In the last post I explained what COP15 is: A conference with the main purpose to adopt the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. But: What exactly is the framework agreement? What does it cover and encompass? Does it offer similar KPIs such as the SDG indicators? Are there enforcement mechanisms? Assuming for a moment, that it will be adopted: what would, or could, that tangibly mean going forward? Here a try at answering these questions.
The Manifesto of a Hummingbird: . 13 + 1 ways to make a stance for responsible business and leadership.
Our economic well-being relies on indefinite growth in a finite system, raising sustainability concerns. But, if we dared to ask: What would the world lose if your company disappeared? Companies might find themselves in a totally novel position on how to justify their existence: Through assessments of their overall impact on society and the planet, or indeed having to advocate how their business case positively contribute to all facets of life.
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?
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.
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?
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?
On September 12 to 14, I attended the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN) yearly conference in Lille, France. The theme of this year’s edition was ‘License to Operate’.
I and my colleague Ilaria Pasquinelli, both presented a research paper, focused on sustainability and value generation in the fashion industry, and the status quo of knowledge on sustainable consumption habits respectively.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
This time around I want to make it explicit: If a company is not performing in sustainability terms, it as good as always down to senior leadership. Both, executive leadership – CEO, COO, CFO, CMO,
CSO etc. - as well as non-executive leadership at board level.
For one, arguably simplistic, reason: sustainability deliverables are oversteered by
‘higher priority’ KPIs. And what does mean? Fundamentally, it is down to decisions where the ball stops at the top leadership level.
Do you recognise these scenarios?
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.
The design stage is usually the longest, most expensive and riskiest part of the chain. Additionally, research has shown that at least an estimated 80% of a product's environmental (and to a lesser degree also social) impact is locked at the design stage into a product. By integrating the product design with the supply chain, companies can compress non-value adding time and costs in their supply chains, increase responsiveness and mitigate supply chain risks – while simultaneously managing (improving) their sustainability performance without added costs or efforts.
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?
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.
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.
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.