We have a choice. We have a choice to define, to embody, to live, how we want the ‘new normal’ to be.
Because, far from perfectionism, doing, being and actioning is what makes a difference.
This is why, I herewith propose a ‘Pledge of tiny actions’.
The Manifesto of a Hummingbird: . 13 + 1 ways to make a stance for responsible business and leadership.
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.
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.
When will Corona 'be over'? never. There are historical moments when the future changes direction. We call them bifurcations. Or deep crises. These times are now. Matthias Horx discusses what that means concretely.
Digital tools and IT systems are a great enabler for more data, more stringent channels of how to communicate what the different players in the chain do, and how they do it, over large distances and across operations and organizations.Yet – digital tools are more human than we think they are … because they, in the end, are representatives of the values and the world view of those that have built them.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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?
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.
‘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?
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?
In July 2018 Australian Billionaire James Packer resigned from 24 boards in total where he held directorships. His spokesman in a statement announced that Packer was “suffering from mental health issues” and was seeking treatment for depression. Packer is not a lone case.
Climate Anxiety can be a trigger to mental health challenges - for fear of the future and well-being of loved ones. Creating boards that are able to open up about doubts, challenges and concerns is like adding a booster gear to their functioning, reaching deep into an individuals motivation and passion. It also could add a whole new dimensions to professional discussions and help to ask harder, but equally necessary questions to the executives running the day-to-day business.
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.
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.
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.
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.

















