Eric Block On Responsible Branding

By the Community, For the Community: New Startup Accelerator Backs Locally-Led Climate Solutions

20 05 2023

Young people rally in front of the California statehouse in support of climate justice at a Fridays for Future demonstration on April 21, 2023. Image: Lynn Friedman/Flickr

By Mary Mazzzoni from triplepundit.com • Reposted: May 20, 2023

Investing in viable solutions to social and environmental problems can turn a profit — and the most lucrative ideas may not come from where you’d expect. That’s the philosophy behind Village Capital. The nonprofit launched in 2009 under the tagline “democratizing entrepreneurship.” Though it’s based in Washington, D.C., its founding mission centers on identifying and supporting innovators outside the big coastal cities that receive the lion’s share of venture funding.

Over the past 14 years, Village Capital has supported nearly 1,000 such startups through 45 U.S.-based accelerator programs — which provide funding and mentoring to entrepreneurs with smart ideas to solve big problems.

One of its most recent accelerators squares in on the crucial issue of climate justice, with a call for innovators on the front lines of climate change to submit locally-driven solutions for backing from Village Capital.

What is climate justice?

For the uninitiated, climate justice refers to the imbalanced nature of the real-world impacts caused by climate change: Those who fare the worst amidst natural disasters and sea-level rise tend to be poor and underserved, and as such have contributed least to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. For context, a billionaire will produce a million times moregreenhouse gas emissions in their lifetime than the average person, according to research from Oxfam.

The related cause of environmental justice refers not only to the impacts of climate change, but also the sources of climate-inducing pollution — and where they’re located. In the U.S. in particular, years of segregation has created a situation in which communities of color are far more likely to be in the direct vicinity of polluting sites like oil refineries and chemical plants. A bombshell 2021 study from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that people of color are exposed to far higher levels of air pollution during their lifetimes than white people, regardless of income level.

Again, people living in communities that have faced chronic disinvestment for decades are more likely to be poor, and as such consume far fewer of the goods and services that these polluting industries provide. Yet they’re still saddled with the impact, whether that’s long-term air pollution exposure that can lead to preventable illness, or catastrophic events like leaks and explosions.

Impacted communities have sounded the alarm about environmental and climate justice for decades, but the issues are only more recently gaining attention on the global stage. A global loss and damage fund to help developing countries cope with the impacts of climate change was finally pushed across the finish line at the COP27 climate talks in 2022, although it will be years before it’s up and running. U.S. President Joe Biden has also made justice a central pillar of his climate plan, with billions in new investments going toward efforts to reduce emissions and pollution in underserved communities.

Still, government investments have by no means reached the scale of the challenge — making private-sector interventions like Village Capital’s accelerator essential to creating the widespread changes needed to cut the problem down to size.

*A young demonstrator shows her support for climate justice. Image: Oxfam International/Flickr*

Inside Village Capital’s climate justice accelerator

Announced last month, Village Capital’s accelerator is seeking early-stage startups that support immigrants, refugees and communities of color on the front lines of climate change in the U.S. In partnership with the WES Mariam Assefa Fund, Village Capital will provide grants and coaching to 10 to 12 startups with promising solutions that help their communities prepare for and adapt to climate impacts. The accelerator is fairly industry-agnostic, with startups across the climate tech, financial tech and property tech spaces encouraged to apply.

“We are looking for impact-driven startups that are solving critical challenges for people and communities who are disproportionately impacted by climate change,” Elizabeth Nguyen, economic opportunity practice lead for Village Capital, told TriplePundit. “We’ve been very intentional about identifying the solution types, which thematically fall into: disaster preparedness, public action and civic response, resilient housing and cities, and overall support for immigrants and refugees. Each one of these solution types prioritizes supporting people and communities and enables them the ability to respond to the impact of climate change.”

Along with grant funding, the selected entrepreneurs will receive invaluable training on how to further scale their businesses and attract investors, including help with a development plan to chart the course for growth. Through Village Capital’s unique peer-selected investment model, the cohort of entrepreneurs will decide which two climate justice solutions will be eligible to receive an additional $100,000 in investments from WES Mariam Assefa, Nguyen said.

“This investment, especially at an early stage, has the potential to change the trajectory of a company, considering many immigrant and refugee founders often don’t have strong social networks or support systems that founders who may have been born in the U.S. have,” she explained. “We also can’t stress enough how important social capital, mentorship, and connections are to early-stage companies. Village Capital provides not just training and financial support, but introductions to relevant mentors who are in the refugee and immigrant space and climate tech space. Our support enables our founders to walk away with tangible ways to speak to investors.”

Championing locally-driven solutions to climate challenges

Importantly, Village Capital aims to support locally-led solutions driven by the people and organizations that experience climate impacts in their communities firsthand.

“We’ve seen time and again that top-down solutions will not be sustainable or effective because they don’t have a full understanding of the needs in a community,” Nguyen said. “Locally-led startups also ensure that the solutions elevate the communities collectively so they are not left behind in the wave of innovation, a challenge that has unfortunately already been reflected in the history of climate tech solutions.”

The company’s accelerator model is proven to work, with over 150 accelerators supporting more than 1,400 startups globally. Entrepreneurs graduating from Village Capital accelerators raised three times more capital and earned 2.3 times more revenue compared to a control group, according to an impact study commissioned by the company.

The company’s separate venture capital fund, VilCap Investments, has invested in over 100 peer-selected startups from across these accelerators — again, with a focus on founders who are often overlooked. Nearly half (46 percent) of startups in the fund are led by women, and 30 percent are led by people of color. A stunning 80 percent are based in states outside New York, California and Massachusetts, which together receive about half of all global VC funding, according to Village Capital.

“By catalyzing locally-led startups and strengthening the ecosystem for these entrepreneurs to succeed, we can create the biggest and most sustainable impact, one that improves and increases services and resources for the communities who need it the most,” Nguyen said.

Applications for the accelerator close on May 25, 2023. Full details and eligibility criteria can be found here.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/startup-accelerator-climate-justice/774526

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: COP27, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, Oxfam, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, Village Capital
Categories : Climate Change, ESG, sustainability

2023 Halo Awards Honor Top Corporate Social Impact Initiatives

19 05 2023

Graphic: Engage for Good

Winning Companies And Nonprofits Recognized At The 2023 Engage For Good Conference In Atlanta, GA. FromEngage for Good • Reposted: May 19, 2023

Campaigns that raised millions for Ukraine relief, inspired young people to learn about conflict mitigation and moved employees to cycle across the country for cancer research – all while building stronger businesses – were among the initiatives honored at the 21st annual Halo Awards.

Eighteen category-specific winners were selected out of more than 140 entries by Engage for Good at its annual conference in Atlanta, GA.

In addition, ESPN and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America each received a Golden Halo Award, Engage for Good’s highest honor, for their long records of achievement at the intersection of profit and purpose.

Case studies of each winning campaign and profiles of the Golden Halo Award winners can be found at http://engageforgood.com/halo-awards.

“This year’s winners reflect the tremendous diversity of causes and strategies that companies embrace to sustainably build a better world,” said Engage for Good President David Hessekiel. “It’s an honor to recognize programs that fight disease and hunger, support education and mental health, offer aid to those in Ukraine and so much more.”

A collaboration between Dunkin’ and the Dunkin’ Joy In Childhood Foundation, dubbed “2022 Iced Coffee Day,” was recognized as the “Best Of The Best,” an award presented by social impact agency For Momentum. In 2022, Dunkin’ franchisees united for a nationwide one-day charitable event, whereby one dollar from each iced coffee sold at participating outlets was given to the foundation. The initiative increased restaurant traffic and raised $1.8 million, 100% of which was given to hospitals near Dunkin’ restaurants.

“I’m honored to present this year’s prestigious ‘Best Of The Best’ Halo Award to Dunkin’ and the Dunkin’ Joy In Childhood Foundation. This award shines a spotlight on their ‘2022 Iced Coffee Day’ campaign, where best-in-class strategy, franchisee participation and execution allowed them to raise $1.8 million for children’s hospitals nationwide in one day. They should feel incredibly proud of this special recognition. On behalf of For Momentum, I want to extend a heartfelt congratulations to the Dunkin’ team – we are thrilled to support your partnership success,” said Mollye Rhea, President and Founder of social impact agency For Momentum.

Please join us in congratulating this year’s Halo Award-winning campaigns:

Best Consumer-Activated Corporate Donation Initiative
Gold: 2022 Iced Coffee Day – Dunkin’ & Dunkin’ Joy In Childhood Foundation
Silver: Bringing Communities Together In Nature – Sun Outdoors & National Park Foundation

Best Consumer Donation Initiative
Gold: PetSmart + PetSmart Charities 10 Millionth Adoption Supported By Pet Parents – PetSmart & PetSmart Charities
Silver: JOANN and Susan G. Komen Integrated Partnership To Drive Point-Of-Sale Donations – JOANN & Susan G. Komen

Best Education Initiative
Gold: Subaru Loves Learning – Subaru Of America, Inc. & AdoptAClassroom.org
Silver: MLK Scholars Program – John Hancock

Best Emergency/Crisis Initiative
Gold: Stand With Ukraine All-for-Charity Initiative – Humble Bundle, Razom For Ukraine, International Rescue Committee, International Medical Corps & Direct Relief
Silver: PayPal’s Response To The Humanitarian Crisis In Ukraine – PayPal & Multiple Nonprofits

Best Employee Engagement Initiative
Gold: Employee Empowerment Thru Volunteering – FedEx & Operation Warm
Silver: Coast 2 Coast 4 Cancer – Bristol Myers Squibb & the V Foundation for Cancer Research

Best Health Initiative
Gold: Bloom: Growing Kids’ Mental Well-Being – Nationwide Foundation, Nationwide Children’s Hospital & On Our Sleeves
Silver: iHeart National Recovery Month – iHeartMedia & The Voices Project

Best JEDI Initiative
Gold: Leveling The Playing Field – U.S. Women’s National Team Players Association & Kiva
Silver: Nespresso x Ali Forney Center – Nespresso USA & The Ali Forney Center

Best Social Impact Video
Gold: Teen Tech Center “Mentor Moments” – Best Buy & The Best Buy Foundation
Silver: Peace Builders – Microsoft, Minecraft Education, Games For Change & The Nobel Peace Center

Best Social Service Initiative
Gold: Meals With Meaning – HelloFresh & Partners
Silver: Lowe’s Hometowns – Lowe’s & Points of Light

Best Of The Best
2022 Iced Coffee Day – Dunkin’ & Dunkin’ Joy In Childhood Foundation

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/774326-2023-halo-awards-honor-top-corporate-social-impact-initiatives

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, Engage for Good, ESG, Halo Awards, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG

Nurturing Mental Health in a Climate-Changing World:Another Critical Challenge to Face Together

19 05 2023

Graphic: The Toronto Star

As with other forms of anxiety, climate anxiety must be navigated with great care; and it is essential that the younger generation have allies around them when facing such an enormous challenge as climate change. By Michael Sameul, MBE from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: May 19, 2023

This week we are marking Mental-Health Awareness Week, the theme of which is anxiety — which has become prevalent across society, particularly for young people.

Some have described the UK as an “anxious nation.” Studies suggest that more than 8 million people in the UK are experiencing anxiety at any given time. It affects many children and young people. The last few years have seen anxiety and other mental-health conditions escalate in children and young people. Whereas one in eight children suffered from a mental-health illness pre-pandemic, this has now increased to one in six.

One of the growing elements of anxiety is climate anxiety. This amounts to distress about climate change, its impacts on the landscape and human existence, and what might happen if action is not taken in time to avert disaster. It can manifest as chronic fear of environmental collapse and intrusive thoughts about the long-term future of humanity.

The ONS has reported that, behind the cost-of-living crisis, climate change is the second biggest concern facing adults in the UK — with 74 percent feeling worried about climate change to some extent.

It is important, however, to understand that there are essential differences between worrying about climate change and having climate anxiety. Worry is often a motivator: If you are worried about something, it can prompt you to take action to try and resolve it. Anxiety is more extreme, overwhelming and, at times, debilitating. Its effects range from a racing heart and shortness of breath to being unable to maintain social relationships or function in your daily life at work or school.

Climate anxiety affects people of all ages and walks of life, but its impacts are not even. It is felt most acutely by those living on the frontline of climate-related disasters and those who feel they have the most to lose in the event of long-term environmental catastrophe. As such, in the UK, climate anxiety disproportionately affects children and young people who are worried about the state of the world they will inherit.

Recent research has revealed that climate change is causing widespread, deeply felt anxiety among young people in the UK. More than 50 percent of 16- to 25-year-olds interviewed by the University of Bath reported that they felt anxious, powerless and guilty about climate change. Similarly, the youth non-profit organisation Force of Nature found that more than 70 percent of young people feel hopeless in the face of the climate crisis and as many as 56 percent think that humanity is doomed.

As Chair of the Anna Freud Centre, a children’s mental-health charity, I have witnessed the extent to which the climate crisis impacts young people’s mental health. As with other forms of anxiety, climate anxiety must be navigated with great care; and it is essential that the younger generation have allies around them when facing such an enormous challenge as climate change.

The Princess of Wales, our Centre’s Royal Patron, has highlighted that mental health in the early years is a crucial determinant of life prospects. So, now more than ever, it is important to ensure that children and the people that care for them don’t try to take on these challenges in isolation. The first step in helping children and young people cope with climate anxiety is being open and available to talk about their concerns with them. Climate change is a very real and pressing issue; so, it can be counterproductive to try and minimise a young person’s fears about it as this may lead them to internalise their anxieties. Instead, talking about the issue with them in an age-appropriate way and validating their feelings is crucial.

Only 26 percent of the young people surveyed by Force for Nature felt that they knew how to contribute to solving the climate crisis; and the sense of helplessness that may be felt by the remaining 74 percent can be very dangerous. Therefore, it is important to encourage young people to try and find manageable solutions and productive ways of addressing their emotions. Rather than always offering reassurance, try responding to their questions with another question. For example, ‘I know you are worried about plastic pollution; so, what can we do to minimise our own plastic use?’ This can help break what may seem like a larger problem down into smaller, more manageable pieces that have more easily identifiable solutions.

Ultimately, climate change and its impacts can feel overwhelming for anyone; so, it is essential that no one tries to bear this burden alone. By demonstrating that you understand a young person’s concerns and are available to discuss them, you can help them alleviate their worries and find out what their personal contribution looks like.

Ongoing issues such as the impacts of the cost-of-living crisis and war in Ukraine already provide plenty of daily anxiety. But as our newsfeeds are increasingly inundated with stories about environmental and climate-related disasters, the lesser-known climate anxiety should be openly discussed and addressed.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/marketing-and-comms/nurturing-mental-health-climate-changing-world-critical-challenge-together

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Climate Anxiety, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, Mental Health, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change

Why ESG Still Matters During Economic Downturns

18 05 2023

mage credit: Miltiadis Fragkidis/Unsplash

By Mary Riddle from Triple Pundit • Reposted: May 18, 2023

The global economic turndown is top-of-mind for business leaders. In the U.S., 59 percent of CEOs anticipate needing to pause or scale back their environmental, social and governance (ESG) efforts as a result, according to a recent survey by KPMG.

However, walking away from ESG right now could be disastrous for business, argues Geetanjli Dhanjal, senior director of business transformation for the consulting firm Yantra.

Scaling back environmental commitments would not only be detrimental to the planet, but it could also hurt the bottom line. “Companies should be committed to ESG and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) now more than ever,” Dhanjal told TriplePundit. Pausing these programs to bolster the budget could backfire by eroding consumer perceptions and damaging trust among employees, she warned.

Case in point: The retail sector proves ESG still matters

While certain sectors are more vulnerable to recession than others, retail is one of the highest-risk industries during economic downturns. Still, Dhanjal noted that many of her clients in retail, fashion and apparel are not turning away from ESG to save money. Rather, they are doubling down on their initiatives, from sourcing sustainable materials to ensuring fair pay for workers in their supply chains.

“These clients know that when in an economic downturn, one doesn’t just stop investing in ESG,” Dhanjal said. “ESG is a long-term strategy and roadmap. During economic downturns, businesses can invest in low-cost sustainability initiatives in order to maintain brand value and give back to the community.”

Further, many sustainability programs come with a cost savings. “When we enable green shipping methods, we reduce our costs, reduce our carbon footprint, and the customer benefits by paying less for shipping,” Dhanjal noted as an example.

Investor trust is in jeopardy: Stronger ESG programs and reporting can help

While robust ESG programs can help grow consumer affinity and employee engagement, businesses now face a new problem: waning investor trust.

In KPMG’s survey, 3 out of 4 institutional investors said they do not trust companies to meet their ESG and DEI commitments. Dhanjal believes their concerns are valid: Indeed, many companies are not meeting their commitments. But the trust gap also presents investment and growth opportunities for companies that are serious about implementing ESG, she said.

“There are many reasons for distrust,” Dhanjal told us. “There are no consistent reporting frameworks. Enterprises may have more standardized reporting methods than small businesses, but they need to report transparently with the proof that they’re doing what they’re saying.”

Businesses and international agencies have also recognized the need for companies to demonstrate proof of their progress through standardized frameworks for sustainability reporting. At the COP26 climate talks in 2021, the United Nations and participating governments established the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in order to create a standard, global framework.

An evolving regulatory landscape calls for more ESG investment, not less

Dhanjal sees more changes on the horizon for corporate ESG programs. Regulatory changes will make compliance more challenging for companies that do not proactively measure, monitor and report on their sustainability efforts. Time is critical.

“Companies must invest in the tools they can use and the systems to provide them with the data they need to create their long-term strategy,” Dhanjal said. “Companies also need the right consultants and partners to guide their programs and initiatives. Your specific company doesn’t need to be experts in ESG, but you can invest in the consultants and tools to guide you.”

Investment in tools to measure sustainability data is increasingly critical for companies that hope to to stay ahead of ESG regulations. The United States and European Union are moving toward making sustainability reporting mandatory for large businesses. That includes climate risk reporting in the near term, with mandatory disclosure of nature-related risk not far off.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in particular is expected to release its long-awaited climate reporting rules this fall. But many businesses are not waiting for the final verdict. In fact, 70 percent of business leaders said they’ve already begun to disclose their climate-related data in alignment with expected changes from the SEC, according to 2023 polling from PwC and Workiva. Still, 85 percent of those respondents worry their teams don’t have the right technology to accurately track and report their sustainability data.

Keeping up with the times requires consistent investment, and pulling back could mean falling behind. “It is not easy to implement systems, transform supply chains and invest in proper tools,” Dhanjal said. “Things are changing rapidly while everyone is learning about sustainability at the same time, and that can be a challenge. Making sure we have appropriate tools and clear guidelines is a major challenge for ESG, but this is also our work [as ESG professionals]: to educate.”

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/esg-still-matters-recession/774346

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, DEI, ESG, green marketing, KPMG, responsible brands, SEC, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, Yantra
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Only 8% of firms have ‘essential tools’ needed for net zero

18 05 2023

Image: Sustainability Magazine/Getty

Low uptake of digital technology for net zero reporting is putting companies at risk of significant consequences, a new study from Verdantix finds. By Lucy Buchholz from Sustainability Magazine • Reposted: May 18, 2023

A recent Verdantix report warns that companies face significant risks due to the limited adoption of digital technologies for net-zero applications. The survey of 350 net-zero leaders reveals that only 8% of firms believe they possess the necessary software tools to achieve net-zero goals effectively.

The inaugural Verdantix Global Corporate Survey 2023: Net Zero Budgets, Priorities and Tech Preferences report highlights that in-house digital capabilities are not enough to deliver net zero. The report identifies a lack of climate change expertise at the board level as the biggest obstacle to net-zero strategies.

This lack of expertise is particularly worrying for US firms, as the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule may demand clarity as to whether any board members possess expertise in climate change.

The increase in reporting

Over one-third of the world’s largest listed firms are now publicising net zero targets, a significant increase up from just one-fifth in December 2020. With incoming regulations set to impact economies globally, tens of thousands of firms are at risk of severe consequences, including legal penalties, reputational damage, financial risks, investor pressure, and employee dissatisfaction, if they fail to accurately report ESG and climate information.

In light of this, it is imperative for companies to promptly embrace digital technologies in order to provide accurate and high-calibre carbon data. This step is crucial to address the increasing demand for regulated climate disclosures and the amplified stakeholder pressure for transparency and performance.

“The low market penetration of net zero reporting tools highlights the urgent need for companies to adopt digital technologies to deliver reliable and high-quality carbon data,” said Ryan Skinner, Research Director at Verdantix. “With regulated climate disclosures and increasing stakeholder pressure for transparency and performance, it’s critical that firms prioritise decarbonisation and invest in net zero reporting tools.

“We anticipate a significant increase in spending on net zero digital tools over the next few years as companies seek to avoid penalties and demonstrate their commitment to sustainability. However, achieving success in decarbonisation will require consistent collaboration with other departments to drive change at the operational level.”

Climate change budgets are set to increase

According to Verdantix’s projections, the expenditure on carbon management software is projected to reach US1.4bn by 2027. The survey reveals that budgets for net zero and climate change initiatives are expected to experience substantial growth in 2023, with most companies anticipating double-digit spending increases. However, effectively achieving net zero goals will necessitate ongoing collaboration with other departments to drive decarbonization efforts at the operational level.

The Verdantix Net Zero Global Corporate Survey provides insights into the budgets, priorities, and technology preferences of net zero leaders across industries and geographies. Read the full report here Global Corporate Survey 2023: Net Zero Budgets, Priorities and Tech Preferences.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/only-8-of-firms-have-essential-tools-needed-for-net-zero

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, ESG, green marketing, net zero, responsible brands, SEC, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, Verdantix
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable branding

The Greenwash Era Is Over, But Are Our Communicators Ready to Step Up?

18 05 2023

Image: Sustainable Brands

As advertising regulators, consumer watchdogs and even governments take a tougher stance, the risks of getting it wrong grow significantly; and the pressure is on communicators to up their game and back up their claims. By Tom Idle from sustainable brands.com • Reposted: May 18, 2023

It’s officially, and legally, getting harder for brands to greenwash. In Europe, the EU Parliament has just voted to ramp up regulation to deter companies from making ‘carbon-neutral’ claims that can so easily mislead consumers into believing the products they are buying are good for the environment. Proposed new anti-greenwashing rules – said to represent a “significant victory for consumers and the environment” – were voted by an overwhelming majority of 544 votes in favour, 18 against and 17 abstentions.

This paves the way for EU nations to adopt their own laws that will ban dubious claims and “strengthen the fight against greenwashing by banning practices that mislead consumers on the actual sustainability of products,” as put by EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders. The move will effectively ban the use of generic ‘green’ marketing claims such as ‘environmentally friendly,’ ‘natural,’ ‘biodegradable’ and ‘eco,’ if they are not supported by evidence. Brands won’t be able to suggest a whole product or service is ‘sustainable’ when only a part of it is, either. And only official sustainability certification schemes will be recognised when it comes to marketing claims.

Where carbon offsetting is used, companies will no longer be able to make ‘net-zero’ or ‘carbon-neutral’ claims, which have long been criticised by campaign groups for seriously misleading consumers. In fact, banning the use of offsets as the basis for carbon-neutral claims is already happening. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority has spent the last six months reviewing the landscape and is about to commence stricter enforcement procedures. Brands are set to be banned from declaring their products or services are carbon neutral using offsets, unless they can prove they are actually working. This has coincided with a renewed focus on the true impact of offsets. In January, a Guardianinvestigation found that 90 percent of the rainforest project-derived offsets generated byVerra, one of the world’s biggest offset certifiers, were “worthless.” Verra strongly disputed the findings, but it got the world talking — not only about the value of offsetting, but the validity of making carbon-neutral claims more generally.

Greenwash clampdowns are also underway in the UK investment scene. The fact that so-called ‘sustainable’ pension funds are still entrenched in oil and gas firm funding has prompted the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority to publish anti-greenwashing rulesdesigned to clean up the labelling of investment funds.

6 CRITICAL STEPS TO AVOID GREENWASHING

Sustainability stakes are high; so are stakeholder distrust and scrutiny. So, how can your brand win the trust, loyalty, and advocacy of conscious consumers while protecting your reputation from greenwashing? Join us as Simon Mainwaring outlines 6 critical steps to avoiding greenwashing, building brand love and enabling consumers to live the sustainable lifestyles they seek at Brand-Led Culture Change – May 22-24 in Minneapolis.

Tell me more!

In the US, the Federal Trade Commission has updated its Green Guides for the first time in more than a decade, with a similar goal – to make it harder for companies to fall into the trap of making overblown sustainability claims about the products and materials they use.

Obviously, it will take time to completely stem the tide of greenwash; but incoming regulation and improved standards are having the desired impact, as evidenced by recent action taken to halt greenwash from the likes of airlines including Etihad andLufthansa. Yet, in the race to win more savvy consumers and meet increasingly ambitious sustainability goals, avoiding greenwash remains a challenge. Even companies forced to row back on their ambitions face huge scrutiny. Just look at the backlash footwear business Crocs received this week having announced plans to push back its net-zero target from 2030 to 2040 after recording a 45.5 percent increase in absolute emissions year-on-year after acquiring another company. The new goal might be “more credible and realistic;” but consumers expect more transparent and sophisticated communications from brands.

And that is proving to be a real struggle. New research suggests that while marketing professionals acknowledge the need to be braver when it comes to sustainability communications to avoid greenwashing, more than a third of them lack the capacity or knowledge to do so. At a time when more brands claim to have a sustainability-related story worth sharing (41 percent versus 25 percent in 2021), the survey suggests the situation is getting worse; capability gaps were cited by 35 percent of respondents, versus 20 percent in 2021. This is especially a concern given that more brands have sustainability as a KPI in their marketing functions – up from 26 percent in 2021 to 43 percent today: “It’s remarkable that even though 94 percent of marketers are willing to be brave to drive transformative change, organizations still behave in the same way,” says Ozlem Senturk, a senior partner with Kantar, which was behind the research.

This research echoes the key findings of a recent Chartered Institute of Marketing survey, which showed half of companies were reluctant to work on sustainability campaigns for fear of getting tripped up and accused of greenwash.

As with many sustainability challenges, solving the greenwash problem can benefit from a collaborative response. That’s certainly the view of the team behind Creatives for Climate— which has just launched a new platform designed to help communicators ‘reskill’ for sustainability communications. The website features a training program called Greenwash Watch — which provides a useful analysis of anti-greenwashing regulation and rulings and provides a framework from which to craft credible strategies that do not mislead consumers.

As advertising regulators enforce tougher sanctions, consumer watchdogs get more savvy and even governments double-down on their efforts, the era of unsubstantiated green claims from corporates is over. But as the risks of getting it wrong grow significantly, the pressure is on communicators to up their game and be sure to back up their claims.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/marketing-and-comms/greenwash-era-over-can-communicators-step-up

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, ESG, Federal Trade Commission', green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, green marketing, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Why sustainability improves recruitment, retention

17 05 2023

Many workers consider environmental sustainability practices when deciding whether to stay, or accept a job with, a company. Image: ADP

Publicizing sustainability efforts can help a company with employee recruitment. Learn how sustainability is also affecting retention, as well as some best practices for HR leaders. By David Beck via tech target.com • Reposted: May 17, 2023

As the talent marketplace remains competitive, a company’s stance on social issues, such as the environment and climate change, can help attract talent or potentially drive it away. HR leaders must encourage companies to publicize their environmental, social and governance practices so they can hire the candidates they want and keep them as employees.

Over 70% of workers and those looking for work are drawn to environmentally sustainable employers, according to the 2021 study “Sustainability at a turning point” by the IBM Institute for Business Value. In addition, more than two-thirds of respondents said they are more likely to seek out and take jobs with environmentally and socially responsible organizations, and almost half surveyed would take a lower salary to do so, according to the IBM study. A company’s sustainability record can make a major difference in its talent search and employee retention.

Here’s more about environmental, social and governance initiatives, as well as some steps HR leaders can take to get the word out about their organization’s ESG efforts.

What is sustainability?

For the most part, when job candidates inquire about a company’s environmental sustainability record, they are referring to the organization’s environmentally related business practices, such as carbon footprint and energy use. Social issues, like diversity, equity and inclusion programs and labor practices, are also part of ESG.

Companies are facing more pressure from the government and from consumers to make their business practices more sustainable. Customers have increasingly expressed interest in supporting companies with what they view as positive ESG practices, with 55% of respondents saying company sustainability is “very or extremely important” when they’re making purchasing decisions, according to the IBM study.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule last year that would require public companies to share climate risk and greenhouse gas emissions, among other information, though the rule may be delayed until later this year.

Why companies should care about sustainability

Many company executives believe their recruitment will be positively affected by increased ESG reporting.

Fifty-two percent of respondents ranked talent attraction and retention as one of the most likely beneficial outcomes of enhanced ESG reporting, according to a 2022 Deloitte study, “Sustainability action report: Survey findings on ESG disclosure and preparedness.”

In addition, a positive sustainability record can potentially help with the perennial challenge of employee retention as well. ESG high performers also have high employee satisfaction, according to the 2023 study “Do ESG Efforts Create Value?” by Bain & Company and EcoVadis.

How HR can use sustainability to improve recruitment, retention

Job applicants may not be aware of a company’s ESG efforts, so HR leaders must take the lead in communicating them to the public.

HR staff can develop blog posts for the company website about the organization’s sustainability efforts. HR staff can also create initiatives within the company, like sponsoring a community composting program, and publicize those initiatives so potential job applicants will be aware of them.

If company leaders are weighing whether to take on sustainability initiatives, HR leaders can share the talent-related benefits of adapting an ESG-driven corporate culture.

HR leaders should also make sure company leaders are aware that partners’ sustainability practices are an emerging area of contention. Job candidates may object if the company works with vendors or other partners who are seen as negatively affecting the environment.

However, HR executives must also remain alert to the danger of greenwashing. Greenwashing is information that provides a misleading impression that a company’s processes, policies or investments are environmentally sound.

A company’s attempts to attract recruits can backfire if the public believes the company is practicing greenwashing. HR leaders must make sure HR staff or others working on recruitment efforts aren’t exaggerating the company’s sustainability practices in an attempt to win over job candidates.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.techtarget.com/searchhrsoftware/tip/Why-sustainability-improves-recruitment-retention

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, Do ESG Efforts Create Value?" by Bain &, ESG, green marketing, HR, Recruitment, responsible brands, Retnetion, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Driving Growth Through Sustainability: Three Solutions For Brands

17 05 2023

Photo: Getty

UN SDG Pioneer for Circular Economy and CEO of GUAVA Amenities – driving circular innovations & partnerships in Sustainable Guest Amenities. By Gabriel Tan, Forbes Councils Member, Forbes Business Development Council from Forbes.com • Reposted: May 17, 2023

Today, we are living in a peculiar time with growing uncertainties such as high inflation and high interest rates. As a result, many global brands have scaled back their operations and reduced headcounts to brace themselves for further shocks down the road.

While all seems doom and gloom, sustainability remains a bright spot on the horizon. More businesses are looking to drive growth through sustainability. This means not only focusing on top-line growth but also bottom-line growth, while also augmenting social capital by driving positive impact that benefits communities and the environment.

Over the course of my company’s work with several of the world’s largest hospitality chains, airlines and cruise liners in the area of sustainable guest amenities, we help brands reach new consumers in the hospitality and travel industry. As recipient of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Pioneer for Circular Economy, I know first-hand the impact sustainability can have on business.

Below are three practical ways brands can aim to improve their overall business value, performance and positive impact.

The global intangible asset value grew from $61 trillion in 2019 to $74 trillion in 2021. According to research from McKinsey & Co, businesses in the top quartile for growth invest 2.6 times more into intangible assets than “low-growers.”

With more and more companies realizing that a portion of their value can be derived from intangibles, many are pouring in resources to strategically grow their intangibles—with sustainability being an area of focus. According to a 2022 study by NielsenIQ, 78% of consumers say “a sustainable lifestyle is important to them.” Brands that invest in sustainability can attract more customers and, in my experience, typically charge a higher price for their products.

In October 2022, LVMH announced an energy efficiency framework in partnership with shopping mall owner, Hang Lung Properties, which is expected to reduce the retailer’s energy footprint. From my perspective, I expect more value would eventually be derived from growth in their intangible value rather than actual energy cost savings.

Brands interested in positioning themselves as sustainable need to come out with more interesting stories in today’s competitive market. Simply changing your packaging and reducing energy costs is no longer sufficient to convince consumers of your sustainability edge. Impact has become a more objective yardstick to evaluate whether or not your brand is truly sustainable, and this is closely intertwined with scale to derive the actual impact of a brand in the world.

Create A Superior Business Model With Circular Design

According to the United Nations, the circular economy is a “new and inclusive economic paradigm that aims to minimize pollution and waste, extend product lifecycles and enable broad sharing of physical and natural assets.”

Given the increasing cost pressures experienced by businesses today, this new paradigm allows brands to generate value with minimal resources and correspondingly lesser impact on the environment. Recently, H&M, a large fashion retailer, pledged to be climate positive by 2040 through a textile reuse model, promoting circular design.

Circular design can be a profitable venture when brands are able and willing to make the adjustments necessary to change the status quo. Embracing a new circularity paradigm requires a holistic end-to-end understanding from the get-go. This includes product design, which minimizes the use of materials and takes into consideration the advantages of the different types of materials, a packaging approach that delivers the appropriate outcome without over-packaging, as well as a supply chain strategy that balances business performance and environmental impact.

Reach New Consumers With Sustainable Business Models

Thirdly, sustainability can also open up new business opportunities for consumer brands. Sustainability is not just about reducing carbon emissions and waste; it also involves creating innovative solutions to environmental challenges. Sustainable practices can lead to the development of new products, services and markets.

To reach new consumers with sustainable business models, brands can aim to position sustainability at their core. Consumer brands not only have the power to uniquely differentiate themselves in today’s crowded marketplace but also create an enduring competitive advantage that could lead to even greater possibilities and enhanced brand value.

If needed, consider looking for credible partners as a way to leverage each others’ strengths to drive sustainability initiatives. Ideally, a partnership should only require minimal investment, without the need for brands to reinvent the wheel. Look for a complementary partner with a successful track record; repeat customers, deep capabilities and a rich ecosystem can each be powerful multipliers for creating exponential outcomes.

By embracing sustainability, consumer brands can increase their brand’s intangible value, create superior circular design and open up new opportunities with new business models. With intangible value becoming a differentiator, your biggest gain could be from your sustainability initiatives—provided they are done authentically and with the right priorities.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2023/05/16/driving-growth-through-sustainability-three-solutions-for-brands/?sh=410f0b38258e

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, ESG, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

ESG investment funds unlikely to comply with sustainable investing rules

16 05 2023

A lack of standardised regulatory regimes for non-financial disclosures and the naming of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds across the US, UK and Europe will mean that a lot of self-proclaimed “sustainable” funds will be unable to comply with proposed legislation. From edie.net • Reposted: May 16, 2023

Analysis of more than 18,000 investment funds across Europe has found that less than 4% would be able to comply with naming laws for ESG funds across key markets.

The research, from technology platform Clarity AI, found that many would have to rename their ESG funds if they wanted to sell across the UK, US and Europe, all of which have different definitions and naming laws for non-financial disclosures and sustainability funds.

“When looking at funds with all three investment fund regimes – the US’, UK’s, and EU’s – we found that over 95% of funds with the word ‘sustainable’, or similar term, would require renaming or restructuring in order to be sold across all three markets,” Clarity AI’s head of product research and innovation Patricia Pina.

“This is not only an added cost in terms of compliance, but also underscores how different actors – in this case regulators – are interpreting the meaning of core concepts like ESG and sustainability.”

In November 2022 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) ran a consultation to place minimum thresholds on Article 8 – which is for “light green” funds that use ESG-related terms in their names. ESMA proposed that these funds would need to ensure that 100% of the assets in each portfolio adhered to minimum safeguard thresholds that were aligned with the Paris Agreement.

It also suggested that 80% of the assets it invests in are used to meet the ESG-related characteristics that it promotes. Additionally, 50% of the assets would need to be defined as sustainable under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).

Clarity AI’s research found that only 20% of Article 8 funds using the term “sustainable” had current plans to comply with the recommendations of the consultation. The research suggests that the recommendations from the consultation would not closely align with investing proposals in the UK or US.

ESG down the agenda

Earlier this year, separate research found that investing in sustainable assets is less important to them now than it was in 2019.

The poll was conducted by British law firm Michelmores, covering 1,500 people in the UK with a minimum of £25,000 of investable assets each. 23% of respondents said they found investing in sustainable assets less important than they did in 2019, with the cost-of-living crisis cited as the key reason for this decrease in importance.

Research from EY found that the total amount of assets under management covered by specific ESG funds reached $2.7trn in 2021, marking a 53% year-on-year increase. But as the movement’s support grows, the perception that ESG is ineffective is also becoming more widespread.

EY acknowledges that many companies, ratings agencies and investors are using different definitions of ESG and different methodologies to assess performance across each of the three pillars. Some of these methodologies are based on historic data, some on future predictions. Some assign more importance to issues that are less material to a particular sector or project than those which materiality assessments have proven to be key. Some assign more weight to the ‘E’ and/or the ‘S’ than the ‘G’.

These discrepancies have led to rating agencies assigning scores that have caused controversy. Many of these controversies are now making mainstream news. For example, MSCI and Sustainalytics both provided high ratings to care home operator Opera Group, which this year was accused of mistreating residents and faced insider trading allegations. To give another example, in 2020, fast fashion retailer Boohoo was revealed to have the backing of 20 ESG-focused funds, despite persistent and credible allegations of supply chain workers being paid illegally low wages.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.edie.net/esg-investment-funds-unlikely-to-comply-with-sustainable-investing-rules/

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, EU, European Securities and Markets Authority, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : ESG, sustainability, sustainable branding

Top three tips to avoid greenwashing

16 05 2023

Both greenwashing and greenhushing are problematic because they make it more difficult for consumers to find the kinds of products they are seeking. Credit: NRF

Retailers are responding to the growing demand for sustainable products, but the lack of a standard definition of sustainability is proving challenging. By Isatou Ndure via just-style.com • Reposted: May 16, 2023

According to the National Retail Federation (NRF), consumers are increasingly interested in purchasing sustainable products and retailers are making efforts to meet this demand but the biggest challenge faced by both is the lack of a standard definition of what makes a product sustainable.

Consumers may have different criteria for determining sustainability, such as comparing products to traditional alternatives, evaluating full life-cycle assessments, or expecting perfection in sustainability profiles. Furthermore, different companies use various messaging to communicate their sustainability efforts, leading to confusion.

The greenwashing problem

And retailers are keen to clamp down on precisely what sustainability entails particularly as globally, legislation tightens up to prevent the misleading of consumers via green marketing. However, some companies choose to remain silent on sustainable progress known as “green muting” or “greenhushing.” This practice can also make it challenging for consumers to find sustainable products.

Best practices for sustainability messaging

The NRF has shared some tips based on US Trade Commission guidance, aimed at marketing more sustainable products:

Avoid making vague statements about a product’s sustainability

It is recommended to make specific and accurate claims that provide clear explanations of the factors that make the product sustainable. An accurate claim that a product contains 10% recycled content, for example, is useful information for consumers seeking to buy more sustainable products. Consumers can determine whether the claim meets their own personal sustainability criteria.

Provide proof

When making environmental claims, make proof available to consumers. Such proof can include independent, third-party certifications, descriptions of audit protocols, copies of audit reports or other information available online or through a QR code. Some companies choose to share additional context to help consumers make even more informed choices:

Clothing company, Patagonia acknowledges that sustainability is a journey and that no product is perfectly sustainable — Patagonia explains how it is seeking to improve the environmental and social performance of its operations.
Other retailers include efforts to reduce their contributions to climate change by eliminating their carbon emissions, helping consumers understand the carbon footprint of retail products and transitioning toward a “circular economy” by making resale retail easier and more prevalent.

Find the right approach
As consumers continue to prioritise sustainability in their purchasing decisions, it is essential for retailers to communicate their sustainability efforts transparently and accurately, providing the necessary information for consumers to make informed choices.

If the FTC or EU inappropriately limits the ways companies talk about sustainability or discourages them from talking about it at all, it will make the consumer-driven transition to a more sustainable economy even more difficult. The best way to avoid greenwashing and greenhushing is to encourage accurate, specific and flexible sustainability messaging approaches.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.just-style.com/news/top-three-tips-to-avoid-greenwashing/

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, Green Washing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : ESG, green marketing

Greenwashing era is over, say ad agencies, as regulators get tough

16 05 2023

Is it over for greenwashing? Photograph: Andre M Chang/Zuma Press/PA Image

Insiders welcome stricter rules in the UK and EU over the use of terms such as ‘carbon neutral’ in adverts, and claims concerned with offsetting. By Ellen Ormesher and Patrick Greenfield via The Guardian • Reposted: May 16, 2023

Across the advertising industry, agencies are wrestling with their role in greenwashing scandals and their support for clients driving the climate and nature crises.

Companies are to face stricter rules from regulators in London and Brussels over what they can tell consumers about their role in the climate crisis and the loss of nature. Terms such as “carbon neutral”, “nature positive” and those concerned with offsetting are to undergo greater scrutiny by organisations such as the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK. In order to take meaningful action, agencies must also reconsider their relationships with major polluters, industry insiders have said.

“The era of unspecific claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ is over,” said Jonny White, senior business director at AMV BBDO, which works with companies including Diageo, Unilever and Bupa. “Misleading environmental claims are under the microscope from advertising regulators, consumer watchdogs and even governments. The risks of getting it wrong are huge, with brands being shamed publicly when they are guilty of misleading the public,” he said.

Creative members of advertising agencies are having to work closely with their legal teams when advising clients on their climate claims, insiders have said, with an increased risk of fines and advert bans in some countries.

In the UK, the Ad Net Zero programme was launched in 2020 in a bid to reduce the carbon impact of the advertising industry’s operations to net zero by 2030, but many agencies are developing in-house teams for sustainability-focused campaigns.

“In many client organisations, there is still a big gap between the marketing and sustainability teams. They have different, often competing objectives, and are accountable in very different ways,” said Ben Essen, global chief strategy officer at the global marketing agency Iris Worldwide, which works with firms such as Adidas, Starbucks and Samsung, and is also doing the campaign for Cop26.

Essen said there is an “inherent tension” between the need to engage audiences through “often hyperbolic stories” and the need for sustainability teams to deal in the substance.

On Thursday, the European parliament voted to ban claims of carbon neutrality that are based on offsetting. The EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius, said firms would face greater scrutiny about their claims with offsets, but stopped short of supporting a ban, given their potential to fund climate crisis mitigation.

https://ce79cee929c5bdddd02549022169e21d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

“Climate-related claims have been shown to be particularly prone to being unclear and ambiguous, misleading the consumer. Claims like ‘climate neutral’, ‘carbon neutral’, ‘100% CO₂ compensated’ and ‘net zero’ are very often based on offsetting. We need to set things straight for consumers and give them full information,” he said.

Blake Harrop, president of Wieden+Kennedy Amsterdam, which works with Airbnb, Meta and Nike, said that the greenwashing clampdown in the EU and UK would provide competitive opportunities for companies that had genuine environmental credentials. “For good brands with good intentions and responsible messaging, I expect there will be little change. But for companies that have oversimplified and overstated their sustainability claims, then life is about to get complicated,” he said.

“It’s an interesting time to work in the legal department of an advertising agency. We need to pay a lot of attention to the opportunities and risks generated by AI, government policies regarding media platforms like TikTok around the world, and of course greenwashing laws.

“If all brands can claim they’re green, then you remove the incentive to win consumers based on superior commitments to the environment. This will hopefully make being an environmentally responsible brand even better for business,” he said.

Within the advertising industry there is ongoing friction regarding agencies continuing to work with fossil fuel companies. Clean Creatives, an organisation based in the US, publishes an annual “F-list” of agencies that work with some of the world’s biggest polluters. It also runs the Clean Creatives pledge, for agencies that want to swear off working with fossil fuel clients in the future. To date, more than 500 agencies have signed up.

However, Ad Net Zero has previously declared it does not stand behind that campaign, with its chair, Seb Munden, saying: “We cannot leave huge swathes of the industry behind.”

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/15/greenwashing-era-is-over-say-ad-agencies-as-regulators-get-tough

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Ad Agencies, Ad Net Zero, Clean Creatives, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, Green Washing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG

Surviving the real-world challenges of sustainability communications

15 05 2023

Image: Green Buzz

By Joel Makower, Co-founder & Chairman, Green Buzz, Reposted • May 15, 2023

Corporate communications on sustainability issues have long been a sore spot, as I’ve written about multiple times. The questions are fundamental: Talk or not talk about your company’s commitments and achievements? Speak out in an era of political pushback on environmental, social and governance issues or keep a low profile? Be accused of greenwashing or greenhushing?

That was the basis of our daylong GreenBiz Comms Summit back in February, which brought together communications, sustainability and legal professionals from inside large companies for a candid conversation about the challenges companies face when they communicate, internally or externally, about sustainability matters. Nearly 200 professionals participated in hands-on exercises, where small groups were asked to concoct messaging for several hypothetical companies, both B-to-B and B-to-C. It was, by all accounts, an engaging event.

We recently published a summary of what took place there, which I’m pleased to share, in particular the on-stage conversations as opposed to the more candid table-level work. The event was conducted under the Chatham House rule, meaning that no participants can be identified without permission.

Getting internal alignment

One session built on a column I wrote last August, about the “Bermuda Triangle” of sustainability messaging: communications, sustainability and corporate counsel. Individually, each has a slightly different interest when creating press releases and media pitches. In concert, they often undermine a company’s messaging. Among the suggestions from a panel of experts:

Bring the players together early and often. Imagine reaching the end of a cross-functional, collaborative working group with external stakeholder input — and legal wants to frame the message differently, a sustainability expert says the language is imprecise, and comms is at a loss for how to tell acompelling story. That confounding situation can be prevented by inviting key internal stakeholders to the table much earlier than may seem necessary for the project. Try day one.

Integrate the expertise from each department and speak their language. Understand the subject matter and pain points of other stakeholders, and be hyper-transparent. Long before soliciting sign-off from a subject matter expert, check and double-check the accuracy of a communication. Have resources and questions ready on an ongoing basis; don’t just spring a problem on someone during a meeting.

Have playbooks, guides and protocols ready. To disseminate an effective message, have all of your analysis and facts in order and be able to stand behind them in case there is a challenge. Prepare messaging playbooks, guides and protocols for your teammates to help them understand the whole picture involved in a messaging challenge.

Avoiding greenwash

The practice of making exaggerated or unverifiable claims about environmental benefits is widely frowned upon, butwithout a single definition for greenwashing, companies all too easily make missteps. Some takeaways:

Greenwashing charges are up. Although it’s probably impossible to quantify how much greenwashing exists, regulatory challenges related to it have risen over the past several years. These include actions by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. state attorneys general, private litigation and challenges by the Better Business Bureau.

Greenwashing is in the eye of the accuser. The FTC considers greenwashing through the eyes of the “reasonable consumer,” which leaves lots of room for interpretation. Accusations of greenwashing tend to focus on one of two things: either the types of words or even the colors used to describe a product or brand, such as lawsuits charging that Keurig falsely called its coffee pods recyclable, or the tactics used to achieve a goal, such asBloombergcalling out companies for using renewable energy credits toward their net-zero targets. Watchdog groups may target an industry leader, for example, that fumbles in efforts to decarbonize its supply chain, yet they leave alone competitors who haven’t even announced a similar initiative.

Greenwashing is ‘more sloppy than sinister’. Cases of a nefarious business setting out to mislead the public are relatively few and far between. More often, greenwashing charges tend to target companies fumbling their way through their sustainability communications. Maybe someone without the right expertise led a public relations or ad campaign or a communication gap arose from failing to speak to the right stakeholders or providing inadequate (or inaccurate) proof points.

Dealing with haters and critics

Of course, even the best-laid communications plan can attract criticism — sometimes more than if a company had said nothing at all. “The rise of anti-ESG rhetoric” was a top concern among Comms Summit attendees, according to a pre-event survey.

Adversaries who slur business leadership as “woke” for addressing the world’s urgent social and environmental challenges are true “haters,” but not every critic is a hater. Here are the three types of pushback and what to learn from them:

Haters. Haters are diametrically opposed to your existence. For instance, they may hate you as a corporation because they believe capitalism shouldn’t exist. In general, don’t listen to haters — although sometimes they offer important information about what you’re getting wrong.

Critics. Critics want you to be your best self, even if there’s no business case now for what they demand that you do. They won’t stop until you do what they say, but they tend to be right over time. Greenpeace, for example, has “been right” years ahead of the curve about climate change, biodiversity and plastics. Instead, consider critics your early warning system of what will go mainstream next.

Critical friends. Critical friends push you to do better, telling you what you’re doing isn’t good enough, calling you out on greenwash or on not reaching targets or claims. But don’t confuse critical friends for haters.

That’s a taste. There’s more insight and inspiration in this free, downloadable report. Feel free to share it with your internal and external comms partners.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGsmXDbGHvznvXqZrFKqtNShwpk

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, Green Buzzz, green marketing, Greenwashing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

‘Sustainable’ pension funds accused of greenwashing over billions held in oil and gas firms

15 05 2023

A refinery in the US owned by ExxonMobil, one of the companies invested in by supposedly ‘green’ funds. Photograph: Barry Lewis/In Pictures/Getty Images

Warning comes as UK watchdog set to tighten rules for asset managers given short-term targets. By Bewtasy Reed, Editor from the Guardian.com • Reposted: May 15, 2023

People investing their pensions in funds that claim green credentials are being warned they may actually be backing the world’s largest oil and gas companies.

Carbon Tracker Initiative said that asset managers have invested $376bn (£295bn) in oil and gas companies, despite publicly pledging to back efforts to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C. The environmental thinktank based in London and New York found that more than 160 funds with a green label held $4.6bn in 15 companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and TotalEnergies.

It also found that 25 members of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative had invested in those companies and some had increased their holdings in 2022. NZAM said its international initiative started two years ago and investors needed time to change their strategies.

The warning comes as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority prepares to publish anti-greenwashing rules that are intended to clean up how investment funds are labelled.

Just under 50% of all UK employees now pay into employer schemes or private pensions where they can make a choice about how their money is invested – a huge rise since 2012 when employers became legally obliged to automatically enrol workers in a workplace scheme. Most people with a private pension or a stocks and shares ISA make a choice as to how their money is invested and many emphasise sustainability.

The financial industry has reacted by creating funds badged as sustainable, climate, carbon, transition or ESG – short for environmental, social and governance.

“What we found is that these funds, despite their names, can often include sometimes large positions in fossil fuel companies,” said Maeve O’Connor, one of the report’s authors, and an analyst at the Carbon Tracker Initiative. “For retail investors that could be seen to be misleading. If I’m investing in a green fund, do I want my investment to be going to ExxonMobil? Probably not.”

According to the report, BlackRock’s ACS Climate Transition World Equity Fund says it invests in companies “well-positioned to maximise the opportunities and minimise the potential risks associated with a transition to a low-carbon economy” – but it has $219m in 10 of the 15 leading oil and gas companies.

O’Connor said asset managers were usually given performance targets over short periods, which might influence their thinking. She said: “They could be assessed over two to five years and that timescale doesn’t really fit with the realities of the energy transition.”

Coalitions such as UK Divest and Share Action campaign for pension funds to be invested sustainably. Robert Noyes, an energy economist at Platform London, part of UK Divest, said that with about £2tn invested in pensions, it was the largest source of investment in the UK and people should ask their pension providers for information.

“People should ask three questions,” he said. “Does it invest in the problem, like a company that spends money on fossil fuels? Does it invest in things that drive changes in the real economy that lead environmental programmes? So, for example, it’s hard to see how investing in Microsoft is driving a change towards net zero.

“And thirdly, is it vocal about the need for political action?”

A spokesperson for NZAM said that while its partners “share Carbon Tracker’s perspective that the oil and gas industry must very rapidly decarbonise to meet the urgency of the climate crisis, the Net Zero Asset Managers’ commitment statement does not require signatories to choose equity holdings to meet a particular climate target”. It added: “Passive investors cannot divest from the oil and gas sector without significantly changing their investment strategy.”

NZAM expected those funds with passive portfolios to engage in dialogue with companies, proxy voting and policy advocacy to align their holdings with the 1.5C commitment. Asset managers depended on governments to follow through their own commitments under the Paris agreement, the spokesperson added.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/14/sustainable-pension-funds-accused-of-greenwashing-over-billions-held-in-oil-and-gas-firms

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Carbon Tracker Iniitiave, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, Net Zero Goals, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, UK’s Financial Conduct Authority
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility

Why 2023 Is (Finally) The Year of the Sustainability Pivot

15 05 2023

Image: Sustainable Brands

Four key trends are converging this year to create a permanent shift toward sustainability across industries — with implications for tech innovation, the planet and companies that have yet to start their sustainability transformation. By Jeff Herbert from Sustainablebrands.com • Reposted: May 15, 2023

Despite economic uncertainty, tech industry woes and a tightening VC market, money and talent are flowing into climate technology development at an unprecedented pace. This is accelerating progress and offering hope for meeting global decarbonization targets to mitigate temperature rise. We’re also seeing renewable energy solidifying its status as the “world’s cheapest source of energy.”‌

Why is all of this happening now, after many years of underinvestment in and debate about climate mitigation? Four key trends are converging this year to create a permanent shift toward sustainability across industries — with implications for tech innovation, the planet and companies that have yet to start their sustainability transformation.

4 trends driving the sustainability pivot

Workers seeking work with purpose

The first trend is a desire to make a positive impact and find meaningful work. The pandemic gave many of us more time to consider what we’re doing with our lives and with our technology. During the Great Reshuffling, as many as 90 percent of people in the labor market “changed roles in some way” in response to the pandemic. Gallup data confirms that workplace engagement plummeted and stress surged during 2021 — with most workers saying “they don’t find their work meaningful, don’t think their lives are going well or don’t feel hopeful about their future.”

Now, as the pandemic shifts from an acute crisis to a chronic issue, people are seeking work they feel has demonstrable value in the world.

Broader acceptance and understanding of climate change

Another trend is widespread awareness of climate impacts. With more time during the pandemic to ponder our life paths, a lot of us also had the opportunity to pay closer attention to the effects of the ongoing climate crisis — many of which we’re experiencing firsthand. For example, the wildfire proliferation in the western USdecimated many lives and properties; it also made the COVID situation worse for people living in areas polluted with smoke. Elsewhere, hurricanes are becoming more powerful and causing more damagethrough storm surges and flooding when they reach land.

What used to feel like an academic debate in the public sphere about climate change is now a conversation about what we’re going through today — and what we can urgently do to stop or slow the processes that are driving climate change. Consumers are reacting with more conscious purchasing behaviors, a willingness to pay a premium for more sustainable products, and votes for political candidates who promise to pursue climate solutions. Companies are responding, with increasingly bold climate commitments (including those from Microsoft and Google) and more Chief Sustainability Officers being hired in 2021than the prior five years combined.

The Inflation Reduction Act

The desire for meaningful work and the growing concern over climate change are intersecting with a third trend: A massive investment by the US in climate technologies through the Inflation Reduction Act. The tens of billions in federal loans offered through various IRA programs are projected to result in hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of investment by the private sector.

In particular, the IRA has accelerated the rate of investment in and development of carbon-capture and -removal technologies. For example, tech giants Google, Facebook, Stripe andShopify recently partnered to form Frontier — a $925M fund for carbon removal.

Tech layoffs

The fourth trend fueling this year’s sustainability pivot is the reversal of the big tech hiring boom. Instead of drawing in most of the talent, now the traditional tech sector is undergoing rounds of layoffs and hiring freezes. Over 130,000 workers in US-based tech companies have been laid off in mass job cuts so far in 2023 — giving emerging climate tech innovators access to the kinds of engineering and project management talent that were “once thought un-poachable” from tech giants such as Twitter and Meta.

An urgent need for more climate tech deployment

This pivot is resulting in new and expanded use cases for a variety of climate-mitigation technologies. For example, carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) tech prevents carbon from escaping industrial processes into the atmosphere, transforms it, and sequesters or eliminates it. CCUS has applications across energy-intensive domains including utilities, manufacturing, food production and food-waste management. Additionally, an increasing number of companies are pursuing direct air capture (DAC) and the associated carbon-credit market through a wide range of processes — from scaling natural carbon sinks such as kelp to chemical processes to scrubbing carbon straight from the air. Other technologies can help companies improve their operational efficiency and reduce their energy usage to reduce their carbon footprint; still others are behind new forms of renewable energy production and storage, as well as the growing electrification of vehicles ranging from bikes to 18-wheelers.

Climate tech innovations are happening at legacy companies such as fossil fuel producers, as well as at small startups. That’s crucial, because the International Energy Agency estimates that in order to reach net-zero carbon emissions globally by 2050, we need to be capturing 1,286 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2030. Currently, we’re capturing about 45 metric tonnes per year.

Beyond carbon-capture initiatives for industry, the sustainability pivot also hinges on another goal: reducing the carbon footprint of basically every product and process. There are opportunities for companies to reduce the impact of existing products by creating circular pathways such as resale, refurbishment and recycling. Products in development must also be made as sustainable as possible, considering everything from their raw materials and manufacturing to transport, use and end of life. These improvements not only address consumer preferences for sustainable products, they create other kinds of business value. For example, Forrester lists enhanced innovation, employee retention, regulatory compliance and revenue growth among the benefits of optimizing for sustainability.

Pivoting toward a sustainable future

As exciting as these developments in the climate tech space are, the pivotal changes we’re seeing this year are just the beginning of a longer-term sustainability transformation. By 2045, annual investment into CCUS technology is projected to exceed $150 billion — and that’s just one domain within the array of climate technologies now on the market and in development. For employees, investors, business and governments, this shift to a focus on sustainability offers meaning, purpose, the potential for value creation and a healthier planet; this year’s trends are bringing together the awareness, talent and capital to make it happen. As a result, there’s never been a better time for organizations to lean into their sustainability goals and accelerate their progress toward them.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/defining-the-next-economy/2023-finally-year-sustainability-pivot

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, Great REshuffliong, green marketing, International Energy Agency, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : social responsibility, sustainable brands

A Circular Economy Will Create Millions of Good Jobs; But Study Reveals Global North Bias

12 05 2023

Image: Plastics for Change

A new report finds that only a handful of studies have examined whether and how a circular economy can alleviate poverty and benefit vulnerable communities in low-income countries. From Sustainable Brands • Reposted: May 12, 2023

Circular-economic models and strategies are growing in popularity among businesses and policymakers as a means to increase efficiency, reduce waste and reach climate goals. By increasing the reuse and regeneration of products and materials, a projected 7-8 million new jobs can be created. But a new report by Circle Economy, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE) Program at the World Bank‍ identifies knowledge gaps that may hinder the equitable creation of new employment opportunities.

Decent Work in the Circular Economy: An Overview of the Existing Evidence Basereveals that current research on circular-economic job opportunities displays a strong Global North bias. It fails to address the impact of circular interventions on people in the Global South — including atypical workers, women, migrants, youth and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, the study outlines what we currently know about jobs in a circular economy and pinpoints research gaps — calling for more consistent and internationally relevant evidence to create a stronger foundation for decision-making.

According to the report, 84 percent of current research focuses on the Global North. Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa were the least represented regions — despite the fact that most circular-economic activities are now located in the Global South. Moreover, while 73 percent of workers in low-income countries are employed in the informal economy, most research concerns formal, regulated work.

Existing research also focuses disproportionately on job creation and disregards job quality— including working conditions and wages. The report finds that only a handful of studies have examined whether and how a circular economy can alleviate poverty and benefit vulnerable communities in low-income countries.

“The link between environmental sustainability goals and human development and jobs has often been overlooked, especially in the context of developing countries where most workers are clustered in the informal sector — which is characterized by low-quality, low-paying jobs,” says Namita Datta, Program Manager at S4YE. “The shift to more circular approaches calls for policies that ensure that the jobs created are not only good for the environment, but also good for workers.

“The focus would be on addressing the low-quality, low-paying jobs in the informal sectorwith hazardous working conditions and exposure to toxic materials that are associated with circular activities like waste management, recycling, repair and reuse,” Datta explained. “But this integration will require intentional and adequate policies, as well as further evidence to understand the impact of a circular economy on people’s livelihoods. A truly just transition to a circular economy will require reskilling and upskilling opportunities for workers to access better job opportunities.”

Decent work in a circular economy: 5 themes

Five key themes underpin current research into decent work in a circular economy; these represent some of the crucial opportunities and challenges and should be considered for circular transition to lead to a more just and inclusive society:

Labor market and sectoral transformation — Employment and job creation are often described as the most important social and economic contributions of a circular economy. Based on a comprehensive 2018 ILO study, global employment growth was estimated to be driven by Latin America and the Caribbean (over 10 million jobs) and Europe (around 0.5 million jobs) due to new jobs in recycling and reprocessing. The region expected to have most employment gains is the EU, benefiting from the ‘first-mover advantage’ compared to the rest of the world.
Informality in a circular economy — The informal economy is estimated to employ 60 percent of the world’s population; yet most studies and policy approaches assume that the economy is part of a regulated, formal economy. This is especially significant in the Global South — where the reuse, repair, waste-collection and recycling sectors provide ample employment to low-income workers. Yet, the informal economy is not sufficiently included in the Global North’s circular economy agenda and existing research does not adequately consider the wide-ranging circular activities operating informally in the Global South.
Work reallocation and skills development — The successful reallocation of workers from linear to circular sectors is dependent on access to training and related policy measures. Gaining the ‘deep skills’ required for circular interventions relies on employers’ and educational institutions’ knowledge of circular business models. Lack of knowledge can result in a deep skills gap — especially in low-income countries, where access to STEM skills for remanufacturing and related sectors may be lacking.
Working conditions and social protections — Some academics and practitioners have proposed a circular economy as a solution to eradicate poverty (SDG 1). Still, research on poverty alleviation is lacking; most occupational health and safety concerns relating to circular activities are associated with the global waste trade and secondhand goods flowing from Global North to South, where workers are often exposed to toxic waste.
Gender discrimination and social equity — Projections show that the transition to a circular economy will increase female employment globally. Beyond gender equity, concerns relating to the social blind spots of circular-economic interventions among underrepresented circular actors (ex: migrant workers, youth) were only studied in-depth three times, revealing a significant knowledge gap.

Alette van Leur, Director of the ILO’s Sectoral Policies Department, said, “There is no doubt that a circular economy can help us reach our climate goals. However, the links between circularity and the achievement of social and economic progress remain overlooked. The shift towards a more circular economy offers significant opportunities for the world of work, such as the creation of new jobs and sustainable enterprises. However, fully unlocking the potential of this new economy requires a just transition that addresses the current inequalities and suboptimal working conditions currently present in the circular economy. If not managed properly, these issues could continue to impede progress towards a more equitable and sustainable future.”

Ultimately, the new report calls for more in-depth and inclusive research on decent work and the circular economy — which puts the Global South, informal workers and global value chains in the spotlight. The authors also reveal the need for joint advocacy and data partnerships to close knowledge gaps and build links to other important themes — such as climate justice and women’s empowerment.

“Having better data and evidence to understand how the circular economy can create better-quality jobs in different industries around the world is crucial for a just transition,” says Hatty Cooper, Director of Governments and Institutions at Circle Economy. “Also, the circular economy is still seen as an environmental agenda; and its social and economic benefits are yet to be fully embraced, despite the importance of this topic. We need to work in partnership to create and put evidence of its socioeconomic impacts in the hands of practitioners and decision-makers.”

Decent Work in the Circular Economy is the first output under Circle Economy, the ILO and S4YE’s joint Jobs in the Circular Economy initiative — which aims to address gaps in the evidence base for circular jobs through collaboration with an international community of research institutions, industry representatives, social partners, governments and public agencies. The initiative was launched on May 9 at the Geneva Environment Network; findings from the report will also be presented later this month at this year’s World Circular Economy Forum.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/defining-the-next-economy/circular-economy-create-millions-jobs-global-north-bias

Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : sustainable brands

The target audience for sustainability ads is exactly who you think

12 05 2023

By Jordan Wollman via Politico • Reposted; May 12, 2023

SURVEY SAYS — The data is pretty clear-cut on who brands should target for sustainability-related marketing campaigns: It’s younger urban women.

A new predictive model from BlueLabs Analytics shared first with POLITICO scores American adults on their likelihood of making purchasing choices based on sustainability.

Perhaps the topline takeaway isn’t too surprising. But BlueLabs, a Washington-based data science service, found some other interesting data points that could be useful for brands looking to figure out who might be persuadable.

For one, the gaps based on gender, age and location were stark. Women were 19 percent more likely than men to say they’d made purchases based on sustainability, people aged 18 to 29 were 23 percent more likely to be sustainability consumers and people living in urban areas were 25 percent more likely.

White people were the racial demographic least likely to be sustainability consumers, with Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders the most likely.

A “sustainability consumer” is described as someone who responded to BlueLabs’ February survey of 1,800 American adults and said that in the last two weeks they had purchased a product or service because it was the environmentally friendly choice. BlueLabs then applied a model based on the survey to the country’s nearly 200 million adults to identify those most likely to make purchasing decisions on that basis.

The model showed that people in communities of color were more eager to make purchasing decisions based on sustainability compared with white people, said Meagan Knowlton, director of sustainability practice at BlueLabs. Knowlton clarified that the model doesn’t address whether a person actually made the environmentally friendly choice, but rather focuses on the individual’s perception of whether they actively made a sustainable purchase.

“It was the communities of color that were really exciting to us,” Knowlton said. “We think that this is an area that brands should really move forward exploring when designing or advertising products.”

The model identified 38 million Americans who rank within the top 20 percent of sustainability consumer scores — and in general, they’re more easily reached by digital and social media than cable TV or radio. Of those, 77 percent are women, with 37 percent being single women. About one-fifth are people aged 50 to 64.

BlueLabs conducted the research and compiled the report, and no brands paid for it, Knowlton said.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/the-long-game/2023/05/11/the-target-audience-for-sustainability-ads-is-exactly-who-you-think-00096406

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, BlueLabs Analytics', corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainability, sustainable branding

Green Bonds are Ready For a Comeback

11 05 2023

Image credit: Akil Mazumder/Pexels

By Tina Casey via triplepundit.com • Reposted: May 11, 2023

The bond market sneezed in 2022, and green bonds caught the same cold. Fortunately, according to some analysts, green bonds are in the position to rebound this year. In the case of municipal green bonds, that provides new opportunities for cities to make climate-resilient investments in their future, and corporate citizens are among those to reap the benefits.

What are green bonds?

Assets in global sustainable and green bonds reached $516 billion at the end of 2022, an elevenfold increase over the past decade, according to a recent analysis from Morningstar. Verizon, one of the largest corporate green bond issuers in the U.S., made headlines this weekwith its fifth billion-dollar green bond since 2019.

So, what are green bonds anyway, and why do they matter in the world of finance? As with any bond, green bonds are issued by companies and governments as a way to raise money. Investors purchase the bond, and they’re paid back later with interest. But in the case of green and sustainability-linked bonds, the funds are specifically earmarked for projects that positively benefit people and the environment.

As Fidelity described in a 2021 white paper, green bonds reflect a broader focus on socially and environmentally beneficial goals among U.S. investors. “This trend toward sustainability, commonly demonstrated through reusable bags, hybrid cars and renewable energy sources, has also gained popularity in the municipal bond market through the issuance of green bonds,” the white paper reads. “Municipal green bonds, issued by state and local governments to fund environmentally beneficial capital projects, are not currently a large percentage of total municipal bond issuance, but have recently gained significant traction.”

The municipal green bond trend is relatively new. Massachusetts kickstarted the movement in 2013, and green bonds are still a small part of the overall municipal market, which totaled $470 billion in 2020. Municipal green bond issuance tripled over a rolling five year-period ending in 2020, with an impressive 40 percent jump between the final two years to reach a then-record of $14 billion, according to Fidelity’s analysis.

Despite the strong showing, Fidelity emphasized that green bonds are a new phenomenon. “[It] is too soon to determine if there will be a consistent cost advantage” for issuers, investors or municipalities over the long run, Fidelity found, though the firm did make note of “the intangible environmentally friendly purpose for which the bonds are issued has its own intrinsic value.”

A comeback for green bonds

Fidelity’s outlook was prescient. In February of last year, S&P Global explored the possibility of a jump to $60 billion for municipal green bonds in 2022. However, when the dust settled after a tumultuous economic year, a mixed picture emerged for bond markets overall.

“Up until 2022, green bond funds experienced a relatively sanguine period of positive returns and low volatility compared with conventional bond products,” Morningstar wrote. “That relationship flipped, however, last year, as green bond funds experienced steeper losses and higher volatility in 2022.”

Still, the picture for green bonds was more rosy than the overall bond market, which took a beating amidst economic uncertainty last year. “Net inflows into global sustainable bond funds slowed down in 2022 but remained positive, while traditional bond funds experienced massive outflows in the challenging market environment,” Morningstar found.

Further, it appears that a rebound is taking shape. In January of this year, S&P Global took another look at the global situation for corporate green bond issuance. Although issuance dropped steeply from 2021 to 2022, S&P described the context of a broader slowdown in bond issuance overall, driven by “volatile markets, inflation, rising interest rates and geopolitical uncertainty.”

S&P painted a more optimistic picture for 2023, based largely on supportive policies in China and the U.S., where the new federal climate and energy legislation promoted by President Joe Biden provides for $386 billion in spending over the next 10 years and a $265 billion increase in tax incentives.

S&P also cited Charlotte Edwards, a head of environmental, social and governance (ESG) research at Barclays, who expects growth in corporate green bond issuance to increase 30 percent this year, rebounding to 2021 levels.

A new threat for municipal green bonds

Here in the U.S., the renewed activity in the municipal green bond area could be hampered by partisan Republican policies designed to thwart ESG investment under the umbrella of the “woke capitalism” canard.

For example, last week in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed anti-ESG legislation that prohibits some ESG bond sales outright and prevents state office holders from considering ESG goals.

In addition to raising potential legal liabilities for financial officers, Reuters took note of how the new law could negatively impact municipal bonds. “Lawyers and credit analysts said the new law could deny municipalities access to large pools of ESG-mandated capital,” Isla Binnie and Ross Kerber of Reuters reported, citing Thomas Torgerson, co-head of global sovereign ratings at DBRS Morningstar.

Those concerns are well founded. In Texas, the city of Anna lost more than $277,000 on a bond sale last year after Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed anti-ESG legislation into law. The loss was attributed to a drop in competition following the new law, which precluded the highest bidder.

Based on a Wharton analysis of the Texas law, the firm Econsult Solutions, Inc. anticipates millions more in losses for other states considering anti-ESG legislation, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and West Virginia as well as Florida.

Signs municipal green bonds are ready to turn the corner

Municipalities in states that are free of partisan interference can expect to fare better, along with their taxpayers, residents and businesses.

For example, the city of Turlock, California, has gained a significant new corporate citizen thanks to a $63 million municipal green bond issued by the California Public Finance Authority. The company in question is Divert, Inc., which describes itself as “an impact technology company on a mission to Protect the Value of Food.”

In April, Divert broke ground on its new facility in Turlock, which will convert food waste into carbon-negative renewable energy. In addition to helping California meet its climate goals, the new facility will create new jobs in Turlock and help the company’s retail and food industry clients improve their sustainability profiles by cutting down on food waste.

Divert clients can also anticipate bottom-line benefits from data collected through the waste-to-energy operation. The overall plan also encompasses a food donation program, helping to reduce food waste at the starting point.

Another example involves community choice aggregation, which is the means by which municipalities can join forces to lobby their utility for more clean energy.

Only a handful of states have aggregation laws on the books, and one of them is California. Earlier this year, the California Community Choice Financing Authority issued municipal green bonds totaling almost $1 billion to the state’s largest community choice aggregator, Clean Power Alliance. The Alliance projects its renewable energy costs to decrease by an average of $8.3 million per year over the initial eight-year period of the bonds. The savings will be passed along to ratepayers.

It’s unfortunate that businesses and residents in some Republican-led states will have to pass on opportunities like these, but that is a problem that corporate leaders can — and should — take up with their elected representatives.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/green-bonds-comeback/773906

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Clean Power Alliance, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, Green Bonds, green marketing, responsible brands, S$P Gobal, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, ESG, sustainability

Consumers Want Companies to Invest in Climate Tech

11 05 2023

Getty Images / Morning Consult artwork by Ashley Berry

Mitigating the worst impacts of climate change will take significant investment, and the effort will require partnership across tech, energy and government, writes tech analyst Jordan Marlatt via morning consult.com • Re[posted May 11, 2023

At a time when only 29% of U.S. consumers say tech companies have a mostly positive impact on the environment, climate tech is emerging as an area that people want companies to invest in.
Power grid improvements, solar energy production and decarbonization of the atmosphere have emerged as the top areas where consumers say investments should be prioritized.
But it will take more than tech to save the world from climate change. Recent partnerships across tech, energy and government show promising developments in this space, and it will require continued joint efforts to scale climate tech.

Climate tech is emerging as a space where innovative technologies may help mitigate the effects of climate change — or even reverse them, depending on who one talks to. This corner of tech saw sizable investment late last year and at the start of 2023, before slowing down recently.

Saving the planet is reason enough to invest in technologies that will help us avert the worst effects of climate change, though investments currently aren’t happening with the level of urgency and intensity required to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

A recent Morning Consult survey shows that two-thirds of U.S. adults are concerned about climate change — about the same as the share who say they’re concerned about political polarization in the country (67%) — and there is an appetite for investment in specific climate technologies. A Morning Consult report from last summer showed that consumers expect tech to lead the way on innovation in sustainability, and investing in climate tech is one way for tech companies to make good on their ambitious sustainability goals.

Positive perceptions of tech companies’ impact on the environment are down, but people still turn to tech for answers

Tech’s perceived positive impact on the environment has declined somewhat since July 2022. This is particularly the case among Gen Zers: 15% say tech’s impact on the environment is mostly positive (down from 27% in July of last year), while 29% say it is mostly negative. These sentiments are likely tied to a rough several months for tech in which overall favorability and trust in the industry diminished, as explained in our most recent State of Technology report. When trust and reputation fall, so too do brand perceptions, including how people perceive a company’s impact across the board.

U.S. adults’ perceptions of major technology companies’ impact on the environment

Surveys conducted July 22-23, 2022, and April 14-17, 2023, among representative samples of roughly 2,200 U.S. adults each, with unweighted margins of error of +/-2 percentage points. Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

That being said, people largely agree that tech has an important role to play in innovating sustainability practices, and the opportunity for tech to invest in this space is rendered all the more important by declining perceptions of the industry’s impact on the environment. Over 2 in 5 adults (42%) say major technology companies have “a lot of responsibility” for driving innovation in sustainability, just behind energy companies and the federal government. Interestingly, tech startups — the source of many exciting innovations in this space — and venture capital — where the money comes from — sit lower on the list.

Another factor to consider when discussing investments in sustainable solutions is the politicization of climate change in the United States. The issue is much more concerning to Democrats (84%) than it is to Republicans (45%). Democrats also tend to be more concerned about the impact of companies on the environment (81%) than Republicans (54%). That said, energy companies, the federal government and major technology companies are seen by Democrats and Republicans alike as the three entities with the most responsibility for driving sustainability innovation.

Making climate tech happen will take a village

Major tech companies can drive innovation in sustainability through their own venture capital arms or through acquisitions of startups, with the latter capable of helping bigger companies scale up or integrate the acquired tech into their products, services and operations. Not only do the power players have an opportunity to drum up excitement around climate tech by putting it front and center, but they also get the added PR benefit of convincing people that they’re climate advocates.

As a catch-all term, “climate tech” encompasses many technologies, from generating clean energy to scrubbing the air of carbon (and even repurposing it for energy or useful products like concrete). Of a long list of climate tech applications, consumers feel that power infrastructure improvements, solar energy production and the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere should be top priorities for investment.

Of those three, carbon sequestration is the most experimental climate tech area, and has not yet been deployed at scale. However, at our current pace of emissions reductions, this technology may prove essential for hitting climate goals, and less of a last-ditch solution.

Moving climate tech forward will likely take a concerted and collaborative effort from technology companies, financial institutions, government and energy companies. But how each is best suited to help is subject to debate.

Consumers say tech companies should be the most responsible for investing in electronics recycling, electrification of vehicles and AI optimization in energy production. For energy companies, the expectation is that they should shoulder most of the responsibility for energy production, power grid improvements and decarbonization. Finally, consumers want the government to bolster cities against the effects of climate change (such as infrastructure improvements to reduce flooding risks), as well as reduce emissions in agriculture and develop water desalination technology.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://morningconsult.com/2023/05/10/climate-tech-survey/

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Climate Tech, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, ESG, sustainable branding

Do More Good with a Tribally-Owned Business

10 05 2023

A Seneca Nation family. Tribally-owned businesses generate profits that flow directly to the Native Nation and fund the support services its members need. Images courtesy of the Seneca Media and Communications Center

By Jeffrey Ellis via Triplepundit.com • Reposted: May 10, 2023

Businesses looking to amplify their environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals should consider the added impact that comes from working with a tribally-owned business. The mission of a business owned by a Native Nation is to generate income that will improve the lives of its people. Every other for-profit business seeks to maximize value for its owners. If a tribally-owned business can serve your business just as well as another (or better!), your company will simply “do more good” by working with one.

Why Native Nations form businesses

There are 574 federally recognized Native Nations in the United States. Many have sovereign territories on which their members live. For some Native Nations, their territory consists of a sliver of their ancestral homeland; for others, their territory is nowhere near their ancestral homeland. Still others have no territory at all.

It is widely recognized that Native communities have not shared in the wealth generated from their lands. Native communities are also underserved compared to other communities in the United States. These factors have contributed to conditions where poverty is high, education levels are low, health disparities still exist, and opportunities are scarce. The reasons for this are complicated, generational and well-documented.

With few exceptions, Native Nations do not have tax revenue to fund the services they provide to their members. Instead, they need to generate other forms of income to provide for the health, safety, education and social support their community members need.

Increasingly over recent decades, Native Nations have established wholly-owned businesses to generate profits that flow directly to the Native Nation and fund the support services needed by its members. While many of these businesses have done well, the revenue they generate is still not enough for most Native Nations to provide the same services to their members that most other Americans get from their federal, state and local governments. Tribally-owned businesses are now expanding in the competitive marketplace, and there are more opportunities than ever to work with them.

Seneca Nation children - tribally-owned business operations fund Native Nations — *A group of Seneca Nation children.*

What makes a tribally-owned business unique?

A tribally-owned business is a for-profit business owned directly by a Native Nation, and not by any specific shareholders. Profits flow directly to the Native Nation and are used by its government to directly fund services and support for its members. The organization I lead is one such business, owned by the Seneca Nation located in the Western New York region. I regularly say that while the mission of Seneca Holdings is to generate profits — like any other business — we operate more like a nonprofit than a for-profit entity. We know that every dollar that we earn, and every dollar that we save, goes directly back to the Seneca Nation.

There are many exceptional businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans and other disadvantaged individuals that are worth supporting. The difference, which you can decide for yourself how much to value, is that the mission of a tribally-owned business is to improve the lives of an entire community, particularly those in need. This is why we think of our organization as operating more like a nonprofit than a for-profit business.

There are also unique capabilities that tribally-owned businesses can provide their customers that may not be available to smaller businesses. Seneca Holdings, for example, leverages its capabilities across multiple industries to provide back-office support and financial stability that is more mature and robust than any of our individual businesses would have on its own.

Seneca Nation workers learning on computer - tribally-owned business operations fund Native Nations — *The profit generated by tribally-owned businesses allow for education and workforce development services provided by Native Nations like the Seneca Nation.*

ESG and tribally-owned businesses

The promise of ESG is that it creates an expectation that companies “do more good” while running their businesses. Decision-makers have many options for the partnerships they pursue and the suppliers they use. A genuine commitment to ESG entails considering the added impact that a tribally-owned business has on improving the lives of the Native community it serves.

In addition to the inherent “S” benefit, many tribally-owned businesses are focused on renewable energy projects and environmental sustainability that also address the “E” in ESG. In the clean energy space, there will be an increasing number of tribally-owned businesses looking to partner with larger companies that seek to amplify their ESG commitment.

There are multiple benefits to partnering with a tribally-owned business on a renewable energy project beyond just satisfying your company’s ESG goals. Partnering can also be good for your bottom line, as these businesses provide access to unique advantages conferred by the federal government. Incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act of 2021, the Justice40 Initiative, and Department of Energy grants and loan programs can all significantly reduce the cost of renewable energy projects.

You may also find that the kinds of people who choose to work for a tribally-owned business are more likely to earn your trust as a valued business partner. Those of us that do embrace the responsibility of representing the Native Nations we work for, and we are inspired by the meaningful contributions that our businesses can make. We are always looking for partners and clients that are inspired in the same way.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/partner-tribally-owned-business/773881

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, native nations, responsible brands, Seneca Nation, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, Tribal business
Categories : ESG, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Prioritizing Supply Chain Transparency Offers Food Brands Many Benefits

10 05 2023

By Paul Damaren, Executive Vice President, Business Development at RizePoint

Did you know that a single contaminated product could ruin your brand’s reputation and harm your customers? It’s a terrifying thought, but one that food brands must be prepared for. That’s where supply chain transparency comes in. By prioritizing transparency, brands can identify and reduce risks, improve supplier relationships, and meet stakeholder demand. In this article, we’ll explore the many benefits of prioritizing supply chain transparency for food brands.

In the food industry, transparency is key. Consumers want to know where their food is coming from, how it’s sourced, and whether it’s safe to eat. That’s why supply chain transparency is so important – it allows food brands to track their products from the point of origin to the point of consumption, ensuring safety and quality every step of the way.

Multiple food brands have successfully implemented supply chain transparency and benefited from doing so. For instance, in 2015, Chipotle suffered a series of foodborne illness outbreaks that sickened hundreds of customers and led to a decline in sales. In response, the company launched a transparency initiative to improve the safety and quality of its food. As part of this initiative, Chipotle began using software to track ingredients from farm to restaurant, implemented new food safety protocols, and provided more information to customers about the sourcing and preparation of its food. The initiative helped restore customer confidence in the brand and led to a rebound in sales.

Walmart also announced a new initiative to improve supply chain transparency for its food suppliers. As part of this initiative, the company began requiring suppliers to provide more information about the origins and production methods of their products, and to adhere to stricter food safety and animal welfare standards. The initiative helped Walmart identify and address potential risks in its supply chain, improve the quality and safety of its products, and meet the demands of its customers for more sustainable and ethical food.

Improving supply chain transparency is a smart business move that can help food brands:

Identify and reduce risk. Accepting food deliveries comes with risks, but you can reduce these risks with more transparency all along your supply chain. Since just one contaminated product could sicken your customers and ruin your brand’s reputation, improving your supply chain visibility can provide critical insights into potential risk factors. For instance, if there are product recalls, you’ll want accurate information about whether your deliveries were impacted. Better visibility can tell you whether your suppliers experienced transportation delays, which could result in perishable foods spoiling. Even weather-related events, like storms or flooding, could contaminate products with more bacterial growth and migration increasing foodborne illness risks. And if your suppliers don’t prioritize food safety and quality, their carelessness around food safety protocols – such as cross-contaminating, not holding foods at proper temps, etc. – could potentially harm your customers (and your business). Improving visibility can help protect your products, customers, and business.
Make smarter, data-driven decisions. In the past, food brands have relied on manual systems – such as paper files and Excel spreadsheets – to manage their food safety and quality programs. Using these outdated systems means that food brands can’t get a holistic, real-time look at their data across their organization and throughout their supply chain. Instead, brands should pivot and use tech solutions, which are improving food safety and quality exponentially. Tech tools allow food brands to centralize data for a single source of truth, and provide valuable, real-time analytics to help brand leaders make smarter, more informed decisions. Brands can use these insights to reduce risks, solve problems, anticipate disruptions, select vendors, optimize operations, and maximize safety.
Prioritize ESG initiatives. More food brands are prioritizing ESG efforts, partly due to customer, employee, and investor demands, and partly because it’s the right thing to do. A growing number of organizations are wisely reducing their environmental impact, prioritizing sustainability, committing to DEI efforts, and buying responsibly sourced products. Organizations can’t say they’re prioritizing ESG if they’re working with vendors that don’t, so brands are gravitating towards suppliers with ESG values that align with their own. Another positive change is that food brands are using tech tools to determine whether their suppliers are properly certified. This helps ensure that brands are only working with suppliers that prioritize ESG initiatives – as well as safety, quality, transparency, and compliance.
Improve KPIs. Increasing supply chain transparency can significantly improve key performance indicators (KPIs), including sales, profits, investments, and customer loyalty. As more consumers gravitate towards brands that operate safely, sustainably, and ethically, sharing information about your supply chain can help you improve important metrics, such as increasing profits 2% to 10%.
Maximize performance. Tech tools provide a clear view of inventory, potential disruptors, and activity through every step of the supply chain, which allows brands to be more agile, flexible, responsive, and resilient. Collecting and analyzing real-time data from the point of origin to the point of consumption can help brands boost safety and quality, improve compliance, and maximize performance. Supply chain transparency also helps create more resilient operations. Armed with critical insights and data, brands can make strategic decisions, such as switching to different suppliers when their regular suppliers are impacted by transportation delays, weather events, or other disruptors.
Meet consumer demands. Recently, consumers have become more concerned about social issues. They want to know where their food is coming from, how it’s been sourced, how sustainable companies are, and if the animals are being treated humanely. Additionally, they want to support organizations that are committed to fair labor practices and DEI. Therefore, it’s not surprising that a whopping 94% of consumers said they’d be more loyal to brands that offer supply chain transparency.
Communicate more effectively with suppliers. Food brands must communicate regularly with each of their many suppliers. Consider, for instance, a global fast food brand. There are so many different suppliers necessary to supply every component of every meal around the world that trying to track their supply chain manually would be overwhelming and time-consuming. However, using tech tools to improve supply chain transparency provides key insights about potential disruptors that could negatively impact incoming products. You’ll need to know about supply chain disruptions, potential weather events that could limit products (and/or cause prices to spike), and food safety breaches (such as a farm being contaminated by bacteria or chemicals). Therefore, ongoing communication – and collaboration – with your suppliers is essential. Tech tools – like the cloud, quality management software, artificial intelligence, etc. – are revolutionizing food brands’ ability to communicate with their suppliers across the supply chain to ensure that everyone’s working together to maximize safety and quality.
Drive positive industry-wide change. You’ve likely heard the saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The same could be said for food safety efforts. If food brands continue to do the same thing over and over (e.g., try to manage food safety efforts with paper files and Excel spreadsheets), we’ll never improve safety, quality, and compliance industry wide. On the other hand, when your organization (and suppliers) use tech solutions to improve visibility across the supply chain, you’ll drive positive changes not only within your company, but throughout the industry. And that’s a major win.

Key stakeholders – including customers, employees, and investors – want to work with responsible organizations. They’re more likely to support brands that provide safe food, of course, but who are also concerned about the greater good: sustainability, fair business practices, ethical treatment of people and animals, ESG, and DEI. It’s no longer enough for your brand to commit to these things – it’s also essential that you align with suppliers that do, as well. Prove your commitment by embracing transparency across your supply chain.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://foodindustryexecutive.com/2023/05/prioritizing-supply-chain-transparency-offers-food-brands-many-benefits/

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, food brands, green marketing, KPIs, responsible brands, Supply Chain, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : ESG

Fed rate hikes, recession fears and political backlash leave ESG investors at a crossroads

9 05 2023

By Sehoon Kim, Assistant Professor of Finance, University of Florida via The Conversation • Reposted: May 9, 2023

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates again on May 3, 2023, by a quarter point, making it the Fed’s 10th rate hike since March 2022 in an ongoing fight to tame inflation. These rate hikes have been reverberating through the economy, raising prospects of a recession amid heightened concerns about the fragile state of banks.

The rate hikes are also rattling sustainability-focused investing, better known as ESG investing.

The trend toward ESG investing, which puts pressure on companies to meet environmental, social and governance benchmarks, has almost redefined asset management over the past decade. ESG funds today are a multitrillion-dollar market.

However, the high uncertainty around interest rates today, along with the prospects of a looming recession and a political backlash, has put the future of ESG investors at a crossroads.

I specialize in sustainable finance, and my recent work has documented the impact that tough economic times can have on ESG investing demand. Investments into U.S. sustainable mutual funds have visibly slowed since 2022, suffering their worst net flows in five years. Here are how three critical factors can affect investors’ zeal for socially conscious investing going forward.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KYfr3/3/

Interest rate uncertainty

One of the primary arguments that big institutional investors like BlackRock make for ESG investing is that it creates long-term value for shareholders. Companies that pay careful attention to environmental, social and governance issues are believed to be better prepared for distant future risks, including regulatory risks and physical risks from climate change.

However, heightened uncertainty about interest rates poses a challenge today. That’s because higher rates can disproportionately affect the present value that investors assign to long-term investment outcomes. Let me explain.

Within the past year, the Federal Reserve has raised its benchmark lending rate from almost zero to a target range of 5% to 5.25% to combat inflation. In financial markets, higher interest rates lead to higher discount rates. That means that future cash generated by long-term investments is considered to be worth considerably less at today’s higher interest rates.

The more distant an asset’s value lies in the future, the more heavily it will be discounted in value when rates are high. So, long-duration investments – like most ESG investments – are especially sensitive to changes in interest rates.

This economic mechanism was also part of the backdrop of the recent rout in tech stocks and the series of bank failures that started with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.

Looming recession

Another factor that could affect ESG investing is the potential for an economic downturn.

As research shows, investors do not necessarily make ESG investments for greater long-term returns, but often for altruistic reasons or due to personal preferences to hold greener assets. For these ESG investors, a looming recession could change their perspective on these “luxuries.”

In an early warning about this possibility, a recent study I conducted with an economist at the Rotterdam School of Management found that retail investors showed signs of shying away from investing in sustainable mutual funds during the early months of the COVID-19 shock in 2020. This was a period when many households experienced layoffs and furloughs, which likely pushed them to set aside luxuries to prioritize protecting the values of their 401(k)s, IRAs and other investment portfolios.

In other words, investors may be all for ESG, except when times are tough.

Prominent economists, such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have warned of a likely recession as inflation and the Fed’s battle against it persist. The International Monetary Fund also lowered its global economic growth outlook from 3.4% in 2022 to 2.8% in 2023.

Political backlash

Finally, recent political friction and anti-ESG policies across states have started to create headwinds for pension funds and large institutions that serve them.

For example, Florida and Kansas passed laws in recent weeks and several other states including Texas and Kentucky have taken actions to restrict the ability of state public pension funds to invest in companies based on their ESG performance, citing concerns about fraudulent greenwashing and potential fiduciary duty violations, referring to the obligation institutional investors have to seek the highest returns for the lowest risk possible.

These restrictions can severely limit the capacity for ESG investing by institutional investors, which have played a significant role in driving the growth of ESG investing.

Lark Fink, in business attire and glasses, sits in a news studio being interviewed. — Blackrock CEO Larry Fink, shown during an earlier interview, told Bloomberg in 2023: ‘For the first time in my professional career, attacks are now personal. They’re trying to demonize the issues.’ Taylor Hill/Getty Images

While concerns about greenwashing and high fees in ESG investing are not totally unwarranted, these political interventions can also have unintended consequences.

A recent study from economists at Wharton and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that a Texas law enacted in 2021 prohibiting municipalities from contracting with banks with ESG policies had a distorting side effect on those municipalities’ borrowing costs. The policy ended up raising the cost of public finance, meaning the law ultimately cost taxpayers.

Navigating the crossroads

As companies hold their 2023 annual meetings, the discussions among corporate officials, investors and stakeholders will serve as an important barometer for the current state and future of ESG investing.

Due to high interest rate uncertainty, prospects of a recession and political upheaval, ESG is under pressure. Perceived in recent years as a paradigm shift in how market mechanisms can address harms to society, stakeholders are now scrutinizing ESG investing with a critical lens regarding how strongly it can persist and how much impact it can have.

The next few years will be its most important stress test yet.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://theconversation.com/fed-rate-hikes-recession-fears-and-political-backlash-leave-esg-investors-at-a-crossroads-203639

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, Federal Reserve, green marketing, interest rates, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : ESG

Embracing sustainability through control technology

8 05 2023

Photo: Getty

How an innovative approach helped Sustainable Blue create a clean, safe and sustainable environment for fish production. By Bizclik Admin from sustainabilitymag.com • Reposted: May 8, 2023

Global production of fish and seafood has quadrupled over the past 50 years, with aquaculture – the practice of fish and seafood farming – now outpacing wild catch fishing. Against this backdrop, consumer tastes and preferences for fish products are also changing – desiring not only optimal taste, but also more ethical and sustainable means of production.

To capture this change in consumer demand, Nova Scotia-based salmon farm Sustainable Blue has pioneered a new method of farming that optimizes the quality and sustainability of the breeding and nurturing process. With the assistance of Fairfield Control Systems, BlueTech Systems and Rockwell Automation, Sustainable Blue has integrated an advanced control solution to improve the water treatment and purity across its network of farms. The company is now focused on scaling its operations to branch into new markets and serve more consumers.

Turning a sustainable vision into reality

The story of Sustainable Blue began on the other side of the Atlantic, in Plymouth, England. Dr Jeremy Lee, who serves as both technical director of BlueTech and CTO of Sustainable Blue, has had a 25-year career designing recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS), having previously developed the water treatment system used in the popular National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth. In 2008, Dr Lee began an ambitious project to adapt his treatment technology in the burgeoning salmon-farming sector.

Having identified a business opportunity in Eastern Canada, Dr Lee founded Sustainable Blue as an inland farm with the goal of providing a safe and managed environment for the salmon to grow. In this farm, fish would be introduced from the ocean and bred over the course of 12 months, before ultimately being sold to customers including leading supermarkets and restaurants.

While land-based farming is an efficient way to breed fish, the practice has conventionally come with certain trade-offs. In normal cases, the fishery needs to maintain interaction between the farm and the open sea for discharge and replenishment. This brings several potential issues.

Firstly, it alters the temperature of the water used in the farm, limiting the control the fishery has over the breeding process. Secondly, it has implications for quality and safety as the water entering may contain diseases or other impurities. Thirdly, it typically influences taste, introducing an ‘earthiness’ that’s the result of geosmin, a compound that is produced within many land-based farming systems that brings with it a distinctive, unpleasant smell.

As a result, inland farms have found difficulty in consistently providing customers with fresh, clean produce. Dr Lee sought to address this issue by developing a RAS that avoided the need for an external water supply, meaning the farm could maintain complete control over water purity and, therefore, the quality of the produce. He composed a team, involving system integrator Fairfield Control Systems, along with Intelligent Motor Control technology from Rockwell Automation, to work on the solution.

Adapting to limit risk

Fairfield Control Systems, as a central part of the company’s character, thrives on risk. The company has built a strong reputation for taking on the types of tasks that other companies would shy away from. They specialise in projects where the cost of failure is high, with a track record that reinforces their credibility in developing systems that won’t buckle under pressure.

According to Peter McMorrow, Engineering Director at Fairfield Control Systems, this approach to risk helps differentiate the company as a control systems partner. “In everything we do, we apply our own set of procedures and principles to make sure that risks are mitigated and the cost of failure is minimal. Our customers know they can trust us to think through the worst-case scenarios and plan accordingly.”

Sustainable Blue’s project fitted into that category. Across six farms – Red Bank Road (RBR) numbers 1-6 – Sustainable Blue houses more than 1,000 tonnes of fish. If the systems were to fail, the fish would not survive for more than 10 minutes, with the potential cost spiralling into the millions of dollars. The focus, therefore, was on developing a control system that was resilient to pressure and offered the availability to handle extreme situations.

“As soon as we met with Dr Lee, we knew we could really assist with his project. He wanted to scale the operations, going from farms the size of rooms to those the size of football fields – but such growth would bring complexities. He needed a partner network that could assist him on the process side in the evolution from small-scale to mass production. We really bought into the ethos of the farm and wanted to help fulfil the vision,” McMorrow added.

In 2016, BlueTech (Sustainable Blue’s technology arm) entered into an arrangement with Fairfield Control Systems to commission the water treatment system for RBR 3. The choice of control technology to use was straightforward. Fairfield Control Systems had a relationship with Rockwell Automation that had existed for more than 30 years and is a Silver SI member in the Rockwell Automation PartnerNetworkTM, and BlueTech also had a history of using Rockwell equipment. Both companies had strong familiarity with Rockwell’s systems and confidence that they would be appropriate for the task of ensuring a standardised and easily maintainable control environment.

Nurturing clean, healthy produce

The control solution the team created serves a crucial function in the farm. Each unit within the facility contains a 100% recirculation RAS, processing 5,000 tonnes of water every hour in total. The process control system provides closed-loop control of many environmental variables for each system, such as the temperature, pH levels, oxygen levels and water pressure. As well as control, the system provides reports of historical data and has an alarm-handling solution to ensure any issues receive a prompt response.

Dr Lee says that with this infrastructure, the farm can operate on a self-sustaining basis – a unique feature in the industry. “Fish are very sensitive to their environment. The temperatures in our tanks are held within a tight band that’s optimal for fish growth and vitality, which means we can produce fish in half of the time without having to introduce any antibiotics or growth hormones. Furthermore, the system offers us complete transparency, visibility and traceability of the process from end to end, which is ultimately reflected in the purity of the water and the taste of the fish.”

The value of the system extends beyond just the quality of the produce; it has been instrumental in consolidating the farm’s philosophy.

“It’s been a big benefit for us in terms of morale as our team is passionate about sustainability,” Dr Lee explained. “It also helps us to attract customers who care about the welfare of the fish and the impact on the environment – it’s a strong marketing platform.”

Now that the blueprint is in place for a scalable, reliable and high-quality fish farm, Sustainable Blue is taking steps to expand operations, both within Canada and in other markets. The model that’s in place provides assurance that this growth won’t come at the expense of the environment.

“Not only is our produce sustainable and ethical but steps have been taken to make our entire operation more environmentally friendly. We’re moving to 100% renewable energy and planning to replicate the model across new sites – the closer the farm is to the end customer, the shorter the supply chain, which benefits freshness and environmental consciousness,” Dr Lee added.

Dr Lee recognises the contribution that the control partners have made in helping him to realise the vision he’s been pursuing for nearly 15 years: “Our farms are process-heavy and, for all our good qualities, humans are not very good at tasks that involve repetition and accuracy, which is the case for managing and modulating a RAS.

“It quickly became apparent to us that automation was something that we needed early on in our development. We’re delighted to have had the benefit of Fairfield Control Systems and Rockwell Automation’s expertise to maintain a clean, stunningly clear environment for the fish at all times.”

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/embracing-sustainability-through-control-technology

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, Sustainable Blue, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : ESG

ESG Amidst Inflation: 7 Governance Mechanisms That Drive Value Creation in the Consumer Packaged Goods Industry

8 05 2023

Unilever’s corporate headquarters in Blackfriars, London. Image: Unilever

By Andrew Kaminsky from triplepoundit.com • Reposted: May 8, 2023

Running a profitable business in the consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry isn’t easy – especially when inflation has consumers pinching pennies and hunting for basement bargains. Add that to the list of challenges the CPG industry is facing, which include lingering pandemic hurdles and conflict-zone embargoes that suppliers and manufacturers are obliged to observe.

Meanwhile, companies are under pressure to monitor their risks and impacts on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. That means not just finding and monitoring their ESG data, which can be a huge task on its own, but also developing a strategy complete with targets and accountability measures to reduce ESG risks and minimize negative impacts from business activities.

So, how in the world are business leaders supposed to do all of that?

The answer lies in the “G” of ESG. Strong corporate governance and commitment from C-suite executives are how organizations can manage today’s business requirements and thrive under the opportunities that this new landscape presents. After all, ESG-focused funds proved resilient even amidst recession fears — attracting $37 billion of net inflows in the fourth quarter of 2022, compared to $200 billion of net withdrawals in the broader market, according to research from Morningstar.

Which governance mechanisms drive ESG strategy?

TriplePundit sat down with Jonathan Gill, global head of sustainability advocacy at Unilever, to gain insight into the governance mechanisms that drive ESG strategy in the CPG industry. The key takeaway? ESG strategy must be integrated into overall business strategy, with the two components working in coordination to drive success across all brands.

1. Integrating ESG into business strategy

If there’s one thing to know about driving a successful ESG strategy, it’s this: ESG strategy has to be integrated into overall business strategy. Without integration, the two objectives will be competing for priority rather than working in tandem.

“Unilever’s purpose is all about making sustainable living commonplace. So that’s kind of the North Star, the way we think about everything,” Gill explained. “It’s been years since we had separate strategies for sustainability and for business. It’s one integrated strategy.”

2. Business structure facilitates ESG performance

For Unilever, this integrated strategy — which it calls the Unilever Compass — is “locked into the governance side of things,” Gill said. “The board oversees it. We have an external advisory council to make sure we’re making the right decisions and choices. It’s locked into our remuneration, but also into our structure.”

In the CPG industry, a parent company will own many different brands. While those brands have different priorities in business and in ESG strategy, the structure and the relationship between the parent company and its brands needs to facilitate ESG progression.

“We’ve got five semi-autonomous business units within Unilever, and each and every one of those business units have sustainable priorities within them,” Gill continued. “That’s agreed by the most senior level, by the executives, so the delivery is really embedded into it.”

3. Ensuring all stakeholders have their voices heard

When it comes to actually developing an ESG strategy and identifying key performance indicators (KPIs), it’s crucial to have a clear understanding of what is important to stakeholders from the beginning and throughout an organization’s ESG journey.

Whether that’s from investors, customers, employees, brands or the broader community, understanding the expectations of stakeholders will align and drive ESG strategy, Gill said. For example, the company holds bi-weekly sessions with employees and executives and operates 37 “People Data Centers” around the world to keep its finger on the pulse of what customers are looking for — among many other ways in which it engages with stakeholders.

Organizations that listen to stakeholder voices are better positioned to perform well on the metrics that matter, driving ESG performance and business growth.

unilever brands - corporate governance in the CPG sector — *Some of Unilever’s best-selling brands. Image: Unilever*

4. Brands develop their own ESG priorities

It can be tempting to delegate to brands what their ESG priorities should be and how they should approach the subject. Parent companies are ultimately responsible for their brands, after all. But it is much better when those companies facilitate that development and allow brands to grow their ESG priorities organically.

“Within the Unilever Compass, the three priorities we have around sustainability are planet, health and wellbeing, and social. Our brands’ purposes generally fall within those three spaces, but we don’t have a formal way to make sure brands are focusing in specific areas,” Gill explained. “The brands themselves are responsible for identifying what their purpose is and delivering that. It has to be organic, it has to be real, and therefore top-down just wouldn’t work.”

5. Transparent accounting

When asked about the value of transparent accounting, Gill said, “We think it’s quite an important lever for change to accelerate the transition toward sustainability.”

As global ESG reporting and accounting standards are being hashed out around the globe, transparent accounting is not only important to today’s investors and consumers, but it’s also soon to become a requirement. Businesses that incorporate this practice before legislation is finalized will benefit from the ease of transition to mandatory reporting, as well as from the influx of investor dollars into ESG funds. Having the right technology in place to gather, track and report on ESG data will be essential for businesses in the future.

6. Transparent ESG goals, progress and communication

Transparency in ESG goals, progress and communication is vital for highly visible, consumer-facing companies like Unilever. The company reported regularly on the progress of its 10-year sustainability strategy, the Sustainable Living Plan, from 2010 to 2020. Some of its targets were reached, some were narrowly missed, and others fell well short. Whatever the case, the company was open about its progress and the challenges it faced along the way — and it continues to report on the new Unilever Compass strategy.

This type of transparency builds trust. Trusted voices in the ESG sphere are exactly what investors and consumers are looking for amidst the tsunami of ESG information being released by companies looking to attract today’s consumers and investors.

7. Accountability measures

Finally, accountability measures must be built into the structure of the organization. Naturally, the market will act as its own accountability measure as investors and consumers pull money from companies that are underperforming and redirect those funds to companies with stronger ESG strategies.

Internally, Unilever ties ESG performance into its executive remuneration scheme. “We have essentially eight metrics, and if you perform well on those, your bonus is higher,” Gill said. “If you’re motivated by money, then obviously you’ll be motivated to deliver on those sustainability goals.”

Not everyone is motivated by money, but it’s a strong measure to incentivize performance and show commitment to ESG strategy.

A look to the future of ESG and governance challenges

One of the biggest challenges facing business executives in all sectors with regards to ESG and corporate governance is the uncertainty of reporting requirements. There are different global reporting standards, all of which are similar but none of which are mandatory — at least not yet.

“The challenge we’ve got at the moment is there are three big standards — from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the European Union (EU) — and they are big beasts of information that need to be prepared,” Gill explained. “Making them standardized — not necessarily the same, but interoperable — would be very helpful, and we’re very keen to see them being mandatory for all companies above a certain size.”

The biggest challenge in Gill’s eyes is that with the sense of urgency to enact mandatory reporting and organizations rushing to comply, there are likely to be some errors in reporting, or errors made by assurers on the audit side that could provide the anti-ESG cohort some extra fuel for their fire. In the midst of our climate emergency, the onus is on legislators to not only get the requirements in place quickly, but to make sure it’s done right.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/esg-governance-cpg-industry/773591

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CPG, CSR, ESG, Governace, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, transparency
Categories : Climate Change, ESG

How the new EU directive will rewrite ESG reporting

8 05 2023

Image via Shutterstock/Chayanuphol

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive won’t just affect local companies, it will transform sustainability reporting around the globe. By Matt Orsagh from green biz.com • Reposted: May 8, 2023

Europe has long been the trendsetter in policy and regulation around environmental, social and governance issues. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is the latest in a line of European Union policies intended to nudge economic and investment activity towards more sustainable outcomes.

The CSRD replaced the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), which only covered the disclosure requirements for about 11,000 EU companies. In contrast, the CSRD will require nearly 50,000 companies to enhance their reporting around sustainability. This number includes about 10,000 companies outside the EU, and it doesn’t just include the largest of the large companies.

The CSRD was adopted by the EU Council in November. EU companies already subject to the NFRD will have to begin compliance with the CSRD, which means reporting in 2024. Those for whom this reporting will be new, including companies outside the EU, have until 2025 to begin complying.

The NFRD was never mandatory. As a result, investors, regulators and civil society groups were often frustrated with the lack of sustainability-related information from companies and the lack of comparability of that data. The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) recently released an implementation appraisal on the NFRD that highlighted many shortcomings of the NFRD:

71 percent of respondents believed the non-financial information contained in the NFRD reports was deficient in terms of comparability
82 percent believed that CSRD’s requirements for companies to use a common standard would address identified issues

The purpose of the CSRD is to provide investors and businesses with more information about the sustainability of companies operating in the EU, that is timely, consistent and comparable.

In essence, the CSRD is becoming the de facto sustainability disclosure regulation for large global companies; as companies with significant business in Europe will have to adhere to the rules Europe sets down.

The rules will cover both public and private business that satisfy two of the following criteria:

Have more than 250 employees
Have net turnover of more than $44.51 million
Have a balance sheet of more than $22.25 million

Compliance with CSRD isn’t that far away. Companies that meet the reporting requirements will have to submit their first report of aligning with CSRD by Jan. 1, 2025. Smaller and medium-sized entities (SMEs) won’t have to comply with the rules until January 2026.

Companies outside of Europe that do business in the EU will also be covered by the new rules — companies that generate total revenue of $167 million in the EU and have at least one branch or subsidiary in the EU with more than $44.51 million in net revenue will be required to comply with the new disclosure requirements.

In essence, the CSRD is becoming the de facto sustainability disclosure regulation for large global companies; as companies with significant business in Europe will have to adhere to the rules Europe sets down. The hope of European regulators — and sustainability-minded professionals around the world — is that this higher disclosure bar will export European best practices in disclosure globally. As large companies in global markets are forced to raise their standards, these disclosure standards will cause other companies in those markets to follow the more stringent disclosure standards set by the EU in order to keep up with best practices.

What is covered?

In addition to information already required by the NFRD, companies that comply with the CSRD will have to publish information related to:

Environmental protections
Greenhouse gas emissions targets
Social responsibility and treatment of employees
Respect for human rights
Anti-corruption and bribery
Diversity on company boards
Double materiality
- How sustainability risks might affect performance
- The company’s impact on society and the environment
Materiality assessments
Forward-looking ESG targets and progress
Disclosures on intangible capitals (social, human, intellectual)
Due diligence processes in relation to sustainability
Potential adverse impacts due to sustainability issues

Companies will be required to set annual ESG targets and report their process hitting these targets, including transition plans (if any).

The CSRD will require third-party assurances, including integration into the auditor’s report, a requirement not covered by the NFRD. This information will be required to be presented in a company’s annual financial reports, not in a separate sustainability report. Assurances can at first be “limited” but must reach the threshold of “reasonable” assurances by 2028. For those of you out there who are not accountants (good for you), reasonable assurances amount to an auditor affirming that the information reported is materially correct, while limited assurances simply state that the auditor is not aware of any material modifications that need to be made.

The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) is drafting the upcoming EU Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) that the CSRD will adopt as its reporting standard. The European Commission is due to adopt the initial ESRS standards in mid-2023.

Start now. Get buy-in from everyone

If all of this sounds like a lot of work, you are right. If all of this sounds like a lot of work and a little bit intimidating if you are not a European company used to European regulation, accounting and disclosure standards, you are right again. Companies outside the EU that will be subject to CSRD reporting have realized the daunting task ahead of them. Those ahead of the curve have already started the process of adjustment to the CSRD landscape.

Chris Librie, senior director of ESG at Applied Materials, acknowledged that CSRD will require companies outside the EU to change their perspective on sustainability. “CSRD is pretty comprehensive,” Librie said. “It involves double materiality, which may bring into scope things that we may not have considered. For example, we haven’t traditionally looked at biodiversity, but that may come up.”

Most companies will need to expand their ability to measure and manage sustainability issues in their own operations; as well down their supply chains to comply with CSRD disclosure rules.

“Our ESG team is fairly small,” Librie said, “so we will be reaching to other divisions such as human resources, environmental health and safety and others, as well as our outside auditors and consultants. The number of potential topics are so many that we are taking a team approach to develop a structured approach to the CSRD process.”

The race is on to train financial professionals for the transition. Several organizations are working with companies to help them prepare for the transition. One of these is Accounting for Sustainability (A4S). A4S was established by King Charles III in 2004, with the aim of working with chief financial officers and other financial leaders to drive a shift towards more sustainable business models. A4S routinely hosts workshops to share best practices and build knowledge of financial professionals to bring them up to speed.

The number of potential topics are so many that we are taking a team approach to develop a structured approach to the CSRD process.

Brad Sparks, executive director of A4S Foundation U.S., emphasized how A4S is seeing significant interest from finance and accounting professionals that A4S works with around CSRD.

“CSRD has become part of the reporting workshops that we host,” Sparks said. “We also started a new controllers forum and had a meeting earlier this year where we brought in someone from EFRAG to discuss the emerging ESRS standards. The forum is designed for chief accounting officers, controllers and ESG controllers to exchange insights, challenges and responses to sustainability issues among peers. Our initial meeting had a focus on double materiality — a topic that is new to many in the finance and accounting community.”

Part of the learning curve for those outside the EU will be navigating the differences in accounting standards, investor expectations and legal systems that underpin EU regulation and norms outside the EU. “Finance and accounting professionals in the United States are seeking additional guidance to help with the emerging standards,” Sparks said. “In general, global accounting standards are typically principles-based, while U.S. accounting (GAAP) is typically rules-based. This is similar with the ESRS following a more principles-based approach, which some in the U.S. view as more challenging to implement.”

Although adjusting to a CSRD world will take time and resources, in the end, the goal is to provide investors, policymakers, civil society and companies themselves with better information. It may move sustainability reporting more to the mainstream, which has both positive and negative implications.

What companies and investors can do to prepare

Preparing for CSRD reporting will be a step change in managing and measuring sustainability data for many companies outside the EU. Companies that need to report under the CSRD standard will need to start now if they haven’t already: January 2025 isn’t that far away. There are steps companies can take to get ready. Here are just a few places to start:

Perform a gap analysis to determine current holes in sustainability measurement and management system.
Review EFRAG exposure draft ESRS rules.
Determine who within an organization will lead the CSRD process and determine what other people within an organization will be needed in the CSRD process.
Determine what outside resources such as accountants and consultants will be needed to undertake CSRD compliance reporting.
Coordinate with others within your industry to share best practices.

“I see this possibly driving companies toward more integrated reporting,” Librie said. “I think ultimately we will see more 10-Ks and sustainability reports that merge, so we will have a one-stop shop for all this information. That is a positive but a potential negative is that in a 10-K type document, you can’t be as verbose. You have to be more economical about telling your story, and that might make ESG engagement more challenging.”

“Companies are seeking to understand how they can comply with reporting requirements in an effective, efficient and impactful manner,” Sparks said. “They want to understand what best practices are and are looking for more guidance.” Sparks noted that A4S plans to hold more workshops around CSRD in the future, as it sees increasing demand from the CFOs and financial professionals they meet with.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-new-eu-directive-will-rewrite-esg-reporting

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), CSR, ESG, green marketing, Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable branding

Why Companies Should Understand The Importance Of Sustainability Initiatives

7 05 2023

Image: Getty

By Natalia Scherbakoff, Forbes Councils Member, Forbes Technology Council via Forbes • Reposted: May 7, 2023

The world is trying to limit the rise in global temperatures and take the necessary steps toward achieving net zero. It is important because, at least for carbon dioxide, this is the state at which global warming stops.

The US Inflation Reduction Act introduces tax incentives to encourage sustainability.

In August 2022, U.S. Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which includes $369 billion of federal spending to address climate change, $270 billion of which will be delivered through tax incentives. These tax incentives, together with grants and loan guarantees, will be directed to clean-energy efforts to substantially reduce the nation’s carbon emissions by the end of the decade. Clean electricity and transmission will receive the lion’s share of the funds, followed by clean transportation, including electric vehicle (EV) incentives.

As tax credits will comprise the bulk of the IRA’s energy and climate funding, in the corporate sphere, the aim is to drive up private investment in clean energy, transport and manufacturing. On the consumer side, the tax incentives intend to reduce carbon emissions by making energy-saving products and services more affordable, such as rooftop solar panels, energy-efficient appliances, home batteries and geothermal heating.

The EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan promotes technology advancements for sustainability.

In January 2023, the European Union (EU) unveiled its Green Deal Industrial Plan at the World Economic Forum, a set of industrial initiatives and reforms that support its target of achieving net zero by 2050. As part of the European Green Deal, the plan intends to enhance the EU’s global competitiveness as it transitions to a carbon-neutral economy. In addition to its circular economy action plan, this reinforces the EU’s mission to be a leader on the path to a net zero age.

The first step in the Green Deal Industrial Plan is to scale up the development and production of net zero products and technologies across the next decade, as well as reduce the carbon footprint of energy-intensive industries. The plan also proposes a Net-Zero Industry Act to boost the manufacturing of green technologies, such as solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and windmills, among others.

The EU has already implemented a clear policy framework in some of these areas (such as the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation) and has launched partnerships that promote the sustainable development of raw materials, solar energy and hydrogen, batteries, and circular plastics.

Is everything coming up roses?

Motivating the world to invest or engage more in sustainable product innovation and manufacturing has become more important than ever. Up to date, there is huge room for creativity in the R&D, engineering and manufacturing processes of sustainable solutions.

When the world is setting the stage with the focus and incentives such as the IRA and Green Deal Industrial Plan, financial or otherwise, being channeled to global and national initiatives, there can still be trade barriers, important decisions driven by emotions, etc., that are to be eliminated to optimize the benefits intended for programs such as IRA or Green Deal.

There will certainly be global competition for sustainable feedstocks and skilled personnel when all four corners of the world are aiming for sustainability. What should be in place are harmonized policies or regulations among countries in the trading of waste and the removal of limitations in the use of certain recyclable materials for better utilization of resources. While localization in some instances works well, the limitation of the import/export of waste and recyclable materials will hinder the efforts spent in efficiently achieving sustainability. Nations may end up not having enough waste as sustainable feedstock.

The concerted efforts for administrations, legislatures, agencies and the chemical industry to work together to develop solutions are the keys to opening doors. The existence of infrastructure also poses another major hurdle to overcome. Needless to say, it takes incredibly careful planning and deployment of resources to bring in the necessary infrastructure to build on.

Our Action Items

Actions that are particularly important for companies during these exciting times include instilling the element of sustainability as early as the product design stage, proactively building up emerging skills required in the arena of the global workforce, and collaborating with international stakeholders in developing sustainable supply chains.

It’s easier said than done, but there is no time like now for nations and value chains to really “open up” and work hand in hand instead of competing with each other for brains or resources. Let’s treat these initiatives as a need to develop actionable items to help realize a circular economy, this time for all.

Take decarbonization as an example to manage scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. One single company cannot control all. The required collaborations, international or otherwise, are to take place upstream, downstream and horizontally along the value chains. If the world is to do it properly this time, we have to put behind us our difference and wholeheartedly utilize the benefits brought along by globalization.

The changes will not happen overnight, but the sooner we start, the merrier. Needless to say, policies play an important role in driving all these activities. When the requirements on recycled-content/biodegradable or recycling percentage become “mandatory,” the supply of sustainable feedstock and materials will be developed as the demand will increase, which eventually stimulates investment and manufacturing. On the other hand, more efforts will be put into product designs to facilitate both waste collection and recycling.

The World’s Sustainability Journey

Public perception of the world’s journey to sustainability and their behavior will reflect how successful we are in pursuing the same. Innovations utilizing scientific approaches provide objective, measurable, data-driven information, allowing us to make informed decisions. Education and collaboration are paramount. If there is one opportunity that all of us should work together to really change the fate of the next generations, the time is now.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/05/05/why-companies-should-understand-the-importance-of-sustainability-initiatives/?sh=543f93207a07

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, Green Deal Industrial PLan, green marketing, Inflation Reduction Act, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, ESG

3 challenges for making global sustainability strategies local

7 05 2023

Image via Shutterstock/Toria

They say “all politics are local.” So are effective sustainability strategies. By Danielle Allen, Sustainability Consultant, Salterbaxter via green biz.com • Reposted: May 7, 2023

Translating global corporate sustainability ambitions into local market strategies is necessary for accelerating progress — although it’s no simple task.

Companies of different sizes and cultures face similar challenges and questions around how to meet the needs of local markets while moving globally in a unified direction — and managing a broader strategy rollout across markets at different stages of maturity. Just as sustainability teams see the brand and business opportunities of localizing sustainability, so do local market activist employees and communicators.

And yet, most companies aren’t communicating how their global strategies will play out locally — in their reporting or other channels. Beyond the occasional case study showing how an aspect of their sustainability pillars has been implemented at the local level, companies aren’t telling complete, data-driven stories.

As companies look to localize global sustainability strategies, there are three challenges they must address.

1. Global sustainability strategies show the ‘big picture’ at the expense of the ‘true picture’

Global sustainability strategies must be broad and high level enough to account for all the differences of the diverse markets they cover. Global strategy is, in essence, a company average.

But averages can deflect focus and investment from the solutions and regions that need it most — and where the greatest impact can be made.

There can also be an inherent bias leading to a focus on the most pressing social and environmental issues of where the corporate headquarters is located. At Davos, many leaders acknowledged that a “one strategy fits all” global corporate approach will not drive innovation and deliver meaningful progress, and a regional picture of impact and action is needed. While global sustainability ambitions are important, sustainability leaders must understand that their location and the maturity of that market can influence the scale and type of ambitions being set and not adequately consider other local markets.

There’s been increased awareness and interest from local markets wanting to understand how they can take their company’s global sustainability goals and strategy and make them relevant to local stakeholders. One Australian food and drink business conducted a local materiality assessment that used global issues as a basis for stakeholder engagement. It enabled them to go deeper into the high-level company wide topics and understand how the specific topics translated to the local market. By understanding which aspects to dial up or down and what sub-topics were most material to the market, they were able to interpret their global strategy in a way that resonated with local understanding and needs. This local market information could then be used by global teams to prioritize resources and efforts.

2. Local regulations are becoming global requirements

A market’s specific regulatory environment is a major factor in the necessary approach to sustainability. What’s bold and ambitious in one market may be mere compliance in another.

Local regulations are becoming global requirements and impacting markets beyond a single local market. In January, the Germany supply chain act came into force, which requires suppliers for German companies to comply with new requirements related to human rights and environmental risks and violations. As the European Union prepares for its own supply chain regulations, global corporate teams need to be able to understand the cross-market implications and take appropriate action.

While global sustainability ambitions are important, sustainability leaders must understand that their location and the maturity of that market can influence the scale and type of ambitions being set and not adequately consider other local markets.

When setting global ambition levels, corporate teams should engage with local markets to understand the implications of global ambitions in those markets, including how the global strategy will be implemented in each market. Considering, and answering these questions, supports prioritization and implementation plans at a global and local level. Some questions to ask include:

Will each market be expected to deliver against the global targets equally?
Will there be a minimum standard that all markets need to meet but where some markets will be hero markets?
Are markets able to adapt the strategy depending on their regulatory or cultural context?
To what extent can global teams support local markets to set and deliver sustainability strategies through financial and resource support?

3. Top-down sustainability strategies fail to translate at the local level

The idea that global and local perspectives conflict is quickly going out of fashion. The very concept of “local” isn’t easily defined by country or city. Sometimes different countries can share more similarities than two cities in the same country.

When working with a global strategy at a local level, common frustrations are around the slow responsiveness of global teams, the reluctance of ambition and the centralization of sustainability resources. An approach that allows markets to retain flexibility and freedom to set their own goals while having overarching, thematic goals has been a more promising approach allowing markets to adopt a matrix approach rather than relying on top-down pressure.

Thinking three-dimensionally allows one market to look horizontally for support in similar markets. Companies have found that other markets with similar politico-cultural makeup often have learnings that are invaluable in understanding how to set a localized strategy and the allies aren’t always the ones that are geographically closest. The Australian businesses found more similarities within the Canadian market than they did with closer neighbors.

When sustainability teams are lean and global strategies rely on a law of averages, harnessing learnings from similar markets can be extremely valuable.

To succeed, companies must design bold strategies that are agile and adaptive.

These must be built on incremental roadmaps and supported by strong internal and external governance models, which are based on constant feedback loops across the company ecosystem. This will ensure global and local teams have the flexibility to respond to internal and external priorities, can create relevant and actional narratives that go beyond averages and set a clear direction so that everyone, regardless of location, can get behind them and be a part of delivering progress.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/3-challenges-making-global-sustainability-strategies-local

How Retailers Are Embracing Sustainability With Circular Initiatives

5 05 2023

Let’s Change The Way We Shop’ sign outside Selfridges on Oxford Street. Photo: GETTY

By Clara Ludmir, Contributor via Forbes • Reposted May 5, 2023

With shoppers becoming increasingly mindful of their consumption choices, businesses are facing heightened scrutiny and pressure to meet new sustainability standards and adapt to evolving shopping habits. This is driving retailers to rethink their business models to make circularity part of their mindset and operations. So, how are retailers that weren’t born with sustainability at the core of their business concretely adapting to the circular momentum?

From Linear To Circular Business Models

Certain brands and retailers are paving the way for impactful mindset and operational shifts needed to truly put sustainability at the heart of their agenda. Luxury department store Selfridges developed a vision to reinvent retail through its ‘Project Earth’ initiative, built on three pillars: transitioning to sustainable materials, investing in new shopping models, and challenging the mindsets of its partners, teams and customers. In addition to aiming for net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, the retailer made a bold commitment: by 2030, 45% of transactions within the business will come from circular products and services.

Selfridges considers a transaction to be circular when it comes from a resale, rental, refill, repair or recycled product. This target is backed by continuous efforts and initiatives designed to accompany this ambitious strategic objective, such as the definition of specific targets to deliver a material transformation roadmap, new repair and rental services and in-store experiences to shift customer attitude towards circular shopping and consumption.

Rethinking The Product Life Cycle To Develop A Closed-loop System

Fashion brand Coach has also recently demonstrated its intent to take the circular momentum seriously through the launch of Coachtopia. Developed as a collaborative lab for innovation focused on circular craft, the launch marks a significant milestone for the company. Speaking to FashionNetwork.com at the label’s Regent Street flagship, Joon Silverstein, Coach’s SVP of Global Marketing and Sustainability and Head of Coachtopia, considers that this line is “rethinking the product life cycle from end to end. Creating beautiful new things from waste, designing to re-make at scale and ultimately working towards a closed loop system.” This approach is focused on producing items designed to have multiple lives, implying that they are created with the intent to be easily disassembled and repurposed into another product in the future.

In addition to embracing an innovative approach to designing products made from waste and meant to be recycled and repurposed, Coachtopia leveraged insights from a beta community of GenZ individuals to inspire and be inspired by a demographic that is more actively invested in climate change and the environment. “We believe very strongly that it’s important to create it not for these consumers but with them,” Silverstein told FashionNetwork.com, allowing this initiative to give a voice and platform to creatives and climate advocates excited to participate in disrupting fashion for the better.

The sub-brand offers a line of bags, wallets and ready-to-wear items that are available in Selfridges, Coach stores across North America and the brand’s US and UK sites.

In-Store Resale Offering Is Expanding

The second-hand apparel market is experiencing continuous growth, with sales expected to reach $350 billion by 2037 based on a report from resale platform thredUp. In the United States, 1 in 3 apparel items bought by women in 2022 was second-hand, with Millenials and GenZ responsible for more than half of the revenue. As a response to this growing demand, a number of retailers are designing in-store spaces dedicated to second-hand shopping through the launch of pop-ups, corners and own-brand initiatives.

Galeries Lafayette Paris — (RE)STORE space in Galeries Lafayette HaussmannGALERIES LAFAYETTE

In Paris, leading department stores have all started to welcome circularity through dedicated store spaces and offerings. For instance, the Galeries Lafayette Haussmann launched in 2021 a (RE)STORE space of 500 square meters dedicated to second-hand players and sustainable brands. In addition to hosting Monogram, a French luxury second-hand e-tailer, the space features a number of popular online resale shops as well as sustainable brands designing clothing or products made exclusively from offcuts and recycled materials.

Brands with a large retail footprint are evolving to embed circularity in their commercial model. For example, French baby and children’s clothing brand Petit Bateau is making space in its stores for second-hand clothing with the launch of its resale program, allowing customers to both purchase or sell second-hand items in-store. So far, around 20 stores in France are participating in the initiative, with a roll-out to other European countries and Japan expected in the next year. Petit Bateau aims to be the most durable brand in this segment, with products designed to be re-worn by multiple kids, thus almost naturally expected to embrace circularity. While today, only 1% of products sold come from this program, the brand’s CEO Guillaume Darrousez shared on French TV channel BFMTV that by 2030, 1 in 3 transactions will come from the circular economy, either through second-hand or rental products.

Adopting Circularity Is Key To Customer Acquisition And Retention

As of today, retailers are for the most part engaging in the circular momentum as a means to acquire and retain shoppers, rather than to grow profits. In fact, most brands launching their resale platform via a dedicated website struggle to make it a profitable endeavour. Luxury resale platform The RealReal has yet to find an attractive economic model, reporting a net loss of $196 million in 2022 and the closure of various retail locations, which highlights the sector’s struggle to make second-hand retail a scaleable and profitable business.

However, while retailers might not drive significant revenue from recycle, repair or resale initiatives just yet, these allow them to attract a new audience: as mentioned in thredUp’s 2023 resale report, 60% of the resale market’s growth will be attributed to new shoppers, stressing the rising interest for second-hand offerings. Considering the expected size of the resale market and growing pressure on brands to become more accountable and conscious of climate change, retailers are expected to get on board and adopt circularity on a bigger scale in the next five years.

By then, we might have the answer to the following question: will circularity – whether through recycling and reusing materials to produce new items or launching an in-house resale program – ever be scaleable and profitable? Or will it just represent a fraction of brands’ industrial and commercial operations while enabling them to showcase sustainable commitments?

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/claraludmir/2023/05/04/how-retailers-are-embracing-sustainability-with-circular-initiatives/?sh=189db1a83288

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Circular Business Models, Closed-loop system, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, responsible brands, social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

The thinking error that makes people susceptible to climate change denial

5 05 2023

Expecting black-and-white answers can make it hard to see the truth. bubaone via Getty Images

By Jeremy P. Shapiro, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University via The Conversation • Reposted May 5, 2023

Cold spells often bring climate change deniers out in force on social media, with hashtags like #ClimateHoax and #ClimateScam. Former President Donald Trump often chimes in, repeatedly claiming that each cold snap disproves the existence of global warming.

From a scientific standpoint, these claims of disproof are absurd. Fluctuations in the weather don’t refute clear long-term trends in the climate.

Yet many people believe these claims, and the political result has been reduced willingness to take action to mitigate climate change. Why are so many people susceptible to this type of disinformation? My field, psychology, can help explain – and help people avoid being misled.

The allure of black-and-white thinking

Close examination of the arguments made by climate change deniers reveals the same mistake made over and over again. That mistake is the cognitive error known as black-and-white thinking, also called dichotomous and all-or-none thinking. As I explain in my book “Finding Goldilocks,” black-and-white thinking is a source of dysfunction in mental health, relationships – and politics.

People are often susceptible to it because in many areas of life, dichotomous thinking does something helpful: It simplifies the world.

Binaries are easy to handle because there are only two possibilities to consider. When people face a spectrum of possibilities and nuance, they have to exert more mental effort. But when that spectrum is polarized into pairs of opposites, choices are clear and dramatic.

Image of a person showing arrows pointing in opposite directions the person might take. — Most things don’t fall neatly into only two choices. eyetoeyePIX via Getty Images

This mental labor-saving device is practical in many everyday situations, but it is a poor tool for understanding complicated realities – and the climate is complicated.

Sometimes, people divide the spectrum in asymmetric ways, with one side much larger than the other. For example, perfectionists often categorize their work as either perfect or unsatisfactory, so even good and very good outcomes are lumped together with poor ones in the unsatisfactory category. In dichotomous thinking like this, a single exception can tip a person’s view to one side. It’s like a pass/fail grading system in which 100% earns a pass and everything else gets an F.

With a grading system like this, it’s not surprising that opponents of climate action have found ways to reject global warming research, despite the overwhelming evidence.

Here’s how they do it:

The all-or-nothing problem

Climate change deniers simplify the spectrum of possible scientific consensus into two categories: 100% agreement or no consensus at all. If it’s not one, it’s the other.

A 2021 review of thousands of climate science papers and conference proceedings concluded that over 99% of studies have found that burning fossil fuels warms the planet. That’s not good enough for some skeptics. If they find one contrarian scientist somewhere, they categorize the idea of human-caused global warming as controversial and conclude that there is no basis for action.

Powerful economic interests are at work here: The fossil fuel industry has funded disinformation campaigns for years to create this kind of doubt about climate change, despite knowing that their products cause it and the consequences. Members of Congress have used that disinformation to block or weaken federal policies that could slow climate change.

Expecting a straight line in a variable world

In another example of black-and-white thinking, deniers argue that if global temperatures are not increasing at a perfectly consistent rate, there is no such thing as global warming.

However, complex variables never change in a uniform way; they wiggle up and down in the short term even when exhibiting long-term trends. Most business data, such as revenues, profits and stock prices, do this too, with short-term fluctuations contained in long-term trends.

Charts showing Apple's changing stock price and global temperatures over time. Both have a saw-tooth pattern. — These two graphs have the same form: a long-term trend of major increase within which there are short-term fluctuations. CC BY-ND

Mistaking a cold snap for disproof of climate change is like mistaking a bad month for Apple stock for proof that Apple isn’t a good long-term investment. This error results from homing in on a tiny slice of the graph and ignoring the rest.

Failing to examine the gray area

Climate change deniers also mistakenly cite correlations below 100% as evidence against human-caused global warming. They triumphantly point out that sunspots and volcanic eruptions also affect the climate, even though evidence shows both have very little influence on long-term temperature rise in comparison to greenhouse gas emissions.

In essence, deniers argue that if fossil fuel burning is not all-important, it’s unimportant. They miss the gray area in between: Greenhouse gases are indeed just one factor warming the planet, but they’re the most important one and the factor humans can influence.

Charts showing impact of different forces on temperature. Natural sources have little variation, but the upward swing of temperatures corresponds closely with rising greenhouse gas emissions. — Influences on global temperature over time. 4th National Climate Assessment

‘The climate has always been changing’ – but not like this

As increases in global temperatures have become obvious, some climate change skeptics have switched from denying them to reframing them.

Their oft-repeated line, “The climate has always been changing,” typically delivered with an air of patient wisdom, is based on a striking lack of knowledge about the evidence from climate research.

Their reasoning is based on an invalid binary: Either the climate is changing or it’s not, and since it’s always been changing, there is nothing new here and no cause for concern.

However, the current warming is on par with nothing humans have ever seen, and intense warming events in the distant past were planetwide disasters that caused massive extinctions – something we do not want to repeat.

As humanity faces the challenge of global warming, we need to use all our cognitive resources. Recognizing the thinking error at the root of climate change denial could disarm objections to climate research and make science the basis of our efforts to preserve a hospitable environment for our future.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-that-makes-people-susceptible-to-climate-change-denial-204607

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Climate Change, Climate Denial, corporate social responsibility, CSR, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, The Conversation
Categories : Climate Change, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Bridging the Sustainability Trust Gap in a Climate-Challenged World

3 05 2023

Image: Getty

Despite growing corporate efforts to drive sustainable change and climate action, there’s an underlying issue: a lack of consumer trust towards companies’ claims on this front. By Dr. Rebecca Swift, Global Head of Creative Insights at Getty Images from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: May 3, 2023

Around the world, major environmental events and extreme weather conditions have pushed climate change to top of mind for people worldwide. According to iStock and Getty Images’ VisualGPS research, “climate change” ranks top of the list of concerns for individuals across the globe — higher than inflation, the energy crises, or issues surrounding world peace.

However, there is still a general sense of ambiguity on who is accountable for driving forward actions to combat climate risks — is it the government? Big businesses? Or are individuals most responsible? Our insights tell us people globally believe it is a shared responsibility; yet each actor’s expectations seem to be first on others, rather than on themselves.

Historically, across different industries, ad campaigns have promoted the idea of individual responsibility. We are used to seeing visuals highlighting individual sustainable practices — from recycling to biking to using reusable shopping bags. All of these concepts, mostly driven by brands and policies, reinforce the idea that sustainability is an individual responsibility.

On the other hand, as VisualGPS found, individuals believe that government is the primary agent responsible for dealing with sustainability efforts and environmental concerns related to global climate change; and that businesses are as responsible as individuals for protecting the planet and enacting sustainable practices.

Since the first UN Climate Change Conference held in 1995, people have been able to follow some countries’ governments’ progress in dealing with climate change issues, while also seeing how corporate philanthropy evolved into impactful CSR programs. Today, 7 out of 10 individuals around the globe believe they have made a lot of progress toward living a more environmentally sustainable life, VisualGPS found.

Nonetheless, despite all involved agents taking part in making a change — denoting a high level of climate awareness — there’s an underlying issue yet to be solved: VisualGPS also revealed a lack of consumer trust towards companies’ claims on this front. More than 80 percent of consumers believe products are made to seem environmentally friendlier than they are, followed by distrust of products that are labeled ”environmentally friendly” as a marketing ploy; and they believe companies claim they abide by ESG (Environmental, social, and governance) standards but do not show enough evidence for it.

The 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer reported an average five-to-one margin of respondents who want businesses to play a bigger, not smaller, role in addressing climate change. The same research found respondents have low trust in the government; in contrast, businesses continue to gain trust around the world and are the sole institution seen as competent and ethical — showing companies are uniquely positioned to bridge the sustainability trust gap, fill the void left by governments, and showcase the invaluable role they play in addressing climate change.

When it comes to deciding which company to use or buy from, 84 percent of people believe it is important that a company uses sustainable business practices and extends these to their products; yet more than half claim it’s too much work to research what brands are actively doing to mitigate climate risks. Knowing most consumers make purchase decisions based on visual content — and also expect brands to take a public stand and drive real action on social and environmental issues — companies and brands can lean on better visuals to tell their sustainability story and make their efforts known to engage with consumers.

Regularly, visuals related to environmentalism and sustainability rely on familiar visual clichés— think, the lone polar bear or hands cupping a sapling — unimaginatively used to convey environmental issues. Many brands also focus on conceptual images and videos that are too abstract to stand out or resonate in a crowded visual landscape. Instead, businesses could focus on large-scale (often policy-backed) visuals — such as actions in the realm of infrastructure, renewable energy, agriculture, water conservation, or management of green spaces — imagery representing topics and initiatives that could transcend the barrier of practices often seen as greenwashing.

As the climate crisis accelerates, consumers are becoming more knowledgeable about what is sustainable; how our decisions, products and policies impact the environment; who is responsible — and whether or not they trust corporate and government sustainability claims. In turn, businesses should look to visual images and messaging that rise to the occasion.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/marketing-and-comms/bridging-sustainability-trust-gap-climate-challenged-world

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, Edelman Trust Barometer, ESG, Getty Images, green marketing, PS, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, VisualG, VisualGPS
Categories : Climate Change, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

2 leaders on the need for organizational transformation towards sustainability

3 05 2023

Photo: WEF

By Nadine Sterley, Chief Sustainability Officer, GEA and Judith Wiese, Chief People and Sustainability Officer and Member of the Managing Board, Siemens from the World Economic Forum • Reposted: May 3, 2023

Corporate sustainability has become a crucial strategic imperative.
Sustainability leaders are pivotal in shaping organizational change.
Two leaders share their thoughts on how this can be achieved.

The need for critical action to achieve climate and nature goals has elevated the role of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO). The private sector will play a key role in multistakeholder partnerships to actualize the impact on climate and nature.

However, this cannot be achieved without a human-centred approach, making the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) role also essential for sustainability transformation.

Within the private sector, CSOs and CHROs will shape fundamental strategies for organizational change to catalyze sustainable habits in organizations and individuals.

“Sustainability, HR and organizational change can influence companies and their value chains”

Nadine Sterley, Chief Sustainability Officer, GEA Group

As the world is confronted with the consequences of the climate crisis and other environmental challenges, acting sustainably is becoming increasingly essential in companies. This is true both from a strategic point of view as well as with regard to innovations and successful recruiting. At the same time, the breadth of sustainability topics is increasing year-on-year.

The growing importance for companies to act sustainably and report on their sustainability performance has elevated the role of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO). Sustainability has evolved from being a niche function to a strategic one. CSOs are expected to take a key role in leading their organizations towards sustainable business practices. At GEA, the CSO role belongs to the inner circle of the company’s decision-making. It plays a crucial role in helping its executives and the entire workforce to easier understand, reasonably measure and adequately report on sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities.

As sustainability has fundamental strategic importance, GEA has put the topic at the heart of its strategic approach. In fact, sustainability is the core theme in GEA’s corporate purpose, “Engineering for a better world”, from which the company’s vision is derived: “We safeguard future generations by providing sustainable solutions for the nutrition and pharmaceutical industries.”

Moreover, sustainability has its own pillar within GEA’s Mission 26 corporate strategy and underpins the other six key levers. Taken together, they form the roadmap to ensure GEA achieves its targets. Within this framework, the CSO works strategically to ensure sustainability is integrated into all business activities and the entire company. This requires adept networking and advocacy skills and the ability to connect the dots within and outside the organization to drive sustainability transformation.

However, as important as they are, neither strategy, nor the organization or the products on their own are enough to make the key difference. What matters most to achieving real transformational change and becoming a truly sustainable company is the mindset, behaviour and commitment of a company’s employees. To help their organization succeed, employees need to be engaged, empowered, and assume a key role in the transformation. And this is where the human resources function must become part of the game. It can create a supportive environment that fosters a sustainable mindset and behaviour. It also plays a critical role in hiring and helping ensure new employees understand and embrace company values.

GEA is taking this aspect very seriously. Of GEA’s five values, the first one is: “Responsibility: We care for people and planet.” Internally and externally, our CEO, Stefan Klebert, has made it his personal mission to promote this value, thus setting the tone for all employees.

The clarity and importance placed on caring for people and planet, reinforced by GEA’s corporate purpose: “Engineering for a better world”, serve as a promise to current and future employees. This has already had a positive impact on our goal to become “Employer of Choice” in our industry. Likewise, our values and purpose set a clear expectation toward all employees and, consequently, any people-related decisions.

In addition to requesting a driving mindset towards sustainability from all employees, GEA is significantly investing in the competency development of its business leaders. Just recently, the top 160 leaders of the company, went through a comprehensive programme with a renowned business school that was strongly focused on identifying new ways of leveraging sustainability as a source for competitive advantage.

Building on that, the company’s leadership teams are now expected to develop their own strategies to create additional value for their customers by offering products and solutions that allow a reduction of energy, water, or waste. To encourage even more innovation in these areas, we set up cross-function and cross-divisional sustainability-focused hackathons to spark creativity.

As of 2023, a significant proportion of GEA’s senior leaders will participate in a variable compensation plan which is linked to GEA achieving its sustainability-related targets. For example, the reduction of CO2 emissions in GEA’s own plants and along entire supply chains will lead to higher compensation, as will the development of more efficient products that support customers in achieving their sustainability targets.

With the support of our employees, GEA is not only driving its own sustainability transformation but also the transformation of the many industries it supports through engineering excellence.

“Being Chief People and Sustainability Officer is a game changing superpower”

Judith Wiese, Chief People and Sustainability Officer and Member of the Managing Board, Siemens

The challenges to human (co-)existence on the planet from resource depletion, climate change, and unsustainable practices of the industrial age are undeniable. In the corporate world, the broader attention needed to handle sustainability issues is generally allocated to the role of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO). There are, however, no universal standards for what this function does or how much authority it has to be effective. At Siemens, the CSO role has been a board-level position since 2008, underscoring the importance of sustainability as a building block of our DNA and setting a strong foundation to build on. And that’s what we do, every day.

As Chief People and Sustainability Officer (CPSO) at Siemens, I have the unique opportunity to wear two hats: one for ensuring the well-being of our people and nurturing our company culture, and one for advancing sustainable practices in our own operations and all aspects of our business – multiplying the impact for our customers and communities. For me, this is a superpower. It joins two powerful elements that run horizontally across all our businesses: people and sustainability – both necessary if solutions are to be found for solving the most critical issues of our time. Add in the power of technology that Siemens brings as a technology company, and you have an unstoppable combination that actively supports the mindset shift needed for achieving a more sustainable world.

At Siemens, our push for sustainable business practices is encompassed in our 360-degree framework, containing six fields of action: Decarbonization, Ethics, Governance, Resource Efficiency, Equity, and Employability or DEGREE. Our DEGREE framework is, among other things, a commitment to ethical standards based on trust and respect for human rights in the supply chain.

DEGREE allows a holistic view of sustainability that puts people topics like employability and equity, as well as environmental and societal impact topics, in focus. We encourage continuous learning and are committed to re- and upskilling, especially green skills. In the last fiscal year, we invested €280 million in professional training and continued education to transform our workforce into sustainability ambassadors. Our highly popular Base Camp for Sustainability offers an introduction to DEGREE and 66,000 participants have completed the course already in FY23.

We value the E for Equity that helps us integrate and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion into the fabric of our company. It helps us create a workforce that reflects our customer landscape and brings a fresh perspective to the way we think about creating solutions. The intersection of people’s interests with our company values creates a sense of belonging and engagement that we both admire and appreciate.

Combining the responsibilities for sustainability and people operations allows social aspects to be complemented by proficiency in the environmental and corporate governance spheres. At Siemens, with sustainability at the core of our processes, we need relevant skillsets across our business units and corporate functions. This allows sustainable approaches to be developed in an ecosystem manner, observing the cross-functional and business governance standards required to comply with new EU Taxonomy regulations and develop non-financial reporting and accounting guidelines.

To effect change, a cultural and organizational transformation and mindset shift are necessary. The convergence of people and sustainability can be a useful tool to speed up the momentum of much-needed change in all aspects of our existence. Indeed, for a company like Siemens – undergoing the transformation from industry to global technology leader – sustainability is a tremendous opportunity. Crucially, this applies both to our own operations and to our portfolio. We have increased our CO2 reduction target from 50% to 90% by 2030, compared to 2019, and will invest €650 million in decarbonizing our activities by 2030. But our products and solutions can also help our customers with their sustainability challenges – ~150 Mio tons of emissions were avoided by customers in FY22 alone.

Those companies that recognize the power of this combination will be well positioned to be drivers of innovation and growth, increase employee engagement, and mitigate the challenges associated with rapid transformation.

As a company at the intersection of the real and digital worlds, we at Siemens believe that technology is a key driver of sustainability. Embracing a holistic view that goes beyond environmental topics, we anchor sustainability firmly in all our business and operations. We are confident that leveraging the superpower combination of technology, people and sustainability can make a difference and transform the lives of billions.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/leaders-need-for-organizational-transformation-sustainability/

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, CHROs, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSOs, CSR, ESG, GEA Group, green marketing, responsible brands, Siemans, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, World Economic Fourm
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Ethical Marketing: 4 Values All Brands Should Strive For

3 05 2023

Photo: Getty Images

By Jeff Bradfor, PR pro, president of Dalton Agency’s Nashville office, author of “The Joy of Propaganda: The How and Why of Public Relations and Marketing.” via Forbes • Reposted: May 3, 2023

Today, consumers demand that companies not only offer quality products and services but also behave ethically in their marketing practices. Ethical behavior is a critical aspect of building long-term relationships with consumers.

In this article, I will list what I believe are the fundamental, perennial philosophical values that guide ethical marketing—values that have guided the work of our PR agency for the past 23 years—and describe how brands have implemented them in their strategies.

Honesty

Honesty means telling the truth, being transparent and avoiding deception. In the past, many companies have used deceptive tactics in their marketing practices to gain a competitive advantage. However, with the rise of social media and other digital channels, such tactics are easily exposed and can damage a brand’s reputation.

An example of deception is Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal. The company admitted to using software that could detect when its cars were being tested for emissions and then adjust the performance to pass the test. However, in real-world driving conditions, the cars emitted up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide. The company faced massive backlash, with many consumers feeling betrayed and questioning the brand’s ethics.

On the positive side, Tylenol dramatically demonstrated how to honestly and openly respond to a crisis during the infamous Tylenol tampering incident in 1982, in which several people died after taking Tylenol laced with potassium cyanide. The company quickly and completely shared information about the incident and took a huge financial hit by removing and destroying all products on the market at the time. Not only did Tylenol’s honesty save lives, but it also saved the company’s reputation. Within a year of the incident, sales of Tylenol had rebounded to pre-incident levels—and the company was widely praised for its ethical response to a tragedy that cost it over $100 million.

Respect For Individual Rights

This includes respecting privacy, data protection and avoiding discrimination. Consumers have the right to control their personal data and decide how it is used by companies. Brands must ensure they are transparent about their data collection and usage practices and obtain explicit consent from consumers.

A recent example of this is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. Brands that prioritize individual rights and respect consumer privacy are more likely to build trust and loyalty with consumers.

Respect For Human Dignity

Brands must recognize the inherent worth and value of each person and treat them accordingly. In marketing, respect for human dignity means avoiding tactics that exploit or manipulate consumers, such as intentional deception.

For instance, while influencer marketing can be an effective way for businesses to reach new audiences, some influencers have been criticized for promoting products that they do not actually use or endorse, or for promoting products that may be harmful or unethical. This lack of authenticity and transparency can be seen as a violation of respect for human dignity.

Responsibility

Marketers have a responsibility to ensure that their marketing efforts do not harm people or society. They should also be responsible for ensuring that their products or services are safe and reliable.

For example, in 2019, a well-known vaping brand was criticized for its marketing practices, which contributed to the rise of teenage vaping. The company had used colorful packaging and social media influencers to target young people, despite knowing that its products were highly addictive and harmful. The company’s marketing practices had undermined the common good and contributed to a public health crisis.

Another example of irresponsibility is the issue of greenwashing, the practice of making false or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of a product or service. It has become a significant problem, as consumers are becoming more aware of environmental issues and are looking for sustainable products. Companies are being urged to be more transparent about their environmental practices and ensure that their marketing efforts are responsible.

Conclusion

Ethical marketing is critical for building trust and long-term relationships with consumers. Brands that prioritize honesty, responsibility and respect for individual rights and human dignity will not only meet consumer expectations but also set themselves apart from their competitors. By implementing these values in their marketing strategies, brands can create a positive impact on society while also driving business success.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2023/05/02/ethical-marketing-4-values-all-brands-should-strive-for/?sh=199547681f79

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, ESG, green marketing, PR, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable branding

The Climate Science Behind Managing Disaster Risk

2 05 2023

Tourists try to stay dry in a flooded St Mark’s Square in Venice, Italy, in 2018. Flooding in the region has only intensified in recent years. Image credit: Jonathan Ford/Unsplash

By Joyce Coffee from Triplepundit.com • Reposted: May 2, 2023

It has become de rigueur for companies eager to reduce their climate-related disaster risks to sign up with groups that focus on assisting corporate clients with their climate change challenges.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), for one, helps the private sector set science-based emissions reduction targets. It’s a partnership between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, the World Resources Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Another, the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, offers guidelines for how companies can report their exposure to physical climate-related risks, among other things.

The assistance these groups provide is timely. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which protects investors and regulates publicly-held companies’ disclosures, is considering rules to require public companies to provide climate risk-related financial data. And most (if not all) U.N. agencies and other international climate change-related programs recognize the need to address disaster risks and other forms of climate risk worldwide.

But do these groups follow climate science? That question arose last month when a distinguished engineer openly questioned climate science in a presentation to the U.N. Disaster Risk Reduction Private Sector Alliance for Disaster Resilient Societies (ARISE) and its growing membership of U.S. corporate leaders. “We don’t know if climate change is happening now, and we don’t know if it will happen in the future,” he contended.

Peruse any legitimate climate source, and it’s nigh impossible to question climate science, whether our planet is warming and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.N. has a growing set of resources, among them:

Race to Resilience, a global campaign that convenes non-government actors to build climate resilience in vulnerable communities.
The A2R U.N. Climate Resilience Initiative, a global multi-stakeholder effort to strengthen climate resilience for vulnerable countries and people.
U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) online course on Nature-based Solutions for Disaster and Climate Resilience, which has extended nature-based solutions certificates to more than 60,000 leaders worldwide.
New Urban Agenda’s World Cities events, with “Adapting Cities for Climate Resilience” themes
Annual agreements from the U.N. Conference of the Parties, of which the Paris Climate Agreement is the best known

As the U.N. plainly asserts: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

ARISE, whose U.S. arm I co-chair, follows the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The latest documents of the Framework — the 2015 U.N.-adopted document that calls for assessing and reporting progress on disaster-reduction plans — emphasize that disaster risks “are growing at an unprecedented rate globally, inflicting damage across sectors and vital systems for human societies and economies.”

It also maintains: “We are living outside the boundaries of what our planet can sustain, to the detriment of future generations. Radical shifts are needed to change course toward a more sustainable and risk-informed pathway, as the world is facing a projected 40 percent increase in disasters during the lifetime of the Sendai Framework to 2030.”

The Framework cites climate change on over half of its 140 pages, and the No. 1 commitment of the U.N. Plan of Action on Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience is to take a risk-informed approach.

We must also heed another distinguished engineer, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, who earned a degree in the field from the Instituto Superior Técnico in Portugal back in 1949. “Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing, global temperatures keep rising, and our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible,” he told CNBC last year. “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.”

And we must promote companies looking to the SBTi and others for assistance in mitigating disaster risks. Onward with this important work!

Joyce Coffee, LEED AP, is founder and President of Climate Resilience Consulting. She is an accomplished organizational strategist and visionary leader with over 25 years of domestic and international experience in the corporate, government and non-profit sectors implementing resilience and sustainability strategies, management systems, performance measurement, partnerships, benchmarking and reporting.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/disaster-risks-climate-science/773221

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, Joyce Coffee, Paris Climate Agreemenbt, Race to Resilience, responsible brands, SBTi, SEC, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, The A2R U.N. Climate Resilience Initiative, U.N. Disaster Risk Reduction Private Sector Alliance for Disaster Resilient Societies, UNEP
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, responsible brands, social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Smart tech can boost business sustainability in 6 key areas

2 05 2023

Photo: Getty Images

Graham Rihn, Founder & CEO of RoadRunner Recycling, discusses how smart technology can boost a business’s sustainability credentials in six key areas. By Graham Rihn from Sustainability Magazine • Reposted: May 2, 2023

More and more, business leaders are identifying that sustainability initiatives are not only beneficial for climate change, but can also have positive impacts on a company’s bottom line, when executed effectively.

Resultantly, companies are investing in smart technology like AI, machine learning, and blockchain to help accelerate and streamline sustainability efforts, operate more efficiently and drive shareholder value.

While businesses, especially those with large national or global footprints, often face the challenge of scalability when it comes to implementing sustainability action plans across a variety of locations, a recent PriceWaterhouseCooper study found that more than 70% of sustainable goals could be accelerated through technology adoption.

New technologies can step into this arena to help businesses overcome these challenges among others. Here are six areas of sustainability businesses can improve with the help of tools such as AI, machine learning, and blockchain development.

Energy Efficiency

Businesses can optimise energy efficiency through data analysis, and, in turn, identify opportunities for reduced energy consumption and potentially lower bills. For example, connected sensor technology can adjust lighting and air conditioning to occupancy levels. Fewer people in the office can equate to less energy usage. Industrial manufacturing company, Siemens, uses machine learning to optimise data center energy consumption. In the process, the company cut energy costs by 10% and carbon emissions by 16%.

Renewable Energy

A major challenge for businesses involving climate change is sourcing energy that does not come from burning fossil fuels. In 2019, burning fossil fuels accounted for 74% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Businesses that choose renewable energy sources can use AI to increase efficiency and reduce their carbon footprint. Google installed a 1.6 MW solar array at its company headquarters as part of its plan to wholly utilise carbon-free energy by 2030. They use AI to maximise the use of that clean energy across data centers, shifting energy-intensive processes to the times of day when the most electricity is available.

Investing in renewables, committing to optimising green energy production, and employing technology to optimise usage can yield dividends in terms of climate change.

Sustainable Supply Chain

Supply chain transparency is essential for building a sustainable business and negating climate change, but tracing a product’s journey is no easy task. Blockchain technology can step in to help a business ensure sustainable sourcing methods are utilised for raw materials. Walmart recently partnered with IBM to implement a blockchain based supply chain tracking system to follow products and materials.

Before applying technology to the supply chain, it took a team more than six days to find the source of a package of mangoes being sold at a store location. Working with IBM, that team could eventually trace each package in less than three seconds. Sustainable sourcing can help businesses reduce emissions, better manage climate risks, and even streamline operations.

Sustainable Product Design

Analysing product performance data can be accomplished through AI algorithms that optimise product design for energy efficiency and recyclability.

As of 2010, Nike employed AI and machine learning to design a sustainable running shoe made with recyclable materials that maintained their standards of durability and athletic performance. The carbon footprint of the product was reduced by 30%.

Applying technology to product design can mean reductions in energy usage and carbon emissions for businesses.

Waste and Recycling Management

Sustainability measures are not only important at a product’s creation, but also when it reaches the end of its usable life. Waste accounts for an estimated 20% of methane emissions across the world.

Today, new technologies can analyse waste generation to identify areas in which organisations can reduce waste output. Waste metering technology is able to monitor the types and volumes of waste being generated to optimise service. It can also identify areas for increased recycling or waste elimination.

One example, the city of Amsterdam implemented an AI-based application in 2021 that can detect garbage and recycling on the street. It automatically maps the area and once the material is identified by the AI in real time, the information is shared with the city’s waste management department to clean up. The application is able to quickly solve waste disposal issues in Amsterdam at scale.

ESG Reporting

Embracing technologies that aid in implementing sustainable changes to businesses can also enable better, more accurate ESG reporting. Disclosing this type of information could soon become a requirement with potential new SEC Scope 3 emissions reporting rules coming in 2023 and technology adoption can help businesses be well-prepared.

Many businesses find that with the use of AI and sensor technology that data quality is improved, reporting processes can be automated, the technology can identify risks and opportunities, and they are better able to forecast future trends.

Microsoft uses AI-based carbon management software and Internet of Things for its AI for Earth programme. It can measure, manage, and find ways to reduce an organisation’s carbon footprint. That can be an attractive metric to investors measuring a company by its ESG score. Cutting emissions usually means a reduction in energy use which often translates to lower costs. Using AI for data collection and predictive analytics can provide a powerful avenue to find new methods of driving sustainability solutions.

Why apply technology to sustainability

Implementing these tools as part of a holistic sustainability program allows companies to find solutions that fit their needs and sets your business up for success in both the short- and long-term.

Smart technologies can help us accelerate the road to a more sustainable future, and the time to start is now. Implementing this technology now prepares your business for a future in which sustainability will have a bigger impact on the bottom line.

In fact, more than 74% of institutional investors said they would divest from companies with a poor environmental track record.

AI, machine learning, and blockchain technology can push businesses to achieve goals such as Zero Waste and carbon neutrality, while preparing you for the expectations of tomorrow, today.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/smart-tech-boosts-business-sustainability-in-6-key-areas

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, ESG REporting, green marketing, renewable energy, responsible brands, RoadRunner Recycling, sustainability, sustainable branding, Waste and Recycling Mnagement
Categories : Climate Change, ESG, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

Your iPhone Contains More Recycled Materials Than You Thought

1 05 2023

Image credits: Bagus Hernawan/Unsplash and Apple

By Gary E. Frank from triplepundit.com • Reposted: May 1, 2023

Mobile devices like Apple’s iPhone contain at least 30 chemical elements — from common metals like aluminum, copper, lithium, silver and gold, to rare earth elements like yttrium, terbium, lanthanum, neodymium and dysprosium, all of which are extracted from the earth through mining.

Apple is looking to reduce demand for these elements and others by quietly expanding its use of recycled content. The company reached a new high for recycled materials in 2021, with nearly 20 percent recycled content across all products, according to its 2022 Environmental Progress Report released last week. It also introduced certified recycled gold for the first time in 2021, and more than doubled the use of recycled tungsten, rare earth elements and cobalt, the company reported.

Recovering more materials for use in future products helps reduce mining. For example, a single metric ton of iPhone components contains the same amount of gold and copper that’s typically extracted from 2,000 metric tons of mined rock.

“We are making real progress in our work to address the climate crisis and to one day make our products without taking anything from the earth,” Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives, said in a public statement. “Our rapid pace of innovation is already helping our teams use today’s products to build tomorrow’s.”

Increasingly, that means the use of recycling robots like Daisy, which the company says can disassemble up to 1.2 million phones a year and recover key materials like rare earths. With recently enhanced capability, Daisy can now take apart 23 models of iPhone, and Apple has offered to license the robot’s patents to other companies and researchers free of charge.

apple daisy iphone recycling robot — Apple’s first recycling robot, Daisy, can disassemble up to 1.2 million phones each year, helping Apple recover more valuable materials for recycling, according to the company.

Apple rolled out Taz, a cousin to Daisy, last year — which uses “shredder-like technology” to recover more rare earth elements from devices. An additional robot, Dave, disassembles taptic engines, the technology that provides users with tactile feedback to simulate actions, such as clicks on a stationary touch screen. These steps help in the recovery of valuable rare earth magnets, tungsten and steel, the company said.

All totaled, Apple products that came off the assembly lines in 2021 included 45 percent certified recycled rare earth elements, the company’s highest mark ever.

The company has also committed to extend product lifetimes through refurbishment. It reported sending more than 12 million devices and accessories to new owners for reuse in 2021, extending their lifetime and reducing the need for future mining. In the long term, Apple aims to use only renewable or recyclable materials in its products, a goal announced in 2017.

The company’s 2022 report also highlighted its progress toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. In a year when many other companies saw large increases in their footprints and the company’s revenue grew by 33 percent, Apple’s net emissions remained flat. The company has been carbon neutral for its global operations since 2020, including 100 percent renewable energy used to power all offices, stores and data centers since 2018.

And Apple says it’s spreading the gospel of renewables, with Apple suppliers more than doubling their use of clean power from 2020 to 2021, according to the report. As of April 2023, 213 of the company’s manufacturing partners have pledged to power all Apple production with renewables across 25 countries.

The company has also reduced plastic in its packaging by 75 percent since 2015, on the way eliminating plastic packaging entirely by 2025.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/apple-iphone-recycled-materials/772961

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: 2022 Environmental Progress Report, accountability, Apple, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, iPhone, recycling, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, trile pundit
Categories : ESG, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

United Nations: Global sustainability goals are in ‘deep trouble’

1 05 2023

Image: sustainability-times.com

By Laureen Fagan from sustainability-times/.com • Reposted: May 1, 2023

Global progress on achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been stalled, with the COVID-19 pandemic and conflict in Ukraine causing setbacks that threaten achievement of the 2030 goals.

“It’s time to sound the alarm. At the midway point on our way to 2030, the SDGs are in deep trouble,” said the new interim report, previewed this week. “A preliminary assessment of the roughly 140 targets with data show only about 12% are on track.”

For example, 575 million people (about 7% of the world’s population) will still be living in extreme poverty in 2030 if current trends hold. That compares to 800 million in 2015 (10.8%). “The COVID-19 pandemic reversed three decades of steady progress with the number of people living in extreme poverty increasing for the first time in a generation,” the report said. Some 70 million were pushed back into extreme poverty since 2019.

There have been successes: child mortality rates continue to fall, progress on HIV prevention and treatment continues, and there are gains on electricity access in poor countries. Renewable energy and an increased number of marine protected areas are bright spots. But on far too many measures, including climate-related goals, more is needed.

At this rate, some 660 million people will still lack power and renewable energy will still be a fraction of the mix in 2030. Climate finance is falling short and debt relief is increasingly critical in the developing world. Food security (SDG2) and safe water access (SDG6) are threatened as more people are affected by climate impacts.

“The world is on the brink of a climate catastrophe and current actions and plans to address the crisis are insufficient. Without transformative action starting now and within this decade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions deeply and rapidly in all sectors, the 1.5°C target will be at risk and with it the lives of more than three billion people,” the report said.

“Failure to act leads to intensifying heatwaves, droughts, flooding, wildfires, sea-level rise, and famines. Emissions should already be decreasing now and will need to be cut almost by half by 2030 – a mere seven years from now.”

Guterres is appealing for “deep reforms of the international financial architecture” through international lenders and development banks, including SDG stimulus funds of at least US$500 billion per year to assist low-income nations with their plans for the SDG targets.

“Many developing countries cannot invest in the SDGs because they face a financing black hole. Before the pandemic, the annual SDG funding gap was $2.5 trillion. According to the OECD, that figure is now at least $4.2 trillion,” said Guterres. “And many developing countries are buried under a mountain of debt.”

The interim report was released ahead of the UN General Assembly’s high-level Economic and Social Council meeting in July and, ultimately, the SDG summit in September.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/un-sdgs-global-sustainability-goals-are-in-deep-trouble/

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Categories : sustainability, sustainable branding

Markets Will Reward Brands That Are De-Risking Their Supply Chains

30 04 2023

While the volatility of economic change around us can be distracting, one thing remains clear: A new generation of expectations is shifting business for good. By Del Hudson from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: April 30, 2023

There has been a rapid recent shift from Scope 3 emissions measurement and managementas a “nice-to-have” to a requirement for doing business responsibly. If your brand intends to lead in the markets of tomorrow, you must understand your supply chain and be reducing impacts now. It is no longer tenable to not know the environmental and social implications across the production lifecycle. With disclosure regulations at play across the globe, ESG reporting is increasingly being legally mandated. Examples include the EU’s recently adopted Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the global International Sustainability Standards Board; and the SEC’s proposed ESG disclosure mandate in the US.

Government regulators are playing a key role in shaping how we address climate change; however, influential businesses have a chance to ensure these requirements speak to the metrics that make a true impact. Policy is a catalytic vehicle for change. As a business community, we should be embracing it as a means to address the existential threat of the climate crisis — to not do so would be irresponsible and dangerous. Recognizing the tension in the system among trade organizations, policymakers and corporations doesn’t mean it can’t be done right. For businesses and brands, creating incentives around impact reductionthat tie clearly to company goals is a key opportunity for transformative action.

It’s no secret that multiple industries have reaped the rewards of a broken economic model that relies on extractive and exploitative practices that continue to harm people and the planet. Consumer goods is one of those industries; and responsible leaders recognize it is time for a new system — one that transforms design and consumption and imagines a new way of doing profitable business. Over two-thirds of US consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable products. Globally, that number is just over a third — though that number rises to 39 percent for Gen Z and 42 percent for millennials. Capital markets will reward those that are de-risking their supply chains; and employees want to work where purpose and responsibility matters.

The argument that without perfect data we can’t do this work ignores the reality that science is always evolving. We must move forward with urgency, using the significant directional data that already exist and show where the key issues and intervention opportunities lie. Taking accountability for the full product lifecycle and impacts up and down the value chain is the only way to achieve meaningful ESG performance. It’s not about marketing single environmental or social attributes of a product. It’s not just reducing impact in owned operations while ignoring the manufacturing impact or material inputs of the end product. It’s believing that tomorrow’s customers will want (and deserve) something different than they get today.

This is hard, complex work; it won’t be completed in my lifetime. But we must move rapidly to accurately understand impact and take action with urgency. And we must be ready to learn and change as we know more. The tools to begin this work already exist. Smart businesses already see their futures. And while the volatility of economic change around us can be distracting, one thing remains clear: A new generation of expectations is shifting business for good.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/supply-chain/markets-reward-brands-derisking-supply-chains

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directiv, CSR, ESG, global International Sustainability Standards Board, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable brands

Three Things Companies Should Consider When Targeting Gen Z

29 04 2023

Photo: Getty Images

By David Herpers, Forbes Councils Member via forbes.com • Reposted: April 29, 2023

As Generation Z begins to harness its buying power and make significant financial decisions, competition for its attention grows. For companies hoping to capture this generation’s business, it’s important to understand the way they view their finances and how they engage with a brand. While Gen Z’s relationship with money and brands is similar to that of its older siblings, millennials, it’s certainly not the same. Let’s look at how Gen Z approaches finances and consumer brands.

Money Habits

As with the members of any younger generation, we tend to expect Gen Z to have irresponsible spending habits and not to be the biggest savers. Studies show this isn’t the case.

Gen Z tends to spend less and save more than the other generations, contributing an average of $867 in savings per month, almost doubling what the average American saves each month ($462). One may find themselves asking, is Gen Z more fiscally responsible than the rest of us?

The answer is yes and no. One main factor leading to the high monthly average of savings is many Gen Zers still live at home. According to a 2022 study by Credit Karma, Gen Z is setting records for the number of people living with their parents following high school education. With costs of living at an all-time high, most Gen Zers are making the decision to stay home in the best interest of their short- and long-term financial security.

That said, there’s still a large portion of Gen Z that chooses to spend over saving. However, those that fall into the spending category are still taking a cautious approach. Over 68% of Gen Zers use a budgeting tool of some sort to manage their finances. Of those surveyed, 43% say they prefer the old-fashioned pen-and-paper method, while 38%, respectively, say they use online budgeting tools.

Brand Enthusiasm

Gen Zers’ cautious nature isn’t exclusive to their housing and higher costs. It extends to their relationships with brands as well. When looking at the relationship between Gen Z and brands, a recent IBM study measured brand loyalty (repeated purchases) and brand enthusiasm (active engagement between brands and customers).

According to the IBM study, Gen Z is more likely to display brand enthusiasm over brand loyalty. Known as the “generation of researchers,” this is likely due to Gen Z’s habit of turning to online platforms for reviews before making even small purchases.

Rather than committing to a brand they are familiar with, Gen Zers will evaluate all options, taking into consideration customer and influencer reviews, social media presence and value alignment. When they find a brand that checks all their boxes, they are eager to share and engage with it. But keep in mind, should the brand harm the relationship in some way, Gen Zers quickly move to purchase from a competitor.

An advantage of appealing to brand enthusiasm, as noted by IBM, is that it creates opportunities to gain insight into customers’ attitudes and purchasing habits in relation to a brand. Companies get to have conversations with customers about what they want rather than guessing. And we already have insight into what Gen Z customers crave.

Authenticity

While millennials may stray away from content that’s been highly edited and airbrushed and that poses perfect “promises,” Gen Z has taken it to the next level—by adeptly recognizing the differences between real and fake online content. As the first generation born into social media and becoming more tech-savvy than generations so far, Gen Z is quick to identify fantasy versus reality. According to IBM’s study of Gen Z’s relationships with brands, it’s clear this generation places a high value on a brand’s authenticity and prefers real content over staged content.

The concept of authenticity extends beyond advertising and product images for Gen Z; it includes the company’s impact. According to a 2019 Kearney study, 57% of Gen Z reports a brand’s social and environmental impacts are key factors in its purchasing decision. But a statement about a brand’s commitment isn’t enough to sway the generation of researchers. In fact, Gen Z will go out of its way to find—and even pay slightly more for—a product or service if it means the purchase aligns with its values.

As Gen Z’s influence on the market and society continues to grow, companies and brands can best position themselves for success by aligning with the values and habits of this generation. With a large number of consumers that can take the success of a brand into their own hands, keep in mind their financial concerns, engagement expectations and craving for authentic content, as these are likely essential to keep a brand afloat in the rise of this new generation.

David Herpers is the SVP of Digital Bank at Credit One Bank. His expertise includes wealth management, banking and product management.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2023/04/28/three-things-companies-should-consider-when-targeting-gen-z/?sh=1c1847f71a5d

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, authenticity, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, Credit Kar, CSR, ESG, Forbes, Gen Z, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

4 Strategies for Bridging the Sustainability Skills Gap

29 04 2023

IMAGE: TIMA MIROSHNICHENKO

While it may be tempting to take a ‘wait and see’ approach, more and more companies are developing their own solutions to mitigate this gap internally. Here are four such strategies. By JOANNA BUCZKOWSKA-MCCUMBER via Sustainablebrands.com • Reposted: April 29, 2023

Businesses across industries are under mounting pressure to adopt sustainable practices, reduce their environmental impact, and provide ESG reporting and transparency in their efforts while staying accountable to their commitments. As demand for sustainability grows, so does the need for skilled professionals and workers who can drive and implement strategy and practices effectively across organizations and supply chains. However, most companies do not have the talent with the knowledge, experience and skills to achieve their sustainability goals.

Companies are recognizing that the demand for sustainability talent is outpacing the supply; and the gap is only growing — as sustainability roles expand and new ones get created, a Corporate Sustainability Officer is just not enough. The International Labour Organization suggests that 18 million net new jobs could be created worldwide by net-zero commitments by 2030. Recent research found that 82 percent of sustainability executives believed there were significant skills gaps within their own organization to tackle sustainability requirements. The World Economic Forum has directly linked the lack of qualified talent as being one of the significant barriers to implementing sustainability strategies; while the UN Global Compact has called for direct action to address this skills gap — prompting companies to prioritize and invest in skilling, upskilling and reskilling their teams.

While it may be tempting for companies to take a ‘wait and see’ approach, it won’t bridge this gap fast enough and will have negative effects. More and more companies — includingMicrosoft, Salesforce and Interface — are turning to mitigate this gap internally by developing and implementing their own solutions.

Bridging the sustainability skills gap internally will be fundamental for businesses in reaching their sustainability objectives. Here are four such strategies.

Make sustainability a strategic priority

First and foremost, a strong sustainability strategy sends a clear signal to potential and current employees that a business is committed to sustainability. This can be a major selling point for job seekers who are looking to work for a company that shares their values. By publicly committing to sustainability and investing in the resources needed to achieve sustainability goals, businesses can attract top talent and build a workforce that is passionate about sustainability. But it’s not just about attracting the right talent — a sustainability strategy can help to engage, motivate and develop the skills of existing employees.

Investing in a sustainability strategy can also help businesses to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to trends and regulations. As governments around the world enact more stringent sustainability regulations, businesses that are already taking a proactive approach to sustainability will be better positioned to adapt to these changes. By investing in a sustainability strategy now, businesses can ensure that they have the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to comply with future regulations and stay ahead of their competitors.

Provide training across your organization

They’re perhaps the most obvious on the list, but education and training programs are essential for building the skills and knowledge needed to implement sustainable practices effectively. These programs can take various forms — including workshops, online courses, mentoring programs, internships, etc — and can be customized to specific job functions and levels. They can be developed internally, sourced online or even co-developed with educational institutions.

The trick is ensuring that you are levelling up your current workforce while priming the incoming talent pipeline. That focus then has to consider both an internal and external training lens. Microsoft is an excellent example of how a company can tackle the sustainability skills gap on both sides — focusing on internal training for employees while also building out external learning opportunities through its Sustainability Learning Center.

Integrate sustainability into company culture

Planning and training are key tools in providing knowledge and setting the playing field but incorporating sustainability into corporate culture is what makes sustainability efforts meaningful. In 2021, the World Economic Forum released a study that found companies with a strong sustainability culture are more likely to attract and retain employees with the appropriate skills and knowledge — helping to mitigate brain drain.

Building a culture rooted in sustainability entails fostering a culture that prioritizes and values sustainability and encourages employees to develop their sustainability skills regardless of their job responsibilities. Companies can start by creating plans that set sustainability goals and targets, and ensuring those are communicated clearly and in a format that not only engages but enables every employee to feel that they have a role to play in the execution of the plan.

Providing channels where employees can execute sustainability goals while having the agency to develop and recommend new sustainability initiatives, rounded out by volunteering opportunities or employee resource groups, provides a rich internal ecosystem for sustainability to thrive. Acknowledging employees who exhibit leadership and innovation and celebrating teams that achieve sustainability goals is an added strategy to inspire and motivate employees to become champions of sustainability within the organization and sustain an engaged workforce.

Embed sustainability into the employee lifecycle

Companies must prioritize sustainability throughout the employee lifecycle, integrating it into major HR functions. A Harvard Business Review study found that embedding sustainability in the employee lifecycle by incorporating sustainability targets and social impact considerations into the attraction and recruitment processes can improve employee engagement and retention rates. For example, job descriptions, interview questions and selection criteria can emphasize the importance of sustainability skills and experience or even a desire to learn new sustainability skills.

Investing in sustainability initiatives can offer ample opportunities for employees to develop their skills and enhance their knowledge in this critical area. Ensuring that sustainability elements are baked into regular HR functions such as professional development, checks-ins and performance reviews will enable leaders to be aware of specialized skill development and matching employees with new opportunities within the company as they arise.

To remain competitive in the marketplace, companies must adopt proactive measures to address the sustainability skills gap — by investing in making sustainability a priority, training, and embedding it across culture and people functions. Being proactive in bridging this business challenge will only have a net-positive effect on performance across environmental and social factors; but without it, companies will be left behind.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/organizational-change/4-strategies-bridging-sustainability-skills-gap

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, Corporate Sustainability Officer, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, World Economic Forum
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

With Public Opinion on Their Side, Corporations Begin to Fight for ESG

28 04 2023

Image credit: Joshua Sukoff/Unsplash

By Tina Casey from Triple Pundit • Reposted: April 28, 2023

An organized effort to prevent corporations from practicing ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles has gained traction among state-level Republican officials in recent years. They typically deploy scary rhetoric about the evils of “woke capitalism” to make their case against ESG investing and corporate practices. However, the movement is beginning to run out of steam. Business leaders are pushing back, and a new study from Rokk Solutions indicates that voters on both sides of the political divide are siding with them.

The anti-ESG movement sowed the seeds of its own destruction

From the beginning, many have said the anti-ESG movement was nothing more than a thinly disguised effort to protect fossil energy industries and prevent investor dollars from flowing into decarbonization technologies, including energy storage as well as wind and solar power. Some anti-ESG measures are also aimed at protecting gun industry stakeholders.

In some cases, there has been no disguise at all. Republican office holders in Texas, for example, passed a state law in 2021 that explicitly prohibits state pension funds from doing business with financial firms that “boycott” fossil energy industries.

Anti-ESG laws are ostensibly aimed at protecting pensioners, but because they have no basis in actual bottom-line impacts, they can backfire. In some cases, banks and other investment firms can pack up and take their business elsewhere. In Texas, for example, competition dried up after the anti-ESG law passed, costing the small city of Anna $277,334 on its bond sale.

In addition to interfering with direct bottom-line decisions, the anti-ESG movement also interferes with businesses that are pursuing DEI (diversity, equality and inclusion) goals. A strong DEI policy helps businesses to attract and retain top talent while building stronger relations with communities, consumers and clients. In contrast, the anti-ESG position overlaps with the “woke capitalism” canard and with hate speech expressed by white supremacists and religious extremists, a sentiment that poses reputational risks for businesses.

Big business quietly finds its voice

To a great extent, businesses only have themselves to blame. Many U.S. corporations have provided financial support to help raise Republicans to power in both the legislative and judicial branches, only to see the “party of big business” suddenly turn around and become their enemy.

But those financial ties may have helped some business leaders gain the ear of Republican office holders. Earlier this week, reporter Ross Kerber of Reuters took a deep dive into the issue. Among other leaders, he spoke with Lauren Doroghazi, senior vice president at the consulting firm MultiState Associates, who said businesses have seen some success lobbying against anti-ESG bills. Doroghazi estimates that businesses and their allies have succeeded in nipping more than 80 percent of state-level, anti-ESG proposals in the bud, though many still remain on the table.

Kerber also spoke with BlackRock Chief Financial Officer Martin Small, who also indicated that investment firms have had some success in alerting Republican office holders to the potential for anti-ESG bills to backfire and the resulting costs for public pension plans.

For example, earlier this month in Kansas, the state’s own Division of the Budget released an estimate that a newly proposed anti-ESG bill would cut state pension returns by $3.6 billion over a 10-year period, Kerber reported. Legislators made some changes in the bill, and a watered-down version eventually passed into law on April 24. However, it still includes provisions aiming to prevent public officials from considering ESG principles in financial transactions.

Your indoor voice is not working

So far, most of the corporate pushback against anti-ESG laws is happening in meetings behind closed doors. That strategy has met with much success, according to Doroghazi’s analysis. But the approximately 1 in 5 anti-ESG laws that do pass could do considerable damage. Even if banks and other financial firms suffer little direct impact, businesses could still feel the ripple effect and reputational loss of doing business in states with anti-ESG regulations and increasingly repressive social policies.

Businesses can and should begin listening to public opinion and amplifying the public’s voice. Survey after survey shows that the majority of U.S. voters and other adults support climate action, abortion rights, racial and gender equality, restrictions on gun ownership, and other progressive values that are consistent with corporate ESG principles.

The fact is that the public voice needs help. Minority rule by Republican office holders has become a feature in states like Wisconsin, where gerrymandering has provided Republican districts with outsized power relative to their population.

With red-state Democratic representation concentrated in cities, state-level Republican office holders can also consolidate power by stripping municipalities of their authority to govern. In Texas, the state legislature is currently considering a bill that would pre-empt local control by cities and counties on a variety of issues including drought response, predatory lenders and worker protections. The Tennessee legislature has moved to undermine Democratic representation in Nashville, and the New York Times has described how state legislatures in Georgia and elsewhere are stripping power from local election boards.

It’s time to pick sides on ESG

At the same time, the opinions of U.S. voters and consumers are becoming more aligned with ESG principles, and the up-and-coming generation of workers is turning away from employment in fossil energy industries.

Last week, the K Street communications firm Rokk Solutions issued an updated survey of voter opinions undertaken last year. The latest polling found that a majority of voters in both parties “believe corporate environmental action is relevant to their financial futures.”

“This belief increases for specific efforts like conservation and resource management,” the report reads. Strong majorities of both Republican and Democratic voters also view de-risking business as important to their financial futures. In particular, voters in both parties indicate that climate action is “important to their financial fortunes.”

“Republican support rises significantly for specific areas like water conservation, waste management and biodiversity,” Rokk found.

Republican voters are still skeptical of long-term climate goals, and a partisan difference of opinion persists on social issues, the report found. Still, the growing consensus on specific areas of sustainability provides businesses with a common ground on which to make the case for ESG investing, out loud and in public.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/business-pushback-anti-esg/772676

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, green marketing, responsible brands, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainable brands

Learning the Language of Sustainability Planning and Climate Reporting

28 04 2023

NRG Energy, Wednesday, April 26, 2023, Press release picture

By Greg Kandankulam from NRG Energy Inc. • Reposted: April 28, 2023

Now more than ever, organizations are prioritizing sustainability planning to achieve long-term climate goals. However, not every business has a dedicated team. In many cases, leaders take on such planning as an added responsibility outside of their traditional job scope.

Like many fields, sustainability has its own language with a long list of terms related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Being able to understand and speak the language is key to pursuing, tracking, and reporting sustainability outcomes. Here, we focus on terms in one of the most critical areas: climate.

For energy and facility managers helping to lead their companies’ sustainability efforts, these terms are essential to ensure their businesses can set appropriate climate goals, and then track and report progress using best-practice standards.

Climate vocabulary basics

Climate-related sustainability action is needed because of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions that magnify both climate change and human-induced global warming. These factors are the foundation, so it’s important to have a firm grasp of what those three highlighted terms mean.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are a set of naturally occurring or human-generated gases that transform the atmosphere. According to Cornell Law School, humans generate most GHGs through actions such as agriculture and burning fossil fuels for energy, manufacturing, and transportation purposes. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxides (N_xO), and manufactured fluorinated gases.
According to NASA, climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional, and global climates. Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century have been driven by human activities that have increased heat-trapping GHG levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature. While natural processes also contribute to a changing climate, they are far outpaced by human-induced activities.
NASA defines global warming as the long-term heating of Earth’s surface observed since the post-industrial period due to human activities that increase GHG levels in Earth’s atmosphere. This term is not interchangeable with the term climate change but rather is a key component of a changing climate.

Climate disclosures

At face value, climate disclosures are not complicated at all. They are simply any disclosure your company makes about the impact of its operations on climate change, such as GHG emissions totals, use of renewable energy, or energy savings from energy efficiency efforts.

However, climate disclosures get complicated when the topic of standards and requirements is introduced. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in March 2022 proposed rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors. If finalized, investor-owned companies subject to SEC regulation will be required to make certain climate-related disclosures, including information about climate-related risks.

These disclosures are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their business, results of operations, or financial condition, and certain climate-related financial statement metrics within their audited financial statements.

Beyond the SEC rules, which won’t apply to all businesses, there are other voluntary standards for climate disclosures. For example, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures or TCFD, created by the Financial Stability Board, has issued recommendations on climate disclosures supported by more than 3,000 companies across 92 countries. The nonprofit CDP runs a widely accepted global disclosure system to help companies manage their environmental impacts.

Scope 1, 2, and 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Many businesses include GHG reduction goals in their sustainability plans, which means they need to track GHG emissions and disclose annual GHG emissions from operations to show progress toward their goals.

Simple, right? Not so fast. Who’s responsible for the GHGs created by the Amazon and FedEx trucks that deliver your products to customers? What about GHGs from the electricity delivered by your local electric provider to keep your business running?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides helpful definitions for different categories – or “scopes” – of emissions so that businesses can track and report GHGs and GHG reductions consistently.

Scope 1

Direct GHG emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organization (e.g., emissions associated with fuel combustion in boilers, furnaces, company-owned fleet vehicles).

Scope 2

Indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling. Although an organization’s Scope 2 emissions physically occur at the facility where they are generated, they are accounted for in the organization’s GHG inventory because they are a result of the organization’s energy use.

Scope 3

Indirect GHG emissions resulting from activities not owned or controlled by an organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. Scope 3 emissions for one organization are the Scope 1 or 2 emissions of another organization and often represent the majority of an organization’s total GHG emissions.

Any company with a GHG reduction goal will be expected to track and report Scope 1 and 2 emissions, while Scope 3 emissions may be considered optional. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a global nonprofit, has developed a widely accepted corporate accounting and reporting standard with guidance for companies preparing a GHG inventory.

Net-zero emissions

The World Economic Forum defines net-zero emissions as “a state of balance between emissions and emissions reductions.” For an individual business to reach net-zero, that does not mean it cannot emit any GHG emissions from operations. It means the business must offset its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions through verified means of reducing other GHGs, such as through the purchase of renewable energy credits or carbon offset credits, carbon capture, sequestration, and/or other technologies.

As with GHG reporting, there is an internationally recognized standard for achieving net-zero, also called carbon neutrality.

Net-zero is becoming a rallying point for businesses across the globe. More than 1,200 companies have committed to science-based net-zero targets. Being a sustainable business is one of five pillars of NRG, and we are proudly committed to our own climate targets. As an organization, we set an ambitious goal to achieve net-zero and reduce our carbon footprint by 50% by 2025, using our 2014 emissions as our base year.

Science-based Target-setting

Did you notice the term “science-based” in the last paragraph about net-zero targets? Many companies have been criticized for greenwashing by claiming carbon neutrality with the use of various trading and accounting measures, while their operations still produce significant real emissions. According to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), emissions targets are considered “science-based” if they are in line with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the United Nations Paris Agreement – limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.

SBTi is a partnership of the United Nations, CDP, World Resources Institute (WRI), and others that defines and promotes best practices in emissions reductions in line with climate science. Nearly 1,000 organizations have set emissions reduction targets grounded in climate science through the SBTi’s guidance.

Get started

We all have a role to play in creating a more sustainable future through planning and action. When it comes to climate and energy, look for a trusted advisor who can help you implement a range of solutions to track, report, and ultimately achieve your sustainability goals.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/learning-language-sustainability-planning-climate-154500285.html

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: accountability, Climate Discloures, corporate social reponsibility, corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, GHGs, green marketing, responsible brands, SEC, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands, Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainability

Eric Block On Responsible Branding

A Circular Economy Will Create Millions of Good Jobs; But Study Reveals Global North Bias

Decent work in a circular economy: 5 themes

Search

Links

Contact Us

Inspiring Experiences

Our Partners

Reliable Resources