Strategical setting, structure and goals of the Uniqlo-Grameen joint venture.
6th of an article series that analyses Uniqlo and why it joint forced with Bangladesh's Grameen Bank.
With Grameen, Uniqlo has found the perfect partner to do business with the BOP.
Last of an article series that analyses Uniqlo and why it joint forced with Bangladesh's Grameen Bank.
Ture Cost Accounting (TCA) requires the quantification of not only the environmental services of our ecosystem, but also the social benefits corporations rely their activities on. With Puma's Environmental Profit & Loss Accounts, the EcoIndex Beta, and the Higgs Index, the apparel industry is at the leading edge in this area.
Can we say that modern businesses prefer long-term over short-term? For sure the business environment is more and more rewarding companies that think ahead and do not fail to consider existing or potential risks. What has happened in finance is striking and is based on the concept that long-term benefits outweigh the short-term pain.
On December 14th, PPR published the expert review report on Puma’s Environmental Profit and Loss Account (E P&L). The panel of experts that had been commissioned to undertake the review brought some of the most eminent names in the industry together, among them John Elkington, Peter Bakker, or Pushpam Kumar.
The COP21 Climate Agreement that was reached this past December in Paris, and which comes into effect in 2020, is a milestone in global sustainability efforts.
Yet - are we doing enough? What is enough?
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.
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.
‘System positive’. The latest term I came a cross in the finance world, and which intends to identify business that are particularly well set up to survive the tribulations to be expected in the decades to come. Immediately the cynic in me asks: Another addition to the sustainability bullshit bingo?
And yet: the 5 questions proposed for scrutinising companies are very sharp, very relevant and very insightful.
They only fall short of one: Will the company thrive within or even thanks to the Doughnut Boundaries?
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.
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.
Expertise is a key discussion topic when it comes to board composition. Not only during the hiring process, but also when looking at the tenure in and renewal processes of board. According to a recent article by Board Agenda: a number of risks that have raised Directors & Officers concerns, and even litigation. These include [...] climate change and environmental issues; the #MeToo movement and other societal risks and merger objection litigation. Hence the question is: How sustainability (ESG) savvy and capable are boards?
Recently we have learned how the Board of Directors of the 20 largests banks (under)performs when it comes to ESG, and the consequences this has on their future fit investments.
This raises evidently the question: How do these 20 banks 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.
Afterall: 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. Spoiler Alert: The results are pretty much in line with expectations. ESG-experience on the BoD does make a difference.
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 energy sector is the by far most impactful sector: directly and indirectly our carbon footprint depends on how they fuel our civilisation.
The big elephant in the room is of course: How well are badly do energy 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: The results are pretty much in line with expectations. Yet: among the innovators, not everyone does perform as well as they probably should ...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
