Diversity and Inclusion is a highly relevant topic not ‘just’ because it is all about equality and justice. But as long as entire parts of our global population remain disenfranchised, and desperate to just survive from day to day, tackling challenges - and in particular Climate Change - that affect all of us, indiscriminately, remains impossible. Boards of Directors set out the "Tone at the Top', also in matter of diversity and inclusion. In fashion companies, what exactly is the tone, the music, that they are creating?
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.
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?
We need new business models that are not predicated on selling more stuff to more people.
And because in the 'Here and Now', there is truly not much more to say, I could finish with the above quote.
Except that: Those ‘new business models’ are not reality. Far from it.
About the Role of the Board in the 'Why'.
The quality of governance is one of the key ingredients why projects, companies, and even governments fail in their tasks. It is also the key ingredient to achieve results, buy-in and participation. It is for this very reason that good governance was seen early on as one of the fundamental success factors for the Social Labor Convergence Project (SLCP).
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?
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.
In the last post I wrote about one of the most historic inter-governmental landmark decisions: At the ‘Biodiversity’ COP (COP15) 200 countries had agreed on 4 Goals and 23 Targets.
It goes without saying though that the interesting piece is the enforcement and implementation mechanisms of the mentioned agreement.
Hence, the focus of this article is: How exactly – if at all – will the goals and progress measures reached in December 2022 be enforced and tracked?
When it comes to governance, discussions about ‘Best Practice’ are frequent. What is often forgotten however: Governance, and notably ‘good’ governance, stands and falls with people. WHO sits on the board is hence at the very least as important as HOW that board is set up to operate by its procedures and surrounding legal constraints. Why is that so? And why is this often ignored?
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?
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.
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.
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?
‘The conversation is always about cost, not about impact!’ And: ‘Employees just don’t get moving!’
Do these statements remind you of your company’s challenges? Your not alone!
Leadership and Operations Teams have complementary sustainability implementation accountabilities and responsibilities. But instead of leveraging that fact, more often than not the blame game is played.
What to do about it?
Implement Fair Process Leadership governance processes - and train all teams through Serious Games.
Corporate responsibility, business ethics, sustainability, ESG. Whatever the terminology there are three fundamental questions that underpin all decisions, actions, strategies in this regard. These questions are strategically relevant for any board of directors. Because they are the basis upon which fiduciary duty is constructed. And: they outline the framework within which the fiduciary duty of a board is bound to evolve over time.
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.
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.
This manual was originally drafted when I was astonished by the way how ‘doublespeak’ is being used in organisations to prevent change. Any change. Including – but not limited to – sustainability related ones.
It is a cynic-sarcastic-semi-realistic manual on how to be reasonably successful in disempowering an organisation. It is applicable to all areas that encompass change including innovation, sustainability, internationalisation, digitalisation and so forth.
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?