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?
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?
The leadership team level at company X is not making the moves that might be expected and needed from a sustainability perspective. What to do? How to overcome the blockage? How to make progress without even mentioning the S-word in the discourse?
The answer: Compliance, Risk, and the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO).
Or in more tangible terms - start the conversation by focusing on legal compliance, Risk and Due Diligence, Efficiencies ... and good old benchmarking with the competition.
No S-word needed. Not a big step for humanity no doubt. But a door opener to many more interesting conversations.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Decisions in companies, brands, and businesses are never based either on a single argument, or the consequence of a single person’s ‘way’. Rather, companies have, to an extent, their own personality.
Key Question: a decision taken by this organisation – is it largely independent from, or a necessary consequence of, the decision(s) that the individuals within the organisation have taken?
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.
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?
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?
Most companies have had a brush with sustainability (or it’s finance industry lens: ESG) at the very least on an operational level. Not necessarily always voluntarily or out of conviction, mind.
Looking at corporate boards however, the picture starts to change – not necessarily to the better. While boards of listed companies may have been forced to look at non-financial disclosure, it is rare that any board has a sound grasp, never mind approach, to all things ESG and sustainability.
This is why I list in this post the few tools I am aware of that are specifically targetting and intended to help corporate boards start on the journey towards becoming climate and SDG savvy.
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?
The KISS Principle is a design principle that stems from the 1960.
It originated in engineering and its view point is that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.
But what about complex systems such as nature?
How simple can we go before oversimplification results in incomplete, or biased data? Before absence of consideration of relevant factors inherently lead to regrettable substitutions? And before we willingly accept that there will be collateral damages to a decision, without knowing (or wanting to know) of what nature and in what order of magnitude these may be?
One example that illustrates where this challenge may rear what is its ugly head: upcoming Swiss political referenda on agricultural practices.
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.
On March 3rd, 2011, ethical fashion was discussed in a Question session of the UK's House of Lords. Much focus was on human rights & the environment. But fashion is driven by SMEs ...
‘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.
The more time I spend ‘doing sustainability’, i.e. being involved both as a professional as well as as an individual in cajoling, motivating, convincing and helping companies – and the individuals therein - to become ‘better citizens’, the more I realised that … actually, in would not be that hard to do better.
Or let me reformulate more accurately: it is equally hard as many other things in businesses.
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.














