 6% of the industry's carbon footprint could be remedied that way.
And even worse: in order to realise the potential, three fundamental hurdles must be addressed. Some efforts are underway, of course, but a steep hill remains to climb.
The leadership team level at company X is not making the moves that might be expected and needed from a sustainability perspective. What to do? How to overcome the blockage? How to make progress without even mentioning the S-word in the discourse?
The answer: Compliance, Risk, and the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO).
Or in more tangible terms - start the conversation by focusing on legal compliance, Risk and Due Diligence, Efficiencies ... and good old benchmarking with the competition.
No S-word needed. Not a big step for humanity no doubt. But a door opener to many more interesting conversations.
In last week’s post I looked at energy companies and their trajectory relative to the Paris Climate Agenda. The insights clearly suggested a mixed picture. A clear point of how important it is to decarbonised the way we fuel our economy and global society.
But that’s unfortunately not all there is to the energy generation picture!
What few people realise: Energy generation requires water. A lot of water.
Not just in the energy generating processes, but also in the extraction of the energy source (coal in particular), and/or the making of the necessary equipment.
Some insights ... illustrated at the example of China.
Carbon – together with biodiversity – is one of THE most critical dimensions among the Planetary Boundaries. Because the already existing overshoot is putting our civilisation at risk. So far nothing new under the sun.
The energy sector is the by far most impactful sector: directly and indirectly our carbon footprint depends on how they fuel our civilisation.
The big elephant in the room is of course: How well are badly do energy companies perform right now in terms of their carbon footprint? And: Do they have at the least commitments to work on a Paris Agreement trajectory? I look into these questions. Spoiler Alert: The results are pretty much in line with expectations. Yet: among the innovators, not everyone does perform as well as they probably should ...
Sustainability is usually thought of as an environmental issue. And it is. But but not only. It is in fact a mindset. One that takes courage.
This magazine - come out of a creative collaboration - explores three key questions by interviewing personalities in business (Vincent Stanley from Patagonia, Eric Garnier from Choba Choba, Adriana Marina from Hecho x Nosostros, Fergal Smith from the Moy Hill Farm and Andy Middleton from the TYF Group), and by giving space to written creativity of sustainability professionals. The three fundamental questions are: How does ‘creating change’ feel from within? What does it mean to swim against the business mainstream because genuinely the status quo does not work? Where and how does courage come into play?
We all interact frequently with SMEs of different types, characters, and offers. Yet there are two types of such businesses. Those where 'the spark' is graspable: Their vision, raison d'etre, motivation, aspiration, commitment. And then those, who at best surf the waves of third party demands. Content to be 'victims' instead of taking the courage to forge their own irons. A never ending fascination.
Computer Science and Sustainability/ESG: these two areas of expertise combine increasingly well with every passing month and year. In fact, I am tempted to say that the two worlds of sustainability and digitalisation are surprisingly similar to one another. In a number of ways – not in all, of course! – they overlap more than they differ. And mutually benefit each other.
Both areas represent critical skill-sets for boards and senior executives in the current and upcoming decades. This is why I thought I’d take the time to reflect on the overlaps, the synergies, but no doubt also the differences.
The key words: systems thinking, automatisation, fraud prevention and authentication, business model distruption, usability, and the Just Transition.
The influence of decision bias is nothing new when scrutinising corporate governance. And yet: by and large businesses continue to fail to adjust their strategic decision-making processes to become more climate viable. At best they have just barely started on their journey. Why is that? As we look deeper into the corporate discourse on Climate Change, it becomes evident that one of the silent yet crucial culprits behind the climate change inertia lies in the cognitive biases at play in corporate decision making. What are those biases, what do they mean for boards in the context of strategic Climate Change decisions, and what can be done about it?
Global Goals are called ‘global’ for a reason: they apply to everyone, everything. Every business, every government, every church, charity … In case there was any doubt about it: The Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Agreement are global goals. In fact, probably the Global Goals par excellence. Yet, while organisations of all different types and characteristics are making progress in translating those to their different contexts, environments, business models etc. the same does not hold true when it comes to individuals. Beyond a few platitudes. A few arbitrary and personal musings on the role of the individual in achieving the goals.
Recently we have learned how the Board of Directors of the 20 largests banks (under)performs when it comes to ESG, and the consequences this has on their future fit investments.
This raises evidently the question: How do these 20 banks perform right now in terms of their carbon footprint? And: Do they have at the least commitments to work on a Paris Agreement trajectory? I answer these questions.
Afterall: Carbon – together with biodiversity – is one of THE most critical dimensions among the Planetary Boundaries. Because the already existing overshoot is putting our civilisation at risk. So far nothing new under the sun. Spoiler Alert: The results are pretty much in line with expectations. ESG-experience on the BoD does make a difference.
A recent Bloomberg article found: of more than 600 directors and executives of the world’s 20 largest banks, only few individuals had experience in renewable or sustainable industries. Far more had ties to polluting industries: At least 73 individuals even have at one time or another held a position with one or more of the biggest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases, including 16 connected to oil or refining companies.
The irony: it is precisely the directors’ prior track record and experience, one of the very reasons why they got (s)elected onto the board, that could jeopardise their board’s forward decisions.
This year has been a tough year. The count of lost lives alone cannot be escaped.
For me: I was made redundant shortly before Christmas 2019 - consequence of restructuring - and had wanted to set up on my own. And then ... you know the story.
And yet: there is so much to be grateful for. Parents that are healthy. Mountains that were climbed. Access to natural spaces. The snowflakes in front of my window.
And learnings along the way.
One thing that particularly stands out to me, from all the experiences in the past months: There are two types of people in this world. Those that champion the achievements of others. Who want to see them succeed and create positive change in and for the world and our global society. And then some.
I'm grateful to have learned the difference.
To 2021. To 12 more months of opportunities, to learn, to become better versions of ourselves, and to create change. For us. But more importantly, for the generations yet to come.
Expertise is a key discussion topic when it comes to board composition. Not only during the hiring process, but also when looking at the tenure in and renewal processes of board. According to a recent article by Board Agenda: a number of risks that have raised Directors & Officers concerns, and even litigation. These include [...] climate change and environmental issues; the #MeToo movement and other societal risks and merger objection litigation. Hence the question is: How sustainability (ESG) savvy and capable are boards?
Carbon – together with biodiversity – is one of THE most critical dimensions among the Planetary Boundaries. Because the already existing overshoot is putting our civilisation at risk. So far nothing new under the sun. The big elephant in the room is of course: How do companies perform right now in terms of their carbon footprint? And: Do they have at the least commitments to work on a Paris Agreement trajectory? I answer these questions. Spoiler Alert: Some 'villains' are doing rather well. So well in fact that they are leading the pack.