The SEC Climate Disclosure Rule is Public: Here’s What Companies Need To Do Now

8 03 2024

(Image: Tim van der Kuip/Unsplash) 

By Joe Sczurko via Triple Pundit • Reposted: March 8, 2024

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has finalized its long-awaited ruling that will require thousands of companies to disclose climate risks and data. Some stakeholders see the SEC ruling as going too far, while others say it has not gone far enough to address pressing climate issues. Whatever your view, now is the time to solidify plans for compliance. Here are five steps you can take to prepare now. 

1. Refine climate governance

With climate disclosure now the purview of the SEC, companies should review current governance approaches and identify opportunities to strengthen them. This may include increasing corporate board oversight as well as board competency in climate-related matters.

It also could be helpful to review the role and composition of the committees tasked with climate governance, ideally ensuring C-suite representation and active subject matter experts who can provide practical insights into corporate targets, progress and potential exposure.

Companies will also benefit from engaging with external experts who can share best practices and provide a candid third-party perspective on how corporate commitments, plans, timelines and actions may be perceived externally.  

2. Build agility in tracking, reporting and assurance for greenhouse gas data

It’s all about the data! Companies should take steps to minimize potential unknowns, gaps, and vulnerabilities around their tracking and reporting. Review what you are tracking and how you are tracking it. Consider questions such as: Who is on point for ensuring data quality? Do they have the experience to deliver against rising expectations for data quality and integrity? What is the basis for our company’s climate-related calculations?

Coming requirements for enhanced levels of third-party data assurance — shifting from limited to reasonable assurance — means companies should plan now for the additional time and budget involved with data compilation and management. It’s also a good time to explore what it would take to implement use of a climate disclosure framework, such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), or how to level up initial efforts to align to external standards. Doing so can strengthen your overall reporting efforts and reliability of disclosures. 

3. Review your emissions reduction plans

Tracking and reporting are at the heart of the SEC requirements, and stakeholders will invariably measure and compare climate performance among corporations. To prepare for likely peer comparisons by external stakeholders, companies need to proactively conduct (or refresh) peer benchmarking of this fast-moving space.

An audit of the climate-related questions or expectations in requests for proposals and competitive tenders is a relatively basic first step. Along with other information, this audit can provide context to help the corporate climate governance committee re-evaluate current goals and progress. Progress reviews will likely become a regular practice, as climate considerations are increasingly incorporated into standard business planning and budgeting processes.

To minimize potential accusations of greenwashing, consider submitting corporate emissions goals for approval by the Science Based Targets initiative. Whichever emissions reduction goals and targets you set for your company, provide transparency in the efforts to achieve the goals, as well as provide timely, accurate updates on progress and barriers to achievement.  

4. Evolve your approach to risk

With this ruling, the SEC is confirming what some prominent investors have been saying for years: climate risk is business risk. While climate risk management and disclosure are akin to longstanding financial disclosure requirements, in many ways, climate action is more challenging and subject to interpretation.

Companies familiar with preparing TCFD-aligned reporting have already begun to see how the business community is expected to address climate-related issues as both material and ongoing business concerns and investment concerns. By now, companies need to be working to integrate climate risk assessment and mitigation efforts into their overall enterprise risk management process. Participating in relevant industry, corporate, and/or location-based groups can also help to provide perspective and illuminate emerging risk issues. 

5. Look ahead

Looking ahead, companies need to see this SEC ruling as the beginning — not the end — of climate-related disclosure fueled by regulation. Now is the time to re-evaluate potential implications of additional frameworks and requirements such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and the United Kingdom’s Climate-related Financial Disclosure (CFD) regulations, to name a few.

A unified approach to alignment with multiple regulations can reduce risks and compliance costs. More strategically, companies must look ahead at their business — including their customer expectations, growth strategy, geographic footprint, value chain, production model and vulnerabilities, investments, supply chain, and other factors that need to be considered with the SEC ruling.

The SEC ruling affirms that business strategy and climate strategy engage similar stakeholders — including shareholders and the broader investment community, regulators, top management, current and prospective employees and customers, and the media, among others. Those audiences are watching closely.   

Today, effective climate management and disclosure must be a part of overall corporate strategy. Companies need to continue to evolve governance and disclosure of climate-related risks and performance not only to prepare for SEC requirements, but also to find new sources of competitive advantage and to realize opportunities while meeting evolving stakeholder expectations in a rapidly changing world.

Joe Sczurko is president of Earth and Environment at WSP USA, a leading environmental, engineering and professional services consultancy. To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2024/sec-climate-disclosures-prepare/796596


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, green marketing, reputation management, responsible brands, social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

California’s Climate Risk Disclosure Rules Are the Talk of Climate Week

27 09 2023

California Gov. Gavin Newsom joins New York Times correspondent David Gelles on stage at Climate Week, where he announced he would sign a pair of recently passed bills that mandate climate disclosure from large companies operating in the state. (Image: The Climate Group/Flickr)

By Mary Mazzoni from Triple Pundit • Reposted: September 27, 2023

World leaders, business executives and activists are back in New York City for Climate Week and the United Nations General Assembly — and everybody’s talking about California. 

In case you missed it: Last week California legislators approved a pair of bills that require all large public and private companies operating in the state to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions to investors and the public. Business leaders organized by the sustainability nonprofit Ceres came out in support of the bill before it passed. They say their progress in tracking and disclosing the full scope of their emissions proves it’s possible for other companies to do the same. 

As lawmakers and business coalitions enjoy a victory lap at Climate Week, we’re taking a closer look at the landmark legislation and the ripple effects it could send well outside the Golden State. 

Why corporate climate disclosure matters

“There was a billion-dollar weather and climate disaster event every four months in our country in the 1980s. By 2010, there was one every three weeks,” Mindy Lubber, CEO and president of Ceres, said at a press conference on Tuesday. “This year, we’ve experienced more than a billion-dollar event every two weeks.” 

Indeed, extreme weather cost the United States nearly $40 billion in the first eight months of 2023 alone. But the impacts these disasters and other climate disruptions have on corporate bottom lines is less understood, because many companies don’t calculate it. “People are operating in the dark,” Lubber said. “I can tell you of the 700 investors we work with, they want to understand: What are the risks from climate [change], and what are the opportunities? They cannot make a decision about building a portfolio without adequate information.” 

In 2022 surveys, 70 percent of U.S. investors said they would support mandatory climate disclosure in the U.S. 

What the California climate disclosure rules require

The two recently passed bills — Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 261 (SB 261) — are on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, and he confirmed this week that he will sign them. The bills require the California Air Resources Board to develop rules that mandate public and private companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. 

Crucially, the rules will cover emissions created upstream and downstream in a company’s value chain (known as Scope 3). Though Scope 3 comprises around 70 percent of corporate emissionson average, it’s left out by many companies that currently disclose. 

The rules will apply to around 5,500 companies doing business in California, lawmakers said. Companies will be required to disclose emissions from their direct operations (known as Scope 1) and those from the electricity they purchase (known as Scope 2) by 2026. Mandatory Scope 3 disclosure will come into force a year later, with financial penalties waived for three years as a transition period.

“SB 253 does not dictate how they should reduce their carbon emissions. But by making clear that within a couple of years these emissions are going to become public, the corporations have a huge incentive to innovate to reduce those emissions,” said California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County. “We’re going to see in a few years who’s walking the walk and who’s just talking the talk. And I hope that after a few years before the implementation, the companies that are walking the walk are going to be a much higher number than they are today.”

attendees at climate week 2023 clap as california governor gavin newsom says he will sign bills that mandate climate disclosure
Attendees are all smiles during California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s remarks at Climate Week. (Image: The Climate Group/Flickr)
Insiders predict a race to the top that goes way beyond California

Lawmakers say Californians will benefit directly from the new climate disclosure rules. “As a member who currently represents environmental justice communities who live near the harbor — who are seeing the emissions and feeling them every single day, the impacts of bad air quality, as well as the severe, tangible impacts of climate change — this will deeply, deeply benefit my constituents and constituents across the state of California,” said state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, who represents Long Beach and Southeast Los Angeles. 

But given California is the fourth largest economy in the world, the implications could stretch far beyond its own borders. “As disclosure becomes real, some companies are going to step up, clean up and really lead, and other companies are going to be forced to do the same,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters, which lobbies in support of climate and environmental legislation in the state. “There’s going to be pressure out there like we’ve never seen to change business-as-usual.” 

The fact that thousands of multinational companies will be compelled to disclose their emissions may also make it easier for other markets to pass similar legislation. “SB 253 marks a major advancement in detailed emissions disclosure, potentially revolutionizing corporate responsibility in combating climate change for the world, not merely California,” said Kentaro Kawamori, CEO of the carbon accounting firm Persefoni. “As the global community confronts the pressing need for climate action, California’s leadership might inspire comparable efforts in other states and countries.”

Markets including the U.K., Japan and the European Union already moved to mandate climate disclosure within the past two years. While it’s too early to say whether those rules amounted to this type of sea change, early evidence indicates it is a likely outcome. “We don’t have a lot of data yet as to how it has changed things,” Lubber told us. “But we do know when a company … makes a declaration and commitment to doing it — and that’s public and you’re showing how you’re going to do it and you’re accountable — it drives behavior change. And it probably does that as well as anything else I can think of.” 

What about the SEC? 

Last year the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued draft language for mandatory climate disclosure rules that would apply to all large publicly-traded companies operating in the country. The release date for the final rule has been pushed back several times and is now expected toward the end of this year. It’s also still up in the air as to whether the final SEC rule will include mandatory reporting of Scope 3 emissions. 

But if and when the SEC does mandate climate disclosure, companies will be well positioned to translate the work they’re doing in California to comply with the federal rules. 

“For us as an industry association, it’s very important to have harmonization among reporting requirements,” said Chelsea Murtha, director of sustainability for the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which represents more than 1,000 brands and came out in support of the legislation. “We worked with Sen. Wiener and Ceres to get language in the bill that made sure that if you were reporting to the SEC and that was a substantially similar disclosure, it would work in California. We were really glad to see pieces like that come together and make this a process that was really designed to help businesses succeed.”

The bottom line: Climate disclosure won’t fix it, but it’s a major step forward

Disclosure won’t solve our climate problems, but in the spirit of sunlight as a proverbial disinfectant, transparency is a crucial piece of the puzzle. “There’s no doubt that it’s only a first step,” Lubber told us. “Once companies analyze their risk and measure it, they can then manage it. It’s very hard to come up with a climate plan to act without knowing what the problem is.”

Ceres provides toolkits and direct consultation to help companies translate the data from their disclosures into time-bound climate transition plans, and it will continue to do so as California’s rules come into force, Lubber said. 

“The public, investors and regulators want to know what is the risk to a company, and that’s why they have been calling for climate risk disclosure,” she told us. “Good information is just that — not the panacea, but it provides the base to make smart decisions about managing carbon emissions.”

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/california-climate-disclosure-rules/783851


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, DEI, ESG, responsible brands, social responsibility, sustainability

The Arrival of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting

27 09 2023

By Steve Cohen from the Columbia Climate School • Reposted: September 27, 2023

To paraphrase the management icon Peter Drucker, you can’t manage something unless you measure it. Without measurement, you can’t tell if management’s actions are making things better or worse. The importance and seriousness of sustainability management requires the development of generally accepted sustainability metrics. Just as financial accounting requires agreement on terms and reporting requirements to facilitate independent auditing, sustainability requires the same level of precision. Publicly traded and owned corporations are under pressure from investors to report environmental risks, and more and more companies are disclosing environmental and social governance (ESG) measures.

A recent Wall Street Journal survey of corporate sustainability officers indicates that while more companies are disclosing sustainability metrics, there is confusion about the measures and a demand for uniform reporting requirements. According to Journal reporter David Breg:

“Public companies in the U.S. are increasingly disclosing sustainability information, but many say they find it a challenge to report fundamental climate data that many regulators around the globe likely will require under incoming mandatory reporting standards. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said their company was disclosing environmental, social and governance information, up from 56% in the prior year, according to the annual survey of sustainability officials that WSJ Pro conducted this spring.”

The reporting challenge is due to imprecise measures and a lack of experience collecting and reporting these data. That challenge will be met by sustainability professionals trained in measuring greenhouse gasses and conducting life cycle analyses. In Columbia’s MS in Sustainability Management program, we offer courses in each of those areas, and before long, hundreds of our graduates will be helping corporations meet their reporting requirements.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been revising its proposed sustainability reporting requirements in response to a deluge of comments and has delayed issuing those requirements, once expected last spring. The political calendar of a national election next year creates extreme pressure to issue those standards this fall, and currently, they are expected in October. There will certainly be legal challenges to whatever rule is issued, but to the extent that the rules connect environmental risk to financial risk, they are well within the SEC’s enabling legislation. Additionally, the SEC is not the only body working on uniform sustainability metrics. Again, according to Breg:

“Regulators around the globe are finalizing rules that would require companies to publish standardized information after years of patchy voluntary ESG reporting based on a host of frameworks. California’s governor has said he would soon sign that state’s requirements into law. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules are expected later this year. European regulations are already in place and many other countries are also working on standards. The International Sustainability Standards Board hopes its climate framework, completed this past summer, becomes the global baseline.”

Assuming the SEC rules survive the ideological onslaught they will face, it is likely, just as with financial accounting, that an American rule would be highly influential and, over time, would become a global standard. If the extreme element of America’s right wing dominates the debate over disclosure and overturns the rules in the conservative Supreme Court, U.S. corporations operating globally would be subject to foreign or global reporting requirements that they would have little hope of influencing. The realpolitik of sustainability reporting requirements may convince American corporations to focus their attention on influencing rather than overturning reporting requirements. The ideological and dysfunctional side of American national politics will certainly result in court challenges to the SEC rule, but the seriousness of the effort and its impact is unknowable.

The initial SEC rule is more limited than many of the other frameworks under development and focuses narrowly on carbon disclosure. My guess is that carbon emissions from a company’s supply chain will be omitted or optional in the final disclosure rule. My view is that this initial rule is a foot in the door and, like financial accounting, will evolve over time.

A growing number of publicly traded companies and even many privately owned companies are disclosing sustainability metrics. The ideologues labeling this as “woke” management fail to understand the degree to which these measures are indicators of effective and sophisticated management. ESG measures do not drive out financial indicators, they are, in fact, correlated with financial success. The principal concerns of a private firm do not change under sustainability management. They remain profit, market share, and return on equity. But modern organizations recognize that they are operating on a more crowded, interconnected, and warming planet. These facts of organizational environments require that they manage their environmental, social, and community impacts as a part of routine organizational life.

In addition, modern organizations compete for talent, and that means that workers have influence over management behavior. Young employees care about a company’s ESG performance. The post-pandemic push for hybrid work arrangements is ample evidence that top-down management is no longer possible, and organizations must respond to employee preferences.

Corporations operate in a regulated environment. That is why they have in-house counsel and engage outside law firms on a regular basis. When employees are fired or laid-off it is not unusual for them to sue their ex-employer. An American corporation operating nationally must understand state law and even local ordinances to successfully function. Companies operating globally must understand the rules of other nations. Over 10,000 non-European companies are subject to the European Union’s new ESG reporting requirements. About a third—or over 3,000—are U.S. corporations. This regulatory environment is normal and expected and fully integrated into decision-making in modern corporations. The free market is a relative and not absolute concept. There has never been and will never be a totally free market since that is akin to anarchy. An indicator of a successful company is its ability to navigate its regulatory environment while achieving its financial goals. The widespread and growing voluntary disclosure of sustainability metrics is happening in anticipation of government regulation but also in response to investor, customer, and employee demands.

But the problem with voluntary disclosure is that the measures they use do not enable investors to compare one company’s environmental risk to another, and the disclosures are not audited. Even worse, some of the NGOs that help companies measure and report sustainability are paid by the companies they report on, so these ESG reports might be fiction, and we’d never know. Uniform disclosure metrics are urgently needed. Only the SEC, with its gatekeeper function to the public capital marketplace, has the power to develop and impose standard reporting and audit requirements.

The move to decarbonize our economy will continue to be quietly and, at times, visibly opposed by fossil fuel interests. But they are increasingly unable to counter the facts of our warming planet. They will persist and, as Mike Bloomberg’s recent initiative recognizes, will shift their emphasis from burning fossil fuels for energy to utilizing them for plastics and other petrochemicals. Bloomberg is spending $85 million to block chemical plant siting as part of his effort to reduce global warming. If petrochemical plants were required to measure and report on their air pollutants, they might well be motivated to learn how to reduce those emissions while producing what they are selling. It’s easy to see why they might oppose reporting requirements, but if the alternative is to fight siting wars with local community groups, it might be in their financial interest to measure, report, and reduce emissions.

Sustainability metrics and indeed sustainability management have finally arrived. For those of us who have been working for well over a decade to develop these practices and this profession, this is welcome but not a surprise. The climate crisis modeled and predicted in the final decade of the twentieth century is now with us. The biodiversity loss feared has also arrived. I continue to believe that we can develop a productive and growing economy without destroying our home planet. It takes brainpower, ingenuity, and technology, but most of all, our attention and concern. Carbon disclosure is a critical step in carbon management. Standardized sustainability metrics are a crucial step in realizing the vision of sustainability management.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/09/25/the-arrival-of-mandatory-corporate-sustainability-reporting/


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, reputation management, responsible brands, social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

What to Expect From the SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rule

26 07 2023

Image credit: Ale Alvarez/Unsplash

By Mary Riddle from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 26, 2023

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to release its long-awaited climate disclosure rule this fall, and businesses are preparing for change. The intent is to create a framework for companies to make climate-related disclosures in a way that is standardized and allows for comparison. 

“I think it is helpful to frame the SEC proposal not as a climate proposal, but rather as a proposal to enhance and standardize climate-related financial disclosures,” said Emily Pierce, chief global policy officer at the carbon accounting firm Persefoni and a former SEC lawyer involved in developing the proposed rule. 

What’s different about the SEC climate disclosure rule?

The SEC’s forthcoming climate disclosure rule has been over a decade in the making. In 2010, SEC staff issued guidance stating that climate change could impact business operations as it carries material risks that affect financial performance, Pierce said. And anything that could impact financial performance should be communicated to investors.

Five years later, the investor demand for information was growing steadily. “By 2015, there was a collective concern about investor demand for sustainability information,” she said. “Investors were not getting the information they were asking for, and the marketplace was inefficient.” 

The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) rose up to meet that demand shortly after the Paris climate agreement was adopted in 2015. “TCFD developed helpful disclosure frameworks for governance, strategy and risk management processes,” as well as metrics and targets to measure a company’s greenhouse gas footprint, Pierce said.

“TCFD is a market norm, but it wasn’t always complete and comprehensive, and it didn’t allow for comparison,” she explained. “The SEC was inspired by the TCFD framework that investors and companies have found useful.”

What do we know about the new rule?  

The SEC’s proposed rule covers how companies communicate their climate-related risks. Companies will be required to disclose material risks, including physical risks and transition risks, related to climate change. These may include sea-level rise, more frequent extreme weather events and wildfires, or changes in government regulation and consumer demand. 

Importantly, the rule will not initially apply to all companies, but will be phased in over time. “Phasing is an important part of the proposal, because it’s our way of managing implementation,” Pierce said. “We have to strike the balance between investor protection and creating a rule that is feasible for companies to implement. I think the most likely scenario is that, if it is finalized this year, companies will need to gather data next year for fiscal year 2025.”

The rule will also hold companies’ feet to the fire for claims made about net-zero and emissions reductions. If a company has a public target related to cutting emissions, the SEC will require additional disclosures and obligations related to that target. 

“A lot of companies calculate their greenhouse gas emissions today,” Pierce said. “But they do it in a way that does not have as much control over their data, calculations, and outputs compared to what they would have in their financial calculation reporting. When you’re making information investor-grade and compliance-ready, you should bring lessons you have learned from the financial space into the carbon accounting space.” 

Emissions created by a company’s direct operations — Scope 1 emissions — and emissions associated with the company’s purchase of energy — Scope 2 emissions — will need to be externally assured, Pierce said. But smaller companies will not need to disclose value chain emissions from assets the company does not own — Scope 3 emissions — unless they set an emissions target for Scope 3, she predicted. 

What’s next?

The climate disclosure rule should not contain any surprises compared to the SEC’s current proposal, Pierce said. But the timing of release will be later than anticipated, due to the unprecedented number of public comments and feedback. Many analysts agree it will be released this fall.

“To be ready for climate disclosure, companies need to bring discipline and processes to their broader corporate thinking about governance, strategy and risk management,” Pierce said. “Additional discipline and processes will help them communicate about what they’re doing.” 

A lot of companies are already thinking about these issues, calculating their emissions and gathering the necessary information, Pierce said. “There are market rewards to decarbonizing, and they see the value in that. We will see an increase in the market rewarding sustainable behavior, whether it is in access to capital, customer preference, more business-to-business relationships or consumer demand.”

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/sec-climate-disclosure-rule-explained/779646


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, social responsibility, sustainable branding, sustainable brands

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG, 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:

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 headshot

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, responsible brands, social responsibility, sustainability, sustainable branding, 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 (NxO), 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG, sustainability

Social Sustainability is the Next Supply Chain Frontier

23 04 2023

Photo: Sustainable Brands

Eliminating negatives is about to become the minimum viable approach to social performance. Companies and suppliers benefiting people and communities will see stronger corporate brands and accelerated revenue growth. By Jeff Baldassari from sustainablebrnads.com • Reposted: April 23. 2023

Fueled by an upcoming Securities and Exchange Commission rule on human capital management, increased focus on the ‘social’ element of ESG, and rising consumer awareness of supply chain issues, social sustainability in supply chains is poised to become the next frontier for brands.

The S in environmental, social and governance performance has been gaining currency over the past couple of years; and public companies will soon have to start reporting more thoroughly on their social impact. A Bloomberg Law analysis of the SEC’s direction predicts that human capital management will be a front-burner topic this year, and investors will seek more disclosures to ensure that companies are walking their talk. At the same time, pandemic-driven disruptions have sparked ongoing media coverage of supply chain issues. Consumers are seeing the sausage-making, and it isn’t always pretty.

This is all to the good. Accountability can sting; but for companies that view it as an opportunity, the new focus on social sustainability in supply chains can lead to stronger corporate brands and accelerated revenue growth for suppliers pursuing positive social impact.

Focus on social impact brings risks and opportunities

What is a socially sustainable supply chain? Certainly, it’s free of negative practices such as child labor, forced labor, unsafe working conditions, below-living wages, and racial and gender discrimination. The case for excluding suppliers that layer these social costs into a corporation’s products and services is clear from both an ethical and a business standpoint: Investors, customers and employees are buying into a brand’s reputation — and “risking that over a supplier with poor ESG credentials could cost you all three,” Moody’s observes.

Eliminating negatives is fast becoming table stakes, though. The emerging standard is net-positive impact — actively contributing to solving social problems.

“The very nature of social impact isn’t just about risk; it’s also about prosocial behavior. In other words, a company’s actions, policies and investments can and should positively impact people’s lives,” writes Jason Saul, executive director of the Center for Impact Sciences at the University of Chicago. And, he notes, these social impacts can also positively affect a company’s financial performance “through competitive advantage, business growth, market relevance, brand purpose and securing license to operate.”

Stocking the corporate supply chain with companies that are broadening workforce opportunities, contributing to stronger local economies and providing other social benefits brings real supply chain reliability and ESG benefits. Suppliers that hire from a broader talent pool and create a positive work environment that reduces churn are better able to deliver consistently. Those that also build community wealth and diversify their supply chain contribute to equity and inclusion goals.

For supplier companies, delivering these positive social impacts is a differentiator — especially where other value dimensions such as effectiveness, design and price are comparable — and it will remain so until their competitors catch up.

3 big impact areas cut across supplier types

Building a socially sustainable supply chain requires reviewing and upgrading the full spectrum of suppliers — not only suppliers of raw materials, value-added inputs and finished goods, but also professional services and technology providers. That is a big universe; but when looking at it from a positive social impact perspective, most suppliers can add value in three broad areas.

Workforce development: Companies that actively recruit, train and retain people who have been excluded from opportunities or face barriers to employment can improve the lives of whole families and communities while developing untapped talent pools that provide a hedge against tight labor markets. For example, the growing second-chance (or fair-chance) movement delivers high social returns by focusing on hiring formerly incarcerated people. Nearly 70 million Americans have a criminal record; and even after they’ve paid their debt to society, many remain marginalized. Incarceration brands those it touches, trapping them in a cycle of unemployment and poverty — which can lead to recidivism. Second-chance hiring can transform their lives. It also has multiple business benefits. At U.S. Rubber, for example, we fueled substantial growth through pandemic labor shortages by making a significant investment in second-chance hiring: Ex-felons now constitute about 60 percent of our workforce.

Community investment: Fair-trade programs that bring new resources to local supplier communities, corporate treasury investments in community finance institutions, and other direct material contributions to customer or supplier communities can have a powerful multiplier effect. Community development financial institutions, for example, responsibly serve people and places that often don’t have access to mainstream finance — providing business loans to women, people of color and low-income entrepreneurs; funding affordable housing; and supporting climate-change resilience projects. Minority-owned banks play a similar role as community capital providers. Small and medium-sized suppliers, which have traditionally been community anchors, can expand their impact by stocking their own supply chains with small businesses that play key roles in local economies.

Diverse leadership: Diversifying the supplier pool to include more companies owned and led by women and people of color — especially in fields where they continue to face barriers to entry — contributes to corporate diversity, equity and inclusion goals and expands both opportunities for the suppliers and resources for the buyers. This is also an area where corporate commitments are under a microscope and investors, customers and employees are looking for measurable progress.

The opportunity in supply chain sustainability is huge. Eliminating negatives is about to become the minimum viable approach to social performance. Public and large private companies and their supply chain partners that go beyond that to create positive impacts will reap the benefits: stronger brands, greater customer loyalty, investor favor and the ability to attract increasingly choosy workers. And in doing so, they’ll help advance prosperity for everyone.


JEFF BALDASSARI: Jeff Baldassari is CEO of US Rubber Recycling — a triple-bottom-line business that manufactures high quality fitness flooring and acoustical underlayment by giving discarded tires a second life and providing employment to a second-chance workforce.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://sustainablebrands.com/read/organizational-change/social-sustainability-next-supply-chain-frontier


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Climate Change, corporate social responsibility, ESG

New SEC Climate Rule Faces Pushback, But Climate Reporting is Here to Stay

6 04 2023

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Headquarters in Washington D.C. Photo: triple pundit

By Tina Casey from triplepundit.com • Reposted: April 6, 2023

When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed new rules for climate risk disclosure last year, they were met with an unprecedented flood of public comments. Part of the firestorm could be an effect of partisan politics. However, some commenters raised legitimate concerns, and the SEC is reportedly poised to make some changes in the coming weeks.

The SEC responds to investor trends, not partisan ideology

When the climate disclosure rules were proposed last year, SEC Chair Gary Gensler emphasized the agency’s founding mission to ensure that investors are fully informed about risks. “Our core bargain from the 1930s is that investors get to decide which risks to take, as long as public companies provide full and fair disclosure and are truthful in those disclosures,” he said in a press statement announcing the rules, dated March 21, 2022.

Gensler was also quick to note that the proposed SEC climate rules are not derived from partisan ideology. They are based on the clear and indisputable fact that climate disclosures already have broad support among investors.

“Today, investors representing literally tens of trillions of dollars support climate-related disclosures because they recognize that climate risks can pose significant financial risks to companies, and investors need reliable information about climate risks to make informed investment decisions,” Gensler explained.

The proposed rules were also intended to level the playing field by creating a uniform standard for climate disclosures. “Companies and investors alike would benefit from … the clear rules of the road proposed in this release,” Gensler said. More information and more disclosures also allow issuers to meet investor demands for clarity on climate risks, he argued. 

Pushback against new SEC climate rules 

The fact-based genesis of the new SEC climate rules is a stark contrast to the mounting pushback against environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations in business. High-profile public officials have been railing against ESG investing as a threat to the health of public pensions. However, they offer no facts to back up their arguments, which on closer inspection appear to be nothing more than thinly disguised efforts to protect fossil energy stakeholdersfrom competition. The anti-ESG messaging has also become entwined with the rhetoric of right-wing extremism and “anti-woke” posturing, which doesn’t help its legitimacy. 

It is no surprise to see well-known conservative lobbying organizations promote anti-ESG messaging in their public comments on the proposed SEC climate rules. For example, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, colored its critique of the rules with a jab at ESG advocates in a lengthy public comment submitted on June 1, 2021, describing them as “increasingly strident” in their efforts to achieve “various social or political objectives.”

“This is being done under the banner of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; common-good capitalism; or corporate actual responsibility,” the Heritage Foundation’s comment reads.

“The social costs of ESG and broader efforts to repurpose business firms will be considerable,” the group warned. “Wages will decline or grow more slowly, firms will be less productive and less internationally competitive, investor returns will decline, innovation will slow, goods and services quality will decline and their prices will increase,” it added, without substantiation.

Another look at the SEC climate rules 

All in all, Heritage dismissed the entire effort as a pointless, politics-driven exercise. “When all is said and done, climate change disclosure requirements will have somewhere between a trivial impact and no impact on climate change,” its comment reads.

In contrast, other commenters underscored the extent to which ESG principles and ESG reporting have already been adopted as a matter of business, not ideology. “The impacts of the climate crisis on our lives and our livelihoods are worsening at a dramatic rate,”  the nonprofit B Lab — which operates the voluntary B Corp certification for responsible businesses — and the B Corp Climate Collective wrote in a joint comment to the SEC, in just one example 

Commenters also noted that the economic landscape is fraught with physical risks from climate impact, as well as bottom-line risks involving changes in regulatory, technological, economic, and litigation scenarios as the economy shifts to net-zero.

“The risks can combine in unexpected ways, with serious, disruptive impacts on asset valuations, global financial markets, and global economic stability,” the B Corp groups argued, in making the case for stronger, more detailed disclosure rules based on the recommendationsof the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). 

The SEC has some changes in store

The SEC has yet to announce a decision on what will be included in the revised rules. However, in a recent interview with CNBC, Chairman Gensler reminded the public of the agency’s investor protection mission. “I like to say we’re merit-neutral, whether it’s crypto or climate risk,” he told the outlet earlier this year. “But we’re not investor-protection-neutral or capital-formation-neutral.”

He reiterated that the new SEC climate rules are “about bringing consistency and comparability to disclosures that are already being made about climate risks,” adding that “investors seem to be, today, making decisions about this information.”

Some SEC observers anticipate that the agency will propose easing the original rules, in order to prevent unreasonable burdens on companies that are already engaged with climate disclosure.

That may be so. However, it is unlikely that the revised rules will provide a cloak of invisibility for companies that have not made plans for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. 

In the CNBC interview, Gensler emphasized that the proposed rules don’t force companies to make a climate transition plan if they don’t already have one. “If a company doesn’t have a climate transition plan, that disclosure was: ‘We don’t we don’t have that such a plan or target,’” he explained.

That sounds simple enough. If that feature of the proposed rule remains in place when the SEC announces the revisions — which are expected later this month — investors will have a clear, accessible way in which to assess which companies are preparing to respond to the massive risks posed by climate impacts, and which still have their heads in the sand.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/sec-climate-rule-changes/770581


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : corporate social responsibility, ESG

What is ‘green hushing’? The new negative sustainability trend, explained

12 03 2023

Photo: Getty

Greenwashing has become part of our modern-day lexicon. Now there’s a new term, ‘green hushing,’ for when a company is too quiet about its accomplishments. By Talib Visram from Fast Company • Reposted: March 12, 21023

Greenwashing—the term referring to businesses exaggerating their commitment to sustainability—is now firmly rooted in our modern-day lexicon. Baseless green claims draw public scrutiny and sometimes outrage, not to mention lawsuits, such as ones filed against companies including Dasani, Kroger, and Whole Foods.

Faced with the threats of tarnished reputations and legal trouble, some companies are instead choosing not to communicate their climate goals at all, leaving them unpublicized and meaning other companies can’t emulate their success. A new term has sprouted to signify the practice: green hushing.

WHAT IS GREEN HUSHING?

Green hushing refers to companies purposely keeping quiet about their sustainability goals, even if they are well-intentioned or plausible, for fear of being labeled greenwashers.

Xavier Font, professor of sustainability marketing at the University of Surrey in the U.K., defines it as: “the deliberate downplaying of your sustainability practices for fear that it will make your company look less competent, or have a negative consequence for you.”

HOW LONG HAS THIS TERM BEEN AROUND, AND HOW COMMON IS IT?

Since at least 2017. Font had seen the term only once before studying the practice more closely that year. And for something many of us may not have heard of, the practice is pretty prevalent. “Greenwashing is very visible,” Font says. “Green hushing, by definition, is not. [But] I think green hushing happens a lot more than we realize.”

It gained more widespread coverage after October 2022, when Swiss carbon finance consultancy South Pole highlighted the trend of green hushing in a report. It noted that nearly a quarter of 1,200 companies with a sustainability head are not publicizing achievements “beyond the bare minimum.” (Belgium had the highest rate, with 41% of its companies with science-based climate targets not publicizing them.) The report called the trend “concerning,” because publishing green actions has the power to inspire others, shift mindsets, and encourage collaborative approaches.

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

In his study, Font, who focuses on the tourism industry, found that companies were not communicating environmental successes to consumers, especially odd in an industry where there are many chances to do so, such as at hotels or on websites.

The study concentrated on 31 small rural tourism businesses in England’s Peak District National Park. Font found that companies communicated only 30% of their sustainability actions. He noted that companies feared that by broadcasting their sustainability practices, customers would believe their vacation experiences would be worse.

One issue, he says, is that many companies aren’t sure when to announce achievements. A hotel he worked with that procured sustainable seafood sourcing didn’t know whether to announce it when launching, or when half of its hotels used it, or when all of them did. “If 50% of my supply chain is doing something,” he was asked, “is that a message that is credible for me to communicate to the world?”

Similarly, Font mentions pushback over supermarkets labeling bananas as fair trade, because customers then asked why more goods weren’t fair trade. “Many companies are choosing to not talk about it, simply for fear that the customers will see the glass as being half empty, not half full,” he says.

For larger companies, there are legal motivations to not report extensively. In recent years, lawsuits have been filed against Dasani for claiming its water bottles were 100% recyclable, and Kroger for claiming its sunscreen was “reef-friendly.” Cracking down on these false claims—like the ubiquitous “locally sourced wherever possible”—is a good thing, Font says. “That’s a bit like me saying, ‘I’m a good husband whenever possible,’” he says. “It has no value.”

WHAT OTHER FORCES ARE AT PLAY?

Like in Europe, American companies are receiving pressure from environmental groups to stop greenwashing. But in the U.S., companies have to worry about the other political side, too, as there is an increased politicization of the climate crisis and environmental and social governance (ESG).

Several states, most notably Florida, are divesting billions of dollars from BlackRock because it has developed strong ESG portfolios. “We see attacks being more irrational and so fierce,” says Peter Seele, a professor of corporate social responsibility and business ethics at Università della Svizzera Italiana in Switzerland. This has created another reason for companies to stay silent, or else also be on the receiving end of “anti-woke” tirades.

That polarization is troubling, Font says, and seeps into customers’ beliefs, which requires businesses to be culturally sensitive in the markets they operate in. “If I was a company in the U.S., serving the full range of customers, I would downplay the ‘S word,’” he says, referring to sustainability. They may want to spin a sustainable practice as one that is beneficial to customers in some other way. 

“In the U.S., we’re just more litigious,” says Anant Sundaram, professor of business and climate change at Dartmouth University. “You say something in your 10K, or you put out some document, [and] immediately it becomes the basis for a lawsuit.” So American companies “tend to prefer to stay under the radar, and are a little gun-shy.”

WHAT COULD REDUCE GREEN HUSHING?

Climate reporting is now prevalent across developed nations. And the disclosures on climate risks, mitigation, and sustainable strategies that companies submit to government agencies are publicly accessible. But mostly, they are voluntary—allowing businesses to green hush.

Companies are keeping relatively quiet about most of their climate data. In the U.S., a report found that while 71% of S&P 500 companies report their greenhouse gas emissions, only 28% of smaller companies do so. And only 15% of S&P 500 companies disclose information on biodiversity and deforestation, and 12% on water risks. 

But public reporting is changing soon. In the EU, climate disclosures will become mandatory in 2025, and for a wider swath of companies than previously. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission aims to roll out stricter regulations for 2024 (which will initially be for larger, publicly traded companies, with market caps of at least $700 million). This stricter enforcement may give businesses less of a choice to practice green hushing.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF GREEN HUSHING?

It’s not ideal. As the Swiss report noted, companies discussing their climate actions can have positive knock-on effects and create change. But not if they’re silent.

Greenwashing crackdowns are valuable, but not if they are indiscriminate. Seele says there is a trend of attacking companies no matter how good their actions or intentions—which has brought about another phrase in the German media: “greenwashing truther,” for people who launch those kinds of accusations.

And in France, new greenwashing laws will place fines on companies for making misleading claims like being carbon neutral. While well-intended, such laws may serve to reduce greenwashing but heighten green hushing.

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.fastcompany.com/90858144/what-is-green-hushing-the-new-negative-sustainability-trend-explained


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : corporate social responsibility

U.S. SEC Climate Disclosure Rules: What Are They, and How Can You Prepare?

17 02 2023

Image credit: RF._.studio/Pexels


By Andrew Kaminsky from Triple Pundit • February 17, 2023

It’s almost time for the grand reveal. While the final product is still a bit of a mystery, but the anticipation has the business world anxiously awaiting the news.  

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to make a big announcement in April, and if we’re lucky, it will be the full release of its climate disclosure rules. Either way, publicly-traded companies in the U.S. should be preparing to report on the climate metrics that are soon to become mandatory.

What are the incoming climate disclosure rules?

We are in the midst of a climate crisis, and the rules that dictate how businesses and governments operate are changing. The EU already has a climate disclosure system in place for its largest companies — which is being upgraded next year to include more companies and more thorough reporting. The U.S. is following the EU’s lead with the new SEC climate disclosure rules.

The mandatory disclosures are expected to include a company’s carbon emissions, low-carbon transition plans and climate risks. Climate risk is separated into physical and transition risks: Physical risks are climate hazards like drought, flood and extreme heat, whereas transition risks cover the policy changes with which organizations must comply.

While businesses have yet to be shown the final climate disclosure rules from the SEC, there are measures they can take to hit the ground running when the rules are revealed. 

What can companies do to prepare?

“It’s really about being prepared for Scope 3 [GHG emissions] and ensuring that all of the data you are disclosing is traceable and auditable,” says William Theisen, CEO of EcoAct North America.

Scope 3 GHG emissions cover the emissions produced across an organization’s entire value chain, both upstream and downstream. Depending on the size of the business, this can include hundreds or thousands of different companies, from raw material suppliers to distribution partners. It’s an overwhelming task, but it’s much more manageable if taken one step at a time.

“The first step is to do a materiality assessment and get at least an idea of where you should focus first,” Theisen says. “Look at the products and services within your supply chain, and then transform them using an emission factor to equate it to a tonnage of carbon. It won’t be completely accurate, but it will at least give you an idea of areas to dive into and get more granular data.”

Organizations that want to have some idea of what the SEC reporting may look like can explore the current CDP global disclosure system. “As a supplier or publicly- traded company looking to get your bearings on what requirements are probably going to be important, CDP is a good place to start,” Theisen suggests.

Part of the SEC disclosure requirements will include climate risk. While it can be difficult to evaluate how vulnerable business assets are to climate risk — with much of it open to interpretation — honesty and transparency is the best policy, Theisen advises. Trying to downplay climate risk is how a business can get burned.

“It’s the quality of their disclosure. If they understand what the climate risks are and they’re addressing them, that can actually play in a company’s favor,” he explains. “It’s when a company is not disclosing any climate risk that the assumption then is that maybe they don’t know what’s happening — maybe they’re not putting in mitigation measures.”

“Investors and external stakeholders really just want to understand that this is being appropriately managed, that there is a roadmap, and that the roadmap can evolve,” Theisen says. “We’re all adapting to climate change year after year.”

Enlisting climate consultants can help businesses develop strategies for their climate disclosures. This demonstrates to investors that leadership understands the risks associated with climate change and are engaging in methods to mitigate their exposure. 

To see the original post, follow this link: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/prepare-sec-climate-disclosure-rules/766336


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : sustainable brands