Search Results

Blog | Wednesday May 17, 2017

Registration Now Open for the BSR Conference 2017: How Business Leads

Preview

BSR’s 25th annual Conference—taking place October 24-26 in Huntington Beach, California—is happening during a critical time in the field of sustainability, with disruptive change affecting every dimension of business.

Our 2017 theme of “How Business Leads” will set the stage for three days of vital conversation, collaboration, and action. We are excited to gather our community together to explore how business can take the lead during this crucial moment.

I’m pleased to announce that registration is now open, and our best rates are available through June 30.

As we finalize the Conference agenda over the next several months, we will look to our theme to explore business leadership in its many forms. We will present topical examples of business leading on climate change, human rights, inclusive economy, supply chain sustainability, sustainability management, and women’s empowerment. Our 30 breakout sessions will dive deep into today’s most important issues, from achieving the vision of the Sustainable Development Goals to using climate resilience to build strong and inclusive supply chains. In recognition of our anniversary, our “Fast Forward 25” sessions will look at the future of sustainable business, with vibrant conversations on topics such as generating quality livelihoods in the era of automation and the ethics of artificial intelligence. 

Our trailblazing plenary sessions are the most talked-about parts of the Conference, and the conversations this year promise to be more thought-provoking and motivating than ever. We are thrilled to share a quick preview of our plenary lineup to date: Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, will highlight her work leading a movement to build a healthier and safer world for women and teens. And Google.org President Jaquelline Fuller, Mercy Corps CEO Neal Keny-Guyer, and TripAdvisor CEO Stephen Kaufer will engage in a candid discussion about the business response to the refugee crisis.

From our unrivaled content to our integrated networking events, #BSR17 will be the place to be this October. And did we mention our new location? On the beach? You can’t beat fresh air, conference rooms with natural sunlight, and immersive experiences taking advantage of the incredible Huntington Beach. We hope you will join us and our global community to take business leadership to the next level. We can’t wait to see you this October!

Register for BSR17 by June 30 to receive the best rates. Check the BSR Conference website often for more exciting announcements, including additional plenary speakers.

Blog | Thursday November 2, 2017

Reflections from the BSR Conference 2017 (And How to Review Highlights)

Preview

It’s been one week since the sun set on our 25th anniversary celebration at the BSR Conference 2017 in Huntington Beach, California. Since our 2016 Conference, which took place right before the U.S. election last November, a lot has changed in the world: Political volatility has increased, nationalistic sentiments are on the rise, we’ve experienced increased economic and technological disruptions, and policy changes around the globe are reshaping the path forward for business.

At the same time, in the past year, hundreds of businesses and leaders from the private sector, NGOs, U.S. local and state governments, and civil society have stepped up on an unprecedented scale and raised their voices on issues ranging from climate action to diversity and inclusion.

Last week at BSR17, we convened our member network and community to discuss how business can continue this momentum on sustainability leadership. Inspiration, positivity, and action-planning set the tone throughout our three days in Huntington Beach—in between sunrise yoga and al fresco meal functions, participants gathered to hear from changemakers on the plenary stage: Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore encouraged businesses to continue to take climate action, Microsoft’s Brad Smith described the company’s experience raising its voice on political issues and bridging the digital divide, and Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards urged companies to support women’s empowerment and health, specifically by committing to provide birth control regardless of regulatory changes in the U.S.

Breakout sessions on topics like engaging on public policy in uncertain times, futures thinking, and harnessing technologies for supply chain sustainability brought the brilliant minds of the BSR community together to discuss best practices and new ideas.

Here are five ways that you can re-live the highlights of our event—or catch the things you missed:

1. Watch plenary session videos: Almost every plenary session is now live on our YouTube channel, from Richards’ standing-ovation-receiving speech, to Morgan Stanley’s Audrey Choi’s presentation on inclusive growth, to a panel on how corporations can help solve the global refugee crisis, to National Geographic Photographer Annie Griffiths’ inspiring talk on the power of photography as a tool for telling stories and creating empathy.
2. See the social media highlights: Follow @BSRnews, @BSRherproject, and BSR staff on Twitter, and see what you missed on the #BSR17 hashtag. You will also find photo highlights on our Instagram accounts, @bsrorg and @herprojectbsr.
3. Find yourself in photos: We’ve uploaded photos from the week onto our Flickr account—head on over to see whether we captured you, or your favorite moment, in our BSR Conference album.
4. Share your thoughts: If you were with us in Huntington Beach, please take a moment to complete the Conference survey (available in the mobile app under “Surveys”). If you weren’t there, you can always tweet at us or email us your perspective.
5. Read our new insights: We launched several new publications last week, including our new report on The Future of Sustainable Business. And we published blog posts about a new UN Foundation report on how business can support women’s health and empowerment and Morgan Stanley’s new framework on embedding inclusive growth. Our new Climate Policy Tracker tool with We Mean Business is also now live.

Thank you for participating in our 25th anniversary event, whether you were stage-side in the ballroom with us or tuning in via Twitter and the livestream. You make our community strong, and the BSR Conference wouldn’t be as enlivening and inspiring without you—as Levi Strauss & Co. Vice President of Sustainability Michael Kobori proclaimed on stage during our BSR Alumni panel, “The BSR Conference has converted me from an optimistic pessimist to an optimistic optimist.”

Don’t forget to mark your calendars for November 6-8, 2018, when we head back to the East Coast for the BSR Conference 2018 in New York. We hope to see you next year!

Blog | Tuesday December 19, 2017

2017: The Year the C-Suite Got Woke?

Preview

The final big sustainability event of 2017 wrapped up just last week: The One Planet Summit convened by French President Emmanuel Macron just outside Paris. It delivered some important commitments designed to make good on the promise of Paris (more on that below), and it inspired me to reflect on all that has transpired over the past 12 months. 2017 overall is a year that will be remembered for two things: political turmoil and a new voice from business.

The West continues to be shaken by the election of Donald Trump and Europe’s own challenges of Brexit, security, and migration. Globally, the space for civil society is shrinking in the face of crackdowns by numerous governments in all parts of the world. In just the last quarter of the year, the United States has been rocked by deeply troubling revelations of widespread sexual harassment, leading—one hopes—to a cultural shift that will render such misconduct a thing of the past.

It is easy to focus on these challenges (which are indeed very large), but 2017 was also a year when business leaders helped to assert a steady hand, contributing leadership where it is badly needed.

In the United States, the voice of business has been heard far more often than is usually the case. CEOs and other business leaders spoke swiftly and overwhelmingly in favor of America’s staying in the Paris Agreement; in opposition to the immigration ban established by the White House; and at many points in favor of fair treatment of women and the LGBTQI+ community. Notably, the business advisory councils established by the Trump administration collapsed in reaction to its apparent coddling of the extreme racism on display in the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia. 2017 may well be considered the year when the C-suite, to use the word we heard so much this year, got woke.

Words are important, and this year they have been more important than ever. But actions are what we really need.

This year brought many signs of important business action. Globally, business remains deeply committed to addressing climate change. At last week’s Summit, new commitments were made by AXA on divestment from coal and oil sands; two dozen companies joined the Powering Past Coal initiative led by Canada and the United Kingdom; and more than 230 organizations expressed their intention to adopt the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. As President Macron stated last Tuesday, the world is moving too slowly; nonetheless, there is a great deal of action, and it is accelerating.

Progress has been made on other fronts as well. In addition to what we sincerely hope will be a turning point on sexual harassment, new steps have been taken to empower women around the world. Several companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Google, Mars, Microsoft, and Unilever launched the Unstereotype Alliance in partnership with UN Women—a new global alliance set to banish stereotypical portrayals of gender in advertising and all brand-led content. And more than two dozen companies, including Levi Strauss & Co. and TD Ameritrade, have expressed their support for the protection of family planning services in the face of the potential loss of these rights in the United States through Planned Parenthood’s Business for Birth Control effort.

The UN Forum on Business and Human Rights showed record turnout this year, and many companies have expressed their intention to continue taking and communicating action on conflict minerals despite the withdrawal of regulations under the U.S. Dodd-Frank law. In other contexts, legal provisions on supply chain and modern slavery continue to expand.

This was also a year when new issues emerged and became more important, as we outlined in our report on The Future of Sustainable Business. More and more, the future of work, climate resilience, and the human rights impacts of new technologies are being discussed in board rooms. Solutions are not yet here, but we can see growing recognition that the profound changes are reshaping business as fundamentally as they are disrupting the “old economy.” For 2018, we hope that more decisive action will begin to flow from this awareness.

In a year with lots of unrest, there is much the business community did to speak out when needed and apply its resources to the world’s most pressing challenges. This is not to say that the private sector got it right all the time. Big issues remain, and corporate missteps occurred this year as they do every year. Even now, traditional business associations have continued to lend support for a deregulation agenda in the U.S. that undercuts the very sustainability commitments from the private sector that have become mainstream.   

Looking ahead, the massive shifts in our world will continue to define not only sustainability, not just business, but in fact everything, from our daily routines to the building blocks of the world’s economy. How business responds to—and better yet, shapes—these tectonic shifts will define the years and decades ahead.  We will turn to that, and what BSR will be doing to meet this moment, early in the new year.

For now, let us celebrate the leadership business exerted in 2017, and use that as a springboard for positive change in the year to come.

Blog | Tuesday April 30, 2024

The United States is at Risk of Marginalizing Itself on Sustainability

Preview

This is the first of a two-part series on how developments in the United States are marginalizing the American leadership globally and creating unnecessary barriers to the achievement of a more just and sustainable global economy. Read the second blog here.

Over the first quarter of 2024, it is clear that the United States is at risk of marginalizing itself and its influence over the direction of the global economy, the urgent challenge of the energy transition, and the competitiveness of American enterprise. This presents an unnecessary risk not only to our collective well-being, but also to the effectiveness of American leadership.

While the Biden Administration and states like California and New York have continued to raise ambition and make smart public investments, several crosswinds threaten to interfere with the trajectory and consistency of these significant federal government actions.

America’s federal system is at the core of the issue. First, as is well known by now, many states and cities have pushed back—vigorously—on the rise of “ESG,” taking aim not only at the terminology, but also on the very concept that investors and businesses should consider the impact of topics like climate or DEI, even when they are plainly relevant to their businesses. The pushback of a loose coalition of state attorneys general has resulted in legal and political challenges to action on climate and diversity in particular. This so-called backlash has begun to have an impact not only on what companies say, but also what they do.

Second, the uber-litigious nature of American political culture means that rules like the SEC’s recent climate disclosure rule, as well as California’s rules, are being challenged in the courts, which could change or delay implementation. Indeed, the SEC’s climate disclosure rule was delayed and watered down in anticipation of significant legal challenge, and has now been paused by the SEC itself due to legal challenges. The end result is uncertainty, delay, and misalignment of US rules with the rest of the world. 

Finally, and has been the case for nearly a decade, the continued presence of Donald Trump on the American political scene, enabled by a fractured media environment in which some outlets traffic in mis- and disinformation, is also having an effect. Project 2025, considered the stalking horse for a second Trump presidency’s policy initiatives, takes direct aim at sustainable business and investing through multiple means, from politicizing the civil service to reversing many Biden administration regulations, and pension funds’ right to consider ESG factors. (The Inflation Reduction Act, however, which is enshrined in law, would likely be spared).

All this threatens to put the United States out of step with the direction of travel in most of the rest of the world, not least its usual allies and partners. Trade, global cooperation, consistent global rules, and political stability are all at risk. 

• Trade: During my recent visit to Singapore and Japan, the focus on a trade-based agenda stood in sharp contrast to the focus on domestic manufacturing in the US, and protectionist sentiments that are, for example, putting Nippon Steel’s acquisition of US Steel at risk. The feeling in much of Asia is that the US has abandoned the open trading system that has generated rising living standards across Asia, ever since it disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2016. This is not to say that there are not legitimate reasons why the US has soured on the Washington Consensus, despite its provenance. But the fact that is too often lost on Americans is that the world is ready, willing, and able to get on with the trade agenda, whether or not the US is an eager participant, let alone a leader, and certainly diminishes its role as a central actor on the world stage. Even more, a Trump return to power, especially if it is accompanied by major tariffs, would not only see the US pull back further from open trade, it also would threaten to create a massive disruption and possible trade war. This is deeply concerning to most of the world. All is not lost, however, as witnessed by the announcement this month of a Climate and Trade Task Force by the Biden Administration. 
• Global cooperation: The growing strains of isolation in the US may undermine the US role in negotiating international agreements well beyond trade, including on climate, nature and human rights. There is little doubt that a second Trump term would again turn the US away from multilateralism, this time potentially with even greater impacts. Given the immense significance of COP30 in 2025, where the next round of national climate commitments are due, progress will be hindered by a lack of American engagement. If the world’s largest economy is not working to build international cooperation, the world will find other ways to muddle forward, with the US lamentably lagging behind, forfeiting its leadership status.
• Consistent sustainability regulations: Every business is counting on the slow but steady march towards more harmonized sustainability regulations, with reporting and disclosure being especially important. As we noted in our commentary on the SEC rule released last month, the US now looks out of step with an otherwise growing global consensus. The reasons are understandable, and linked to the backlash and federal system noted above. The unfortunate result, however, is inconsistency that hinders a smoothly running financial system. The US is now playing catch up—most global companies will end up following the rules being adopted in most other markets—and losing the ability to shape how markets operate.
• Emboldening populists: The last point is more about the direction of global politics. The US risks reinforcing the drive towards a populist nationalism that fosters protectionist economics and xenophobic, authoritarian politics. The US is at risk of landing on the side of those who wish to build walls when cooperation is needed; who turn their eyes away from the climate crisis instead of embracing an ambitious national project to fight it, and build the American economy of the future, and who promote raw power politics instead of respect for rule of law and transparency, which history tells us is necessary for genuine and shared human progress. This is an historic shift away from the US’s posture for most of the 80 years since the end of World War II. 

This is of obvious and crucial importance to the entire world. But what is equally true is that this is also of central importance to the well-being, position, and prosperity of the United States and its citizens.

Business wants to make sure the system of global trade continues, for obvious reasons. Business can make the case, but currently it is seen as a flawed messenger by much of the American public. It can make the case for an American public that has lost faith that US leadership globally is worthwhile. The path forward? Business can be effective, though only if it fully embraces a version of global trade that rests on decisive action on climate and nature, respect for all peoples, and rule of law and human rights. 

We will turn our attention to how business can and should respond in our next installment. 

Blog | Monday September 18, 2017

Collaborating to Achieve Climate Leadership

Preview

This week, leaders from around the globe will converge in New York City to participate in the conversation about the UN Sustainable Development Goals and our climate future.

Corporate climate action has been on the rise for a few years now: Since We Mean Business launched in 2014, 596 companies have made 1,030 climate commitments; almost 300 of those are commitments to set science-based targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions.

For the world’s largest companies, climate action increasingly means collaboration. As ambitious as these companies are, they cannot reach their GHG emissions reduction goals without forging partnerships in their value chains and beyond. Moreover, they are finding that collaboration can reap benefits beyond emissions reductions.

This past June, BSR and CDP convened 19 companies in Stockholm to share their insights on the value of partnerships in reducing GHG emissions. Stora Enso, who hosted the event in its new innovation center in the Swedish capital, demonstrated how its own climate programs are driven by deep collaboration. The company, a leading provider of renewable solutions in packaging, biomaterials, wooden constructions, and paper, has entered into many fruitful public and private partnerships in support of its climate ambitions, including the following:

• 13 of its mills provide biofuels to local municipal district heating systems.
• In Belgium, its Langerbrugge mill is helping Volvo Car Gent cut CO2 emissions via a district heating connection that uses industrial waste for energy production.
• The company’s Montes del Plata pulp mill produces electricity from biomass and delivers five percent of Uruguay’s annual consumption to the national grid.
• Stora Enso has entered a Carbon Pact with Maersk Line to jointly reduce their GHG emissions.

These types of partnerships were a common theme in the discussion around the table—Electrolux, IKEA Group, and H&M, for instance, also shared their own experiences collaborating, with suppliers in particular, to pursue ambitious emissions reduction goals.

Other recent major climate announcements have similarly strong collaboration components. For example, Mars announced that it will spend US$1 billion in the coming years to tackle sustainability issues, including climate change. Specifically, Mars will focus on its supply chain, acting on the words of CEO Mark Reid, that “We must work together, because the engine of global business—its supply chain—is broken, and requires transformational, cross-industry collaboration to fix it.” Mars already had goals in place to reach net zero emissions within its own operations by 2040, but under its new “Sustainable in a Generation” plan (which will complement existing targets), the company has committed to reduce emissions across its value chains by 67 percent by 2050.

Last year, Walmart—the world’s largest employer and largest company in the world by revenue—launched its Project Gigaton to pursue an absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 18 percent by 2025 and further work to prevent the release of 1 gigaton of emissions in its global supply chain by 2030. With this project, Walmart will provide an emissions reduction toolkit to a broad network of its suppliers, focusing on areas such as manufacturing, materials, and use of products.  

As these examples reveal, the future of climate action is a path charted with innovative and transformative partnerships, and many companies are already working with their various stakeholders toward a climate-compatible future.

I invite you to join me at the annual BSR Conference next month in Huntington Beach, California, as business pioneers this new territory. I will be moderating a conversation with Björn Hannappel, head of responsibility strategy and standards, Deutsche Post DHL Group, and Brandon Owens, director of environmental strategy and analytics, GE, to explore how current modes of production, manufacturing, consumption, product design, and financing tools will be affected by climate change, as well as how collaboration can help companies face risks and seize opportunities as leaders in a low-carbon economy.

This week, we will feature several blog posts about the role of collaboration in shaping our climate future. Follow @BSRnews on Twitter for updates from Global Goals Week and Climate Week NYC; see our recent blog post for the full list of where we’ll be.

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 | Tuesday November 12, 2024

The Silent G: Six Questions Every Leadership Team Should Ask About Sustainability Governance

Preview

The term ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) is easy to say but hard to deliver. In fact, recent election results may make it even harder—by exacerbating the fundamental drivers of environmental degradation and societal discord.

Pursuing the vision of just and sustainable business has never been for the faint of heart. Yet business adoption of E, S, and G has progressed, albeit at different paces. Corporate investment in E has the longest history and has proven over decades to improve the state of land, water, air, and climate. Corporate prioritization of S has yielded strides in diversity and inclusion within the enterprise, and improved human rights and workers’ rights along the value chain. And while work in all of these areas is far from complete, new issues are popping up on the ESG agenda, from nature and biodiversity to living wage, a just transition, and responsible AI.

What about G? Governance flashed into the spotlight in 2020-21 with CEO-level commitments spurred by a few select yet seismic events, including Covid-19, the Me Too movement, and the cost-of-living crisis. But this chorus of commitments has quieted—due to the politicization of ESG topics, the challenge of executing against ambitious goals, and the consideration required to align governance with new, turbulent market and societal dynamics.

Don’t Be Fooled by the Silent G.

In BSR’s recent report The CSO at a Crossroads: Three Paths Forward for Sustainability Leaders, 83 percent of the CSOs interviewed felt that increased involvement by other C-suite executives helped advance ambitious sustainability objectives that protect and promote the business. This indicates that despite concerns about market dynamics, corporate leaders see the silent G as a positive force. That support is manifesting in increased professionalization of the CSO role, and the integration of sustainability across corporate functions and from the back office to the boardroom.

In fact, in closed-door convenings and private conversations around the globe, we’re seeing companies refocusing on G. They are assessing material ESG impacts; building data streams to measure and monitor progress; and hiring ESG controllers to collect, consolidate, and report.

At the same time, they are evaluating and upgrading organizational capacity to manage material ESG issues, both within the company and across the value chain. This first piece of homework—baseline analysis—is apt preparation for previously voluntary disclosure regimes such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which is being embedded in regulations around the world, and for new newly minted requirements such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It also provides a solid foundation for corporate leaders navigating an extremely dynamic, high-risk operating environment, as described in BSR’s report, Between Two Worlds: Sustainable Business in the Turbulent Transition. The number and complexity of the issues at stake and the number and divergence of critical stakeholders underscores the essential role of strategy, oversight, and control to build business resilience.

Principles of Good Sustainability Governance: Key Questions

The confluence of all these developments is a real and abiding tension between pragmatism and ambition, which was on full display at Climate Week New York in September and continues to dominate the atmosphere in which sustainability plans are being developed. As corporate leaders contemplate how to assess and improve sustainability governance in this environment, we suggest asking six sets of questions, three each at the Business and Board levels:

Business

1. Organizational structure, roles and responsibilities: What organizational models will ensure that material issues pertinent to specific business functions get the support, attention, resources, and controls they merit? How should you assign accountability for sustainability across functions? How should you align competency, resources, accountability in practice, and ensure that upskilling happens at all needed levels?
2. Stakeholder engagement: How do you identify, target, and constructively engage stakeholders? What tools and levers can you use to anticipate and prepare for disruptive events?
3. Resilience: How do you harness internal expertise and external perspectives to drive resilience throughout the business and along the value chain? How can company resources be leveraged to anticipate and prepare for cross cutting issues, like climate and health, nature and human rights, and the just transition?

Board

1. Competencies: Does the Board have the depth of expertise required to evaluate key ESG topics, both within the business and in the larger policy environment? How is this expertise integrated into Board structures, roles, and responsibilities?
2. Strategy and risk: What mechanisms does the Board have in place to understand the full range of material sustainability risks and opportunities for the business? How does it maintain a current, coherent view of evolving market dynamics and potential impacts on both business resilience and external stakeholders?
3. Oversight, controls, and accountability: As Boards work to formalize ESG oversight in light of new mandatory disclosure regulations, how are material sustainability issues integrated into enterprise risk management? What mechanisms are in place to support timely oversight and informed decision-making on business strategy, market entry, M&A, and other areas under Board purview? How are decision-making structures and director incentives aligned with ESG goals?  

In BSR’s experience, companies whose leaders ask these questions regularly—and sense-check them with materiality assessments, stakeholder discussions, and learning and foresight sessions—are more resilient to external forces, from extreme weather to economic headwinds.

If you are interested in learning more, stay tuned: we will address each set of questions in upcoming blogs. In the meantime, if you are seeking advisory support to build, enhance, or stress-test your corporate or Board sustainability governance structure, get in touch! Learn more about BSR’s corporate governance activities or contact the Sustainability Management team.

Blog | Wednesday May 16, 2018

BSR18: A New Blueprint for Business

Preview

The world is changing at a rapid pace.

The business agenda is changing, and the sustainability agenda needs to change with it. At the BSR Conference 2018 in New York City November 6-8, we will be presenting “A New Blueprint for Business,” defining a path that enables business to thrive in societies that prosper.

With you, we hope to design a vision of 21st-century prosperity. Over the next several months, we will continue to work with our member companies and many other partners to shape this new agenda.  At the Conference, we will share this thinking, inspire debate, and present leaders who are redefining what it takes to build a truly sustainable business that is resilient in the context of profound change.

Join us in New York to explore what this new agenda means for your company and your role. Issues that have long been part of the remit of sustainability professionals are changing and becoming more and more central to business strategy.

Since the last BSR Conference in Huntington Beach, we have seen new concerns over privacy, sexual harassment, and human rights make headlines and rock business models. This year’s Conference will illuminate the ways that familiar issues are taking on new importance and presenting new questions.  We will also explore solutions to emerging issues, like the future of work and climate resilience, that will come to define sustainability leadership in the years to come. BSR18 will present new approaches that are redefining the way sustainability is practiced inside companies—whether through the sustainability team or, as is increasingly the case, by other functions and business leaders.

We will also immerse ourselves in new ways of doing business. Business models are changing fast, and financial and reporting models are in the midst of what may be transformative change. Sustainability features more and more in product innovation, and new companies are emerging each week with sustainability at their core. And, of course, new technologies and communication tools are radically reshaping the ways companies can understand and engage with their ever-shifting array of stakeholders.

And we will help you answer the profoundly important question of what exactly business’s role is in a time of transformational change. What should the business voice be when issues surrounding race, gender, migration, and refugees roil the communities around us? What is the role of the CEO in expressing her voice on topics like climate change? How can business appropriately influence policy frameworks to ensure that the social contract adapts to 21st-century realities?

No business can stand aside while these crucial questions are being debated. We will identify ways that companies can make sense of this environment, contribute to prosperous and fair societies, and make their employees proud.

We are excited to be preparing an event that will show how the sustainability agenda is changing and adapting to our new reality. What’s more, we will present ideas about how you and your company can stay ahead of a shifting universe.

The values held by the sustainability community—respect for all people, stewardship of natural resources, and transparency—have never been more important. And in a changing environment, values are more essential than ever. By applying these core principles to a new reality, we will chart a course for business at BSR18 that enables forward-looking leadership.

Register for the BSR Conference 2018 by June 29 to receive our best rates.

Blog | Wednesday February 21, 2024

2024’s Elections: A Defining Test for Business Leadership

Preview

As more than half of the world’s voting-age population heads to the polls in 2024—more than in any previous year in human history—there is a wave of anxiety cutting across business, civil society, governments, and in many places, the very citizens whose voices are to be heard at the ballot box. 

It is, indeed, an epochal moment. Most of us take democracy, and the rule of law, as a stable constant in our public life. But it’s not something we can take for granted. The rise of anti-democratic parties around the world has set off alarms. It is far from clear, however, that business has faced up to the urgency of the moment. Although, according to a recent report in Fortune, business leaders increasingly recognize that political disruptions do pose a significant risk. 

Business cannot thrive in an environment where trust in democratic institutions is undermined, where objective facts are under attack, where social consensus is unattainable, and where populism stokes resentment and interferes with global collaboration.  

All of those things are in play in 2024’s elections, from India to Mexico to the United States, to the European Union, and dozens more jurisdictions.

This would, at other points in history, be considered a political question that is not front and center for business. For multiple reasons, that mode of thinking is a luxury that businesses cannot afford. 

To start, while elections ensure that the people have their say in governance, there are many reasons why this year’s spate of elections may not have that effect. First and foremost is mis/disinformation, including AI-powered deepfakes, which generate false information that distorts outcomes and destroys trust.  

Already this year, in the US and Pakistan, false information and deep-faked communications ostensibly from candidates and officeholders have distracted and confused voters. There is considerable evidence that both domestic and foreign actors are using the digital playing field to influence outcomes and erode trust in democratic processes.

There are also many barriers to free and fair elections having nothing to do with digital tools. Political parties and candidates in many countries have actively cast doubts on the legitimacy of elections, established legal and practice barriers to voting. And in the United States, the flood of money from opaque sources undermines both the reality and the perception of free and fair elections. 

In addition to questions about the legitimacy of election processes, some outcomes present risks for companies committed to just and sustainable business. Across the world, populist movements are causing a turn away from climate action, progress on equity and diversity, respect for disfavored populations, and global cooperation.

Concerted progress on climate and nature, for example, will be virtually impossible if the COP processes—as imperfect as they are—buckle under the weight of geopolitical conflict and nationalism. Scapegoating and xenophobia interfere with business commitments to diversify businesses from the boardroom to the factory floor and contribute to a vicious cycle in which human rights and rule of law are sacrificed in the name of national glory. And the momentum towards the harmonization of regulatory standards relevant to “ESG” is also under threat. 

The stakes, in my view, are clear. The question then is what can businesses—and business leaders—do? 

For many businesses, this presents uncomfortable questions, and a sense that while there is risk in inaction, there may be equal or greater risk in taking action.

We believe that the best approach is to establish a “playbook” that offers companies a range of options that they can fit to their circumstances and assets. All companies, for example, can encourage voting and help their employees strengthen their media literacy to avoid false or misleading information. All business leaders can speak with their peers in various forms and engage in quiet diplomacy with government officials to promote legitimate elections. Indeed, this was seen in the run-up and aftermath of the 2020 elections in the United States. 

Other steps may be appealing to some companies and not others:

• Coalitions of companies committed to preserving and advancing workforce diversity and climate action—with a clear statement of business and economic benefits—can send a powerful message.

• By reinforcing the economic value of cooperation to address global challenges, business can help to legitimize the economic case for a truly sustainable economy.

• Demonstrating the human progress that individual companies—and macro financial and economic systems—can deliver through an enduring and purposeful commitment to sustainability further reinforces positive outcomes.

Not all companies will want to make these efforts, but this is essential in a world where a sense of economic precarity is fueling fear-based politics.

BSR is supporting its member companies in understanding the stakes, identifying leverage points, and supporting collaboration, including with like-minded stakeholders. Seldom has there been a time when the achievement of free and fair elections and sustainability goals have been so closely tied. 2024 is not only a stress test for rule of law and democracy; it is a test for business leadership as well. The opportunity for positive impact is great, and the price of inaction is too high to risk. 

Blog | Wednesday October 18, 2017

Why Business Supported the Clean Power Plan: It Made Economic Sense

Preview

The last few weeks in the United States have seen an unprecedented number of consecutive natural disasters—including both hurricanes and wildfires—exacerbated by our changing climate. In fact, a September poll shows that a majority of Americans assess that it is likely that climate change indeed worsened the impact of these events.

In this context of heightened public awareness and increased devastation due to climate change, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a rule last week that will begin to roll back the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The Administrator made an economic argument in support of the repeal, claiming that regulations “ought to work with folks all over the country and say, 'how do we achieve better incomes by working with industry, not against industry'.”

However, all evidence points to the fact that climate action is good for the economy. That’s why many companies in the private sector have supported the CPP, arguing that it is good for business.

The state of California, which has the sixth-largest economy in the world, is in many ways a poster child for this argument: In 2015, California simultaneously reduced its greenhouse gas emissions and achieved its strongest economic growth since 2005. The state has some of the most ambitious climate targets in the United States, and in 2016, it created more jobs than any other state for the third year in a row.

California isn’t unique. The renewable energy industry overall is creating jobs at a rate of 12 times the rest of the U.S. economy. One recent study found that putting cities on a climate-friendly growth trajectory could save as much as US$22 billion by 2050 and avoid carbon emissions equal to India’s entire annual footprint.

The private sector sees this. When the CPP was instated in 2015, 365 companies and investors, including General Mills, Mars Inc., Nestle, Staples, Unilever, and VF Corporation, wrote a letter in support of the plan. In it, they stated that their “support [was] firmly grounded in economic reality … Clean energy solutions are cost effective and innovative ways to drive investment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasingly, businesses rely on renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions to cut costs and improve corporation performance.”

Since then, four of America’s largest companies—Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft—filed amicus briefs in support of the CPP. As large consumers of electricity, these businesses sought to limit their environmental impacts in response to concerns about climate change. While they have developed their own renewable energy facilities to meet their sustainability goals, they argued that the Clean Power Plan would provide them with more and more cost-effective options. 

Even in the traditional energy industry, which arguably is more vested in a coal-friendly future than business writ large, not all companies have the same perspective on the CPP. While Peabody, America’s biggest coal miner (which came back from bankruptcy under the new U.S. presidency), welcomed the repeal, utilities have not been as vocally opposed. In fact, Reuters found that of 32 utilities in the 26 states that filed lawsuits over the CPP, “the bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal.” 

Business action in favor of climate-compatible solutions gained momentum leading up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, and it has continued since. For example, 619 companies are taking bold climate action through the We Mean Business coalition, which represents a market capitalization of US$15.5 trillion, including 32 companies with individual market capitalizations of more than US$100 billion. These companies emit a total of 2.31 gigatons of in their direct operations and purchased electricity, which is equivalent to the annual emissions of the Russian Federation. Moreover, more than 100 of these influential companies are committed to sourcing 100 percent renewable power globally, working to massively increase demand for—and delivery of—renewable energy.

Not only do the economic claims of the current EPA seem unlikely, but there is increasing evidence that the agency’s policies may harm the economy. Companies recognize this, which is why we’ve seen so much business support for the CPP. It’s also why business will continue to lead on climate action more broadly, even if it must do so without the policy frameworks that support U.S. leadership on this issue. Indeed, other countries around the world, including China, increasingly recognize that climate leadership translates to economic leadership—a perspective that they are likely to be rewarded for in the long run.