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.”
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 Supriya Jha, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, SAP via World Economic Forum • Reposted: September 20, 2023
A debate in the United States around affirmative action has placed doubt on the future of broader diversity and inclusion (D&I) policies in the workplace.
The adversity around proactive D&I can provide an opportunity to revisit internal policies and practices to strengthen them.
Here are four things organizations can do to ensure D&I goals stay on track.
Diversity and inclusion (D&I) is under fire. In the United States (US), the courts recently ruled that race could no longer be a factor in university admissions, defeating affirmative action policies. There is now a passionate and polarizing debate on whether D&I strategies in the corporate environment lead to equity or bring down meritocracies.
To make matters worse, the narrative of defunding D&I initiatives in the corporate arena can unnerve companies’ small D&I teams. As we stand in the throws of this debate, it should be clear that D&I has not been a fleeting trend and remains an imperative that shapes the fabric of organizations and society.
The US trajectory on D&I might seem uncertain but the need for it is clear, including at a global level. Today’s challenges are opportunities to refine and strengthen our strategies so workplaces and communities are genuinely inclusive.
Maintaining the path to an inclusive future
As organizations stand at a crossroads, here are four things that can keep one grounded in the D&I journey:
1. Cultivating a sense of belonging
D&I is not a checkbox exercise; a common misconception is that it targets only people of colour. The purpose of D&I is to nurture a sense of belonging regardless of individual differences. When individuals feel welcomed, valued and respected, they contribute their best.
Gone are the days when people can simply be viewed as organizational assets: employees want to be valued as individuals and creators of change. Nothing cultivates belonging more than love and care – that’s evident as we feel genuinely connected to familial units, societies and organizations that care for us.
Nurturing that belonging in the workplace requires genuine and consistent leadership, commitment and vision. When I reflect on the many actions companies took during the pandemic, the most compelling ones contributing to higher retention involved leaders being accessible and present to listen to employees.
Creating opportunities for leaders to listen to and act on the needs of their diverse employee base is a strategy that works well in many directions. From the CEO to the front-line manager, empathetic listening skills assure employees they are heard and seen.
2. Doing the groundwork for our future
Efforts in the D&I arena are not momentary but also exist for future generations.
As a mother of two girls, I have a vested interest in driving forward D&I in organizations. I want my daughters to experience a workplace where they can be themselves and their differences and uniqueness are celebrated. They should be provided with opportunities based on their skills and talent.
More importantly, the workplace should help staff optimize their potential instead of wasting time fitting into cultures made by a homogenous majority. My hope is the pandemic-induced flexible and remote work policies don’t become exceptional but are normalized across industries where feasible. Additionally, providing employees with tools to recognize and address unconscious biases via continuous education and training can help raise collective awareness and foster a more inclusive environment.
Having served in the [diversity and inclusion] space for over 16 years, I’ve learned that [it] is not a one-time action; it requires resilience and constant adaption.”— Supriya Jha, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, SAP SE
3. Unleashing the power of employee resource groups
Employee resource groups are beacons of progress in a company’s journey. hese networks are voluntary, employee-led groups that unite individuals with shared backgrounds, experiences, identities or interests. More importantly, they need to be open to all – so that the “upstanders” – not bystanders – and allies can find a space to learn and grow.
Spaces for shared experiences spark conversations that lead to meaningful change for the community and business. Making employee resource groups part of the business strategy with executive involvement has been tried and tested in most organizations. Enabling these groups to contribute to partner, supplier and community interactions can further help unleash the collective’s power. What makes for great strategy within the workplace can translate to a growing movement in society and the marketplace.
4. Consistency is key
Having served in the D&I space for over 16 years, I’ve learned that it is not a one-time action; it requires resilience and constant adaption. To bring about lasting change, we must show evidence of incremental progress. But any win is worthwhile, even minor achievements.
It is essential to remember that accumulating these steady, incremental steps leads to success overall. As we navigate the complexities of implementing D&I strategies, let us recognize that it is not about a destination but the journey.
Inculcating inclusive hiring practices at all levels, fostering environments that champion the engagement of neurodivergent talent and opening doors for underrepresented businesses will all set us on a path to a more equitable future. Setting clear and measurable goals, recalibrating at every step, celebrating the diversity and uniqueness of the workforce and amplifying the achievements loudly are the factors contributing to success.
Ultimately, our quest for belonging is a tapestry woven with threads of diverse experiences, united by a shared purpose. Let us continue weaving this tapestry, creating a world where our differences are not divisions but vibrant threads that enrich the canvas of human existence.
A new Veolia North America survey of 245 large U.S. companies shows that more than half will have ambitious goals addressing net zero carbon, zero waste to landfill, zero liquid discharge, and targeted increases in water efficiency, reuse, and waste recycling by 2025, with many firms already setting specific targets.
The survey shows reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are the top sustainability priority for most firms, but it is clear that priorities to address water and waste reductions are catching up.
While the commitments being made by firms are encouraging, the data in the new Veolia survey shows that the majority of companies have yet to identify specifically what the exact steps are to achieve their most ambitious medium- and long-term commitments.
Here are some highlights of the survey, which was conducted over the past year:
60% of firms identified specific projects and initiatives to achieve their short term sustainability goals (less than five years), while 37% had not.
40% of firms reported that reducing operational costs is a very important driver for pursuing sustainability goals.
While investments included in the landmark U.S. Inflation Reduction Act have gone far in providing firms with the financial support they need to convert to sustainable practices, it will not be enough to meet all their needs. Based on an analysis by the International Energy Agency and Boston Consulting Group, the overall transition to sustainable energy across U.S. industries will require at least $18 trillion in additional capital by 2030.
“This survey provides many important insights on how firms across America are responding to the growing concern around climate change, and why they are looking to reduce their impact on carbon emissions, waste streams and water use,” said Veolia North America President and CEO Fred Van Heems. “A large number of companies are genuinely committed to achieving sustainability objectives, yet they are not sure how to begin, which is keeping many of them from moving forward. The good news is there are solutions available to get them on track and help them sustain momentum.”
The survey findings point to the need for more urgency in clearing the way for industries to adopt more sustainable practices as soon as possible, according to Charles Iceland, Director of Freshwater Initiatives for the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank based in the U.S.
“It’s clear from this survey that for large companies that are genuinely committed to operating on a more sustainable basis, more resources and data are needed to help them determine where their greatest needs are so they can take effective action,” Iceland said.
The survey found that a majority of companies are committing to sustainability goals primarily because of reporting requirements, regulatory compliance, cost savings and brand reputation. Of the firms surveyed, roughly one-third said the environmental risks to their operations were not a very important driver.
The survey findings are being announced one year after passage of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which was meant to kickstart the economy with investments in critical infrastructure, with a special focus on initiatives that will help meet sustainability goals for addressing climate change.
The survey found that many respondents are prioritizing sustainability initiatives because of the incentives and opportunities available in the IRA legislation and other factors such as regulatory requirements and investor focus on climate disclosures.
What remains a challenge, the survey showed, is that companies still lack the funding to support the transition and take the concrete steps necessary to achieve their goals. They also are struggling to achieve alignment of internal goals and responsibilities and easy access to data to understand where they are and track progress.
“Before firms can invest in reducing their impact on the environment and become more sustainable, they need information on their current baseline, such as data on their energy emissions, waste and water use,” said Patrick Schultz, President and CEO of VNA’s Sustainable Industries and Buildings division. “This will enable them to choose measures that can be immediately and easily implemented, and ones that may require a strategy to mitigate over time.”
Schultz added, “This kind of analysis is only effective if it is conducted holistically, taking into account each firm’s contributions not only to high-profile factors like greenhouse gas emissions, but also equally important considerations like reducing landfill waste and preserving water resources. This is what Veolia North America means by triple zero – achieving net zero goals for energy, waste and water.”
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.
By Josh Bersin from Harvard Business Review • Reposted: September 18, 2023
The EU has long been committed to improving worker well-being, claiming it wants to create more transparent and predictable working conditions for all its 182 million workers. Now, it’s moving ahead with this objective on a number of fronts:
Its Work-Life Balance Directive, which came into effect in 2019, aims to set minimum standards for paternity, parental, and career leave as well as flexible work arrangements.
Its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) mandates that, starting in May 2024, any company with €40 million in net turnover, €20 million in assets, or 250 or more employees that trades in Europe publish detailed information about their efforts to address a range of sustainability challenges.
In recent years, many companies hired a chief sustainability officer and established a set of high-priority programs to reduce carbon emissions and the risk of global climate change. The enactment of these new regulations signals a new era in which it’s time to extend the concept of sustainability to include similarly critical issues with the workforce — an idea I call people sustainability.
People sustainability takes a holistic approach to corporate human capital practices, including diversity and inclusion, well-being, employee safety, and fair pay. It raises these human capital issues to the C-suite and obliges chief human resource officers to work with chief sustainability officers on these programs. It means that your employee well-being efforts are no longer delivered piecemeal, which was ineffective no matter how well-intentioned or resourced they might be.
The EU is essentially saying that all these “HR programs” are much bigger than HR: They now fall into the category of global citizenship mandates, and companies must treat and report them as such.
How to Integrate People Sustainability into Your Company
I’m talking to European and U.S. firms about how they are gearing up for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and developing people sustainability metrics. Here are examples of how a few companies are approaching this:
Heineken has developed standard measurements of human rights, fair pay, and even living conditions for all its contract workers helping it deliver beverage sales around the world.
Enterprise software leader SAP has coupled its industry-leading diversity program to new pay equity and sustainability initiatives. For example, the company now openly publishes all pay bands so employees can see where they are and the pay scales for all new jobs posted. In parallel, it provides hiring and workplace support for neurodivergent employees. After undertaking a progressive gender pay equity analysis, it inaugurated a very aggressive program of promotions of women into senior leadership — all long-term “people sustainability” strategies.
Financial services firm Liberty Mutual sees people sustainability as a factor in limiting the global risks of its customers, partners, and employees in the face of accelerating climate change. Chief sustainability officer Francis Hyatt, who previously served as executive vice president of enterprise talent practices, oversees the integration of global climate issues in the firm’s risk management approach and promotes sustainability solutions for employees, resellers, and customers. The company promotes thought-through generational and gender equality programs, and Hyatt ensures that every employee understands how their long-term safety and success is part of the company’s overall sustainability strategy. In other words, this new job function unifies all the brand’s existing HR work into the context of sustainability and helping the planet.
What links all three of these major corporations is the way each separately discovered that when you frame human capital investment in the context of sustainability, it assumes even more importance than it did before.
If you see value in this approach, where should you start at your organization? Building on the European Union’s new detailed CSRD reporting requirements, leaders will need to address issues ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to gender pay across their own operations, as well as that of their suppliers and business partners. You should try to ensure sustainability becomes a pillar of operations as early as possible, as the compliance clock is ticking.
The real action is to get your HR team to start working as soon as possible with their ESG colleagues to get people sustainability metrics and strategies into your business goals. To drive this, bring together a team including your heads of HR, DEI, and ESG, as well as representatives from your corporate finance and legal teams, to design your people sustainability program. You’ll ultimately want to see these goals reflected in your annual report and other stakeholder communications, so that these programs are seen as a core part of company strategy.
A recent survey by PwC reveals that many CEOs anticipate climate risk will affect their cost profiles and supply chains in the next year. However, despite these challenges, 60% of the surveyed CEOs do not plan to reduce headcount, and 80% do not plan to decrease compensation, as they recognize the importance of retaining talented employees.
Data like this underlines how people sustainability has become an integral strategy for corporate growth. Investors will soon begin to measure the effectiveness of a company’s well-being initiatives as a key metric of overall performance as much as its P&L.
You don’t have to be directly affected by Europe’s new sustainability laws to see that bringing together previously disconnected efforts such as DEI, purpose, or L&D under the umbrella of “long-term organizational sustainability” makes a lot of sense. You might even see it as meeting the needs of the present without compromising your future: a measure of sustainability that certainly gets my support.
Josh Bersin is founder and CEO of human capital advisory firm The Josh Bersin Company. He is a global research analyst, public speaker, and writer on the topics of corporate human resources, talent management, recruiting, leadership, technology, and the intersection between work and life. To see the original post, follow this link: https://hbr.org/2023/09/sustainability-is-about-your-workforce-too
By Alana James, Assistant Professor in Fashion, Northumbria University, Newcastle via The Conversation • Reposted: September 14, 2023
How do the clothes you buy wear out the natural world? To take stock of the damage you have to account for the materials, water and energy that went into making a garment, and the greenhouse gas emissions, chemical pollutants and other byproducts associated with its disposal.
For example polyester, a kind of plastic widely used in T-shirts, is made from oil – a fossil fuel. If you throw it out it degrades slowly, and chemicals from its dyes and surface treatments leach into the soil.
The UK consistently buys more garments than any other European country, spending more than £45 billion (US$56 billion) annually. Fast fashion, an industry trend which involves getting cheap reproductions of catwalk designs out to a mass market as quickly as possible, encourages this buying frenzy.
Much of fast fashion is known to depend on sweatshop labour and polluting factories. But alongside the demand for ever faster fashion at low prices, there is a growing awareness among consumers that something has to change.
Some firms have caught on: many brands now report their environmental footprint and have disclosed their intention to shrink it.
But how trustworthy are these assessments? My research uncovers how the fashion industry collates, analyses and assesses environmental impact data. Unfortunately, as a result of inaccurate and unreliable methods, among other issues, the true cost of fast fashion remains largely unknown.
A multitude of metrics, certification schemes and labels mark the environmental consequences of making and selling clothing. Brands have been accused of greenwashing due to the poor quality of information used in some of them.
One common product-labelling tool within the industry was the Higg Materials Sustainability Index. Introduced in 2011, the Higg Index was a rating system used by several large brands and retailers to determine and report the global warming impact and water consumption of different products, among other environmental measures.
The approach adopted by the index was challenged by the Norwegian Consumer Authority for limiting its assessment to only certain phases of a product’s lifecycle, such as the sourcing of materials. It was criticised for overlooking pollutants such as microfibres, which are released from textiles during manufacture, wear and washing. As a result, the index was suspended in June 2022.
Since then, further issues have come to light. These include:
unreliable data – measures often rely on brands self-reporting without their information being verified by an impartial third party
vested interests – many tools and indices are funded, or part funded, by organisations that could benefit from more positive reporting
tunnel vision – existing methods tend to focus on only one environmental impact, such as water use or carbon emissions, while the relationship between these factors is overlooked
paywalls – many tools require brands to pay into them. This can effectively exclude smaller businesses and limit the tool’s coverage
lack of standards – there is no official baseline to determine acceptable thresholds of environmental footprint of any one product.
Without reliable and accurate assessments of a product’s environmental impact, consumers are left in the dark. For example, a common misconception is that cotton, being a natural fibre, is better for the environment than synthetic materials such as acrylic and elastane.
But cotton requires vast quantities of water to grow, harvest and process. A standard cotton t-shirt, for example, requires 2,500 litres while a pair of jeans consumes 7,600 litres.
One fibre is not necessarily better than the other. Rather, every material and manufacturing process affects the natural world in one form or another. With such misconceptions rife, it’s difficult for consumers to make sound comparisons. That’s why accurate measures are desperately needed.
The complexity of fashion’s global supply chain, which spans thousands of miles from fields to shop floors, makes accurate measurements exceptionally difficult. Capturing an accurate picture of the industry’s environmental footprint will rely on a certain level of transparency across the industry. It will also require multiple sectors – including production, manufacturing and retail – working collectively towards a common goal.
An acceptable definition for “sustainable”, informed by standards and baselines, could empower consumers to make more informed decisions about their purchases. With Gen-Z labelled the sustainable generation, it is time for fashion to reform.
By Lucy Buchholz from Sustainability Magazine • Reposted: September 09, 2023
The 2023 Fairtrade America Consumer Insights report reveals that 61% of Americans now identify the Fairtrade label, marking a 20% increase since 2021
The world’s most recognised label for social justice and sustainability, Fairtrade America, shared that recognition for the mark has more than doubled in the last four years – marking monumental progress.
According to the 2023 Fairtrade America Consumer Insights, 61% of American consumers now recognise the Fairtrade Mark, an increase of 20% from 2021.
The online study – which surveyed 2,000 American consumers and 11,000 from across 12 countries – disclosed that four in five consumers are willing to pay more for ethical and sustainability-sourced products, despite the cost of living crisis. Additionally, these findings demonstrate that shoppers are prioritising transparency amongst supply chains.
“Shoppers in the US are driving change with their purchasing power,” said Amanda Archila, executive director of Fairtrade America. “We are energised by these results and remain focused on increasing the US market for Fairtrade-certified products by meeting consumers where they are in their sustainable shopping journey and building strength with farming communities around the world.
Consumers demonstrate a growing trust in the Fairtrade mark
As trust in the Fairtrade label has steadily grown, 85% of US shoppers believe that featuring the label positively influences their perception of a brand.
In fact, two out of every three shoppers familiar with Fairtrade prefer retailers that stock certified products and globally, the Fairtrade mark remains the world’s most recognised ethical label, with 71% of shoppers having encountered it.
Among Fairtrade-certified products, coffee takes the lead with 48% recognition, and consumers are willing to pay up to 35% more for a bag of Fairtrade-certified coffee. Fairtrade chocolate closely follows with 43% visibility, and shoppers are ready to pay a premium of up to 55% for a Fairtrade-certified chocolate bar.
“We firmly believe that businesses can grow responsibly while ensuring that farmers and workers who grow our favourite foods including cocoa, coffee and bananas get a fairer deal,” Archila, adds. “And it’s clear that consumers are demanding the same.”
By Maggie Ellison from myhfa.org • Reposted: September 9, 2023
Are you aware of your surroundings? In tune with movements, trends, and fads? Understanding of the dynamic shift of generational mindsets? Giving back in big ways? Sharing your commitment to good? Consumers practically demand brands to share a deep compassion for the community they serve.
In a world of increasing social awareness, today’s consumers seek more than just a product or service. They’re seeking brands that align with their values and are dedicated to positively impacting society. According to one study, 70% of consumers said it’s important for brands to take a stand on social and political issues. It’s no longer a question of whether consumers care about brands being socially conscious but how you can integrate community and caring into your business. When you demonstrate your brand’s social responsibility, it isn’t just a marketing strategy – it reflects your values and commitment to making a positive impact.
Here are five ways to demonstrate your brand’s efforts toward corporate social responsibility:
Foster Employee Engagement
A great place to start showcasing your brand’s dedication to the community and the world is by starting with your team. One study found that 60% of employees choose a workplace based on their beliefs and values. Establishing core values will help guide you and your employees and serve as a starting point for determining appropriate causes to support. Encourage your team to get involved with volunteerism and partake in discussions about company values to help them develop a connection to the cause your company is championing. A team that believes in its cause is most likely to amplify your brand’s positive impacts!
What can you keep doing or start doing to ask your employees what matters to them?
Advocate for Causes That Align with Your Company Values
Pick a social or environmental cause that resonates with your brand’s values and aligns with your audience’s interests. From climate change to social inequity, you can use your platform to raise awareness and showcase your brand’s dedication to current events. 58% of consumers will buy or advocate for a brand based on their beliefs and values. Word-of-mouth marketing like that builds trust and community around a brand that is difficult to replicate any other way. Include messaging on furniture tags highlighting the cause – did a tree get planted for every couch produced? Did a child in need receive a backpack of school supplies for every hand-crafted table made in an impoverished area? Let people know that. Signage, tags, literature, social media tagging, and marketing messaging are easy ways to translate what matters to your customers. Commit to the commitment.
How can you highlight in all marketing channels your commitment to a cause?
Partner with Charitable Organizations
Collaborating with established organizations will ensure your efforts have a lasting impact and provide tangible support to the cause you’ve chosen to promote. This is a powerful way to leverage your brand’s reach for a good cause. Allow the partner organization to host a table within your brick-and-mortar, include their messaging in banner ads on your website, provide a give-back option for your customers to round up, and provide those funds to a non-profit that aligns. Another terrific opportunity is co-branding products or services or offering a simple add-on for customers where a percentage or all proceeds benefit the cause. This plus-up can be powerful, and the impact is far-reaching. Building trust with your audience is vital to a brand’s success, and partnering with trusted organizations to make change happen will show customers that your dedication to social change is more than a marketing tactic. 40% of consumers believe the best way for brands to display social responsibility is to collaborate with a non-profit organization dedicated to that cause.
What can you do to amplify your chosen cause and provide impact?
Engage with Your Community
Engage with your community by sponsoring local events or supporting local charities to connect with your audience face-to-face. An experiential marketing campaign that directly engages with your audience about the causes your brand cares about can foster a sense of community and shared responsibility by educating attendees and encouraging them to participate in problem-solving actively. Experiential marketing campaigns can boost your brand awareness and create loyal customers. 74% of consumers said engaging with experiential activations made them more likely to buy the promoted product. Also, 98% of consumers create social content from their experiences, and 100% share the content they create. Highlighting a social issue that resonates with your brand during community events can foster a stronger connection with your audience.
What can you step up to sponsor, or what events can you showcase your brand that impacts the community?
Be Transparent and Authentic
Throughout it all, communicate with transparency and authenticity to naturally build customer trust. By clearly articulating your brand’s core values and mission, your audience will understand what you stand for and develop a deeper relationship with your brand. In 2022, 60% of consumers said that trustworthiness and transparency were the most important traits of a brand. Consumers want to know that their money is going to a trustworthy company that will use its power to improve the world. This is why it’s important to regularly showcase your company’s steps to contribute positively to society, like charitable partnerships, co-branded products, advocating for products that are making a difference, and community engagement. By continuing to promote a social cause relevant to your brand, your audience will come to trust you for what you provide and what you stand for as a company.
How is your brand speaking to the public? Is it authentic?
Integrating social responsibility into your brand identity goes beyond superficial gestures – it’s about creating a meaningful and lasting impact. Whether through sustainable practices, ethical partnerships, educational campaigns, or community engagement, every step your business takes can contribute to a better world and deeply resonate with your customers. By aligning your brand’s core values with meaningful action, you’re building a loyal fan base and driving positive change. Remember, when you demonstrate a socially responsible brand it is more than a label; It’s a catalyst for change, and consumers today demand commitment.
By Tara Milburn, Forbes Councils Member via Forbes • Reposted: September 6, 2023
Failure stings, and when we feel we’ve done something wrong, we respond accordingly in order to diminish the chances of repeating the error. Nothing stings more than making the same mistake twice; we know this and usually do anything to avoid it.
Failure in our corporate system works in the same way. When things go wrong, the collective recruits resources to reduce the risk of a repeat. As it stands, 69% of consumersare actively concerned about climate change. Only 50% of executives feel their organizations’ strategies are reflective of their purpose, according to a study by Harvard Business Review and EY. The health of our planet and the purpose of our work are too important to get wrong twice; somewhere, our collective brain is recruiting some serious resources.
The impact of those resources is already taking effect. The twin crises of meaning and climate have quickly changed how we do business, and stakeholders are rewarding the effort. Companies that have established that clear, shared purpose within their organizations are seeing success—a 10% increase in growth in three years, according to the same HBR and EY report.
Similarly, consumers, investors and employees have all turned climate anxiety into action. According to findings from Gartner, 85% of investors prioritize ESG factors in their due diligence. Moreover, 66% of consumers pay more for responsible and sustainable products. Sixty-six percent of Gen Z employees opt for lower-paying jobs at more ethically and environmentally responsible companies.
Failure motivates us, and our societal shortcomings motivate profound and meaningful change in our businesses. Failure is a painful education, but finding these solutions could be worth every second. Here are a few ways business owners can follow the wisdom of failure toward a better way of doing business.
P&L&G: A New Kind Of Corporate Accounting
As business owners, we’ve learned to let the numbers do much of the talking. Profit and loss statements guide most of our decisions from hiring to business development to pricing. But stakeholders are making it clear that our “giving” is just as consequential to our corporate accounting, and it’s no longer just the thought that counts.
Before they make a purchase or an investment, individuals and institutions evaluate the social efforts of organizations. They’re looking for transparent ESG metrics, developed reporting, evidence of social impact and substantial long-term goals. Internally and externally, stakeholders hold organizations to higher sustainability standards, ESG transparency and social responsibility. They’re expanding the old definition of success as shareholder value; it makes good business sense for companies to take these fundamentals as seriously as they take their profit and loss (P&L).
Stronger internal cultures, heightened purchase motivation and improved long-term loyalty are proven outcomes of well-developed corporate impact programs. We can add better profit to that list; 82% of consumers“prefer a brand’s values to align with their own.” The support and the cause can take different forms. Many giants—Patagonia and TOMS come to mind—have made corporate responsibility famous with campaigns like 1% for the planet and “buy one, give one.”
Giving can also mean improving compensation and benefit structures, donating time to your immediate community, and supporting sustainability efforts across your supply chain.
Thoughtful Products Can Speak Louder Than Pledges
As companies put more resources into corporate responsibility, the impact will come from their actions. Stakeholders know it’s not what we say but what we do that matters. Small and actionable fixes reflect the larger aims of the corporation.
Employee gifts, customer outreach, and promotional products embody a company’s values. Opt for sustainable products, support small businesses and partner with thoughtful suppliers to walk the walk.
Sharing The Sharing: How Busy Teams Find Meaning
With a plan for giving and gifting, it’s time to delegate. Sharing the lift reduces the chances that a campaign is sidetracked. More importantly, delegation empowers your team to make the difference they want to see.
Choice-based gifting—offering your team ahead-of-time selection for their onboarding or holiday packages—can decrease waste and extend the chance to have a hand in supporting sustainable suppliers, small businesses and ESG leaders. Similarly, a recent study shows 86% of employees want to weigh in on their company’s corporate giving strategy by self-selecting charities or collectively deciding on the focus of a more extensive campaign.
When we make a mistake, we mobilize; we naturally make every effort we can to do things differently next time. In the same way, the failures of our societal and corporate structures are directing our next steps, showing us the improvements we can make. If we pay attention, the natural selection of our stakeholders could reduce our chances of committing the same collective errors and put us all on the path to a better kind of business.
From the International Well-being Institute via CSR Newswire • Reposted: August 30, 2023
The past few years in the United States have seen remarkable progress in the adoption and implementation of healthy building policies. The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) has issued two unanimous policy resolutions, one in 2020 and another in 2022, endorsing healthy buildings as a powerful tool to advance public health and an essential defense against future health threats. Heeding the call, cities like Miami, Jersey City and Oklahoma City are now leading by example, scaling the WELL Health-Safety Rating across a portfolio of municipal buildings. The Biden Administration too has shined a bright light on healthy buildings with the first ever White House Summit on Indoor Air Quality and the launch of the Clean Air in Buildings Challenge, not to mention CDC’s recent guidance on ventilation and GSA’s efforts to drive healthy building research and promote the Health in Buildings roundtable.
It’s clear that, increasingly, governments at all levels are stepping up to help create spaces that support health and well-being. And just as the momentum continues to build in the U.S., a similar trend is unfolding in other parts of the world, reflecting a universal demand for healthier spaces.
In the United Kingdom, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in July announced efforts to increase uptake of occupational health services in the workplace. The policy effort encourages employers to ramp up these services to help employees access vital mental and physical health support at work, particularly for those working in small and medium-sized enterprises.
In the United Arab Emirates, The Dubai Land Department (DLD)’s Real Estate Regulatory Agency (RERA) has officially adopted the WELL Health-Safety Rating and is encouraging organizations to align with the program in jointly owned properties (JOPs) and enhance investor confidence.
In the European Union this past spring, the EU Parliament passed its Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), a key legislative tool to set and implement building decarbonization goals. The approved EPBD included an important healthy building provision, Article 11a, titled, “Indoor Environmental Quality,” which says, “Member States shall set requirements for the implementation of adequate indoor environmental quality standards in buildings in order to maintain a healthy indoor climate.”
In Australia, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the national government’s top health protection committee, announced that it was making indoor air quality a national priority. “Today is about putting this on the agenda, on the map,” said Member of Parliament Dr. Michelle Ananda-Rajah, a longtime advocate of prioritizing IAQ and who, earlier this year, also hosted a Clean Air Forum earlier this year.
Globally, healthy building policies are shaping more than just urban landscapes, they’re transforming how our indoor spaces protect and enhance our health. As the global understanding deepens about the pivotal role healthy buildings can play in improving public health, there’s a mounting urgency to utilize policy to accelerate spaces that advance human health and well-being. Together, these global policy efforts will help accelerate the healthy buildings movement, enabling their benefits to reach more and more people around the world.
By Luke Heilbuth via Sustainable Brands • Reposted: August 29, 2023
Climate resilience is the ‘resilience of a company’s strategy and business model to climate-related changes, developments and uncertainties.’ This language is worth reflecting on, as it brings the concept of resilience science into mainstream business thinking.
Background
In June, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) issued its inaugural standards — IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. The Standards create a common language for companies to report on how sustainability and climate-related risks and opportunities affect their prospects. They reflect what investors want, and will form the basis of mandatory climate-related reporting requirements in many advanced jurisdictions (aside from the United States).
This article explores the most interesting part of IFRS S2: the climate-resilience assessment. Building on the TCFD — which IFRS S2 has now supplanted — climate resilience is defined as the “resilience of a company’s strategy and business model to climate-related changes, developmentsanduncertainties” [emphasis added]. This language is worth reflecting on, as it brings the concept of resilience science into mainstream business thinking.
Tipping points and ignorance
Invented by Canadian ecologist C.S. “Buzz” Holling in 1973, resilience science explains how human-natural systems (the interconnected relationship between humans and the environment) do not exist in a fixed state — but are instead characterized by constant change and tipping points.
This is not how businesspeople usually think. Instead, they assume that a complex system — like an organisation — is stable, isolated, measurable and linear. Take COVID: Most of us thought things would be disrupted for a time before ‘bouncing back’ to normal. The mistake is right there in the language. Post pandemic, we didn’t go back. The way we live and work changed.
A better understanding of the world acknowledges that systems go through adaptive cycles of growth, decay, restructuring and renewal. As business leaders, we must acknowledge our lack of certainty and control. We should reimagine our actions, plans and strategies as experiments that, as in science, must be constantly re-evaluated.
As author Nassim Taleb says in Fooled by Randomness, probability is “the acceptance of the lack of certainty in our knowledge and the development of methods for dealing with our ignorance.”
That’s why IFRS S2 is not the dry reporting standard it appears at first view, but something quite visionary — it embraces uncertainty and consents to our ignorance. It asks us to see through the ‘illusion’ of the pristine, perfectly self-contained balance sheet — where the ledger is always squared, and all things are known.
Focus on the process
To explain the “changes, developments and uncertainties” that arise from the physical and transition risks and opportunities of climate change, a company is required to use scenario analysis. This is not meant to predict what might happen in the future — but to offer up ‘what if’ scenarios to help your business better think through its options and plan accordingly.
IFRS S2 says you must disclose the “inputs and key assumptions” used in your scenarios — not just the result. In other words, your explanation of the process is essential. This is because investors want to test the quality of your thinking, rather than simply reading a claim that your business is resilient.
Staying practical
The method of scenario analysis you employ is up to you, and should be “commensurate with your circumstances.” For most businesses, an expensive, quantitative-modelling exercise is not required or even the best option. The authors of IFRS S2 recognize the burden that companies face in complying with a science-based approach to climate change.
As a result, they have sought to navigate a practical approach that requires the use of “all reasonable and supportable information” (the floor of the effort required) available at the reporting date without “undue cost or effort” (the ceiling). The concept is explained by ISSB Vice Chair Sue Lloyd in this webinar. The IPCC, IEA and PRI all provide publicly available scenarios which provide the basis for a useful, cost-effective and strategic approach.
Finally, your company is not required to perform a scenario analysis as part of the reporting effort each year. The minimum requirement for updating your scenarios is whenever you review your corporate strategy as part of the strategic planning cycle. That said, each year you must revisit the assumptions that underpinned your analysis and consider whether any changes affect the assessment of your company’s climate resilience. The IFRS refers to this annual update as a “resilience assessment.”
Scenario analysis done well will ultimately help you fine-tune your overall strategy and business model — enhancing your business’s prospects and resilience against the vagaries of an uncertain future.
In recent years, investor portfolios have grown too big to avoid systemic risks such as climate change. Recognizing their vulnerability to black swans, institutional investors have pushed investee companies to prioritize resilience over short-term cost optimisation; the IFRS Standards reflect the trend. As Taleb says, the defining characteristic of change is that it cannot be predicted: “This is the central illusion in life — that randomness is a risk — that it is a bad thing.”
By Robert Brown from Global Trade Daily • Reposted: August 18, 2023
Franchise owners can make a significant impact on the world. Their collective teams and resources kickstart movements to help people and the environment, depending on which industry the owner enters.
These are some of the best franchise concepts because they’re socially responsible, impactful and profitable.
Sustainable Seafood Companies
Many consumers assume seafood is a better industry for future franchise owners because it doesn’t use the same business processes as beef farms. Although sustainable fishing supplies are readily available, corporations sometimes rely on methods like trawling to keep up with high demand.
Trawling drags large nets across the ocean floor. They pull up thriving coral communities and plant life without guaranteeing a full catch of the intended fish species. Trawlers also create significant amounts of carbon dioxide, contributing to the issue of global warming.
Entrepreneurs can mitigate this issue by opening sustainable seafood companies, like a franchise with Shuckin’ Shack. The brand works with a sustainable seafood supplier, recycles its oyster shells and has multiple approvals from ocean-focused environmental groups like the Plastic Ocean Project. By working with a brand such as Shuckin Shack, the franchise owner’s corresponding eco-friendly business models would rely on similar production methods to avoid harming endangered plant and marine animal species.
Plant-Based Meat Brands
Cultures transform meats with widespread arrays of recipes, but it’s not the best ingredient for the environment. Livestock industries contribute 12–18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Becoming part of a franchise that tries to reduce that statistic is a significant way to create positive change for the planet.
Home Care Businesses
While mainstream companies focus on catering to younger generations, entrepreneurs can enter the socially responsible home care industry. The demand for in-home assistance is projected to rise by 29% through 2024, leading to a higher demand for more home care service providers throughout the U.S.
There are numerous reasons why people prefer to age at home. They may not be able to afford an assisted living facility. Some people live in rural areas that don’t have those facilities or have health conditions that require specialized care.
It’s especially beneficial if the prices for those home care services match the economic abilities of older adults in the surrounding area. When patients and their loved ones don’t have to go into additional medical debt to access health care, franchise services become humanitarian efforts.
Junk Removal Trucks
Municipal solid waste is a challenge wherever people live. Based on the most updated research, it contributes an average of 35 million tons of garbage to landfills, but it doesn’t all belong there. People often throw out reusable or recyclable goods, not realizing those options are available or have them nearby.
Junk removal franchises are a socially responsible way to fight this ongoing issue. Gone for Good is one brand to consider that donates whatever goods it can while recycling leftover materials from client pickup sites. It’s a convenience consumers appreciate because it makes their lives easier while keeping landfill waste from polluting the environment.
Learning Center Brands
Daycares help parents return to work, but only if they can afford it. The average parent pays between $5,357–17,171 annually for childcare. It’s a significant financial burden, but learning center franchises can solve this systemic challenge.
Learning centers provide daycare for young kids while combining their daytime activities with learning opportunities. Each parent’s monthly payment becomes an investment in their child’s academic success. Kids can learn custom curriculum lessons that help them later in life and prepare them for grade school.
The key is matching the daily, weekly and monthly care costs with the economic abilities of families in the surrounding area. Discounts also make learning centers more affordable by merging socially responsible business models with what people can comfortably manage.
Solar Panel Franchise
Social and environmental responsibility merge with solar panel installation franchises. They allow homeowners to reduce their monthly utility bills by harvesting solar energy from their rooftops. Saving money is why 92% of homeowners who installed solar panels went through with the purchase or seriously considered it.
Using less electricity from power plants also helps the environment. The plants don’t have to produce as much electricity for surrounding areas, leading to fewer carbon emissions per plant.
Entrepreneurs with green values can open a business with franchise brands like Solar Grids. The company provides the training and management resources a new business owner needs to launch a successful enterprise. Solar Grids also assists with training installation specialists so every newly installed panel works at peak efficiency.
Green Landscaping Companies
Landscaping is a foundational part of many neighborhoods, but it’s not always helpful for the planet. Sprinklers use excessive water to keep plants alive, while chemical-based products kill insects and leak into surrounding habitats.
Nearby clients would ensure the environment benefits from organic fertilizers, chemical-free pesticides and recommended plant choices to reduce water usage. Expert team members could also provide landscape design appointments to pitch ideas like hardscaping. Utilizing rock formations, fire pits and patios would make any yard better for the environment while making the homeowner’s yard-care routine more manageable.
Urgent Care Clinics
Prioritizing the health of a community through a franchise is one of the most socially responsible and impactful business models. Research shows over 100 rural hospitals shut down between 2013 and 2020, forcing people to travel an average of 20 miles farther for essential services.
Urgent care franchise locations can assist with this issue. Entrepreneurs often reach out to companies like American Family Care to open clinics in medically underserved areas like rural communities.
The brand helps new owners navigate the legal steps of providing new medical services while streamlining the location’s success with tailored marketing and developmental plans. The centers become crucial to the region’s medical infrastructure, guaranteeing long-term success and positive social impact.
Franchise owners can also look into providing services for affordable rates based on the average wage in the surrounding city or zip code. Gallup polling shows 38% of Americans skipped medical care in 2022 due to the rising costs of essential services. Meeting a community’s needs with affordable medical treatments at an urgent care venue would merge humanitarian and franchising opportunities.
Open a Franchise With a Purpose
Humanitarian needs range from a healthy planet that provides a long-term home to affordable medical services. Franchise owners can fill those gaps, depending on the type of franchise they open. Entrepreneurs must consider these impactful business opportunities to start the career they desire while making lasting positive changes in their communities.
“Anti-ESG” rhetoric on political campaign trails and cable news breeds misinformation and creates misunderstanding about the use of environmental, social and governance factors in business. This week we’re breaking down some of the most common myths we see out there about ESG and what it means for businesses and investors, with insight from Andrew Behar, CEO of the shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow.
Myth: ESG is just a big greenwash. Companies aren’t really improving.
Back in 2019, the CEO-led Business Roundtable — which represents executives at some of the largest U.S. companies — issued a statement revising the “purpose of a corporation.” After decades of saying companies should make all of their decisions based on maximizing short-term shareholder profit, the executive group proclaimed the private sector has a duty to all of its stakeholders, including employees, customers and communities. That means considering things like environmental sustainability and social equity alongside profit — in other words, adopting ESG principles.
Those are big words from a lobbyist group that includes executives from major financial companies like BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase, and many onlookers weren’t convinced. Environmental and social advocates said businesses weren’t living up to what they put on paper, and — particularly as the anti-ESG narrative took hold — politicians, pundits and social media warriors took aim at companies for the mere mention of considerations beyond the bottom line. The result? Companies got quieter about their work in ESG, a trend known in sustainability circles as “greenhushing.”
“Five years ago, companies were doing nothing and taking a victory lap,” Behar said. “Right now we have companies doing stuff — and I can tell you, it’s with greater intensity, with greater depth — but they do not want to take the victory lap. It’s a better situation, because they’re actually changing their policies and practices, but it’s the greenhushing. They want to be quiet, because there are too many trolls out there.”
Behind the scenes, companies are spending more on new programming tied to sustainability and social impact. They’ve also agreed to gather more information about things like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in their workforces and the ways climate change impacts their supply chains — and disclose that information to investors and shareholder groups like As You Sow.
“When the declarations were made in 2019 about the new purpose of a corporation, that was really the moment where all of the companies said, ‘Okay, if we want to outperform, if we want to succeed, we’re going to be shifting our fundamental philosophy,'” Behar told us.
In this sense, anti-ESG critics are about four years “late to the party,” he said. “There’s no question in my mind that we are well along this implementation phase of a new purpose of a corporation and this transformation to a regenerative economy based on justice and sustainability. The extractive economy is winding down. And it’s just a question of how fast and how much pain they’re going to cause everybody else in the process.”
Myth: ESG and sustainable investing are anti-business.
Many far-right critics characterize ESG as something brand new, a symptom of the “wokeness” and “cancel culture” they say grip modern society. But ESG isn’t new. The term was coined back in 2005. And even before the Business Roundtable’s 2019 statement, thousands of professionalswere working as “ESG analysts” across the mainstream financial sector.
For investors, ESG is primarily a risk management and long-term growth mechanism. By understanding how companies manage their supply chains, source their ingredients and treat their workers, investors can better understand which companies are prepared for the future. Likewise, companies leverage ESG principles to manage and mitigate the risks they face.
“Overall, what we’re seeing here is just basic good business practices being demonized for political ends and people spending a lot of money to do it. And a lot of that is trying to stop what we see as market forces that have already happened — this is way over,” Behar said. “The companies that have adopted justice and sustainability are the ones that people want to put their money in, because they know those companies are going to succeed over the next five, 10, 20 years.”
Myth: If companies embrace ESG, goods and services will become more expensive.
Many individual products that are marketed as “sustainable” do come at higher prices. Critics often use this point to argue that the more companies consider ESG principles, the more expensive goods and services will become across the board.
But this misses critical context around the state of modern global supply chains. Social inequality and environmental crises already make it more difficult — and more expensive — to do business. ESG principles offer a way to manage and reduce that risk, which stabilizes prices over the long term.
Take climate change as an example and what Behar refers to as “climate inflation.” His team at As You Sow aggregates news articles that cover increasing commodity prices tied to climate change. They’ve noted a clear upward pattern over recent years, with the spring heatwaves in Europe that all but decimated Spain’s olive industry among recent examples.
“They had no olives, so olives are more expensive,” Behar explained. “Coffee‘s more expensive, chocolate‘s more expensive, cotton‘s more expensive. Cereal‘s more expensive. The boiling of the planet is really having some impacts on global commodity prices.”
Myth: You can’t invest sustainably unless you’re rich.
Indeed, institutional investors like asset managers, endowments and foundations increasingly use ESG factors to decide where to invest their money. ESG-focused institutional investment is projected to increase by 84 percent by 2026, making up around a fifth of all assets under management.
But you don’t have to be rich to invest sustainably, or to leverage your voting power as a shareholder in support of ESG. Last month, we outlined some simple ways for any and everyone to get involved with sustainable investing if they have the interest — from voting their proxies on individual stocks, to voicing their support for ESG in their 401(k) plans.
“We know we’ve got this vast majority of folks who actually want to vote to get corporations to provide a livable planet,” Behar said. “It’s a matter now of just getting people to talk about it.”
By Yusuf Amdani, Forbes Books Author via Forbes.com • Reposted: August 12, 2023
While 90% of executives state that sustainability is important, not as many are acting on green policies, according to the report “Investing For a Sustainable Future” which appeared in the MIT Sloan Management Review. Only 60% of companies have sustainability strategies in place. Without a green vision at the top, operational levels run the risk of using more resources than needed in everyday practices.
It may be a question of time: the world’s population grew from 2.3 billion in 1937 to 7.8 billion in 2020, per the Green Business Bureau. With more people, the carbon in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 415 parts per million during that same timeframe. Globally, organizations are recognizing the need and searching for a solution to become more earth conscious.
Those interested in funding businesses are just as interested in sustainable solutions, with 85% of investors considering environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors as they make decisions, according to Gartner research. Among banks, 91% monitor ESG performance of investments. These groups see that consumers are asking for green strategies and that sustainability can lead to long-term profitability and performance.
Setting the tone for both current and future generations begins with effective, ongoing efforts that coincide with the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals. These outline actions for all countries—both developed and developing—to carry out in a global partnership. When businesses step up and implement changes, others will take notice and be ready to join in.
Here are some of the proven sustainable practices that can generate business:
1. Opting for Renewable Energy
In developing countries, the infrastructure may not support 24/7 electricity in every town and village. For companies that depend on uninterrupted processes and timely deliveries, putting in a solar-powered system could be the answer. Drawing from the sun’s rays to produce and circulate energy, operations can continue while simultaneously lowering electricity costs. Companies that lean into renewable energy will also benefit from the opportunity to show shareholders and customers that they are actively working to reduce their carbon emissions.
2. Sourcing Recycled Materials
Switching from ready-made supplies to recycled fibers in a textile plant can have a significant impact. Waste is reduced, products are manufactured with repurposed materials, and customers can join the cause by purchasing finished items. Among Gen Z shoppers, the up-and-coming consumer demographic, 73% are willing to pay more for sustainable products, per a report from FirstInsight. Looking for ways to recycle materials within a plant can lower manufacturing expenses and enable companies to prepare for upcoming regulations.
3. Promoting Plants and Nutrients
By 2030, the Amazon rainforest is predicted to be downsized to such an extent that it will not provide enough water to support its plant life, as reported by the Green Business Bureau. While companies can certainly fund reforestation campaigns, they can also start their own—right in their backyard. Industrial parks may have spaces where they can plant new trees and house a nursery. New flowers and trees could be distributed among the community. Organizations can also look for an area to carry out composting efforts like the Bocashi method, which yields organic fertilizers that can be used on plants.
Sustainable practices that deliver results, including reduced costs, greater efficiencies, and higher levels of well-being among workers, will be the drivers of tomorrow’s companies. To be prepared for heightened awareness and regulations surrounding ESG, organizations will do well to start today. Looking at what can be done and taking small steps can lead to long-term results and a lasting presence.
Anti-ESG agitators are telling a story that’s both inaccurate and bad for business. And silence won’t deter further attacks — though it certainly could compromise long-term brand value. By Sandra Stewart from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: August 5, 2023
It might be tempting for purpose-driven companies to think of the “woke capitalism” smearas just a warmed-over meme — a bit of foam-flecked trolling sure to dissipate as soon as the cloud of performative outrage clears.
But that’s a dangerous dismissal. Right-wing agitation against corporate commitments to improve environmental, social and governance performance already has had a negative effect. The SEC’s long-anticipated rule on disclosing greenhouse gas emissions may be watered down following Republican complaints about “woke capitalism.” And it’s not just bureaucrats who are backing away: BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, not long ago a vocal proponent of stakeholder capitalism, is in full-fledged retreat.
Many corporations seem inclined to follow Fink’s “Don’t say ESG” strategy. Fortunereported that at a recent gathering of 40 ESG executives, most said they are abandoning the term but “doubling down” on ESG-related initiatives. But it’s hard to see how this can work. Anti-ESGers are not just coming for the words; they’re coming for the substance. And that’s a brand threat companies can’t just wait out.
The anti-woke crowd is advocating ‘backward capitalism’
The impulse to duck and cover is understandable — no one wants to present themselves for a pitchforking. But agitators are telling a story that’s both inaccurate and bad for business; and it’s time to talk about the dark, retrograde vision implicit in their critique.
Take the anti-woke crusaders’ rhetoric and proscriptions to their logical conclusion and you get a business and finance world clinging to the past, sleeping through the present, and insensible to the future. Call it “backward capitalism.” This is an economy in which fossil fuels rule (Backward capitalists are keen to shore up investment in oil, gas and firearms with anti-ESG state laws — even if they cost taxpayers and retirees hundreds of millions of dollars) — with polices that accelerate climate disaster, poison the air and water, and destroy vital ecosystems; where workers are poorly paid and unprotected (child labor already is making a comeback), and crony-ridden governance structures enable and obscure it all.
The anti-woke contingent isn’t just targeting what they perceive to be a few excesses. They dismiss the mainstream view of ESG assessment as a smart risk-mitigation strategy and flat-out reject the idea that businesses should consider anything but short-term profit. They claim that “woke” corporations are imposing environmental and social initiatives on a society that doesn’t want them. But this is the opposite of the truth: “People say business should do more, not less, to address issues like climate change, economic inequality and workforce reskilling,” the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometerfound — echoing years of similar results. Shareholders have driven adoption of ESG reporting, more intentional investments and governance improvements; while employees and customers have spurred action on social and environmental issues.
Stand up for ESG, corporate responsibility and stakeholder capitalism
Ignoring sound business strategy and clear, consistent demands from core stakeholders isn’t typically a pathway to long-term success. And silence won’t deter further attacks — though it certainly could compromise long-term brand value. The rising ranks of workers, entrepreneurs and investors are not going to follow the backward capitalists into the 19th century; they’ll reward brands that can credibly point to a promising future. The best strategy in this contentious moment is not to hide ESG commitments, or even to defend them — but to actively make a positive case for them.
Corporations whose ESG assessments serve primarily to reveal risks and identify potential mitigations should say so, in every context where they mention ESG actions. Those that have made positive social and environmental performance a core aspect of their brand should promote the measurable impact of significant initiatives and make public commitments to continuous improvement. And the activist businesses that have led the B Corp movementand other efforts to use business a force for good should make an affirmative case for fully embracing stakeholder capitalism.
Broadly implemented, a stakeholder approach can produce declining environmental impacts; activate efforts to mitigate climate change and regenerate ecosystems; solidify living wages and hiring practices that draw from and support the whole talent pool; and foster governance that prioritizes transparency, accountability and net-positive impact. That’s a vision for a world most of us want to live in — so, we must stand up for it.
Privatizing space could bring immense benefits to humanity, but is the industry thoughtfully considering the impact of emissions, space debris and employee well-being? By Vartan Badalian via Greenbiz.com • Reposted: August 2, 2023
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave one of his most historic speeches as he catapulted the U.S. into the space race against Russia. His words still hold immense passion and foresight today: “We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won… We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
In the short time humans have focused on space, we have landed humans on the moon, studied the deepest parts of the galaxy and privatized the industry. Right now, you can even pay as low as $257,000 on SpaceX’s website to ship your cargo to space.
At the same time, however, this great desire for space exploration is driving concern over short-term environmental and social impacts.
The problem with space
The sustainability challenges associated with space exploration and other commercial activities fall into three categories:
The emissions produced from launching spaceships;
The space junk that is quickly increasing and floating in Earth’s orbit; and
Potential harm to known or unknown species, along with human/employee rights concerns.
The space industry is truly different when it comes to measuring or assessing issues such as these, according to Paul Holdredge, director of industrials and transport at consultancy BSR.
“The industry is talking about sustainability, but they’re not yet using the same language that you and I might use,” Holdredge told me. “Many of the ESG rating systems, questionnaires, methods of evaluating companies — they frankly don’t apply to the space industry.”
The launch emissions
Consider the process of sending rockets into orbit. “There are a great number of launches forecasted, and the impact of those emissions in the upper atmosphere from various rocket chemistries is still not well understood,” Holdredge said.
While the percentage of fossil fuels burned by the space industry is 1 percent of what is burned by aviation, the fear among experts is that the emissions impacts of launches on the upper atmosphere and ozone layer are still widely unknown, especially as the frequency of launches increases. Also concerning is the fact that emissions have a tendency to linger longer.
Commercial space companies are driving a $500 billion industry right now, growing about 9 percent per year. That puts the sector on a path for about $1 trillion by 2040, according to Holdredge. This growth will bring an increase in spaceship launches, across both the private and government sectors. In 2022, 180 successful rocket launches happened, 44 more than in 2021. Much of this growth is led by Elon Musk’s company SpaceX, which launched a rocket once every six days on average. That doesn’t account for the impact of launches by two other high-profile private space companies, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic.
Emissions reductions could come in the form of less carbon-intensive fuel chemistries — but that will take ongoing research and development. Other solutions that could help decarbonize the industry include a carbon nanotube space elevator that stretches into space, allowing for a more cost efficient and less energy intensive way to travel. Almost like a transit system but into space. But as this article points out, by the time we are able to build a space elevator, it might not be necessary given how quickly commercial space exploration is evolving.
Littering in space is the status quo, for now
A big concern beyond emissions is orbital litter. More than 25,000 pieces of space junk and debris larger than 10 centimeters are floating in Earth’s orbit, according to the World Economic Forum.
This junk includes anything from components left behind during launches to decommissioned satellites to other objects and chunks of material caused by asteroids hitting satellites or satellites hitting each other. Over time, this debris builds and floats in orbit, a concept known as the Kessler Syndrome. The fear is that this growing cloud of stuff could pose a danger to launches over time. Last year, SpaceX had to issue a statement amid concern by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that SpaceX’s Starlink satellites might cause a collision with the International Space Station.
The solution to space waste? Several companies and early-stage startups such as OrbitGuardians and ClearSpace focus on debris retrieval and removal. The work of the Space Sustainability Rating, launched by the World Economic Forum and developed by a group of industry players including the European Space Agency and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is also a source of potential solutions.
The system offers recommendations for how aerospace companies can improve the long-term sustainability and longevity of their launches and satellite design, as well as address debris mitigation. The rating is based on a four-badge system from bronze, silver, gold and platinum.
Other aspects of sustainability
Aside from environmental factors, Holdredge said companies must increasingly consider the human impacts of space exploration. Among the concerns they’ll need to consider: how to take care of employees working in space; how to feed them; howto care for their waste; how to protect them from radiation; and more. These issues fall under the umbrella of human and employee rights.
As we colonize other planets, what rights must we consider for other potential life — known or unknown?
Human-driven climate change is causing the extinction of species on Earth that we have little knowledge about. We should strive to avoid bringing about the same harm to other planets.
The RMA aims to fill a crucial gap by offering brands, agencies and publishers a range of services to accelerate their competitive advantage through a sustainability lens. From Sustainable Brands • Reposted: July 23, 2023
As the media world grapples with its role in the climate crisis, the Responsible Marketing Agency (RMA) launched this week as a new breed of specialist with a mission to help media, digital and marketing clients to realize sustainable growth through responsible and progressive practices.
The RMA’s team of ethically minded media and marketing professionals will help brands, agencies and publishers to accelerate competitive advantage, shaping capabilities and enabling delivery of credible environmental, social and governance (ESG) roadmaps and KPIs in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
As outlined in the World Federation of Advertisers’ (WFA) and Kantar’s Sustainable Marketing 2030 report, 39 percent of client-side marketers say their companies are only now taking their first steps towards sustainable practices, citing a lack of resources, knowledge and skills — while 15 percent haven’t yet started.
To address this, the Responsible Marketing Agency aims to fill a crucial gap by offering flexible service models to cover advisory, enablement, strategy and partnerships through a sustainability lens.
A BRAND GUIDE TO DRIVING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR CHANGE
Download SB’s new, free guide to learn how your company can create an advantage in the marketplace through sustainable and innovative solutions that influence consumer behavior. The guide features case studies, a list of other helpful resources, and five actionable steps that brands and marketing teams can take to drive sustainable behavior change at scale.
The RMA’s experts are passionate about helping clients plan for what’s next, whilst striving to ensure positive societal impact synchronized with business growth. Its inaugural clients include spirits giantDiageo and the WFA, with which it collaborated recently to create a groundbreaking report covering ten ways advertisers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the media supply chain.
As of press time, it’s unclear whether the RMA will focus more on the tactical or the creative side of marketing (or both); but regardless, its launch comes at an inflection point for marketers and advertisers — who are now working to balance market and consumer pressure to deliver impactful, engaging creative that authentically conveys brands’ values; and increasing scrutiny from regulators on the validity of brand claims; as well as increased attention to advertising as an overlooked but addressable carbon hotspot — thanks to significant supply chain emissions during both production and the massive amounts of energy used in their distribution and viewing.
The company says it will offer consultative services to create and shape programs that will drive responsible, sustainable and progressive marketing solutions. The team also helps clients to source and manage third-party relationships to advance progressive marketing programs.
“The Responsible Marketing Agency’s Manifesto states that when brands act responsibly in the media and marketing environment, their success deepens. From brand safety to sustainability, inclusion and ethical marketing practices, the modern marketer’s success hinges on making media and creative fit for progress,” says Hannah Mirza, founder of the RMA and VP of the Bloom Network, who has over 20 years’ experience — including agency, publisher and client-side roles. “However, all too frequently, ESG market solutions are immature and not fit for purpose. So, our team of plug-and-play expert advisors is determined to help in this mission, guiding clients through the ESG maze, navigating new solutions and integrated strategies.
“I love to help clients thrive in uncharted, complex situations — driving opportunities for business growth. As authentic, performance-orientated and trusted independent advisors; we are now offering a full-service capacity — including expertise on supply path optimization in programmatic, through independent analysis, to media decarbonization strategies and DEI programs.”
Investors, customers and regulators have clued in to greenwashing and are stepping up enforcement. By Stephan Liozu from Industry Week • Reposted: July 21, 2023
The era of making fake and false sustainability claims is over. Consumers, NGOs, investors, and regulators are watching closely and are holding businesses accountable. Think twice before making sustainability claims. Do what you say and say what you do. The number of greenwashing lawsuits have exploded for the past five years. A 2020 report by Foley and Lardner reported a doubling of greenwashing lawsuits in the oil and gas industry in just 5 years.
Lawsuits are public and at times very costly. They touch all sectors across all geographies. Let us look at some examples.
Delta Airlines is facing a class action lawsuit over claims that it misrepresented its environmental impact by presenting itself in advertising and promotional activities as being “carbon neutral.”
Nike is being sued by a consumerbecause they “deceive consumers into believing that they are receiving products that are ‘sustainable,’ ‘made with recycled fibers,” and can reduce one’s carbon footprint in a move to “zero carbon and zero waste.
Hyundai Motor UK was fined for claiming that if 10,000 of their hydrogen-powered Nexo cars were on the road, the carbon emission reduction would be the equivalent of planting 60,000 trees
Deutsche Bank is under investigation by regulators in U.S. and Europe because the bank’s asset management arm allegedly sold investment products worth $1 trillion as more environmentally friendly and “sustainable” than they actually were.
Walmart was fined $3 million for making deceptive green claims” about some textile products.
Shell’s 11 board directors were sued for breach of their legal duties under the Companies Act when for adopting and implementing a so-called “Energy Transition Strategy” that fails to align with the Paris Agreement.
Let us start by defining what greenwashing means. It is a practice used by businesses to represent themselves as more sustainable than they truly are. It includes providing misleading information regarding a product’s sustainability or labeling an offer as “green” when it is not.
Greenwashing is not a static concept. It occurs on a spectrum, ranging from wishful thinking to outright deceit. Greenwashing can also be unintentional, as rules and regulations change over time. Finally, it now extends to broader sustainability concepts such as social good and human rights. Government enforcement actions and civil suits alleging greenwashing are on the rise through a myriad of different laws, including securities regulations, consumer protection laws, fraud and misrepresentation statutes and advertising standards. Bottom line, it is serious business!
I propose five steps to avoid greenwashing-related litigation.
1. Review the claims you are making across your business: Conduct an internal inventory of what claims are made and communicated to the market through all the formal and informal channels. That includes written and verbal claims. You might be surprised by the lack of governance and the variability of claims made at the divisional and regional level.
2. Review the exposure related to claims and the quality of the back-up data: Based on this inventory, evaluate the level of risks associated with the most definitive sustainability claims: The above-mentioned lawsuit examples provide a good illustration of how companies might potentially be exposed to greenwashing claims. One of the lessons to be taken from recent legal filings is that companies should avoid sweeping statements about their sustainability efforts. If a company can support concrete statements with concrete data, they are better able to neutralize and defend the greenwashing claims that are now flooding the litigation landscape.
3. Provide training on ESG, green marketing and the associated risks: Part of the sustainability and ESG capability building program should include training on greenwashing and about making sustainability claims in sales and marketing. Teams should be aware of the risks of making unfounded or exaggerated claims. In addition, the same teams should understand the need for solid and concrete data to support claims (including customer data, research data and technical data).
4. Establish a dynamic review of changes in the regulatory landscape and update the governance model: If you pay attention to sustainability reporting requirements, you realize the level of dynamism. Rules and regulations are changing by industry and by country. If you work across many industrial verticals, regulatory changes might happen without your realizing it. Dynamism therefore relates to the speed and complex nature of changes in your regulatory landscape. A review combines the use of the right regulatory benchmark software as well as the involvement of internal experts who scan the landscape. It is really hard to keep up. You might be compliant today but miss an important update in reporting requirements that could impact your sustainability, marketing and communication strategies.
5. If in doubt, bring in the experts. experts include suppliers, consultants, and your internal risk management teams. Do not improvise. It could be costly. Establish regular reviews of your marketing and sales materials by these experts as part of the governance process. Quickly take action if your claims are overstated or non-complaint.
If you are an industrial organization, you do not want to be on the naughty list of greenwashers. That is a given. You must have an internal discussion about the claims you are making to avoid potential risks of litigation. Remember that your customers, investors and regulators might be more sophisticated that you are, and they might reverse-engineer your claims. So, do what you say and say what you do.
Stephan Liozu is founder of Value Innoruption Advisors, a consulting boutique specializing in industrial pricing, XaaS pricing and value-based pricing. He is also the co-founder of Pricing for the Planet, which specializes in pricing for sustainability. Stephan has 30 years of experience in the industrial sector with companies like Owens Corning, Saint-Gobain, Freudenberg and Thales.
By Christopher Faires,Postdoctoral Researcher in Supply Chain Management, Iowa State University and Robert Overstreet, Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management, Iowa State University via The Conversation • Reposted: July 20, 2023
Back-to-school sales are underway, and people across the country will be shopping online to fill up backpacks, lockers and closets – and they’ll be taking advantage of free returns.
In 2022, retail returns added up to more than US$800 billion in lost sales. The transportation, labor, and logistics involved raised retailers’ costs even higher. Product returns also increase pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste in landfills, where many returned products now end up.
So how can retailers fix this problem and still provide quality customer service?
We conductresearch in reverse logistics, focusing primarily on the intersection of retail returns and customer behavior. Here are some insights that can help reduce the abuse of free returns and lower costs without losing quality.
Nudging: In-store vs. shipped returns
Where a product is returned makes a difference. Items returned to the store can be restocked an average of 12 to 16 days faster than those that are mailed. Mailed returns also cost companies more: The difference between the most expensive shipped returns and least expensive in-store returns is $5 to $6 per item. That adds up quickly.
Studies show that customers may be willing to change their return behavior – with a little help.
Behavioral nudges are a technique used in decision-making to steer a person toward a specific behavior. Putting candy at eye-level at the grocery store checkout counter to encourage impulse purchases is an example, or making employee participation in a 401(k) savings program the default option. Another type of nudge involves providing more information.
If you’ve ever shopped online and seen statements like “10 out of 10 customers recommend this product” or “Only 2 items left in stock,” you have experienced the use of information to influence your decision. Nudges emphasizing sustainability may also appeal to customers and have a positive impact on return behavior.
Returning items to a store can avoid extra transportation, shipping and packaging, saving money and avoiding waste and emissions. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
In a recent survey, 94% of merchants said customers were concerned about sustainability, according to a report from Happy Returns, a logistics firm that works with retailers.
However, a much lower percentage of customers actually make sustainable return decisions. That suggests that customers do not fully understand the environmental impact of their return choices – and it offers a way for retailers to help.
Our research found that when customers were given information about the environmental impact of the different return options, they were nearly 17 times more likely to choose an in-store return rather than returning an item by mail. Nudges like this offer a simple and inexpensive way for retailers to alter customer behavior in favor of sustainability.
Picking up returns to speed up the process
Some customers request to return an item but then wait weeks before mailing it. It’s known as customer procrastination, and it also has a cost. The longer these products remain unprocessed, the more value they can lose.
High-priced electronics, such as laptops and tablets, have short product life cycles and lose value quickly, sometimes at a rate of 1% per week. Seasonal items, such as back-to-school supplies or winter coats, become more difficult to resell if retailers get them back on shelves after demand has bottomed out. A returned item’s resale value determines its destination: It can end up back on store shelves, sold to liquidators for pennies on the dollar or sent to a landfill.
Transportation is a large expense for retail returns, for both companies and the planet. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
A home pickup service for time-sensitive returns could reduce delays in a way that is also useful to the customer. A small number of pickup vehicles collecting returns from customers could avoid multiple shipments, reducing total miles traveled and cutting vehicle emissions, while also avoiding the need for each return to be individually packaged.
Our research found that a pickup service could help retailers collect returns faster and reduce product value loss, particularly for high-priced products and products that lose value quickly, such as consumer electronics.
How to change policies without losing customers
While several retailers have stopped offering free returns or changed their return policies over the past year, our research suggests that changes affecting all customers might not be the best choice.
Broad policy changes that affect everyone might involve limiting the number of returns per customer, charging a fee for returns or shortening the window for returns. An alternative is a targeted return policy that applies only to people who abuse the system. For example, retailers can restrict free returns for people who repeatedly buy more items than they intend to keep, knowing they can return the rest.
Offering free returns carries a cost for retailers, but ending return policies can also turn off customers. Photo: Johannes Eisele / AFP via Getty Images
We conducted two studies to explore how customers would view changes to a retailer’s return policies.
In the first study, 460 participants were significantly more likely to speak negatively about the retailer – a fictitious company, in this case – when the retailer’s returns policy change applied to everyone and affected everyone equally.
Our follow-up study asked 100 online customers about their thoughts regarding generalized versus targeted policy changes. When the return policy change targeted customers who abused returns, 44% of the participants expressed positive emotions, and only 13% expressed negative emotions.
Those positive emotions included comments like, “I would feel proud of the company for taking action against people who try to cheat the system.” Such responses indicated that participants understood that cheaters were increasing the price paid by everyone.
But when the return policy change applied to everyone, 64% of the participants expressed negative emotions. Nearly half indicated they would speak negatively about the policy change to family and friends, and 42% said they would shop at another store.
Other ways to help customers make better decisions
Retailers can also change the online shopping experience before the customer makes a purchase to avoid the need for returns.
One way is to obtain detailed customer feedback on returns and use that to provide better product descriptions to customers. Another is to avoid incentivizing the wrong behavior. Well-intentioned free shipping on orders over a set dollar amount could encourage customers to overpurchase and later return products.
Posting videos of items for sale can help buyers spot problems that photos might hide. Virtual fitting rooms that use an avatar of the customer to try on clothes virtually can help customers choose the right size the first time.
There is no doubt that managing retail returns is a difficult task. To make the process more sustainable, retailers need to help customers make choices that limit the need for a return or that minimize the impact of a return on the environment and, of course, the retailer’s bottom line.
But progress is being made in laying the strategic groundwork for embedding sustainability into organizations’ DNA. By Vincent Ryan from CFO • Reposted: July 13, 2023
“Sustainability is probably one of the biggest culture change jobs or change management jobs within a company,” said Levi Strauss’s chief sustainability officer at a National Retail Federation trade show earlier this year. “And if you’re working for a company with a very strong culture, I often find that you can use it to pull your strategy forward,” reported Sourcing Journal.
Building a culture that embraces sustainability can serve as an accelerant, agreed the Conference Board and accounting firm Baker Tilly in a report released on July 10. For example, a prime benefit of embedding sustainability into the culture is ensuring “that sustainability is integrated into the company’s business planning processes and the microdecisions employees make daily,” according to the Conference Board report.
Environmental, social, and governance efforts and sustainability — which the Conference Board defines as “the full range of initiatives designed to promote the long-term welfare of a company, its multiple stakeholders, society at large, and the environment” — are increasingly on the minds of business stakeholders.
In addition to upcoming regulatory mandates, it’s why 494 companies in the S&P 500 disclosed some level of ESG-related information for reporting periods ending in 2021, 30 more than in 2020, according to a recent release from the Center for Audit Quality. And 320 S&P 500 companies disclosed having some ESG metrics audited, up from 282 the year before.
Slow Progress
But reporting is one thing, shifting company culture another.
So far, not many companies that participated in the Conference Board research have reached the goal of deeply embedding sustainability into their companies’ cultures. (The data is from a working group of more than 250 executives from 160 companies that the Conference Board interviewed in multiple sessions over eight months in 2022.)
According to the Conference Board, many companies are laying the essential groundwork before focusing on the cultural aspects.
It may take two to three years before a company begins to make tangible progress on the cultural front.
According to the Conference Board, the “prerequisites” for building a company culture infused with an ethos of sustainability are:
Conducting a strategic analysis to determine the sustainability areas the company should focus on;
determining whether those areas intersect with the company’s business and processes;
setting goals in those key areas and deciding how to provide incentives to achieve them;
establishing appropriate governance structures at the board and management level to achieve those goals; and
developing a core narrative that tells the company’s sustainability story.
“Once a company has those strategic elements in place, it can turn to culture — recognizing that changing culture will take time and resources,” according to the Conference Board report. “Indeed, it may take two to three years before [a] company begins to make tangible progress on the cultural front.”
The CFO’s Role
The CFO would be crucial in at least four of those strategic tasks. But a CFO also has a big responsibility to help the CEO (who the Conference Board says should take the leadership role) build the business case for sustainability and, as part of that, bring in the perspective of investors, business partners, and regulators.
However, CFOs should note that making the case for building a sustainability culture involves “both the positive ROI (return on investment) and the negative ROI (risk of inaction),” according to the Conference Board.
“Explaining the negative consequences of failing to change can be a powerful initial motivator that supports the positive case for how increasing the organization’s focus on sustainability will improve the company’s performance in the marketplace, including the markets for products and services, talent, and capital,” the report said.
Positive ROI shouldn’t be neglected, however. As columnist Steve McNally suggested on CFO.com more than a year ago, “Sustainability initiatives can impact long-term planning and value creation. Seek sustainability initiatives with a positive ROI to benefit the organization’s bottom line.”
Target Middle Management
For a cultural change to take root, it must have widespread employee buy-in. A culture of sustainability requires training employees, instilling in them a sense of personal responsibility and accountability, encouraging cross-functional collaboration, and providing incentives like senior management recognition, compensation, or both to change behaviors.
To do that, the Conference Board recommends focusing on middle management — the people making business unit-level decisions and running day-to-day operations.
“Savvy and well-resourced middle managers build buy-in and participation by translating company vision [into] day-to-day execution.”
Claire Simier is the founder and managing principal of Simier Partners.
Within enterprises today, there is an increasing focus on sustainability, with both internal and external stakeholders demanding sustainable initiatives and culture. Within the context of organizational leadership, sustainability refers to both environmental and social outcomes.
This includes everything from minimizing an organization’s negative impact on the environment to being ecologically responsible and reducing or reversing the effects of pollution and climate change. It also involves supporting the well-being of a company’s employees and stakeholders and implementing programs to reduce economic and social inequality in the various communities in which the business operates.
Given the impact of business on people and on the planet, organizations need leaders with a clear sustainability leadership commitment. These leaders must be able to effectively integrate sustainability into organizational strategy and operations, leveraging a sustainable mindset with the skills and initiative to drive the transformation needed to achieve sustainability and commercial profitability.
Adopting A Sustainable Mindset
To implement meaningful sustainable transformation, leaders must develop a sustainable mindset. Plainly stated, a sustainable leader puts sustainability at the core of the business model and is committed to the belief that the commercial success and performance of a business is directly linked with the social and environmental framework in which it operates. A leader with this mindset recognizes sustainability as a source of competitive advantage and is driven by implementing and incorporating changes with the greatest ecological and social impact—for both the short and long term. (This sometimes means taking actions at some short-term cost to profit margins, or operating in a more logistically complex way to keep sustainability at the forefront, understanding the long-term effects will result in environmental, social and economic profitability.)
Sustainable leaders consistently reflect on sustainable values and are able to respond in the most effective way to social and environmental complexities, sometimes challenging traditional approaches to business if necessary. This means promoting sustainable practices in their organizations and surrounding communities, as well as encouraging others to do the same. They both have the intention and the commitment to truly be purpose-driven, with sustainability and long-term profitability as their guiding principles.
Communicating And Relationship-Building
Conveying the mindset of sustainability relies on effective communication to create a shared vision among individuals and organizations, cultivating an environment for collective progress with similar goals. As with any good communicator, sustainable leaders are clear and direct about their sustainable goals and values, which allows them to inspire others to join in the work ahead. These leaders have a knack for breaking down complex information and data about sustainable strategy into understandable message points that are accessible for a range of different audiences. They are skilled at active listening and storytelling and are able to pivot and adapt to the shifting and growing challenges that the environment is facing.
Moreover, these individuals use their skills to build bridges between sometimes disparate groups. They understand the need to build relationships in order to broaden knowledge on numerous topics with one or two strong pillars of expertise and to convey knowledge across sectors to achieve long-term sustainability goals. They know when it’s time to engage ecosystems with specialties beyond those of their organization and can effectively collaborate with leaders in different roles to integrate action plans and key strategies.
Inspiring Others To Look Ahead
Sustainable leaders understand that they must lead by example—by living an authentic and sustainable lifestyle themselves. To get alignment on sustainability goals, they must establish their own credibility, by their passion and personal values, to inspire others. These leaders generate trust which, in turn, increases others’ willingness to work collaboratively towards shared sustainability goals.
Aligning their words with actions, they demonstrate what leading with authenticity looks like, which allows them to inspire others and shift the culture around them. They aren’t intimidated by doing the hard work of reexamining a company’s core values to ensure that the way it operates reflects their commitment to sustainability.
Moreover, these leaders have the courage to look toward an uncertain future, organizationally, ecologically and globally. The complexity of sustainability initiatives can sometimes be financially daunting to reexamine in the short-term; taking a long-term perspective requires patience and perspicacity, but can help leaders make decisions while carefully considering their far-reaching impact on the organization and its stakeholders. Sustainability leaders must recognize the long-term impacts of both climate change and social changes, and provide resources that have the potential to deliver long-lasting results. Those who can embrace and lead with purpose-driven objectives, as well as accountability and progress check-points to keep them from resorting to outdated ways of operating, will be more successful in the long term.
Bringing Everyone Together
A key component of relationship-building is involving a range of stakeholders in decision-making and taking action about sustainable approaches. Sustainable leaders who implement long-term strategies that cast a wider net of goals can better engage stakeholders. They are keenly aware and able to illustrate how integration of sustainability in businesses is both environmentally and socially responsible. Doing so will, in turn, create a competitive distinction, allowing businesses to retain investor support and attract top talent.
When employees, clients and other stakeholders encounter truly sustainable leadership—evidenced by a stated intention, practice and implementation of initiatives that meaningfully support social and environmental goals—it fosters an unusual and enduring relationship of trust and transparency. As organizations all over the world continue to shift their priorities, seek to reduce their environmental impact, save costs, engage employees, enhance their reputation and comply with regulations, leaders who embody a sustainable mindset will be at a strategic and competitive advantage.
From the Conference Board • Reposted: July 11, 2023
Just 13 percent of executives say sustainability is deeply embedded into their firm’s cultural DNA. Most companies are generally at the early to middle stages of building a sustainability culture, with 49 percent saying it is moderately embedded and 37 percent saying it is slightly embedded.
That is according to a new report by The Conference Board in collaboration with Baker Tilly. The report, Building a Sustainability Culture, is the culmination of a series of Working Group sessions, at which executives from companies in various sectors discussed how to develop and maintain a corporate culture that embraces sustainability.
“To take advantage of the transition to a sustainable economy, companies need to build a sustainability culture that becomes an indelible part of their organization’s character,” said Paul Washington, Executive Director of The Conference Board ESG Center and co-author of the report. “The Building a Sustainability Culture Working Group served as a valuable step in helping leaders equip their workforces with the behaviors, training, resources, and capabilities necessary to meet the unprecedented challenges and opportunities in the areas of corporate governance, sustainability, and citizenship.”
“The findings of our report underscore the need for embedding sustainability into business as usual, in addition to highlighting the distance still left to travel on the journey to a sustainable economy,” said Srinand Yalamanchili, Baker Tilly Director−ESG and sustainability. “Embedding sustainability into culture and business strategy can only be achieved by prioritizing the ‘why’–the positive return on investment and risks of inaction–and taking ownership at both an organizational and individual level.”
The Working Group convened more than 250 executives from 160 companies who met over the span of eight months to focus on how to develop and maintain a culture in which those at the organization think and act with sustainability in mind. The report provides insights into five areas: 1) what is a sustainability culture?; 2) why does it matter?; 3) how do companies build a sustainability culture?; 4) who is responsible?; and 5) how do companies measure success?
Key insights from the report include:
Companies are in the early stages of building sustainability into their culture.
Just 13 percent of executives say sustainability is deeply embedded into their company culture, with 49 percent saying it is moderately embedded and 37 percent saying it is slightly embedded.
Sustainability and cultural change need to be closely linked to the execution of the company’s business strategy.
30 percent of the respondents cite the CEO as best suited to lead the cultural transformation of the organization, followed by 28 percent who cite those responsible for the company’s business strategy and operations.
Both the positive ROI (return on investment) and the negative ROI (risk of inaction) are driving the case for building a sustainability culture.
An initial motivator: Explaining the “Risk of Inaction”—the negative consequences of failing to change.
A constant motivator: Explaining the positive case for how increasing the organization’s focus on sustainability will improve the company’s performance in the marketplace, including the markets for products and services, talent, and capital.
Employees need to feel a sense of ownership when it comes to building a sustainability culture.
75 percent of participants cite a “sense of ownership” as the most important aspect of a sustainability culture, followed by a clear mission, purpose, and values.
Companies may need to move beyond traditional training and compensation to motivate progress.
Only half (50 percent) of participants cite compensation as the most effective way of recognizing and rewarding behavioral change. By contrast, 61 percent cite internal recognition from senior management as the most effective, and 54 percent cite promotions and career opportunities.
About The Conference Board ESG Center
The Conference Board ESG Center serves as a resource, platform, and partner to help Member companies address their priorities in corporate governance, sustainability, and citizenship. ConferenceBoard.org/ESG
Climate change affects everyone but in vastly unequal ways. To address this and drive real, sustainable change, businesses must ensure their sustainability strategies do not exacerbate existing inequalities even further. By Isabel Shopley from Sustainable Brands * Reposted: July 5, 2023
When it comes to genuine sustainable development, businesses still have a blind spot. Collectively, we’re failing to address the systemic risk posed by mounting levels of inequality. This is a humanitarian tragedy and a barrier to long-term, meaningful sustainable change.
Addressing inequality — a business imperative
According to calculations by Credit Suisse, 54 percent of the $127.5 trillion in new wealth created between 2012 and 2022 went to the world’s richest 1 percent. And only 0.7 percent went to the four billion people who make up half the global population, predominantly in the Global South.
As the reality and challenge grows starker and harder to ignore, businesses are waking up to the urgent and systemic risk of inequality. It erodes trust in our political and economic system, unravels the social fabric, fuels civil and political unrest and constrains economic growth. In May, a group of more than 30 major corporations convened under the Business Commission to Tackle Inequality (BCTI) to launch a flagship report asserting that growing inequality is bad for business. The report highlights how rising inequality contributes to:
an increasingly volatile business operating environment;
supply chain insecurity;
the erosion of productivity and innovation;
regulatory and compliance risks; and
reputation risk.
It’s no surprise, then, that corporate performance on inequality-related matters is increasingly recognised as an investor priority because it creates ‘systemic risk’ to their entire portfolio. In response to this, a new framework is being developed for financial disclosures for social and inequality-related risks. The aim is to develop a disclosure framework similar to the TCFD and TNFD frameworks for climate and nature.
Inequality and climate change: 2 sides of the same coin
Aside from the business and economic cost and the vast humanitarian consequences, inequality also undermines the world’s ability to address existential global threats such as climate change. As wealthy countries outsource industries and labor to developing nations, emissions are driven up — as these nations have usually not had their industries regulated through global climate policies or modernised to become more sustainable. Additionally, poverty in developing nations often forces communities to put more pressure on the environment — which can lead to unsustainable agricultural practices, deforestation and overexploitation of natural resources.
So, inequality worsens climate change — which simultaneously fuels inequality. For example, poorer countries lack the resources to recover from extreme weather events brought on by climate change. Similarly, access to resources such as clean water, food and adequate housing is reduced as the climate worsens — further exacerbating insecurity and inequality.
Sustainable solutions must incorporate all voices
It’s clear that not everyone will feel the impacts of climate change equally. Many communities will lose more than others, compounding deep-rooted societal and systemic inequalities. Despite this, it’s these very people who will feel the effects of climate change most acutely that are often left out of the conversation when it comes to business solutions. This dangerous discrepancy can limit perspectives on the climate issue and the success and relevance of proposed solutions. It’s crucial we address the needs of those worst affected by climate change and incorporate their voices and knowledge into decision-making.
Doing so will help futureproof organisational strategies, too. To date, businesses haven’t been particularly proactive at including the perspectives of those groups most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change into their conversations and strategies to address it. But they should be. Consideration of their challenges and insights is not only fair — it can also be the difference between success and failure when it comes to setting short- and long-term sustainability priorities.
Rethinking business impact and rightsholders
The introduction of double materiality is set to change this and is driving a monumental shift in the way businesses consider impacts and rightsholders. Double materiality requires organisations to engage with two types of stakeholder: users of information and affected stakeholders, or ‘rightsholders,’ who are or could be affected by the organisation’s activities. To support this shift, companies must assess the significance of an impact according to its severity and likelihood. This methodology draws on established human rights impact-assessment methodologies with an emphasis on the rightsholder.
This is good news from an inequality perspective. By considering the views of rightsholders, a company is much more likely to take on board the opinions of those who face greater levels of inequality.
The way forward
Climate change affects everyone but in vastly unequal ways. To address this and drive real, sustainable change, businesses must ensure their sustainability strategies do not exacerbate existing inequalities even further. This won’t happen overnight; but it starts with a greater understanding of who your rightsholders and affected stakeholders are and how your business’ contribution towards climate change could impact them.
Double materiality and the BCTI’s new framework for financial disclosures on social and inequality-related risks can help with this. Ultimately, both reflect a broader, positive shift towards addressing and disclosing business impacts on sustainability-related issues — not just the impact of those issues on the business. This holistic approach to impact is key to reducing inequalities and creating meaningful sustainable change.
Image credits: Hannah Busing/Unsplash and Krystal Hardy Allen
By Amy Brown from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 4, 2023
Weight discrimination is a common but under-identified aspect of workplace inequity that is finally getting some attention as organizations look to embrace a wider and more holistic definition of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Addressing the problem isn’t just the right thing to do, experts say — it is a fundamental aspect of social justice.
“Weight discrimination would be any form of offense, harm or oppression at the expense of one’s weight that could be detrimental to an employee’s mental, emotional or physical health,” said Krystal Hardy Allen, founder and CEO of K Allen Consulting and author of “What Goes Unspoken: How School Leaders Address DEI Beyond Race.”
Weight discrimination affects individuals across various industries and occupations. In fact, studies show the majority of employers would prefer not to hire a candidate who ais visibly overweight.
There are significant ramifications to weight discrimination in terms of lower compensation, fewer promotions, denial of health insurance and other aspects of employment. Some employees are required to meet weight requirements in order to qualify for full healthcare coverage, and studies show that overweight people earn less in their lifetimes compared their colleagues.
The mental health consequences of weight discrimination should not be overlooked as they can affect spiritual well-being and the ability to operate while working, Allen said.
“Trauma can occur in a workplace environment from peer to peer or from managers to direct reports and vice versa,” she said. “There’s a very real connection between a feeling of inadequacy or imposter syndrome and the work climate and conditions in which a manager or supervisor, for instance, may not grant you certain opportunities because they don’t feel you are ‘the right face’ for the organization or the brand.”
Weight discrimination should be on the radar of every organization’s DEI strategy as a matter of policy, practice and social justice, she advised. A native of historic Selma, Alabama, Allen grew up in a space where discussion around social justice advocacy and activism was “as normal as learning how to read a map.” For her, weight discrimination fits into that space.
“Any form of harm, injustice or oppression is an injustice,” she said. “And so, any commitment we make to bettering the world for humans is social justice work.”
Krystal Hardy Allen, founder and CEO of K Allen Consulting and author of “What Goes Unspoken: How School Leaders Address DEI Beyond Race.”
EI
While in the U.S., weight discrimination might more commonly affect those who are of a heavier weight, Allen points out that it depends a great deal on context and geography.
“Different countries present different realities for workplace climate and conditions,” she said. “In certain countries, there are body types that tend to be ‘the average’ or what one would consider to be the ‘normative’ body type or weight. It’s not just about being heavier. In some cultural contexts, being too skinny or small can be the target of discrimination, where being more voluptuous is the norm and seen as a sign of being healthy.”
Organizations need to be inclusive of weight discrimination
There are few legal protections specifically targeted at weight discrimination in the U.S. Michigan is the only state with a law making weight a protected category. And discrimination based on weight is banned in only a few cities such as San Francisco, Madison and, most recently, New York City.
Without much legal recourse, the onus is even more so on organizations to ensure this issue is acknowledged and addressed in their DEI strategies, Allen said. The first step is being aware that this type of discrimination exists and that a thoughtful approach is required to solve it.
“It takes a lot of intentionality for organizations, when they make a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, that they are not pigeonholing diversity and inclusion to only be about one identity and one lived experience,” she said.
Creating the conditions for change
Once weight discrimination becomes part of an organization’s awareness, it is a matter of creating the right conditions and climate for change. A helpful approach that Allen recommends is liberatory consciousness, a concept developed by thought leader Barbara J. Love.
The framework uses four elements — awareness, analysis, action and accountability/allyship — to change systems of oppression. And it is a way for an organization to be conscious of all forms of oppression before it applies any action, Allen said.
“It could include being mindful even in the process of planning events — for example, an outdoor physical team-bonding activity — and giving everyone an opportunity to raise concerns confidentially if needed, to be as accommodating and thoughtful as possible to every individual who works there,” she said.
For Allen, the bottom line is that “every organization should be open to an intersectional approach or a diverse way of thinking of identity and lived experiences.”
Along with awareness raising, the right policies and practices are critical, she adds. Capacity building and learning opportunities give people the knowledge of what an equitable policy actually is and bring to the forefront any biases they might be operating under.
“A change in practices and policies is vitally important because it pushes the organization to ask if they are being true to what they believe,” Allen said. “And it certainly gives protection to those who are on the receiving end of harmful acts and treatment because it gives them a sense of psychological and emotional safety, that they are cared for, that they do matter, and that the organization is invested in making sure that they are 100 percent part of this team.”
When organizations undertake an analysis, like auditing their practices, they can better understand the experience of their employees, Allen said. “That can be through a survey, focus groups [or] one-on-one interviews, but you have to ascertain and understand the current state before you move to action and develop a real plan to shift your policies, to shift your language and other unconscious forms of bias around weight discrimination.”
The good news is “that we’re incrementally getting better when it comes to this topic,” she said. “I invite all organizations to have more intentionality around weight discrimination as a way to evolve their DEI approach.”
The launch of the inaugural IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) means fashion companies are required to communicate the sustainability risks and opportunities they face over the short, medium, and long term. By Hannah Abdulla from Just Style • Reposted: July 4, 2023
These two standards lay down in practical detail how clothing and textile companies, and those from other sectors, can report how they are impacted by climate change and the environment and how they are preparing to deal with these issues, which can impact their bottom line. Their goal is to help global investors better assess the long-term value of listed companies, with sustainability reports issued alongside standard financial statements.
Together, these inaugural standards and the ISSB’s capacity-building programme aim to help build trust, confidence and much-needed global comparability to the sustainability disclosure landscape.
What are the requirements for apparel and footwear brands and retailers?
They are also required, where they use certified fibres and materials, for example GRS, BCI, GOTS, Cradle to Cradle to name a few, to disclose the percentage of the weight of the certified fibres against the percentage of raw material sourced.
What should fashion businesses know about first set of IFRS standards:
Global disclosure standards: ISSB Standards allow companies and investors to standardise on a single, global baseline of sustainability disclosures for the capital markets, with any additional jurisdictional requirements being built on top of this global baseline.
International support: The ISSB’s work has received strong support from investors, companies, policy makers, market regulators and others from around the world, including the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the Financial Stability Board, the G20 and the G7 Leaders.
Disclosure of decision-useful, material information: Focusing exclusively on capital markets means that ISSB Standards only require information that is material, proportionate and decision-useful to investors. Moreover, by beginning with climate, companies can phase-in their sustainability disclosures.
Building on and consolidating existing initiatives: IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 are built on and consolidate the Task Force on Climate Related Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations, SASB Standards, CDSB Framework, Integrated Reporting Framework and World Economic Forum metrics to streamline sustainability disclosures. Consolidation will help companies to benefit from their investments they’ve already made in sustainability disclosures while reducing the ‘alphabet soup’ of sustainability disclosures.
Reducing duplicative reporting: The baseline approach provides a way to achieve global comparability for financial markets, and allow jurisdictions to further develop additional requirements if needed to meet public policy or broader stakeholder needs. This approach helps to reduce duplicative reporting for companies subject to multiple jurisdictional requirements.
Helping companies communicate worldwide cost-effectively: ISSB Standards have been designed to provide reliable information to investors; helping companies to communicate how they identify and manage the sustainability-related risks and opportunities they face over the short, medium and longer term.
Connections with financial statements: The information required by the ISSB Standards is designed to be provided alongside financial statements as part of the same reporting package. ISSB Standards have been developed to work with any accounting requirements, but they are built on the concepts underpinning IFRS Accounting Standards, already required for use by more than 140 jurisdictions.
Developed through rigorous consultation: ISSB Standards have been developed using the same inclusive, transparent due process used to develop IFRS Accounting Standards – with more than 1,400 responses to the ISSB’s proposals. All ISSB papers, feedback and technical decision-making are available to view online.
Interoperability with broader sustainability reporting: The ISSB’s partnership with the Global Reporting Initiative enables the ISSB to build its requirements to be interoperable with GRI standards, helping to reduce the disclosure burden for companies using both ISSB and GRI Standards for reporting.
A partnership for capacity building: The ISSB’s responsibilities do not stop at standard setting. At COP27, the ISSB announced plans for a capacity building partnership programme, helping to establish the necessary resources for high quality, consistent reporting across developed and emerging economies.
This is the second article in a two-part series about brands addressing police violence — click here to read part one.
In 2020, corporations donated billions of dollars to under-served and over-policed communities hoping to correct the deep-rooted systemic injustice that breeds police violence and brutality and underscores every aspect of our country.
It didn’t work.
An estimated 1,096 people were shot and killed by U.S. police last year, according to tracking from the Washington Post. That’s the highest number since the paper began keeping track in 2015 — with a disproportionate number involving Black Americans. U.S. police have killed 436 people since the start of 2023.
Creating a cultural renaissance to reduce police violence
When it comes to a polarizing topic like police violence, brands often prefer to weigh in with solutions-based rhetoric, rather than just restating the problem. So, brands are far more interested in suggesting police reform projects and less interested in publicly condemning police violence.
“Positive action and language always has more staying power,” said Diane Primo, CEO of the Purpose Brand agency. “Gun prevention versus gun violence, think about it like that. That creates lasting impact.”
Primo recommends an approach that’s different from many advocates, calling on brands to work toward creating a cultural renaissance in police forces that have been perceived as having a bias against Black communities.
“The police’s relationship with the community has broken down. A few bad apples have tainted the reputation of the dedicated officers who are committed to serving and protecting the community,” Primo said. “Local governments and the citizens they protect rightfully hold them accountable.”
So, how can brands support police-community engagement? “Continuous retraining and re-engagement with the community continues to be paramount,” Primo said. “Therefore brands should consider supporting and funding training and community engagement programs. Brands should ask police leadership what they need to accelerate their own transformation. I don’t think there’s a police force in this country that isn’t grappling with these issues while facing budgetary constraints.”
Police reform requires additional funding for police departments. If pro-reform Americans don’t want this additional funding to come out of local budgets, then they ought to embrace the concept of brands funding police department reform projects, Primo said.
Still, she understands the skepticism from critics wary of increased investments in police departments, the majority of which already boast hefty budgets. Though public safety across the nation has become inextricably linked to malpractice, corruption and the avoidance of accountability, Primo observed that similar issues are also prevalent in other sectors like healthcare, where a solutions-oriented approach has been effective.
“No one has a problem leaning in and saying, ‘Let me figure out ways to help ensure there is equitable health care,’” Primo said. “We know there are plenty of organizations with the ability to tactically provide solutions — what I’m proposing is not radically different.”
To achieve the police reforms advocates seek, it may be necessary to fund, rather than defund, police departments — just not directly. Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) goals, community outreach, de-escalation seminars, and interventions with problematic perspectives are all initiatives that brands can finance for police departments.
“It’s not necessarily pledging money to the police department open-ended. It’s providing restricted funds to accelerate their own internal transformation and engagement with the community,” Primo said. “These funds should be dedicated to rebuilding processes that embrace diversity when hiring, promoting and engaging with the community. This ensures institutional change. This is equivalent to the same internal diversity challenges that corporations and brands face. I would argue that it is brutality of a different sort.”
Cops can take a page out of corporate America’s DEI playbook
Police departments increasingly find themselves tasked with addressing the symptoms of larger societal crises that complicate a police officer’s normal duties. Black-and-white laws cannot accommodate the gray space created by systemic issues like poverty, socioeconomic inequality and community disinvestment.
“The issue of policing is far more complex than many understand, meaning they are really at the center of things that are socially and economically so out of hand. This creates its own set of unique problems,” Primo said. “When you have a community that is not healthy because they can’t get jobs. They don’t have a living wage to support their families. There’s a transportation issue in their community. There’s a healthcare issue in their community. When you’re talking about crossing the ZIP code and having mortality change. That’s going to create a special set of problems.”
These same communities, though, hold the key to unlocking a better model of policing. In communities that harbor strong distrust, fear and skepticism of law enforcement, there lies the potential for a new generation of police officers who are better equipped to navigate the challenges of enforcing the law in an underserved and over-policed community.
Yet in areas where police departments have acted downright antagonistic toward civilians, how are these same departments to recruit from a group of people who have only ever had negative experiences with cops?
Once again, companies have the potential to bridge this gap, Primo said. If brands really want to commit to police reform, they will need to invest in reforming both police personnel, as well as the communities they serve and protect.
“What dollar amount can brands give to support education? What dollar amount can brands give to create a better relationship between the community and the police, and actually fund more positive policing in the community?” Primo asked. “Helping the police figure out how to attract more prospects of color into the police force so they, too, achieve diversity.”
American police officers lost the trust of the people they are supposed to protect. For many young people, trust in police is not eroded — it is non-existent. To win it back, police need to plant the seeds of community engagement. And corporations can help connect these seemingly incompatible camps. This young generation recognizes the power of corporations to enact change and has leveraged brands to act on various topics in the past, including police violence. So, it is not a stretch to suggest activists could again pressure corporations to fund police reform.
“Sticking power really is about how to create positive change — you don’t approach that negatively. And that’s why during the George Floyd protests, people talked positively about, ‘What can I do? What does this mean?’” Primo said. “From a brand perspective, think about the transparency that was created in your own organization with the acceleration of DEI reporting, DEI officers and DEI hiring. The question remains: Will it continue, and what will the impact actually be today and over time?”
For this to work, though, police must commit to reforming their own procedures and perspectives. Brands must commit to putting their money where their mouth is and continue their reform work after the media stops covering it. Activists must acknowledge that abolishing and significantly defunding the police are unrealistic goals — the pursuit of which fails to address, and even exacerbates, the present policing problems.
“We know that whenever there’s a crisis, positive change can come out of it,” Primo said, “There is potential here for positive change, for brands to support the police in very positive ways.”
By Tina Casey from Triple Pundit • Reposted: June 29, 2023
The renewable energy trend crossed partisan boundaries decades ago when red and blue states alike partook in the hydropower boom of the mid-20th century. More recently, some state officials have tried to push the clean power genie back in the bottle by ginning up action against ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing. They have achieved some success, but investors just can’t resist the opportunities offered by new clean technologies.
The anti-ESG movement is mostly hot air
In a new report, the consulting firm Pleiades Strategy tracked 165 bills introduced by Republican lawmakers across 37 states, all aimed at steering government pension fund managers and contracting agencies away from ESG principles. Since the “E” in ESG leans heavily on renewable energy, the main thrust of the legislation is to protect fossil energy stakeholders.
Last week, Pleiades reported that the legislative push has met with significant pushback. “This coordinated legislative effort, commonly referred to as the anti-ESG movement, generated massive backlash from the business community, labor leaders, retirees, and even Republican politicians,” a new report from the firm reads.
Among the 165 bills it identified, only 21 became law. Many were substantively amended to satisfy objections. “Broad escape clauses were added to limit the most draconian prohibitions, which experts have warned legally contravene the basic tenets of fiduciary duty, creating a ‘liability trap,’” the report reads.
Renewable energy is not a new “woke” craze
The Republican-dominated state of South Dakota provides a living example of the extent to which anti-ESG office holders are out of step with business leaders.
Anti-ESG rhetoric is larded with scary talk that warns of a new “woke” threat taking over the country. But there is nothing new about renewable energy in the U.S., and South Dakota is a case in point.
In March, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed an open letter with 18 other Republican governors, warning that the “proliferation of ESG throughout America is a direct threat” that puts “investment decisions in the hands of the woke mob.”
Nevertheless, South Dakota continues to benefit from the 20th-century hydroelectric program. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) notes that 3 of the 4 biggest power plants in South Dakota are hydropower facilities that were built more than 60 years ago.
South Dakota’s agriculture industry has also benefited from longstanding federal policies going back to the Energy Policy Act of 1978. South Dakota is currently the fifth-largest producer of bio-ethanol among the 50 states, all from corn.
In addition, South Dakota grabbed onto the wind energy coattails fashioned by Iowa and Texas legislators in the 1990s and early 2000s. Wind contributed more than 50 percent to South Dakota’s grid in 2021, with hydropower coming in second, according to the EIA. Coal and natural gas each contributed less than a tenth.
More wind power for South Dakota
Activity in the South Dakota solar industry has also begun to stir. But much attention remains focused on wind resources, including tribal lands. “Four of the nation’s top five reservations with the greatest wind-powered electricity generation potential are in South Dakota,” the EIA observes.
Transmission bottlenecks have been a roadblock to wind development in South Dakota, as in other states. Back in 2012, several South Dakota Sioux tribes organized to overcome the obstacles by forming the Oceti Sakowin Power Authority — which holds an estimated 60 gigawatts of potential wind capacity on tribal lands. Pending resolution of the transmission bottleneck, an initial tranche of projects is in the planning stages.
Diversification in the renewable energy field
New clean power technologies are also popping up in South Dakota. Much of that activity is focused on renewable natural gas (RNG), sourced from the state’s copious production of livestock manure.
At the start of the year, the Pennsylvania-based holding company UGI Corp. announced an investment of $150 million for two new RNG clusters in South Dakota, drawing from multiple dairy farms. The two projects add to a third cluster previously announced, with an investment of $70 million.
The Michigan company DTE Vantage also opened a massive RNG facility in South Dakota last summer. Another RNG company with a hand in the state is the global firm Biogest — which claims “RNG is the only renewable energy source that can be carbon-negative, as it significantly reduces methane emissions from agricultural operations.”
ESG or not, new green fuel industries are growing
Sustainable aviation fuel is another new industry establishing a footprint in South Dakota. In 2021, the biofuel firm Gevo began laying plans for an aviation biofuel plant that leverages the state’s corn growers as well as its wind industry.
The Gevo facility broke ground last fall. It includes a green hydrogen system, representing still another potential new industry. With an ample supply of both renewable energy and water, South Dakota has all the basic ingredients for a green hydrogen industry that could lead to follow-on opportunities in green ammonia and e-fuels production.
South Dakota businesses want renewable energy
The Joe Biden administration issued a fact sheet last March that drew attention to supportive relationships between renewable energy producers and other businesses in South Dakota. The White House took note of the meat producer Kingsbury and Associates, which is investing in a new $1.1 billion processing facility in Rapid City. Kingsbury says the new plant will rely on renewable energy, including captured biomethane, to achieve bottom-line results in a competitive environment.
Another indicator comes from the solar developer GenPro Energy Solutions. In May, the company received equity growth funding from the in-state financial firm South Dakota Equity Partners and an established South Dakota investor. The partners launched a new GenPro branch that aims to “open doors to South Dakota and other regional energy providers desiring to develop utility-scale solar projects while embracing South Dakota values,” according to GenPro.
Against this backdrop, last week the Washington Post took notice when an unnamed lobbyist for the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce “scolded the supporters of anti-ESG legislation.”
Speaking of “woke,” all of this should be a wake-up call for anti-ESG candidates. It may be too late to make a course correction in time for the all-important 2024 election cycle, but 2028 is right around the corner.
Now’s the time to take all that effort and integrate it into fun engagement opportunities for both your workforce and your brand’s biggest fans. Here are our seven favorite ideas for doing just that. From Barkley via Sustainablebrands.com • Reposted: June 28, 2023
Say you just received your B Corp certification or published your annual sustainability report — congrats! So much work; such important initiatives, goals and commitments — all of which deserve both applause and audience.
But brace yourself: Your work’s not done — we’re trying to change the world, after all — but the next steps don’t have to be so laborious. Now’s the time to take all that effort and integrate it into fun engagement opportunities for both your workforce and your brand’s biggest fans.
Here are our seven favorite ideas for doing just that, collected through years of promoting and publicizing both our B Corp certification and annual impact reports and those of our clients. Steal wildly; get credit for all you’re doing!
1. Timing is everything.
Pick an intentional launch date for your report that is relevant to your brand. We launched our latest Impact Report on June 1 — coinciding with our annual company-wide volunteer day, Goodworks. We’ve also shared it during an annual creativity festival, where it was received with a theater full of enthusiasm.
Think: What events, occasions or holidays are meaningful to your organization and thematically align with the goals and initiatives you feature in your sustainability report?
2. Win inside to win outside.
Every day, we find new ways to express the importance of operating as a responsible, sustainable, certified B Corporation — but we can’t do it without our employees. That’s why we tap them to star in content we create for presentations, speeches, speaker booths and on social media throughout the year. And we regularly ideate and share tips and tricks to both live and work sustainably: We like to create what we call one-sheeters — a single page of ideas to print on recycled paper (we posted ours in the restrooms!) or display on digital screens — to help employees keep sustainability goals top of mind. Composting at the office increased three-fold with proper signage.
Think: How can you celebrate your wins with your employees to inspire them and share tangible ways they can see themselves in the sustainability work that needs to be done throughout the year? Your people make your progress possible.
3. Lean into your brand’s beloved rituals or icons.
Our company HQ features a retired TWA rocket on the rooftop; so our employees lovingly call themselves ‘rocket people’ — which means yes, astronaut mascots frequently appear at various events throughout the year. This ritual inspired the creative imagery for the reports, social content and print materials we used to announce our B Corp certification to the world. Iconic imagery makes for inspired social sharing from your brand’s true believers.
Think: What rituals, icons or imagery has significant meaning to your employees and brand identity; and how can you use it within both your report (next year) and how you promote it?
4. Bring on the (sustainable) swag.
We think through our impact on our communities through every action we take — from supporting our client’s production needs down to our preferred caterers. And we love opportunities to support local, women-owned and minority-owned businesses. So, when it came time to celebrate our B Corp certification, we sent our employees a box of goodies and Barkley-branded merch to celebrate, sourced from diverse suppliers and fellow B Corp brands: confetti seeds; a reusable tote with the iconic astronaut photo; a copy of our book, The Purpose Advantage; and a bento box for to-go lunches on office days. Thematically on point; extra points for usability.
Think: Can you include your employees on what type of swag they’d be proud to use, wear or celebrate — or even give them a chance to opt out to save waste if they aren’t interested? Then, can you intentionally source these items from diverse, local, minority-owned or B Corp-certified vendors?
5. Share the love and add a hashtag.
At Barkley, our mission is to #addgood to everything we do — a mantra we’ve used so much over the years, we created a hashtag our partners know to use any time client work, a volunteer effort, shareable ideas and especially our sustainability work is mentioned on social media. One of our favorite ways #addgood comes to life? A content series we call “People of Barkley” — a showcase of the diverse perspectives and creative talent who animate our brand. Encourage your employees to use it when speaking about their contributions, and pulling content to include in next year’s report will be easier, too.
Think: How can you encourage your employees to share and promote the good work your brand is doing in a way that feels authentic to both them and your brand?
6. Turn metrics into gratitude + awareness opportunities.
Every year, we feature in our report external partners, clients, vendors, suppliers and other stakeholders that help us achieve our sustainability goals — hopefully, you do, too! We also reach out to these stakeholders post-launch to personally thank them for helping us reach our goals and sharing future plans and expectations for our ongoing partnerships.
Think: How can you mine your ESG metrics and trace them back to individuals and organizations critical to your progress? Then, what type of personalized gesture can you create to share your gratitude and encourage continued collaboration?
7. Start now to build next year’s report.
Once our report is out in the world, we debrief to level-set and re-align on the work ahead. This allows us to analyze what worked, what was hard and where we can improve for next year. A huge discovery for us was realizing that collecting stories, testimonials, case studies, photographs and video year-round makes the following year’s report compilation that much easier — and adds flair and personality to the report itself.
Think: Can you hire or assign an employee resource group to capture and cover events and opportunities that can not only feed next year’s report in terms of stories and content, but can also add value, recognition and encouragement to employees doing this work throughout the year? Are there existing communication channels inside or outside of your organization — like your company’s intranet or LinkedIn — from which you can mine stories for your report year-round?
From employees and external stakeholders to your brand’s biggest fans, the people who believe in your brand are your most valuable resource and a competitive advantage for your business. Intentionally investing in ways to encourage their belief and involvement in your sustainability strategy is key to maximizing momentum toward your goals — and that’s a win-win for everyone.
Sponsored Content / This article is sponsored by Barkley. This article, produced in cooperation with the Sustainable Brands editorial team, has been paid for by one of Sustainable Brands sponsors.
By Roya Sabri from Triple Pundit • Reposted: June 23, 2023
For the companies developing consumer products, making the needed progress can seem unattainable in an age when plastic has become a reliable and affordable go-to for packaging. It might even feel like a distraction from other priorities. So, how can consumer goods companies contribute to global goals around reducing plastic waste and pollution?
While many consumer goods companies have made ambitious targets for 2025 and beyond, success on some fronts has proven to be elusive. Progress toward the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, signed by over 500 organizations, for example, has been a mixed bag. In 2022, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation reported that the use of recycled materials has been improving, but signatories are still using too much virgin plastic and not enough reusable plastic. The overall use of virgin plastic was reported as comparable to 2018 levels when the Commitment was first signed.
Meanwhile, regulatory pressure and consumer demand for change have only increased. More than 60 countries have enacted some form of ban or levy on plastic packaging, according to the U.N. Principles for Responsible Investment initiative. When it comes to purchasing patterns, consumers are also conscious of the packaging they buy. In a 28-country Ipsos survey, 82 percent of respondents said they prefer buying products that have as little plastic packaging as possible.
Research shows the need is urgent: If we don’t reduce waste production, we will more than exceed the boundaries of our planet by 2060. Consumer industries have a major part to play. They represent $35.2 trillion in the global economy, and reducing plastic waste is a crucial focus.
Escaping “pilot purgatory” to reduce plastic waste
Given this business case, Accenture and SAP have built expertise in the circular economy, helping clients reduce waste in product lifecycles. Drawing on this experience, extensive market research and testing, the companies have published a new report, “The Future of Packaging in the Circular Economy: 5 Actions for Long-Term Success,” that gives consumer goods companies insights and tools to build momentum for packaging circularity and achieve long-term success, escaping what the authors call “pilot purgatory.”
Research from the report shows that 66 percent of pledges to go greener on plastic have failed due to companies breaking their own commitments and targets.
Accenture and SAP reviewed corporate communications on 50 circular pilot programs between 2017 and 2023. Of those, only two programs followed up with impact measurement and consistent progress updates. “In short, the overwhelming majority of pilots have not shown progress beyond the initial announcement, with no acknowledgement of cancelled pilots or shared learnings from those projects,” the report reads.
In contrast to the culture of launching pilots that lack the infrastructure to support them to scale, the following five actions help nurture a circular system where initiatives can thrive.
Embrace authenticity and transparency
In business, it’s tough to know how far transparency should go. The important thing is to build a system of data collection and disclosure that expresses credibility to customers and builds trust among stakeholders. This starts with a comprehensive baseline of product packaging and continues by building out tools like digital twins — or virtual models that, in this case, would illustrate what’s happening in the supply chain, as well as how initiatives are progressing.
The public-private Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE) established the Circular Economy Indicators Coalition to make disclosure of this information more feasible. By bringing standardization to circular economy metrics, the coalition aims to catalyze more robust and meaningful disclosures that push collective understanding and action forward.
Re-imagine packaging R&D
In calling for innovation, Accenture and SAP recommend first getting down to the basics. A few simple questions about the purpose of the packaging and the product help prune unnecessary elements that would get in the way of circularity.
Then comes design. Changing up materials doesn’t necessarily happen automatically, and it must be done with care. Not every material is truly scalable in an environmentally-friendly and business-sensitive way throughout a package’s lifecycle. Advanced technologies like machine learning can speed up the prototyping and testing process so that it’s easier to find solutions that achieve circular goals while also meeting business needs.
The Consumer Goods Forum, an industry group representing more than 400 companies globally, released its Golden Design Rules for packaging in 2021 to provide further guidance to the sector. The rules range from choosing the proper color to ensure plastic bottles are more easily recyclable, to reducing the use of plastic overwrap, to removing hard-to-recycle plastic resins from packaging. Though the standards are voluntary, companies within the Forum’s Coalition of Action on Plastic Waste have committed to align with them in their packaging design.
Still, packaging that’s more sustainable isn’t necessarily simpler. With “smart” elements like QR codes and digital tags that enable two-way communication, packaging can enhance engagement with customers. And if a circular design sacrifices the glam of shiny and vibrant single-use plastic, tech solutions like augmented reality experiences can expand marketing into new (cost-saving) directions.
Invest in infrastructure and communities
The beauty and complexity of circular economy goals is that they don’t end with production. A circular company has the responsibility to ensure its packaging is properly collected and repurposed at end-of-life. If this involves recycling, for example, there are various stakeholders and community features to engage and support.
The report calls out Danone as one positive example of a multinational company stepping beyond its walls to fulfill circular packaging aspirations. For example, the company helped establish the largest and most advanced PET plastic recycling facility in Indonesia and has invested significantly in recycling technology and infrastructure in North America. These initiatives have been in supplement to the company’s basic efforts at changing its packaging for the better. Today, almost three-quarters of Danone’s plastic packaging is reusable, recyclable or compostable, compared with a baseline of almost two-thirds in 2018.
Grow, reuse and explore circular business models
Here’s another roadblock to overcome. What if a company puts time, effort and money into a circular solution, but consumers don’t buy it? Or maybe the market jumps in an unexpected direction. We’ve already noted the solid and intensifying business case to pursuing circularity, but aligning properly (and securely) with these trends takes intentional efforts.
Accenture and SAP outline steps including user research, testing and learning instead of putting all your eggs in one pilot. Collaborating with other actors along the value chain also allays risks.
Further, reusable packaging offers a uniquely secure opportunity not only for resource efficiency, but also for brand loyalty. As widely reported across news outlets including Time Magazine, success in reuse requires demonstrating proper customer buy-in and low environmental impact over the course of the packaging’s lifecycle.
Collaborate to scale
It’s no accident that we find collaboration at the end of the report. Breaking down silos between companies and organizations is a big ask. Yet the authors write, “Collaboration is one of the critical and necessary components for circular packaging to gain traction.” Consumer goods companies should seek to collaborate with each other before getting to the stage of competition in the market, SAP and Accenture recommend.
Some opportunities include creating “communities of practice” that prioritize forthright communication, where companies can openly share triumphs and challenges in the march toward circularity. It’s through collaboration that companies might also find reusable packaging a more feasible option: They can work together to coordinate investments and establish the necessary relationships and infrastructure.
The bottom line
The most important element to each of these recommendations is work. That’s why Accenture and SAP called them “actions.” They aren’t targets to be made and set aside after a few months. Actually working through the outlined steps takes dedication.
The innovation and honesty required might not be comfortable, but working together can help make the path smoother. “Given the scale of the challenge, time is too short for each consumer goods company to learn the same lessons individually,” the authors write. In the end, finding solutions to wasteful plastic packaging will make companies more compliant to regulations and appealing to customers. Consumer goods companies are uniquely positioned to lead the way.
This article series is sponsored by SAP and Accenture and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.
Environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) has become a transformative force in the corporate landscape. Embracing ESG principles allows companies to drive sustainable growth while making a positive impact on society. With a well-defined strategy in place, companies can also enhance their reputation, attract top talent and build enduring relationships with key stakeholders.
Moreover, as millennials and Gen Z gain purchasing power, the demand for companies to prioritize ESG is growing. Notably, 75% of millennials reported a willingness to change their buying habits for eco-friendly products, and the majority of Gen Z is willing to spend 10% more on sustainable brands. Additionally, one-third of millennials prioritize investment products considering ESG factors, along with 19% of Gen Z, 16% of Gen X and 2% of baby boomers.
Integrating ESG into business strategies goes beyond buzzwords—it demands accountability and concrete actions aligned with environmental stewardship, social responsibility and ethical governance. As an experienced strategic communications agency, we have successfully guided numerous businesses through effective ESG initiatives. Read on to discover five strategies for seamlessly incorporating ESG initiatives into your brand and showcasing your unwavering commitment to responsible business practices.
1. Understand Your Brand Values
Before implementing any ESG initiatives, it’s important to understand your brand values and how they align with ESG principles. For example, if your brand is focused on sustainability, then incorporating environmentally friendly initiatives makes sense. If your brand is focused on social justice, initiatives promoting diversity, equity and inclusion would be more fitting.
2. Prioritize Initiatives That Align With Your Business
ESG initiatives should be integrated into your overall business strategy and should not be seen as a separate entity. Identify the areas where your business has the most impact and prioritize initiatives that will have the biggest impact in those areas. For example, if you’re a clothing company, reducing your carbon footprint by using sustainable materials or implementing a recycling program would make sense.
3. Be Transparent And Authentic
Consumers can see through inauthentic attempts at ESG initiatives, so it’s important to be transparent about your goals and progress. Communicate openly about the initiatives you’re implementing and the progress you’re making toward your goals. Be honest about areas where you may be struggling or where there’s room for improvement.
4. Engage With Stakeholders
ESG initiatives require buy-in from all stakeholders, including employees, investors and customers. Engage with these groups to get their feedback and input on your initiatives. This will not only help you identify areas where you can improve but will also create a sense of ownership and accountability among stakeholders.
5. Measure And Report On Your Progress
ESG initiatives require ongoing monitoring and measurement to ensure that they’re having the intended impact. Set measurable goals and regularly report on your progress toward those goals. This will not only help you identify areas where you can improve but will also demonstrate your commitment to ESG principles to stakeholders.
How To Develop Your ESG Communications
Here are some ways you can effectively communicate your company’s comprehensive commitment to sustainability, responsible governance and social progress, enhancing your reputation and building trust among stakeholders:
• Emphasizing innovation: Highlight your company’s investment in research and development for sustainable solutions, demonstrating a forward-thinking approach.
• Supply chain transparency: Communicate your suppliers’ social and environmental practices to showcase your commitment to ethical sourcing and responsible partnerships.
• Promoting a sustainable product life cycle: Showcase your efforts to minimize waste, optimize resource efficiency and promote circular economy principles throughout the entire product life cycle.
• Engaging with communities: Amplify your community engagement initiatives, including philanthropy, volunteer programs and partnerships that contribute to social and environmental causes.
• Stakeholder collaboration: Communicate your active engagement with stakeholders. Solicit their feedback and incorporate their perspectives to drive positive change.
The Bottom Line
Remember, ESG isn’t a one-time initiative—it’s an ongoing commitment to embedding these values in your business strategy and operations. By prioritizing ESG initiatives that align with your brand values, engaging with stakeholders, and measuring and reporting on your progress, you can make ESG fit your brand and demonstrate your commitment to creating positive change.
Leeza L. Hoyt, APR, is the president of The Hoyt Organization, Inc., a public relations firm based in the greater Los Angeles area.
A first-of-its-kind diagnostic tool is helping companies ensure their purpose supports outcomes including talent attraction and retention, employee engagement, and performance. From Carol Cone via Sustainablebrands.com • Reposted: June 17, 2023
If you spend any time on social media, you’ve probably seen the memes about companies offering their burned-out workers a pizza party. The employees feign joy — as if a few free slices and sodas will make up for long hours, muddled communication, disengaged leadership or having to commute to the office. What employees really want is good compensation; and then, work-life balance. And they also want to feel a sense of purpose at work — whether that’s a personal purpose or being able to say they work for a company that makes the world a better place.
This should come as no surprise to any C-suite or HR leader attuned to the latest research on corporate purpose. Only 7 percent ofFortune500 CEOs today believe their companies should “mainly focus on making profits and not be distracted by social goals.” Over the past several years, scores of companies have invested heavily in developing and activating a purpose beyond profits. We’ve proudly helped companies ranging from Campbell Soup Company to Quest Diagnostics do just that. Any wise investment needs to be measured and adjusted over time, though; and until recently, there has been no quantifiable way to measure the impact of purpose on a company’s workforce.
Meet EPiQ, or Employee Purpose iQ. We developed this diagnostic tool with our partners at The Harris Poll after releasing our Purpose Under Pressure report last year. From that research, we learned that 90 percent of employees say purpose helps them feel like they’re in the right place during turbulent times; and 84 percent said they will only work at a purpose-driven company. Purpose Under Pressure also showed that purpose is often implemented inconsistently and not deployed in key functional areas. EPiQ helps organizations identify such gaps, while illuminating areas of strength to build upon to ultimately ensure purpose produces returns across the enterprise.
To lay the groundwork for EPiQ — and set a foundation for companies to benchmark against — the Harris Poll team conducted The Harris Poll/Cone Employee Purpose Engagement Survey. We learned that 68 percent of US employees believe it is not enough for companies to just provide quality products and services; they have a responsibility to have a positive impact on society — including employees, customers, communities and the environment. Yet, of the 1,500 respondents, just half believe their employers care about anything more than making a profit.
This research highlights gaps in how employees experience their employers’ purpose initiatives, which should send a strong signal to business leaders that they are losing considerable value by not fully optimizing their purpose. For example, companies whose employees feel “a sense of purpose at work and believe their leaders set clear direction” outperform the stock market by nearly 7 percent, according to Great Place to Work. Further, purpose-driven companies see retention rates 40 percent higher than other companies, according to Deloitte.
EPiQ’s outputs include a detailed dashboard displaying where purpose is performing or falling short. Based on each company’s own segmentation, the dashboard can examine purpose by factors such as role, generation, hybrid/remote status, geography and more. Normative data shows companies how they perform compared to competitors or peers, as well as other industries. All this is delivered in a brief, C-suite-ready presentation, supplemented by high-level recommendations based on our team’s decades of experience in developing, activating and evolving purpose, ESG and employee initiatives.
Ultimately, EPiQ helps companies understand the impact of their investments in purpose related to leadership trust, talent attraction and retention, belonging, performance and influence on decision-making. With this critical baseline, HR and people leaders can understand opportunities for deeper education and behavior change. Wisely evolving purpose to meet the needs of employees can make employees happier, more engaged, and boost performance — all without a single slice of pizza.
By Mary Mazzoni from Triple Pundit • Reposted: June 8, 2023
Pride Month is meant to be a joyful celebration of the LGBTQ community and a rallying cry for justice and inclusion. But this year’s celebrations are dampened by a disturbing rise in anti-LGBTQ legislation and rhetoric across the United States. Considering a third of our lives are spent at work, employers have a significant role to play in creating safe and inclusive spaces for people in the community who feel increasingly under attack.
The explosion of anti-LGBTQ legislation runs counter to public opinion
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is tracking 491 pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation making their way through statehouses across the country. The scope of these bills include weakening anti-discrimination laws, censoring discussion of LGBTQ issues and history in schools, restricting gender-affirming care for transgender people, and banning LGBTQ gatherings like drag shows.
As state lawmakers look to push this type of discriminatory legislation through, many have adopted increasingly extreme anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Groups of their fans and followers have done the same, in person and online, including a coordinated campaign against brands promoting inclusion during Pride Month.
The surge in discriminatory legislation and rhetoric could lead people to believe the public’s attitudes have shifted when it comes to welcoming and including people in the community. But data indicates that’s far from true.
Recent polling from GLAAD and the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that support for equal rights is increasing, not decreasing. In the GLAAD survey, 91 percent of non-LGBTQ Americans agreed that LGBTQ people “should have the freedom to live their life and not be discriminated against,” and 84 percent support equal rights for the community. Similarly, 8 in 10 respondents to the PRRI survey are in favor of laws that shield people in the community from discrimination.
(Source: GLAAD)
The discriminatory climate is taking a toll on LGBTQ people at work
A study released last week by Indeed sheds light on how discriminatory policies and rhetoric are affecting LGBTQ people in the workplace. The majority of LGBTQ respondents (60 percent) report experiencing discrimination at work, ranging from being passed over for promotions and raises to outright harassment and violence. More than a quarter of LGBTQ people, including over 30 percent of trans people, say they are not out at work.
“This climate of fear and intimidation comes on the heels of hard-earned fights for employers to do better by LGTBQ+ communities,” journalist S. Mitra Kalita, CEO of URL Media, wrote on Charter this week. “That’s all at risk as literally hundreds of bills seek to obliterate the existence of our colleagues.”
She spoke with three LGBTQ and workplace experts about what brands can do to better support their employees. The results are insightful and well worth a read in full. “Work continues to be a major source of stress for LGBTQ+ professionals, especially with rising anti-LGBTQ+ legislation which has a direct impact on access to economic opportunity,” Andrew McCaskill, who works on LinkedIn’s communications team and authors The Black Guy in Marketing newsletter, told Kalita.
So, what are other leaders saying about what brands can do to support employees better?
How brands can step up to better support LGBTQ employees
Offer LGBTQ-specific benefits. Over half of LGBTQ employees want to see benefits that are specific to their community, but less than a quarter report having any in their current workplace, according to Indeed’s survey. Benefits employees are seeking include health insurance that covers LGBTQ-friendly providers and gender-affirming care, benefits that extend to domestic partners rather than solely spouses, mental health benefits, and paid caregiver leave.
In many cases, these are benefits employers already offer, but they haven’t modified them to be inclusive of all their employees. In its guidance for LGBTQ inclusion in the workplace, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) — which represents 325,000 HR professionals across 165 countries — recommends employers revisit their policies and practices to ensure they are equally available to all employees.
Check your culture. Creating inclusive benefits packages and corporate policies is an important baseline, but “having a written policy isn’t enough,” SHRM’s guide reminds employers. “Even if an employee is in a workplace with internal policies that protect LGBTQ+ workers, a company’s culture may inhibit employees from bringing their whole selves to work.”
LGBTQ-specific diversity training — another benefit highlighted by employees in Indeed’s survey — is a solid first step for educating your teams about how to avoid, spot, and stamp out microaggressions and discrimination against their colleagues. So is setting clear, values-based expectations for employees, such as respecting others. Even dress codes can set the tone for how people show up at work. “Make sure they are neutral without gender stereotypes,” SHRM recommends. “General Motors gained national attention when CEO Mary Barra replaced a 10-page dress code with two words: Dress appropriately.”
Lift up diverse leaders. “If employees are hearing from the same types of individuals, they’re seeing that a clear mark of success [to their employer] isn’t someone who looks or sounds like them,” Sabrina Kent of the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce told the Story Exchange.
When recruiting, make it clear that your company is an equal opportunity employer, and ensure you interview and consider diverse candidates rather than quickly deciding on someone who looks and lives like you. Do the same when choosing who will head up projects, present during meetings and lead teams. The more you lift up leaders from all backgrounds, including LGBTQ people and those from other historically marginalized communities, the more your employees get the message that you want every one of them to succeed.
Use your marketing to raise awareness. Your company’s voice matters in the fight for inclusion. In its recommendations for corporate allies, GLAAD calls on companies to use their marketing materials and social media to speak out against discriminatory legislation and support “Pride 365,” running inclusive campaigns throughout the year rather than solely during Pride Month. Even better, engage LGBTQ-owned media companies to help you get the message out.
Flex your political muscles. “Extend support to the political fight,” GLAAD challenges business leaders. “True corporate allies do not donate to candidates or elected officials who introduce, vote yes, or otherwise support anti-LGBTQ legislation or block passage of pro-LGBTQ legislation like the Equality Act.”
Beyond revisiting your political donations, GLAAD called out Apple as an example of how companies can step into the role of political ally. “Amidst an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation in 2022, Apple utilized multiple offices to take action. Apple lobbied against these harmful bills, filled court briefs in cases involving LGBTQ people, and encouraged other large companies to take public stands against this legislation,” GLAAD observed.
The bottom line
LGBTQ employees work day in and day out to make their companies successful, and with discrimination on the rise, employers have a responsibility to them.
Failing to live up to that responsibility tells employees — whether they’re part of the community or not — that your company ignores or tacitly approves of an increasingly hostile climate that threatens people’s well-being. Decision-makers at any company that claims to lead with values and purpose certainly wouldn’t want to send that message. And with leaders creating clear blueprints for inclusion, there’s really no excuse for companies not to do better.
Two-thirds of US adults surveyed want companies to continue environmental, social, governance action; more than half have positive view of the term. From Sustainable Brands • Reposted: May 24, 2023
New research released today from the Allison+Partners/Headstand Purpose Center of Excellence reveals more than half of US adults surveyed (56 percent) have positive views of the term “ESG” (environmental, social, governance); and nearly two-thirds (65 percent) want companies to continue their environmental, social and governance action. This mandate rings especially true for US Millennials, among whom 71 percent have positive viewpoints on ESG and 75 percent want companies to continue making progress.
Reconciling ESG: Rhetoric vs. Reality examines US sentiment toward ESG as the term and its application continue to come under fire. The study confirms that US consumers overwhelmingly want companies to continue working to create positive impacts around environmental, social and governance topics; and found that companies that authentically do so can expect myriad business and brand benefits.
Allison+Partners surveyed 1,001 US consumers aged 18 or older in April 2023. Further proving the consumer mandate, when respondents were asked if companies should continue progress against environmental, social and governance initiatives — and whether they wanted to hear what companies were doing in these areas — they were resolved in their response: An overwhelming majority of those surveyed want companies to communicate their action related to the environment (86 percent), society (85 percent) and governance (87 percent).
“In the many years I have been leading research and reporting on environmental, social and governance topics, the mandate from US stakeholders to address these areas has only grown,” says Whitney Dailey, EVP and co-lead of the Purpose Center of Excellence at Allison+Partners, who unveiled the research on Monday at Sustainable Brands®‘ Brand-Led Culture Change event. “While some may want to continue the debate to advance certain agendas, it’s clear that consumers want to continue seeing authentic action to protect their planet and communities.”
An Reconciling ESG: Rhetoric vs. Reality has emerged in response to what political conservatives perceive as anti-business and anti-growth ideas, as well as ‘woke’ policies and ideas that they find troubling from a societal standpoint; but the Biden Administration is taking a longer-term view in these areas and has vetoed proposed ‘anti-ESG’ legislation.
“The term ‘ESG’ has been intentionally conflated in certain conversations with all brand action related to minimizing negative impacts on society and the planet,” said Aaron Pickering, EVP and co-lead of the Purpose Center of Excellence at Headstand. “ESG has traditionally been used as a framework for investors to understand the financial risks associated with action or inaction on material business issues. The term was never intended to be a catch-all for corporate action and therefore, we need to do a better job as communicators.”
Despite respondents’ positive sentiment and conviction around ESG, the research points to continued confusion around the use and definition itself (which is also true of critics): Only 13 percent of respondents felt “extremely confident” they could define the term. Yet, confusing acronyms aside — when asked the specific issues they wanted to address, they prioritized the following top three issues: clean and safe drinking water (61 percent), reducing pollution/creating clean air (54 percent) and addressing human rights (52 percent).
Among US adults who believe companies should address these issues, when asked how important they think it is for companies to act in certain areas, they were near-unanimous:
99 percent — Clean and safe drinking water
98 percent — Reducing pollution/creating clean air
98 percent — Supporting communities
98 percent — Human rights
98 percent — Running an ethical company
97 percent — Anti-corruption
Further, many respondents believe companies should be steadfast in their commitments, even in the face of potential backlash (which companies including Bud Light and Disney are currently experiencing): More than half (53 percent) of US adults said they would stop buying from a brand if it stopped ESG action due to political pressure.
Clear and compelling communications even more critical in the face of greenwashing
The public mandate for companies to continue addressing these areas aligns with consumer considerations and shopping behaviors, as well. Around environment, 58 percent of US adults say they are more concerned about company’s environmental impact than they were in the past; and only a quarter (24 percent) said they do not actively look for information on a company’s sustainability initiatives when making a purchase.
Companies should be aware that this growing segment of US consumers is also increasingly skeptical of unsubstantiated environmental claims. In fact, only a quarter (25 percent) of respondents say they have not spotted greenwashing in their everyday shopping; and even more US consumers are likely to say the influx of greenwashing has made them question environmental claims (56 percent).
“The rise in greenwashing and confusion around terms and messages means thatcompanies must be more specific and exacting in their communications,” Pickering says. “Companies should tailor messages about their environmental and social impact efforts to individual stakeholder audiences — and when possible, talk about what has been changed in the short term as opposed to your plans far into the future.”
Understanding brand benefits and pitfalls
Strong ESG communications continue to be paramount — and the benefits (and pitfalls of not pursuing it) are clear: Two-thirds (66 percent) of US consumers feel better about companies that are addressing social and environmental issues; while on the flipside, nearly half (46 percent) said if they learned of a company addressing sustainability topics but not talking about it publicly, they would question that company’s authenticity.
“Smart communications around how environmental, social and governance topics help enhance the bottom line while benefiting stakeholders is how companies will ultimately win the anti-ESG debate,” Dailey asserts. “There is absolute certainty about growing stakeholder demands and the fact companies must continue protecting, rather than harming, people and the planet. We recommend avoiding distractions and staying laser-focused on the critical role companies play in building a sustainable future.”
There is a new acronym in town and it’s HoT. From Planet Tracker • Reposted: April 17, 2023
If you are looking for a job where compensation can be linked to your impact, consider becoming Head of Traceability(HoT), especially at a nature-dependent company.
Here is why:
Under pressure from regulators1,investors2 and consumers, nature-dependent companies in particular need to substantiate their sustainable claims. This cannot be achieved without traceability.
Traceability is cross-functional, covering sustainability, IT, product development, sourcing, legal, logistics and marketing: it needs a dedicated person to oversee all of these. Instead, traceability is often the remit of sustainability departments, who have limited leverage over sourcing and logistics staff, raising the risk of traceability-washing (when companies’ claims on traceability cannot adequately be traced to real initiatives). Or it is siloed in sourcing, logistics, or IT departments, potentially without considering sustainability issues.
Traceability allows companies to save costs and reduce risks (through increased efficiencies, reduced waste and recalls mostly): in textiles, we calculated that it would increase net profits by 3-7%. In seafood, we estimated that the whole industry’s meagre profits could rise by 60% if it became fully traceable.
This makes HoT an attractive job where performance means a simultaneously positive impact on the company’s bottom line and a reduced negative impact on nature is feasible. Crucially, that performance can be measured and traced. It should therefore form part of the remuneration package of any HoT. Indexing remuneration on sustainability performance is badly needed, but proposals to do so typically fall short.
Being in charge of traceability is likely to be a challenging job: senior managers typically expect traceability to generate a variety of different outcomes – see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Companies’ top goals for traceability initiatives (Source: Bain, 2021)
Planet Tracker did not find enough HoT jobs
We have searched for all companies which have appointed a Head of Traceability (or equivalent title) on LinkedIn and performed a simple search on Google too. Our results are incomplete since “only” 25-30% of the global workforce is on LinkedIn,3, 4 the search was made in English only, and we might have omitted synonyms/equivalent titles. Still, we believe the results are noteworthy.
We found only 18 companies with a Head of Traceability – excluding companies whose business is to sell traceability solutions and government agencies. By comparison, there are at least 10,000 Heads of Sustainability on LinkedIn.5
One of the possible reasons why HoTs are a rare species could be that it exposes management to more searching questions from financial institutions. Access to a HoT, who has extensive reach and understanding of a company’s operations, could provide investors and lenders with significant insights. They should be very much in demand by the financial markets. Presently, the information asymmetry between management teams and their stakeholders is skewed in favour of the former.6 Please see ‘Implementing Traceability; Seeing Through Excuses’.
Companies with a HoT are engaged in a variety of sectors exposed to recognisable sustainability challenges – e.g. palm oil, textiles, tuna, leather, fertiliser, waste management. They are headquartered in 16 different countries on all continents, except South America. Three quarters of them operate in the food or textile industries – see Table 1. The absence of companies engaged in plastic production or meat production is noteworthy.
Table 1: List of companies with a Head of Traceability
Whilst large textiles companies such as H&M Group and Inditex have a Head of Traceability, many large food companies typically do not. This is concerning since a lack of oversight on traceability within a company is likely to elevate their risk profile and impede their success.
Achieving traceability in food systems is a key requirement that could increase overall food system profits by USD 356 billion or more and is key to transforming this global system. Please see the Financial Markets Roadmap for Transforming the Global Food System. Planet Tracker’s work on the seafood system alone suggested that companies that implemented fully traceable supply chains could see profits increase by 60%. Please see ‘How to Trace USD 600 billion’.
In many cases, the companies in our sample have a Head of Traceability with an IT background: traceability is viewed as a digitalisation issue. In others, they have a supply chain/logistic background. In a minority of cases, the responsibility for traceability is assumed by the Head of Sustainability.
Why HoTs will be hot
Presently, there are not many Heads of Traceability in place – if we have missed one at your company, please get in touch – but we believe this will change, for a number of reasons listed here, the most important being regulation.
For this reason, the urgent implementation of traceability systems overseen by a Head of Traceability or an equivalent cross functional person, is key in our view. Financial institutions should be engaging with company executives and enquiring where the traceability function sits within their management structure.
Note: this blog was inspired by this article in Vogue Business. Credit goes to Bella Webb for raising awareness on the need for Heads of Traceability.
By Mary Riddle from triple pundit.com • Reposted: April 6, 2023
U.S. President Joe Biden used the first veto of his presidency last week. The reason? ESG investing. On March 27, President Biden moved to reject a bill, approved by the House and Senate, that sought to overturn a new Department of Labor rule allowing U.S. retirement fund managers to take environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into account in their investment decisions.
The latest chapter in an ongoing political battle over ESG in the U.S., Biden’s veto came just a few days after more than 270 companies and investors signed an open letter pushing back against anti-ESG policies.
In the letter, investors and companies emphasized the need to consider all financial risks and opportunities — including those associated with the climate crisis — in order to make smart investments. Calling their movement Freedom to Invest, these capital market leaders urged federal and state policymakers to protect their freedom to invest responsibly, noting they must be free to consider all material financial risks and opportunities in order to plan for the long-term.
“Managing risk and opportunities is our job as investors,” said Anne Simpson, global head of sustainability for Franklin Templeton, one of the letter’s signatories, in a statement. “Our duty and our loyalty are with the people who entrust us with their money. If we don’t pay attention to the accelerating frequency of severe weather disasters and the hundreds of billions of dollars they cause, nor to scientists’ forecasts for severe risk of more of that, and to entrepreneurial companies’ innovations for solving the resulting market needs, then we are not fulfilling our fiduciary duty.” The leaders noted that ESG considerations are not political nor ideological, but rather prudent risk management and investment considerations.
The skyrocketing price tag of anti-ESG policies
Anti-ESG legislation in a number of states is poised to cost taxpayers and retirees billions. State legislatures have been forced to roll back bills that sought to limit ESG investing practices, citing financial harm to state pension funds. Texas and Florida are continuing to push for anti-ESG legislation, even as Texas’ anti-ESG policies have already cost the state millions. Pension funds in the state are warning the legislature that the most recent round of anti-ESG proposals could cost retirees in Texas $6 billion over the next 10 years.
ESG is good for business
Climate change, social injustices, and environmental catastrophes all threaten workforces, supply chains, global markets and long-term economic growth. At the same time, “strong climate action will bring tens of trillions of dollars in additional value to the global economy along with millions of new jobs in the coming decades,” the financial leaders wrote in their letter.
Their claims are backed up by strong evidence. One recent study, for example, showed that companies with robust ESG programs saw a 9.7 percent revenue boost between 2019 and 2022, compared with a 4.5 percent boost for companies without ESG programs. The same study showed that 84 percent of companies that embrace ESG principles find it easier to attract investors and raise funds.
The group of Freedom to Invest signatories highlighted the business case for ESG in their letter, writing: “Our consideration of material environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors is not political or ideological. Incorporating these issues into financial decision-making represents good corporate governance, prudent risk management, and smart investment practice consistent with fiduciary duty. We factor financially material considerations, including the impacts of climate change, into our standard investment and risk management decisions, in order to protect our operations and our investments.”
Even as ESG investing is facing backlash among some policymakers, ESG investing principles are growing in popularity. Almost $8.5 trillion in assets are currently managed by ESG-friendly investors, which is about an eighth of all total assets under management globally, and demand for sustainable funds is higher than for those that do not include ESG considerations.
By Tom Ryan from retailwire.com • Reposted: April 5, 2023
A new study finds over 57 percent of U.S. consumers cannot name a brand that is making a difference when it comes to either the environment or diversity.
Slightly fewer, 54 percent, could not name a brand that gave back to the community, according to GfK’s first “Purpose Impact Monitor” study.
The study found that three-quarters of generic ads captured the attention of consumers. The proportion dropped to two-thirds for cause-focused ads.
“The truth today is that purpose-driven efforts and campaigns have become commonplace – even mundane,” said Eric Villain, client solutions director for Marketing Effectiveness at GfK, in a statement. “If a brand were to completely shun causes, that would likely be noticed; but supporting them is not a differentiator anymore. This means marketers and brands need to work harder – in keeping with their brand essence and the category – to really make an impression with their purpose efforts.”
Recent research from CivicScience found 73 percent of U.S. adults agree that a company’s “social consciousness and overall kindness” is either “very important” (29 percent) or “somewhat important” (44 percent) when choosing where to shop and what to buy.
The importance peaked in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests and the presidential election. Sentiment “softened over the past year, likely as price sensitivity and economic concerns grew.”
The socially responsible marketing consultancy Good.Must.Grow’s “Tenth Annual Conscious Consumer Spending Index” found the momentum for conscious consumerism and charitable giving surged to a record high of 51 on a scale of 100 in 2021 as the pandemic “reenergized the pursuit of purpose.” It eased to 49 in 2022.
The decline in 2022 was attributed to inflation as 46 percent of Americans said the cost of socially responsible goods and services prevented them from buying more.
“I believe this year’s data demonstrates several things, one of which is the tension involved with following through on good intentions in the face of economic pressures,” said Heath Shackleford, founder of Good.Must.Grow. “Those of us working for the growth of socially responsible brands must continue to prioritize competitive pricing.”
USAID distributes food assistance in East Africa, where an unprecedented drought is pushing millions to the brink of starvation. Image credit: USAID U.S. Agency for International Development/Flickr
By Eric Bebernitz, Director of External Relations, Action Against Hunger via Triplepundit.com • Reposted: April 3, 2023
Companies are working to meet rising stakeholder expectations on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in ways that can differentiate, build brand reputation, and engage employees. Yet the predominant approach misses a critical opportunity since it doesn’t focus on a critical issue that few want to face: global hunger.
Hear me out. Just as the climate crisis is a universal challenge, global hunger is a fundamental issue that ultimately impacts business success — and humanity as a whole. In 2021, an Action Against Hunger survey with The Harris Poll found that nearly half of all Americans worry about increases to the price of food as a result of climate change. The most recent Trust Barometer found that 67 percent of people globally are worried about food shortages leading to hoarding, riots and hunger, which Edelman characterizes as an existential societal fear. As a priority, the issue ranked behind climate change and just ahead of energy shortages. It’s not hard to see why.
After decades of progress showed that it is possible to dramatically slash rates of malnutrition, global hunger is once again on the rise. Approximately 828 million people — 1 in 10 worldwide — are undernourished, and as many as 50 million people in 45 countries are on the verge of famine. The costs of inaction are high.
Yet global hunger is a predictable and preventable problem that we can solve in our lifetimes. Doing so can provide a strong return on investment. As a 2022 study showed, every $1 invested in preventing chronic malnutrition in children can result in gains from $2 to $81 annually. Among the range of ESG issues, addressing malnutrition stands out for its ability to advance other corporate priorities, such as the following.
Long-term workforce development
Hungry children struggle to learn, and hungry workers are less productive. Hunger robs the U.S. economy of at least $167.5 billion annually, and research published in The Lancet found that, across 95 low- and middle-income countries, childhood stunting costs the private sector at least $135.4 billion in sales annually, amounting to around 1.2 percent of national GDP.
Socio-economic growth
The U.S. Secretary of Commerce believes an aging population will hit the country “like a ton of bricks,” with migration as a potential solution. Africa is the only region projected to enjoy strong population growth long-term, which can provide a global demographic dividend — but only if we invest in the potential. Africa has the world’s youngest population as well as the highest hunger rates, with 9 out of 10 children not receiving even the minimum acceptable diet, according to the World Health Organization. One in 3 African children are permanently stunted by hunger, reducing the region’s present GDP per capita by 10 percent. Hunger is growing in other regions, as well.
Political stability
Conflict and global hunger are deeply linked. As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres noted in a 2020 report, income inequality is creating a vicious cycle of discontent, leading to mass protests in both developed and developing countries. Roughly 70 percent of the world’s most malnourished people live in countries with an active conflict, which disrupts harvests, hampers aid delivery, and creates a burgeoning population of displaced people. This can contribute to even greater instability, often in already fragile regions.
Permission to operate
The epochal shift from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism comes as a growing number of millennial and Gen Z adults — now a majority of the U.S. workforce and a growing share of the electorate — hold a negative view of capitalism itself. Public willingness to subsidize, tax and regulate business can, quite literally, hinge on bread-and-butter issues.
The bottom line: The untapped potential of investing to fight global hunger
Although addressing global hunger is a wise investment, it’s one that isn’t being made. Countries with “crisis” levels of hunger face a 53 percent gap in hunger funding. Corporate giving to health and social services dropped 5 percent in 2022, and median international community investments decreased by 15 percent, according to CECP. Among the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, companies consistently report providing the least support for the objective to eradicate global hunger.
Inaction is particularly unwise in an era when economic anxieties and the mass-class divide are eroding trust. The effect is sharply pronounced among those with lower incomes: In the U.S., for example, there is a 23-point gap in the levels of institutional trust among lower-income and higher-income groups. Lack of trust has a corrosive effect on society, dimming long-term economic prospects.
In other words, chronic inequality — a major driver of global hunger — is bad for business. Ending hunger is no longer about charity or even being “woke.” It is now essential to foster the kind of operating environment that is essential to business value and long-term success.
Eric Block On Responsible Branding 
You must be logged in to post a comment.