Search Results

Blog | Wednesday January 31, 2018

(Re)Making the Case for Sustainability: Effective Sustainability Management through a CEO Transition

Preview

With an average of one in 10 S&P 500 companies experiencing a CEO transition each year, sustainability departments need to be prepared to effectively manage a change in company leadership.  

As we articulated in our recent report, Redefining Sustainable Business: Management for a Rapidly Changing World, the era of stand-alone sustainability strategies, with subsequent integration of sustainability into company strategy, needs to end; the creation of resilient business strategies that take sustainability as their foundation needs to begin. An important test of a company’s resilience is how it weathers a CEO transition.

In most cases there is sufficient time to adjust—S&P analysis also shows that nearly 80 percent of CEO transitions are the result of long-standing succession plans. But in the case of forced or pressured resignations and mergers, changes can be abrupt and messy and require departments to balance preparing for a new CEO while simultaneously putting out the fires of reputational and cultural crises. The increasing influence of activist investors is contributing to more frequent CEO transitions, and comparatively “poor performing companies” have a 60 percent greater likelihood of seeing a new CEO in any given year.

Even if planned, a CEO transition is disruptive, and being prepared for transition can help make the work of a sustainability department sustainable. There is little doubt that a change at the top can be a nerve-wracking time for sustainability teams: In our 2017 State of Sustainable Business Survey, more than 90 percent of sustainability practitioners identified CEOs as the key influence on their companies’ sustainability agendas—more than employees, investors, or even customers. Losing a senior advocate is a tremendous risk, especially for organizations losing vocal and influential leaders who’ve shaped their corporate sustainability programs.

Part of proactively managing for CEO transition is deeply embedding and integrating sustainability. Making your programs essential to your company’s value creation and standard risk management processes will ensure that efforts are maintained despite the inevitable changes that come with new leadership. Setting long-term public goals is not just good practice—it can help keep the company accountable to those objectives, even through leadership changes.

When a CEO transition happens, however, sustainability teams need to mobilize. With a new audience likely comes the need for a refreshed business case. And while this change could threaten long-standing programs that may be closely associated with a previous CEO’s legacy, a leadership change may also offer sustainability teams a new opportunity to better integrate sustainability into the core business strategy. The task of the sustainability department in these initial months is to begin to build a relationship with your new company leader and provide a succinct narrative for sustainability as value creation.

Boiling down years of efforts and programs is no easy task, but answering a few guiding questions should help you hone and sharpen your pitch for maintained or increased investment.

1. Why was there a transition? Understanding the nature of a CEO transition is critical. In cases where a CEO had long-planned retirement or was enticed by a “new opportunity,” this may be less significant. For more seismic transitions, however, sustainability departments need to pay attention: Was the change precipitated by poor market performance, activist investors, reputational impacts from unethical business practices, or a highly publicized toxic culture? These factors represent failures that a new CEO will be mandated to remediate, and your sustainability department would be wise to explore how you could help mitigate those specific risks in the future.
2. What is the new CEO’s view of sustainability? When a new CEO is selected, it is useful to review his or her past experience: How mature were the sustainability programs in their previous companies? Are there key themes in their previous CEO letters that can help anticipate how they view sustainability? A new leader’s perspective on sustainability may not be clear until your first meeting, but awareness of his or her interests and past efforts can help inform your presentation.
3. What’s the current sustainability strategy—and is it actually current? A change in leadership offers an opportune moment to take stock of your current sustainability strategy. A rapid but robust strategy discussion can be extremely helpful to prepare your team for your first CEO conversation. What are your company’s material issues, and does the CEO change signal a shift in priorities? What has the company’s ambition level on these material issues been to date, and is there a corresponding need to advance your programs on these issues? The CEO transition should offer a moment to evaluate, refresh, and align your company strategy and your sustainability strategy.
4. What has sustainability achieved, where has it failed, and what’s on the horizon? All departments will, to some extent, be required to justify their programs and resources. While an exaggerated litany of achievements may be impressive, a clear-eyed account of achievements and shortcomings may be more effective at creating a strong advocate in the CEO’s office. Highlighting key milestones and demonstrating cross-functional support will show the sustainability department as an effective force for integration within the organization. An honest account of challenges and constraints creates trust that is integral to a strong working relationship. Positioning sustainability as a way to anticipate and respond to emerging trends shows how the team can be a critical partner in driving the company’s new strategic, resilient direction.

Ultimately, answering these questions will arm you and your team to answer the big question: How does sustainability add value to your company? To use a CEO transition to your advantage, you must be able to show that sustainability is not a remnant of an old regime, but a vital part of a company that is forging ahead. Showing how sustainability fits into the new order—whether in reaching new markets, driving innovation, or mitigating new risks—will be critical to gaining the buy-in of your new leadership.

Sustainability FAQs | Tuesday April 18, 2023

Governance and Oversight of Just and Sustainable Business

Preview

This FAQ sets out BSR’s perspective on the governance and oversight of just and sustainable business at companies. We believe that engaged boards, empowered executive leadership, and clear roles and responsibilities throughout companies are essential for the creation of long-term value for investors and society.

Defining Governance and Oversight

Why is governance and oversight important?

A clear system of governance and oversight ensures that strategies relating to just and sustainable business will be created, implemented, and actioned. 

What is the difference between governance and management?

Governance is the system by which business operations are directed and controlled. The governance structure of a company specifies the distribution responsibilities among different participants, such as the board, managers, and shareholders, and spells out the rules and procedures for making corporate decisions.

Management is the deployment of resources to achieve business goals. The management of a company includes running the day-to-day operations of a company, coordinating the efforts of staff to achieve strategic objectives, and ensuring that the company’s resources are used effectively and efficiently.

Governance is about direction, accountability, and oversight, whereas management is about execution, implementation, and operations. It is important to distinguish between these two different concepts when defining how to advance sustainability and social justice goals with companies by not (for example) assigning “management” expectations to boards.

Who leads governance and management, and who are they accountable to?

The company board is accountable to the company’s shareholders. The company’s board chair leads the board in keeping with the organization’s vision, mission, and strategic planning goals. Duties of boards include choosing the CEO, reviewing / approving company strategy, approving major policies, making major decisions, and overseeing performance.

The company management is accountable to the company’s board. The CEO leads the company in keeping with the board’s direction. The duties of management include making operational decisions, making operational policies, keeping the board educated and informed, creating the company strategy for Board review / approval, implementing the strategy, and bringing well-documented recommendations and information to the board.

What are the key elements of governance and oversight for just and sustainable business?

Governance and oversight for just and sustainable business is the formal integration of social and environmental goals into a company’s corporate governance and operating mode and ensures that material social and environmental issues are effectively managed at all levels of the company. Governance and oversight can be complex because social and environmental issues cut across many different components of a business.

BSR believes that a governance and oversight system should include the following five elements: (1) board level oversight, accountability, and sign-off; (2) executive leadership; (3) a core sustainability team (or similar); (4) clear roles and responsibilities for employees integral to the success of just and sustainable business; and (5) a system for understanding external perspectives via meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Structures for Governance

How should a company board engage on the topic of just and sustainable business?

Best practices include incorporating just and sustainable business into the board mandate, designating a board committee (or committees) for relevant social and environmental issues, training board members on material social and environmental topics, and hiring experts to the Board.

BSR believes there are four critical areas for boards to address:

• Stucture: Formalizing the board’s mandate for just and sustainable business via inclusion in relevant board committee charters and / or creating a new board committee to oversee just and sustainable business.
• Competencies: Recruiting board members with the right knowledge, competencies, and expertise in relevant topics, and with diverse backgrounds.
• Strategy: Developing a strategy with clear consideration for how material topics, emerging issues, and stakeholder impacts shape business success over the short, medium, and long-term.
• Oversight: Establishing goals, incentives, and accountability for management. Meaningful disclosure (e.g., formal approval of annual disclosures on social and environmental topics) is a key aspect of achieving oversight.

How are regulations changing board oversight of just and sustainable business?

Regulations and other emerging global standards are substantially increasing expectations and requirements for board oversight of just and sustainable business. The main implications include: (1) board oversight (e.g., of specific topics); (2) responsibilities outlined in board mandates; (3) board expertise and knowledge; (4) how risks and opportunities are considered in strategy; (5) incentive and remuneration considerations; (6) the board’s role setting up and overseeing due diligence processes; and (7) signing off sustainability reports and disclosures.

For example, the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is expected to establish a “duty to act” on the consequence of their board decisions relating to sustainability, climate change, and human rights impacts, while the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) will require boards to be a part of the company’s due diligence process and sign off sustainability information within a company’s management report. Further, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) will require climate disclosure and an explanation of board governance and oversight.

These regulations and standards redefine the role of the board implicitly (by creating new corporate standards) and explicitly (by specifically obliging boards to oversee sustainability and human rights at their companies).

What are the best practices for establishing and maintaining board competency on just and sustainable business?

There is increasing awareness of the need to fill the gap in expertise and skills at board and management levels on social and environmental topics, such as climate change, human rights due diligence, and social justice. Best practices include training board members on material topics and emerging trends through formal means (such as executive education) or informal means (such as regular briefings and inviting the participation of external speakers).

It is important to ensure diversity of skills and experience at board level, including consideration of diversity or race / ethnicity, gender, and age. Ideally at least one board member has expertise on material social and environmental topics.

Should there be a separate board committee dedicated to just and sustainable business, or should matters of just and sustainable business be integrated into other board committees?

Assigning social and environmental issues to a board committee (or committees) allows for key issues to be considered systematically and in greater depth. However, there is no “one size fits all” approach to how this is achieved—every company board is uniquely structured, and different issues may be suited to different committees.

For example: an audit committee may oversee human rights due diligence overall or specific topics (such as privacy); a compensation committee may oversee diversity, equity, and inclusion; a nominating and governance committee may ensure that appropriate sustainability skills and experience are present on the board; a public policy committee may consider matters relating to government relations or social impact; a dedicated sustainability or corporate responsibility committee may oversee a company’s materiality assessment process and ensure that social and environmental risks are being appropriately identified, tracked, and addressed.

As a matter of principle, the entire board should have the opportunity to engage with matters of just and sustainable business that impact company strategy and have the right level of understanding required for informed decision making. The audit committee can play an important role in assigning issues to board committees and clarifying when the responsibility extends to the full board.

Structures for Management

What are best practices for executive oversight and leadership?

The “tone from the top” and good executive leadership helps build a culture of just and sustainable business throughout a company; if just and sustainable business is on the leadership agenda, it will be prioritized.

Clear roles and responsibilities provide clarity, alignment, and expectations to those executing the work on just and sustainable business, and enable effective communication between different functions, business units, and teams.

Rewarding performance and creating consequences for non-performance on a set of clearly defined goals helps ensure that just and sustainable business is placed on the same level as other aspects of business. For example, social and environmental performance can be linked to executive compensation and employee bonuses more broadly via key performance indicators linked to issues such as health and safety, CO2 emissions, or diversity.

How should just and sustainable business be organized inside companies?

The most effective organizational structure for just and sustainable business will be different across companies and industries, though most can be categorized as “centralized”, “embedded”, or “distributed” structures:

• Centralized: A larger team (e.g., 15+ staff) acts as the center of expertise and implementation at the company. This team will implement key aspects of just and sustainable business, such as strategy, reporting, and stakeholder engagement, while relying on other functions to implement the strategy and improve performance. Centralized structures are often associated with joined up approaches to just and sustainable business, such as leadership for climate change, human rights, and labor issues being jointly assigned to a single chief sustainability officer.
• Embedded: A smaller team (e.g., 5 or fewer staff) implements core elements of just and sustainable business (such as reporting and disclosure) but relies more on other functions to lead strategy development and implementation.
• Disitributed: A variety of different teams (e.g., sustainability, human rights, civil rights, DEI, product responsibility) lead different elements of just and sustainable business, often in different functions of the company. In this model there are often multiple rather than single executive leads—for example, there may be a chief sustainability officer for climate change, a VP for human rights, and a VP for supplier responsibility all leading different programs.

BSR believes that a dedicated “head” of just and sustainable business can be a best practice for some companies but not others; more important is the existence of a joined-up and cohesive approach that is accountable to the company board. We note that terms such as “sustainability”, “ESG”, and “social impact” have taken on different meanings in different industries and can be associated with very different team and individual mandates.

Which department or function should just and sustainable business be part of?

The most effective function for just and sustainable business will vary across companies and industries. BSR has seen both successful and unsuccessful teams located in departments as diverse as strategy, commununications, risk, government affairs, legal, product, and procurement; for this reason, we have concluded that department or function on its own this is not an important variable determining success. Far more important is that the team (or teams) reside in a part of the company where they can make, shape, and influence the decisions, actions, and implementation priorities most relevant for the company’s material social and environmental issues and have a direct line to CEO / executive leadership decision making.

Should there be a chief sustainability officer, and what should their brief be?

For many companies a chief sustainability officer can be a very effective role, provided the chief sustainability officer is resourced, empowered, and supported effectively. The precise role will vary depending on the company’s material issues—for example, it may focus on value creation where the company is in the business of providing sustainability solitions, or it may focus on risk mitigation where the company is faced with material risks; in both cases, being a change agent and coalition builder are common themes. For some companies a chief sustainability officer may be focussed on a constrained set of issues (e.g., climate change and nature), while in other companies a chief sustainability officer may have a broader brief that also encompasses human rights, labor issues, and ethics. There may be other leaders inside companies (e.g., a VP human rights) with chief sustainability officer-like roles. In all cases, direct access to the CEO and Board is essential.

How should other functions and teams be engaged?

A core sustainability team (even a large one) cannot fulfill a company’s just and sustainable business strategy alone, and a broader group of employees should take on roles and responsibilities to help implement the strategy, achieve goals, and improve performance. This is particularly true for companies with “embedded” and “distributed” approaches.

Many companies create cross functional working groups (or similar, such as councils and networks) to provide a platform for validating programs and initiatives, implement and support strategic initiatives, and engage a broader base of employees. These cross functional working groups can be composed of multiple functions, operations, and geographies, and it is important to establish clear meeting frequencies, agendas, and communications channels.

These cross functional working groups can be formal (e.g., defined membership, formal charter, regular meeting cadence) or informal (e.g., shifting membersip, flexible charter, and meeting “as needed”), with different approaches suiting different company cultures. In all cases an effective support staff or “secretariat” is needed for success.

How should external stakeholders be engaged?

Effective approaches to just and sustainable business require a deliberate, strategic, and structured approach to securing the insights, perspectives, and involvement of affected stakeholders (such as customers, civil society organizations, and local communities) and other experts (such as academics) and to embedding them into company decision making. This is the subject of a different BSR FAQ on meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Should companies establish external stakeholder advisory councils?

An external advisory council can help bring diverse thinking, improved rigor, and greater determination into programming and strategy. When doing so it is important to develop clear terms of reference, including: 

• Objective: Determine the objective of the group (e.g., review policies; input into strategy; provide emerging issue knowledge; guide industry best practice etc.).
• Composition: Determine the makeup of the group, roles and responsibilities, and term limits.
• Meeting frequency and agenda: Set clear meeting frequency, agendas for each meeting, and communication channels.
• Transparency: Establish clarity on whether / where the external advisory council is publicly known and / or whether the external advisory council can issue its own communications.

Blog | Monday October 12, 2020

Meeting the Moment for Climate Action: Q&A with Maria Mendiluce, CEO, We Mean Business Coalition

Preview

BSR is pleased to welcome Maria Mendiluce, CEO of the We Mean Business coalition, as a plenary speaker for BSR Conference 2020, where we will virtually gather the sustainable business community around the theme: Meet the Moment. Build the Future.

Meeting the moment doesn’t solely apply to the events of 2020, momentous as they may be. It also means taking action on the ongoing—and worsening—climate crisis. In May 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn in full swing, Maria was appointed CEO of the We Mean Business coalition. A proud founding partner of the coalition, BSR welcomes Maria to the position and looks forward to our continued collaboration to catalyze business leadership, climate action, and policy ambition to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon economy.

We were able to connect with Maria ahead of BSR Conference 2020 to learn more about what she thinks is needed from business to meet the current moment and build a more equitable and sustainable future.

 

In 2020, we’re facing the COVID-19 crisis, mass unemployment, and the growing movement to end systemic racism alongside devastating climate impacts across the globe. How do the events of this year underscore the need for business to take meaningful climate action? In your opinion, what is the role of business to meet the moment? 

The world is continuing to grapple with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic downturn, systemic racial inequality, and more, but the impacts of climate change cannot be ignored. Most weeks bring fresh headlines of wildfires, such as in California and Australia, droughts, and rapidly melting ice caps. They’re all stark reminders that inclusive climate action and a transition to a net-zero economy that does not leave marginalized communities behind cannot wait for calmer times.

While the pandemic has revealed our fragility, it has not diminished the recognized need for bold climate action, and governments, citizens, and the corporate world are increasingly driven to harness this poignant moment of change in a way that benefits us all.

Climate action is a driver of innovation, economic growth, competitiveness, resilience, and job creation. The latest research shows that green stimulus measures are better at boosting jobs and GDP growth than business as usual or traditional government stimulus measures. There is a clear incentive to drive bold climate action as a way to recover better and create good jobs.

However, we must ensure that we deliver a just transition that does not exacerbate social inequalities. This includes building a more resilient labor market that redeploys, retrains, and upskills those working in high carbon industries for the new green economy.

In this time of global disruption, ambitious climate action by both business and government is more urgent than ever before. Climate action equals greater resilience and, for forward-looking businesses, this is quickly moving beyond their sustainability teams to be a core part of business strategy. This is why it’s so timely that, as a coalition, we have launched the Climate Leadership Now guide. The time is now for business leaders to significantly raise the bar; we need to reboot economies, solve the climate crisis, and bring benefits to societies globally, while leaving no one behind. 

At BSR Conference 2020, we will be discussing ways in which business can contribute to the creation of a more just and sustainable future. As business begins to create post-COVID-19 strategies, how important is it to include climate action in these future plans? How can they show Climate Leadership Now?

Encouragingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has not diminished the recognized need for bold climate action and actually has strengthened resolve among citizens, companies, governments, and investors to drive real progress. Consequently, the need to develop a robust leadership position on climate action is more urgent than ever and should be central to any company’s strategic vision.

We are truly at a pivotal turning point in history, and companies can harness this moment to join the Race to Zero and set a course out of the crisis through climate leadership.

This means aligning corporate ambition with the best available climate science, setting targets to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, at the latest, with strong interim targets to get there through the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Companies must identify and implement action to reduce carbon emissions across operations and supply chains to enable them to deliver on their ambition.

Then it means speaking up to secure wider change through advocacy.

In September, the We Mean Business coalition launched Climate Leadership Now, our new guide outlining how companies can progress their climate strategy toward a climate leadership position fit for this decisive decade. We urge all companies to engage with these three A's: ambition; action; and advocacy. Now is the time to join the Race to Zero and show leadership in the global effort to tackle the climate crisis.

Business and governments need to work together to accelerate climate action. Ambitious company action emboldens governments to set stronger policies, which in turn enable the scale-up of business actions. 

One of the pillars in the Climate Leadership Now guide is Advocacy, highlighting the crucial role and voice that business has in helping developing policy frameworks to spur a zero carbon economy. How can business use its influence to ensure that governments build back better and include climate action in their economic recovery plans? 

Business and governments need to work together to accelerate climate action. Ambitious company action emboldens governments to set stronger policies, which in turn enable the scale-up of business actions. We need companies to make the case in support of bold climate policy.

In a recent video interview with We Mean Business, Jakob Askou Bøss, senior vice president at Ørsted, said, “It’s quite clear that governments cannot do it alone, and companies cannot do it alone. We need to work together. Governments need to set ambitious targets for carbon reduction and renewable energy deployment and create the visibility needed for companies to deploy the vast amount of capital and drive the innovation that is needed to further mature and scale renewable energy and to further bring down costs."

This December will mark the five-year anniversary of the adoption of the Paris Agreement. To meet the goals of limiting warming to well below 2°C, governments need to increase their national pledges. In your point of view, what is the role of business in helping to meet the Paris Agreement goals?

Corporate climate ambition and action help mitigate and avoid risks, like business interruption, supply chain collapse, and market destruction, whilst bringing opportunities like cost savings, new markets, new finance, new customers, and new products. Business leaders can see the benefits and are seizing them.

Just this month, PayPal, Walmart, Ford, and Facebook are among companies to have increased their level of climate commitment, announcing bold strategies to accelerate the zero-carbon transition. To date, nearly 300 companies have joined the Business Ambition for 1.5ºC campaign, led by SBTi, We Mean Business, and the UN Global Compact, including those in hard-to-abate sectors such as the world’s largest cement maker, LafargeHolcim.

During the past few weeks, we have seen the kind of corporate leadership the world needs. We need more businesses to follow suit, because this must become the new business norm.

Blog | Thursday October 29, 2020

Amid COVID-19, BSR20 Highlighted Action, Collaboration, and Leadership

Preview

In a year with so many reasons to be concerned about the state of the world and the future, last week’s BSR Conference leaves us with reasons to be optimistic.

The dozens of speakers from all corners of the world were clear-eyed about the need to face up to the climate crisis, ongoing structural discrimination, economic dislocation, challenges to democracy and human rights, and, hanging over all of it, a pandemic that is again gaining strength.

It is abundantly clear that the community of leaders we were proud to assemble has a clear vision and powerful purpose that is ready, in the words of the conference theme, to “meet the moment and build the future.”

BSR is here to help business leaders see a changing world more clearly, to provide advice that creates long-term value for business and society, and to build collaborations that take solutions to scale. The community that came together last week —virtually of course—showed how important these attributes are.

The urgency of addressing systemic racism, the climate crisis, economic dislocation, and disruption of familiar business models ran through the conference. If the 2015 conference was all about climate action (in advance of COP21), the 2018 conference about gender equity (in the midst of #MeToo), then the 2020 conference made clear how deeply embedded racial inequities demand our attention. In a closing session, Nancy Mahon of the Estee Lauder Companies put this well: “we don’t need to put on a DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] lens, we need Lasik surgery” to see things differently all the time. It is impossible to achieve needed change without seeing challenges clearly, and that awareness shined through the exchanges throughout the week. We as citizens would be far better off if public policy discourse reflected this vision more often.

It is impossible to achieve needed change without seeing challenges clearly, and that awareness shined through the exchanges throughout the week. 

Vision without action doesn’t mean much. There is good evidence from this week that we are moving from ambition to action. Bernard Looney of bp made clear that his company’s net-zero commitment will require investment and execution and that he knows that investors, colleagues, and the wider world will be watching very closely. Gillian Tett related how she and her Financial Times colleagues wondered in the spring whether COVID-19 would wipe away the growing interest in economic, social, and governance (ESG) investing, only to see the opposite happen. And we heard numerous examples of companies taking action to promote DEI. Rose Stuckey Kirk of Verizon placed her company’s commitment to advancing colleagues from historically disadvantaged communities in the context of the last half century of American history, beautifully reinforcing the importance of tangible action. It is clear therefore that companies are not only sustaining their commitments—they are expanding them.

And individual company action, as important as it is, will not take leadership to scale. François-Henri Pinault of Kering spoke about how the Fashion Pact is aiming to reorient an entire industry behind decisive action on climate, biodiversity, and preserving our oceans. BSR colleagues spoke with partners from our collaborative initiative HERproject on how collaborative action is aiming to preserve the livelihoods of women working in the apparel sector across Asia and Africa. And we joined with the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) to launch a new initiative to generate new collaborations to reduce poverty around the world.

The events of 2020 are accelerating change and delivering new challenges. As profound as these changes are, let us not forget that we hold in our hands the ability to bend the arc of history towards a better future.

We still face a set of “wicked problems.” An economic and public health catastrophe that has thrown more than 100 million people back into extreme poverty. Extreme weather and loss of Arctic ice continue on the march. Democracy and human rights under threat. 

I opened the conference by noting that it is up to us to determine what the events of 2020 will mean. These events are accelerating change and delivering new challenges. As profound as these changes are, let us not forget that we hold in our hands the ability to bend the arc of history towards a better future. Our businesses depend on it. Our societies depend on it. Our ability to thrive depends on it.

What I heard last week leaves me more confident that we will rise to the occasion.

Blog | Thursday March 28, 2019

Getting to a Price on Carbon: Collaboration, Action, and Leadership

Preview

At GreenBiz 19 in February, BSR and Ceres convened business and civil society leaders to explore new collaborations in pursuit of public policy to support climate ambition in the U.S. The meeting was a prime example of the work of BSR’s CoLab, an incubator and accelerator of private-sector collaboration that mobilizes the collective power of business to solve the world’s biggest sustainability challenges. The conversation was framed around one big question: “How can businesses work together to support meaningful public policy to address the climate crisis?”

Our session at GreenBiz 19 left us more convinced than ever that the time is right for action guided by a thoughtful and inclusive long-term strategy and action plan—and we are committed to working with our many partners in the field to make it happen.

We had a rich discussion of the many barriers we will need to overcome—both within companies and across the broader political landscape. But for every barrier identified, we surfaced several great ideas for how to address it. Some of the key “design criteria” we took away from the meeting include the following: 

• Move from an ad hoc to a strategic approach. We need to create a framework and priorities for policy advocacy that enable companies to advocate with confidence. What do we want for the future, and what policies are necessary to get there?
• Organize around principles before policy details. Rather than overcommitting to a specific policy proposal, we need a set of “principles” to identify specific policies for which to advocate and to serve as the focal point around which to mobilize a broad and diverse coalition. Carbon pricing is important but not a silver bullet, and it will need to be accompanied by many other policies and practices—from new actuarial standards to building codes.
• Connect climate action to existing priorities. We can create a better foundation for consistent policy advocacy by linking climate change to issues that already obviously matter within our organizations (rather than trying to “add climate to the list”). Most companies have stated “values” or priority areas that drive programs and choices—and many of those elements link to aspects of the climate crisis. For example, building resilience may be a key piece in supporting local community development.
• Build a more powerful narrative. At the same time, we should balance the language of “business case” with the language of society and morality. It is always strategic to put the issues in terms and metrics people understand, to meet your audience where they are, and to encourage stakeholders to consider going further.
• Acknowledge and address the diverse needs and impacts of different sectors. Some industries will fare better than others in the transition to a zero-carbon economy, and we need to have a plan for addressing all of them.
• But above all, get started! Even as we work to build out a longer-term strategic approach to climate policy advocacy, we need to show up and engage with lawmakers, both on a local and national scale, to send a clear signal as well as to test and refine our approaches.

We see an opportunity for companies to highlight the need for a strong and meaningful price on carbon as part of the overall response to climate change.

What Comes Next?

On that last point, we are delighted to partner with more than 15 highly respected organizations to field a Lawmaker Education and Advocacy Day (LEAD) in Washington, D.C. on May 21-22, bringing together companies large and small from all over the country to drive forward three key messages:

1. Climate change is an urgent threat to the American economy.
2. Businesses are taking action to reduce emissions, but they cannot tackle the problem without strong leadership from Congress.
3. Congress must put forward a policy response equal to the severity of the challenge—and that should include a price on carbon.

Led by a core group of CEOs and organized by an unprecedented collaboration of NGOs, think tanks, trade associations, and other groups, this event will help to elevate and emphasize the private sector’s vision for lasting, predictable, and effective climate solutions. In particular, we see an opportunity for companies to highlight the need for a strong and meaningful price on carbon as part of the overall response to climate change.

If you would like to learn more, BSR and Ceres are hosting a webinar on April 3 at 2 p.m. EDT to provide more details on the LEAD event and the state of play of climate policy in Washington, D.C. and share our vision for how this event contributes to overall efforts to move climate policy forward at a national level. In addition to speakers from BSR and Ceres, the webinar will feature Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center.

We will also use our time together in Washington to advance the conversation on a broader and longer-term strategic approach to public policy advocacy. Please join us and don’t hesitate to contact either BSR or Ceres with your thoughts and ideas in the meantime. For more information about the LEAD event, please reference this resource or connect with us via email.

Blog | Tuesday August 5, 2025

Ten Lessons on Developing Effective Sustainability Strategies

Preview

Business sustainability roles are evolving from siloed functions to core strategic players, embedded within various departments, aligned to and integrated fully in a company’s business strategy. A strong sustainability strategy guides a company in managing its environmental, social, and governance priorities; maximizing value creation opportunities for the business; minimizing financial risk; understanding stakeholder expectations; and addressing the imperative to avoid harm to people, the environment, and livelihoods. Without an effective sustainability strategy, companies may face significant risks, including investor divestment, legal non-compliance, and lack of competitiveness in a rapidly evolving market, ultimately undermining their long-term resilience and the trust of their stakeholders. 

Based on BSR’s three decades of working with companies around the world and across sectors, we share ten lessons for companies on developing effective sustainability strategies that will enhance resilience and create business value.  

1. Sustainability strategy needs to be informed by, aligned with, and supportive of business strategy. A holistic sustainability strategy needs to account for how the company creates value as a business and for society, its business goals, and how sustainability can support value creation, resilience, and innovation.  
2. Sustainability strategy is informed by and takes forward materiality. A sustainability strategy with material issues at its core ensures key topics and issues are covered. However, not all material issues are strategic, and distinguishing between the two is key. Furthermore, as the materiality field shifts toward compliance with mandatory disclosure, it is essential that sustainability strategies go further to connect dots between issues, clarify the “so what for business?” questions beyond simply understanding what needs to be reported, and ensure that companies mitigate impacts and risks while capturing business opportunities.  
3. Use stakeholder insights as a compass. Gathering insights from key internal and external (where relevant) stakeholders and understanding the level of desired (or expected) ambition is instrumental in setting goals, targets, and action plans. Doing so helps guide leadership on what is most important and why to act. 
4. Benchmarking can help illustrate what might be possible and identifies examples of leadership. Benchmarking shows various industry practices, commonalities, and examples of leadership within sustainability practices and performance. However, benchmarking has its limitations. It is important to refer to external context, standards, and frameworks to gain a more holistic understanding of what "good" looks like and avoid convergence to the middle. 
5. Strategic foresight enables business resilience and long-term value creation. Looking ahead is essential for creating strategies that are guided by a clear vision and built for long-term change. ”Futures thinking” can help make companies more resilient to volatility and shocks by helping their leaders better anticipate both risks and opportunities for value creation.   
6. It is essential to invest time in listening and communicating internally. The biggest challenge to most sustainability strategies, once leadership buy-in and alignment is achieved and the strategy is set, is implementation. Enabling ownership and uptake across business units and functions; listening to and retaining existing goals, work, and programs; and building off successes and avoiding repeated mistakes are key to creating strategies that work in practice. 
7. Clear governance and accountability systems are critical to success. Clarifying responsibilities, integrating operational execution of goals and targets into the organizational culture, and building relationships will enable a smooth transition from strategy creation to execution. A robust governance model promotes a continuous dialogue with the board to obtain their input and oversight, with a focus on long-term value.   
8. Continuous upskilling is needed internally, with structured engagement externally. Amid shifting investor expectations and rising regulatory demands, sustainability issues and its broader landscape are evolving rapidly. A company culture of continuous upskilling helps staff understand emerging issues, like the impacts of AI, biodiversity, and the just transition, and act with agility in responding to new risks and opportunities. This approach, coupled with structured and continuous external engagement, also keeps companies apprised of changing stakeholder expectations and attuned to potential collaboration opportunities. 
9. Begin with the end in mind. Start your strategy by defining what “good” (or even “great”) looks like. Ground this vision in stakeholder expectations, ambition-setting exercises, and comprehensive disclosure frameworks’ requirements. Having clarity on the end goal and long-term objective will ensure that your strategy is both aligned with business value creation and built to deliver long-term impact. 
10. Strategic partnership enhances impact. Effective sustainability strategies are not built in isolation. Success comes from combining a company’s deep understanding of its business, governance, and culture with an external partner’s objective perspective, sustainability expertise, and forward-looking approach. Working collaboratively enables both efficiency and greater impact. At BSR, we act as trusted partners, often seen as an extension of our members’ teams, helping to co-create strategies that are grounded in business realities while shaped by broader trends and stakeholder expectations. This partnership model supports long-term value creation and implementation success. 

Sustainability leaders are facing significant headwinds, including regulatory uncertainty, ESG backlash, resource constraints, and shifting leadership priorities. These dynamics test the resilience of even the strongest strategies.  

While the above still hold, they require nuance. For example, benchmarking can be a trap if peers are retreating from their ambitions or are not sharing their work publicly. Now more than ever, it’s about spotting where quiet leadership and continued progress can enable business differentiation without creating new risks. Materiality must go beyond compliance to connect issues, anticipate future priorities, and guide action. Ambition and foresight are strategic assets when others are pausing; they help companies navigate future risk while staying anchored to current purpose. In short, a sustainability strategy today must be principled, adaptive, and built to endure.  

BSR works with member companies to build structured strategic approaches, grounded in foresight and sustainability expertise, that boost long-term business value. If you’re interested in refreshing or designing your next sustainability strategy, or simply seeking quick feedback, please reach out to BSR’s Sustainability Management team.

Blog | Tuesday August 6, 2024

Investing for Impact: A Leadership Framework for Private Equity Investors

Preview

In today’s landscape, businesses are increasingly recognizing the connections between social justice, climate impacts, and financial returns, which has driven a shift towards impact investing. 

This shift is not just a trend but a significant movement reshaping the industry. The impact investing market reached US$495.82 billion in 2023, up from US$420.91 billion in 2022, reflecting a 17.8 percent compound annual growth rate. The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) reported that the market size amounted to US$1.164 trillion in assets under management in 2022. Private equity is at the forefront of this growth, with nearly half of all capital allocated to impact investments coming from private equity and private debt. Major players like KKR and TPG are making substantial commitments, with KKR raising nearly US$2 billion for its second impact fund and TPG closing its Rise Climate Fund at US$7.3 billion.

PE investors can provide critical capital, expertise and exert management influence across the sectors they invest in, initiating steps to drive positive impact. In addition, the holding period of investments, which is an average of about five years for PE firms, is crucial for creating significant value. During this time, asset managers can utilize their expertise to amplify environmental and social impacts. Effective impact leadership within private equity is characterized by proactive engagement, strategic vision, and the ability to drive substantial value through environmental and social initiatives.

Some of the leadership practices in impact investing are: 

• Attributing and Contributing to Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) outcomes: Ensuring interventions contributing to the SDGs and attributing positive outcomes to their specific actions during the holding period provide building blocks toward impact accountability.
• Prioritizing Material Sustainability Issues: Integrating environmental, social, and governance into investment strategies, not only mitigates risks but also identifies opportunities for positive impact. 
• Implementing Impact Measurement Frameworks: Developing impact measurement frameworks with clear impact goals, procedures for regularly tracking progress, and adjusting as needed to achieve desired outcomes. 
• Ensuring Effective Governance: Setting the scene for long-term success by improving board structures and diversity, increasing accountability, and ensuring strategic oversight, which are key for long-term success. 
• Embedding Operational Improvements: Implementing efficiency measures, process optimizations, and leveraging technology to enhance a twin financial and impact performance—enhancing efficiency and reducing costs. 

Impact investors can use a variety of innovative methods to develop impact value creation levers.

Building on these leadership practices, PE investors employ a variety of methods and innovations to drive impact. Investor contributions could be both financial and non-financial, encompassing a range of strategies to create value. According to a report by Tideline Impact Capital Managers, impact value creation levers include:

• Impact Positioning: Strengthening market presence by positioning the brand as impact focused (e.g., by redefining the organization’s vision). 
• Workforce Initiatives: Engaging employees to improve job culture and workforce (e.g., through employee engagement surveys). 
• Impact Incentives: Aligning management incentives with impact goals (e.g., through compensation structures that are linked to impact performance). 
• Impact Risk Management: Managing impact risks to avoid unintended consequences (e.g., by assessing physical and transition climate risk impact on the business). 

Innovative approaches to investor contributions have emerged, particularly in areas like climate risks, technology, and geographic expansion.

Notable Examples of Impact Value Creation Levers 

• Market Building: LeapFrog supported Redcliffe Labs in expanding its healthcare diagnostics services in India through strategic acquisition, resulting in substantial revenue growth and a broader impact reach.
• Product/Service Development: Rethink Capital Partners helped AllHere, an EdTech business, enhance its core product with an AI chatbot during the pandemic. This pivot allowed the business to maintain demand for its services and significantly increase its reach and revenue.
• Impact Risk Management: Nuveen assisted Annapuma, a microfinance business, in integrating physical climate risk data into its operations developing an alert system for customers during climate disasters, and reducing loan default risks.

Only a minority of investors monitor the results of their contribution, missing the opportunity to fully capture the true impact of their investment.

The initiatives below help investors document and validate their contributions, ensuring they are meaningful and impactful. 

Innovative Tools for Tracking Impact

• Impact Frontiers' Investor Contribution 2.0: This tool helps investors better track and monitor their contributions with metric taxonomies and engagement tracking templates. British International Investment (BIL) participated in a pilot project for this initiative, enhancing its ability to track and report on impact contributions.
• MedAccess' Bespoke Counterfactual Framework: MedAccess developed a unique framework to assess and validate expected investor contributions to impact, particularly in the health sector. This framework helps determine where financial contributions will have the greatest impact.

There is the constant challenge of measuring these outcomes, with the need to move from simply measuring outputs to meaningful measurement indicators as to the depth of impact experienced by end-beneficiaries. Looking forward, massive opportunities exist for impact managers to innovate in this area, moving away from easy-to-measure indicators, to building meaningful indicators from the ground up. 

BSR supports its private equity members in adopting effective leadership, and taking innovative approaches backed by rigorous tracking to drive progress toward a just and sustainable world.

For more information or support, please contact us.

Blog | Thursday April 20, 2017

How Global Value Chains Push and Pull U.S. Companies on Climate Action

Preview

In the United States, companies are engaging in climate action as a result of different domestic business drivers: Investing in renewables, innovating to create climate-compatible products, and attracting new talent through environmental values are most often driven by local or regional imperatives.

But for most companies operating within global value chains, the pull and push of climate action also comes from abroad, and many U.S. companies now understand the potential to demonstrate global leadership through climate action.

The pull factor: Multinational corporations are engaging their suppliers on climate like never before.

Addressing supply chain climate impacts is a necessary step for companies with ambitious climate strategies and commitments. That’s because, compared with direct emissions in a company’s own operations, the average ratio of indirect emissions in the supply chain is 4 to 1. Despite this, the scale of such action is challenging: Only 34 percent of suppliers who report to the CDP supply chain report are able to decrease their operational emissions every year. A further 36 percent of suppliers say they have insufficient data to track progress.

U.S. companies aspiring to become climate leaders in the global economy have an opportunity to improve their suppliers’ action, pulling more companies along on the path toward a thriving, clean economy.

Walmart—which has set ambitious science-based targets to reduce its absolute emissions by 18 percent by 2025 from 2015 levels—represents an example of this potential. The company is working with suppliers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacture and use of products by 1 billion tons between 2015 and 2030. That’s equivalent to the emissions of 291 coal-fired power plants for one year.

While many of Walmart’s global suppliers—including Dell, Diageo, General Mills, Kellogg, and Sony—already have science-based targets, many of them do not. Through its commitment, Walmart will engage in supplier development and collaboration on sustainability programs, and the company may consider working with competitors and stakeholders to set industry standards. The company is driven to transform product offerings and business models to engineer out downstream climate impacts while saving costs. By the end of 2017, Walmart aims to engage more than 500 manufacturers in China in a factory-based energy-efficiency program.

With stores in 15 countries outside of the United States and 228 distribution centers that support its overseas operations, restaurants, and food-processing facilities, Walmart’s climate ambition is not only a matter of what it can achieve for its own operations at the local level. It is also an avenue to demonstrate U.S. leadership with partners all over the world.

General Mills also set ambitious science-based targets to reduce absolute emissions by 28 percent across its entire value chain by 2025, with a focus on purchased goods and services (dairy, row crops, and packaging) and delivery and distribution. The company also plans to help its growers and other suppliers adapt to climate change impacts. Because of this ambition, General Mills is recognized as a leader on climate action in its industry and globally. 

The push factor: China is emerging as a new climate leader, pressuring more U.S. companies to meet its standards.

Today, China is rivaling U.S. leadership on climate action. China is now the biggest investor in renewable energy, investing US$102.9 billion in 2015, which is more than twice the investments made by any other country—including the United States, which invested US$44.1 billion that same year.

In January, China announced it would invest US$361 billion in renewable power by 2020. This growth has many benefits for China, including the creation of 3.5 million jobs in renewable energy. The government expects renewables employment to reach 13 million by 2020—the equivalent of adding more than 5,000 new jobs a day. Between 2012 and 2015, China added 1.8 million jobs in renewables, compared with only 157,000 in the United States. In addition to taking the lead in jobs, Chinese companies dominate the global renewable energy market: The world’s largest wind energy company and five of the top six solar firms are Chinese. Importantly, China has reiterated its commitment to the Paris Agreement, which has helped position the country as the new global leader on climate.

This climate activity is likely to push U.S. companies toward more ambitious action. The license for doing business in China may soon include strong environmental performance and ambitious climate action. American companies will have the choice either to align with China’s new climate leadership or, better yet, surpass it. If American companies don’t align, the United States may lose its current position as the climate leader operating through global value chains. This could, in turn, weaken key aspects of U.S. competitiveness.

Taken together, the push and pull of global value chains will build momentum for climate action and pressure U.S. companies to engage supply chain partners more deeply and keep pace with new global climate leaders. 

Blog | Wednesday January 15, 2020

Business Leadership in Defending Inclusive Societies and LGBTI Rights at Davos 2020

Preview

Despite recent progress from Taiwan, which became the first country in Asia to pass marriage equality, to Botswana, where a colonial-era ban on same-sex relations was struck down, the ILGA World’s 2019 Map shows the breadth of discrimination currently facing LGBTI people across the globe. Nearly 70 countries still criminalize homosexuality, unconscionably very few countries legally recognize the identity of trans people, and only a handful protect the rights of intersex people. Tragically, for many LGBTI people around the world, homophobia, fear, and hate remain a daily reality. 

Next week, the World Economic Forum will host its 50th Annual Meeting, bringing together the world’s top leaders from the private sector, government, civil society, media, and academia to “address the most pressing issues on the global agenda.” The Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality (PGLE) is pleased that the economic inclusion discussion in Davos will shine a light on the discrimination faced by millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people worldwide every day—more than fifty years after Stonewall, the “birth” of the gay liberation movement. 

Recognizing that the power of business could be leveraged to advance LGBTI inclusivity, in 2016, a group of companies organized a meeting in Davos that, according to UN Human Rights, “was a turning point in a long-overdue conversation among prominent business leaders and activists about practical measures companies can and should take to tackle LGBTI discrimination.” That conversation led to the UN Standards of Conduct for Business Tackling Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, & Intersex People (UN Standards), issued by the UN in September 2017. 

From local jurisdictions to national assemblies, thought-leading companies have worked with a broad range of stakeholders across the world to fight homophobia, fear, and hate and to advance human rights for members of the LGBTI community. 

That meeting four years ago is but one of many examples of the key role that the business community has played in advancing LGBTI equality, diversity, and inclusion globally. From local jurisdictions to national assemblies, thought-leading companies have worked with a broad range of stakeholders across the world to fight homophobia, fear, and hate and to advance human rights for members of the LGBTI community. 

Like the UN Standards, the idea for forming the Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality was born in Davos—but a few years earlier—when some of the companies that later became our Founding Members organized an LGBTI roundtable discussion.  Over the years, the breadth of the Davos LGBTI discussions grew and, since 2015, have been part of the Forum’s official Annual Meeting program. 

Through the leadership, commitment, and support of our Founding Member companies, PGLE was formally launched by the Forum in Davos last year as a project of its Platform for Shaping the Future of the New Economy and Society. In addition to being a project of the World Economic Forum, PGLE is also working in collaboration with UN Human Rights and our civil society partners, Human Rights Watch and OutRight Action International. 

To quote in part from the Forum’s press release in announcing the creation of PGLE:

“Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity not only violates universal basic human rights, it also adversely impacts the long-term economic prospects of individuals, businesses and countries. A 2017 UNAIDS study estimated the global cost of LGBTI discrimination at $100 billion per year. Businesses have an important role to play in respecting and protecting human rights through fostering workplace inclusion for LGBTI people.”

Simply put, PGLE is a coalition of organizations committed to leveraging their individual and collective advocacy to accelerate LGBTI equality and inclusion in the workplace and in the broader communities in which they operate. PGLE member companies recognize and take responsibility not just for the impact they have on their employees' lives but also on the broader communities in which they operate.

If you are in Davos next week, we hope you will join us for a discussion of “LGBTI Rights and the Role of the Private Sector” on January 21, 2020, from 7:30-9 a.m. at the SDG Tent (Ocean Room), 139 Promenade, Davos. Please RSVP here. 

We look forward to seeing you in Davos. If you’re unable to join us for the event, you can tune in to the livestream on the PGLE site. In addition, if you’re interested in learning more about leveraging the power of business to advance LGBTI equality, please feel free to connect with us.

Live from the World Economic Forum 2020: LGBTI Rights and the Role of the Private Sector

Blog | Wednesday May 8, 2024

The United States Is At Risk of Marginalizing Itself on Sustainability: What Business Can Do

Preview

This is the second of a two-part series on how developments in the United States are marginalizing its global leadership role, and creating unnecessary barriers to the achievement of a more just and sustainable global economy. 

The lack of consistent American engagement and leadership on just and sustainable business is having far-reaching consequences. The picture we painted in the first installment of this two-part series includes inconsistent and changing regulations, opposing approaches in different US states, a decline in global cooperation, and increased geopolitical conflict that interferes with global trade. These developments are bad not only for sustainable business, but also bad for business in general. 

With this in mind, what can business do? While many companies have gone quiet in the face of backlash and skepticism—mostly while maintaining commitments—that may not be the right influence strategy at a time when many forces are pulling the United States away from a more consistent and ambitious approach.  American poet Robert Frost famously wrote that when facing a problem, “the best way out is always through,” and that applies here.  To avoid further slippage of American leadership, it’s essential that companies go directly to one of the main sources of this erosion of ambition: the unfounded backlash against addressing important issues like climate action and the need for greater equity.     

While many business leaders would prefer to avoid the political risk they see in calling for more decisive direction from the US, standing aside is riskier than engaging. A failure of American leadership and constancy will only magnify and deepen the many uncertainties facing companies due to multiple disruptions.

Put more positively, companies benefit from sustained American engagement in many ways: consistent and predictable rules to enable more stable planning; global cooperation to address shared challenges; ideally, respect for rule of law; support for financial support for the energy transition, and policies that promote the innovations and investments needed to shift the economy to a fairer and more sustainable pathway.

There is a strong business case for companies to call for American engagement in support of a more sustainable world. To be credible messengers, business also needs to look in the mirror: one of the reasons that support for sustainability in the US is waning is the fact that the public has lost faith in the global economy as a driver of shared prosperity. For the private sector to exert influence in a way society embraces, it has to go further in terms of action, credible communication, and willingness to engage in advocacy.

Action: One of the reasons why much of the general public, and many policymakers, are wary of the sustainable business agenda is the insufficient evidence of progress. It is high time to close the gap between commitment and delivery. Whether on Scope 3 climate goals, diversity objectives, labor conditions in global supply chains, or designing technologies with society’s best interests in mind, there are legitimate reasons why “ESG” has become a juicy target for political opponents. What’s more, there has been little effort to make economic equity and opportunity a strong enough part of the sustainability agenda. Closing the delivery gap is easier said than done, and is a prize in itself. Doing so is a predicate for the private sector to use its voice credibly and effectively. 

Communication: Public officials’ commitment to sustainability is driven in part by tepid public support. And weak public support is due in large part to the disconnect between what sustainability advocates say and what the general public understands and feels to be true. We all know that business has not communicated effectively on sustainability, in some cases conveying grand messages on “corporate purpose” which are not sufficiently matched by actions at best, or which were never “real” to begin with at worst. Objectives also are often disconnected from the reality of peoples’ lives. The exciting innovation stories behind many sustainability initiatives is something that is either underplayed, or may not resonate with the average person. As a result, sustainability seems to be suffering from its own “vibecession,” with the progress taking place lost on people who feel vulnerable economically and nervous about the overall pace of change they are experiencing. Blaming the audience never works, however, so it is essential to make sustainability more real, and more compelling. This will have the echo effect of strengthening political support and pushing back on the backlash. 

Advocacy: Business’ influence as an advocate for supportive public policy has been stilled over the past two years, as companies have faced blowback from some elected officials, and skepticism from the media, stakeholders, and even employees. While it may be true that new commitments were trumpeted too loudly in 2020-21, it also seems true that greenhushing has gone too far now. The business voice needs to be heard. What’s more the voice that needs to be heard is in sync with business interests as well as sustainability objectives. Companies have an interest in the rules-based global trade system, consistent regulatory frameworks, and a commitment to global cooperation to address shared global challenges. Business—if it shores up its credibility based on delivering against goals—can be a powerful voice that helps to ensure that the US remains committed to these objectives and actions. Without this, the private sector could see further slippage into a combative and volatile environment that furthers neither economic vitality nor sustainability progress. 

Building an economy that works for all people is, by definition, a matter of universal concern. And while “Sustainability Americana” is not fit for purpose in today’s world, a coherent global approach to sustainability requires that America stay in the game. American leadership matters—and it won’t happen without businesses calling for ambition, cooperation, and engagement.