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 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?
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?
In mountaineering there are three distinct methods to handle the rope. Each technique has some distinct application characteristics. And as a consequence, a direct impact on the team work, team effectiveness - and even survival. What can boards learn from alpine roping techniques?
Many of the most important resources our current civilisation depends on – all of them finite natural resources - form part of what historically would have been called ‘The Commons’. And yet, many of them are economically treated as 'income' and not the valuable and finite 'assets' they are. That again is the tragedy of the commons.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Unless the top line of company executives are held accountable for and judged by their contribution to the company’s risk management and mitigation efforts, including importantly CSR and sustainability performance, the company will struggle. Without senior commitment and engagement, the system only ever allows for minor ‘bug fixes’.
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'.
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.
The finance industry does have its share to play in a ‘just transition’ to a low carbon and more ‘doughnut-ty’ economy. This is a given. I have written repeatedly about it.
In most contexts, the finance industry is characterised and promoted as a ‘driver’ of said transition. But is that really so? After all, the by far and distant most frequent tenor in ESG (the finance industry’s term for all things ‘sustainability’) is predominantly about risk. With that in mind, let's tell it as it is: The finance industry’s ESG discourse is opportunistic. As indeed all it’s actions and views have been, and as indeed the the industry’s clockwork is set out to be and function. Opportunistic.
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.
Consistency is one of those traits that is coveted by business journals and business leadership as possibly the most important ingredient in leaders. For a simple reason: Consistency — whether good or bad, positive or negative — provides the business, its employees, and stakeholders with a known quantity.
But what is often forgotten: A leader is never, ever made over night. It is a life long process. And just like a relationship, the accumulation and significance of small little things that are done over and over again is more often than not underestimated.
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.
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.
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
At WEF 2025, I learned a key truth: hurdles aren’t obstacles to overcome—they are the journey. I also had the privilege of supporting a friend’s bold vision at #ClimateHubDavos, where I saw her leadership: hands-on, calm under pressure, and driven by purpose. It’s a reminder of what truly makes a leader.
