Search Results

Blog | Friday April 20, 2018

The Business Case for Empowering Women through Climate-Resilient Supply Chains

Preview

For the past three years, the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risk Report has ranked climate risks high priority in terms of likelihood and impact. For business, this includes both supply chain risks, like water scarcity, and general physical and operational risks that will require resilience and adaptation solutions.

In addition to the economic impacts on physical assets and infrastructure, climate change will have a profound effect on people in supply chains and the communities in which they operate. This human dimension is often overlooked but extremely important in addressing climate risk and ensuring business continuity.

Climate risk, climate resilience, and women

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, said, “Climate change is the greatest threat to human rights in the 21st century,” and, “People who are marginalized or poor, women, and indigenous communities are being disproportionately affected by climate impacts.”

This is especially true for women. Women already face various underlying economic, social, cultural, and political barriers that limit their choices: barriers related to their access to income, education, and technology, as well as obstacles to exercising their public voice and decision-making. Climate change is only predicted to exacerbate these barriers.

For sectors that heavily depend on a female workforce, this presents a high material risk. Take, for example, the agriculture sector. Estimates show that in some developing countries, women make up over half of the agricultural workforce. Systemic barriers for women therefore prevent agricultural supply chains from reaching their full productive potential. These barriers can also limit the ability of a business to react, respond, and adapt to the unpredictable realities of a changing climate.  

The business case for intervention—to challenge risk as well as create opportunity—is clear. A truly climate-resilient agricultural supply chain should be able to anticipate and respond to climate risks and vulnerabilities across commodities, geographies, and communities.

The good thing is that increasingly, businesses understand the importance of climate resilience strategies. Furthermore, doing so in gender-friendly ways will be a critical element of this work, although to date it has been less commonly understood and thus overlooked. 

Effectively tackling climate risk will be impossible without involving women. Although they are disproportionately affected by its impacts, women bring unique skills and perspective toward climate-resilience efforts.

Applying a gender lens to resilience activities can help companies develop new solutions for anticipating, absorbing, accommodating, and rapidly recovering from climate events. Involving women in climate resilience planning and implementation fosters innovation. For example, women’s local knowledge of the land and of traditional and sustainable agricultural methods make them experts in natural resource management. And when women have information and access to tools and technology, they are more likely to adopt sustainable practices, which may include water management, terracing, composting, incorporating high-yield and stress-tolerant varieties of crops, and pasture management.

There are also many co-benefits that arise from empowering women across agricultural supply chains. Increasing women’s agency, enhancing the resilience of communities and livelihoods, and making progress toward closing the global gender gap are among them. Increasing agricultural productivity and stability of supply enables people, the economy, and natural systems to rebound quickly in the face of adversity.

Women spend 90 percent of their incomes on their families; therefore, when women make more money, more money is invested in school, health, and housing improvements. Efforts to empower women and close the gender gap in labor markets could add US$28 trillion to global, annual GDP within the next decade. It’s a clear win-win for companies to empower women through climate resilience activities.

What can companies do?

There are many actions companies can take, both within their own operations and supply chains as well as to enable and influence others, including:

• Ensuring internal policies and plans on climate change are gender-sensitive;
• Providing women with access to relevant and gender-sensitive trainings, inputs, financing, and technologies to strengthen stability in agricultural production and improve economic opportunities;
• Enabling women to effectively respond to climate-related events by linking them with local networks; and
• Advocating against underlying inequalities and removing systemic barriers that hinder the lives and livelihoods of women, such as the lack of decision-making power or land (and land inheritance rights), which exacerbate the disproportionately negative climate impacts for women.

To help business address this challenge, BSR’s Business Action for Women, “Empowering Women to Lead through Climate Resilience” cluster builds collaboration among companies with agricultural supply chains and leading women’s empowerment stakeholders. In the coming years, we will work to equip the private sector with a greater understanding of gender-sensitive climate resilience strategies and actionable methods to empower women through climate-resilient supply chains.

Companies can also engage on climate resilience and other nexus issues, including supply chains, women’s empowerment, and inclusive economy, at the Global Climate Action Summit from September 12-14 in San Francisco. Companies and other stakeholders will discuss the myriad ways to accelerate climate collaboration and action. To learn more about the Summit and how you can get involved, register for our webinar on May 16.

Blog | Wednesday May 12, 2021

Beyond #StopAsianHate: Building an AAPI-Inclusive Workplace Culture

Preview

“Our community is being attacked. We are dying to be heard.”

In February 2021, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen went viral. In a social media video—which has received more than 52,000 likes—she called on mainstream media networks to cover violent attacks on elderly Asian Americans.

It worked.

Major news outlets drove attention to the spike in hate crimes against Asian Americans over the past year, noting that advocacy group Stop AAPI Hate received reports of more than 3,800 hate incidents since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet as the #StopAsianHate movement garnered support from business, policymakers, celebrities, and the wider public, the violence continued. In March, a shooting rampage in Atlanta targeted Asian-owned businesses and killed eight people, six of them women of Asian descent.

Groups have attributed the sharp increase in hate crimes against the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community in part to the xenophobic rhetoric of former U.S. President Trump. However, AAPI racism is not new.

As the U.S. celebrates AAPI Heritage Month this May, there is an opportunity for business leaders to learn more about the AAPI experience and help to build a more just, sustainable, and inclusive world—beginning in the workplace.

Understanding the Diversity within the AAPI Community

Employees are one of the most important stakeholder groups to any business. While you may list AAPI staff in just one or two boxes in the EEO-1 documents, it’s important to remember how broad and far-reaching the term AAPI is.

The term AAPI accounts for more than 24 million people in the U.S., whose origins span East Asia, Southeast Asia, the South Asian subcontinent, Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. AAPIs can include first generation immigrants or those whose families have been in the U.S. for generations, and come from varied income levels and education backgrounds. It’s also important to remember that AAPI experience in the U.S. will be different than those of Asian or Pacific Islander colleagues based in other countries.

Recognizing this diversity of cultures and experiences is necessary to connect and engage with colleagues, clients, and community members of AAPI descent. When crafting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to working with AAPIs.

Confront Existing Biases about Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

As the past year has brought to light, there is a long way to go to achieving racial justice in the U.S. And as the recent hate crimes have demonstrated, many communities suffer from racist violence.

Most companies have systems in place to deal with overt discrimination and racist acts. Creating truly inclusive workplaces, however, involves confronting individual bias—even those that could be perceived as ‘positive.’ The model minority myth—the belief that Asian Americans have overcome discrimination and are more successful than other ethnic minorities—is problematic for multiple reasons.

Primarily, it perpetuates many of the stereotypes that lead to microaggressions in the workplace: they excel at science and math, they are good workers but not leadership material, and there are expectations around being quiet and docile. Other common workplace microaggressions include the constant questioning over “Where are you really from?” and “How do you speak English so well?” or confusing Asian employees for one another.

Learning about these biases is important not just for leadership and managers, but for all colleagues to understand any stereotypes or prejudices they may have about AAPIs. Without this shared understanding about implicit biases, it is impossible to make meaningful progress on social and racial justice.

Apply a Lens of Equity and Inclusivity across Sustainable Business Practices

A company’s commitment to racial justice does not exist in a vacuum, separate from business strategy or sustainability practices. In fact, a business can only fulfil its commitment to racial justice if it takes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) action beyond its human resources practices.

As BSR’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Director L. Simone Washington has written, DEI is “a philosophy that permeates throughout a company’s business operations,” and business should apply “a critical lens to its policies, practices, and programs and to identify how it can be more inclusive and create opportunities for those who are systematically marginalized.”

This can include ensuring that business climate plans advance climate justice solutions, assessing how products and operations may disproportionately impact a group of people, applying intersectional approaches to gender equality programs, and more.

What’s Next

Over the past year, we have seen companies across all industries make statements in support of racial justice—from #BlackLivesMatter in June 2020 to #StopAsianHate in March 2021. Some have even put forth commitments related to hiring, promotion, investment, and sourcing to advance diversity and equity goals. Still, there is more work to be done—to address systemic racism, to build Black wealth, to destroy the model minority myth.

One immediate action business can take to support the Asian-American community is to support federal legislation to address anti-Asian American hate crimes. The bill passed in the U.S. Senate in April and is expected to face a House vote this month.

As BSR continues to work with member companies, the business community, and partners to build a more just, sustainable world, we seek to actualize a vision for equity and inclusion. We hope you will join us.

Blog | Friday September 15, 2017

Where BSR Will Be During the UN General Assembly and Climate Week NYC

Preview

This week and next, major events are underway in New York around the UN General Assembly (September 12-25): Climate Week NYC (September 18-24) and Global Goals Week (September 16-23).

BSR staff will participate in these events associated with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as we work with the private sector and other partners to build inclusive prosperity and climate resilience, leadership, and action.

The following members of our team will be on the ground in New York City—follow them on Twitter for their take on what’s happening:

• President and CEO, Aron Cramer (@aroncramer)
• Senior Vice President, Laura Gitman (@lauragitman)
• Managing Director, John Hodges
• Managing Director, Consumer Sectors, Elisa Niemtzow (@ElisaN)
• Director, Jeffrey Crawford (@JeffCrawford79)
• Director, Women’s Empowerment, Aditi Mohapatra (@AditiMohapatra)
• Director, Healthcare, Dorje Mundle (@dorjemundle)
• Director, Sustainable Futures Lab, Jacob Park (@JacobPark)
• Director, Sustainability Management, Alison Taylor (@FollowAlisonT)
• Director, Climate Change, David Wei (@ClimateWei)
• Associate Director, Chhavi Ghuliani (@cghuliani)
• Associate Director, David Korngold
• Associate Director, Consumer Sectors, Jorgette Mariñez (@JorgetteBSR)
• Associate Director, Inclusive Economy, Susan Winterberg (@susanwinterberg)
• Manager, Byron Austin (@byronaustinCSR)
• Manager, Sara Enright (@sgenright)
• Manager, Jonathan Morris (@tweetmorris)
• Manager, Meghan Ryan (@MeghanClareRyan)
• Associate, Katie Abbott (@kaabbott)
• Associate, Shubha Chandra
• Associate, Martin Lemos (@martineieio) 

We will update this post throughout the week with new information about BSR’s participation, so check back for the latest.

What We’re Hosting

• September 18: BSR is a partner of Business Fights Poverty: Rethinking Collaboration for the SDGs. Gitman will speak and Enright will attend.
• September 19: BSR will host the Responsible Retail Symposium, a one-day event that will offer participants a perspective on the current state and future ambitions of sustainable business practices in the U.S. retail industry. Cramer, Niemtzow, Winterberg, Mariñez, and other members of BSR’s consumer sectors team will attend.

What We're Attending

• September 17: Morris will attend the Social Good Summit, hosted by Mashable.
• September 17: Park and Winterberg will attend the MIT Solve Challenge Finals.
• September 18: Mohapatra will attend a breakfast hosted by Women Deliver and the other Deliver for Good partners.
• September 18: Mohapatra will attend the session “Behind Every Global Goal: Women Leading the World to 2030,” hosted by the Business Commission, at the International Conference on Sustainable Development.
• September 18: Cramer will attend the Climate Week NYC 2017 Opening Ceremony.
• September 18: Mundle and Austin will attend an event on "Addressing Multiple Chronic Conditions."
• September 18: Cramer and Winterberg will attend a dinner for the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Development Competition.
• September 18: Crawford will attend Business for the SDGs: Innovation, Technology, and Connectivity for a Better Future for All, hosted at the UN Headquarters.
• September 18: Ryan will attend Modern Slavery in the Americas: From Here to Elimination, hosted by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre.
• September 18: Abbott will attend Building Ambition to 2050: Taking Action Toward 100% Net Zero Carbon Buildings, hosted by The Climate Group.
• September 18: Wei will attend Bold Solutions: How Innovation and Creativity Are Tackling Climate Change, hosted by Purpose.
• September 18: Cramer and Gitman will attend Nightcap at the Museum, hosted by the B Team.
• September 18: Cramer will attend a reception hosted by the Abraaj Group.
• September 18-19: Cramer will moderate a panel on inclusive innovation at the World Economic Forum Sustainable Development Impact Summit. Winterberg will also attend.
• September 18-19: Taylor will represent the Maritime Anti-Corruption Network and speak at the Concordia Annual Summit. She and Crawford will also attend the event "Toward a New Trust: Serving Public Interests through Transparency and Integrity," hosted by B Team.
• September 19: Hodges will attend a private consultation on corporate benchmarks for the SDGs, hosted by the UN Foundation.
• September 19: Wei will attend VELOCITY: Accelerating Climate Action, hosted by The Climate Group, Formula E, VICE Impact, and Spring Studios.
• September 19: Mundle will attend an event on "Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare," hosted by the World Economic Forum.
• September 19: Cramer will attend a climate dinner hosted by California Governor Jerry Brown and the UN Foundation.
• September 19: Wei will attend a discussion on NDC enhancement.
• September 19: Mohapatra will attend a reception hosted by Women Deliver and the Government of Canada to build momentum for the next Women Deliver Conference.
• September 19: Mundle and Austin will attend a session on "Supporting Maternal Health During the Refugee Crisis."
• September 19: Chandra will attend the launch of the ILO’s Global Estimates of Modern Slavery and Child Labor.
• September 20: Morris will attend Tackling Climate Risk with Climate Action, hosted by MSCI.
• September 20: Mariñez will attend Going “All In” to Address Commodity-Driven Deforestation, hosted by the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 and Forest Trends.
• September 20: Enright will attend a dinner hosted by Sustainia, DNV GL, and the UN Global Compact.
• September 20: Ghuliani will attend the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Goalkeepers event.
• September 20: Korngold will attend Business Solutions for the SDGs, organized by the UN Development Programme, Business Call to Action, and the UN Global Compact.
• September 20: Gitman will attend WE Day UN.
• September 20: Wei will attend an evening gathering of friends of We Mean Business.
• September 21: Cramer will attend the launch of the World Benchmarking Alliance, hosted by Aviva, the UN Foundation, and Index Initiative.
• September 21: Wei will attend Accelerating Ambitious Climate Policy Globally: The Role of Corporations, hosted by InfluenceMap.
• September 21: Mohapatra will attend the UN Global Compact Leaders Summit.
• September 21: Park will attend We the Future: Accelerating Sustainable Development Solutions, hosted by the Skoll Foundation, TED, and the UN Foundation.
• September 21: Taylor will attend Building an International Coalition against Corruption to Achieve the SDGs, hosted by the Danish Minister for Development Cooperation.

Blog | Thursday February 7, 2019

Large Companies Have a Key Role in Strengthening Small Supplier Integrity

Preview

Last year, I was proud to participate as an adviser in a project commissioned by the U.K. Government’s Business Integrity Hub, which has been established to provide practical support for companies to help prevent bribery and corruption when doing business overseas. The project, run by Business Fights Poverty, has sought to find out how to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to take business integrity issues more seriously and adopt meaningful anticorruption compliance.   

As part of the project, we conducted an extensive literature review and complemented it with an online survey, 24 interviews, and two business roundtables in which we gathered perspectives from both multinationals and smaller enterprises. This gives us deep insights into how corporate anticorruption efforts need to evolve—and enables us to make a strong case for fresh thinking from large multinationals.

SMEs and Issues of Business Integrity

The schizophrenic state of play in anticorruption efforts is highlighted in the research results: While 90 percent of the small and medium-sized companies with which we spoke consider doing business with integrity important for commercial success, fully 30 percent found that having a strong approach to integrity presents a disadvantage in winning business.

The barriers to a more robust implementation of integrity are considerable. Smaller companies feel that an overall lack of understanding of bribery and corruption issues persists, and that systemic corruption challenges in many markets may offer ‘no choice’. Finally, they cite a lack of direct control over their own agents, distributors, and suppliers. All these challenges, combined with familiar sales and commercial pressures, also confront large multinational corporations. But they are exacerbated in smaller companies by two factors: a lack of dedicated compliance resources, and—compared with large multinationals—a lack of leverage to drive behavioral change in third parties.

Smaller companies feel that an overall lack of understanding of bribery and corruption issues persists, and that systemic corruption challenges in many markets may offer ‘no choice’.

Despite the challenges, there is plenty of room for optimism. Strikingly, smaller companies do not view regulatory pressure as the strongest argument for anticorruption programs, having (rightly) assessed that regulatory resources are far more likely to be aimed at large multinationals. And SMEs understand the argument that integrity helps in winning and retaining customers, accessing finance, and building trust and reputation. Small companies fully understand that if they want to do business with large customers or credible financial institutions, having a basic anticorruption program in place is non-negotiable. Smaller companies also see that integrity risks are shared by businesses in the same value chain, and they are calling loudly for a more collective, collaborative approach to address them.       

The Role of Multinational Companies

The single, overwhelming message from this research? Multinational companies need to take a more active role in influencing supplier integrity via procurement processes enforced across their value chains. This is particularly important because only large companies have the financial resources to hire compliance consultants and the market clout to access regulators as needed. Smaller companies need concrete help from their biggest customers.

Large multinationals could start by applying the thinking they have used to drive sustainability into their supply chains. As we at BSR work with first-tier suppliers to multinationals such as Apple Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Plc, and Walmart Inc., we find that increasingly stringent environmental and social mandates from customers are driving transformative change along the value chain. These large companies have adopted an engaged perspective that gives their suppliers the necessary time and guidance to bring programs up to scratch, while also making it clear that adoption of sustainability standards is a condition for retaining their business over the long term. 

While these supply chain sustainability programs can be very effective, companies generally do not extend them to cover bribery and corruption issues. This is because legal liability is involved. This results in siloed and misaligned approaches to business-partner risk in many companies. When environmental and social ‘red flags’ are identified, a large company is usually prepared to collaborate with a small supplier to drive improvement; the standards in question are voluntary, and regulatory risk is deemed to be manageable. In contrast, a company compliance team conducting due diligence regarding suppliers and distributors under the U.K. Bribery Act will simply terminate relationships in which it identifies ‘red flags’ concerning integrity.

This is a logical response to the legal and reputational pressures facing large companies. It is essential in mounting an ‘adequate procedures’ defence and helps to shield large companies from regulatory risk. However, if the end game is to reduce corruption in modern society (as opposed to helping corporations deflect legal liability), this approach makes little sense. Companies that don’t treat workers properly and violate environmental standards are also highly likely to be paying bribes; these practices characterize a risk-taking, short-term culture. Indeed, such companies may be paying bribes to evade social or environmental regulations.

Multinational companies need to take a more active role in influencing supplier integrity via procurement processes enforced across their value chains.

What’s Next

New laws such as the Modern Slavery Act, combined with investor pressure, are encouraging a more integrated approach to environmental, social, and governance issues. Moreover, the anticorruption field could make far better use of the collaborative tools and approaches to systemic change that have been so effective in tackling such issues as human rights and climate change. The highly successful Maritime Anti-Corruption Network is a model that could be used to good effect in other industries.

Our research shows that U.K. suppliers to large multinationals hunger for more support from their customers, and that customer demand can best incentivize stronger integrity programs. If large companies were to begin advising their suppliers on how to address integrity challenges and navigate regulatory risk, this could help transform the anticorruption environment. Through collective action, we might also start to address some of the entrenched integrity challenges in high-risk markets: repeated facilitation-payment demands accompanied by extortion, for one. This would constitute a more effective, empathetic, and constructive approach than the protective, self-interested mindset that now dominates corporate anticorruption programs. The U.K. government is ready to work with companies to explore and encourage this new thinking.

Blog | Thursday January 18, 2018

The Right to Privacy, 70 Years On

Preview

This is the first in a series of blog posts where we and a BSR member company review how business respects individual articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 70 years after its adoption in 1948. This series has the support of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), but any views expressed here should not be attributed to OHCHR. This particular post, co-authored with Telenor, explores what the right to privacy means for business.

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948, there were around 10 million telephone lines in the world. At the time of writing this blog, there are more than 8.3 billion mobile connections (including “machine to machine” connections) and almost 5.1 billion unique mobile users. The emerging Internet of Things is expected to connect around 30 billion objects by 2020, while research group IDC estimates that the world creates 16 zettabytes (that’s 16 trillion gigabytes) of data a year today, and will increase ten-fold by 2025.

By any measure, the nature, scale, and complexity of the challenges companies face to respect the human right to privacy is growing substantially. They are also impacting all industries—there is not a single company in the world today untouched by the privacy challenge.

We believe there are five key elements to a business response to this challenge: distinguishing between different elements of the privacy agenda; appreciating the link between privacy and other human rights; understanding the severity of impact; adopting a privacy by design approach; and collaborating with a range of stakeholders.

First, it is important to distinguish between three related but different parts of the privacy agenda.

• Data security means having the right protections in place to protect against increasingly frequent, sophisticated, and malicious cyber-attacks, as well as guard against data breaches. This is primarily about defense.
• Consumer privacy relates to the desire to create value with the personal data shared with companies by users (such as tailored products and services), while being open and transparent about how personal data is collected and used, and providing user choice. This is primarily about policy choice, and increasingly about legal compliance as governments introduce new privacy regulations.
• Law enforcement relationships are primarily about company-to-government interactions. The interface between the business responsibility to respect human rights and the government duty to protect human rights informs how companies respond to government demands for personal data. While usually made to ensure the protection of human rights by governments, these demands in certain contexts can threaten the privacy rights of users or be made in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards.

Second, it is important to appreciate the link between privacy and other human rights—privacy is a gateway right in that it enables the realization of other rights. For example, if a human rights defender working in a high-risk country is a victim of hacking or has personal data wrongly shared with law enforcement agencies, then in turn this human rights defender faces far greater risks to life, liberty, and security of person (Article 3), the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19), and the right to right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20), among others.

Third, while privacy rights are held by everyone, some privacy violations have a more severe impact on human rights than others. For example, the privacy violation of the human rights defender in a high-risk country could have a far greater impact on human rights than, for example, a consumer receiving targeted adverts without their consent. Similarly, vulnerable populations, such as refugees, migrant labor, and children, could face far more severe consequences. While all privacy rights should be respected, a company’s human rights strategy should, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, prioritize the most severe cases, and pay special attention to vulnerable populations.

Fourth, privacy by design should form an essential part of every company’s strategy to respect the human right to privacy. With privacy impacts arising through the use phase of products and services, it is essential that legal and privacy teams, research and design teams, and sales and marketing teams collaborate to fully integrate privacy during the design phase.

Fifth, multicompany and multistakeholder collaboration can substantially increase company leverage to protect the right to privacy. For example, in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, the Global Network Initiative (GNI) brings together companies, investors, civil society organizations, and academics in a united effort to protect privacy when confronted with government demands, laws, or regulations that compromise privacy. Through shared principles, policy dialogue, and advocacy, the GNI has become an essential part of the private sector’s effort to respect the right to privacy in the ICT sector.

The nature, scale, and complexity of privacy risks have expanded greatly since 1948, and private-sector strategies for implementing respect for the human right to privacy has evolved during this time. We would like to leave readers with two key messages: first, that upheaval in a wide range of disruptive technologies—such as artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and the Internet of Things—is only going to accelerate, which means it is essential that companies adapt our business and human rights strategies to cope with this change; and second, that companies from all industries would be well served by both learning from the experience of the ICT sector so far, and by engaging proactively in a shared exploration of what is coming next.

You can read more about Telenor’s approach to privacy in its Sustainability Report and its Authority Requests Disclosure Report. Telenor’s approach is notable for the manner in which it covers both developed markets (such as Norway, Denmark, and Sweden) and emerging markets (such as Myanmar, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), as well as both the company’s own actions (such as privacy and security by design) and collaboration with other companies and stakeholders (such as the GNI).

Blog | Wednesday April 26, 2023

Embedding Human Rights from Boots to the Boardroom

Preview

The focus on human rights at the Board of Directors and C-Suite levels often starts in response to one of two situations: a crisis or scandal that forces a company to respond, or pressure from regulators, investors, and other stakeholders to implement a due diligence program. That pressure is very much on the rise, with emerging legislation in the EU such as the Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the US making it incumbent upon leadership to proactively manage human rights issues across their value chain on an ongoing basis—which requires moving from the due diligence phase into long-term implementation and integration.

Through our partnership approach, BSR works with companies to move beyond the due diligence phase into implementing long-term human rights action plans, governance, systems, cultural integration, and stakeholder engagement to embed those processes across the business.

From experience, successfully implementing a long-term vision for human rights requires the following four steps:

1. Set and Communicate the Ambition

First, establish the level of ambition for mitigating or remediating identified risks. This often requires understanding stakeholder expectations and peer practices, your own company’s leverage, and, most importantly, requires a clear mandate and commitment from the top. This commitment should be accompanied by clear governance and measurable KPIs at the corporate level to channel efforts and track progress. Ambition level has implications for resources—budget, staff time, and strategic planning. Buy-in from the C-Suite and ideally the Board of Directors is critical to securing the resources and mandate needed to follow through.

Putting it into practice: After conducting a human rights assessment and gap analysis for a telecommunications company, BSR presented the results and recommendations to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee agreed that the company faced significant human rights risks across its value chain and that additional resourcing would be needed to effectively manage those risks over the long term. BSR provided a briefing to the Board to build understanding and awareness of human rights issues for the company and supported the development of two corporate-wide human rights KPIs that were integrated into the following year’s strategy.  

2. Identify the Right Owners 

It is crucial to understand who within the company is the right person and/or department to own the different dimensions of the long-term action plans. Sustainability and/or human rights teams cannot implement follow-up alone. Instead, the entire business needs to take ownership where relevant—whether procurement teams that have direct engagement with suppliers, or product development teams that can embed human rights thinking and concepts like “privacy by design” at the product design stage. Making the business case to manage human rights will look different for each part of a business; for some, it will be a natural extension of their current focus, and for others, it may at first appear at odds to or irrelevant to their core work or context.

Putting it into practice: After an incident at a mining company’s asset in Australia, BSR was asked to provide a human rights training to help build an understanding that human rights are global, universal, and relevant in all jurisdictions. Through informal conversations during breaks in the schedule, the team got to know the participants and identified individuals who seemed ready and interested to embed human rights in their area of work; some were members of the senior leadership team, and others were junior technicians. Working with the Communities and Social Performance Manager, BSR helped build a network of human rights “champions” who could learn from each other, provide mutual support, and be a sounding board as they each continued to work to embed human rights into their separate core functions.  

3. Integrate into Business Functions 

Addressing human rights risks and impacts requires small, incremental changes to everyday processes. Understanding how teams perform their day-to-day roles and making those subtle changes to incorporate human rights thinking into everyday business activity is key.

Putting it into practice: Working with a company in the travel, tourism, and hospitality sector, BSR supported the training of customer service agents to spot concerns raised by customers that could relate to conditions of forced labor or human trafficking. In addition to raising awareness of these issues and educating customer service agents on what to look for, BSR also reviewed the escalation and reporting criteria to ensure that when issues of concern are identified, they are channeled to the right teams for proper handling.  

4. Monitor and Track Progress

Establishing milestones, metrics, and creating an associated governance structure that allows these milestones to be tracked over time and teams to be held accountable to them are critical for long-term success. Integrating human rights frameworks and measurement into a company’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) system can help ensure that senior leadership regularly has visibility on the company’s most salient human rights risks and mitigation actions. In addition to a traditional ERM taxonomy that looks at business impacts, integrating a human rights framework helps companies consistently track their potential “outward” impacts on society.  

Putting it into practice: BSR worked with a consumer goods manufacturer to conduct human rights impact assessments across many countries over the course of several years. To support the long-term mitigation and remediation of the issues identified in each country, BSR helped develop action plans, related metrics, KPIs, and timetables. The client worked with BSR to develop a web-based monitoring platform whereby the corporate human rights team could monitor progress across all action plans in real time. Ownership and accountability for each action plan was critical to its success, which included both local and corporate-level roles and responsibilities.

As implementation of the UNGPs has matured, there is consensus and growing awareness that a human rights program is much more than a one-off due diligence process. In fact, a human rights program is an ongoing, ever-evolving process that includes regular due diligence, long-term implementation of action plans, and continuous maturation and adaptation of strategies to provide mitigation and remedy on behalf of rightsholders. Taking the long view, and following the steps outlined above, will help companies implement, embed, and integrate human rights into their business and seal the new accountabilities for executive leadership and boards in a meaningful and impactful fashion.

Blog | Tuesday December 14, 2021

Race and Ethnicity: Civil Society Expectations for Business and Recommendations for Company Action

Preview

More than a year ago, the Black Lives Matter movement spurred companies into addressing long-standing race and ethnicity issues and developing or stretching their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals.

However, most of these initiatives have focused on the US, and companies are struggling to address these issues in other countries. Nevertheless, racism and ethnic discrimination are global problems, from racist abuse of England’s Black football players to sexual violence against Indigenous women in Argentina—and addressing these issues benefits everyone. Increasingly, there is a growing societal expectation for businesses to look globally at their internal DEI programs, including those that address race and ethnicity, and as part of their product portfolio, supply chain, and presence in local communities. 

Multinational companies are seeking effective practices for addressing race and ethnicity issues globally. We conducted interviews among BSR’s 300 member companies to identify common challenges companies face when addressing these issues and the potential opportunities this can represent for businesses. We also interviewed civil society organizations around the world to understand their expectations for corporate action.

How Are Companies Addressing Race and Ethnicity Issues outside of the US?

Leading companies are setting global policies with executive support and are creating frameworks for local and regional action plans and initiatives to be developed. Global efforts have been framed around “multi-culturalism,” “full spectrum diversity,” and “culture and heritage.” However, companies’ global commitments do not always come through at the local level. Success in this area depends on support from headquarters and local ownership.

Internally, companies are creating safe spaces for employees to reflect, share, and learn from each other’s experiences related to race and ethnicity and providing opportunities to learn about racism and discrimination through trainings, roundtables, town halls, etc. Although a necessary first step, these practices alone will not achieve lasting impact for employees or the company.

Until recently, most company efforts have used “band-aid” solutions for a specific issue, like quotas for representation or philanthropic contributions. Few companies have designed the necessary structural changes required to address the root causes of racism and inequality inside and outside their operations, and industry collaboration remains limited.

What Do Civil Society Organizations Expect of Companies?

Civil society organizations stressed the need to address discriminatory structures and systems instead of trying to change individuals. The organizations we spoke to noted that currently most internal efforts are top down and focus on behavior change or solely on diversity, with less attention paid to inclusion and equity. For example, setting quotas for leadership positions can ensure accountability, but it can also make certain groups feel that there is no longer a place for them or reinforce the idea that someone was promoted because of their diversity characteristics and not their skills and experience.

Reviewing practices that may perpetuate racism and discrimination, such as recruitment or pay policies, allows for a discussion on how employees and stakeholders can work together to create a more equitable system that benefits everyone.

Based on this research, we have developed a set of global DEI recommendations to address race and ethnicity issues that enables localization and long-term flexible investments. Companies can act on issues related to race and ethnicity in their countries of operations and learn from civil society organizations in the following ways:

• Commit to a global, long-term DEI policy with highest-level buy-in from senior leadership and frameworks for local and regional action plans and initiatives. For example, Cisco developed a set of Social Justice Beliefs that inform how it acts as a business for its employees, customers, and communities. As part of those principles, it has developed specific actions to address racism against the Black Community in the US, and it plans to explore expanding these actions to make them applicable to a global context. ID_Brazil works with global companies with footprints in Brazil and other Latin American countries to review policies and practices across operations and identify racism-related challenges and gaps through its Yes to Racial Equality Seal. 
• Focus on dialogue and learning as a first step: Foster safe dialogue for employees to share experiences, connect leaders with underrepresented staff at the local level, and implement training and toolkits for leaders and employees to identify and speak on racism and discrimination (e.g., this toolkit from Berkeley Haas). Accenture has created a training program that supports employees in identifying and speaking on racism (currently available in the US, the UK, and Ireland, and it will soon be available in Canada and South Africa). 
• Co-create through partnerships: Companies cannot and should not aim to address racism and discrimination alone. They can establish community engagement board(s), leverage and support employee resource groups (ERGs), focus on creating an effective reporting and ethics hotline, and join collaborations tackling racial justice to work with other companies committed to addressing these issues, like the WEF’s Coalition on Racial Justice in Business or the European Network Against Racism. Companies will need to commit financial and human resources to support these partnerships and ensure they are not adding additional work to groups that are already under-resourced.
• Advocate for systems change: Using an equity lens, examine your company’s business operations and product development processes to identify if and how it has enabled and benefited from systemic racism. Some examples: Starbucks, Airbnb, and Facebook completed civil rights audits. Companies should also explore how they can use their voice to advocate externally for wider systems change. For example, Ben & Jerry’s call to dismantle white supremacy provided actionable steps, and Dr. Bronner’s pledged funding to four organizations fighting racial justice and called out systemic racism in the criminal justice system.

Meeting today’s societal expectations for social justice and robust DEI programs requires long-term planning and readjusting business strategy. By joining the handful of leaders already committing to address race and ethnicity issues throughout their global operations, companies can strengthen existing commitments to human rights and non-discrimination and become a leader in their industry, especially as DEI becomes less about counting employees and more central to meeting growing stakeholder expectations to embed equity across company value chains. For more information, please reach out to our Equity, Inclusion, and Justice team.

Blog | Wednesday June 12, 2024

Advancing a Just Transition: Lessons from Company Practices

Preview

Sustainability teams face numerous internal hurdles when seeking to gain traction on advancing a just transition. Obstacles include breaking down internal silos, overcoming opposition and lack of knowledge, combatting resistance to incorporating just transition principles into policies and practices, and ensuring sufficient capacity and resources for implementation. 

The challenge to ensure a just, fair, and inclusive transition is intertwined with various agendas in environmental and social sustainability, including (but not limited to) reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change, protecting biodiversity, ensuring respect for human rights, and reducing inequality. Advancing a just transition requires bridging these efforts to cohesively prioritize people throughout the climate transition process.  

In our work with companies, BSR has observed that in many large, multinational companies, net-zero strategies are driven by teams of dedicated climate experts, sustainability efforts are spearheaded by sustainability program managers, and social risks and impacts are managed by social performance and human rights practitioners, with little engagement across silos. The fundamental challenge lies in aligning these distinct teams to collaborate effectively and work towards the common goal of achieving a just transition through a comprehensive, people-centric approach that harmonizes climate action, environmental protection, human rights considerations, and social equity measures. By fostering cross-functional collaboration and aligning objectives, companies can more easily address the multifaceted challenges posed by the energy transition. 

Practitioners often struggle to understand how to initiate just transition efforts, break down internal silos, get the right people engaged, and gain the internal buy-in needed to advance the agenda. Additionally, given recent regulatory changes, companies are focusing on the burdensome effort required to comply with mandatory compliance measures, which is leaving little bandwidth for other priorities. 

Working with companies to advance the just transition, we have seen that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to advancing the principles of a just transition within a business, as each company faces unique challenges and must tailor its strategy accordingly. We have, however, identified a few company actions that are successfully moving the agenda forward that may serve as inspiration or sources of learning for other practitioners working to advance just transition within their companies.  

Lessons Learned on How to Advance the Just Transition Inside a Company 

Secure an Executive Champion 

A strong executive champion who can drive the just transition agenda forward within a company has proven to be a critical success factor. Their support of just transition can complement other topics for which they are champions, such as human rights or climate justice. Companies with senior leaders, such as the CEO or a dedicated sustainability executive, that are champions of just transition are well-positioned to overcome internal resistance, resolve deadlocks, and create and maintain momentum for their just transition initiatives. Conversely, organizations that have lost executive-level champions or have yet to secure dedicated sponsorship risk stalling progress and facing challenges in gaining traction for their just transition efforts. This highlights the importance of cultivating leadership support and ensuring that the just transition imperative is firmly embedded within the organization's strategic priorities. 

Integrate Just Transition into Existing Strategies and Frameworks 

Many corporate climate transition plans fail to make a direct connection between human rights and the energy transition. Given this, some companies are exploring ways to incorporate just transition principles into their existing climate transition, net zero, energy transition, or broader sustainability strategies and frameworks.  

This integrated approach allows for just transition considerations to be woven into the fabric of the organization's overall sustainability efforts, rather than existing as a separate, siloed initiative. Companies are taking varying approaches, from developing standalone just transition strategies or position statements to integrating the principles across multiple policies and strategies. While a dedicated just transition strategy or position can provide a clear and focused commitment, integration into other strategies and frameworks has allowed some companies to align their just transition ambitions with the company’s existing efforts. A clear benefit of having just transition interwoven into other strategies is integrated communication with stakeholders (whether mandatory or voluntary).  

Once these necessary elements are in place, practitioners will be better positioned to engage in targeted communication and training to align diverse internal stakeholders and promote a more holistic understanding of how the company can support a just transition, both as a process and an outcome. As a result, many practitioners have made it their priority to target capacity building and awareness towards business lines and teams, who are on the front lines of implementing just transition efforts. 

Establish Formal and Informal Governance Mechanisms 

Embedding just transition into formal decision-making structures, such as cross-functional steering committees and working groups, can be an effective approach for driving the just transition agenda forward. These governance mechanisms bring together representatives from various functions, including sustainability, legal, procurement, human resources, and communications, fostering cross-functional alignment on just transition strategies and initiatives. However, while these formal governance structures bring together various internal functions, they typically lack regular representation from a company’s business lines. That is why, in addition to formal decision-making structures, less formal channels, such as working groups without decision-making authority, can play a useful role in building connections with and across business lines and encouraging broader discussions on just transition principles. These informal networks can help raise awareness, build understanding, gather diverse perspectives, and ensure buy-in, laying the groundwork for more formal governance processes over time. 

Leverage Successful Case Studies 

Showcasing successful own-company case studies and best practices related to just transition can be a powerful tool for building internal support and momentum. Real-world examples that demonstrate the positive impact of incorporating just transition principles – this includes but is not limited to early and transparent engagement with stakeholders, social dialogue with workers and unions, and responsible site decommissioning – can help illustrate the value and feasibility of these efforts. Companies that have leveraged compelling case studies have found success in securing additional company buy-in and have been able to drive the just transition agenda forward within their organizations. Case studies can be important in both demonstrating the business case but also offering clear insights and direction on what implementation can look like which can inform future company processes and expectations. 

Take Action 

Advancing a just transition is a challenge but one companies across sectors need to embrace. For resources on advancing a just transition visit the Just Transition Resource Platform and for guidance on planning for a just transition see BSR’s Just Transition Planning Toolkit. For support advancing the just transition within your company contact us.  

Blog | Monday March 11, 2024

RISE: A Reflection on Women’s Advancement Beyond Supervisory Roles in the Garment Industry

Preview

Despite the fashion industry being a female-dominated industry—82% of customers and 60% of workers in the garment supply chain industry are women—women in leadership roles in factories remain low. In Bangladesh, for example, only 9% of supervisors and managers are women while 84% of the women are working in lower-paying roles. The limited opportunities for women to advance provides industry and its partners with a chance to re-evaluate career paths that better reflect the needs and aspirations of factory workers. 

At RISE, an initiative to support collaborative industry action to advance gender equality, we gathered women workers perspectives on how they define career advancement. In Bangladesh and India, we spoke to 132 factory workers, 24 managers and 20 community members. We then supplemented these findings during interviews and discussions with more than 50 global stakeholders including international buyers, international organizations, local suppliers, academics, and women's organizations.

At the same time, we mapped 25 separate programs in garment supply chains that address women’s leadership and advancement. Over 90% of them focus on workers’ and supervisors' capacity building to promote women to supervisory roles. Whilst a valuable part of the solution, these programs don’t fully address the concerns of workers. 

Women identified various barriers to upward mobility approaches, including a significant increase in stress and work responsibilities—including being the subject to new forms of violence and harassment, risk of being ostracized from the community because it goes against social expectations, risk of not fulfilling family responsibilities and expectations of a new role, and risk of losing rights such as ability to unionize and access to mandatory childcare—to name a few. While a supervisory position may result in an income increase, women workers felt this might not compensate for these new risks. 

By taking a too narrow view on progression and leadership, there is a risk that programs targeted at women might overlook additional paths for advancement beyond supervisory roles. 

Against this backdrop, RISE wants to collaborate with the industry to redefine what women’s advancement and leadership means. Here are three key findings from the research and mapping that we bring with us into this.

1. Adverse social norms compound what is already an uneven playing field 

Women face systemic hurdles in their pursuit of progress on the factory floor due to informal social systems such as rooted gender norms and biases and formal ones like legislative frameworks.  

Social norms such as management preferring men over women to fill a leadership position or a job that requires machine operation directly impact women’s ability to advance. Often, women are held to higher skill level standards than their male counterparts, and traditional skills and traits perceived as ‘male’ such as confidence, charisma, a loud voice, and control over others are preferred by factory management. Also, the lack of family support discourages women from pursuing advancement opportunities in the industry; some women avoid growing in their careers due to fear of losing family and community networks.  

“The RMG sector is trying to incorporate more women in leadership positions, but the barrier comes mainly from the family.”

Factory Manager, Bangladesh

In addition, companies and other industry players should be aware that the regulatory framework in some countries penalize women that advance into supervisory positions, and initiatives that seek to increase the number of women in those positions might have unintended consequences. For example, in Bangladesh workers moving to supervisory positions might be refrained from unionizing; and access to rights as childcare benefits and overtime payment are unclear; which makes such roles unattractive for women.  

2. Unpaid care work and childcare responsibilities must be taken into consideration when exploring women’s advancement. 

Many of the women workers we spoke to said that caring and providing for their family is an important duty which they associate with success and societal status. Conversely, in some workplaces, women’s caring duties can be seen as a burden and obstacle to investing in women’s progression, a view expressed by some managers and male peers during our interviews. In addition, the lack of quality childcare services and care public policies adds up to the challenge. We heard from women that a lack of good quality, accessible and sufficient childcare is a significant challenge. In Bangladesh, carrying out unpaid care work is the main reason women leave the factory, which can reduce their income by up to 85%.  

3. Any women’s advancement intervention should consider the future state of the industry. 

In exploring new approaches to women’s advancement, it is critical to look at considerations of women's advancement within a future of work scenario, including how women will be impacted by industry changes, such as automation, climate change, circularity, migration patterns and economic uncertainties. 

The industry is experiencing a decline in women labor, in countries like Bangladesh, the proportion of women garment workers has continued to decline from 80% in the 1980s to 54% in 2021. As such, there is a unique opportunity for the industry to broaden women’s advancement to increased opportunities beyond entry-level, with increased decision-making influence and increased income. The garment and footwear industry must create multipronged and long-term pathways for its workers to progress and thrive.  

Women’s advancement should not be about “fixing” women or advocating for them to follow traditional career progression routes that were molded for men. Rather, an approach to advancement addressing gender norms and responsive to women’s needs, realities, and aspirations has the potential to increase their income and agency within the workplace, their household, and communities. It can lead to broader career options beyond the linear progression from line operator to supervisor while contributing to business resilience and sustainability. 

In practice, this includes opportunities for vertical progression of women to supervisors or managerial roles while at the same time enabling horizontal advancement through access and representation in good quality and highly demanded jobs, such as machine operation. It also allows women to voice their concerns, make decisions by participating in collective action through unions or workers’ committees and be represented in the marketplace as business owners.

Amidst the current decrease of female labor participation in the industry in some countries, advancement should also contemplate expanded opportunities for women outside the factory. To succeed in this endeavor, looking at systemic challenges such as childcare provision and changing social norms and creating an enabling legislative environment is also essential.

This is why we call for industry partners to help us shape—through an industry roadmap—a new narrative of Women’s Advancement together with women workers. If you are interested in collaborating reach out to Laura Macías lmacias@bsr.org. 

RISE would like to thank research partners Consiglieri Private Limited, Colors Consulting, and Eva Ehoke.

Blog | Thursday October 31, 2024

Racing Past the Crossroads: How Sustainability Leaders Can Reassert Ambition

Preview

BSR’s recent report, The CSO at a Crossroads: Three Paths Forward for Sustainability Leaders, drew on interviews with more than 30 chief sustainability officers (CSOs) to argue that we are at a crucial moment to reassert an ambitious vision for the CSO role.

After a period where CSOs focused (understandably) on reactivity and regulation, it is time to recognize the urgency and scale of global challenges and their implications for business. We emphasized the unique capabilities of the CSO in helping the company navigate external global developments and stakeholder interests with an eye on strategy, risks, and opportunities.

So how can CSOs steer down the more ambitious paths for sustainability leadership? 

Here are seven ways sustainability leaders can reassert ambition in transforming companies, economies, and societies: 

1. Use futures, foresight, and scenarios to reframe the time horizon for ambition. Corporate approaches that emphasize reactivity and compliance are doomed to deliver incremental improvements and miss the long-term changes that affect business and society. Companies can recognize the benefits of more resilient and ambitious strategies by weighing, “What developments might shape our business and operating environment over the next 10 years, and what actions should we take to prepare for them?” BSR’s 2018 report, Doing Business in 2030, encouraged leaders to contemplate scenarios based on the hyper-politicization of business and sustainability, dramatic geopolitical fragmentation, breakthroughs in AI, and a global public health crisis. The 2024 report, Between Two Worlds: Sustainable Business in the Turbulent Transition, updates futures thinking to enable Boards and senior executives to focus on longer-term considerations. 
2. Focus on the top few areas with the most strategic importance and impact. To date, sustainability strategy has too often been an exercise in breadth and bundling—covering a range of topics and aggregating them into themes. This may have made sense in an era when companies were in the early stages of understanding their impacts. With foundational double materiality assessments in place, CSOs can pursue more ambitious impact agendas by identifying and investing in a select few strategic priorities. These priorities will need to be tailored for each company and may be linked to the specific business model (US private sector on EU regulations). As Robert G. Eccles and BSR alumna Alison Taylor noted, “The CSO role is finally becoming strategic, if you define strategy as the art of choosing what not to do. Today, CSOs help identify and direct attention to the ESG issues that have a substantial impact on an organization’s financial performance and risk profile. This approach aligns with broader corporate strategy-making, as it helps organizations focus on what matters most to long-term value creation.” 
3. Shift from disclosure to strategy; from assessment to action. Recent regulations have launched a scramble to strengthen corporate governance, risk assessments, and disclosures on sustainability. Those are worthwhile developments, but ultimately meaningless unless they serve as the basis for strategy, action, and impact. Companies that are investing so much now in due diligence and compliance should begin to focus more on the resulting actions that will yield meaningful improvements in real world risk, opportunities, and impacts. You can’t simply “CSRD away” your climate risk. A focus on collective action and collaboration within and across sectors can also avoid duplication and better align efforts towards more efficient and impactful change. 
4. Rethink business models to address the fundamental tensions among corporate interests, society, and the environment. Business and economic models based on indefinite growth and unmanaged externalities are already running up against environmental, social, and political limits. Those limits will threaten many companies, such as those that depend on cheap natural resources, endless disposable plastics, unfettered trade, fragile logistics networks, low wage labor, and use of personal data. These limitations may manifest in response to commitments and regulations. For example, incremental action against a context of ongoing growth will not suffice to help most companies achieve their public, investor-facing commitments to Net Zero and Science-Based Targets. Additionally, the European Sustainability Reporting Standards specifically call for disclosures to account for the impacts of a company’s business model. Moreover, companies have an opportunity to build more ambitious, resilient strategies by examining and innovating in how they create, deliver, and capture value amid changing environmental and social dynamics. Areas for exploration might include designing products/services for sustainability and human rights, development of circular or service-based business models, expanded employee ownership, and more inclusive governance models. Focusing on business models puts sustainability at the center of major business decisions—where to build a factory, which technologies to adopt, mergers and acquisitions. Boards and executives will have to make such business decisions within the wider societal context. 
5. Activate boards and executives. Corporate leaders have moved rapidly up the maturity curve on sustainability, particularly in their oversight of disclosures and compliance. It will be vital to shift boards and executives to more active roles in grappling with the strategic impacts, risks, and opportunities of sustainability.
6. Elevate expertise and stakeholder voices. Senior executives and board directors rarely bring specific expertise in areas of vital sustainability importance such as climate change, human rights, and responsible AI. They also rarely come from vulnerable stakeholder groups. Important efforts are underway to upskill and diversify corporate leaders, though we can’t expect solutions to be quick or comprehensive. To access expertise, navigate complexity, and incorporate more diverse stakeholder viewpoints, boards and executives will benefit from ongoing platforms to tap external views. That might come through building partnerships, establishing external advisory councils, or leveraging industry wide stakeholder engagement. It might also include more significant governance changes such as mechanisms for employees to serve on boards, or granting a board seat to nature.
7. Engage in public policy; strengthen geopolitical capabilities. The call for companies to engage more thoughtfully in public policy is not new, but it is more important than ever given political backlash and reluctance to take on the major challenges that social and environmental risks pose to economic and societal well-being, and the fracturing of global cooperation on issues like climate change, trade, and peace. Companies will benefit from aligning sustainability and public affairs to promote shared priorities and boost credibility. More importantly, they can enhance sustainable business leadership by using that base of credibility to encourage rational policies that manage systemic risks and promote positive, sustainable transformation in the business operating environment. While business associations have often focused on preventing regulation and tax policy, those associations could be valuable forums to amplify the collective voice of specific industries to advocate for a strengthened enabling environment for sustainable business.

BSR plans to use these preliminary ideas as a starting point to engage members in the coming months, and we welcome your solutions, critiques, and quandaries.

It is especially crucial that these conversations reflect the challenging context of the present and the global imperatives of the future. If CSOs are indeed at a crossroads, it is time to race along a path of integration, ambition, and transformation. We look forward to bringing together CSOs, CEOs, and Board Directors to further discuss the evolving role of sustainability leadership.