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.
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.
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?
Research has known for a while that when someone in your presence is trying to think, much of what you are hearing and seeing is your effect on them. That is also the case for boards.
Because: under the right conditions and circumstances, people will – invariably – think for themselves. Just: is that desired?
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.
n the course of the last 2 years, the Greenpeace Detox campaign has repeatedly made waves.
The latest such incident happened in the context of what is possibly the world’s most relevant trade fair for performance and outdoor wear ISPO in January 2014. At that point of time, Greenpeace released news that in the water repellent coatings of jackets by some renowned brands, traces of fluorin had been identified. And that said test results had been ‘hidden’ from the public.
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 healthcare industry's social responsibility goes beyond just workplace and supply chain issues; it's about its impact on society and what its real goals are. Trials and prevention efforts often overlook certain groups. Politics and money regularly determine who gets treated, in function of political agendas in some jurisdictions. And: Using the GDP to measure health isn't necessarily helpful as it incentives fixing problems rather then preventing them early on.
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?
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.
There are two approaches on how we can define of what is viable and desirable for our global economy.
In one, the 'soft attributes' and non-physical factors such as consumer desires, lifestyles or distribution of goods are a fixed attribute. In the other, quantifiable, physical attributes - amongst them natural resources - are fixed.
The challenge of boards in this time and age: Recognising that the first - the present - is failing. And outlining the path towards the second.
Buying outdoor and sports material is not always an easy task – more so, if current equipment has has shared many an adventure.
The following key questions are therefore intended to support you – the sports and outdoor loving shopper – when looking around for a refresh or update of your kit.
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?
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.
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?
t is fairly old news, but merits repeating nevertheless: our current economy, at the verge of collapse as it is, is egocentric, and at the same time understates costs while overstating benefits.
In other words, it promotes a type of behaviour that is degeneratively competitive: the ‘me’ wants, needs, more of whatever it may be, while anything and everything else is losing out. No matter how high the cost for the bigger picture – society and the planet, that is – may be.
‘I feel like a fraud’. This is what employees of clients I work with often voice. It is usually at the point of time when strategy is moved to implementation. Hence: when it all gets concrete.
The statement is an expression of the feeling of overwhelm that comes with delving into sustainability issues, acquiring new knowledge and terminology, and in addition having to adapt ones habitual practice of work.It also happens once the low hanging fruits are gleaned, everything gets much more difficult.
It's the 'valley of despair'.
Why is it important to pay attention to it? And what can leaders do about it?
‘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?
Media hell broke loose when Greta Turnberg a few days ago dared to mock global politicians with her ‘blablabla’ speech. Personally, I thought it was time for celebration. I envy her boldness, her fearlessness.
Because we all know: she’s right. Very, very, right.
Sadly, in Greta’s shadow Vanessa Nakate went unappreciated: she made a very good point about social inclusion to achieve the energy transition.
I raise a glass to both of these ladies!
Watch their speech in full.
P.S: the only two note worthy responses - from Italy, strange as it may sound ...