A week or so ago, the latest, sixth, IPCC report dropped.
My suggestion hence is simply read it.
Even if only the executive summary.
But just read it.
All I would like is to grab the opportunity to give a HUGE thank you to all the scientists involved.
Thank you dear IPCC scientists!
Thank you for all the work, the patience, and the glimmer of hope that despite it all remains a firm part of the reports.
Even this latest one.
‘System positive’. The latest term I came a cross in the finance world, and which intends to identify business that are particularly well set up to survive the tribulations to be expected in the decades to come. Immediately the cynic in me asks: Another addition to the sustainability bullshit bingo?
And yet: the 5 questions proposed for scrutinising companies are very sharp, very relevant and very insightful.
They only fall short of one: Will the company thrive within or even thanks to the Doughnut Boundaries?
Detox has been a repeat topic on this blog. Most recently after my visit in May to Performance Days, but also previously.
While slowly but surely more and more brands (17 at the time of writing) – and retailers – have signed a Detox Solution Commitment with Greenpeace, and hence work in some way or other with ZHDC (Road map to Zero), a key threshold was passed event most recently: With the Italian fabric mill Canepa, the first manufacturer has taken the pledge.
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.
AI has the potential to transform corporate responsibility by handling data-heavy tasks like reporting or data and KPI management. It hence can contribute to helping companies 'being less bad'. However, its potential to support professionals and companies in driving real positive impact is still developing. This post introduces AI’s current potenntial in corporate responsibility and sustainability. In upcoming blog posts we'll explore specific applications: in sustainability reporting, supply chain management, and integrating financial considerations with sustainability impact.
Anger … a strong, passionate emotion. Sometimes conducive as it gives loads of strength to fight for what we see as a ‘better world and society’. But also sometimes a shot into our own foot.
In the sustainability world extemists views are common - on either side of the spectrum. Both sides advocating for fundamental change.
But as it the choice of words suggests: fundamental change is only possible if we change fundamentally. All of us.
Including the advocates and campaigners themselves.
Most boards are composed of former or present CEOs, CFO and other C-suite executives.
People, hence, with a long track record of ‘getting stuff’ done. A board’s role however is very different from that of an executive: digging deep by asking those overly simple questions that give interesting answers, digging deep into rationales, values, hopes, expectations, shut up doubts, and personal agendas. Which is what good coaches typically do. Are coaches the better board directors?
“Marketing used to be about creating a myth and telling it. Now it is about finding a truth and sharing it”. Better brands are those brands that will ensure their long-term existence, that will go beyond their founders and their children. How? By taking better decisions and looking at the bigger picture.
Circular economy is the antonym of linear economy. Linear economy has been the dominant industrial model in our history and postulates production is followed by consumption that then ends up with the disposal of used products. As opposed to this, circular economy seeks to rebuild capital, whether this is financial, manufactured, human, social or natural and sees products having a longer or a never-ending life that are either re-used as new inputs to create new products or shared and co-owned by different consumers.
Can marketing be ethical? Far too many times I am asked this question or come across people who strongly believe that marketing simply cannot. Actually, still today, for many, marketing is evil. I think that this conviction is the result of two main factors.
Pricing the ton of carbon is a key matter – more so as an increasing number of companies aim at publicly claiming carbon neutrality. Carbon hence has a price – and this raises the much discussed question: What is a fair (or better: ‘correct’) price for carbon?
In this post I present a glimpse of some of the challenges and realities related to the topic.
It leaves us with the question: What went wrong in the current system that fundamentally asks us to choose between having to monetarily price natural and societal resources, and a fair, equitable access to these resources specifically for hard hit communities?
The question alone should not be even asked.
And yet it seems that’s what we’re left with given the current time and age.
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?
Did you ever wonder, how the New Climate Changed reality could look and feel like at its worst?
Then, we may right now be getting a flavour of exactly that.
Ukraine's resource richness may be an important variable in a globalised world that will increasingly be struggling to access necessary resources in the decades to come. Because, after all, and as we learned when we played monopoly: Whomever controls the resources controls the game.
Governments as well as legal persons such as companies are undoubtedly important players in this whole societal shift towards climate mitigation and adaption. When it comes to corporates though, and notably stock quoted companies, there is a group of people that is most prominently exposed in regards to the legality and societal ‘license to operate’ of a company: the Board of Directors (BoD). The question hence for this blog post is: How is this climate litigation business shaping up to affect the Board of Directors of publicly listed companies?
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?
Litigation, going to court, is by definition not a fun business. And yet, in this 2023 several Climate Litigation cases have already caught the headline – and many more are in the makes.
Among all the court cases, one particular case sticks out like – depending on the political viewpoint – either a lighthouse of hope, or a sore thumb: Urgenda vs Government of the Netherlands.
In this blog post we dig deeper into this case:
Who was going to court against whom? And why exactly? How come the plaintiffs won? And: is this just a one off local phenomenon in the Netherlands?
Collaborations toward a common goal, across organisations, can be one of the most gratifying things we ever may get to experience. Funny enough: Neither collaboration nor team work is something outrageously difficult in principle. If the common and mutually beneficial goal is front and centre. But this is exactly where the hitch is. Some thoughts about the hurdles of genuine collaboration and team work.
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.
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.
COP28 yielded mixed results, featuring some historic 'firsts' such as a fossil fuel phase-out commitment, a $700 million loss and damage fund, the recognition of nuclear energy, and (this is huge!) a pointed spotlight on food systems' role in adaption.
Most of the old challenges though remain: It's all carrots and no sticks. Which shows in the continued absence of enforcement of Climate Targets or their stringency, and the eye-level conversation with Global South nations.