“Green to Gold – How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage” by D.C....
Sahel 2010 is a déjà-vu of the year 1984: Again a food crisis is just around the corner. Sebastião Salgado pictures show the horror of this reality - hauntingly beautiful.
The conference on Ethical Trade, at the Goodenough College, London, on November 12 & 13, 2010, offered 2 tightly scheduled days, where qualified speakers followed one another.
Ethical fashion, finally!. In addition to the fashion category, even in 4 of the 11 remaining general Observer Ethical Awards categories ethical fashion made it onto the short list.
We all can see it happening before our eyes: Despite the Paris Climate Agreement to a climate trajectory of ‘well bellow’ 2 degrees (hence where the 1.5C number stems from) – the trajectory is not anywhere near that number. The Inevitable Policy Response (IPR) is the response by governments and legislators around the globe in taking action – hence enacting laws – in line with the 1.5 Degree climate goals.
What would the Inevitable Policy response mean for the consumer goods industries? What could the effects be? This instalment of a 3-part series looks at shifts in costing paradigms, in transportation, and in supply chain structures.
What would the Inevitable Policy response mean for the consumer goods industries? What could the effects be? This instalment of a 3-part series looks at: consumption patterns, role of consumer goods industries for economic development, population behaviours when affected by severe conditions
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.
As I write this, it is late April.
And our lessons from the last few weeks in Corona lock down and the impact of the pandemic on our communities and societies, all over the world, have thrown an even harsher light onto some of the realities we either assumed as a given, or worked hard to change for years already.
And the lessons have been truly tough medicine.
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’.
Few economists have truly the track record to justify themselves talking about systemic issues, impacts and outlooks - other than in blatantly generic truths.
In his series 'Sustain What' - intermittently focused on the topic of the systemic aspects of Corona/Covid19 - renowned journalist Andrew Revkin has sought out a range of experts.
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.
Over a decade ago, Simon Sinek pointedly demanded: Start with Why.
Targeted at a then rather uninspiring marketing and branding industry, 10 years on is still as valid as ever.
Just now, we need to ask businesses: Why are you bothering with investing millions, and thousands of hours into sustainability?
Often the answer will be: because we have to. An answer just as uninspiring as the sales slogans Sinek was bashing a decade ago.
Because when it comes to Sustainability: Know your genuine Why. Or don't bother.
From research we know that boards of directors lack skill and expertise when it comes to ESG and Climate Issues.
But: certainly the asset owners and investors do see that point, and are worried about boards taking tangible action that would safeguard their assets?
This is precisely the question that ShareAction asked in their most recent report.
The insights are sobering. Particularly the Big Three asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street) have a miserable voting record during AGM season: both, for the number of votes cast, as well as for their stance against most resolution on Climate Change and Human Rights.
The good news: it rarely has been so simple to identify Greenwashers. Thanks to publicly available filings about votes cast in AGMs of listed companies.
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. The big elephant in the room is of course: How do companies 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. Spoiler Alert: Some 'villains' are doing rather well. So well in fact that they are leading the pack.
Global Goals are called ‘global’ for a reason: they apply to everyone, everything. Every business, every government, every church, charity … In case there was any doubt about it: The Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Agreement are global goals. In fact, probably the Global Goals par excellence. Yet, while organisations of all different types and characteristics are making progress in translating those to their different contexts, environments, business models etc. the same does not hold true when it comes to individuals. Beyond a few platitudes. A few arbitrary and personal musings on the role of the individual in achieving the goals.
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?
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.
The energy sector is the by far most impactful sector: directly and indirectly our carbon footprint depends on how they fuel our civilisation.
The big elephant in the room is of course: How well are badly do energy companies 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 look into these questions. Spoiler Alert: The results are pretty much in line with expectations. Yet: among the innovators, not everyone does perform as well as they probably should ...
In last week’s post I looked at energy companies and their trajectory relative to the Paris Climate Agenda. The insights clearly suggested a mixed picture. A clear point of how important it is to decarbonised the way we fuel our economy and global society.
But that’s unfortunately not all there is to the energy generation picture!
What few people realise: Energy generation requires water. A lot of water.
Not just in the energy generating processes, but also in the extraction of the energy source (coal in particular), and/or the making of the necessary equipment.
Some insights ... illustrated at the example of China.
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.
