After some results at the COP in Vancouver, as well as efforts by the TNFD (Task Force for nature-based financial disclosure) – we finally (!) got the first ever Science -Based Targets for Nature (SBTN).
It is a first release, however. So the question obviously is, how do these targets address the 5 key drivers of biodiversity erosion? Are the SBTNs worth their salt?
You can’t manage what you can’t measure.
This common sense platitude holds true for a lot of things:
Salary, punctuality in trains, inflation. And – of course – sustainability/ESG data.
Measuring alone can be complex enough.
But there are also incentive systems. And the impact they have on aspirations to deliver results.
Where sales targets for instance are as good as always understood as ‘invitation to be exceeded’ (with financial and other bonuses resulting from overachievement) the near opposite holds true for ESG/sustainability related KPIs.
And that absolutely must change.
For every single person in every single company.
KPI priorities must be flipped on their heads.
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?
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?
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?
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).
Of the close to 500 eco-labels that exist worldwide, just over 100 apply to textiles, according to the Eco Label Index. Behind each label is, or should be, a standard that backs up the claim being made.
Given the prevalence of standards, the following questions arise: Why do standards exist? What value do they deliver? What are their limitations? What is ‘best practice’ for standards, their development process? What about the proliferation of standards?
This post is going to be somewhat more personal than how I usually write. Normally, I try to write and argument as factually and data driven as possible. I’m not one that feels comfortable to carry my emotions on my sleeve. And even less as some of the topics I write about are truly important to me.
But: There are a couple of things that upset me in the present. They related to the #blacklivesmatter movement on the one hand, but maybe more specifically to the related discussion on #racism – globally.
-> Includes a list of practical resources for corporate boards
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.
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.
On May 24th 2020 Rio Tinto blew up the Juukan Gorge rock shelters in Australia, which ancestors of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people occupied over the course of 46’000 years.There are a multitude of lessons to be learned from the entire process that lead to the disastrous blast of a site of such archaeological importance. But also from how the scrutiny in its aftermaths and the have been.
Here a selection of just a few to think about.
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.
It's a funny state of things: One where investors complain that ESG data is not standardised; where at the same time companies – and notably their boards – complain that investors do not ask for data in a standardised way. And where the very same companies and boards nonetheless prioritise proprietary measurement systems over any other one for their own supply chains and products.
It's a paradox. One that is not efficient, effective, or conducive to impact.
A call to leave politics to the side, focus in impact, and standardise, standardise, standardise.
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?
The world ‘at the other end’ of the Corona tunnel could never be the same as before. It could be so much better than ever – with a real opportunity to put it on the rails that will make it the place we desire it to be.
Or: it could be same, but indeed worse place then ever. Where past misbehaviours is ignored at best, OK’ed at worse.
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.
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?
Have you heard about open data? And about open source?
The equivalent of open source in sustainability terms would be an ‘open standard’.
But what would that mean?
The “new normal’ everyone talks about. What is it supposed to look like? As with many things: being clear about what you do NOT want is easy to describe.
Explain and outline what it is that you really (really!) want, is considerably harder.
Here a try – my try - at exactly that.
Greenwashing is defined as 'the expression of environmentalist concerns especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities'. There also exists Diversity-washing, Governance-washing, or skill-washing for example.
In itself a truly nasty thing, there is an unexpected upside to Greenwashing however: it will come back to haunt the greenwasher. Maybe not fast, but no doubt steadily. Just like the tortoise won the race against the hare.















