From research we know that boards of directors lack skill and expertise when it comes to ESG and Climate Issues.
But: certainly the asset owners and investors do see that point, and are worried about boards taking tangible action that would safeguard their assets?
This is precisely the question that ShareAction asked in their most recent report.
The insights are sobering. Particularly the Big Three asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street) have a miserable voting record during AGM season: both, for the number of votes cast, as well as for their stance against most resolution on Climate Change and Human Rights.
The good news: it rarely has been so simple to identify Greenwashers. Thanks to publicly available filings about votes cast in AGMs of listed companies.
Scientists, engineers, designers and creators. 3 'species' of people that neither in academia, nor in industry collaborate well. Yet, precisely the fashion and textiles industry is so trans-disciplinary that collaboration is a must.
This blog uncovers the surprising, and mostly overseen fact, that corporate cash holdings in banks more often than not have a relevant carbon footprint. Relevant enough for a company's own Scope 3 and overall footprint. We discuss actionable steps from the Green Action Cash Guide, and the type of support the guide gives – but also lacks. Topics touched upon are: board support, data gathering, and strategies for shifting to climate-friendly banking partners.
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.
Financial accounting is rather ill suited as well as ill equipped to deal properly with a system that has finite natural resources. Else, why would it not record the environmental losses that come with e.g. extracting bauxite? And what about ESG? Well it turns out, ESG is just more of the same (growth) just in a shade of ‘green’. It is for a reason that the Global Materials Footprint has kept growing in alignment with the much coveted GDP growth. Despite all green efforts. ESG – investing in ‘greener’ tech and businesses – is definitely NOT ‘Sustainability’ as we need it.
What does Corporate Responsibility really mean—and why do so many SME leaders still struggle to define it? In a recent conversation with a next-generation business owner, I was asked this very question. It revealed more than a lack of clarity; it exposed widespread assumptions about what responsibility in business actually looks like, who it's for, and whether SMEs are even capable of it. Spoiler alert: they are—and in many ways, they’re better positioned than large corporations. But it all hinges on leadership, mindset, and an honest look at what impact truly means.
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.
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?
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.
The book explains key factors in doing successful business with the poor, profitably as well as with a positive social impact. Numerous case studies show the how-to.
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?
Interns are more often increasingly taken over account executive responsibilities. Yet - they do not get paid. A said story of labour rights abuses in UK, Europe
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.
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’.
Research has known for a while that when someone in your presence is trying to think, much of what you are hearing and seeing is your effect on them. That is also the case for boards.
Because: under the right conditions and circumstances, people will – invariably – think for themselves. Just: is that desired?
“When you do something wrong, don’t try improve upon it.” Instead you go back to design of a product, and fix the problem right where it went wrong in first place
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.
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?
“Marketing used to be about creating a myth and telling it. Now it is about finding a truth and sharing it”. Better brands are those brands that will ensure their long-term existence, that will go beyond their founders and their children. How? By taking better decisions and looking at the bigger picture.
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.


















