The world, by and large, operates based on land-filling. The only way to improve the situation any time soon is: not to landfill. At all. Or at least as little as possible, and that asap.
To that extent, 2 reports on textiles the circular economy have been published, both of which look at the issue from different, and complementary perspectives.
What is it that we can learn from these 2 reports, side by side?
One, the old adage could not be any truer: One Man’s Rubbish is another Man’s Treasure. And: True cost accounting would make a huge difference.
Is AI advancing sustainability or creating costly trade-offs we’re only beginning to understand? In this post, we dive into the reality behind AI's potential as a force for sustainability. While AI shows promise in enhancing sustainable practices and supporting business processes, it also has a significant CO₂ footprint—mainly from energy-hungry data centres—and its environmental impact will likely grow. Though AI could help achieve Sustainable Development Goals, this depends on our responsible use and governance of the technology. Without stringent oversight, AI risks reinforcing societal biases, as seen in social media algorithms that foster echo chambers. As with all innovations, AI’s promise is matched by its challenges, and only a well-balanced approach can ensure it contributes meaningfully to a sustainable future.
The supply chain.
It has been accepted a long-time ago: supply chain is a risk. Or better: a RISK in capital letters.
But also a word that sounds impersonal. Very akin to a factory being a cogwheel in a much larger clockwork. And while the definition of the term does list ‘people’, the focus is very clearly on the idea of it all being a neat system of seamless interactions.
Sustainability for Fashion := "Creating desirable products that evoke an emotional connection [...]"
We all can see it happening before our eyes: Despite the Paris Climate Agreement to a climate trajectory of ‘well bellow’ 2 degrees (hence where the 1.5C number stems from) – the trajectory is not anywhere near that number. The Inevitable Policy Response (IPR) is the response by governments and legislators around the globe in taking action – hence enacting laws – in line with the 1.5 Degree climate goals.
First of an article series that analyses Uniqlo's CSR - specifically in Japan - track record, and why it joint forced with Bangladesh's Grameen Bank.
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?
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.
In Europe, SMEs make up 99% of all companies, and provide 67% of employment a much higher percentage of jobs in developing countries.
Research has shown that they generate around 50% of the private sector’s turn over, and that SMEs contribute at least 80% to the national GDPs.
Yet less than 20% of policies, government investments etc. are made with them in mind.
An NGO comes after you – for the right or the wrong reasons.
A journalist publishes an article. The content: inconvenient truths, or equally inconvenient fake news.
Or simpler: The staff churn in your company is way above average. And no one seems to know why.
The meetings, the clashes, the disagreement, the blaiming that comes with it. Yes, been there, done that.
Thankfully, there were times I was not a party in the conflict. Instead I was assigned the (ungrateful?) task of figuring out how to resolve it, build bridges, and ‘get stuff done’. Not just once, but a few times.
What initially was of me ‘winging it’, over time – with trial and error – turned into something more structured. Still not perfect – it never will be, there is always room for improvement – but a flight-by-instrument rather than a blind adventure.
This post is my first try at illustrating, verbalising, this process.The steps I use, and what their intention is.
With the hope of it being as useful to others as it is and was to me.
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.
This is the second post of a two article series. It will look at what we can say about the 'ethics behind a brand' from how they practically do business.
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.
Over a decade ago, Simon Sinek pointedly demanded: Start with Why.
Targeted at a then rather uninspiring marketing and branding industry, 10 years on is still as valid as ever.
Just now, we need to ask businesses: Why are you bothering with investing millions, and thousands of hours into sustainability?
Often the answer will be: because we have to. An answer just as uninspiring as the sales slogans Sinek was bashing a decade ago.
Because when it comes to Sustainability: Know your genuine Why. Or don't bother.
Our economic well-being relies on indefinite growth in a finite system, raising sustainability concerns. But, if we dared to ask: What would the world lose if your company disappeared? Companies might find themselves in a totally novel position on how to justify their existence: Through assessments of their overall impact on society and the planet, or indeed having to advocate how their business case positively contribute to all facets of life.
Supply chain transparency is – as it happens – among the prime concerns of investors when considering their risk. The news is though, that it really isn’t any news at all. Supply chain transparency has been called for for at least a couple of decades – for reasons that are entirely aligned with profitability, customer service, competitive advantage, product quality and so on and so forth.
Unless the top line of company executives are held accountable for and judged by their contribution to the company’s risk management and mitigation efforts, including importantly CSR and sustainability performance, the company will struggle. Without senior commitment and engagement, the system only ever allows for minor ‘bug fixes’.
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.
Uniqlo's corporate Diversity and Inclusion policy in number.
2nd of an article series that analyses Uniqlo and why it joint forced with Bangladesh's Grameen Bank.
In mountaineering there are three distinct methods to handle the rope. Each technique has some distinct application characteristics. And as a consequence, a direct impact on the team work, team effectiveness - and even survival. What can boards learn from alpine roping techniques?














