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.
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.
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.
‘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?
In an earlier post I asked: How can business, a business, downscale the Doughnut and make it operational?
In this post I look at three tools that praise themselves of being either part, or even all, of the support a business needs on the journey to integrate the Doughnut Economics concepts. Namely: Science-based Targets (SBTs), the B Impact Assessment(BIA), and the Future Fit Business Benchmark (FFBBM).
What are their fundamental differences and similarities?
Are they indeed a tool to help on the path to keeping within the Doughnut boundaries?
Overconsumption or ‘simply’ consumption?
Fair resource use, or resource depletion?
Fair share, equal share or acquired share of resources?
Those are questions that pop up when the Planetary Boundaries are being discussed.
“Is Europe living within the limits of our planet?: An assessment of Europe's environmental footprints in relation to planetary boundaries”, published in April 2020 does exactly that: it evaluates and calculates the European performance for planetary boundaries by taking a consumption-based (footprint-based) perspective. This is turn is interesting as it relates environmental pressures to final demands for goods and services.
And the results are ... shall we say: a stark call to action.
Over the last 12 months, the Doughnut Economics Action lab developed a methodology – denominated ‘Creating City Portraits’ - , tested in three different cities of the global North. So the question is: Could the methodology work for business too? The answer: Yes in principle. But commitment is at the heart of it.
We need new business models that are not predicated on selling more stuff to more people.
And because in the 'Here and Now', there is truly not much more to say, I could finish with the above quote.
Except that: Those ‘new business models’ are not reality. Far from it.
About the Role of the Board in the 'Why'.
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.
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.
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.
Doughnut Economics = An economic system that respects the planetary boundaries as well as the societal attributes of welfare. To create an economic system that works for the humans and the environment around us.