One of the things usually approved at the constituent board meeting after every company AGM are the board of directors' ‘Rules of Procedure’. What looks, and is often perceived, as a formality though, at close looks carries not just formal weight, but indeed formulates – directly or between the lines – the duties of the board.
What do these rules typically enshrine - and what not?
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.
Over the last couple of years a plethora of pledges has arisen in the sustainability/ESG space.
The weird thing: Pledges intend to drive change the wrong way around. Commit people (read: companies) publicly, then hope they will actually move in accordance to the pledge/commitment, and then only hold them to account if and when they do not delivery. If anyone remembers that is.
Do we need all these pledges? Do they really make a difference?
Data says: probably not ...
Shouldn't hence the Lemma simply be:
Actions before words.
Impact before messaging.
Walk before talk.
Science before marketing.
Could ESG reporting finally become less repetitive and tedious?
AI has the potential to transform ESG reporting by automating compliance tracking, integrating data from diverse and unstructured sources, and streamlining audit preparation. This opens up opportunities to free data and ESG experts from repetitive, tedious tasks. Yet, while AI offers promise, tight oversight remains essential to address challenges like data quality ('crap in is crap out') and system integration.
ISO 37000/2021 is a pivotal shift in governance, placing purpose at the heart of every organisation. It’s not just a box-ticking exercise but a strategic framework aligning values, strategy, and stakeholder interests. The key question: Does this signal a new global consensus on good governance, or a warning for leaders?
Contrary to common opinion, ‘Australian-made’ does not always mean ethically made. In some cases salaries as low as AUS$ 4 are paid. Ethical Clothing Australia is campaigning to change their domestic fashion industry from within.
Fairy tales are typically something for kids. Particularly young kids. Over the centuries they have been used to convey fundamental social mores, warnings from danger, and to inoculate a shared understanding of what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ looks like. These characteristics though make fairy tales an ideal, if very uncommon, vehicle to convey information and learnings also in management literature. This book hence is a rare find.
CEO pay is an ongoing topic. Stock options are a regular part of their pay package.
The way CEO pay packages handle stock options may foster short-termism. Or contribute to remedy it. Some thoughts.
In the discussions within companies around risk management and indispensable moves towards more sustainable processes and business practises, there’s habitually unmentioned elephant in the room, namely: Where, in all what needs to be done in the corporate world, does the responsibility of the individual factor in?
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?
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?
The influence of decision bias is nothing new when scrutinising corporate governance. And yet: by and large businesses continue to fail to adjust their strategic decision-making processes to become more climate viable. At best they have just barely started on their journey. Why is that? As we look deeper into the corporate discourse on Climate Change, it becomes evident that one of the silent yet crucial culprits behind the climate change inertia lies in the cognitive biases at play in corporate decision making. What are those biases, what do they mean for boards in the context of strategic Climate Change decisions, and what can be done about it?
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.
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.
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.
It is end of March / early April 2020 as I write this. Corona (Covid19) increases its grip onto the world. Draconian, tough policy measures are being put in place limiting people's lives ... and rattling the global economy.
Could it hall happen again in the future? And if so - in what way?
How does digitalisation impact and link to corporate responsibility? This is the question we look into in this post.
Combining the two disciplines results in a range of interesting questions. For example: If humans create non-human agents (e.g. in the shape of AI): For what, towards whom are these responsible? And: are they responsible at all - or is it their creator who is?
A recent Bloomberg article found: of more than 600 directors and executives of the world’s 20 largest banks, only few individuals had experience in renewable or sustainable industries. Far more had ties to polluting industries: At least 73 individuals even have at one time or another held a position with one or more of the biggest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases, including 16 connected to oil or refining companies.
The irony: it is precisely the directors’ prior track record and experience, one of the very reasons why they got (s)elected onto the board, that could jeopardise their board’s forward decisions.
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?