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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regenerative' is really a re-packaging of traditional agro-ecological approaches, with an added notion of leaving the land better than it was found.
And yet - because lack of knowledge runs deep in companies, such lack is compensated by prescribing procedures rather than to focus on outcomes. It is a bit of a deja-vu indeed ...
Right now everyone, everything seems to talk about wanting to be come ‘carbon neutral’.
Don’t get me wrong: The goal itself – getting to a net zero carbon balance at the very least, and all that on nothing longer than a 2040 trajectory – is a must for every business.
But.
After Circularity and Regenerative, we’re seemingly right onto the next term in the game of buzzword bingo: Net Zero.
Net Zero should be every where indeed.
But not as a mere wave to ride in order to catch the next press release headline.
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?
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.
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?
You can't manage what you can't measure. This often cited quote by Peter Drucker lies at the heart of many things: change management, quality management, staff diversity, environmental footprint, CO2 output … you know it. This is why many millions of dollars, and countless hours, have been invested in creating suitable measurement tools. It's just that: Measurement ≠ Data ≠ Information ≠ Knowledge ≠ Action.
Knowledge and data are two interesting entities: essential for decisions at any one time. And yet evolving with time. And with that, decisions taken some time ago, possibly decades earlier, may prove flawed – in hindsight.
But what if years down the road these insights are resurfaced and either proven to be partially or fully inaccurate? What if the nuggets are suddenly being used in a context that has shifted significantly since? What if our best intended and best-possible informed statements of the past are called out years, decades later?
A few thoughts on this dilemma.
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 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.
Sustainability is usually thought of as an environmental issue. And it is. But but not only. It is in fact a mindset. One that takes courage.
This magazine - come out of a creative collaboration - explores three key questions by interviewing personalities in business (Vincent Stanley from Patagonia, Eric Garnier from Choba Choba, Adriana Marina from Hecho x Nosostros, Fergal Smith from the Moy Hill Farm and Andy Middleton from the TYF Group), and by giving space to written creativity of sustainability professionals. The three fundamental questions are: How does ‘creating change’ feel from within? What does it mean to swim against the business mainstream because genuinely the status quo does not work? Where and how does courage come into play?
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?
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.