By Jill Jaracz from Flowcode • Reposted: November 4, 2023
Sustainability has become an important metric for many, with half of consumers in a 2021 IBM/National Retail Federation survey saying they’d pay more for sustainable products that benefit the environment and the people creating them.
Companies also say they’re on board with sustainability. Nearly all profitable companies agree that becoming environmentally sustainable is a priority and part of their overall business goals, a 2023 Deloitte survey shows.
But while consumers and companies talk a good game, the reality can differ vastly. Flowcode compiled industry research and news reports to analyze environmental sustainability as a priority for consumers and businesses alike.
Fewer than 1 in 3 consumers say that sustainable products made up more than half of their last purchase, the IBM/NRF survey found. Companies are also lagging. The European Commission reported in 2021 that more than 40% of online claims about sustainability amounted to “greenwashing,” calling them “exaggerated, false, or deceptive.”
Searching for a sustainable solution?
Many brands are turning to QR codes because they rapidly connect people with digital destinations, and can save paper that would have been used to create hangtags, sourcing information, and care instructions. Create one for free using this Free QR code generator.
The effects of COVID-19 and climate change
Consumer views of sustainable products have shifted more due to COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and climate change. A May 2021 IBM report found that more than 9 in 10 global consumers say COVID-19 affected their views on sustainability.
As manufacturers and retailers redesign their supply chains to prevent future catastrophic disruptions, some integrate sustainability into everyday practices, including responding to consumer demands for more recyclable packaging.
Companies such as Procter & Gamble have revamped package design on Swiffer dusters and Mr. Clean Magic Erasers to eliminate plastic packaging. P&G estimates its efforts have reduced the company’s plastic usage by 655 tons per year, according to Waste360. Other efforts focus on making traditionally unrecyclable items recyclable. In May 2023, the company received a patent for a fully recyclable pump dispenser.
Other industry changes include swapping plastic packaging for compostable material, which is often made from certain paper or bioplastics, and replacing unnecessary paper inserts and printing with QR codes that can provide ingredient lists and product directions. Small changes like these could have a massive impact. The consumer products industry produces over 33% of all greenhouse gases, according to an Accenture report released in November 2022.
The combination of pandemic- and climate-related disruption has led to a heightened focus on sustainability. IBM research shows that today’s consumers try to incorporate environmental sustainability into their everyday lives. Nearly 3 in 4 carry reusable shopping bags, and 3 in 5 want their values to align with their shopping habits, with 62% willing to change how and what they buy to improve environmental sustainability. More than 60% of consumers said they would pay more for a sustainably packaged product, a February 2023 McKinsey survey shows.
In 2023, the economy may be a more significant factor for people not buying sustainably. Inflation and rising interest rates are affecting consumers’ purchasing power, and over half of consumers think sustainable products cost too much compared to nongreen options, according to GfK.
Throughout the consumer products sector, sales growth for sustainable products has outpaced non-sustainable products, making up almost half of all retail sales in consumer product categories. McKinsey found that between 2018 and 2022, sales grew 6.4%, nearly 2 percentage points more than nonsustainable products.
People stand beneath fall foliage and before high-rise buildings of the Manhattan city skyline. Image [+]AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
By Mary Foley, Contributor via Forbes • Reposted: November 4, 2023
Remember when “sustainable” investment funds were the belle of the ball? It was not that long ago. As recently as the first quarter of 2021, Morningstar reported that global sustainable mutual funds and ETFs attracted a record $185.3 billion in new money as investors of every type clamored to get a piece of the green revolution. Today, things have changed.
Businesses are facing a growing anti-ESG backlash, whereby investor groups, lawmakers and media figures have begun speaking out against corporate ESG initiatives, suggesting they run counter to fiduciary responsibility. This weaponization of ESG has gotten so intense that a recent Conference Board survey of 100 large U.S. companies noted that nearly half have already experienced an ESG backlash and 61% expect it to persist or get worse over the next two years. Moreover, investors have already filed 68 anti-ESG proposals this year, according to the Sustainable Investments Institute, a 76% increase from last year.
Separating Facts from Hype
But how much of this anti-ESG sentiment is driven by sound, unbiased analysis of corporate strategy and risk exposure, and how much is driven by rhetoric, sound bites and overly reductive hot takes that ignore the key issues when it comes to a multifaceted issue like sustainability?
At the base level, few would argue the merits of companies increasingly addressing their impacts on the environment, their employees and members of their communities and the effectiveness of their internal processes and controls. However, the problem is that many are doing so without enough specificity and rigor in their reporting to make a clear connection between these environmental, social and governance-related issues and material risks to the business. In short, companies need to take the subjectivity and feelings out of ESG and sustainability reporting by treating it more like financial reporting.
Getting to the Root of Sustainability
They can do that by clearly defining the sustainability and ESG issues that matter most to their business and their stakeholders and developing detailed reports that illustrate what they are doing to address those issues and chart how they are progressing on that journey. Detailed transition plans are the key here. These clear-cut, time-bound action plans clearly outline how an organization will make systematic changes to its operations in order to meet defined sustainability goals and keep stakeholders involved at all stages. They also provide a useful mechanism to keep the message at the forefront of their minds and up near the top of their board agendas.
In fact, that’s the specific guidance on sustainability reporting that’s been issued by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), the body tasked by the European Union (EU) with developing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). A similar approach can also be found in the recent International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) reporting standards that will guide the way companies report sustainability information in their financial reports.
While these standardized approaches to sustainability reporting are not as simple as a single score or letter-grade, they also cannot be spun by a marketing department or polished up in promotional materials, without the evidence to back them up. They are quantitative facts about sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could influence an entity’s cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital over the short-, medium-, or long-term.
Financial Reporting Grade Data vs. Armchair Stats
Accordingly, this accounting-style approach to sustainability reporting will not easily lend itself to headline catching promotional top-ten lists of companies most likely to hit net zero emissions targets or allow for scorekeepers to track which companies have the best ESG stats. That’s a good thing. In our collective quest to better understand sustainability and ESG, many of us have inadvertently fallen for the temptation of treating it like a fantasy football draft or a contest to crown the greenest, most diverse or most ethical companies. It should come as little surprise, then, when battle lines are drawn pitting the green team against the red team or the free marketeers against the “woke capitalists.” The fact that these categories even exist should serve as evidence enough that the current state of ESG reporting has gotten away from its original intent.
Oversimplifying ESG and sustainability does a terrible disservice to those many companies, investors and stakeholders who have been doing the hard work of implementing strategies and reporting their efforts to align values with value.
Sustainability is an exceedingly complex concept. It is not going to be magically achieved with a press release or derailed by a proxy vote. The companies at the center of the issue—and the investors and other stakeholders who care about the sustained viability of those companies—are already taking a closer look at the fundamentals. It is the rest of us who need to stop getting distracted by the noise.
A new house under construction outside the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve, Ont. Image: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
By Andréanne Doyon, Assistant professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University and Trivess Moore, Senior Lecturer, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University via The Conversation • Reposted: November 3, 2023
It’s hard not to wonder if we’re prepared for what comes nextwith climate change. This includes our housing, which has a critical role to play in a sustainable, liveable, and resilient future.
Sustainable housing provides significantly improved environmental performance compared to (most) current housing achieving zero, or near zero, carbon outcomes. However, it is more than just improving energy and water performance.
The good news is we can deliver this type of housing right now. There are many examples of innovative new sustainable housing, and retrofits of existing housing. We explore these in our new book and outline some examples below.
Fossil-free housing
Several jurisdictions have banned fossil fuel-based heating in homes. Bans are taking place at the national level across the European Union, at the provincial level in Québec, and at the local level in Dublin, New York City and Vancouver.
These bans are in response to the Paris Agreement’s 2050 targets and the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, which include moving away from polluting fuels for health reasons and the need to decarbonize our energy networks.
Natural gas fuel is polluting and increasingly banned in many jurisdictions around the world. Image: AP Photo/Steven Senne
Other jurisdictions are banning the use of gas completely and requiring a shift to all-electric housing. Electrification is about reducing environmental impact and delivering a more affordable healthier home.
In Australia, bottom-up support for the all-electric home has grown significantly (as exemplified by the My Electric Home Facebook group which has over 100,000 members) and is putting pressure on governments.
Sustainable housing is also about the location and scale of dwellings. Some jurisdictions are increasing the density of lots to accommodate more housing in existing neighbourhoods and where existing infrastructure and amenities already exists. An example of upzoning is the Oregon’s House Bill 2001, which essentially eliminated single-family zoning in most cities.
Oregon is also famous for its urban growth boundaries, which is a statewide effort to accommodate population and employment growth within urban boundaries to protect agriculture, forests and open space.
Single-family homes, such as this one in Vancouver, are wasteful in terms of space and materials, and are increasingly being zoned out of major urban areas. Image: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
House size is also important. Larger houses consume more land, materials and resources, and require more energy for heating and cooling. Cities like Vancouver and Toronto have changed zoning legislation to support accessory dwelling units, such as laneway houses, and legalize secondary suites.
There are also social movements devoted to living small. From tiny houses to apartments and self-contained units, these dwellings range in size from approximately 300 to 1,000 square feet. Popular social media accounts include Living Big in a Tiny House, 600sqft and a baby and Never Too Small which offer instruction and resources — and a community — for those wanting to live with a lighter footprint.
Such housing can reduce environmental impacts through smaller dwellings and buildings, shared spaces and facilities, and opportunities for grey water filtration systems or community-scale energy projects. Co-housing is a model of intentional community living, which includes self-contained units with shared facilities and amenities that deliver a range of wider social benefits. Channels like ‘Living Big in a Tiny House’ champion the small homes movements while providing community for those looking to downsize their footprint.
In Germany, Baugruppen (German for building group) refers to a practice of self-initiated, community-oriented living where residents share the responsibility of the building. Baugruppen is an approach, not a rule book, where financing, individuals and their needs inform the development.
In Australia, Nightingale Housing is a non-profit organization working to provide sustainable and higher density housing. While the developments go significantly beyond minimum construction code performance requirements, it is the provision of shared and community spaces that is challenging business-as-usual designs. These include communal laundries, productive gardens and outdoor cooking areas designed to encourage interaction with neighbours.
There is no doubt that our housing will play a critical role in delivering a sustainable, affordable and resilient future for households and communities. There are examples all around the world showing us the type of housing we should (and can) be delivering right now. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
Given the climate emergency and other critical issues with our housing, we need policymakers, the construction industry and households to demand more of our housing.
By Myles Peacock from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: October 26, 2023
It’s all about increasing the efficiency of your assets — rather than just adding more stuff to a stack to feel like you are keeping pace. When it comes to both effectiveness and sustainability, less is more.
Sustainability in marketing is, almost ironically, an evergreen topic. Every brand, agency and marketer should be thinking about the environment and how our industry is impacting it.
Recent Kantar research shows that 90 percent of marketers believe sustainability agendas must be more ambitious, with a further 94 percent saying marketers have to act more bravely and experiment to drive transformative change.
But thinking is one thing. Doing is another thing entirely.
Roughly 40 percent of marketers are still taking their first steps towards developing more sustainable marketing practices. And you can understand why — these are challenging times; it’s easy for sustainability to slip down the priority list.
The media landscape has fragmented — audiences now exist across its many glimmering shards, dynamically shifting from channel to channel throughout the day. Having more channels means there are more chances to deliver your message, but it also increases the risk of your message completely missing its intended target
But the reality remains that marketers wholeheartedly want to be as effective as possible. They want to achieve zero-waste budgets. But zero waste must refer to environmental waste as much as financial waste.
The bottom line
When ads fail to land, they don’t just waste the budget. Unnoticed digital ads saturate the landscape — consuming valuable resources, draining server capacity and increasing the size of a business’s carbon footprint.
The CO2 emissions from online advertising alone account for a whopping 10 percent of the internet’s total infrastructure emissions. Multiply that waste by factoring in all the communications a typical business creates beyond advertising, and it’s clear that a major problem exists.
But the effects of the media landscape’s growing complexity are twofold. First, you have a proliferation of channels; then, you have the explosion of marketing tools and solutions that help brands reach consumers across the rapidly evolving ecosystem.
Now, brand marketers are grappling with the challenge of navigating an array of disparate systems. On average, they juggle six different platforms — most of which lack integration and compatibility. This fragmentation not only impedes efficiency but also hampers effective waste-management strategies. And as more platforms emerge, levels of waste are only set to increase.
More complexity. More competition. More pressure. More emissions. More wastage.
So, how can brands effectively become more sustainable while keeping pace with an evolving media landscape?
Out of sight, but not out of mind
Every year, the digital waste of unseen ads emit as much carbon as the global aviation industry. This huge number shows how important it is to fix the damage that digital advertising is doing to the environment. With this knowledge, brands and marketers have a responsibility to tackle this problem head on.
But to close the gap, our industry needs to proactively work together.
Tech is changing fast; and concurrently, environmental concerns are growing. Developing collective, sustainable advertising practices is the only way to significantly curtail the impact of digital advertising on the environment.
Businesses have multiple partners, stakeholders, agencies, markets, departments. They can evolve or be acquired. The list goes on and on. And consequently, many organizations are over-encumbered with systems and processes that are essentially duplicates.
It’s all about increasing the efficiency of the assets you have — rather than just adding more stuff to a stack to feel like you are keeping pace. When it comes to both effectiveness and sustainability, less is more.
In fact, our recent commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting revealed that effective implementation of this approach within a company’s marketing ecosystem leads to positive outcomes. When tools are used to their maximum efficiency, 59 percent of respondents reported increased company revenue; and 48 percent reported a more efficient use of their time.
Brands should focus on holistic strategies that bring together content, ads and audiences seamlessly. Establishing connections between these elements serves to minimize wastage and enhance overall campaign effectiveness. This strategic approach not only benefits the environment but also streamlines efforts and amplifies returns on investment for marketers.
Sustainability may feel like an evergreen topic. But we are up against the clock. The planet depends on the choices businesses make together — which is why brands must ensure their technology makes marketing work for them, their consumers and the environment.
By Barak Bar-Cohen, Founder and CEO of Sojo Industries via Food Industry Executive • Reposted: October 25, 2023
What are key motivators behind Gen Z’s support for more sustainable food and beverage products?
Gen Z is facing challenges that generations before them did not.
As Gen Z consumers enter the workforce, they’re encountering very different circumstances than their parents and grandparents. For example, they grew up seeing the impact of climate change and a global pandemic firsthand, and for many, this led to sustainability becoming a greater priority. In 2023, Gen Z consumers face new challenges such as inflation, higher costs of living, and the impact of social media, all of which are driving this generation to make value-driven spending decisions.
It’s not surprising then that Gen Z is using their newfound purchasing power in an environmentally and financially responsible fashion. With the world they’re growing up in, every purchase counts towards preserving the planet and saving dollars toward the basic living necessities.
And what’s even better: brands and manufacturers are paying attention. Today, there are more options for Gen Z consumers to “shop their values” and ways for consumers to call out brands that are not prioritizing sustainability. This can further motivate Gen Z to demand food and beverage companies to adopt more climate-responsible practices in their supply chains.
How do food and beverage manufacturing processes impact the environment?
The manufacturing stage of the food and beverage supply chain can have profound impacts on the environment. For example, the reliance on nonrenewable energy sources to power heating, cooling, refrigeration, and other energy-intensive activities can increase carbon emissions.
Likewise, this step of the process often generates a significant amount of waste from packaging materials to processing byproducts. Excessive packaging, especially with non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials, can further exacerbate this issue, leading to increased waste generation and pollution.
Without adequate disposal, food and beverage manufacturers may turn to landfilling or incineration — processes with harmful environmental effects. In fact, landfills often produce a natural byproduct that is composed of methane and carbon dioxide, both potent greenhouse gasses (GHG) that accelerate the climate crisis.
Considering the ways manufacturing impacts the environment, it’s important that food and beverage brands make climate-responsible decisions to reduce their environmental footprint.
What are some potential barriers that food and beverage companies face to achieve sustainability?
Large food and beverage companies mostly control their own supply chains, from ingredient sourcing to manufacturing to warehousing to distribution. However, most of the emerging brands do not.
This makes it difficult for the majority of newer brands to influence something they do not control. For example, if manufacturers rely on fossil fuels to power their warehouses, this will contribute to a product’s overall carbon footprint, and brands have little say in these decisions. So, they’ll face challenges in adopting sustainable practices throughout the supply chain.
On the other hand, for larger brands that manage their own supply chains, sustainable practices are still not widely accepted due to legacy systems and financial return models that value a healthy ROI during challenging economic times, regardless of the environmental costs. But if brands fail to invest in the future, they’ll miss out on impressing a growing customer base: Gen Z and Gen Alpha customers who expect brands to offer sustainable food and beverage products.
A part of the challenges for both newer and legacy brands is the fact that food and beverage supply chains are highly fragmented. Brands work with multiple suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors from production to retail. This makes it difficult to track and trace the environmental impact of products while assessing for quality control and food safety. Often, food and beverage products travel significant distances, making it even more challenging for brands to lower their environmental footprint.
What strategies can food and beverage manufacturers employ to increase sustainable practices in their operations?
More than a strategy, companies must make an actionable commitment to climate-responsible decisions in every aspect of their business.
When the choice is between non-recyclable plastic or packaging made from 100% recycled materials, businesses can choose to walk the talk by utilizing eco-friendly materials and finding savings elsewhere to justify the decision. Companies can also choose to work with vendors that are actively prioritizing sustainability in their operations, which can help the company reduce its carbon footprint. For food and beverage companies across manufacturing and the supply chain, sustainability must be put into practice across all processes, from ingredient sourcing to packaging to distribution, if companies truly want to be seen as green brands.
Company leaders can also put this into practice by showcasing their own sustainable choices and supporting employees to choose more sustainable options in their everyday lives. For example, companies could encourage employees to practice green lifestyles by installing free charging stations at the office for electric vehicles or providing recycling bins and a pickup program. People often view these as extra steps or more expensive options, but it can make a big difference when everyone does their part.
How can technology assist in improving sustainability efforts in food and beverage manufacturing?
Technology is one of the most prominent drivers for businesses that want to improve their sustainability efforts. In many scenarios, automation and robotics reduce the reliance on people, which can save energy, but also significant resources and waste produced by humans. Software platforms can help businesses be more sustainable by optimizing routes and analyzing weather patterns to better plan and implement more efficient manufacturing practices, which reduces wasted resources.
Real-time, data-driven insights produced by artificial intelligence are also redefining sustainability efforts for food and beverage decision-makers. This valuable data is not only helping businesses improve their own operations but also benefiting consumers by enabling businesses to forecast projections and meet the environmental expectations of buyers.
How could the changing preferences of Gen Z impact future practices and innovations within the food and beverage industry?
The preferences of younger generations, including Gen Z, are permeating the food and beverage industry. With their increased focus on healthy options, products accommodating probiotic, plant-based, and organic preferences have already made their way into food and drink innovations.
Drink categories, including non-alcoholic beverages, have emerged as major areas of growth in 2023 driven by Gen Z being the most sober generation.
Younger generations are certainly influencing the market, but as a result, we even see older consumers changing their buying habits – and sustainability is one of these areas. While Gen Z is adopting sustainable behaviors more than any other age group, their actions are driving other age groups like Millennials to make more sustainable decisions. Whether it is a decision rooted in health, sustainability, price, or quality, consumers are influencing food and beverage brands to make innovative changes. By accommodating these preferences, companies can not only gain the trust of younger generations but continue to improve their bottom lines in close alignment with the market.
By Heather Landy from QZ.com • Reposted: October 25, 2023
Corporate sustainability work used to be a lonely profession. The goals seemed far off, and often it was difficult getting the rest of the organization to join the journey. But suddenly, a host of interested parties—governments, customers, shareholders, and competitors—are pulling companies down the path of responsible business practices.
In other words, do not give the political blowback against sustainability goals any more weight than it deserves. Global companies are pushing ahead with their sustainability agendas.
That was one of our main conclusions from a recent roundtable of corporate sustainability leaders, hosted by Quartz in London and sponsored by EY Parthenon. The event was conducted under the Chatham House rule, which means we cannot publicly reveal the speakers’ identities or affiliations. What we learned, however, is fair game. Here are our takeaways.
Will the path to corporate sustainability be purpose- or compliance-led? Yes.
That was the uncomplicated answer to the question we asked at the outset. The participants, from global companies spanning telecom, real estate, finance, consumer packaged goods, and the industrial sector, were in complete agreement that it would take both regulation and corporate initiative to meet the goals of the 2016 Paris climate agreement, among other sustainability targets.
The slightly more complicated answer? Companies will need to do a top-to-bottom overhaul of how they make and sell products, while governments will need to create rules that not only require corporate box-ticking but actually shape markets to generate the desired outcomes.
When companies announce ambitious goals like reaching net-zero emissions by 2030, whether they hit the target or not, it focuses the organization and forces a change in mindset. (If that sounds fluffy, consider the mindset change that Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella credits for the software giant’s resurgence in recent years. Mindsets make a difference.)
A participant from a global industrial concern said that since its announcement of net-zero goals for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, the company’s board quickly seemed to understand it could no longer wait for technologies that are still on the horizon—it needed to start making changes immediately.
A sustainability chief from the telecom industry noted that in 2017, getting approval for measures that would bring her company in line with principles for a maximum 1.5 degree global temperature rise required three trips to the board. Today, the approvals come much faster. What changed, she said, was customer pressure: When prospective clients send out a request for proposal (RFP), often 30% of it involves queries about the company’s sustainability credentials.
The relative returns on sustainability are real
In real estate, for example, buildings that switch from gas to heat pumps typically cost less to run while offering greater security and resilience. And increasingly, those are the only kinds of buildings that quality tenants want. At the other end of real estate spectrum, it’s mainly a race to the bottom now on cost as well as quality, which in the long term is a recipe for an influx of stranded assets.
Geopolitics matter
What’s feasible for companies from a sustainability standpoint can change very quickly. Conflicts between countries can easily choke off supply chains, for example, so plans must be flexible.
Iconic projects can change the market
When Cambridge University decided to stop mowing the famous lawn outside King’s College in order to turn it into a wildflower meadow, it marked the first time since 1772 that the plot of land went unmanicured. Perhaps that helped encourage the university two years later to cover its iconicchapel in scaffolding and lay plans for an installation of solar panels.
In the corporate world, prepare for similar first-mover sustainability measures to hit the market and potentially push competitors to match those actions. For example, redundant packaging for high-end spirits—in which a bottle might sit inside a gift box—may soon be on its way out.
Sustainable alternatives are not without their drawbacks
EV batteries rely on heavy metals mined in ways that can be problematic for the environment or human rights (and the cars do nothing to solve for the pollution that comes from automobile tires). Solar panels can reduce carbon emissions but their manufacture, concentrated heavily in China, raises human rights issues as well.
In other words, corporate sustainability work has a long future ahead of it.
A group of staff and students weave baskets as part of the University of Waterloo’s Land Skills for Wellness and Sustainability initiative. Photo: James T. Jones), Author provided (no reuse)
By James T Jones, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo and Steffanie Scott, Professor of Geography & Environmental Management, University of Waterloo via The Conversation • Reposted: October 24, 2023
Could carving a wooden spoon by a lake be the answer to the mental health crisis in Canadian universities and also global sustainability?
Clearly, no.
However, our research has shown that shifts in our attention using Nature-based crafts and skills may just be the key to addressing the developing crises of mental health on campus as our world struggles with sustainability.
The University of Waterloo is often known for its science, engineering and tech expertise, but this initiative aims at supporting well-being and fostering discussions around sustainable behaviour through the re-connection of participants to land and nature. Workshops led by local craft practitioners focus on spoon carving, basket weaving, nature weaving, herbal tea preparation, nature connection walks and scything.
The emphasis with each of these activities is sensory connection, relationship building with natural “materials” and the power of crafting with hands and simple tools, engaging in skills that have connected humans to land and place, sometimes for thousands of years. Participants formed new relationships with maple and willow wood, birch bark, tulsi and chamomile herbs, a Canada goose skull or a field of milky oats.
The workshops focus on the role that connecting with nature and practising skills play in widening and shifting our attention, perception and relationship with the natural world.
“the kind of attention we bring to bear on the world changes the nature of the world we attend to…”
As we participate with the world, we create stories that tell us how the world is, creates strategies for action, and moral and ethical standards to live by. The Philosopher Alasdair Macintyre acknowledges the importance of the question “What am I to do?” But first, he argues, we must consider: What story or stories do I find myself a part of?
Our work aims to re-centre the planet and our environmental community within our collective stories.
Burnaby, B.C. Spending time in within the environment and our natural communities can have huge benefits for mental health and perceptions of sustainability. Image: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
We acknowledge that teaching land skills on the stolen Indigenous land of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples is complicated. The loss of life-ways, crafts and skills of peoples from Turtle Island (North America) and elsewhere through centuries of colonialism needs to be addressed and we aim to ensure that efforts to connect to the land do not perpetuate harm.
Our initiative has been designed as a “safe to fail” experiment to explore possibilities for change in academic culture and to support the well-being of all those present on campus. With over 61 participants engaged so far planning is underway to continue the workshops as part of a formal research program. We hope that in time these practices can become standard across universities and Canada as a whole as part of wider efforts to address dual mental health and sustainability crises.
By Shane Price, Forbes Councils Member via Forbes • Reposted: October 20, 2023
It’s great to have goals—they’re the first step in the journey to accomplishment. However, as sustainability targets become a more and more prevalent business imperative, some are struggling to move beyond goals to carve an actionable path forward. Are you up for the challenge?
Let’s start with the good news: The business world has its sights on going green. According to a 2020 NAVEX survey, over 80% of companies globally have an environmental, social and governance (ESG) program in place, and an Accenture report found that more than a third (34%) of the world’s largest companies are committed to becoming net zero.
The bad news? The desire to help the planet doesn’t always translate into results. Accenture also found that 93% of companies that pledged to reach net zero will fail to achieve that standard by 2030 unless they drastically change their approach.
What’s standing in the way of those trying to push sustainability forward? Why are so many businesses seemingly set up to fail to deliver on their goals? It can be overwhelming, for big and small companies alike, to chart the course for a greener future. Even with a solid foundation of support and a clear plan to follow, there are some common stumbling blocks to avoid.
A 2023 survey of ESG executives conducted by Zurich Insurance Group found that three factors rose to the top of the list of impediments to headway. Across sectors and across the globe, cost and capital expenditure were the most significant barriers, followed closely by a lack of feasible solutions and difficulties in measuring and monitoring impact.
It’s a complex issue with some formidable challenges, but it’s imperative to forge ahead. Greenhouse gas emissions have reached an all-time high and will continue to rise without intervention, but now’s the time for action rather than despair. Here are some ways you can overcome common obstacles and help turn your net zero pledge into progress.
• Level set. If you’re starting from square one, begin with a full once-over of how your business operates. Look at everything from your energy consumption and efficiency, to your waste expenditure, to your partnerships. Setting a benchmark early can help you measure success as your environmentalism evolves.
• Quantify goals. A goal like “carbon neutral” or “net zero” sounds good, but exactly how many steps do you need to take to achieve it? How many years will it take to reach it? What will success look like? Having a sense of the numbers can bring goals into clearer focus. By tying your goals to your organization’s overall strategy, sustainability can actually help boost your bottom line.
• Start small. It can be tempting to tackle sustainability all at once, but try instead to build momentum with some key, strategic areas of focus. Amp up your recycling program. Identify a new, greener vendor. Take a look at your supply chain for areas of improvement. Little wins can add up to a big impact.
• Join forces. At the heart of every successful business is a suite of specific expertise. Focus on what you’re good at, and find a partner who specializes in environmentally friendly practices that can help you take strategic steps forward. Though partnerships often come with an upfront cost, they’re often a much more economical solution than trying to build it from scratch.
• Communicate consistently. What you do is important. How you share it may be equally so. If you reach a goal, share it broadly. If you have encouraging metrics, be loud and proud about them. If you fall short, share that also—along with a pledge to keep moving forward.
I know these strategies work because I’ve seen them play out firsthand. As the founder of Green Circle Salons, a sustainable salon solution dedicated to fighting beauty waste and climate change, when we set out to change the world, I set my sights on a big number: 10 million pounds of beauty waste recovered.
In 2023, we reached that goal—not because it was simple but because we were able to solve it together. The key to change is to champion solutions that are designed to overcome the barriers people face (cost, efficacy and impact monitoring) and place them directly in the hands of professionals who want to do good.
Our lofty, audacious target was reached thanks to the millions of small but meaningful daily actions our community of waste warriors has taken. The journey of 10 million pounds saved was paved with the actions of many—one haircut, one balayage, one box and one pound at a time.
No matter what industry you’re in, the path to true sustainability isn’t always easy. However, a verified partner, clear goals and a commitment to action can make sure it’s effective.
By Sam Darwish via Forbes • Reposted: October 20, 2022
Did you know that the mobile industry became one of the first sectors in the world to commit to the UN Sustainable Development Goals in 2016, according to GSMA? These 17 goals call for significant action to reduce carbon emissions and promote developments within the renewable energy sector.
Since then, the industry has demonstrated its commitment, as data traffic increases of 31% in 2022 were met with associated electricity increases of just 5% and carbon emissions increases of 2%.
To help keep emissions at bay, in October 2022, my company, IHS Towers, announced our Carbon Reduction Roadmap with the aim to reduce the scope 1 and scope 2 kilowatt-hour (kWh) emissions intensity of our tower portfolio. Our Project Green is the next significant step in that roadmap. It focuses on how we are increasing renewable energy sources on our African sites between now and the end of 2024. Our aim is dual—to reduce our reliance on diesel and generate long-term cost savings.
Here’s what I’ve learned from doing this work so far.
1. Start by setting a target.
If companies are to deliver on their commitments to reduce emissions, they must embrace renewable energy and the sector’s technological developments, and do so with a target in mind. That’s why we set ourselves the aim of reducing emissions by approximately 50% by 2030, and in the immediate term are integrating solar panel and battery storage solutions at off-grid locations, and where possible, connecting to the grid.
Setting targets is a powerful way of holding a business to account. It helps ensure they act on climate change and demonstrate their commitment to implementing strategies that mitigate its effects. That said, while having a target sends a strong, motivating message, it exposes your business to more scrutiny.
So before setting a target, every business leader should ask themselves why? Why are you creating another standard, a benchmark that holds you to account?
Firstly, there are the obvious stakeholder considerations—investors, customers, government programs and even employees. Secondly, carbon reduction can offer long-term capital expenditure savings and new growth opportunities.
Once you have determined that setting a target is the right course of action, you need to refine it against the macro setting. What are the national laws and global requirements applicable to your business? What are your peers doing and how do you benchmark?
My advice is to first consider the why, second the what and third the how. How are you going to set a target that meets your business needs and delivers progress? For the latter, third-party support is essential.
2. Lean on the experts.
Regardless of the sector you operate in, setting an emissions reduction target is always going to be complex. It’s likely going to take longer than anticipated, be more data intensive than expected and require the support of external specialists.
For example, on our emissions journey, we engaged an external environmental consultant to determine the specific level of carbon emissions reduction that was feasible for our business, and the markets in which we operate. We operate in a fast-moving, high-growth sector, and because of our organic growth, this third party helped us determine that an intensity-based target was more appropriate than an absolute emissions target.
Targets need to be realistic. They must both consider business growth and demonstrate a real commitment to carbon reduction.
Working with a climate consultant or other specialist is key; they provide the critical skills to help you navigate the balance between ambition and delivery.
3. Don’t underestimate the importance of internal stakeholders.
In setting our own target, the task’s enormity became quickly clear. Obtaining accurate data is essential. It’s a huge undertaking for any business, particularly large companies that operate across many markets, like mine. It also depends on the data available, e.g., GHG emissions, its quality, and having the right resources. Central to this is buy-in from your leadership team.
Your leadership team needs to be engaged from the get-go—the point at which you start quantifying emissions. Work with your external partner to help educate your leadership team on climate change, the risks and opportunities and principles of effective carbon management. Help them recognize both the environmental and business benefits and champion it as a pillar of your business and culture.
Achieving carbon reduction will require ongoing investment and so their support is critical. Reducing your carbon footprint is a journey that all leaders need to be carried along on. So, in addition to gaining their initial buy-in, communicating progress (however incremental) is vital.
At my company, we are communicating that progress to internal and external stakeholders; for example, we report on things like solar power solutions, generator run-times and decarbonizing our footprint. Yet simultaneously, we have been transparent in the capital expenditure required to hit our goals. By gaining support from our leadership team at the start of our carbon reduction journey, and communicating our progress so far, that additional capex becomes a recognized essential.
In terms of our financials, we expect significant annual savings by 2025 as a direct result of capex deployed. So, while setting this target was a complex, operationally intensive task, the benefits are clear.
4. Remember, climate action enables innovation.
With the roll out of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, IoT and blockchain, there is likely to be more seamless connectivity and the emergence of new business models that transform multiple sectors. By operating responsibly and fostering collaboration, businesses can help shape a more sustainably connected and prosperous future for all.
Reducing our environmental footprints, through a comprehensive carbon reduction strategy, is central to innovation.
Climate Week attendees strike a pose at the SDG Pavilion in front of the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 21, 2023. Image credit: U.N. Partnerships/Pier Paolo Cito via Flickr
By Mary Riddle from Triple Pundit • Reposted: October 14, 2023
As the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reach their midpoint, the world is “woefully off-track” in meeting the targets by the 2030 deadline, the United Nations warned this summer. Only 15 percent of the SGDs are on track, according to the U.N. Global Compact. Progress on 37 percent of the targets has either stagnated or reversed, while efforts on the remaining half are considered weak or insufficient. With seven years left to meet the Global Goals, the U.N. is calling on the private sector to help accelerate implementation.
While business leaders remain confident about the vision for the future underscored in the SDGs, their confidence in meeting the targets by 2030 dwindled from 92 percent in 2022 to 51 percent this year, according to a new report.
Last month, Accenture partnered with the U.N. Global Compact to publish the Global Private-Sector Stocktake, a first-of-its-kind look at private-sector impact on the SDGs, with tangible action items and resources that companies can consider to drive progress on the road to 2030. The report outlined 10 key pathways for corporations — which include putting existing markets to work for social equity by way of a living wage and addressing gender pay gaps, as well as more transformative moves to integrate the SDGs into corporate finance and promote sustainability leadership in the private sector.
Sustainable corporate finance
“There is a lot of momentum around impact accounting, which ensures companies are taking into full account both tangible outcomes like revenues and returns for shareholders, but also the intangible outcomes like indirect carbon emissions,” said Vik Viniak, senior managing director and North America sustainability lead at Accenture.
“For example, Mastercard links incentives for executives and employees to their ESG [environmental, social and governance] objectives, which include gender equity and emissions reductions,” he said. “With Google and Amazon, if you look at their tech businesses like Google Cloud and [Amazon Web Services], they are using green principles to create more energy-efficient computing systems, and that ties into their executive remuneration. In most public companies, your compensation is tied to shareholder value, but it is important to remember that ESG is also directly tied to shareholder value.”
Sustainable corporate finance just makes good business sense. Impact accounting helps corporations establish better decision-making frameworks and can give companies leverage in discussions with their supply chain partners.
“If you are looking at two suppliers in your supply chain and everything else is equal, but one supplier has a better record on emissions, suddenly the decision becomes much easier,” Viniak said. Impact accounting should also be part of a company’s public reports, he said.
However, he emphasized that sustainable finance is an evolving space. The U.N. Global Compact launched the CFO Coalition last month to put clear definitions and guidelines in place to help companies integrate the SDGs into their corporate financing. Viniak is optimistic about the coalition’s work. “The current state of confusion is causing companies to not take action,” he said. “There is a paralysis. This clarity can help get blood flowing so it can function.”
Strengthening sustainability leadership for the SDGs
“True sustainability leadership is about holding senior leaders accountable,” Viniak said. “Empower everyone in the organization to take action, but make sure leaders are talking the talk and walking the walk. We need humility and self-realization in organizations. Management can lead by being humble and knowing that they can do more.”
There are clear benefits to corporate support for the SDGs, but it is important for companies to be able to substantiate their claims, show their metrics, and transparently report on their goals, reasoning and progress. “The market has gotten smarter,” Viniak said. “Investors and consumers can identify SDG-washing in companies that can’t support their claims.”
When leaders embrace the SDGs, it can serve to engage the entire workforce, Viniak said. “For leaders, one of the most important incentives for working toward the SDGs is that people are going to get excited,” he told us. “At Accenture, we have a huge, young workforce, and this workforce is asking Accenture what we are doing for the SDGs. Our CEO always says that we need to be our best credential. We have rallied our workforce around the mission of sustainability, and in our global workforce, in every community we are in, our people are making an impact. You can rally your whole organization around the SDGs and give them the tools to measure their impacts, and we can all hold each other accountable.”
The SDG Stocktake is a clarion call for all corporations
For companies that have yet to examine their impact on the SDGs, Viniak emphasized that it is not too late. “I encourage every company to start the process of understanding specific ESG impacts based on their industry and sector,” he said. “The biggest positive and negative impacts need to inform strategy.”
Once a corporation clearly understands their ESG impacts, they can evaluate how those impacts could help meet the targets of the SDGs and embed that into their decision-making frameworks.
“You can’t improve what you can’t measure,” Viniak said. “Companies must reflect on their impact on the SDGs. Then, they must set goals, identify how they can continue to accelerate the areas in which they lead, and how they can double down to improve those areas where they might be behind.”
Scaling up new incentive systems is also key to move progress forward. In the Global Private-Sector Stocktake report, business leaders clearly identified the support they need. “There is a huge lack of clarity in terms of goals and measurements,” Viniak explained. “Eighty percent of business leaders claim there are insufficient policy incentives to incorporate ESG considerations, and 84 percent are uncertain about measurements and calculations.”
Fortunately, the private sector is rapidly innovating to address leadership concerns, with new data management companies and softwares regularly coming to market that address these challenges. “There are now data providers that are helping companies define specific impacts on the SDGs,” Viniak said. “This kind of data could help companies understand their own impact in a measurable way for the first time.”
But for these services to make a difference, companies have to use them. “Companies need to see the value of this and pay for it,” Viniak said. “This data could revolutionize incentives if tied to accounting and taxation in the future. We may be able to crack the data measurement problem soon. While companies are currently not being held accountable in consistent ways, with emerging data tools, they can be and should be.”
Viniak recognizes that the private sector is off track, but he remains optimistic. “Games are won in the second half, not the first,” he said. “Yes, we are trailing. We are behind, but we can win. The private sector is a key player to achieve the SDGs. It is time to step up in the second half to win this game.”
Mary Riddle is a writer and sustainability consultant based in Florence, Italy. As a former farmer and farm educator, she is passionate about regenerative agriculture and sustainable food systems. to See the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/ways-business-support-sdgs/785016
By Richard Howells, VP, ERP and Digital Supply Chain at SAP via ERP Today • Reposted: October 14, 2023
With a world caught up in climate difficulties, sustainability needs to take the priority, along with ensuring ethical practices.
Consumers want to buy sustainable products from ethical companies, and they’re willing to put their money where their mouth is. In fact, recent studies show that eight out of ten consumers said they would pay up to 5 percent more for sustainably produced goods.
Yet it can be challenging for consumers to identify which products are truly sustainable. While regulators establish minimum standards for everything from drinking water to vehicle emissions, individual retailers are beginning to adopt expanded measures that go considerably further as a way to address consumer concerns and advance their own sustainability goals. In June, for example, Walmart and Sam’s Club announced an initiative to raise supplier standards around tuna fishing. Their new policy aims to address issues such as accidental catching of species other than tuna, illegal fishing and abandonment of fishing gear. All of these factors pose a threat to ocean ecosystems.
To ensure suppliers are complying with these standards, Walmart and Sam’s Club will need increased visibility across the tuna supply chain, and they’re not alone in this need. Whether companies are seeking to comply with regulatory standards or track progress against their internal policies, they need transparency in every tier of their complex supply chains.
Efficient, effective technology can help businesses acquire and manage the data and information they need to measure compliance, minimize risk and boost sustainability. IoT devices, embedded in fishing vessels and storage facilities, can collect data on fishing practices, temperatures and handling conditions, contributing to effective oversight and management of sustainability practices. This kind of data will also be of great interest to retailers.
Gain access to relevant data
Accessing accurate data is the first step for businesses to gather the sustainability information they need. Walmart and Sam’s Club are focused on their oversight of transshipment – the practice of transferring fish products from one fishing vessel to another at sea or in port – which offers opportunities for bad actors to hide illegal or unregulated fishing activities. By 2027, Walmart and Sam’s Club will only source from fisheries that offer 100% monitoring of transshipment activity – a process that will produce massive amounts of data.
One solution is to implement a technology layer that can gather data, measure KPIs and benchmark against other companies in the same industry. The ability to track and trace the movement of products from one location or company to another lets businesses create an unbroken chain of ownership from raw materials to finished goods. Or in this instance, from sea to plate.
Rely on collaboration tools to share data
With accurate data in hand, companies need collaboration tools that ensure the data’s integrity and authenticity from end to end. As a decentralized and unchangeable ledger, blockchain technology can ensure data is uncompromized as it moves from one company to another, or otherwise changes ownership.
This data must be housed in a system that allows companies to determine exactly which end products their raw materials went into, as well as every step they underwent along the way. This type of system enhances the ability of companies like Walmart and Sam’s Club to monitor reports from transshipment observers and other inputs. It can also be helpful in the event of a product recall or other product safety concerns.
Showcase sustainability to customers
Companies can now focus on the customer experience, implementing tech-enabled features that allow end consumers to access the information they’ve gathered about their supply chain. This type of transparency builds trust and strengthens brand reputation. That’s especially true for Gen Z consumers, who are particularly conscious of sustainability.
Stay on top of regulatory and compliance issues
Regulatory oversight of supply chain issues is increasing around the world. Several European countries and the United States have recently passed legislation mandating due diligence in supply chains, while the European Union and Canada have proposals under consideration. Technology solutions can help businesses track their compliance with constantly changing regulations to back up their sustainability claims.
What companies need to learn about supply chain visibility
The tuna fishing policy serves as a powerful case study for other companies looking to embrace sustainability as a core business principle. Like SAP, companies in our industry are committing to zero emissions, zero waste and zero inequality. Stakeholders aren’t settling for less, even amid growing anti-ESG backlash.
In this environment, a holistic approach to sustainability is key. Businesses must examine their value chains comprehensively, from sourcing raw materials to understanding the end product’s lifecycle.
By adopting technology-driven solutions like blockchain and IoT, companies can ensure that their sustainability efforts extend beyond the surface level to every aspect of their operations. Regulations and rules will only continue to grow in number, but with the right technology, companies can achieve greater supply chain visibility and meet their sustainability targets.
By Torod B. Neptune via Triple Pundit • Reposted: October 13., 2023
Businesses face rapidly growing, and often contradictory, expectations regarding their role in society. Alongside calls to do more to address deeply rooted societal issues are opposing voices telling companies to “stay in their lane.” Without clear values as a guide, brands find themselves at an impasse, unsure if they should stay the course or take the next exit.
We can debate if these expectations are fair. In most cases, I’d argue they are. Business wields indisputable power to improve circumstances for people and our planet while making a fair profit. At Medtronic, we talk about these responsibilities openly, from our Mission written 60 years ago, to our sustainability report published today. (You can read highlights here.)
Expectations won’t diminish any time soon, and it’s not just external stakeholders applying pressure. A Glassdoor study of job-seekers found 86 percent “would not consider working for a company with bad social standing.” An Edelman survey of more than 200 chief communications officers across the Fortune 500 and Forbes Global 1,000 revealed employees are “putting the most pressure on companies to act on social issues” (61 percent), ahead of regulators, investors and NGOs.
Navigating these divergent expectations is no small challenge. Executives are faced with a tremendous obligation — to employees, communities and shareholders — and an unparalleled opportunity. How can leaders chart a path forward? Transparency, accountability and commitment — what I’d argue are the three non-negotiables of responsible business.
Transparency
The era where any company can simply call itself responsible is behind us — today, business must prove it. Unfortunately, economic anxiety, disinformation, and increased polarization have eroded trust in institutions, and left people feeling vulnerable. As a result, brands are facing increased scrutiny, and the need to build trust is more urgent. Per a special report from Edelman, 71 percent of consumers say, “It is more important to trust the brands I buy or use today than in the past.”
At its core, transparency is about building trust. It’s being open and honest, telling people what they can expect, and how your business is upholding its promises. Transparency is easy when the news is good, but even more important when a business falls short. In those honest moments, businesses can build trust and even attract new partners and allies who understand that the goals most worthy of our time and effort are often the hardest to accomplish.
This is one reason Medtronic publishes an annual sustainability report and annual inclusion, diversity, and equity report. Through these reports and other channels, we and other companies can share stories, document our progress, and acknowledge where we need to do more.
Accountability
Transparency means more when tied to clear goals. Perhaps you’ve heard “measure what matters” or read John Doerr’s book of the same title. Setting clear targets sends a signal about what matters to a company and provides a framework to publiclyhold businesses accountable.
This is simply good business. Research shows consumers are more likely to buy from brands that commit to taking actions like improving access to healthcare (seven times more likely), addressing climate change (five times more likely) and ending racism (4.5 times more likely). But consumers also want action.
Aligning with leading reporting frameworks and standards, including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) helps companies demonstrate accountability for our impact and share it with our stakeholders. Medtronic also ties our business operations to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, recognizing the collective power of the private and public sectors to address the world’s greatest challenges.
Commitment
In recent years, business has faced criticism for talking too much and not doing enough, on societal issues ranging from racial justice to climate change and income inequality. These are deeply rooted, systemic issues that have been compounding for centuries. Meaningful progress will take years and is possible only through collective action.
This doesn’t excuse business from inaction. I can’t think of a single brand that can’t have a positive impact by being conscious of how it conducts its day-to-day business. A responsible business recognizes its power and influence — and uses both accordingly. Medtronic has built our commitments into how we operate, including work in hiring and diverse suppliers. We also leverage our expertise in healthcare technology to improve healthcare access for underserved communities around the world, including significant investments in Medtronic LABS.
Change is constant, and expectations of companies continue to evolve. That’s a good thing — for our brands and all our of stakeholders. There will likely be rough waters as business continues to navigate its role, but staying focused on transparency, accountability and commitment will help all of us chart a path forward.
By Sohaib Ahmed from Total Retail • Reposted: October 12, 2023
In the last few decades, the market has witnessed a gradual power shift between brands and consumers. Previously, brands would work on their ideas and develop a product or service that they believed would help customers. Now, brands are taking notes and working on innovating and devising products and services that customers believe in. By conscientiously creating offerings to make consumers feel valued and needed, brands foster greater customer centricity.
Today’s Era Requires a Customer-Centric Approach
Prioritizing the customer above everything is no longer a fresh concept in terms of marketing, but it remains the most crucial of all. Being customer-centric allows brands to develop trust and a sense of reliability in the eyes of their customers.
Many companies that boasted being customer-centric in the pre-COVID era failed to deliver on their promises once the situation turned grave. Customers all over the globe realized that most brands didn’t have a plan B or plan C to ensure the convenience of purchase and a thorough customer service experience in case of a natural calamity such as COVID-19. How could they though? It was an unprecedented situation that completely shook the world. Whether it was helping customers virtually or providing them with detailed information on the product/service pre- and post-sale, most B2C and B2B brands struggled to ensure quality assistance in remote setups.
Consequently, brands faced revenue loss and an unfortunate erosion in reputation even though the quality of products/services was up to the mark.
Customer-centricity attracts brand loyalty, and in return, the frequency of purchases increases and so does positive word-of-mouth marketing. The positive consequences help the brand earn respect and a good reputation in the eyes of consumers.
Helping Brands Excel in Customer-Centricity
A brand or business is termed customer-centric when it puts forth the customer’s requirements above everything. All the strategies and important decisions are centered around the customer’s convenience and need.
The following 10 important factors can help a brand excel in the department of customer-centricity:
Anticipate customers’ needs beforehand. Many companies spend a lot of time and money hiring analysts who can help understand a typical consumer’s mindset. Brands that can predict a trend have a business advantage over their counterparts. Innovating in areas that can guarantee convenience for the end user surely makes it to the top of a consumer’s purchase preference. Many companies are turning to artificial intelligence-backed tools to gauge and understand future market dependencies.
Express empathy and concern. A brand that wishes to ensure a good reputation should invest in building a customer service team that’s trained to handle clients in emotional distress. Listening and being empathetic to a customer’s predicament instills trust in the customer’s mind. This, followed by an effective solution to the issue, creates a positive customer experience and thereby leads to brand loyalty. Commerce with compassion is a key step to achieving customer-centricity.
Deliver exemplary customer service. Customer service, at times, is single-handedly responsible for classifying a brand as customer-centric or the contrary. Brands that emphasize a pleasant customer experience during the sale and strive to retain the same kind of vibrations and impressions post-sale are truly valued. Outstanding customer service is a mélange of flexible and empathetic interactions at all touchpoints, effective solutions, fast response time, and customization.
Stay flexible. Today’s consumers like short and simple interactions. Brands that can provide frictionless customer-agent interactions at all touchpoints will earn themselves a favorable reputation. Flexibility also involves being present on multiple channels for easy and interruption-free conversations. According to Comm100, millennials prefer live chat for fast and convenient customer service, so it’s no wonder that many organizations have implemented a live chat experience.
Offer personalized experiences. Personalized experiences are essential to achieve customer-centricity. If a brand fails to create an experience that suits the customer’s time and convenience, the brand is most likely to lose its customer to one of its competitors. Also, personalization isn’t restricted to experiences. A customer-centric brand imbibes personalization through its promotional content, products and services. For instance, skincare giant Clinique came up with a moisturizing lotion that can be customized to suit the specific skin requirements of the user. One can add up to five booster cartridges of their choice.
Ensure ethical leadership. Ethical leadership is one of the most difficult goals to achieve for a brand aiming at customer-centricity. Conducting business in compliance with the resident country’s laws and regulations isn’t an obstacle-free path. When a company still chooses to do it, it becomes customer-centric and earns brand loyalty for life.
Maintain transparency and honesty. Customer-centric brands practice honesty and transparency while listing product/service features on their website or chosen platform of communication. They also encourage communication which sheds light on hidden charges, and prices inclusive of taxes and shipping.
Enlist affordable and user-friendly products/services. Purchase price and user friendliness are two important decision-making aspects for consumers. Today’s consumers are smart and quick to understand when a product or service is priced unjustly — or even justly for that matter. When a product/service is reasonably priced, the brand attracts affinity from a large group of consumers. In addition to this, the complexity level of operating a certain product also proves to be crucial if a customer has purchased it to save time.
Provide omnichannel support. If a brand wants to stay ahead of its customers, it must ensure an omnichannel support system. Modern customer engagement tools can mobilize and personalize customer journeys across multiple channels. For example, live chats, social media, offline and online messaging systems, calls, and emails. According to Microsoft, most customers continue to use three to five channels to get their issues resolved, so it doesn’t look like the omnichannel experience is going away anytime soon.
Respect your consumer’s privacy. There’s a fine line between approaching customers about their preferences and harassing them to leverage their data for business gains. When a brand makes a conscious choice to respect the customer’s privacy and actively protects sensitive or classified data, it becomes customer-centric.
Acknowledge Customer Expectations
Today’s consumers are more informed and more selective than their predecessors. This indicates that companies should step up their game and meet these ever-evolving expectations — or risk losing out to their competitors.
Furthermore, customer expectations are often based on past experiences. A true customer-centric brand will work meticulously to rise to the occasion by diminishing past biases, meeting new expectations, and even exceeding them in some cases.
Tactfully share your opinions and information without verbally attacking your customers. By Stephen P. Ashkin, President of The Ashkin Group via cmmonline.com• Reposted: October 10, 2023
These days, many people have an opinion to share about sustainability—sometimes loudly and passionately. As business professionals, our goal is to serve our prospective and current customers, ultimately generating the best profitability for those who employ us. Thus, it is critical to become knowledgeable on important issues such as sustainability and to be able to appropriately articulate the value of these issues, especially with those who might have a different view.
Fortunately, it is possible to share your knowledge without alienating your clients. Consider the following seven tips before you begin a conversation about sustainability with your current and potential customers.
1. Avoid judgment
Understanding that everyone’s views are shaped by their experiences, knowledge, and biases is crucial. When speaking to someone who objects to actions regarding sustainability; climate change; environmental, social, and corporate governanceissues (ESG); etc., approach them with respect and empathy. A dismissive or confrontational tone will likely close the door to any meaningful exchange.
2. Find common ground
While some clients might deny the human influence on climate change, it’s likely that they care about certain aspects of sustainability. Do they enjoy outdoor activities? Are they interested in or concerned about green cleaning, pollution, clean water, or the cost of energy? Finding shared interests can help the discussion without directly addressing the contentious issues.
3. Use tangible, local examples
Make use of relatable, local examples to demonstrate the challenges we are confronting. For example, you can mention changes to the local environment, such as increased flooding or extreme temperatures which affect facility heating and cooling costs. Relating sustainability to real-world examples can often help to make the abstract concepts more concrete.
4. Focus on benefits
Emphasize the positive aspects of sustainability. For instance, a more fuel-efficient delivery fleet, such as electric or hybrid vehicles, is not only cleaner but can also reduce fuel costs and increase profitability. Sustainable practices often have multiple benefits that might appeal to your customers, irrespective of their views on climate change.
5. Don’t argue about science
Instead of explaining the science behind sustainability benefits, explain the market drivers, such as supply chain reporting or the proliferation of LEED Certified buildings. As some of your prospects and customers are likely committed to these issues, your goal is to be knowledgeable enough to compete for their business. Always remember, the goal is not to “win” the argument but to win business and collectively work toward a sustainable future.
6. Practice patience
Changing deeply held beliefs often takes time. Don’t expect a single conversation to completely reverse someone’s views. Instead, view it as planting a seed that might take time to grow. Avoid angry, unproductive discussions that could permanently poison the relationship.
7. Develop your expertise
Invest time into learning about the science behind climate change, sustainability, and other related issues, so you are better prepared for these conversations. Consider joining ISSA’s Sustainability Committee. Not only will your participation with the committee enable you to learn more about environmental issues, it will also help move the global cleaning industry forward and enable it to better care for the 100 million workers worldwide that it supports. Visit www.surveymonkey.com/r/5C735D9 to complete an ISSA Sustainability Committee application.
With a growing number of employees holding their organizations to account over sustainability commitments, the onus is on HR departments to explain a firm’s purpose and impact if they are to attract and retain talent. By Natalia Olynec. Chief Sustainability Officer and Lars Häggström, Senior Advisor at IMD • Reposted: October 10, 2023
In September, Shell CEO Wael Sawan faced a backlash from employees when he announced plans to scale back investments in renewables and low-carbon businesses as part of a strategy to boost profits.
Disgruntled staff issued a rare open letter, expressing their concern about the shift away from green energy and urging Sawan not to reduce investments in renewable energy. “For a long time, it has been Shell’s ambition to be a leader in the energy transition. It is the reason we work here,” said the letter, addressed to Sawan and Shell’s executive committee. The letter was viewed more than 80,000 times on Shell’s internal website, received 1,000 ‘likes’ and prompted a string of responses from other employees.
Shell is not alone. Jeff Bezos, the former CEO of Amazon, was urged in 2019 by thousands of employees to adopt a more ambitious climate plan to reach zero carbon emissions. Staff pointed out the online retailer’s continued use of fossil fuels, its donations to climate-denying politicians, its contracts with oil and gas companies, and its lack of transparency on its environmental impact.
Employee protests have not remained limited to climate targets. Lapses in terms of organizations’ commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) have recently come under scrutiny. Staff at Netflix staged a walkout in protest of American comedian Dave Chappelle’s comedy special, which was criticized for its content related to the LGBTQ+ community. Disney employees also pressured the company’s CEO to speak up about a law in Florida that restricts classroom discussions of LGBTQ+ related topics.
These incidents underscore the challenge organizations face in managing the gap between employee expectations and corporate realities as they navigate the trade-offs between short-term profits and long-term impact.
A growing number of people are looking for ways to make a positive difference through their work as the world faces unprecedented environmental and social challenges from climate change and biodiversity loss to inequality. They also increasingly expect their employers to align with their personal values and contribute to the greater good of society.
“This has prompted a bit of a flip in how HR has traditionally been viewed. While previously these departments’ roles were to assess talent and decide if they are a good fit for the company, now talent is assessing the company to see if it’s the right fit for them – and their values,” a report by Egon Zender says.
Employee activism aimed at holding firms accountable for commitments to sustainable business and diversity and inclusion is also on the rise, facilitated by their ability to amplify their views on social media. It can be risky for firms to ignore these calls for action, says Markus Graf, talent leader of a Switzerland-based multinational.
“Companies that want to be seen as the best employers for talent discuss these topics,” he said. “On social media, these topics generate the highest engagement with likes and comments. We will likely witness increased employee engagement, especially in countries where employees feel there is no fear of retaliation for expressing their views.”
This growing activism and spotlight on an organization’s social and environmental impact has also created a need for HR departments to add new capabilities to facilitate the creation of an integrated sustainability program in collaboration with other business functions.
“Sustainability is the future of work,” Graf said. “HR leaders have a critical role to play in driving change. The ability to work across the company to articulate an enterprise-wide stance on ESG and sustainability will be tremendously important.”
So what can HR departments do to manage employee expectations and get them engaged in shaping and supporting the organization’s sustainability strategy?
Be involved in defining the sustainability strategy
If HR is going to lead efforts to make sure an organization stays true to its sustainability commitments, they must also play a role in shaping strategy. The CHRO must work closely with the CEO to help set a clear purpose and strategic vision to drive change from the top. This prevents the firm from making lofty promises that are not held in the eyes of the employee. It also lends HR more credibility in any discussions they have with employees and management.
“In today’s world, sustainability is no longer a luxury; it’s a necessity, and it’s everyone’s responsibility, not just that of the Chief Sustainability Officer. Leaders at all levels need to be committed to sustainability, and the HR team can play a critical role in driving this change,” said Graf. “There is an expectation from employees for a clear strategy that demonstrates progress.”
One company that has successfully woven sustainability into the heart of its strategy is Finland’s Neste, which transformed itself over two decades from an oil refiner to a leading producer of renewable fuels. Their purpose, “creating a healthier planet for our children”, is a central part of their Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Similarly, Stora Enso, a Finnish provider of renewables products, packaging, and biomaterials, has crafted “Do good for people and the planet” as its purpose statement, while Swedish multinational industrial company Atlas Copco has launched ambitious targets to cut carbon emissions that are validated and approved by the Science Based Targets Initiative.
What links these three companies is that they are based in the Nordics, where there is a strong tradition of allowing and encouraging employees to speak their mind without the risk of facing sanctions.
Solicit employees’ input on sustainability practices
This brings us onto our next point. It’s important to recognize that activists are engaged and passionate employees, not disloyal ones. Understanding their concerns is key to hiring and retaining a new generation of talent, so why not involve them in the decision-making process by soliciting their input and suggestions on sustainability practices? Asking employees why they joined your organization, what makes them excited to come to work, and why they would leave can also help firms understand how they are perceived and allow them to refine their EVP if necessary to attract the right people with the relevant capabilities.
Start by creating channels and platforms for employees to share their ideas, concerns, and feedback. This can be done through employee engagement surveys, employee interest groups, and through reverse mentoring to introduce executives to diverse employee perspectives. Onboarding and exit views are also useful to understand employee values.
Communicate clearly and transparently
As well as helping to craft a clear vision and sustainability strategy, the HR department should communicate these goals clearly and transparently to all employees. It helps if the strategy is translated into a simple document with initiatives that can be tracked and measured. HR teams should provide regular updates on progress, supported by data, and linked to key milestones and dates.
One way to bring an organization’s purpose and values to life is to run workshops. This is something consumer goods giant Unilever has done to help staff better connect the group’s purpose, “to make sustainable living commonplace” to their own personal purpose.
Encourage employee-led initiative groups that promote sustainability
Lastly, sustainability efforts don’t have to just come from the top. Encourage employee-led groups to raise and promote sustainability practices across the organization. Provide them with resources and recognition for their efforts, as well as incentives. For example, some organizations are starting to link employee incentive programs with sustainability targets. This is one way to ensure there isn’t a disconnect between senior executives’ commitments to societal impact and the way they evaluate and reward middle managers.
Climate Week attendees strike a pose at the SDG Pavilion in front of the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 21, 2023. (Image credit: U.N. Partnerships/Pier Paolo Cito via Flickr)
By Mary Riddle from Triple Pundit • Reposted: October 9, 2023
As the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reach their midpoint, the world is “woefully off-track” in meeting the targets by the 2030 deadline, the United Nations warned this summer. Only 15 percent of the SGDs are on track, according to the U.N. Global Compact. Progress on 37 percent of the targets has either stagnated or reversed, while efforts on the remaining half are considered weak or insufficient. With seven years left to meet the Global Goals, the U.N. is calling on the private sector to help accelerate implementation.
While business leaders remain confident about the vision for the future underscored in the SDGs, their confidence in meeting the targets by 2030 dwindled from 92 percent in 2022 to 51 percent this year, according to a new report.
Last month, Accenture partnered with the U.N. Global Compact to publish the Global Private-Sector Stocktake, a first-of-its-kind look at private-sector impact on the SDGs, with tangible action items and resources that companies can consider to drive progress on the road to 2030. The report outlined 10 key pathways for corporations — which include putting existing markets to work for social equity by way of a living wage and addressing gender pay gaps, as well as more transformative moves to integrate the SDGs into corporate finance and promote sustainability leadership in the private sector.
Sustainable corporate finance
“There is a lot of momentum around impact accounting, which ensures companies are taking into full account both tangible outcomes like revenues and returns for shareholders, but also the intangible outcomes like indirect carbon emissions,” said Vik Viniak, senior managing director and North America sustainability lead at Accenture.
“For example, Mastercard links incentives for executives and employees to their ESG [environmental, social and governance] objectives, which include gender equity and emissions reductions,” he said. “With Google and Amazon, if you look at their tech businesses like Google Cloud and [Amazon Web Services], they are using green principles to create more energy-efficient computing systems, and that ties into their executive remuneration. In most public companies, your compensation is tied to shareholder value, but it is important to remember that ESG is also directly tied to shareholder value.”
Sustainable corporate finance just makes good business sense. Impact accounting helps corporations establish better decision-making frameworks and can give companies leverage in discussions with their supply chain partners.
“If you are looking at two suppliers in your supply chain and everything else is equal, but one supplier has a better record on emissions, suddenly the decision becomes much easier,” Viniak said. Impact accounting should also be part of a company’s public reports, he said.
However, he emphasized that sustainable finance is an evolving space. The U.N. Global Compact launched the CFO Coalition last month to put clear definitions and guidelines in place to help companies integrate the SDGs into their corporate financing. Viniak is optimistic about the coalition’s work. “The current state of confusion is causing companies to not take action,” he said. “There is a paralysis. This clarity can help get blood flowing so it can function.”
Strengthening sustainability leadership for the SDGs
“True sustainability leadership is about holding senior leaders accountable,” Viniak said. “Empower everyone in the organization to take action, but make sure leaders are talking the talk and walking the walk. We need humility and self-realization in organizations. Management can lead by being humble and knowing that they can do more.”
There are clear benefits to corporate support for the SDGs, but it is important for companies to be able to substantiate their claims, show their metrics, and transparently report on their goals, reasoning and progress. “The market has gotten smarter,” Viniak said. “Investors and consumers can identify SDG-washing in companies that can’t support their claims.”
When leaders embrace the SDGs, it can serve to engage the entire workforce, Viniak said. “For leaders, one of the most important incentives for working toward the SDGs is that people are going to get excited,” he told us. “At Accenture, we have a huge, young workforce, and this workforce is asking Accenture what we are doing for the SDGs. Our CEO always says that we need to be our best credential. We have rallied our workforce around the mission of sustainability, and in our global workforce, in every community we are in, our people are making an impact. You can rally your whole organization around the SDGs and give them the tools to measure their impacts, and we can all hold each other accountable.”
The SDG Stocktake is a clarion call for all corporations
For companies that have yet to examine their impact on the SDGs, Viniak emphasized that it is not too late. “I encourage every company to start the process of understanding specific ESG impacts based on their industry and sector,” he said. “The biggest positive and negative impacts need to inform strategy.”
Once a corporation clearly understands their ESG impacts, they can evaluate how those impacts could help meet the targets of the SDGs and embed that into their decision-making frameworks.
“You can’t improve what you can’t measure,” Viniak said. “Companies must reflect on their impact on the SDGs. Then, they must set goals, identify how they can continue to accelerate the areas in which they lead, and how they can double down to improve those areas where they might be behind.”
Scaling up new incentive systems is also key to move progress forward. In the Global Private-Sector Stocktake report, business leaders clearly identified the support they need. “There is a huge lack of clarity in terms of goals and measurements,” Viniak explained. “Eighty percent of business leaders claim there are insufficient policy incentives to incorporate ESG considerations, and 84 percent are uncertain about measurements and calculations.”
Fortunately, the private sector is rapidly innovating to address leadership concerns, with new data management companies and softwares regularly coming to market that address these challenges. “There are now data providers that are helping companies define specific impacts on the SDGs,” Viniak said. “This kind of data could help companies understand their own impact in a measurable way for the first time.”
But for these services to make a difference, companies have to use them. “Companies need to see the value of this and pay for it,” Viniak said. “This data could revolutionize incentives if tied to accounting and taxation in the future. We may be able to crack the data measurement problem soon. While companies are currently not being held accountable in consistent ways, with emerging data tools, they can be and should be.”
Viniak recognizes that the private sector is off track, but he remains optimistic. “Games are won in the second half, not the first,” he said. “Yes, we are trailing. We are behind, but we can win. The private sector is a key player to achieve the SDGs. It is time to step up in the second half to win this game.”
From the Reuters Events Sustainable Business vs. CSRWire • Reposted: October 7, 2023
The urgent call to decarbonize has thrust sustainability into the spotlight on the corporate stage. Whilst the growth in reporting has created an expansive list of pressing priorities.
But how are businesses preparing for the comprehensive and complex reporting landscape? Where are they investing today, and perhaps more pertinently in the years to come, to meet the needs of regulators and climate-conscious stakeholders? And how are today’s businesses strategizing to meet their sustainability ambitions?
Discover the answers to these pivotal questions in the Reuters Impact Global Sustainability Report 2023, a valuable resource that will help shape your sustainability strategy, chart your investment course, and provide a meaningful benchmark against industry peers.
Our unique, proprietary dataset, assembled using survey responses from more than 570 sustainability practitioners and decision-makers globally, provides a detailed examination of how sustainability investments are shifting towards a new set of technologies, where businesses are setting their sustainability priorities and the strategies being pursued to meet them.
Our research has unveiled several key findings:
Data analysis and emissions accounting solutions are the leading destinations of business investment for sustainability purposes today, but by 2026 a new suite of technologies is expected to lead the way.
Our technology investment leaderboard highlights differences in investment approach between companies operating in North America and those in Europe. Are European organizations still sustainability’s trailblazers?
Energy and decarbonization is a top priority for a leading majority of organizations responding to our survey, however there is a distinct mix of strategies being pursued to reduce remissions.
Legos are designed to last for decades. That posed a challenge when the toymaker tried to switch to recycled plastics. AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi
By Tinglong Dai, Professor of Operations Management & Business Analytics, Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, Christopher S. Tang, Professor of Supply Chain Management, University of California, Los Angeles and Hau L. Lee, Professor of Operations, Information & Technology, Stanford University via The Conversation • Reposted: October 7, 2023
This commitment isn’t just for show. Lego sees its core customers as children and their parents, and sustainability is fundamentally about ensuring that future generations inherit a planet as hospitable as the one we enjoy today.
So it was surprising when the Financial Times reported on Sept. 25, 2023, that Lego had pulled out of its widely publicized “Bottles to Bricks” initiative.
This ambitious project aimed to replace traditional Lego plastic with a new material made from recycled plastic bottles. However, when Lego assessed the project’s environmental impact throughout its supply chain, it found that producing bricks with the recycled plastic would require extra materials and energy to make them durable enough. Because this conversion process would result in higher carbon emissions, the company decided to stick with its current fossil fuel-based materials while continuing to search for more sustainable alternatives.
Business leaders are increasingly integrating environmental, social and governance factors, commonly known as ESG, into their operational and strategic frameworks. But the pursuit of sustainability requires attention to the entire life cycle of a product, from its materials and manufacturing processes to its use and ultimate disposal.
The results can lead to counterintuitive outcomes, as Lego discovered.
Understanding a company’s entire carbon footprint requires looking at three types of emissions: Scope 1 emissions are generated directly by a company’s internal operations. Scope 2 emissions are caused by generating the electricity, steam, heat or cooling a company consumes. And scope 3 emissions are generated by a company’s supply chain, from upstream suppliers to downstream distributors and end customers.
Currently, fewer than 30% of companies report meaningful scope 3 emissions, in part because these emissions are difficult to track. Yet, companies’ scope 3 emissions are on average 11.4 times greater than their scope 1 emissions, data from corporate disclosures reported to the nonprofit CDP show.
Lego is a case study of this lopsided distribution and the importance of tracking scope 3 emissions. A staggering 98% of Lego’s carbon emissions are categorized as scope 3.
From 2020 to 2021, the company’s total emissions increased by 30%, amid surging demand for Lego sets during the COVID-19 lockdowns – even though the company’s scope 2 emissions related to purchased energy such as electricity decreased by 40%. The increase was almost entirely in its scope 3 emissions.
As more companies follow in Lego’s footsteps and begin reporting scope 3 emissions, they will likely find themselves in the same position, realizing that efforts to reduce carbon emissions often boil down to supply chain and consumer-use emissions. And the results may force them to make some tough choices.
Policy and disclosure: The next frontier
New regulations in the European Union and pending in California are designed to increase corporate emissions transparency by including supply chain emissions.
The EU in June 2023 adopted the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards, which will require publicly traded companies in the EU to disclose their scope 3 emissions, starting in their reports for fiscal year 2024.
California’s legislature passed similar legislation requiring companies with revenues of more than $1 billion to disclose their scope 3 emissions. California’s governor has until Oct. 14, 2023, to consider the bill and is expected to sign it.
At the federal level, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released a proposal in March 2022 that, if finalized, would require all public companies to report climate-related risk and emissions data, including scope 3 emissions. After receiving significant pushback, the SEC began reconsidering the scope 3 reporting rule. But SEC Chairman Gary Gensler suggested during a congressional hearing in late September 2023 that California’s move could influence federal regulators’ decision.
This increased focus on disclosure of scope 3 emissions will undoubtedly increase pressure on companies.
Because scope 3 emissions are significant, yet often not measured or reported, consumers are rightly concerned that companies that claim to have low emissions may be greenwashing without taking action to reduce emissions in their supply chains to combat climate change.
At the same time, we suspect that as more investors support sustainable investing, they may prefer to invest in companies that are transparent in disclosing all areas of emissions. Ultimately, we believe consumers, investors and governments will demand more than lip service from companies. Instead, they’ll expect companies to take actionable steps to reduce the most significant part of a company’s carbon footprint – scope 3 emissions.
A journey, not a destination
The Lego example serves as a cautionary tale in the complex ESG landscape for which most companies are not well prepared. As more companies come under scrutiny for their entire carbon footprint, we may see more instances where well-intentioned sustainability efforts run into uncomfortable truths.
This calls for a nuanced understanding of sustainability, not as a checklist of good deeds, but as a complex, ongoing process that requires vigilance, transparency and, above all, a commitment to the benefit of future generations.
From Sustainable Brands • Reposted: October 7, 2023
A new study by Magna, Teads and Project Drawdown confirms consumers are relying on brands to create a clear, tangible and compelling vision — backed by substantive action — to guide them toward more sustainable lifestyles.
Today, MAGNA — the investment and intelligence arm of IPG Mediabrands — released a study conducted in partnership with Project Drawdown and cloud-based, omnichannel advertising platform Teads to better understand consumer perspectives on sustainability, especially as it relates to the continued barriers that prevent more sustainable lifestyles.
MAGNA surveyed 9,112 people in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, and held five focus groups in the US. Along with echoing recent research from Sustainable Brands® and Deloitte on the most common, ongoing barriers to consumer adoption of more sustainable habits and lifestyles (expense and lack of access), the study found that despite these barriers, people remain motivated to ensure a better future — with 99 percent of people agreeing that they can be motivated to take sustainable action.
“The climate crisis is, in part, a communication crisis,” said Jonathan Foley, Ph.D., Executive Director of Project Drawdown. “We already have the solutions we need to turn things around; but we are still paralyzed by misinformation, fear and the lack of will to act. We need a clear and compelling vision to move forward — a vision of a better future, where we come together to stop climate change, and build a better world for all. That could change the world.”
Additional key findings confirm the imperative for brands to be part of the conversation: 77 percent of respondents said they wanted brands to take a stance on sustainability. Furthermore, 75 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that if brands took meaningful action on sustainability, it would have a tremendous impact on the environment; and 35 percent would be motivated to act, if they see brands have, too.
A brand that offers tangible, relevant data in advertising — such as a statistic on how much water was saved in manufacturing — scores better than ambiguous messaging. Defining sustainability itself, a broad term that can vary by product category, makes a difference in helping consumers align around a company’s actions.
The study also ranked which channels consumers favor more when receiving sustainability messaging. Advertising, at 66 percent, was the optimal channel; followed by social media (62 percent), newsletters (57 percent), and influencers and other brand representatives (52 percent).
But advertising itself is also in the hot seat, thanks to its until-recently-unchecked carbon footprint — initiatives such as Scope3 and Ad Net Zero have emerged to help ensure the climate impacts of the messengers no longer undermine their sustainability messaging.
“Sustainability practices are good for business, with innovation, transparency, and information key for brands to strengthen their customer relationships long term,” added Neala Brown, SVP of Strategy & Insights at Teads. “While brands should ease customer hesitations toward adopting a sustainable lifestyle and given advertising as an optimal channel for that messaging, we are simultaneously working with our brand partners to reduce their own digital carbon footprint with supply chain and media optimization via direct publisher relationships.”
Authenticity and credibility — with heightened awareness and scrutiny of sustainability claims and sensitivity to greenwashing, brands must ensure both their communications teams and the content creators they partner with are versed and confident in the validity of the claims they espouse.
Sustainability education needs to be a collective effort. Image: Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash
By Julie Linn Teigland, Area Managing Partner, Europe, Middle East, India and Africa, from the World Economic Forum • Reposted: October 5, 2023
The world is grappling with the pressing issue of climate change and our younger generations will bear the brunt of its consequences.
The first step towards meaningful change in anything – including sustainability – is education and a collective effort is required from corporations, governments, NGOs and educators alike.
Today’s younger generations undoubtedly hold the key to a more sustainable future, but channelling their enthusiasm into lasting change poses a significant global challenge for us all.
The global EY organization, in collaboration with JA Worldwide, recently published a report to find out ‘How can we empower the next generations to build a more sustainable future?‘. One of the report’s main findings is that the responsibility for delivering effective sustainability education lies not solely with educational institutions but with a collaborative effort from a coalition of organizations working hand-in-hand with educators around the world.
How can business leaders and corporations play their part in delivering truly effective sustainability education, both inside and outside the classroom? Here are five strategies to consider.
1. Host expanded learning opportunities
Our report found that hands-on learning experiences were critical in delivering truly engaging and effective sustainability education. There are many opportunities for companies and NGOs to get involved and collaborate with educators here by sponsoring workshops and activities, for example, that better engage students.
The Sustainability and Environmental Education organization’s ‘Young Changemakers’ course is an excellent example of this approach in action. The course inspires young school-age people by offering creative events and workshops that involve local businesses, charities and community organizations to bring sustainability challenges to life.
2. Provide educators with the tools to share additional context
Our report found that while social media plays a significant role in educating younger generations about sustainability, they trust teachers and schools more for this education. More than a quarter of Gen Z and Gen Alpha list schools and teachers as the top sources from which they would like to receive more information about sustainability.
With this in mind, corporations and NGOs should collaborate with schools to equip them with the tools to provide vital context to the raft of social media information younger generations are exposed to.
To give a practical example, the EY Future Skills Workshops, collaborating with EY, Code.org and Microsoft, have been established to help educate young people on sustainability topics not commonly taught in schools, utilizing innovative approaches and new technology. Programmes like these help empower educators and bridge the gap between traditional learning and digital-age awareness, ensuring that students can critically evaluate and apply the information they encounter on social media.
3. Strengthen ties with groups in local communities
Governments are seen as those primarily responsible for building a more sustainable world, but the reality is that real change happens with all of us at an individual level.
Corporations can make an impact here by collaborating directly with local community groups. The global programme EY Ripples is an example of this, fostering corporate responsibility by empowering individuals to use their skills for positive change. Through the programme, nearly 500 projects have been completed to date, each dedicated to scaling small businesses that contribute to one or more of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with the ultimate goal of positively impacting one billion lives in our communities by 2030.
Initiatives like these support individuals to create meaningful change within their communities, helping to make sure that sustainability is not just a global goal, but a local reality.
4. Provide information to help consumers make better decisions to reduce their carbon footprint
A recent IBM survey found that 41% of consumers would buy more sustainable products if they had a better understanding of how their purchase made an impact. And yet, according to Euromonitor, only 10% of global companies believe their sustainability communication to general consumers in 2023 is highly effective.
Truly proactive corporations are not only redesigning their products to make them more sustainable, but they are also engaging consumers through transparent communication. By demonstrating the environmental benefits of sustainable choices, companies can empower consumers worldwide to make informed decisions that reduce their carbon footprint.
The reality is that Gen Z expects the companies they join to have such programmes in place and companies should be prepared to get ahead of the curve if they want to attract the best talent.
5. Work with local and national governments to promote sustainability education and environmental action
Policymakers can improve sustainability education through better communication of existing sustainability programmes, the creation of new initiatives and by better aligning priorities and actions.
UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) for 2030 programme does great work to this effect. It is also encouraging to see the EU include skills development as a key pillar of its Green Deal Industrial Plan, with proposals for Net-Zero Industry Academies that will help roll out up-skilling and re-skilling programmes in strategic industries. Programmes like these not only prepare the workforce for sustainable careers, they also reinforce the importance of sustainability in education and professional development.
To conclude, it is the shared responsibility of corporations, governments, NGOs, and educators to empower younger generations with the knowledge and tools necessary to build a sustainable future, ensuring that they inherit a planet capable of sustaining life as we know it.
By expanding learning opportunities, equipping educators, engaging with local communities, providing information for informed consumer choices and collaborating with governments, we can work together to pave the way for a brighter and more sustainable future for all.
The U.S. government is the single largest buyer of services and goods, like vehicles. That has an impact on the economy. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
By Jesse Burkhardt, Associate Professor of Energy Economics, Colorado State University and Lauren Gifford, Associate Director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center, Colorado State University via The Conversation • Reposted: October 4, 2023
Each year, the federal government purchases about 50,000 new vehicles. Until recently, almost all of them ran on diesel or gasoline, contributing to U.S. demand for fossil fuels and encouraging automakers to continue focusing on fossil-fueled vehicles.
That’s starting to change, and a new directive that the Biden Administration quietly issued in September 2023 will accelerate the shift.
The administration directed U.S. agencies to begin considering the social cost of greenhouse gases when making purchase decisions and implementing their budgets.
That one move has vast implications that go far beyond vehicles. It could affect decisions across the government on everything from agriculture grants to fossil fuel drilling on public lands to construction projects. Ultimately, it could shift demand enough to change what industries produce, not just for the government but for the entire country.
What’s the social cost of greenhouse gas?
The social cost of greenhouse gases represents the damage created by emitting 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
By directing agencies to consider those costs when making purchases and implementing budgets, the administration is making it more likely that agencies will purchase products and make investments that are more energy efficient and less likely to fuel climate change.
The Department of Defense has been taking steps to reduce emissions for several years. Many of its military bases have solar panels, which can produce renewable energy for a few buildings or larger installations. Photo: U.S. Navy
While only a fraction of the roughly $6 trillion that the U.S. government spends each year would likely be considered under the new directive, that fraction could have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy by reducing demand for fossil fuels and lowering emissions across sectors.
Estimating the cost
The Obama administration introduced the first federal social cost of carbon to incorporate climate risk in regulatory decisions. It’s calculated using models of the global economy and climate and weighs the value of spending money today for future benefits.
When the Trump administration arrived, it cut the estimated cost from around $50 per metric ton to less than $5, which justified rolling back several environmental regulations, including on power plant emissions and fuel efficiency. The Biden administration restored an interim price to about $51, with plans to raise it.
Recent research suggests that the actual social cost of carbon is closer to $185 per metric ton. But carbon dioxide is just one greenhouse gas. The new directive takes other greenhouse gases into consideration, too – in particular, methane, which has about 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over 20 years.
Estimates of the social cost of methane, which comes from livestock and leaks from pipelines and other natural gas equipment, range from $933 per metric ton to $4,000 per metric ton.
Oil and gas wells and pipelines are a common source of methane emissions, including what the Environmental Protection Agency estimates to be more than 3 million abandoned wells across the U.S. AP Photo/Eric Gay
Without directives like these, decision-makers implicitly set the cost of greenhouse gas emissions to zero in their benefit-cost analyses. The new directives allow agencies to instead compare the expected climate damages, in dollars, when making decisions about vehicle purchases, building infrastructure and permitting, among other choices.
The vehicle fleet as an example
The federal vehicle fleet is a good example of how the social costs of greenhouse gases add up.
Let’s compare the costs of driving an electric Ford Focus and an equivalent conventional-fuel Ford Focus.
Assume each vehicle drives an average of 10,000 miles (about 16,000 kilometers) per year – that’s less than the U.S. average per driver, but it’s a simple number to work with. The damages from emissions in dollars from driving a conventional Ford Focus 10,000 miles are between $133 and $484, depending on whether you use a social cost of carbon of $51 per metric ton or $185 per metric ton.
The climate harm from driving an equivalent electric Ford Focus 10,000 miles, based on the average carbon dioxide emissions intensity from the U.S. electricity grid, would be between $59 and $212, using the same social costs.
Scale that to 50,000 new vehicle purchases, and that’s a cost difference of about $4 million to $13.5 million per year for emissions from operating the vehicles. While producing an EV’s battery adds to the vehicle’s emissions up front, that’s soon outweighed by operational savings. These are real savings to society.
The U.S. government is also a major consumer of energy. If agencies begin to consider the climate damages associated with fossil energy consumption, they will likely trend toward renewable energy, further lowering their own emissions while boosting the burgeoning industry.
How the government can shift demand
These types of comparisons under the new directive could help shift purchases toward a wide range of less carbon-intensive products.
Much of the U.S. government’s spending goes toward carbon-intensive goods and services, such as transportation and infrastructure development. Directing agencies to consider and compare the social cost of purchases in each of these sectors will send similar signals to different segments of the market: The demand for less carbon-intensive goods is rising.
Because this new directive expands to other greenhouse gases, it could have broad implications for new permitting for oil and gasdevelopment and agricultural production, as these are the two largest sources of methane in the U.S.
While this decision is not a tax on carbon or a subsidy for less carbon-intensive goods, it will likely send similar market signals. With respect to purchases, this policy is akin to tax rebates for energy efficient products, like electric vehicle incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, which boost demand for EVs.
When we think of sustainability, of doing what we can in business and society to preserve and protect the environment, it’s easy to want to think of quick fixes; things we can do right now to solve the problem. We think in terms of products that we can buy to help, and products to avoid; processes to implement, and those to abandon. We want to solve the problem and move on to something else.
But sustainability is not a trend. It will not fade away or be replaced by a new trend. As such, our collective responsibility cannot fade. Operating sustainably is the new way of doing business. We must operate thoughtfully with an eye on how our decisions may impact those that come after us, down the road and into the future.
The concept is not new. I’ve always been fond of the adage, the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children.
As I wrote last November, despite the well-intentioned efforts of governments and international bodies, like the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference, industry need not wait for regulation to act on emissions, energy, and waste. We can, and many organizations have, act now to reduce and eliminate our carbon emissions, to increase our use of renewables, and to insist that our supply chains are aligned with our missions.
For our part at Hitachi, we are aggressively implementing initiatives to improve our environmental footprint, from our energy usage and emissions, all the way to the products and solutions we develop that are more eco-friendly than previous iterations. We are also expanding this work to involve our extensive partner ecosystem to ensure that everyone with whom we work is on the same sustainability page as we are. Our corporate goals are well documented, to be carbon neutral as a global company by 2030, and to be carbon neutral across our entire value chain by 2050. And while there is tremendous work being done, there’s much more to come.
Like many, I was heartened by the recent Global Electricity Report 2023 from the global energy think tank, Ember, that reported electricity generation was its “cleanest ever” in 2022, falling to a record low of 436 gCO2/kWh, due to dramatic growth in wind and solar generation around the globe. In fact, the report noted that more than 60 countries “now generate more than 10% of their electricity from wind and solar.”
The Future is Not Ours
As we spend Earth Day speaking of policies, programs, and targets to be more environmentally responsible, I encourage you to think of the potential value of all your programs on the future. When we ingrain sustainability into everything we do, with a view of the impact of our decisions on the next generation, it sets in motion actions for the next generation to replicate; momentum is generated and perpetuated, ad infinitum.
A little more than 100 years ago, Theodore Roosevelt said, “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”
The future is not ours, but it is our responsibility. And unless you haven’t been paying attention, our children, the next generation, are in many ways taking a more proactive leadership role in this area than we are. They are demanding action, and it is time for us to step up and meet the challenge.
Let us demonstrate to them, through decisive action, that we are listening and that we are committed to creating a better world for them. It is time to set aside short-term thinking and embrace a long-term approach that considers the implications of our actions on future generations.
Indeed, let us be inspired by the leadership of our children and work together to create a greener future. By doing so, we can ensure that we leave behind a legacy we can be proud of – a world that is healthy and sustainable.
For more on Hitachi Vantara’s eco-first approach to data centers, view here.
By Karthik Balakrishnan from Supply and Demand Chain Executive • Reposted: October 3, 2023
Ultimately, sustainability-linked investments result in reduced liabilities, reduced risk of stranded assets, and reduced risk of regulatory backlash, and improved unit economics and supply chain resilience.
In recent years, corporate sustainability efforts have focused on measurement and reporting. We’ve heard the phrase “what gets measured gets managed” countless times and taken it to heart. The result has been a robust carbon accounting and reporting universe filled with tools that can estimate the emissions for every industry, and an alphabet soup of reporting standards. This result, however, hasn’t been particularly promising. Even companies with the most ambitious climate goals and robust measurement and accounting programs have had trouble cutting their emissions. It turns out that simply measuring something doesn’t mean it’s going to be managed. Measurement is an important first step for an organization to understand and prioritize sustainability efforts. However, sustainability is about the real-world impact that can only be achieved with real-world investments, not an endless cycle of measurement and reporting. Put another way, what gets measured might get managed if you can show that the upfront costs of sustainability are truly investments in a classical business sense, with benefits including ROI, customer retention and risk mitigation.
When your organization is part of a complex supply chain, achieving sustainability targets is made difficult because the investments needed to meet your sustainability goals often involve assets outside of your organization. In these cases, a business justification is especially important, since achieving your targets will only come from partnering with other organizations and showing them the benefits of either investing in their facilities on your behalf, or accepting direct investments for actions and equipment that they might not otherwise purchase.
The first step is to map the key outcomes that apply to your business that can be enhanced by sustainability- and ESG-linked investments. For example, a product’s unit economics can each be improved by changing designs to use less raw material, adjusting production dies and molds to waste less material, and switching to equipment which uses less fuel and is easier to maintain. An existing factory or distribution center can benefit from lower insurance costs by investing in solutions for climate resilience. Meanwhile, a brand-new factory can benefit from a lower cost of capital by investing in future-proof clean technologies that reduce the risk that the facility ends up as a stranded asset due to changing market demands or regulatory conditions.
In all of the examples above, the benefits of sustainability-driven efforts actually benefited the business as a whole. Instead of a green premium, these businesses would benefit from a green return.
As sustainable technologies improve and become more mature, these returns will only improve as well. Holistically studying the impacts of sustainability and ESG investments allows supply chain leaders to build a business case for sustainability that goes beyond marginal abatement curves. Simply focusing on minimizing the cost of sustainability is not a winning strategy when the cost of capital is high. Instead, it’s critical to show how sustainability-linked investments maximize return and positively impact financial outcomes. This is especially helpful when making a case for investment to a key supplier or manufacturer, who may be reluctant to make the process, material or equipment investments standing between you and your sustainability goals.
There is, of course, the elephant in the room. Is it even worth considering ESG and sustainability given all of the controversy and political turmoil surrounding the term? After all, a modern supply chain is fine-tuned, and ultimately performs best by minimizing all sorts of risk, especially those like political risks that live outside your control. The answer, surprisingly, is yes. There are several real unassailable trends that have gained momentum in the last couple of years. In the wake of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in August 2022, 80% of money allocated by the bill for clean energy and sustainability projects has gone towards Congressional districts represented by individuals who publicly oppose ESG messaging. Deployments of large, utility-scale solar projects follow the annual resource (how much sunlight is available in a given year) independent of political boundaries. And regardless of the political sentiment, over two-thirds of consumers consider sustainability positively when making at least some of their purchase decisions — nearly sixteen times the number that are influenced negatively by sustainability. Fundamentally, the science and economics of sustainability are sound, and while reporting frameworks and standards may change, the real-world drivers which led to the creation of ESG remain. The bottom line is that while the term “ESG” is facing backlash and the name will change as it has in the past, these principles are being “hardwired” into financial strategies in all but name at full speed. The ROI of sustainability not only shows up at the level of the individual initiative, but increasingly contributes to the overall financial position and investability of the company as a whole.
Ultimately, sustainability-linked investments result in reduced liabilities, reduced risk of stranded assets and reduced risk of regulatory backlash, and improved unit economics and supply chain resilience. Quantifying and clearly communicating these financial and performance benefits, on top of the pure ESG benefits, is critical to move beyond measurement and reporting to achieve real impact.
By Gino Sesto from Entrepreneur.com • Reposted: September 30, 2023
Key Takeaways
Socially conscious shopping is more than a trend; it’s a movement shaping the current consumer landscape.
Brands have unique opportunities to highlight their commitment to social responsibility.
In today’s dynamic retail environment, there’s a significant shift occurring in the way brands approach their customers. Historically, many industries prioritized competitive prices and discounts. However, the modern consumer is evolving, and the marketing world must follow suit. Brands are now transitioning away from emphasizing price to highlighting values, beliefs and overarching ethos. This shift from cost awareness to conscious consumerism redefines the marketing approach across sectors.
The emergence of the socially conscious consumer
Socially conscious shopping is more than a trend; it’s a movement shaping the consumer landscape. Customers increasingly make purchasing decisions based on the broader impact of their choices, whether environmental sustainability, ethical manufacturing or social justice.
Recent surveys like the Harris Poll show these changes in consumer spending habits happening in multiple industries. However, while price remains a dominant factor for many consumers, it’s not the sole consideration anymore. Although numerous shoppers still prioritize cost, a growing group is willing to pay a premium for products aligned with their values.
Take fashion as an example. Data reveals that while 22% of shoppers now consider where apparel is manufactured, 17% evaluate brands based on their sustainability initiatives. Fifteen percent examine a brand’s attitude to social issues, and 13% consider its employment practices. While these figures might appear modest, they indicate a growing inclination toward value-driven, socially conscious shopping. As modern shoppers progressively align spending habits with their values, brands that adapt to this approach will reap the benefits of a loyal and expanding customer base.
Crafting marketing strategies for diverse audiences
Successful brands are those that understand their audience’s nuances. It’s crucial to segment the audience not just by age or gender but by values, beliefs and priorities. For older generations, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and quality remains key. While baby boomers focus on price and quality, younger generations like GenZ-ers and Millennials are more inclined to consider a brand’s values and beliefs. For this generation, the key lies in the tangibles. Brands must emphasize cost-effectiveness without compromising on quality. Promotions, discounts, and loyalty programs are effective marketing tools, while Gladly’s 2022 Customer Expectations Report indicates the importance of the entire shopping experience. Convenience also makes a difference through easy returns, a seamless online shopping experience, or efficient customer service. Boomers are looking for value, but they also want ease and simplicity.
This doesn’t mean cost isn’t essential for younger consumers, but they’re more likely to pay more for products and services that align with their values. Younger audiences and people of color are even more likely to align shopping habits with their values. For these audiences, shopping isn’t just a transaction; it’s a statement. Quality, style and, most importantly, a brand’s position on social and environmental issues have all become equally significant. Brands must integrate values into the shopping experience by showcasing their efforts transparently. Clear stances on social issues and ethical employment practices are effective strategies. Collaborations with influencers who support their values, limited edition “cause” collections, or even a percentage of sales going to a social cause can also be successful
Harnessing digital channels for socially conscious marketing
In the current digital age, brands have unique opportunities to highlight their commitment to social responsibility. Digital marketing platforms allow companies to convey their values, initiatives, and beliefs transparently. Research from The Roundup shows consumers are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious, with many actively seeking out sustainable products.
This shift is supported by a 2021 study that showed 45% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products. Additionally, 52% of the respondents emphasized the importance of purchasing from companies whose values align with theirs, marking a significant increase from 43% in 2019. Recent findings from the ninth annual Conscious Consumer Spending Index also showed a 25% surge in socially responsible spending in 2021 compared to the prior year. This data underscores the shift in consumer behavior, where decisions are influenced not just by product quality or cost but also by a brand’s ethical and societal values.
Digital platforms, especially social media, have become the epicenter for brands to showcase their alignment with social causes, sustainable manufacturing processes, and ethical sourcing. By integrating these values into their marketing strategies, brands can foster deeper connections with their audience, building a trustworthy and value-driven image. As consumer preferences continue to evolve, the significance of socially conscious marketing in nurturing brand loyalty and fostering trust becomes even more evident.
Staying nimble in a dynamic landscape
Change is the only constant in the retail world. Brands must remain adaptable as consumer preferences evolve, influenced by global events, cultural shifts, and generational differences. Success lies in understanding and catering to the modern, socially conscious consumer. Companies must balance offering cost-effective solutions and championing values, ethical practices, and social responsibility. As brands navigate this new terrain, those who genuinely connect with their audience’s values will be the ones to thrive.
Students work together on an assignment about ecosystems and environmental impacts during a seventh-grade science class in December 2020. While more schools are introducing sustainability curriculum, some are struggling to get started. (Image credit: Allison Shelley for EDUimages via Flickr)
By Gary E. Frank from Triple Pundit • Reposted: September 29, 2023
Elementary and secondary school teachers want to teach about sustainability, yet many lack the time, resources, and in particular, the tools to do so effectively. For those in the United States, help is on the way.
By 2030, the Sustainability Education Coalition aims to give more than 10 million K-12 students access to educational resources that will help them make informed decisions and take responsible actions when it comes to sustainability.
It’s a first-of-its-kind initiative aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and launched by Discovery Education, a leader in developing digital content for K-12 teaching.
“The need for comprehensive sustainability education has never been more pressing,” Amy Nakamoto, Discovery Education’s general manager of social impact, said in a statement. “Recent statistics reveal a concerning trend: While the majority of teachers recognize the importance of teaching students about climate and sustainability, only half of them are currently addressing these vital topics within their classrooms.”
Three factors hinder teaching sustainability to K-12 students in the U.S., Natamoto said. First, some teachers have difficulty figuring out where classes on sustainability belong in their curricula.
“It could be in science classrooms, it could be in social studies classrooms, it could be in blended STEM [science, technology, engineering and math] classrooms. I think currently, teachers are having a hard time figuring out where it fits in the school day,” Nakamoto told TriplePundit.
Others feel they do not know how to teach sustainability topics, she said. Teachers need and want more support in this area, according to a report from the Smithsonian Science Education Center. Of the teachers surveyed, 69 percent said professional development on sustainability would be helpful.
“They want to be able to talk about this with their students, but they don’t know how,” Nakamoto told us. Lastly, while school administrators believe sustainability is a critically important topic to teach, they don’t know how to get the resources to do so, she said.
The Sustainability Education Coalition aims to solve all three problems. It uses insight and expertise from partner companies to create digital content for students to learn from alongside the lessons on the Discovery Education Experience learning platform, Nakamoto said. Support is specifically focused on providing STEM and sustainability education resources to school districts that would struggle to access them otherwise.
“Another way the collaboration happens, in addition to the curriculum and the content, is through strategic thought leadership that takes educators and administrators and puts them in the same rooms as these leading companies,” Nakamoto said. “So [the companies] can understand the challenges of schools to talk about these topics, and the schools and administrators can understand how companies are wrestling with these topics in more real-time.”
On the other side, company partners benefit from joining the coalition through employee engagement, Nakamoto said. Employees want to see their companies investing in initiatives that align their corporate mission with a local community mission.
“Employee engagement is leveraging the employees of our partners to be part of the story. So, we are telling their stories, we are filming them and the solutions they’re doing,” Nakamoto said. “We deeply believe in showing the people who are the leaders in this movement to the students in classrooms across the U.S.”
So far, Subaru of America, LyondellBasell, Nucor, Honeywell, and the National Environmental Education Foundation have partnered with the coalition. Each company that joins helps to unlock access to a complete library of STEM and sustainability education resources for some critical communities, Nakamoto said.
“[Sustainability] is a topic that everybody is both wrestling with and evolving with at the same time,” she concluded. “We have a big vision to grow this to represent multiple sectors, multiple interests because the sustainability story is an everyday story that we all experience just walking through the world. In order to tell that story to students, we need to be influenced by all of the sectors that are engaged in sustainability at their corporate and community level.”
Chief financial officers are integral to meeting corporate net-zero commitments. By Nico McCrossan from Greenbi.com • Reposted: September 29, 2023
Chief financial officers are responsible for a company’s financial performance and reporting, but that doesn’t adequately capture the role they play in corporate strategy.
Along with projecting the costs and revenue associated with proposed investments, CFOs must organize the resources for execution — giving them immense power over the direction and speed at which a company moves. That’s why in order for a company to transition to a net-zero business model, the CFO must not only be on board but have a hand in guiding the ship. Here are three ways CFOs can navigate that journey.
Adopt impact-driven banking practices
CFOs can help their organizations make significant progress towards decarbonization and diversity, equity and inclusion goals by adjusting corporate treasury practices to support them.
That could mean leveraging impact cash platforms, such as CNote and Impact Deposits Corp., to distribute a company’s deposits across credit unions, community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and low-income designated (LID) financial institutions. These sorts of lending institutions often tout strategies that align with corporate sustainability goals and values such as climate justice or financial inclusion.
By moving corporate deposits to banks where all lending activities are aligned to keeping global temperature increases to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius, a CFO could reduce the carbon footprint associated with the company’s deposits by more than 60 percent, according to a report by BankFWD, Climate Safe Lending Network and The Outdoor Policy Outfit.
Shifting a company’s cash holding to hundreds or thousands of CDFIs could make more operational and growth capital available to women- and minority-owned companies, because CDFIs are required to designate at least 60 percent of their funding activities for low- and moderate income populations or underserved communities. Access to capital is the top barrier to the creation, expansion and growth of women- and minority-owned businesses, according to The Black Business Alliance.
Offer greener retirement plan options
U.S. employer-sponsored retirement plans accounted for more than $11.8 trillion in assets at the beginning of 2023.
Employees — especially Gen Z employees who make up 6.1 percent of the workforce but are expected to account for 30 percent by 2030 — are more often considering companies’ ESG practices and performance when choosing where to work. A KPMG survey published in January found a third of 18- to 24-year-olds have turned down a job offer because of the organization’s ESG performance. Separately, a 2021 Morgan Stanley report found 99 percent of millennials are interested in sustainable investing.
Younger generations will be disproportionately harmed by the effects of climate change as it worsens over time, and some investors are asking that companies analyze whether defaulting to carbon-intensive investments in corporate retirement options puts younger beneficiaries’ savings at greater risk than participants closer to retirement age. The oldest members of Gen Z will reach retirement age in 2055. At that point, the global economy will need to have been operating with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for five years to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. That calls into question the logic of including fossil fuels investments within the retirement plans of Gen Z investors.
Corporate financial teams can opt for retirement plan providers that actively engage with the management of companies included in their portfolios to encourage them to adopt sustainable business practices. A ShareAction report published in February ranks the 77 largest retirement plan providers across responsible investment themes.
Establish an internal carbon price
CFOs can help integrate sustainability considerations into corporate decision-making processes by applying an internal carbon price to business activities. Charging business units for the emissions associated with their operations or new investments can encourage managers across the company to align decarbonization efforts with the financial performance of their business units.
This internal “tax” on emissions can also be used to fund decarbonization efforts; financial services firm Société Générale, for example, does this by allocating funds raised by the internal carbon tax to the business units with the most impactful environmental efficiency efforts. This provides the firm’s business units with dual incentives, a carrot and a stick. By investing in carbon reduction initiatives, they can both avoid the costs of the internal carbon tax and receive incentives to cover the cost of future decarbonization efforts.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom joins New York Times correspondent David Gelles on stage at Climate Week, where he announced he would sign a pair of recently passed bills that mandate climate disclosure from large companies operating in the state. (Image: The Climate Group/Flickr)
By Mary Mazzoni from Triple Pundit • Reposted: September 27, 2023
World leaders, business executives and activists are back in New York City for Climate Week and the United Nations General Assembly — and everybody’s talking about California.
In case you missed it: Last week California legislators approved a pair of bills that require all large public and private companies operating in the state to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions to investors and the public. Business leaders organized by the sustainability nonprofit Ceres came out in support of the bill before it passed. They say their progress in tracking and disclosing the full scope of their emissions proves it’s possible for other companies to do the same.
As lawmakers and business coalitions enjoy a victory lap at Climate Week, we’re taking a closer look at the landmark legislation and the ripple effects it could send well outside the Golden State.
Why corporate climate disclosure matters
“There was a billion-dollar weather and climate disaster event every four months in our country in the 1980s. By 2010, there was one every three weeks,” Mindy Lubber, CEO and president of Ceres, said at a press conference on Tuesday. “This year, we’ve experienced more than a billion-dollar event every two weeks.”
Indeed, extreme weather cost the United States nearly $40 billion in the first eight months of 2023 alone. But the impacts these disasters and other climate disruptions have on corporate bottom lines is less understood, because many companies don’t calculate it. “People are operating in the dark,” Lubber said. “I can tell you of the 700 investors we work with, they want to understand: What are the risks from climate [change], and what are the opportunities? They cannot make a decision about building a portfolio without adequate information.”
What the California climate disclosure rules require
The two recently passed bills — Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 261 (SB 261) — are on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, and he confirmed this week that he will sign them. The bills require the California Air Resources Board to develop rules that mandate public and private companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.
The rules will apply to around 5,500 companies doing business in California, lawmakers said. Companies will be required to disclose emissions from their direct operations (known as Scope 1) and those from the electricity they purchase (known as Scope 2) by 2026. Mandatory Scope 3 disclosure will come into force a year later, with financial penalties waived for three years as a transition period.
“SB 253 does not dictate how they should reduce their carbon emissions. But by making clear that within a couple of years these emissions are going to become public, the corporations have a huge incentive to innovate to reduce those emissions,” said California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County. “We’re going to see in a few years who’s walking the walk and who’s just talking the talk. And I hope that after a few years before the implementation, the companies that are walking the walk are going to be a much higher number than they are today.”
Attendees are all smiles during California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s remarks at Climate Week. (Image: The Climate Group/Flickr)
Insiders predict a race to the top that goes way beyond California
Lawmakers say Californians will benefit directly from the new climate disclosure rules. “As a member who currently represents environmental justice communities who live near the harbor — who are seeing the emissions and feeling them every single day, the impacts of bad air quality, as well as the severe, tangible impacts of climate change — this will deeply, deeply benefit my constituents and constituents across the state of California,” said state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, who represents Long Beach and Southeast Los Angeles.
But given California is the fourth largest economy in the world, the implications could stretch far beyond its own borders. “As disclosure becomes real, some companies are going to step up, clean up and really lead, and other companies are going to be forced to do the same,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, which lobbies in support of climate and environmental legislation in the state. “There’s going to be pressure out there like we’ve never seen to change business-as-usual.”
The fact that thousands of multinational companies will be compelled to disclose their emissions may also make it easier for other markets to pass similar legislation. “SB 253 marks a major advancement in detailed emissions disclosure, potentially revolutionizing corporate responsibility in combating climate change for the world, not merely California,” said Kentaro Kawamori, CEO of the carbon accounting firm Persefoni. “As the global community confronts the pressing need for climate action, California’s leadership might inspire comparable efforts in other states and countries.”
Markets including the U.K., Japan and the European Union already moved to mandate climate disclosure within the past two years. While it’s too early to say whether those rules amounted to this type of sea change, early evidence indicates it is a likely outcome. “We don’t have a lot of data yet as to how it has changed things,” Lubber told us. “But we do know when a company … makes a declaration and commitment to doing it — and that’s public and you’re showing how you’re going to do it and you’re accountable — it drives behavior change. And it probably does that as well as anything else I can think of.”
What about the SEC?
Last year the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued draft language for mandatory climate disclosure rules that would apply to all large publicly-traded companies operating in the country. The release date for the final rule has been pushed back several times and is now expected toward the end of this year. It’s also still up in the air as to whether the final SEC rule will include mandatory reporting of Scope 3 emissions.
But if and when the SEC does mandate climate disclosure, companies will be well positioned to translate the work they’re doing in California to comply with the federal rules.
“For us as an industry association, it’s very important to have harmonization among reporting requirements,” said Chelsea Murtha, director of sustainability for the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which represents more than 1,000 brands and came out in support of the legislation. “We worked with Sen. Wiener and Ceres to get language in the bill that made sure that if you were reporting to the SEC and that was a substantially similar disclosure, it would work in California. We were really glad to see pieces like that come together and make this a process that was really designed to help businesses succeed.”
The bottom line: Climate disclosure won’t fix it, but it’s a major step forward
Disclosure won’t solve our climate problems, but in the spirit of sunlight as a proverbial disinfectant, transparency is a crucial piece of the puzzle. “There’s no doubt that it’s only a first step,” Lubber told us. “Once companies analyze their risk and measure it, they can then manage it. It’s very hard to come up with a climate plan to act without knowing what the problem is.”
Ceres provides toolkits and direct consultation to help companies translate the data from their disclosures into time-bound climate transition plans, and it will continue to do so as California’s rules come into force, Lubber said.
“The public, investors and regulators want to know what is the risk to a company, and that’s why they have been calling for climate risk disclosure,” she told us. “Good information is just that — not the panacea, but it provides the base to make smart decisions about managing carbon emissions.”
By Steve Cohen from the Columbia Climate School • Reposted: September 27, 2023
To paraphrase the management icon Peter Drucker, you can’t manage something unless you measure it. Without measurement, you can’t tell if management’s actions are making things better or worse. The importance and seriousness of sustainability management requires the development of generally accepted sustainability metrics. Just as financial accounting requires agreement on terms and reporting requirements to facilitate independent auditing, sustainability requires the same level of precision. Publicly traded and owned corporations are under pressure from investors to report environmental risks, and more and more companies are disclosing environmental and social governance (ESG) measures.
A recent Wall Street Journal survey of corporate sustainability officers indicates that while more companies are disclosing sustainability metrics, there is confusion about the measures and a demand for uniform reporting requirements. According to Journal reporter David Breg:
“Public companies in the U.S. are increasingly disclosing sustainability information, but many say they find it a challenge to report fundamental climate data that many regulators around the globe likely will require under incoming mandatory reporting standards. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said their company was disclosing environmental, social and governance information, up from 56% in the prior year, according to the annual survey of sustainability officials that WSJ Pro conducted this spring.”
The reporting challenge is due to imprecise measures and a lack of experience collecting and reporting these data. That challenge will be met by sustainability professionals trained in measuring greenhouse gasses and conducting life cycle analyses. In Columbia’s MS in Sustainability Management program, we offer courses in each of those areas, and before long, hundreds of our graduates will be helping corporations meet their reporting requirements.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been revising its proposed sustainability reporting requirements in response to a deluge of comments and has delayed issuing those requirements, once expected last spring. The political calendar of a national election next year creates extreme pressure to issue those standards this fall, and currently, they are expected in October. There will certainly be legal challenges to whatever rule is issued, but to the extent that the rules connect environmental risk to financial risk, they are well within the SEC’s enabling legislation. Additionally, the SEC is not the only body working on uniform sustainability metrics. Again, according to Breg:
“Regulators around the globe are finalizing rules that would require companies to publish standardized information after years of patchy voluntary ESG reporting based on a host of frameworks. California’s governor has said he would soon sign that state’s requirements into law. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules are expected later this year. European regulations are already in place and many other countries are also working on standards. The International Sustainability Standards Board hopes its climate framework, completed this past summer, becomes the global baseline.”
Assuming the SEC rules survive the ideological onslaught they will face, it is likely, just as with financial accounting, that an American rule would be highly influential and, over time, would become a global standard. If the extreme element of America’s right wing dominates the debate over disclosure and overturns the rules in the conservative Supreme Court, U.S. corporations operating globally would be subject to foreign or global reporting requirements that they would have little hope of influencing. The realpolitik of sustainability reporting requirements may convince American corporations to focus their attention on influencing rather than overturning reporting requirements. The ideological and dysfunctional side of American national politics will certainly result in court challenges to the SEC rule, but the seriousness of the effort and its impact is unknowable.
The initial SEC rule is more limited than many of the other frameworks under development and focuses narrowly on carbon disclosure. My guess is that carbon emissions from a company’s supply chain will be omitted or optional in the final disclosure rule. My view is that this initial rule is a foot in the door and, like financial accounting, will evolve over time.
A growing number of publicly traded companies and even many privately owned companies are disclosing sustainability metrics. The ideologues labeling this as “woke” management fail to understand the degree to which these measures are indicators of effective and sophisticated management. ESG measures do not drive out financial indicators, they are, in fact, correlated with financial success. The principal concerns of a private firm do not change under sustainability management. They remain profit, market share, and return on equity. But modern organizations recognize that they are operating on a more crowded, interconnected, and warming planet. These facts of organizational environments require that they manage their environmental, social, and community impacts as a part of routine organizational life.
In addition, modern organizations compete for talent, and that means that workers have influence over management behavior. Young employees care about a company’s ESG performance. The post-pandemic push for hybrid work arrangements is ample evidence that top-down management is no longer possible, and organizations must respond to employee preferences.
Corporations operate in a regulated environment. That is why they have in-house counsel and engage outside law firms on a regular basis. When employees are fired or laid-off it is not unusual for them to sue their ex-employer. An American corporation operating nationally must understand state law and even local ordinances to successfully function. Companies operating globally must understand the rules of other nations. Over 10,000 non-European companies are subject to the European Union’s new ESG reporting requirements. About a third—or over 3,000—are U.S. corporations. This regulatory environment is normal and expected and fully integrated into decision-making in modern corporations. The free market is a relative and not absolute concept. There has never been and will never be a totally free market since that is akin to anarchy. An indicator of a successful company is its ability to navigate its regulatory environment while achieving its financial goals. The widespread and growing voluntary disclosure of sustainability metrics is happening in anticipation of government regulation but also in response to investor, customer, and employee demands.
But the problem with voluntary disclosure is that the measures they use do not enable investors to compare one company’s environmental risk to another, and the disclosures are not audited. Even worse, some of the NGOs that help companies measure and report sustainability are paid by the companies they report on, so these ESG reports might be fiction, and we’d never know. Uniform disclosure metrics are urgently needed. Only the SEC, with its gatekeeper function to the public capital marketplace, has the power to develop and impose standard reporting and audit requirements.
The move to decarbonize our economy will continue to be quietly and, at times, visibly opposed by fossil fuel interests. But they are increasingly unable to counter the facts of our warming planet. They will persist and, as Mike Bloomberg’s recent initiative recognizes, will shift their emphasis from burning fossil fuels for energy to utilizing them for plastics and other petrochemicals. Bloomberg is spending $85 million to block chemical plant siting as part of his effort to reduce global warming. If petrochemical plants were required to measure and report on their air pollutants, they might well be motivated to learn how to reduce those emissions while producing what they are selling. It’s easy to see why they might oppose reporting requirements, but if the alternative is to fight siting wars with local community groups, it might be in their financial interest to measure, report, and reduce emissions.
Sustainability metrics and indeed sustainability management have finally arrived. For those of us who have been working for well over a decade to develop these practices and this profession, this is welcome but not a surprise. The climate crisis modeled and predicted in the final decade of the twentieth century is now with us. The biodiversity loss feared has also arrived. I continue to believe that we can develop a productive and growing economy without destroying our home planet. It takes brainpower, ingenuity, and technology, but most of all, our attention and concern. Carbon disclosure is a critical step in carbon management. Standardized sustainability metrics are a crucial step in realizing the vision of sustainability management.
Balancing luxury with the imperative of sustainability presents an ongoing dilemma. The challenge lies in finding a harmonious path that doesn’t compromise customer satisfaction. Achieving this delicate balance requires a multifaceted approach. By Manthati Sai Kiranfrom Business World • Reposted: September 25, 2023
The hospitality industry is known for its exceptional services. Luxury and facilities. The sector is now not only known for creating exceptional experiences for its guests but also for driving positive change. This sector presents unique opportunities and challenges.
Similar to many other industries, the hospitality sector is committed to advancing sustainable practices. But it has faced considerable adversities, particularly due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. As it looks ahead, sustainability cost stands as one of the challenges.
In mathematical terms, the hospitality industry contributes approximately 11 per cent of global carbon emissions and it is expected to grow by 85 per cent over the next few years. The growth comes at a cost and it involves a high environmental impact, including increased water usage and the generation of disposable and non-disposable waste. Implication – more emission of carbon footprint.
Balancing luxury with the imperative of sustainability presents an ongoing dilemma. The challenge lies in finding a harmonious path that doesn’t compromise customer satisfaction. Achieving this delicate balance requires a multifaceted approach.
In a recent panel discussion, industry leaders shared their strategies and best practices for addressing various issues, minimising food waste, sustainability initiatives, and inclusive and active engagement with local communities. These collaborative efforts demonstrate the industry’s commitment to making a positive impact while navigating the complexities of luxury and sustainability.
Gaurav Sinha, Hotel Manager, JW Marriot said “Sustainability is not just a path we aspire to explore as an industry, but a responsibility we embrace. Our guests, play a pivotal role alongside with us in giving back to society and preserving our precious natural resources. Through dedicated practices and innovative equipment, we aim to make a meaningful contribution. Tonight, as our conversation unfolds, we look forward to discussing these vital steps towards a brighter, more sustainable future”.
HC Vinayaka, VP Technical, EHS & Sustainability, ITC Hotels, shared strategies for minimizing food waste, from removing dustbins in cafeterias to implementing programs where food is measured every time it is thrown and target food wastage reduction year-by-year plans.
He strongly believes, educating management teams, and fostering a shared commitment to sustainability are the cornerstones to tackling food waste.
Manish Garg, General Manager, Hilton and Hilton Garden Inn Bengaluru Embassy Manyata Business Park, shared inclusive practices, that he led in his organisation. He has taken steps to include specially-abled individuals in the workforce, recognizing the importance of diversity and inclusivity. However, it’s not just about hiring, it’s about fostering an environment where everyone can thrive. This means equipping ourselves and our teams with the skills and understanding needed to work effectively with differently-abled colleagues. It’s about learning sign language, adapting communication methods, and ensuring safety measures are inclusive.
“In my experience, the biggest challenge lies in ongoing training, where we continuously strive to improve our communication and support for our specially-abled team members. In the hotel industry, there are diverse roles, such as operators, where physically challenged individuals can excel. It’s about creating an environment where they not only have a job but also feel valued and motivated to come to work, just like any other team member”, he added.
Unlike greenwashing, a quieter phenomenon raises concerns about transparency and authenticity. By Patricia Costinhas from impakter.com • Reposted: September 24, 2023
In the world of corporate sustainability, it’s not always about what companies proudly proclaim; sometimes, it’s the hushed secrets they keep that reveal their true shades of green. You’ve probably heard of greenwashing before, but now there is a subtler player lurking in the shadows: greenhushing.
While greenwashing wears its false eco-badges loud and proud, greenhushing prefers to stay in the background, quietly concealing its true colors. But make no mistake; silence can speak volumes. It raises questions about companies’ transparency, accountability, and their true sustainability efforts.
What is Greenhushing?
Though not a term that rolls off the tongue as easily as greenwashing, greenhushing has been growing in popularity. In essence, it revolves around companies deliberately opting to keep their environmental and social credentials discreet, almost as if they are hushing their sustainability efforts. Greenhushing involves downplaying or conveniently omitting mention of a company’s environmental initiatives.
Now, you might wonder, isn’t modesty a virtue? Indeed, in the realm of corporate sustainability, there is merit in humility. However, the practice of greenhushing raises a cause for concern when it comes to sustainability communication. Companies that embrace greenhushing may aim to convey that they are committed to sustainability without making a fuss about it. Yet, by choosing to remain vague and ambiguous, they can inadvertently give the impression that their environmental efforts are more substantial than they truly are.
his subtle approach to sustainability communication has its drawbacks, as it can obscure the reality of a company’s emissions and sustainability initiatives. Furthermore, it opens the door to sophisticated greenwashing tactics, which exploit this hushed narrative to create a façade of environmental responsibility.
Measuring Sustainability
Assessing a company’s commitment to sustainability in today’s corporate world can be a tough task. While financial metrics enjoy well-established and standardized criteria, the same cannot be said for sustainability metrics, which are often kept hidden.
Numerous organizations, frameworks, and industry groups within the business landscape have their own sets of reporting guidelines. This diversity of standards results in a fragmented sustainability landscape, making it challenging to compare how businesses fare in terms of sustainability targets and environmental credentials.
Then there’s the commonly designated ESG reporting field, a trio encompassing Environmental, Social, and Governance aspects. This reporting framework seeks to gauge a company’s commitment to sustainability, social well-being, and upholding ethical standards. However, it now finds itself in middle of growing scrutiny and criticism within the corporate world.
ESG Metrics and Growing Criticism
Quantifying social impact and ethical governance is no easy feat, and the absence of robust regulatory oversight has raised concerns about the relevance of ESG reporting. Many companies grapple with how to measure their environmental impact and fulfill their sustainability targets, adding to the complexity of the situation.
Last year, Tesla CEO Elon Musk made headlines by publicly denouncing ESG, going as far as labeling it a “scam.” This declaration came after Tesla’s removal from the S&P 500 ESG Index, a move that prompted Musk to voice his discontent on Twitter. He suggested that the integrity of the index provider had been compromised, pointing out the irony of oil giant Exxon Mobil retaining its top-10 position while his electric car company was removed from the list altogether.
Then there is the case of rampant greenwashing. Without clear-cut or standard sustainability reporting metrics, what we find is a breeding ground for corporations to exaggerate or falsify their initiatives.
The new EU CSRD Directive will make ESG reporting mandatory from January 2025. This means companies should start to collect their data from January 2024. Starting from larger companies and then later SMEs everyone will have to report on their sustainability efforts.
Motivations Behind Greenhushing
To truly grasp why organizations choose the path of greenhushing, we must first understand the driving forces behind it.
Resource Constraints
One significant factor in the greenhushing equation is resource constraints. Imagine a smaller company with limited manpower and budget resources. When they start trumpeting their sustainability achievements, they can quickly find themselves overwhelmed with demands for more data, additional proof, and numerous reports. These resource limitations can swiftly transform the green spotlight into a glaring interrogation lamp. Consequently, some organizations choose to maintain discretion as a shield.
Regulatory Costs
Navigating the labyrinth of regulations can be expensive, particularly for companies seeking to solidify their green credentials. The fear of incurring regulatory fines due to inadvertent missteps acts as a potent deterrent. Therefore, some organizations opt to remain under the radar until they are absolutely certain they can meet all regulatory requirements. Some companies prefer quiet, prolonged testing of their green initiatives before making grand announcements. This approach helps them avoid both the financial and administrative costs associated with compliance.
Shielding from Scrutiny
By selectively revealing their sustainability efforts, organizations can avoid intense scrutiny and accusations of greenwashing. Companies making exaggerated or false green claims not only risk reputational damage but also potential legal consequences. Thus, through greenhushing, firms can remain unnoticed by watchful eyes. An example is the recent accusation against global banking giant HSBC. They faced allegations of greenhushing when they downgraded funds exclusively invested in sustainable assets to those including environmental or social factors, without necessarily targeting a sustainable outcome. While the company claimed compliance with EU regulations, critics viewed it as an attempt to evade investor scrutiny.
Taking a critical stance on these motivations for greenhushing is vital. While resource constraints and regulatory costs are valid concerns, they should not excuse a lack of transparency. In an era where consumers and stakeholders demand responsible investment decisions, underreporting sustainability efforts can backfire. Some may inadvertently damage trust and credibility in their attempt to shield themselves from scrutiny.
The Sustainability Imperative
All things considered, sustainability rests on transparency and accountability. It goes beyond marketing or shielding from criticism. Despite ESG criticism, customers now focus on product carbon footprints, integral to their choices. This awareness drives firms to adjust emissions goals and prioritize strong sustainability credentials in their climate strategies.
Ultimately, the path towards sustainability is far from silent. By wholeheartedly embracing transparency and accountability, organizations can not only avert allegations of greenwashing but also make substantive contributions to the collective mission of combatting climate change and addressing environmental challenges.
Strong storms often lead to bluff erosion on the shores of Lake Superior. Credit: Juli Beth Hinds
Even when the funding is lined up for green restoration efforts in northern Wisconsin, a lack of affordable housing makes it hard to attract workers and get started. By Lydia Larsen from Inside Climate News • Reposted: September 24, 2023
Northern Wisconsin’s landscape is defined as much by the stunning shores of Lake Superior or the Bad River as the region’s seemingly endless winters. But as climate change accelerates, attention is shifting to ways of controlling a steep increase in stormwater, which means doubling down on existing management practices and turning to nature for inspiration.
Nature-based solutions involve strategies like restoring streams degraded by intense logging activity, installing rain gardens next to parking lots and buildings to absorb moisture, and bringing back wetlands to purify and protect shorelines. Such efforts not only help mitigate the effects of climate change but can also create new jobs.
Yet even when local governments, nonprofit groups and indigenous tribes can drum up the funding to take on these projects, they are stymied by a major obstacle: People who can do the work can’t find a place to live.
“Housing!” the planning expert Juli Beth Hinds yelled recently in her kitchen while watching a PBS NewsHour television segment on Living Breakwaters, a coastal resilience project in Staten Island.
The veteran NewsHour journalist Jeffery Brown had just asked Kate Orff, a renowned landscape architect, why more people weren’t putting similar nature-based solutions into practice across the United States. Orff pointed out some of the obstacles, like deciding which jurisdiction controls what, in mapping out large-scale projects that cross boundaries.
But Hinds, who works on land-use and water-resource policy, knows that housing can be an equally important piece of the puzzle. All too often, she said, planners cannot hire people for nature-based projects when affordable places to rent or buy are scarce to nonexistent.
“We have a housing crisis,” Hinds said. “But we have not unpacked this as really a critical issue in whether, and how, we’re going to begin implementing nature-based solutions at scale.” Based on her experience and conversations with colleagues, she adds, the problem is impeding projects elsewhere in the Midwest and on the East Coast as well.
In March, the statewide research and outreach group Wisconsin Sea Grant released a report on the workforce barriers to launching more nature-based solutions in northern Wisconsin, which has experienced more flooding, higher lake levels and more intense winter storms in recent years.
For the study, Hinds and her colleague Linda Reid interviewed stakeholders across four northern Wisconsin counties, from tribal representatives to county conservationists to environmental nonprofits. Housing came up in every interview, they said.
A History of Tribal Expertise
“I thought we’re gonna go up there and we’re gonna hear what kind of classes they need, or what audiences need the education,” said Reid, a consultant who works on climate resilience and water quality issues around the Great Lakes region. “And we get up there, and we find there’s a few things they need to learn, but for the most part, that is not the issue.”
Northern Wisconsin has a long history of involvement in sustainability and environmental stewardship. Reid notes that the Red Cliff Band and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa were tending to the earth and waterways long before white settlers arrived in the 17th century and are highly invested in maintaining them. The region is also home to some of the first eco-municipalities in the United States, meaning that local governments have enshrined sustainability in their charters.
When Reid and Hinds arrived in April 2022 for four months of research, a large number of nature-based projects were already underway, like capturing or rerouting stormwater and snowmelt next to parking lots and buildings in the city of Superior and restoring streams in Iron County.
A devastating storm hit Iron County’s Saxon Harbor in 2016 leading to massive infrastructure damage and ultimately killing three people. Stream and coastline restoration in the area improves coastal resilience. Credit: Juli Beth Hinds
Excessive clear-cutting by the logging industry around the turn of the 20th century destabilized local streams by overloading them with sediment, a problem that continues to this day and creates a vast number of opportunities for stream restoration. Wetland restoration projects help draw wildlife back to their original habitats and improve water quality.
Many local governments are also working on surveying and on replacing culverts that cannot handle the increasing runoff from heavier rainfall, although such work is not considered a nature-based strategy. A robust network of nonprofit organizations are similarly involved in restoring wetlands, monitoring water quality and educating the public on remediation efforts. Northland College, an environmentally focused liberal arts college in Ashland, contributes knowledge and expertise as well.
While these projects could always benefit from more funding, local governments and nonprofit organizations can for the most part cobble together enough grants to get started. The communities are well versed in nature-based practices, and many local contractors are experienced in executing them. But to invest in more of these infrastructure changes, planners need people to fill salaried and hourly-wage jobs, with the work ranging from removing invasive plants to installing rain gardens.
“We have all of these jobs unfilled, and it’s all about housing,” Hinds said. “And then we start to peel the onion one more layer. What’s going on with housing? We’ve lost an enormous share of the rental market to Airbnb and Vrbo.”
The “Covid Effect” on Rural Rentals
After the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States in the spring of 2020, prompting city dwellers to flee dense neighborhoods in search of open spaces and fresh air, the number of property owners turning dwellings into AirBnB rentals in northern Wisconsin soared, said Kelly Westlund, the housing educator for Bayfield County at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Extension.
Westlund describes the region as “a rural recreation gateway community” with abundant outdoor opportunities and beautiful scenery. Units that were once rented by locals and by people arriving after accepting jobs are now offered as vacation homes or short-term rentals.
A search of Airbnbs in Bayfield County yields options ranging from a yurt overlooking Lake Superior for $75 a night to apartments and cabins costing $200 to $300 a night. By contrast, census data shows that the county’s median monthly rent is $767. Westlund says that 44 percent of Bayfield County’s housing stock is currently considered “unoccupied,” a category that applies to seasonal vacation homes and short-term rentals that sit empty in the off season or for most of the year.
“Over the course of COVID, the Airbnb situation has just absolutely exploded,” she said. “I can’t fault individual property owners, putting their house on the market and realizing that they could really make a bundle.”
Nile Merton, who founded a local environmental consulting firm in 2016 after graduating from Northland College, contends with the housing shortage on a regular basis. His two full-time and two part-time seasonal staff members work on a variety of environmental restoration projects throughout the region, including stormwater management, controlling the spread of invasive plants, and designing and installing rain gardens to soak up the runoff from major storms.
While it’s been difficult for his employees to find a place to live in the area, they are managing.
“Whether it’s a room in a house, studio, apartment, two-bedroom, one-bedroom, they’re just not really available,” Merton said. “My employees kind of lucked out.”
Merton said that one of his employees has to drive 45 minutes to get to work. Another rents a room, he added, but it’s expensive, at $500 a month, and he barely found it in time to start work. Although Merton found a good candidate to replace a full-time worker who just left, he added, that person is still looking for a place to live.
Merton’s company, Bay Area Environmental Consulting in Washburn, is still able to take on all the restoration work he wants to accept, he said, but when it is short-staffed, he has to put off pressing management tasks for muscular work in the field.
Westlund said the housing challenges in northern Wisconsin are mirrored elsewhere in the country, with not enough homes being built and the cost of construction materials soaring in recent years.
Even when it’s available, much of the housing in northern Wisconsin is old and in need of renovation and weatherization. Given the local income statistics—the four northern counties combined have a median household income of $59,253—and the low population density, developers aren’t keen on investing in the area.
Waiting, and Waiting, to Hire a City Engineer
Because of the housing challenges, a variety of jobs that involve environmental restoration and stewardship sit open for years at a time. The report noted that the Bad River Tribal Government in Ashland offered a job to a qualified attorney who was eager to move back to the area but then backed out after she failed to find housing.
Sara Hudson has lived in Ashland for 20 years and works as its parks and recreation director. Part of her role involves managing the city’s four public beaches, which have frequently been shut down because of high levels of E. coli from bird droppings and, occasionally, human sewage. That led her to investigate and champion green infrastructure that helps protect water quality.
For the past three years, the city has been trying to hire an engineer. Every time it finds a promising candidate, “they look at how much a house costs and they’re like, ‘Oh my, really?’” Hudson said.
As of last month, the median price for a home in Ashland County was $152,000. But the Sea Grant report said that houses often require extensive renovation to meet “basic contemporary standards.”
For three years, Ashland’s public works director, John Butler, therefore doubled as a city engineer. “You don’t have time for everything,” Butler said, “and some things have to drop.” Among those things were maintaining and improving Ashland’s stormwater infrastructure.
Finally the city found a candidate to take the job, and because he knew a family member who was moving out of the area, he was able to secure housing.
Alex Faber, executive director of the Superior Rivers Watershed Association, an environmental nonprofit, said she has watched colleagues from partner organizations struggle with staffing as a result of the housing crunch. The region has talented people who know how to plan nature-based restoration projects, but not enough workers to execute them. While this has not affected her organization, Faber said, it tempers how she deals with various partner groups.
“A lot of my time is spent navigating, like, ‘Can I call up this person and ask them for help?’,” before realizing, “‘Oh, no, they’re probably pretty overwhelmed right now because they’re trying to fill three different jobs.’” she said. “They still haven’t filled that job that’s been open for a year because nobody can move here because there’s nowhere to move to.”
For Those Denied, a Paradox
Hinds said she had run into housing shortages in projects she has worked on in Vermont as well as in Wisconsin and Michigan. She encourages environmental organizers to embrace the notion that housing, and even broader development, are necessary for promoting climate resilience in communities.
And Reid, who consults on climate and sustainability efforts in Ireland as well as in the U.S., emphasized that the housing problem is global.
In the United States, she suggests, the people most affected by the housing crisis could profit the most from green infrastructure—either by being hired to work on such projects or by benefiting from climate remediation in their long-neglected neighborhoods.
“That lower socioeconomic and middle socioeconomic group that could, and should, be capable of making the improvements,” Reid said, “is probably going to be most likely to be harshly affected if the improvements aren’t made.”
From Intrepid Travel via Sustainable Brands • Reposted: September 22, 2023
Intrepid has launched one of tourism’s most comprehensive carbon-labeling initiatives, alongside new research that shows consumer demand for better transparency and understanding their personal impacts.
Today, Intrepid Travel unveiled carbon labels on over 500 itineraries, including its top 100 trips, with plans to continue measuring and disclosing the emissions of every trip. The labels, which appear on individual tour pages, will tell travelers the carbon footprint of each Intrepid tour — providing greater transparency as the company deepens its commitment to climate-conscious travel.
Joining the efforts of smaller tour operators including Adventure Tours UK and Much Better Adventures, carbon-impact information is now displayed on over half of Intrepid’s trip pages — showing the estimated CO2e of the trip per traveler, per day. Emissions are calculated by identifying the different components contributing to the overall carbon footprint — including accommodations, transportation, food provided during the trip, activities, the local operations’ office emissions and waste. A 15 percent contingency is then added to each trip’s total emissions, to account for anything unintentionally missing.
Intrepid’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory calculation process was developed in line with the best-practice requirements set by Climate Active — an ongoing partnership between the Australian Government and corporations to drive voluntary climate action in the private sector.
Carbon labeling informs consumers of the impact of a product or service on the environment by providing a CO2e kg number similar to a nutrition label, allowing customers to make better-informed decisions. Seen the most so far in the food industry – with brands including Chipotle, Just Salad, Oatly, Quorn, Strong Roots and more including carbon-impact data on their products — carbon labels can now also be found on everything from personal-care products to electronics, footwear and sportswear.
Intrepid’s new labels will help educate travelers on their own carbon footprint and make it easier for them to understand their impact. They will also be able to access information on how Intrepid is offsetting these emissions and compare the data with everyday activities. For example, 100kg CO2e is about the same as charging a smart phone 12,164 times or driving a gas-powered car about 399 kilometers.
As part of the debut, Intrepid commissioned new research from The Harris Poll that revealed 64 percent of adults worldwide have no idea what their carbon footprint is. 60 percent are more likely to book trips with a company that is transparent about their environmental impact; and yet only 38 percent find it easy to find that information. And more than 1 in 2 people globally say they would be more willing to alter their plans if they could easily see and understand the carbon impact of each travel option.
Carbon labeling is not only helpful for consumers — it may soon become the new normal as we see more scrutiny and stricter regulations on greenwashing. Intrepid hopes these efforts will encourage other businesses to take accountability and follow suit.
“Without higher government regulations or the need for ESG disclosure, it is nearly impossible to hold businesses accountable for reducing their emissions,” said Sara King, GM of Purpose for Intrepid Travel. “We cannot shy away from our impact, and we cannot effectively reduce what we do not measure. With carbon labeling, we can increase customers’ understanding of their footprint while advocating for this level of measurement and transparency to become an industry standard.”
In addition to the rollout of carbon labels, Intrepid continues to roll out lower-carbon itineraries: In 2024, the company says it will have approximately 4,000 fewer flights on trips (compared to 2023) and will be discontinuing all scenic flights.
By Steven Clarke from Triple Pundit • Reposted: September 22, 2023
As the material business risks from climate change become increasingly clear, more than a third of the world’s largest 2,000 companies have set goals to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. Many companies have gone even further, setting emission reduction targets that are in line with what the latest climate science says are needed to meet the goals of the Paris Accords and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. They are also disclosing information about the impacts of their business on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and scarcity, and nature.
This is tremendous progress and highlights that companies see opportunities to be had in tackling these risks. But awash with targets and goals, investors and other stakeholders still have one core question: What meaningful and measurable actions are companies taking today, and in the near-term, to meet these targets?
Climate transition action plans have emerged as a leading framework for companies to identify, plan, and implement strategies that reduce climate-related risks and maximize opportunities. These actions should be specific, time-bound and, if possible, quantified to detail the emissions reductions that companies expect to achieve.
While targets and disclosures are both deeply important, too often companies lack a forward-looking strategy that defines how they will work to achieve these targets in the next three to five years — both within and beyond their operations.
In fact, organizations that analyze and track climate action — such as the Science-Based Target initiative, Net Zero Tracker, Transition Pathway Initiative and CDP — have found that an alarming number of companies have yet to develop these plans. For instance, out of nearly 19,000 companies that annually report their climate impacts to CDP, only 13 percent have disclosed a sufficient number of indicators to be considered a credible plan — and only 0.40 percent of companies met all 21 of CDP’s key indicators.
Every company knows that delivering on a goal takes a plan. Just as companies set goals and develop detailed plans for driving sales, investing in new markets or recruiting talent, they also need a detailed climate action transition plan for delivering on their goals for slashing emissions and addressing their exposure to climate risk.
And the pressure on companies to deliver these plans is ramping up. In 2022, Ceres counted just nine investors asking companies they held to publish transition plans via shareholder resolutions. In 2023, that number jumped to 61.
Addressing the Ceres Global climate conference in March 2023, Mary Schapiro, vice chair for global public policy at Bloomberg and vice chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, said: “If 2021 was the year of mainstreaming net-zero commitments and 2022 was the year of target-setting and developing the frameworks to operationalize these commitments, we are now calling 2023 the year of transition plans.”
The momentum is building as investors are already implementing transition action plans to mitigate the risks climate poses to their portfolios. To help companies create and implement these plans to achieve their emissions reductions targets, Ceres’ Ambition 2030 initiative and our partners have developed action-oriented guidance and tools. At a high level, we outline four components for every transition plan:
Actions a company will take to reduce its Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, covering its entire supply and value chains, in line with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Actions to identify, manage, and address climate risks and opportunities and incorporate these considerations into core business strategy and governance.
Actions to advocate for public policies that support and enable the achievement of corporate climate targets and economy-wide emissions reductions.
Actions to consider and support workforces, suppliers, customers, impacted communities and other stakeholders in the transition to a net-zero-emissions economy.
The time for action is now, and we encourage all companies to follow these guidelines as they develop the plans to make their targets a reality.
By Cameron Allen, Research Fellow, Monash University and Shirin Malekpour, Associate Professor in Sustainable Development Governance, Monash University via The Conversation • Reposted: September 21, 2023
This week world leaders are gathering at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York to review progress against the Sustainable Development Goals. We’re halfway between when the goals were set in 2015 and when they need to be met in 2030.
As authors of a global UN report on the goals, we have a message to share. Currently, the world is not on track to achieve any of the 17 goals.
There is much at stake. Failing to achieve the goals would mean by the end of the decade, 600 million people will be living in extreme poverty. More than 80 million children and young people will not be in school. Humanity will overshoot the Paris climate agreement’s 1.5℃ “safe” guardrail on average global temperature rise. And, at the current rate, it will take 300 yearsto attain gender equality.
But there is hope. With decisive action, we can shift the dial towards a fairer, more sustainable and prosperous world by 2030.
What does the research say?
The set of 17 universal goals agreed in 2015 to aim to end poverty, improve health and education, and reduce inequality – while tackling climate change and preserving our oceans and forests. Each of the goals are broken down into targets.
Every four years, the UN Secretary-General appoints an independent group of 15 international scientists to assess progress against these goals and recommend how to move forwards. We were among the authors of the latest Global Sustainable Development Report published late last week.
To provide a snapshot of progress, we reviewed 36 targets. We found only two were on track (on access to mobile networks and internet usage) and 14 showed fair progress. Twelve showed limited or no progress – including around poverty, safe drinking water and ecosystem conservation.
Worryingly, eight targets were assessed as still going backwards. These included reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and fossil fuel subsidies, preventing species extinction and ensuring sustainable fish stocks.
What is holding us back?
Recent studies have identified feasible and cost-effective globaland national pathways to accelerate progress on the goals.
Unfortunately, in many developing countries, insufficient financial resources and weak governance hinder progress. In other cases, existing investments in fossil fuels have generated strong resistance from powerful vested interests. Achieving some goals, such as responsible consumption and production, will also require big, unpopular changes in habits and lifestyles, which are very ingrained.
To accelerate progress on the goals, targets must be fully integrated by government and business at all levels into core decision making, budgeting and planning processes. We need to identify and prioritise those areas that lag furthest behind. To be effective, we also need to uncover and address the root causes of inadequate outcomes, which lie in our institutions and governance systems.
Accountability also remains weak. The goals are not legally binding and even though countries have expressed their support, this has often failed to translate into policy and investments. In practice, the targets are often “painted on” to existing strategies without redesigning norms and structures to deliver improved outcomes.
If the world is to accelerate progress on the goals, governments need to play a more active part, by setting targets, stimulating innovation, shaping markets, and regulating business.
We call on policymakers to develop tailored action plans to accelerate progress on the goals in the remaining years to 2030, including measures to improve accountability.
Scientists have a major role to play too. As we argued in Nature, scientists can help us redesign institutions, systems and practices. By studying ways to strengthen governance and build momentum for tough but transformative reforms, research can overcome resistance to change, and manage negative side-effects.
What does it mean for Australia?
Australia tends to perform poorly on the goals when compared to our peers in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), ranking 40th in the world in 2023. Our best-performing goals include health and education, while progress lags on environmental goals, economic inequality and cost-of-living pressures.
While some environment agencies, businesses and local groupshave embraced the goals, Australia’s poor performance is symptomatic of limited traction and commitment at the centre of government.
Here, the goals are often seen as an international development issue rather than central to domestic policy efforts. We lack a high-level statement or any strategy or action plan for the goals. There is no lead unit or coordination mechanism in place and no reference to the goals in the federal budget. One promising development, a national Sustainable Development Goal monitoring portal, hasn’t been updated in five years.
The best performing countries have taken concrete steps to mainstream the targets and ensure accountability:
Denmark requires new government bills to be screened and assessed for their impacts on the goals
Finland has taken steps to place sustainable development and people’s wellbeing at the heart of policy and decision making. A sustainable development commission, annual citizens’ panel on sustainable development and national audits provide increased accountability
Wales requires public bodies to use sustainable development as a guiding principle reflecting the values and aspirations of the Welsh people.
Australia’s first wellbeing framework is an important step forward. The framework of 50 indicators has considerable overlap with the goals, despite notable exceptions such as the lack of a poverty indicator or any specific targets or benchmarks.
By Tim Lamont, Research Fellow, Lancaster University via The Conversation • Reposted Septsmber 21, 2023
We’re witnessing first-hand an alarming decline of the world’s ecosystems, which is having a devastating impact on the people who rely on them. In many cases, it’s no longer enough to just protect what remains – degraded ecosystems must be restored.
Expanding restoration efforts at the rate required will only be possible with committed buy-in from local communities, regional and national governments, civil society and – crucially – the corporate sector.
Many businesses are starting to embrace this vision by launching ambitious restoration projects to replant trees, wetlands, coral reefs and mangroves that far exceed their legal responsibilities.
These endeavours are promising. In some cases, these projects are even delivering significant benefits. But according to a study, which was carried out by myself and several colleagues, we can’t be sure whether large corporations are making good on these environmental promises.
The hidden reality
We delved into the publicly available sustainability reports of 100 of the world’s biggest businesses. Our aim was to summarise the extent of their restoration work and its impacts.
What we found was both eye-opening and disconcerting. Two-thirds of these corporations stated that they carry out restoration activities. But the devil lay in the detail — or, in this case, the lack thereof.
Many of the corporate sustainability reports gave very little evidence to back up their claims about ecosystem restoration. They lacked rigour in defining restoration, outlining methodologies and quantifying outcomes.
They also failed to clearly distinguish between projects designed to merely align with legal responsibilities and those that would genuinely contribute to global restoration goals.
The majority (80%) of the reports failed to disclose how much money they were spending on ecosystem restoration. And 90% didn’t report any of the ecological impacts that their work had. A third of the reports didn’t even say how big their projects were.
In essence, the evidence supporting many corporate-led ecosystem restoration projects is glaringly inadequate.
The potential power of ‘Big Business’
The world’s largest businesses are powerful entities. They possess the resources, wealth, logistics expertise and influence to play a pivotal role in the mission to restore the world’s ecosystems.
Imagine a world where corporations use their vast finances, labour forces, manufacturing capabilities and social influence help rebuild forests, wetlands, savannas and coral reefs around the globe. It’s a vision of corporate responsibility that goes beyond mere compliance with environmental regulations.
But ecosystem restoration is notoriously difficult to do well. It requires careful and strategic consideration of a range of environmental and social factors.
Genuine attempts to restore ecosystems can sometimes do more harm than good. They can, for example, accidentally cause environmental damage, disempower local people and landowners or destabilise local governance. Some corporations also oversell their efforts to gain an undeserved boost to their reputation (a practice known as “greenwashing”).
Better reporting will be essential for big businesses to become genuine leaders of global ecosystem restoration. It will allow us to properly track the progress of corporate-led initiatives, hold businesses to account against the claims they make, and learn from those businesses that are leading the way.
In our paper, we suggest that the rigour of corporate reporting could be improved by implementing several key principles taken from restoration science.
For example, corporate sustainability reports could better meet the principle of “proportionality” (understanding how much restoration activity has been carried out) by providing information about the spatial extent and number of organisms planted in each individual restoration project that a company carries out. It would then be possible to evaluate the likely scale of the project’s impact.
The principle of “permanence” (committing to long-term restoration commitments) could be better evidenced by companies reporting on the number of years they’ve committed to maintain, monitor and report on projects after they’ve been started.
By reporting in ways that adhere to scientific principles like these, companies will be able to demonstrate much more convincingly that their efforts in ecosystem restoration are delivering the environmental and social benefits that they claim.
Big business is showing an increasing interest in contributing to global sustainability. As part of this movement, corporate-led ecosystem restoration could become a valuable asset in the battle to protect our planet’s vulnerable ecosystems. But it will only work if we can ensure transparency, accountability and adherence to best practice.
The idea of big business helping to rebuild the planet is an alluring rhetoric. Now it’s time to back it up with evidence.
Unilever study uncovers barriers influencers face around creating sustainability content. The company is partnering with climate-focused nonprofits and launching a Creator Council to help address these barriers. From Unilever via Sustainable Brands • Reposted: September 18, 2023
A first-of-its-kind study by Unilever has revealed that although 60 percent of social media content creators want to make a positive impact on the environment, the majority (84 percent) are holding back from mentioning sustainability more in their content. While their content has the potential to drive more sustainable behaviors — with 78 percent of consumers claiming in an earlier study that influencers have the biggest impact on their sustainable purchasing and lifestyle habits — content creators fear greenwashing amongst other barriers.
According to the study — which polled the views of 232 content creators across YouTube, TikTok and Instagram in the UK, US, Brazil and the Philippines — almost two-thirds (63 percent) are creating more sustainability content this year compared to last year; and three-quarters (76 percent) want to create even more in the future.
But content creators say they are holding back, with the fear of greenwashing coming out as the top barrier for over a third (38 percent). Other barriers include finding it difficult to transition from the main focus of their content to sustainability; thoughts on what is or isn’t sustainable can change; and not feeling educated enough on the key sustainability issues — all receiving 21 percent. Concerns about being cancelled was cited as a problem by 18 percent of respondents.
While more than half (58 percent) of influencers say they feel confused about sustainability or environmental labels, the study also found that over 9 in 10 (91 percent) would find each of the following types of advice helpful:
direct support to ask questions on sustainability briefs;
support dealing with audience comments;
and access to training about making trustworthy statements about company and product sustainability claims.
To help address this, Unilever — alongside a coalition of partners including sustainability nonprofits and a new Creator Council — today calls on other brands, agencies and technology companies to join forces with them to help content creators authentically and accurately drive more sustainable consumer choices through social media content.
The new coalition of partners includes sustainability experts from Count Us In, United Nations Development Programme, Rare and Futerra Solutions Union; as well as an independent Creator Council — a community of social media content creators across travel, beauty and lifestyle sectors specifically brought together to advise on and shape this initiative.
“We have long known that climate action isn’t only for governments. In fact, the IPCC reports tell us that public action could quickly save 5 percent of ‘demand side’ carbon emissions,” says Count Us In co-founder Eric Levine. “There has never been a more critical moment in history to be part of a coalition that puts creators at the heart of advancing new solutions. Using credible, science-based guidelines and behavior change theory, we have the potential to influence billions of people through the collective reach of the creator economy.”
The coalition will work to co-create an industry-wide digital solution that will bring together social media content creators, nonprofits and brands to accelerate accurate and effective sustainability content built upon science and behavior change theory to encourage more sustainable behaviors. Partners are currently developing a framework and guidelines to ensure the solutions are in line with the latest climate science.
Dr Adanna Steinacker — entrepreneur, public speaker, digital influencer and member of the Creator Council — says: “As a digital content creator, I feel a responsibility to inspire my audience with solutions that are better for our environmental and planetary health. It is crucial that brands and creators unite in this mission, dissecting science-backed information into creative storytelling that resonates with the public and influences change on a global scale. With adequate brand support, we can enhance sustainability content on social media, inform our communities accurately, and collectively contribute to a better environment.”
“We know that sustainability content on social media has the potential to drive more sustainable behaviors; but it needs to be informative and meaningful content,” asserts Rebecca Marmot, Unilever’s Chief Sustainability Officer. “Climate Week NYC 2023 is the perfect opportunity to collaborate with others and empower influencers to communicate on the key issues with credibility.”
Unilever invites brands, nonprofits and social media content creators to join the coalition by contacting Count Us In at contact@countusin.com.
From Consultancy.UK • Reposted: September 14, 2023
Business strategy has predominantly focused on the ‘E’ in Environmental, Social and Governance policy; but fostering good growth requires a renewed emphasis on the importance of the ‘S’ pillar, according to Xynteo Managing Partner Jonah Grunsell. He explains how this can help to create socially consciousness, inclusive and profitable supply chains.
In today’s dynamic business landscape, the integration of social consciousness and inclusivity within supply chains is crucial. Enterprises that prioritise these principles not only contribute to a fairer and more equitable world but also gain a competitive edge through the fostering of stronger relationships with diverse stakeholders. So, what can businesses do to embed social consciousness and inclusivity within their supply chains at every step?
The 2022 Global Sustainability Study shows that 66% of consumers rank sustainability as one of the top five drivers behind a purchase decision; meaning that transparent communication in supply chain practices plays a pivotal role in establishing trust with consumers, investors, and stakeholders. Businesses must strive for openness regarding their sourcing, labour practices, and social and environmental initiatives. Research by Label Insight showed a staggering 94% of consumers are likely to remain loyal to a brand that offers complete transparency about its supply chain, underscoring the growing importance of supply chain visibility in understanding a business’s impact.
Yet, transparency in supply chains goes beyond consumers, with investors, suppliers and other stakeholders also seeking clarity and openness.PwC revealed that 83% of investors believe that non-financial disclosures, such as supply chain information, are essential when making investment decisions. Enhancing communication with consumers, NGOs, and industry partners is also a vital element in creating a positive impact through supply chain practices. According to a study by the Harvard Business Review, 65% of consumers want to buy purpose-driven brands that advocate sustainability.
In the quest for responsible supply chain practices, reporting and certification play a crucial role in demonstrating a company’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Sustainability reports provide comprehensive insights into an ESG performance, showcasing their efforts to minimise environmental impacts, promote social welfare, and ensure ethical business practices.
While, environmental management certifications, such as ISO 14001, demonstrate a company’s dedication to reducing its environmental footprint and fairtrade certification guarantees that products meet strict standards, ensuring fair wages and better working conditions for farmers and workers. According to a study by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 96% of the world’s 250 largest companies now disclose their sustainability performance through these reports.
A good example from the technology world is Apple, which has taken great strides both on reporting on its sustainability efforts as well as acting on the insights generated by increased transparency and tracking. This level of transparency instils trust among consumers, investors, and partners, encouraging them to support and collaborate with socially and environmentally responsible companies.
Embracing diverse and ethical strategies
True inclusivity requires forging partnerships with a diverse supplier base, particularly those within underrepresented groups such as women, minorities, and social enterprises. Businesses can support local communities, create economic opportunities and promote social mobility by actively seeking out and collaborating with these suppliers. A study by the Harvard Business Review indicates that actively embracing a supplier diversity programme can foster innovation and increase the bottom line. A procurement strategy that prioritises inclusivity expands the range of potential suppliers and fosters healthy competition within the supply base, leading to enhanced product quality and cost reduction.
One fundamental aspect of improving supply chains is ensuring fair labour practices and ethical sourcing. Businesses can take proactive steps to verify that their suppliers adhere to responsible labour standards, treat workers fairly, and provide safe working conditions. This includes regular audits, transparent supplier relationships, and collaboration with industry initiatives promoting ethical practices. By sourcing ethically, businesses can contribute to the well-being of workers, reduce social inequalities, and enhance the reputation of their brands.
Prioritising ethical sourcing practices involves scrutinising suppliers’ labour conditions, environmental impact, and compliance with human rights standards. Partnering with suppliers who align with these values ensures that products and services are not tainted by exploitation or harm to communities.
Providing suppliers with training, resources, and support can significantly enhance their operational efficiency, product quality, and compliance with ethical and environmental standards. This not only improves the overall supply chain’s performance but also promotes sustainable practices and responsible behaviour. Businesses also can make a positive impact on communities by investing in social programmes and projects that tackle pressing challenges such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Prioritising local suppliers and supporting small businesses within the community can stimulate economic growth, create job opportunities, and promote entrepreneurship. Embracing local sourcing strengthens community ties, boosts regional development, bolsters community resilience, enhances quality of life, and contributes to societal progress, generating a broader positive influence beyond the business itself. The good news is that ethical business practices make commercial sense when you consider that, for example, 70% of American consumers think either “somewhat” or “very important” for companies to make the world a better place; while a huge 93% of employees believe companies must be led by purpose.
Unilever, for example, has set ambitious social targets under its ‘Sustainable Living Plan’, including empowering 5 million women through its value chain by 2020 and enhancing economic growth in local communities. Their ‘Partner with Purpose’ strategy aims to drive mutual growth that’s consistent, competitive, profitable and responsible, and influence the people they buy from to, in turn, buy from diverse suppliers, leading to the transformation of their value chain.
Nurture responsibility
Businesses must play a pivotal role in encouraging responsible consumption by engaging consumers and raising awareness about the social and environmental impacts of their products. A study by Nielsen reveals that sustainability is more important to 69% of global consumers than it was two years ago. Providing transparent information about sourcing and ethical considerations empowers consumers to make informed choices aligned with their values. By actively involving consumers in the journey towards a more socially conscious supply chain, businesses can build trust, loyalty, and a positive brand image.
Integrating social consciousness and inclusivity into supply chains enables businesses to create positive societal impact while ensuring long-term sustainability. Ethical sourcing practices, diverse partnerships, sustainable logistics, and responsible consumption are essential steps in achieving these goals.
Xynteo encourages businesses to take a proactive stance, transforming their supply chains into vehicles for change that promote fairness, equality, and environmental stewardship. Through collective efforts, we can build a more just and inclusive world, one supply chain at a time.
By Daniel Tsai, Lecturer in Business and Law, University of Toronto and Peer Zumbansen, Professor of Business Law, McGill University via The Conversation • Reposted: September 23, 2023
In addition, the lack of government leadership and the fragmentation of the ESG landscape has created uncertainty about its future. Many firms don’t know if they should lead by example or wait to follow the pack.
The public debate around ESG, stakeholder governance, sustainability and responsible investment continues to gain momentum in the midst of all this.
In response, McGill University’s CIBC Office of Sustainable Finance hosted academics and experts from 11 countries to confront the issues of ESG, climate change governance and democratic politics. The resulting impact paper proposes several policy recommendations for governments and corporations to work together to transform ESG standards into practice.
A fully transparent and publicly available ESG and sustainability index for financial institutions and corporations would improve transparency, accountability and address the demand for ESG.
If large public corporations were required to report universal ESG metrics, it would lead to healthy competition among corporations to go above and beyond the minimum index requirements. This would allow investors and consumers to see how companies are actually implementing ESG policies, leading to increased transparency.
Meaningful disclosure will ultimately lead to a transformation of a company’s buying, production, selling and investing practices.
The BlackRock investment company in the Hudson Yards neighbourhood of New York City on March 14, 2023. AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey
Increased transparency would also help prevent companies from greenwashing by boosting their ESG ratings before quarterly or semiannual public disclosures.
This forward momentum can lead to the integration of sustainability officers, who play a key role in ensuring effective ESG implementation, into businesses and organizations.
But these tax credits need to go further. For example, the government could provide tax credits to the oil, gas and mining sectors for investing in renewable energies. The government could also allow investors to deduct related corporate losses against their personal income.
That will help spur economic growth, investment and development in beneficial industries and technologies, as we have seen with the rise of the electric vehicle industry.
The West Pubnico Point Wind Farm is seen in Lower West Pubnico, N.S. in August 2021. Image: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan
The goal should be to encourage corporations to better integrate sustainable practices within their business models and create targeted investment that favours socially responsible investment. That way, governments can use their tax systems to support technologies and business models that address climate change.
Governments can also help make the financial sector sustainable by providing favourable loans and financing for greener investment portfolios.
Governments, central banks and banking regulators can create regulations that require financial institutions to implement sustainability into their underwriting policies. This would involve placing higher interest costs on loans with poor ESG outcomes to encourage industries to invest in better ESG.
By setting transparent standards for ESG accountability, requiring corporations to participate in sustainability indexes and standards and offering economic incentives through tax reform, governments can have a transformative effect on businesses through ESG. But it requires effective leadership.
By Carol Cone from Triple Pundit • Reposted: September 13, 2023
The term ESG is fine, according to a recent poll of 1,000 Americans. Despite continued polarization related to the acronym, which stands for environmental, social and governance, the majority of Americans believe it’s the best way to describe a company’s approach to improve business, society and the environment. Before we get to the data, though, it’s important to understand why we asked this question in the first place.
How did we get here?
Over the past year, a rising chorus of conservative U.S. voices have claimed that ESG is “woke capitalism,” or corporate virtue signaling about social and environmental concerns which they see as beyond the bounds of business.
The issue drew President Joe Biden’s first presidential veto in March of this year, defending legislation related to ESG investing and bringing the issue into the national spotlight. ESG is facing such a significant backlash that BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, long one of the financial industry’s staunchest proponents for purpose and ESG, doesn’t even want to use the term — though BlackRock’s policies around society, the environment, and business governance remain unchanged.
It’s also important to establish that whatever you call them, sound ESG practices are not new, and are indeed vital to operating a responsible, ethical, and profitable business. As Fortune sustainability reporter Eamon Barrett observed, “major corporations documenting their environmental, social, and governance policies for investor scrutiny is actually a decades-old process.” At its core, ESG is a means to broaden the lens on what constitutes key drivers of business value, accompanied by efforts to measure and report on what matters for individual company operations via standardized reporting frameworks.
Americans say ESG is a-okay
We partnered with Purpose Collaborative member Reputation Leaders, a global research and thought leadership consultancy, to ask Americans what term they feel best describes “the approach companies take to improve business, society and the environment.” ESG and sustainability are tied for the top, at 23 percent each. Corporate social responsibility is second, at 21 percent, followed by purpose (11 percent), corporate citizenship (8 percent), stakeholder capitalism (7 percent) and stewardship (5 percent).
Across demographic groups, ESG and sustainability are the favored terms among men, while women prefer “corporate social responsibility,” a phrase that connotes a sense of obligation. ESG is also the top choice for younger audiences, particularly those aged 25 to 34, while consumers aged 55 to 64, prefer the term “sustainability.” There are regional differences, as well. People living in the Northeast prefer sustainability, while their Southern and Midwestern counterparts prefer ESG.
Reputation Leaders also analyzed the tone of media coverage related to Americans’ top three terms: ESG, CSR and sustainability. CSR garnered the largest share of positive sentiment at 37 percent, with sustainability in second place at 32 percent and ESG trailing at 20 percent. ESG was the only term to have a significant amount (10 percent) of negative sentiment.
What now?
This study can help support companies in exploring the terms they will use to discuss the impact their business has on society. It is important to develop a clear, shared perspective and take a long-term view.
From the United Nations to the World Economic Forum, global leaders are advocating for businesses to embed a net-positive approach into their operating models to accelerate innovation and impact. Increasingly, employees, customers, supply chain partners, and others are asking about the ESG commitments of the companies they work for or with. Business leaders need to have answers and a strong point of view on which issues are most important to their business, and why. Our best advice? Don’t worry about what you call it — stick to your organization’s long-term, strategic commitments to stakeholders, society and the environment.
When it comes to communications, here are three ways to help depolarize the conversation:
Be clear about the goals of ESG. ESG is not about imposing a set of values on business. It provides a framework for companies to assess and optimize their value and impact.
Increase transparency around ESG data and metrics. This will help to ensure that investors and other stakeholders are making informed decisions.
Embrace standardized reporting frameworks. This will make it easier to comparecompanies’ ESG performance — think: the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).
Yes, the polarization will continue, especially as the 2024 presidential election nears. As the world continues to endure climate impacts from extreme heat and flooding to record-breaking wildfires, there also will be greater demand for businesses to address environmental challenges.
Scores of studies suggest that ESG — done right — drives sustainable competitive advantage and can accelerate organizational growth over the long-term. An impressive 80 percent of investors believe that companies with strong ESG practices can generate higher returns and make for better long-term investments, according to research from Morgan Stanley.
By continuing to show a link between ESG issues and the business, we can help to make the debate around ESG more constructive and less polarizing. This will ultimately benefit businesses, investors and society as a whole.
Student-Managed Investment Funds provide students with experience managing real investment portfolios. But new research shows only. a small minority of funds include environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in their mandates. Photo: Shutterstock
By Lorin Busaan, PhD Student, Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria and Basma Majerbi, Associate Professor of Finance, Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria via The Conversation • Reposted: September 11, 2023
Sustainable investing takes into account environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors alongside traditional financial components. While this form of investing has existed for a long time, ESG has become a hot-button issue due to recent politicization and widespread public misconceptions around what it really entails.
ESG investing examines quantitative and qualitative non-financial data on companies. This includes environmental issues like carbon emissions, pollution and resource use; social issues like employee treatment and relationships with communities; and governance issues like diversity of corporate boards, business ethics and transparency.
A basic qualification for finance graduates is the ability to analyze the environmental, social or governance factors that create risks and opportunities for a given company and, in turn, affect investors’ returns.
Unfortunately, graduates often lack even this basic qualification, in addition to more advanced expertise required to assess the investment impacts on people and the planet.
Given the climate crisis and persistent inequality, business schools must urgently and immediately tackle the sustainability deficit in finance education. Formal instruction must be enhanced with experiential learning techniques that expose students to the complexity and nuances of sustainable investing.
Our research shows that Student Managed Investment Funds (SMIFs) — currently present at many Canadian universities — are an underused, hands-on learning opportunity for training the next generation of sustainable investment professionals.
The head of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System testifies before a Kansas legislative committee in March 2023 about a bill that would bar the pension system from ESG investing. (AP Photo/John Hanna)
Criticisms and politicization, combined with other factors, have curtailed flows to ESG funds. This is unfortunate given the urgent need to mobilize more financial capital to address climate change, biodiversity loss and inequality.
Reforming business schools
Developing competence in sustainable investing requires a serious revision in business school finance programs.
Core courses must include sustainable investing concepts and tools as part of mainstream financial education. This is especially important given fast-evolving ESG and climate-related regulations and rising global risks that pose new threats to companies and investors.
It’s also important that students learn the limits of different forms of sustainable investing to avoid falling into the trap of greenwashing.
Many ESG strategies primarily focus on risk mitigation with, at best, a marginal impact on people or the planet. Others, such as impact investing, focus on measurable social and environmental outcomes, often using the UN’s SDGs for their impact goals, alongside financial returns.
Impact investing could unlock much needed capital for critical sectors in the net-zero transition that would otherwise be underfunded when using traditional financial metrics.
In short, sustainable investing, in all its forms, requires additional skills that are currently lacking in finance education. Social and environmental impacts can be difficult to quantify and may require longer-term perspectives and qualitative judgements about potential impacts on many stakeholders.
It’s important that students learn the limits of different forms of sustainable investing to avoid falling into the trap of greenwashing. Image: Unsplash
Student-managed investment funds
These skills are best developed through hands-on practice that supplements formal instruction. Student-Managed Investment Funds (SMIFs) provide students with experience working together to manage real investment portfolios under the guidance of faculty supervisors and industry professionals.
Canadian universities have established more than 30 funds that students oversee as portfolio managers, buying and selling stocks, bonds or other assets. The capital in these funds comes from a variety of sources, including donations from companies, philanthropic gifts from individuals or foundations, and in some cases from university endowments.
Of the 31 Canadian SMIFs we analyzed (totalling $79.5 million managed by students), only five (16 per cent) have some level of ESG consideration. Since business schools have long used student-managed funds to train the next generation of investment bankers, financial analysts and other financial industry professionals, this is surprising — and disappointing.
Authors’ analysis of SMIFs in Canada with ESG components based on publicly available data from major Canadian business schools’ websites as of fall 2022. Impact Investing Hub, University of Victoria
The gap is even more pronounced for impact investing, which is barely mentioned in any of the funds in our sample, despite universities’ commitments to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Authors’ analysis of the size of SMIFs with and without ESG components, based on publicly available data from major Canadian business schools’ websites as of fall 2022. Impact Investing Hub, University of Victoria
Sustainable finance education could benefit greatly when students work together to integrate financial, environmental and social factors in student-managed investment funds.
Learning by doing helps students develop important analytical skills, familiarizes them with key tools and data sources and helps them navigate the maze of ESG standards, frameworks and guidelines.
The role of universities
Including sustainability mandates in finance programs and student-managed investment funds will ensure Canadian universities train the next generation of sustainable investment professionals needed to accelerate the net-zero transition.
We encourage university administrators and finance educators across the country to immediately implement ESG policies for existing student-managed investment funds. In collaboration with industry and donors, new funds could also be established that focus on particular themes, like climate solutions or nature-positive investing.
One encouraging initiative in this regard is by Propel Impact, a non-profit that is collaborating with seven universities to run their own local student impact funds.
Through creative partnerships with investors, Propel has been supporting student training while benefiting local communities, with $750,000 directed by students toward 14 Canadian social enterprises over the past three years. We offer this program to University of Victoria students and hope it expands to more Canadian universities.
As we confront pressing social and environmental challenges, we can’t be discouraged by partisan sniping. Instead, we must build momentum for sustainable investing by training future financial professionals more effectively.
Image credit: 
Eric Block On Responsible Branding 
You must be logged in to post a comment.