In the last post I wrote about one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions: At the ‘Biodiversity’ COP (COP15) 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets.
It goes without saying though that the interesting piece is the enforcement and implementation mechanisms of the mentioned agreement.
Hence, the focus of this article is: How exactly – if at all – will the goals and progress measures reached in December 2022 be enforced and tracked?
JoinedMarch 22, 2010
Articles372
Comments14
My passion: ‘Future Fit’ Business as a Force for Good.
Corporate Responsibility expert for consumer goods, FMCG, fashion, textiles.
INSEAD IDP-C certified non-executive board director.
When it comes to governance, discussions about ‘Best Practice’ are frequent. What is often forgotten however: Governance, and notably ‘good’ governance, stands and falls with people. WHO sits on the board is hence at the very least as important as HOW that board is set up to operate by its procedures and surrounding legal constraints. Why is that so? And why is this often ignored?
This time around I want to make it explicit: If a company is not performing in sustainability terms, it as good as always down to senior leadership. Both, executive leadership – CEO, COO, CFO, CMO,
CSO etc. - as well as non-executive leadership at board level.
For one, arguably simplistic, reason: sustainability deliverables are oversteered by
‘higher priority’ KPIs. And what does mean? Fundamentally, it is down to decisions where the ball stops at the top leadership level.
Do you recognise these scenarios?
‘I feel like a fraud’. This is what employees of clients I work with often voice. It is usually at the point of time when strategy is moved to implementation. Hence: when it all gets concrete.
The statement is an expression of the feeling of overwhelm that comes with delving into sustainability issues, acquiring new knowledge and terminology, and in addition having to adapt ones habitual practice of work.It also happens once the low hanging fruits are gleaned, everything gets much more difficult.
It's the 'valley of despair'.
Why is it important to pay attention to it? And what can leaders do about it?
Ever since my first steps in the world of ‘making sustainability happen’, one of the questions I most frequently get to hear is: ‘how is this relevant to [insert your preferred corporate or private authority person].
It is a valid question. But not an easy one to answer. And certainly not new.
It is a questions has been tackled in 3 ways:
Well illustrated and visually attractive presentations; Gamification approaches; and resources that help take relatively easy and simple steps that, cumulatively, make a difference.
Here hence a list of tools and approaches that intent to motivate, create urgency, and inspire action.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. This time I’d like to look into the True Cost of all types Transport and Mobility: road, rail, aviation and water. The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the different types of transport we use globally, both for passengers and for freight? Or if you prefer: how do different types of transport compare to each other when it comes to ‘collateral damage’?
Spoiler alert: It is really quite complex and rather diverse. And: public infrastructure investments and maintenance costs play a significant role in it.
This is the first of a series that will look at and into true cost of certain goods and services. Cash subsidies thereby is one component, but certainly not the only one relevant one – indirect subsidies (e.g. in the form of environmental degradation or similar) need to be considered also. In this particular post, I’d like to focus on Oil & Gas subsidies, fossil fuels' True Cost, and what we know about these. What we already also learn: comparing apples to apples won't be easy.
True Cost calculations are only ever 'best available efforts', and much data remains missing or speculative at best. This is an issue we will encounter again also once we'll look into renewables, or indeed other kinds of industries outside of energy.
Measuring Biodiversity, in terms of baseline (status quo), progress, and deliverable targets, is not a simple thing. Collateral damages are a serious risk.At the same time though, some companies use outcomes of tools, which where never intended to deal at all with biodiversity, as proxy vehicles. This of course raises the question: Where are we with tools, programmes, and measurement systems for biodiversity? Hereafter a look across what I found to be having (some) teeth - also in comparison to the more popular climate change topic. These are: TNFD, SBTN, as well as two management tools that might be helpful, FFFBB and BIA.
Ask: If you are aware of others initatives 'with teeth' as of of writing (November 2021): do let me know and I’d be happy to list them also. Thank you!
In the last post I explained what COP15 is: A conference with the main purpose to adopt the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. But: What exactly is the framework agreement? What does it cover and encompass? Does it offer similar KPIs such as the SDG indicators? Are there enforcement mechanisms? Assuming for a moment, that it will be adopted: what would, or could, that tangibly mean going forward? Here a try at answering these questions.
Europe is, no doubt, a checker board in regards to environmental (and other) legislation and jurisprudence.
While the European Union is is hammering out the different fence poles related to its Green Deal and Green Taxonomies some other countries run ahead with their own locally applicable laws.
One law that is considered 'innovative' since its publication - the French 2019 Law on Energy and Climate, and its 2021 implementing decree - are worth a somewhat closer look. These pieces of law focus - once more - predominantly on financial industry players and reporting. The innovative part is the explicit inclusion of Biodiversity impact reporting. What are the bets of them beeing at the root of change?
In time for Christmas, one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions hit the headlines: The 'Biodiversity' COP (COP15) had actually achieved 'something'. 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets. Some of those are a bit more concrete than others, the headline goes roughly like this: “By 2030: Protect 30% of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, inland waters; Reduce by $500 billion annual harmful government subsidies; Cut food waste in half.” A closer look at precisely those 23 Targets and the specificity of the measures they contain.
‘The conversation is always about cost, not about impact!’ And: ‘Employees just don’t get moving!’
Do these statements remind you of your company’s challenges? Your not alone!
Leadership and Operations Teams have complementary sustainability implementation accountabilities and responsibilities. But instead of leveraging that fact, more often than not the blame game is played.
What to do about it?
Implement Fair Process Leadership governance processes - and train all teams through Serious Games.
Do you know these feelings? Outrage at the lack of action of friends and colleagues in the face of climate science data; fatalism when thinking about the future the next generation (and the one after); optimism in those few moments when joining up with like-minded people that do what they can do change the course of current events around; and helplessnesses when despite all efforts the bigger is just frozen.
But we have a choice of which emotions to live in order to create change. Choose now!
Did you ever wonder, how the New Climate Changed reality could look and feel like at its worst?
Then, we may right now be getting a flavour of exactly that.
Ukraine's resource richness may be an important variable in a globalised world that will increasingly be struggling to access necessary resources in the decades to come. Because, after all, and as we learned when we played monopoly: Whomever controls the resources controls the game.
Over 100 million people rely on inshore subsistence and small-scale artisanal fishing for their daily food and livelihood. But it’s not them that we’ll talk about in this post – because they are the unfortunate ones at the end of the short stick in the global game of industrial subsides.
In this post we talk about the industrial fishing industry, the subsidies that go into it, the really sticky WTO negotiations to make away with them.
It's not all doom and gloom. There is hope - just that it comes from elsewhere than governments.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. When in the previous post I looked at subsidies and the True Cost (associated with the True Price) for oil and gas, this time I’d like to look into what we know about the True Cost of Energy. Not just about fossil fuels, but indeed across the breadth of the energy spectrum.
The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the
different types of energy we use globally?
Spoiler alert: It's very interesting - and also a bit suprising and counter-intuitive.
Pricing the ton of carbon is a key matter – more so as an increasing number of companies aim at publicly claiming carbon neutrality. Carbon hence has a price – and this raises the much discussed question: What is a fair (or better: ‘correct’) price for carbon?
In this post I present a glimpse of some of the challenges and realities related to the topic.
It leaves us with the question: What went wrong in the current system that fundamentally asks us to choose between having to monetarily price natural and societal resources, and a fair, equitable access to these resources specifically for hard hit communities?
The question alone should not be even asked.
And yet it seems that’s what we’re left with given the current time and age.
Textile Exchange recently launched their (first ever) Biodiversity Insights Report. In itself not a bad idea per se – after all, assessing the staus quo of things is at least a baseline – the report is indeed ‘insightful’ in a number of ways. Most importantly: it raises a lot of questions. Such as:
If predominantly large companies are such laggards in all things biodiversity - can you imagine the situation in companies with much less resources? And why are entirely inadequate tools used to measure biodiversity? Are the commitments not just a rehash of climate committments, that only very recently start to show teeth and results?
While the relevance and criticality of COP26 is hammered home in the global media, the news reporting on COP15, as an effort possibly and reality more important than its Scottish climate conference peer, was rather subdued and unspectacular.
Let’s therefore get the most context-relevant questions straight out of the way: What is COP15? And why are there two COPs? And what has biodiversity to do with it?
The finance industry does have its share to play in a ‘just transition’ to a low carbon and more ‘doughnut-ty’ economy. This is a given. I have written repeatedly about it.
In most contexts, the finance industry is characterised and promoted as a ‘driver’ of said transition. But is that really so? After all, the by far and distant most frequent tenor in ESG (the finance industry’s term for all things ‘sustainability’) is predominantly about risk. With that in mind, let's tell it as it is: The finance industry’s ESG discourse is opportunistic. As indeed all it’s actions and views have been, and as indeed the the industry’s clockwork is set out to be and function. Opportunistic.