“According to a new U.S. Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse. This could all happen over the next two decades, the report notes.
The senior US government officials who wrote the report are from several key agencies including the Army, Defense Intelligence Agency, and NASA. The study called on the Pentagon to urgently prepare for the possibility that domestic power, water, and food systems might collapse due to the impacts of climate change as we near mid-century.
The report was commissioned by General Mark Milley, Trump's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, making him the highest-ranking military officer in the country (the report also puts him at odds with Trump, who does not take climate change seriously.)
The report, titled Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army, was launched by the U.S. Army War College in partnership with NASA in May at the Wilson Center in Washington DC. The report was commissioned by Gen. Milley during his previous role as the Army’s Chief of Staff. It was made publicly available in August via the Center for Climate and Security, but didn't get a lot of attention at the time.”
“Taking a Different Approach to Fighting Climate Change” by Tatiana Schloessberg. The opening paragraphs: “This article is part of a continuing series on Visionaries. The New York Times selected people from all over the world who are pushing the boundaries of their fields, from science and technology to culture and sports.
To Narasimha Rao, a professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies specializing in energy systems analysis, that is a false choice, one that sacrifices justice on the altar of economic growth.
So far, the global economy has not been able to fully decouple growth in G.D.P. from growth in greenhouse gas emissions. That relationship portends doom for a planet trying to keep emissions in check in order to avoid global catastrophe and also for emerging economies — mainly in the global south — working to lift millions out of poverty, and to achieve the levels of growth and success that the United States and much of the West have experienced.
But through his research, Mr. Rao, who also has appointments at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment in India, has found that we don’t need to choose. Instead, he has developed the Decent Living Energy Project, an assessment of both the energy needs in select emerging economies and the climate impacts of providing everyone in those same economies with a basic living standard. This standard would largely be defined by access to adequate nutrition, safe homes with sanitation and basic amenities such as refrigeration, mobility, education and basic health care.”
As Extinction Rebellion is celebrating its first birthday, it celebrates a year of action and disruption.
But the movement is still in its infancy. A year of action gave it the spotlight it needed to gather support from the public. Now it is time to engage in serious political strategy.
Many great causes of the left have been marred by passion rather than political strategy, and Extinction Rebellion has been a victim of this: isolating itself from the population by blocking people’s way to work, instead of winning them over. Childish tactics will not help the fight against climate change.
Like many protests, the goal is to shed light on a situation with a solution. Extinction Rebellion have shed light on the climate catastrophe that is immediate. But it’s for this reason that they must engage in a properly coordinated disruption of the huge businesses that profit from the status quo – not ordinary people.”
“We humans like to predict the future. Those of us who care about the fate of our world, and its climate, are no exception. We want to know if we’re going to make it.
If we’re near a tipping point, we ask, which way are we likely to tip? Will we slide downward, towards environmental and social crisis? Or will we swing upward toward recovery?
It is safe to say that the first five IPCC reports — 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013 — while of critical importance to scientists, green-oriented policy makers, and activists, did not make much of an impact on the public consciousness.”
“We can — and we must — change the odds that the climate will tip in our favor. We do this both by changing the speed at which new, more sustainable ideas spread, and by changing the rate at which those ideas turn into actions.
The most widely used model describing the spread of innovative products is called the Bass Diffusion Model, after its creator, Frank Bass. In it, adoption is driven both by innovators — those who have adopted the new product or idea, or who tell others about it — and imitators, those who hear about it, some of whom then adopt it.”
“This paper reviews the existing literature on Universal Ownership Theory and expands on it to encompass a theoretical and practical framework for Universal Owners in the Anthropocene era. This extension of the theory is necessary because of the scale and urgency of the climate crisis, on one hand, and the expansion of the category of funds considered to be Universal Owners on the other – through the rise of fiduciary capitalism and the increase in institutional ownership, and through the increasing prevalence of passive investing.
This paper incorporates several novel elements into Universal Ownership Theory: an Existential Risk lens, which highlights the portfolio risk of civilisational collapse; a theoretical framework that reflects advances in behavioural science; a practical investment framework based on the tenets of Positive Investment, including asset class-specific recommendations with a focus on capital allocation, the primary-to-secondary market transition, and “ungameable” metrics; and the proposition of a “duty of expansion” for Universal Owners to extend participation to communities and regions of the world currently underrepresented among the body of large institutional investors.
“This report has two primary aims. The first is to introduce to the financial sector the notion of tipping elements and to provide a short, state-of-the-art review of the scientific knowledge surrounding this rapidly evolving field of enquiry. Second, it makes explicit the links between the investment sector and such tipping elements, and outlines a preliminary approach for how to examine such links using two cases: the Amazon rainforest and the boreal forests of Russia and Canada.
Our focus on the forested tipping elements (the Amazon rainforest and the vast boreal forests of northern high latitudes) is motivated by the fact that these biomes represent tipping elements that lie at the intersection between high vulnerability to tipping in the next few decades and increasing human pressures, and where the financial sector is playing a crucial role in supporting these pressures. But the financial system can also provide an important lever to help ensure the stability of these tipping elements.
The report concludes that the Amazon rainforest, boreal forests and other identified tipping elements are now systemic risks for the global financial system. If the internal dynamics of these large regions change, leading to the soils and forests emitting large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere, then stabilizing the climate in the future will become significantly more difficult, affecting financial stability. Action now, and in the next decade, can greatly reduce this global systemic risk.
Time is short. Financial actors, and humanity at large, need to wake up and recognize that the emerging insights of tipping dynamics and nonlinear change in the Earth System present additional, novel and urgent challenges.”
“The Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures (TCFD) process has articulated the view from global financial regulators that climate change does indeed pose a material risk to the financial system. Since the TCFD's initial report was released in June 2017 the phrase "climate risk" as the public narrative has evolved to the "climate crisis" or "emergency" with accompanying physical manifestations and resulting economic/social costs clearly apparent.
The IPCC's Global Warming of 1.5C (2018) provides clear guidance from the world's scientific community on the need for urgent policy action from governments to facilitate a transition from fossil fuel combustion to renewable and zero-emission transport technologies. The lack of meaningful policy progress globally means there is ever-increasing pressure on the financial system to drive more ambition in this energy transition.
The asset management sector plays a pivotal role in the financial system given the vast portfolios the leading players manage, their interactions with companies in the real economy and power in shaping government policy as a key economic sector in its own right. FinanceMap's analysis shows the sector as a whole is not demonstrating the kind of leadership at present, through any of these levers, that the recent escalation in the urgency of climate change would apparently warrant.
The portfolios held by the 15 largest asset management groups remain significantly misaligned with the targets of the Paris Agreement even under the fairly conservative IEA ‘Beyond 2 Degrees’ Scenario (B2DS) within the key auto, electric power and fossil fuel production sectors, (with aggregate market values of at least US $8 Tn in widely held listed companies). This misalignment is reflective of the fact that the majority of companies in these sectors are very far from aligning their business models to meet the goals of Paris and that the 15 leading players all hold diversified global portfolios of equities often using index driven strategies.”
“Government action to tackle climate change has so far been highly insufficient to achieve the commitments made under the Paris Agreement, and the market’s default assumption appears to be that no further climate-related policies are coming in the near-term. Yet as the realities of climate change become increasingly apparent, it is inevitable that governments will be forced to act more decisively than they have so far.
The question for investors now is not if governments will act, but when they will do so, what policies they will use and where the impact will be felt. The IPR project forecasts a response by 2025 that will be forceful, abrupt, and disorderly because of the delay.
In anticipation, PRI, Vivid Economics and Energy Transition Advisors are building a Forecast Policy Scenario which lays out the policies that are likely to be implemented up to 2050 and quantifies the impact of this response on the real economy and financial markets. From late September we will be publishing detailed modelling of the impact:
On the macroeconomy;
On key sectors, regions, and asset classes;
On the world’s most valuable companies.
Investors need to act now to protect and enhance value by assessing the implications of the IPR Forecast for portfolio risk. The greater the delay in responding, the greater the potential cost.”
“In financial models assessing climate change impacts, a transition scenario is often more costly than a “business as usual” scenario. But these models fail to consider the cost of the damage caused by the flooding, wildfires, droughts and storms triggered by climate change. With COP25 underway, Nick Spooner examines this problem and what it means for companies and investors.”
“As the wildfires in California and other recent calamities show, climate change has become an emergency in many countries and regions. Still, corporate strategy executives often give it relatively low priority. Why is this so, and what can be done to change it, asks Rafael Ramirez, a professor of practice at the University of Oxford, in this opinion piece. He is the director of the Oxford Scenarios Programme and academic director of the Oxford Networked Strategy Lab.”
“By now, you are all well aware of the huge climate challenge the world is facing, the policies certain governments are implementing to meet a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and the major role that business has to play.
2020 will be a pivotal year for businesses’ response to climate change as the emissions gap widens and the ratchet mechanism in the Paris Agreement calls for strengthened contributions. During this decade, we may start to see contention over the licence to operate if action is inadequate.
At Chapter Zero, we help chairs and non-executive directors across all sectors prepare to address the business risks and opportunities presented by climate change and the transition to a net zero economy.”
“Companies, investors and regulators are increasingly recognising that climate change is not just a social or environmental problem. It is a business problem too. The physical impacts of climate change and the economic impacts of the transition to a zero-carbon economy present foreseeable, and often material, financial risks to the performance and prospects of companies. These non-diversifiable risks affect nearly all industries and sectors within mainstream investment horizons. So much so, that in 2015 Bank of England Governor and head of the G20 Financial Stability Board Mark Carney declared that climate-related financial risk threatens the very stability of the global financial system.
Against this trend towards understanding climate change as a mainstream business and investment consideration, last month Wachtell advised its corporate clients to ‘scrutinize their disclosures relating to the effect (if any) that climate change may have on their operations’.”
“The growing spotlight on climate change and its severe, widespread ramifications for human life and the global economy has stimulated interest within the financial sector. In June 2017, the Task Force on Climate‑related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) released its final report with the goal of helping publicly owned companies disclose clear, comparable, and consistent information about the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. However, the use and disclosure of scenario analysis, which is recommended in the report as a method to achieve this goal, continues to be a challenging task.
In November 2018, MIT held a workshop, “Climate Scenarios in Corporate Disclosure,” that gathered participants from oil and gas companies, credit rating agencies, the investment community, global scenario providers, NGOs, and academia together with other experts to further the discussion of climate scenarios and their use in financial disclosures, with a special focus on those produced by oil and gas companies. This paper draws from the insights of the workshop participants, as well as from an examination of the climate scenario literature, in an effort to accomplish three objectives:
1. Provide clear guidance to stakeholders, particularly the diverse financial community, on key aspects of climate-economy models, scenarios, and scenario analysis in the climate-related disclosures of oil and gas companies.
2. Explore the barriers put forward by the oil and gas industry and others to providing clear, comparable, and consistent scenario-based climate-related disclosures, as recommended by the TCFD.
3. Offer recommendations that address these barriers and advance the overall usefulness of scenario-based, climate-related disclosures.”
“In hindsight, 2019 may come to be viewed as a watershed year in the evolution of corporate governance. After years of growing alarm about endemic short-termism, the sustainability and competitiveness of businesses over a long- term horizon, and the role of corporate policies in contributing to socioeconomic inequality, there has been an emerging consensus that the prevailing corporate governance system is broken. Initially, in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, this critique was focused on short-termism as a root cause of systemic destabilization and decay. In subsequent years, the concept of sustainability gained traction, and ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles were embraced by shareholders and corporations alike as the next frontier in corporate governance best practices. This in turn laid the foundation for the latest iteration of corporate governance modernization: the advent of stakeholder governance, and the realization that the pursuit of wealth maximization for shareholders as the sole raison d’être of corporate governance has been a principal accelerant of short-termism and socioeconomic inequality.
Perhaps remarkably, the key proponents of stakeholder governance—which posits that the fiduciary duty of management and the board of directors is to promote the long-term value of the corporation for the benefit of all its constituents and not solely to maximize shareholder wealth—have been a subset of institutional shareholders, namely, the major index funds such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, as well as other shareholders with a long-term investment horizon. Their reasoning has generally been that, in order to thrive, corporations must focus not only on profitability but more broadly on their social purpose and sustainability, and in that regard, it is essential to consider the interests not only of shareholders but also those of employees, customers, suppliers, the environment, communities and other constituencies who are critical to the success of the corporation.”
“he Business Roundtable’s recent call for a commitment to long-term sustainable economic value creation has prompted a vigorous debate about the optimal corporate governance model for achieving that goal.
Certain familiar arguments have reappeared in reaction to the Business Roundtable’s important statement rejecting shareholder primacy and embracing stakeholder governance. Various law firms and commentators insist that such innovation in corporate governance is constrained by an imperative to maximize shareholder value—the ideology that a corporation can have no purpose other than profit maximization for shareholder gain. Others assert that the path to effective governance reform lies with prescriptive regulation, presumptively by the federal government.
We disagree, and propose an alternative: The New Paradigm. Our approach reimagines corporate governance as a cooperative exercise among a corporation’s shareholders, directors, managers, employees, business partners, and the communities in which the corporation operates. The New Paradigm promotes transparency and engagement to ensure fair treatment of all stakeholders. It also aims to curtail, if not eliminate, short-termism and to combat activist pressure for financial engineering focused on short-term gain. Our approach thus addresses the fundamental criticism of corporations today—that their preoccupation with maximizing short-term shareholder gain has failed to generate economic growth and security for the rest of society—while avoiding the substantial risks of heavy-handed regulatory intervention.”
“In October, we welcomed 600 people to B Inspired to explore the future of business in society. There were fascinating 'fireside' chats between B Corp CEOs, forward thinking keynotes and insightful panel discussions.
We are building a global economy that uses business as a force for good. For more information, please visit bcorporation.uk”
“In boardrooms throughout the corporate landscape, ESG is the acronym of the moment. Standing for Environmental, Social and Governance, ESG refers to a company’s adherence to principles that assure care for the planet’s resources, respectful treatment of all people, and actions promoting equality and fairness throughout the organization.
ESG is quickly rising to the top of boardroom agendas, given the impact of social issues — including diversity, human rights and gender discrimination, and environmental concerns like climate change and sustainability — on a company’s reputation, hiring opportunities, and long-term financial performance.
These interests are no longer a “nice to have.” Rather, they demand diligent board-of-director oversight; otherwise, an ESG-related failure may result in consumer boycotts, employee walkouts, and adverse proxy votes by institutional investors at annual meetings. By effectively overseeing ESG risks, boards also help ensure that governance practices within the companies they serve are aligned with the long-term sustainability of the business.”
“As the risks from environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues such as climate change, water scarcity and human rights become more apparent, and with growing investor attention and action on ESG issues, it is increasingly important for corporate boards to understand how these issues affect business strategy and performance. Impacts from these issues can be financial, material, and can spread across multiple areas of a business. No longer off in the future or merely hypothetical, many of these impacts are being felt now across almost every sector of the economy.
As a part of their role as stewards of long-term corporate performance, boards have a critical role to play in ensuring that companies are aware of, and able to navigate, an ever-evolving risk landscape. Where an ESG issue impacts—or has the potential to impact—the business, it is a director’s job to exercise risk-related oversight. This oversight should be informed, strategic and closely aligned with the company’s business model and operations to create long term value. A key part of directors’ fiduciary responsibility is the duty of care—or the duty to adequately inform themselves on these issues prior to making business decisions. To fulfill this responsibility, directors need to be able to understand and evaluate the risks that arise from ESG factors.
In this report, Ceres provides guidance to corporate boards on how they can effectively oversee risks posed by ESG issues, including questions for directors to ask management throughout the risk identification, prioritization and mitigation processes. We also offer concrete recommendations for boards looking to improve their companies’ resilience in the face of ESG risks.”
Boards today are in a bind. Dissatisfaction with fellow directors is at a record high--but boards aren’t necessarily replacing the directors who aren’t measuring up. Generic and weak board refreshment policies are partly to blame. But the blame may also be due to the collegial nature of boards, where boards feel like a cohesive team and are reluctant to break up the group. While a certain degree of collegiality can encourage a productive, respectful setting, too much can hinder healthy dissent and debate--and board turnover.
Boards are making progress in other areas, however. Directors are more engaged on topics from cybersecurity to crisis management, and many boards are devoting more time to shareholder engagement. Our 2019 Annual Corporate Directors Survey highlights where boards are stepping up and where collegiality is clouding the board’s effectiveness. Read on to find out more.”
“The risk oversight function of the board of directors has never been more critical and challenging than it is today. Rapidly advancing technologies, new business models, dealmaking and interconnected supply chains continue to add to the complexity of corporate operations and the business risks inherent in those operations. The evolving political environment further exacerbates the risks that corporations face. Corporate behavior has been blamed for accelerating environmental degradation and aggravating disparities in income and wealth. In addition, safety scandals and product failures have affected public confidence in the ability of corporations to manage business risk and have given rise to skepticism as to whether companies are sufficiently prioritizing consumer and product safety. Environmental, social, governance and sustainability-related issues have become mainstream business topics, encompassing a wide range of issues including business model resilience, employee wages, healthcare, training and retraining, income inequality, supply chain labor standards and corporate culture, as well as climate change. The reputational damage to companies, boards and management teams that fail to properly manage risk is substantial.”
“Two recent Delaware decisions may give ammunition to stockholder plaintiffs seeking to assert claims against directors under a Caremark theory for failing to comply with their oversight obligations. The decisions—Marchand v. Barnhill (“Blue Bell”) and In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation—make clear that courts will not give business-judgment rule deference when presented with allegations that directors acted in bad faith by failing to implement or monitor systems of oversight. Although each case was before the courts on a motion to dismiss and therefore did not finally adjudicate the question of director liability, each decision undoubtedly strengthens the plaintiff’s hand in settlement negotiations needed to avoid trial. Importantly, because these claims are for breaches of the duty of loyalty, directors face the risk of personal liability without the protection of exculpation or indemnification, or possibly even D&O insurance coverage.”
“Memorandum on the Good Governance Academy’s Second Colloquium: Effective Corporate Leadership” by Mervyn King. The opening paragraphs:
“The Second Colloquium of The Good Governance Academy was held on 28 November 2019. As with the first colloquium there was input from universities and business schools on a critical governance issue, namely Effective Corporate Leadership.
The Academy aims to hold at least two colloquia per year and provide attendees with exposure to current critical governance issues. Speakers from around the world will present thought provoking content and engage attendees to discuss the practicalities of these matters. The Academy aims to ensure that the best of thought leadership is imparted to educators and influencers for the benefit of future corporate leaders.
The second colloquium was themed “Effective Corporate Leadership” and brought together thought leaders in this area. The speakers provided the thought leadership context and the attendees were able to ask questions of them. Following these presentations, a panel discussion was held, inviting questions from the audience.
The theme of the colloquium was based on the premise that the company is an artificial, incapacitated person and that its mind and conscience is that of its individual corporate leaders. The essential question in our resource constrained world is whether these individual corporate leaders are steering the business of the company to be at the junction of the three critical dimensions for sustainable development, the economy, society and the environment. How the company makes its money is critical in the 21st century. To make a profit but with such an adverse impact on the environment that holistically society is losing value, is not good leadership.”
“Corporate transparency has evolved and progressed considerably in the last three decades. Public expectations of the private sector have shifted also, with greater emphasis being placed on corporate purpose beyond profit.
Investors in particular are increasingly requesting sustainability performance data. Companies are responding to stakeholder demands by communicating how the company is generating long-term value. Better aligning sustainability and financial disclosure is a core part of this response. Many frameworks, ratings and standards have emerged in recent years to provide guidance and incentives for companies to ensure coherent and consistent financial and sustainability disclosures, but there is no unified or accepted common practice approach.
Our research explores the trend toward alignment of sustainability and financial Transparency in order to:
Help practitioners better understand the evolution of sustainability transparency as it relates to financial disclosure
Provide guidance on best practice to help practitioners better align their companies’ sustainability and financial transparency
Encourage best practice transparency as a driver for shifting capital towards companies that are more sustainable.
Benefits of alignment:
More aligned sustainability and financial transparency enables companies to: Communicate - Better communicate to investors the company’s long-term value
Understand – Deepen internal understanding of sustainability, its impact on finance, and vice versa
Improve – Improve other stakeholder communications.”
“ESG Best Reporting Practices” by The Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“Policymakers have been debating here in the U.S. as well as globally on how companies should disclose Environmental, Social, or Governance (ESG) information, both to investors as well as other stakeholders. Currently, to the extent that ESG information is material under the U.S. federal securities laws, public companies are already required to include it in their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, given the progress that companies have made in regards to voluntary ESG reporting not filed with a particular regulator or government body, we believe more regulatory requirements mandating ESG disclosures are not warranted.
To advance the work made so far towards more effective ESG disclosures on a voluntary basis, the Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has developed the following best practices around stand-alone ESG reports. We believe that these best practices can help steer the development of a widely-approved approach to voluntary ESG reporting without the need for additional regulatory mandates. Furthermore, some disclosure variability is appropriate, because the relevance of certain ESG factors differs from industry-to-industry and company-to-company, and based on business model, geography, customer base, and other considerations. The best practices found in the document here can serve as a useful guide as companies continue to enhance their ESG disclosures.”
“By providing external validation of disclosures, and of the processes undertaken in producing those disclosures, assurance can increase the confidence of capital providers and other stakeholders using non-financial information to guide their decision-making.
But what is assurance? How does it work? And how is it beneficial to users of nonfinancial information?
This ‘Buyer’s guide to assurance on non-financial information’ (the guide), written by the Audit and Assurance Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) and the WBCSD, addresses these questions and brings much-needed clarity on a topic that is often perceived as confusing.
“Two leading initiatives providing resources to help audiences understand the environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure landscape – Carrots & Sticks and WBCSD’s the Reporting Exchange – have collaborated to improve access to reliable and comparable information by aligning taxonomies.”
“Access the Reporting Exchange platform here and more information on the Carrots & Sticks here.”
“Investment Japan (IJ) has uncovered an inconvenient truth about Japanese corporate reports. Despite considerable expenditures in manpower, time, and cost to improve corporate reporting in English, and despite claims of conforming to the International Integrated Reporting Council Framework (IIRC), Japanese corporate reports receive low marks for quality.
IJ spoke with Yoshiko Shibasaka, a Partner at KPMG Japan’s Integrated Reporting CoE (Center of Excellence) and Corporate Governance CoE and a well-known expert on corporate reporting in Japan. She offered us her views on improving Japanese corporate reporting.”
“As part of its approach to holistic management, Novartis has designed a comprehensive ‘Materiality Assessment (MA) Toolkit’ to identify topics and capture insights that are relevant for strategy-setting, steering and reporting.
Novartis now makes this toolkit available to all interested companies as an open-source project to support inclusive and holistic management worldwide.”
In this webinar we explored how corporate action on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is linked to and can be driven by corporate responsibility materiality assessments. Robert G. Eccles, Professor of Management Practice at the Saïd Business School presented SDG and debated how business can and should contribute to the achievement of the global 2030 agenda. Denise Weger, Senior Manager Strategic Initiatives Global Health & Corporate Responsibility, Novartis, provided background of the materiality assessment and Kileken ole-MoiYoi, Head Strategy Global Health & Corporate Responsibility, Novartis, shared how Novartis advanced its global health agenda in light of the SDGs and materiality assessment.”
“Arguably the most important step in the measurement and reporting of an organization’s performance is completion of a materiality determination beforehand. At base, materiality determinations address the all-important question of what the scope and criteria for analysis must be in each case, recognizing that in principle no two organizations are alike. Materiality determinations therefore address the question of what the organization’s specific standards of performance should be – whether social, economic or environmental – and what the corresponding metrics or indicators, too, should be in order to fully assess performance. Even in cases where purportedly universal indicators are being used, the very choice of which ones to in fact use presupposes their relevance. In this paper, we present and advocate for a specific approach for how best to make materiality determinations that are, in the parlance of sustainability management, context-based. As such, the method proposed is normative and triple bottom line in scope, in that it holds organizations accountable for their impacts on all vital capitals and with the well-being of all stakeholders in mind.
Over the last five years, JUST Capital has surveyed close to 100,000 Americans to find out what they want from corporate America today. What do they value? What issues would they like companies to prioritize? The response has been clear and consistent. Americans want corporations to stop prioritizing shareholders and instead put workers, customers, communities, and the environment at the heart of just business practices.
The good news? 181 of the most influential CEOs agree that it’s time. In August, the Business Roundtable released a new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation rejecting 40 years of shareholder primacy to adopt a new framework that creates value for all stakeholders – including workers, customers, communities, the environment, and shareholders – ‘for the future success of our companies, our communities, and our country.’”
“The State of Children’s Rights and Business 2019” by Global Child Forum. From the Foreword:
“The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted 30 years ago, was a bold international commitment to ensure that every child has the right to a happy, just and prosperous future – and to have a say in the decisions that impact their lives. Twenty years later, in 2009, the Global Child Forum was born with a correspondingly bold mission - to inspire business to drive change to create a better world for children.
To mark these two milestone anniversaries, Global Child Forum, with the support of Boston Consulting Group, has embarked on the most extensive assessment of children’s rights in the corporate sector to date. The State of Children’s Rights and Business: From Promise to Practice is the result of an almost year-long review and analysis of just under 700 of the world’s leading companies, in nine sectors and across 20 children’s rights indicators. While the resulting data can be statistically complex, the underlying ambition was relatively straightforward. We wanted to learn more about how the corporate sector is doing with regard to integrating children’s rights into both their operations and their relationships with the communities in which they operate.
The good news is that, in the past five years, we have seen progress. More companies are beginning to adopt a children’s rights perspective that goes beyond merely having a child labour policy or donating to children’s charities. We are tracking improvements across all sectors, with the largest improvements being found in Oil, Gas & Utilities and Industrials.”
“We have reached an expiration date on the current linear economic system that throws valuable resources away.
When did we stray so far from the common sense value of not wasting? Until the 1950s, people designed products to be proud of their quality and durability. Repair services were a given; a tailor would risk reputational ruin if their clothes had to be tossed after one wear. During the first and second World Wars, recycling was viewed as a patriotic duty. Recycling and reuse were championed. Rubber, metals, textiles, and cooking fats, among other things, were essential to the war effort. And so Americans rallied.
Today, rather than continue to evolve towards conservation and resource efficiency, we seem to devolve into a world of waste and pollution. Approximately 50% of all food produced in the U.S. is thrown out, and food waste is the biggest occupant in American landfills, costing taxpayers billions in landfill disposal fees. Americans throw out 80 pounds of clothing each year. And about 90% of plastic waste ultimately ends up in a landfill or incinerated. The statistics go on, but the loss of these resources has a double sting: there’s a hefty price tag attached to all this waste and dire implications for our health.”
“WBCSD released the CEO Guide to the Circular Bioeconomy, a call for the shift towards a sustainable, low-carbon, circular bioeconomy. It presents a USD $7.7 trillion opportunity for business by 2030, establishing the circular bioeconomy as a nature-based solution that addresses five of our greatest environmental priorities.
While the global population has doubled over the last 50 years, resource extraction has tripled. 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress are caused by natural resource extraction and processing. Unless we become more effective in how we harvest, process, use and reuse biological resources, we will be confronted with the catastrophic consequences of climate change, biodiversity loss and resource scarcity.
The Guide – developed in cooperation with The Boston Consulting Group and signed by 16 CEOs from leading companies – gives business leaders a clear understanding of the topic and the opportunities it offers to their company.
For more information visit WBCSD’s circular economy and Forest Solutions Group work and reach out to get involved.”
“The concept of the circular economy resonates with executives from around the world because it presents a remarkable economic opportunity. The fact that it simultaneously delivers environmental benefits is just the icing on the cake.
What is the circular economy? It’s a business strategy that harmonizes financial and environmental priorities. Although not always synonymous with sustainability, the circular economy aligns incentives for “doing well” (economically) and “doing good” (sustainably) by requiring companies to take a life-cycle perspective of their products and services.”
“Addressing water-related challenges is at the heart of any holistic sustainable development approach. Not only do current water resources play a key role in regulating the Earth system, but they are also embedded in all forms of human development. United Nations’ 2030 agenda well recognizes the pivotal role of water in all environmental and social issues, for it features two specific water-related goals, namely SDG 6 (“Clean Water and Sanitation”) and SDG 14 (“Life below water”) among the 17 established Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by the end of the next decade. Perhaps more interesting in this agenda is the fact that a series of other established SDGs are simply inseparable from water issues. Let us just mention here the obvious cases of SDGs 1 (“No Poverty”), 2 (“Zero Hunger”) and 3 (“Good health and Well-being”) whose achievement by 2030 is out of reach without substantial progress in access to clean water and sanitation services. What’s more, other SDGs such as “Affordable and clean energy” (SDG7) and “Climate action” (SDG13) cannot be properly addressed without paying due attention to the use of water resources, given the energy sector’s high water-footprint.”
“2020 will be another uncertain year. Brexit will rumble on, bringing further volatility and polarising the UK political dialogue; China and US relations will remain tense and concern markets, despite a possible partial trade deal being secured before the end of 2019; and the US presidential race will likely unsettle world markets.
Five years on from the Paris Agreement, the UK will host COP26, the next annual United Nations climate-change summit. Countries are due to present updated plans to keep the global rise in temperature well below 2⁰C.
In our 2020 Outlook, we present our perspectives on equities, fixed income, multi asset, private markets and stewardship for the year ahead.”
“Sustainable investing is one of the most rapidly growing parts of the market, increasing from $23trn in 2016 to $31trn last year. And impact investing is one of the most rapidly growing parts of sustainable finance, doubling each of the past two years to $502 billion in assets under management according to the Global Impact Investing Network.
As investor demand drives growing sustainable and impact investing assets under management, countless efforts are underway to prevent “green washing” and “impact washing” or the use of sustainable and impact positioning to raise capital without any environmental or social benefit. A fledgling—but important—one is sustainability and impact assurance, which enables informed scrutiny by third parties and independent verification. This article highlights three trailblazers: Vornado Realty, Etsy Corporation, and LeapFrog Investments.”
“Any toddler can tell you that sharing is caring, but it took a New York hedge fund and a French bank to combine credit risk transfer transactions and impact investing in a revolutionary way. Mariner Investment Group, a $10bn hedge fund focused on fixed income relative value and credit strategies last month completed a $3.4bn impact investing synthetic credit risk transfer transaction with French bank Societe Generale (SocGen) related to SocGen’s diversified lending portfolio. This was the first credit risk transfer transaction with a private investor to include a pricing incentive based on the redeployment of capital.”
“The Mind of Activist Investor” A C-Suite interview with Paul Singer, Founder, General Partner, President, and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Elliott Management Corporation.
