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?
After some results at the COP in Vancouver, as well as the release of the first ever Science -Based Targets for Nature (SBTN) – finally (!) the recommendations by the TNFD (Task Force for nature-based financial disclosure) have been released. So the question obviously is, how do these targets address the 5 key drivers of biodiversity erosion eventhough it is only about reporting? Are the TNDF recommendations worth their salt?
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?
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?
More and more people call themselves 'sustainability experts'. Just -we do not need more of them. Instead we need people who are extremely good at what they do, apply their skill in a context to create change and that nourishes them for years to come. That's the Sweet Spot.
How did you find your 'Sweet Spot'? And how did you transition?
This manual was originally drafted when I was astonished by the way how ‘doublespeak’ is being used in organisations to prevent change. Any change. Including – but not limited to – sustainability related ones.
It is a cynic-sarcastic-semi-realistic manual on how to be reasonably successful in disempowering an organisation. It is applicable to all areas that encompass change including innovation, sustainability, internationalisation, digitalisation and so forth.
‘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.
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?
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.
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.
Large companies and institutional players are challenged to assess and calculate their carbon footprint. But they typically have the means to hire experts – in-house or consultants – and buy licenses of useful tools.This applies similarly to larger-sized SMEs. But what about distinctly small companies or indeed even individuals? How can they get a guesstimate on their carbon footprint, and possibly even some pointers how to do better going forward? Hence, here a short list of such calculators, both for individuals as well as for small companies.
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?
"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 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.
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?
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.
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.