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 ...
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.
Most companies have had a brush with sustainability (or it’s finance industry lens: ESG) at the very least on an operational level. Not necessarily always voluntarily or out of conviction, mind.
Looking at corporate boards however, the picture starts to change – not necessarily to the better. While boards of listed companies may have been forced to look at non-financial disclosure, it is rare that any board has a sound grasp, never mind approach, to all things ESG and sustainability.
This is why I list in this post the few tools I am aware of that are specifically targetting and intended to help corporate boards start on the journey towards becoming climate and SDG savvy.
Science fiction literature and movies are obsessed with the story line, and the film industry has made billions of dollars from it: a time traveller goes backwards in time. Changes (‘corrects’) a small thing – and Voila! All will be good.
But precisely in the here and now Big and Bold things need happening - yet, doing small and important things remains relevant.
Not the least because few of us humans see themselves as capable of completing Big and Bold things.
So - maybe inspiration from science fiction is not all bad afterall ...
You can’t manage what you can’t measure.
This common sense platitude holds true for a lot of things:
Salary, punctuality in trains, inflation. And – of course – sustainability/ESG data.
Measuring alone can be complex enough.
But there are also incentive systems. And the impact they have on aspirations to deliver results.
Where sales targets for instance are as good as always understood as ‘invitation to be exceeded’ (with financial and other bonuses resulting from overachievement) the near opposite holds true for ESG/sustainability related KPIs.
And that absolutely must change.
For every single person in every single company.
KPI priorities must be flipped on their heads.
It's a funny state of things: One where investors complain that ESG data is not standardised; where at the same time companies – and notably their boards – complain that investors do not ask for data in a standardised way. And where the very same companies and boards nonetheless prioritise proprietary measurement systems over any other one for their own supply chains and products.
It's a paradox. One that is not efficient, effective, or conducive to impact.
A call to leave politics to the side, focus in impact, and standardise, standardise, standardise.
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.
Regenerative' is really a re-packaging of traditional agro-ecological approaches, with an added notion of leaving the land better than it was found.
And yet - because lack of knowledge runs deep in companies, such lack is compensated by prescribing procedures rather than to focus on outcomes. It is a bit of a deja-vu indeed ...
How does digitalisation impact and link to corporate responsibility? This is the question we look into in this post.
Combining the two disciplines results in a range of interesting questions. For example: If humans create non-human agents (e.g. in the shape of AI): For what, towards whom are these responsible? And: are they responsible at all - or is it their creator who is?
One of the things usually approved at the constituent board meeting after every company AGM are the board of directors' ‘Rules of Procedure’. What looks, and is often perceived, as a formality though, at close looks carries not just formal weight, but indeed formulates – directly or between the lines – the duties of the board.
What do these rules typically enshrine - and what not?
Collaborations toward a common goal, across organisations, can be one of the most gratifying things we ever may get to experience. Funny enough: Neither collaboration nor team work is something outrageously difficult in principle. If the common and mutually beneficial goal is front and centre. But this is exactly where the hitch is. Some thoughts about the hurdles of genuine collaboration and team work.
"The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it." This short quote by astrophysist Neil deGrasse Tyson is fundamental to making true progress specifically in the current times in the sustainability area.
Science does not mean 'claim what you want as long as you have some data to go with it'.
Instead it means: An approach whereby hard data and insights, together with the methodology how you got there, are transparently and openly provided. To be scuritinzed and - important! - improved upon.
A call to give the Scientific Discourse waaaay more airtime in business.
Most recently I read Ed Gillespie' blog post about the 'Omerta of Consulting' - specifically aimed at sustainability consultants like myself. He makes a very valid point in what he says, and he gives a compelling example of how Scope 3 ('impact of products sold') should be be the one and only KPI that we would be measured against.
He's right. At least in principle.
But what about all those companies - many of which are SMEs - that are still struggling to even get on the bandwagon of understanding proper sustainability KPIs and their measurement? What is the better - for the climate and society - approach: trying to get them on the bandwagon, or just let them be?
A week or so ago, the latest, sixth, IPCC report dropped.
My suggestion hence is simply read it.
Even if only the executive summary.
But just read it.
All I would like is to grab the opportunity to give a HUGE thank you to all the scientists involved.
Thank you dear IPCC scientists!
Thank you for all the work, the patience, and the glimmer of hope that despite it all remains a firm part of the reports.
Even this latest one.
Over the last couple of years a plethora of pledges has arisen in the sustainability/ESG space.
The weird thing: Pledges intend to drive change the wrong way around. Commit people (read: companies) publicly, then hope they will actually move in accordance to the pledge/commitment, and then only hold them to account if and when they do not delivery. If anyone remembers that is.
Do we need all these pledges? Do they really make a difference?
Data says: probably not ...
Shouldn't hence the Lemma simply be:
Actions before words.
Impact before messaging.
Walk before talk.
Science before marketing.
Reporting on ESG / sustainability dimensions is an issue.
One for the executives in a company across all levels of responsibility.
And one for the board.
For the board indeed even on two accounts, namely:
The metric they require to be reported to; and the metric that eventually find their way into publicly disclosed information of some shape or other.
Unsurprisingly: How seriously a company takes the ESG issue can be inferred from the extent, poignancy, and quality of their reporting.
That again – equally unsurprisingly – says is all about how ESG-savvy their board most likely is. Or, indeed, is not.
Most boards are composed of former or present CEOs, CFO and other C-suite executives.
People, hence, with a long track record of ‘getting stuff’ done. A board’s role however is very different from that of an executive: digging deep by asking those overly simple questions that give interesting answers, digging deep into rationales, values, hopes, expectations, shut up doubts, and personal agendas. Which is what good coaches typically do. Are coaches the better board directors?
Right now everyone, everything seems to talk about wanting to be come ‘carbon neutral’.
Don’t get me wrong: The goal itself – getting to a net zero carbon balance at the very least, and all that on nothing longer than a 2040 trajectory – is a must for every business.
But.
After Circularity and Regenerative, we’re seemingly right onto the next term in the game of buzzword bingo: Net Zero.
Net Zero should be every where indeed.
But not as a mere wave to ride in order to catch the next press release headline.
Corporate responsibility, business ethics, sustainability, ESG. Whatever the terminology there are three fundamental questions that underpin all decisions, actions, strategies in this regard. These questions are strategically relevant for any board of directors. Because they are the basis upon which fiduciary duty is constructed. And: they outline the framework within which the fiduciary duty of a board is bound to evolve over time.
How do you make ‘sustainability' tangible?
The usual answer is – unsurprisingly – a ‘well, it depends’.
Which it evidently does.
Unfortunately, good case studies are extremely rare to come across.
Hence, when I stumbled across such a gem in one of the primary Swiss news papers, I jumped at the opportunity to summarise it for this blog.
You can't manage what you can't measure. This often cited quote by Peter Drucker lies at the heart of many things: change management, quality management, staff diversity, environmental footprint, CO2 output … you know it. This is why many millions of dollars, and countless hours, have been invested in creating suitable measurement tools. It's just that: Measurement ≠ Data ≠ Information ≠ Knowledge ≠ Action.