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.
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?
This is the first of a series that will look at and into true cost of certain goods and services. Cash subsidies thereby is one component, but certainly not the only one relevant one – indirect subsidies (e.g. in the form of environmental degradation or similar) need to be considered also. In this particular post, I’d like to focus on Oil & Gas subsidies, fossil fuels' True Cost, and what we know about these. What we already also learn: comparing apples to apples won't be easy.
True Cost calculations are only ever 'best available efforts', and much data remains missing or speculative at best. This is an issue we will encounter again also once we'll look into renewables, or indeed other kinds of industries outside of energy.
How can AI help connect the worlds of sustainability/ESG data, and that of company financials?
ESG is typically considered a mere cost - yet: this perception stems chiefly from a lack of integration of mutually beneficial data of these two worlds. With better approaches to cost accounting, to performance analysis, as well as using predictive analysis relate to trends, legislation and asset management, the ability of AI to integrated diverse and complex data sets may precise be the pathway to shift that needle.
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.
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.
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. When in the previous post I looked at subsidies and the True Cost (associated with the True Price) for oil and gas, this time I’d like to look into what we know about the True Cost of Energy. Not just about fossil fuels, but indeed across the breadth of the energy spectrum.
The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the
different types of energy we use globally?
Spoiler alert: It's very interesting - and also a bit suprising and counter-intuitive.
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.
Over 100 million people rely on inshore subsistence and small-scale artisanal fishing for their daily food and livelihood. But it’s not them that we’ll talk about in this post – because they are the unfortunate ones at the end of the short stick in the global game of industrial subsides.
In this post we talk about the industrial fishing industry, the subsidies that go into it, the really sticky WTO negotiations to make away with them.
It's not all doom and gloom. There is hope - just that it comes from elsewhere than governments.
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.
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.
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 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 ...
COP28 yielded mixed results, featuring some historic 'firsts' such as a fossil fuel phase-out commitment, a $700 million loss and damage fund, the recognition of nuclear energy, and (this is huge!) a pointed spotlight on food systems' role in adaption.
Most of the old challenges though remain: It's all carrots and no sticks. Which shows in the continued absence of enforcement of Climate Targets or their stringency, and the eye-level conversation with Global South nations.
In time for Christmas, one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions hit the headlines: The 'Biodiversity' COP (COP15) had actually achieved 'something'. 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets. Some of those are a bit more concrete than others, the headline goes roughly like this: “By 2030: Protect 30% of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, inland waters; Reduce by $500 billion annual harmful government subsidies; Cut food waste in half.” A closer look at precisely those 23 Targets and the specificity of the measures they contain.
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?
This post is part of a series where I look at and into the true cost of certain goods and services. This time I’d like to look into the True Cost of all types Transport and Mobility: road, rail, aviation and water. The question therefore is: What are the total costs – the True Cost, i.e. including what is commonly called ‘externalities’ – of the different types of transport we use globally, both for passengers and for freight? Or if you prefer: how do different types of transport compare to each other when it comes to ‘collateral damage’?
Spoiler alert: It is really quite complex and rather diverse. And: public infrastructure investments and maintenance costs play a significant role in it.
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.
‘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?
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?
