Search Results

Blog | Tuesday January 21, 2020

Five Insights on the Future of Reporting from Uber’s Safety Report

Preview

In December, Uber published its first-ever U.S. Safety Report, sharing the company’s approach to serious safety incidents—such as injuries, fatalities, and sexual assault or misconduct—and describing its recent safety investments. The report contains a wealth of quantitative data and qualitative information to help readers interpret the company’s safety performance and better understand the scale and characteristics of the issues at stake. For example, one surprising insight is that while media coverage tends to portray drivers as the most frequent sexual assault offenders, the data show that drivers report assaults at roughly the same rate as riders.

Some data provide good news for ride-sharing firms: The Uber-related motor vehicle fatality rate is about half the national average, likely owing to driver screening, minimum driver ages, and younger vehicles. But other data did not make for such positive reading: while reported incidents of sexual assault represent a very minor percentage of total trips (less than 0.0001 percent), that still accounts for more than 3,000 cases a year.

What was most noteworthy to us at BSR was that Uber would publish this report at all—the first of its kind published by a company and unlike anything published by its peers. Indeed, Uber deserves praise for voluntarily reporting on these important challenges, and its publication provides important lessons for other companies on the value of reporting.

Here are five insights on the future of transparency and disclosure from Uber’s report:

• Companies acting alone can use transparency and disclosure to shape a positive agenda. Uber’s Chief Legal Officer Tony West introduces the report by explaining that while most companies don’t talk about issues like sexual violence, “confronting sexual violence requires honesty, and it’s only by shining a light on these issues that we can begin to provide clarity on something that touches every corner of society.” We’re reminded of Google’s first “transparency report” a decade ago describing government demands for user data and content restrictions. Companies back then were reluctant to discuss these issues in public, yet Google chose to break the mold—and today, the quality of public dialogue on these issues is vastly improved. Companies have the potential to use transparency and disclosure to generate new momentum on shared challenges and not just wait for action by others.

• Companies facing similar challenges should publish comparable disclosures. The issues raised in the Uber report are not unique to Uber and cannot be addressed by Uber acting alone. For this reason, we found Uber’s challenge to its industry peers to be one of the most important elements of the U.S. Safety Report, with Uber encouraging “all organizations—airline, taxi, ridesharing, home-sharing, and hotel companies, as well as others—to share their safety records with their customers and exceed this report.” This also reminded us of the Google case, as since Google’s first effort, more than 70 internet and telecommunications companies have started publishing regular law enforcement relationship reports, with significant benefits for civil society organizations, policy makers, and other advocates. We’d like to see the same pattern emerge with safety too.

• Partnerships with those who use the data are essential. One of the challenges with being a first mover in disclosure is knowing what to report—what data is most likely to influence decision-making and provide value for those working on the issues at stake? In Uber’s case, the company partnered with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) and the Urban Institute to develop a new data taxonomy to understand the reality of unwanted sexual experiences. This did not previously exist and has now been made available for use by other companies and organizations. This provides a very strong foundation for other companies to publish their own reports that are directly comparable to Uber’s report and paves the way for industry-wide efforts to emerge.

• Issue-specific reporting will grow in significance. Four years ago, we published our perspective that “the future of reporting will be triangular,” with short and general disclosures at the top of the triangle and detailed issue-specific disclosures towards the bottom. The Uber report is just one signal among many that some of the most interesting company disclosures today are happening at the bottom of the triangle—whether it is privacy, diversity, climate change, or supply chain labor conditions, companies are increasingly publishing issue-specific reports with very particular audiences in mind.

• Reporting should be harnessed to improve performance. The new consistent data taxonomy established by Uber for sexual harassment, misconduct, and assault is very important, particularly because without a consistent taxonomy, the field has struggled to enact reforms. We hope this consistent taxonomy can improve the performance of Uber and its peers by enhancing the quality of training, informing what safety technologies to invest in, and enhancing the impact of partnerships. As Karen Baker, CEO of the NSVRC, highlighted in her foreword to the report, the NSVRC “didn’t anticipate how much we would learn about informing and enhancing the way industries and corporations enact meaningful change, and how those changes contribute to efforts to prevent and end all forms of sexual violence.” We hope that transparency is used to help shift culture among drivers, riders, and staff toward a world where it is understood that safety incidents can, should, and will be taken seriously.

It is easy to criticize companies for ignoring their negative social impacts, but the fact is that shaping system-wide approaches to shared challenges is a difficult endeavor. Ironically, by raising the profile of Uber’s approach to safety, the number of incidents reported will likely go up before they go down—but rather than being portrayed as bad news, we hope this is welcomed as a sign that important issues are being openly addressed. We look forward to reading more in future reports about the impact of Uber’s safety efforts, such as new technologies, Community Guidelines, and the Safety Advisory Board. Most of all, we hope that Uber’s investment in a new reporting taxonomy for safety issues is adopted by other companies—as well as by Uber in their operations outside the U.S.—and that these reports improve our collective efforts to address sexual assault and misconduct.

Blog | Tuesday February 25, 2020

Human Rights Assessments in the Decisive Decade: Innovative Approaches for the Technology Sector

Preview

This blog is the second in a series of two about human rights assessments in the technology industry. The previous blog described challenges; this blog proposes solutions.

Previously, we published a blog post describing the challenges that arise when undertaking human rights assessments in the technology industry, such as scale, uncertainty, and the role of the user in shaping impact. In this blog post, we set out approaches to address those challenges—some that we are implementing already and some that would represent innovations for the field.

1. Human rights by design 

As we’ve previously proposed, a human rights by design approach would bring insights from a range of professional communities—business and human rights teams, product managers, research and design teams, and sales and marketing teams—to fully integrate human rights considerations into the design, development, and sale of new products, services, and technologies. It would enhance the product design process by ensuring that respect for human rights is deliberately integrated throughout and that more rights-respecting design choices can be made. Recently, Google took such an approach for their celebrity recognition product, taking a variety of measures prior to product launch—this is one of the best examples we’ve seen thus far of leveraging such an approach.

2. Human rights assessments constitute one part of a broader human rights due diligence framework.

It is easy to conflate human rights assessments and human rights due diligence as the same thing, but they are not. As the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) clearly state, a human rights assessment is only one part of a human rights due diligence framework, which should also include integrating the results of assessments into decision-making, tracking the effectiveness of responses to assessments, and communicating how impacts are addressed.

It is easy to conflate human rights assessments and human rights due diligence as the same thing, but they are not.

These elements take on special significance in the technology industry, where human rights impacts can change over time as the real-world use of a product, service, or technology takes hold. Methods may include providing channels to report product misuse, pinpointing data trends that may signify a problem, and communicating revised thinking over time. The Facebook Oversight Board is an excellent example of a human rights assessment being one part of a broader due diligence framework. Beyond social media platforms, channels for identifying and reporting product misuse (for example, when a facial recognition system is leading to discriminatory outcomes) seem underdeveloped.

3. Sector-wide human rights assessments.

As we continue to address the human rights impacts arising from the technology industry, we’ve come to believe that one important constituency needs to participate much more actively: the “non-technology” companies integrating technology into their business operations, strategies, and plans. As we’ve previously written, dialogue about technology and human rights risks being too focused on the technology itself, with insufficient attention given to the companies deploying it. One solution we propose is the completion of sector-wide human rights impact assessments for the industries using technology—such as financial services, healthcare, transportation, retail, and law enforcement—to provide companies and policy makers with actionable recommendations on how human rights impacts arising from technology use can be avoided, prevented, and mitigated by entire value chains acting in collaboration. This would also help address the need for system-wide approaches, another of the challenges we raised in our previous blog post. 

4. More engagement with vulnerable users.

The UNGPs make clear that human rights assessments should involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and pay special attention to human rights impacts on individuals from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization. In the technology industry, companies identify “personas” to represent the different user types that might use a product, service, or technology and design with their needs in mind. Human rights assessments would benefit from the more deliberate identification of “personas” from a much more diverse range of backgrounds as well as engagement with real potential users to understand how their rights may be impacted. This would require more deliberate collaboration between human rights and product research teams.

The UNGPs make clear that human rights assessments should involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and pay special attention to human rights impacts on individuals from groups or populations that may be at heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization.

5. Integrating futures methodology into human rights due diligence. 

Futures thinking, also known as strategic foresight, provides a set of tools for companies to address rapid change, uncertainty, and complexity—the very same characteristics that make human rights assessments in the technology industry so challenging. At BSR, we are experimenting with the use of these tools in human rights assessments as a method of recognizing potential nefarious uses of technology that we might otherwise miss, identifying the human rights impacts associated with these cases, and putting in place measures to address them. Early pilots have been very promising, and companies we’ve worked with have found that uncovering blind spots and broadening horizons enable more informed decision-making and help prepare them for an uncertain future. We believe there is potential to use futures thinking much more than we do today and to broaden participation to stakeholders outside the company.

6. Assessments that inform industry standards and policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks.

Many of the challenges we described in our prior post cannot be addressed by responsible companies acting alone. Examples of this include situations in which fewer rights-respecting companies step in to provide a service where other companies refuse to, when users disregard product terms of service, or if human rights risks are system wide in nature. In these cases, human rights assessments are clearly inadequate in isolation, and we need more comprehensive approaches to eliminate human rights violations. However, by systematically identifying adverse impacts, we do believe that human rights assessments can provide excellent insights to inform the creation of standards, policies, and regulations. For this reason, we greatly welcome companies that publish human rights assessments as an input into a broader policy dialogue—the audience for human rights assessments should not be restricted to the company alone.

We hope these six ideas, each informed by real-life engagements with companies, help enhance discussions about how to improve the implementation of the UNGPs in the technology industry. However, these ideas also rely on companies across the whole industry—not just the leading companies—undertaking human rights assessments and implementing human rights due diligence frameworks, and for this reason, we’re also intrigued by increased calls for mandatory human rights due diligence. It is only when human rights due diligence is the norm and not the exception that these solutions will truly take hold.

Blog | Tuesday June 6, 2023

Respecting LGBTIQ+ Rights in Turbulent Times

Preview

For many around the world, June marks Pride Month, an opportunity to remember the struggles faced by the LGBTIQ+ community as well as to recognize progress in advancing equality for LGBTIQ+ individuals. We have seen important milestones in the past decade: marriage equality is now in law in over 30 countries, many more have the recognition of same-sex couples in law, and more countries are adopting progressive legislation recognizing the rights of trans and non-binary people. 

At the same time, there is an increasing amount of legislation that targets LGBTIQ+ individuals. In the last few weeks, the Parliament of Uganda adopted the Anti-Homosexuality Act, mandating the death penalty for “serial offenders” against the law and 20-year sentences for “promoting” homosexuality. In Turkey, newly reelected President Erdogan declared that the country was “against LGBT,” prompting fears that the government may seek to shut down LGBTIQ+ organizations; and in the US, several states have adopted—or are considering—legislation restricting access to gender-affirming care for trans individuals.

Many companies recognize Pride Month and highlight their own efforts to promote LGBTIQ+ inclusion within the workplace and support for the community more broadly. Scrutiny of these efforts has increased, however, with growing concerns that this could amount to little more than “rainbow washing.” Simply adopting a rainbow version of a logo on social media or launching temporary Pride-themed products is no longer seen as sufficient in a world where LGBTIQ+ individuals face persecution, harassment, and worse.

Activists, customers, employees, and investors expect companies who outwardly support the LGBTIQ+ community to make substantive, meaningful changes and decisions that genuinely advance LGBTIQ+ equality, even when this might affect their bottom line. In the US, survey data (from Morning Consult/BSR) found that Gen Z was nearly twice as likely as older generations of Gen Xers and Boomers to say laws and policies protecting LGBTIQ+ people are the most important issue they consider when thinking about a decision to move to another state. Companies could face long-term impacts to their workforce if they stay quiet when their support could advance civil rights in the LGBTIQ+ community.

In this context, companies are expected to ensure the health and well-being of their workers in countries where being LGBTIQ+ can put them at risk of criminalization or discrimination. Companies are also expected to take a more public stance in support of LGBTIQ+ rights, especially by younger people, who increasingly make decisions about where to work based on a company’s approach to LGBTIQ+ equality. The criticism of companies who advertised in Qatar during the World Cup, for example, shows how companies who stay silent when LGBTIQ+ rights are undermined face public criticism.

Key Business Priorities

Beyond Pride Month, there are several actions business can take to create lasting impact for LGBTIQ+ individuals worldwide:

1. Regardless of national legislation, ensure full equity in your policies and benefit schemes, and work with LGBTIQ+ staff groups and external organizations to identify gaps. This could include ensuring that partnership benefits (such as extended health coverage) are available for same-sex couples, that family leave policies equally benefit partners and children of LGBTIQ+ individuals, and that policies relating to gender account for the needs of trans people (for example, access to inclusive healthcare).
2. Collaborate with other companies to identify common challenges via BSR’s Collaborative Initiative Partnership on Global LGBTIQ+ Equality (PGLE). This network of companies and civil society organizations works together to support businesses to respect the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, sharing best practices on issue like trans-inclusive benefits and calling out the harms to business of anti-LGBTIQ+ legislation.
3. Encourage internal support networks for LGBTIQ+ employees, which can act both as a mechanism for support as well as help raise awareness within the company of LGBTIQ+ issues. Whether through such a network or otherwise, find a way for any issues or concerns by LGBTIQ+ individuals to be raised in a safe and supportive way. Networks for allies of LGBTIQ+ people can also help show that the staff are inclusive and welcoming.
4. Analyze publicly available resources like ILGA’s Database to understand the local context of countries where your company operates and the particular challenges that LGBTIQ+ people face, such as a lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships or an absence of anti-discrimination legislation protecting LGBTIQ+ people in the workplace. Use this information to inform internal workplace practices and ways to meaningfully and responsibly engage in public policy discussions.
5. Connect with “on-the-ground” LGBTIQ+ organizations in countries where the company operates. Most countries around the world have local organizations fighting for LGBTIQ+ equality and building relationships and other forms of support for these groups can help advance progress, as well as help you gain further insight into the situation for LGBTIQ+ individuals in that country.
6. Engage privately and publicly in debates around national laws and policies, whether in force or under consideration, which would expand or restrict LGBTIQ+ rights. Many business-focused coalitions engage on public policies collectively, such as the Human Rights Campaign’s Business Coalition for the Equality Act in the US.
7. Become a supporter of the UN Standards of Conduct for Business Tackling Discrimination against LGBTIQ+ People. As a follow up step, use the LGBTIQ+ Standards Gap Analysis Tool to learn where gaps exist and what steps you can take to fully meet the expectations of the UN Standards. For some companies, gaps might exist in their internal protections for LGBTIQ+ employees, such as policies or benefits which are not fully inclusive of the needs of LGBTIQ+ individuals. For other companies, gaps might exist in their due diligence processes when considering potential risks to LGBTIQ+ people connected to their products and services.

Pride Month in 2023 takes place at a turbulent time for LGBTIQ+ people, with progress toward equality in some parts of the world and regression in others. At the same time—and perhaps because of the regression seen in many countries—stakeholders are setting ever-higher expectations of companies to “walk the walk” and not just “talk the talk” when they commit to LGBTIQ+ equality. The suggested actions listed above are just some of the ways that companies can make real progress and demonstrate meaningful actions. If you would like to find out more about how to advance LGBTIQ+ equality, contact the PGLE team.

Blog | Tuesday November 12, 2019

The State of Sustainable Business 2019: Toward a Critical Decade

Preview

When BSR launched its first State of Sustainable Business survey with GlobeScan in 2008, it would have been inconceivable for influential corporate leaders and major investors to engage in a very public, candid, and existential conversation questioning the future viability of capitalism, the foundation of our economic and social systems for the past three centuries.

Fast forward to 2019: We see influential CEOs declaring that “capitalism as we know it is dead” and calling for a new capitalism that values purpose alongside profit. The CEOs of the Business Roundtable have essentially called for a redefinition of the purpose of a corporation, embracing a form of “conscious capitalism” in which the need to deliver value to all stakeholders has surpassed the previously unchallenged primacy of shareholders. 

These are welcome and long-overdue conversations and developments and provide a particularly compelling backdrop for us to unveil the findings of our 11th annual State of Sustainable Business survey, which includes responses from business leaders representing 125 global companies—half of BSR’s global membership network. As it has been since its launch, the survey features the perspective of the business leaders who do sustainability work daily inside some of the largest and most influential companies in the world.

This survey is also our last before we move into the 2020s, and as many companies had sustainability strategies with a 2020 end date, we wanted to find out how our members think they fared. More than half of BSR companies surveyed reported having a sustainability strategy with a 2020 end date or milestone, but only 45 percent of those said they considered their company to have achieved a great deal of success in reaching their objectives—which suggests we are off track to achieve global sustainability targets. 

We need business to dramatically increase its sustainability ambitions over the coming decade. 

Given the urgency of bending the curve on emissions and lifting communities and people out of poverty while supporting fundamental human rights, the message here is clear: We need business to dramatically increase its sustainability ambitions over the coming decade. 

Furthermore, to truly achieve the sustainable change we need, significantly more effort must focus on a company’s value chain. Half of respondents say their efforts to address sustainability within supply chains have been ineffective—though they report being more effective in cases where they have been able to apply new technologies like blockchain.

One of the more interesting findings was that while a majority of companies plan on embedding sustainability more deeply into the business, less than half will be emphasizing long-term value creation, and fewer still are focused on trying to influence policy-making frameworks. 

While about half of companies report a “fair amount” of focus on public policy across all issues, with human rights and climate change drawing somewhat more attention than inclusive growth and women’s empowerment, we do see an opportunity for companies to make it more of a focal point. Given the significant business influence over policy frameworks and the urgency of achieving sustainability goals, we hope to see more companies speaking out strongly on these vital issues.

Another noteworthy insight is that investor interest has become a major driver of corporate sustainability efforts overall. While reputation risks and customer/consumer demand continue to be identified as the most important drivers of company sustainability efforts, professionals citing investor interest as one of key drivers of sustainability efforts has increased significantly over the past year, with 40 percent citing it as a top three driver, up from 25 percent in 2018.  

The integration of sustainability into the core of business strategy continues to be an opportunity for more ambitious company action. Despite continued CEO focus—more than half of companies say sustainability is among their CEOs’ top five priorities—and rising investor interest, little has changed in the past three years in the level of self-reported integration of sustainability into the core of the business.  

Overall, 66 percent of companies say that sustainability is at least fairly well integrated, exactly the same as it was in 2016. Integration of sustainability into strategic planning and into products and services is being pursued by only about half of the companies surveyed. 

Climate change, ethics and integrity, diversity and inclusion, and human rights remain the top sustainability priorities for companies. 

As we move into the 2020s, the survey also revealed that climate change, ethics and integrity, diversity and inclusion, and human rights remain the top sustainability priorities for companies. 

However, in 2019, climate change has emerged from the pack, making a significant jump with more than 50 percent of respondents citing it as a “very significant” priority over the coming year. Company leaders exploring how they can move toward net-zero carbon emissions, while also assessing their climate risk scenarios, are no doubt also well aware of the increased sense of urgency expressed by scientists and other experts and the surge of public demonstrations demanding urgent action to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.   

It is worth noting that despite its ranking as a top corporate priority, the survey reveals minimal movement in the number of companies setting an internal price on carbon.  Only 31 percent of companies either already have, or are moving to implement, an internal carbon price. In addition, only one-third of companies say they are focused on managing climate change through tier-2 suppliers and supply chains. Most businesses with science-based targets will need to address these emissions as part of the global effort to bend the curve on emissions and limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Companies are becoming more interested in deepening their relationship with stakeholders. 

Finally, we were heartened to discover that companies are becoming more interested in deepening their relationship with stakeholders. As we noted in our report, Five Steps to Stakeholder Engagement, earlier this year, we are living in an era of increased investor interest, widely accepted international agreements, heightened public transparency, and a digital media environment in which information is shared at lightning speed. Stakeholder engagement is more important than ever, and the fact that companies are taking it seriously is good news indeed.

We will be looking forward to connecting with our own stakeholders, including our members and other partners from business, civil society, and the broader sustainability community, at the BSR Conference 2019 in San Jose this week, where The New Climate for Business will take center stage. We’ll discuss our common challenges, and the opportunities for stepped-up corporate action on sustainability as we prepare for the critical decade of the 2020s.

Blog | Tuesday December 15, 2020

COVID-19 and Beyond: Technology, Responsible Decision Making, and Public Health Emergencies

Preview

In May 2020, a Korean man visited a series of bars and clubs in the Itaewon district of Seoul. The next day, he tested positive for COVID-19 and the Korean Center for Disease Control and Prevention snapped into action. To find out who the man might have come into contact with they combined different data sources, including credit card transactions from the clubs and bars he visited and GPS locations of mobile phones in the area at the time.

Some of this information was shared with the media, who reported the places the man had visited and noted that some were gay clubs. This led to the LGBTIQ+ community being blamed for new COVID-19 cases and resulted in a surge in discrimination in a country where stigma against queer communities remains high.

The data collection and sharing practices of South Korea’s contact tracing system effectively risked the forced outing of LGBTIQ+ Koreans. One man told The Guardian, “My credit card company told me they passed on my payment information in the [Itaewon] district to authorities. I feel so trapped and hunted down. If I get tested, my company will most likely find out I’m gay. I’ll lose my job and face public humiliation.”

As countries around the world continue to battle outbreaks of COVID-19, South Korea has been held up as an example of how to successfully limit the spread of the pandemic. Widespread technology and data use, from contact tracing to quarantine enforcement, has been a key part of this success. Many other countries have taken note and attempted to follow suit by integrating technology into their own responses. While this can be a win for public health and safety, the example above shows how technology and data use for pandemic response can facilitate human rights violations.

In the current COVID-19 landscape, data and technology solutions can be used for many positive outcomes, such as facilitating “back to work” efforts, enhancing research into COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, and allowing the resumption of economic activity while also protecting public health. However, these uses may also result in the infringement of privacy rights, new forms of discrimination, and harm to vulnerable groups. Some governments are using the emergency as an excuse to expand their power, leading to concerns that initiatives launched to address COVID-19 could become permanent forms of state surveillance.

As the providers of data and digital infrastructure, technology companies are often central in public health emergency response efforts. A company's responsibility to respect human rights does not disappear during a public health emergency—indeed, the severity of adverse human rights impacts makes it even more essential that companies undertake robust human rights due diligence.

A company's responsibility to respect human rights does not disappear during a public health emergency—indeed, the severity of adverse human rights impacts makes it even more essential that companies undertake robust human rights due diligence.

With the support of Microsoft, BSR developed a human rights framework for responsible business decision-making before, during, and after public health emergencies. The framework is intended to be used as part of human rights due diligence to guide business decisions related to technology and data use in response to public health emergencies. It is informed by a combination of international human rights law related to states of emergency; allowable limitations and derogations of rights; relevant regulations, standards, and principles grounded in human rights; and lessons learned from past emergencies.

There are various human rights norms, principles, and standards that can help navigate a pathway through these dilemmas. For example, Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its accompanying General Comment 29 allow governments to derogate from specified human rights during times of public emergency. The Siracusa Principles, adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984, describe limitations on the restriction of human rights that governments may apply for reasons of public health or national emergency.

However, three factors are challenging the application of these principles today:

• Changes in the digital realm: Ever-more-powerful computing, massive growth in the availability of data, increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence capabilities, and the centrality of digital infrastructure in everyday life have transformed the opportunities and risks associated with the use of digital technologies for public health.
• Increased involvement of companies: These principles were written for governments rather than companies, yet today the private sector has a far more significant role and power in the fulfillment of human rights than when the principles were drafted.
• Complexities of a global pandemic: These principles were not written to address the complexities of a global pandemic, and new insights about their implementation are emerging in real time.

In addition to the framework, BSR’s report, Decisions, Decisions, Decisions. Responsible Decision-Making Before, During, and After Public Health Emergencies, makes recommendations for companies to help ensure they take rights-respecting approaches to future public health emergencies. These can be summarized as follows:

Act: What Companies Should Do Internally

Although responding to public health emergencies requires swift action, companies must still carry out human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, and mitigate their human rights impacts and foresee the possible impacts of their decisions. The framework outlined in the report can help companies balance privacy rights with the protection of public health.

In their quest to take action, companies should also take care to avoid known pitfalls of applying technological solutions to social problems. This includes things like ensuring a tech or data-based solution is the right one for the given context, working with appropriate government authorities, creating effective escalation processes for handling government requests and contracts during times of emergency, and avoiding open-ended projects.

Enable: How Companies Should Work with Others

Public health solutions are seldom executed from start to finish by a single company. Businesses therefore must be as transparent as possible about the work they are doing and effectively engage with relevant stakeholders, including other companies in the industry and governments, who are often the customers for technology solutions. Through transparency and working with their peers, customers, and partners, companies can create more effective public health solutions and prevent scope creep or misuse.

Influence: How Companies Should Influence Public Policy

Governments have the obligation to protect human rights and therefore have an important role to play in ensuring that pandemic solutions do not unduly limit the rights of their citizens. As governments come to companies with various health emergency-related requests, companies have an opportunity to advocate for rights-respecting approaches and push back on requests that cross the line. Companies can also advocate for standards or regulations that provide clarity on the on the balance between privacy and public health, as well as stronger health data regulations that close loopholes related to non-traditional health data. When companies are required by a government to share data beyond what is necessary and proportionate, they should push back as much as possible.

When companies are required by a government to share data beyond what is necessary and proportionate, they should push back as much as possible.

Although COVID-19 may be the first truly global pandemic of the modern age, it certainly won’t be the last—in fact, experts expect that pandemics will become increasingly common, and business involvement in addressing them will only grow. However, while the public health crises of the future may share some features with the COVID-19 pandemic, they may vary in other ways too—such as different dynamics of transmission, severity of the illness, availability of treatment, and the necessary control measures—and it will be important to both take the lessons learned from COVID-19 and be able to apply them in different contexts.

Blog | Wednesday June 7, 2017

Business Steps Up Leadership on Climate Action as U.S. Administration Withdraws

Preview

In the midst of political opposition from the Trump administration, which announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change on June 1, a cohesive and powerful voice has emerged: Business favors climate ambition for a shift to a low-carbon economy.

While consensus on climate action has long been elusive, companies from diverse sectors of the economy have stepped up to protect the standards of the Paris Agreement, which they see as a vital pillar for future growth, employment, competitiveness, and innovation.

An Ongoing Trend Grows Bigger

In the months leading up to COP21, where the Paris Agreement was written, the private sector mobilized to demonstrate its leadership on climate. Through initiatives such as We Mean Business, the Science-Based Targets initiative, or the UN’s Nazca platform, companies have showcased their ambition and commitment to contributing to the decarbonizaton of the economy, and they have voiced their demand for strong and stable regulation on emissions reductions.

Since then, the momentum has grown, even as real threats to American leadership have risen from the executive branch. Indeed, the past few months have seen support from the highest levels of business:

• Full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and New York Post organized by C2ES supporting the agreement, with signatures from Adobe, Apple, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Danfoss, Dignity Health, Facebook, Gap, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Ingersoll Rand, Intel, Johnson Controls, Levi Strauss & Co., Mars, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, National Grid, PG&E, Royal DSM, Salesforce, Schneider Electric, Tiffany & Co., Unilever, and VF Corporation.
• An ad in the Wall Street Journal urging the president to stay in the Paris Agreement, signed by the 30 CEOs: 3M, Allianz SE, Bank of America, BROAD Group, Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, Citigroup, Coca-Cola Company, Corning, Cummins, Dana Incorporated, Dow, DuPont, GE, Goldman Sachs, Harris Corporation, Johnson and Johnson, JP Morgan Chase, Kering, Morgan Stanley, Newell Brands, PG&E, Proctor and Gamble, Royal DSM, Salesforce, Solvay, Tesla, Unilever, Virgin Group, and Walt Disney Company.
• More than 1,000 companies signed the “Business Backs a Low-Carbon USA” letter, which supports U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, including DuPont, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Hilton, HP, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, NRG Energy, PG&E, Schneider Electric, The Hartford, and Unilever.
• CEOs and spokespersons from companies such as ConocoPhillips, BP, Cheniere Energy, Cloud Peak Energy, Exxon, GE, Peabody and Arch Coal, and Shell have all expressed strong support for remaining in the Paris Agreement.

These public announcements have presented the business case for climate action and have demonstrated the need for strong and stable policies in order to meet investor, consumer, employee, and business demands. Privately, many more executives and senior leaders have contacted the Trump administration, emphasizing that a low-carbon economy is the backbone of American prosperity.

Business Is Drawing the Line

Within minutes of the White House Paris statement, business leaders expressed their opposition using the president’s favorite medium. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein dedicated his very first tweet to the issue: “Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S. leadership position in the world.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger used the social media platform to announce they would step down from the President’s Business Council.

GE CEO Jeff Immelt tweeted that climate was now in the hands of business and ruled out the current government as a partner. Google CEO Sundhar Pichar renewed the company’s commitment to working toward a more prosperous and cleaner future, as did Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff. Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith and Apple CEO Tim Cook also strengthened their resolve to contribute to the fight against climate change. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced his discontent on the platform. On his company’s platform, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a public statement in favor of continuing to act in favor of climate in a way that makes business sense.  

Amazon, Dell, and Intel weighed in via Buzzfeed, insisting that not only is there is no contradiction between a low-carbon economy and a prosperous America, the opposite is true. HP issued a press release, saying the longevity of its business was at stake. IBM did the same.

The business voice is not only shaped by global tech companies: Ford and General Motors were also quick to respond to the president’s decision, stating that their commitments to emissions reductions would not change.

And just days after the withdrawal announcement from the White House, more than 900 businesses and investors have joined hundreds of cities, states, and universities in signing the We Are Still In statement to declare their continued support for climate action to meet the Paris Agreement, using the hashtag #WeAreStillIn.

How Business Leads

Leaders of some of the world’s most successful companies clearly see that remaining in the Paris Agreement and maintaining policies that favor emissions reductions is good for their bottom line as well as for the country. Companies have already seen significant cost savings, better supply chain management, and they have spurred innovation and employment by tackling climate change while responding to investor and consumer demands.

Business is leading opposing the federal government and marching on with its own climate commitments, which are consistent with business imperatives. And business can count on the support of local and global politics. Even though the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement at the national level, 30 mayors, three governors, and 80 university presidents in U.S. cities and states have shored up climate action in line with the requirements of the international accord. And globally the 195 parties to the Paris Agreement remain staunch in their determination to make good on their goals. While the White House’s withdrawal from Paris is a major mistake, it has also served to underscore the broad and deep support for climate action in the United States. In our judgment, this will prove to be longer-lasting than the foolish, regressive approach taken by the president.

In this context, business can be assured that its ambition will be met and enabled at both the local and global levels—and we can be assured that the world’s business leaders will work to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C.

Blog | Wednesday January 15, 2025

A Year of Uncertainty: Ten Big Questions Facing Sustainable Business Leaders in 2025

Preview

As we begin 2025, and the second half of the 2020s, their promise of being a “decisive” decade for achieving crucial goals has—so far—fallen short.

Instead, we find ourselves facing more questions than answers. How we respond to them, and their second and third-order effects, may not be decisive, but they will be defining.

The momentum for sustainable business that was so evident in 2020 has stalled. There are many reasons for this: economic volatility, technological change, political instability and backlash, prioritization of regulatory compliance over action, and a fractured information ecosystem prone to mis- and disinformation.

Underlying all this, many in society have lost faith that they will benefit from a more sustainable economy. They not only see little in the way of economic benefit, but also view many of the messengers of a just and sustainable world as talking down to them and ignoring their realities. As the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) of one of our member companies put it to us in December: “When middle-class families are struggling to keep up, our ideas sound like empty slogans.” We have to overcome this cynicism amongst many outside the sustainable business community and take renewed action that achieves tangible results.

Here are ten questions that are likely to define progress in 2025:

How will businesses respond to ongoing attacks on sustainable business?

Many businesses have trimmed their sails in the face of online activists and political figures challenging the very legitimacy of sustainable business. There are important debates over how to take action on climate and diversity. But the current effort to delegitimize the very concept of sustainable business, despite considerable evidence that it is essential to resilient and innovative business, and highly valuable for social and economic progress, is undermining important progress. Careful communication is one thing; failing to respond to misplaced and inaccurate attacks is another. With diversity and climate efforts under particular attack, and misrepresentations and misinformation about sustainability generally running rampant, when will business leaders decide that it is time to call out the inaccurate and damaging arguments that are based more on ideology than objective reality? 

Do businesses have a “red line” when it comes to rule of law?

2024 was a record-breaking year of elections. This year, businesses face an environment in which the rule of law is being questioned and undermined by elected officials, other political influencers, and amplified on social media. Observers like Rachel Kleinfeld have argued that when these trends advance, economies overall and individual businesses face more challenging conditions. After a burst of comments and commitments on such matters several years back, most business leaders have retreated, choosing not to call out attacks on the rule of law and the rise of populism. Will this continue? Or is there a point when companies and individual business leaders conclude that they need to contest the decline of rule of law?

Will sustainability regulations in the EU be scaled back?

With a new European Commission and Parliament, political uncertainty in many European member states, and concerns that the regulatory frameworks governing various aspects of sustainable business are too onerous, expensive, and complex. There are growing signs that the regulatory requirements may be changed, with options ranging from consolidation, to delayed implementation, to withdrawal. Should changes come to pass, the question then becomes whether they are viewed as a pullback or U-turn from the Green Deal, or a refinement designed to make the rules more effective and efficient. Europe is likely to remain an engine of progress in formalizing sustainable business, but the pace and scale of that leadership is unclear as we enter the year.

Will companies pay a price for missing or reducing their targets?

Many companies are missing their targets, on important issues ranging from Scope 3 emissions to nature to diversity. As a result, many businesses are rethinking whether and how to set new goals looking out to 2030 or beyond. Regardless, the question remains: will companies face meaningful criticism from customers, employees, investors, stakeholders, or even litigants bringing legal challenges for these shortfalls? The ways that companies make sense of the simultaneous need both for pragmatism and ambition has huge consequences. It is not an option to choose only one of these two directions.

Will the focus on regulation prove transitory, giving way in 2025 to greater innovation and ambition?

This is a question of massive importance. Companies have spent untold hours, dollars, and euros preparing for new regulatory compliance regimes. The net result has been more effort dedicated to measuring performance than achieving progress. This is not a formula that will produce the innovation or positive outcomes that are urgently needed. With the 2026 implementation date for the CSRD looming, one big question is whether this is the last year of compliance readiness, and we return to our regularly scheduled programming, or whether regulatory readiness continues to predominate.

Will COP30 herald the demise of COPs as we have known them?

The climate, biodiversity, and desertification COPs in 2024 were widely seen as failing to deliver. What does this suggest about the viability of COPs as they are currently constructed and organized? Cristiana Figueres and Ban Ki-Moon took the lead in suggesting reforms to deliver more decisive and effective outcomes, only to be largely dismissed by the UN system. It is nonetheless clear that the inherent difficulty in achieving consensus amongst nearly 200 countries with highly diverging interests and power is preventing clear outcomes. Are the COPs destined to be considered in the same light as Churchill’s famous comment about democracy, “the worst form of government…except for all the others that have been tried?” COP30 in Brazil will be yet another stress test, not only for climate action, but also for the very COP model itself. And if the current version of COPs is not working well, what alternatives exist?

Is it better for COP30 to have the Trump-led US in or out?

In 2017, President-elect Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, ignoring calls from business, civil society, and many others to have the world’s largest economy and historic emitter remain. It is widely expected that he will do the same in 2025. This time around, there is a real question about whether the global effort to fight climate change would be better off with the US in or out. Should a Trump Administration remain in the Paris Agreement, the US might be a net negative, interfering with ambitious action at COP, and joining forces with other major oil and gas producing countries to water down, if not prevent, a meaningful agreement in Belem. Might it instead be better for the countries that are genuinely committed to progress on climate to move boldly ahead without the US?

Who will emerge as the new wave of sustainable business leaders, and how will they be different?

The last wave of sustainability ambition was characterized by high-profile CEOs, mostly from Western companies, who proclaimed new commitments and weighed in on many social issues. This was immensely valuable in catalyzing action and raising awareness. Today, the profile of leadership is changing. There are innovators coming from all corners of the world, not only the global north. There is a recognition that the voice of the rising generation that will be wrestling with the greatest impacts of climate change and technological innovations needs to be heard. The nature of leadership is also changing. While broad proclamations are important, delivering the goods is even more so. It is never easy to predict when and where leaders will emerge. But the next wave of leaders will be younger than the last, more globally representative, and more focused on delivery.

How will the role of the CSO evolve: will they be playing defense or offense, preserving gains, or pushing forward?

We closed 2024 with a look at how the role of the CSO is evolving, focusing on three archetypes: the steady manager, the integrated strategist, and the transformative change agent. Following the US elections in November, we added the “defender-in-chief,” a CSO who focuses on, well, sustaining progress to date as various forces push back on existing activities.

In 2025, it is likely that every CSO will have to play some defense. But it is equally true that any CSO who is unable to or prevented from painting a picture of transformative change will not be serving their company well. The world is experiencing transformative change, some of it directly related to sustainability, some of it indirectly related to sustainability. This presents both a massive opportunity to shape and leverage this change for positive sustainability outcomes. It also opens the door to link these changes to outcomes that benefit people and communities. And at a minimum, it demands attention to the many ways that companies can be resilient in the face of profound change.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, how can we talk about sustainability in a way that will resonate with the general public, and demonstrate convincingly that these efforts will improve their lives and well-being?

It is increasingly clear that in the US and Europe many citizens, public officials, consumers, and others find the sustainability narratives that have been used over the past 30 years tired, uninspiring, and sometimes rather off-putting. Many in the public feel that an agenda is being forced on them that disregards their needs or interests, and is cooked up by elites they hold in low regard. Some of this is the fault of those of us in the world of sustainable business: we use too much jargon, providing opponents with a golden opportunity to mischaracterize—cynically—topics such as DEI and ESG to advance their own agendas. Addressing this, however, demands far more than simply seeking a “script doctor” for sustainability, or doubling down on arcane facts. The answer lies instead in a renewed effort to put people at the center of sustainable business. If we do not find ways to generate economic security and opportunity amidst massive technological, environmental, and social change, we can expect ongoing opposition to an agenda that will remain irrelevant at best, and dangerous at worst for many in the public. This will further stoke political blowback.

The year ahead will no doubt deliver questions we are not anticipating now. Over the last few years, we have experienced unexpected developments that seemed to flip the script for business and the wider world overnight. The pandemic was not predicted, and very few observers thought that sustainability would flourish once it hit, but that’s exactly what happened. With the new year only just underway, we have seen devastating wildfires turbocharged by climate change, more companies retreating from diversity efforts and content moderation, and renewed questions about the march of AI. These remind us of the urgency of our task.

At the same time, we also start the year with a good deal of focus on headwinds that have led to the so-called “sustainability recession.” These headwinds may obscure, though they do not erase, the underlying reasons why a more equitable economy that addresses planetary boundaries is so fundamental for innovative, thriving, and resilient companies, and to improve the lives and livelihoods of people and communities around the world.

Inevitably, there will be events that—for better or worse—provide a sharp reminder of that reality, and will catalyze a new sense of urgency. Will this happen in 2025, and if so, what and when? 

Blog | Thursday January 16, 2025

Six Actions for Business in 2025 Post-Roe America

Preview

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, businesses ranging from publicly traded to owner-led are trying to bridge the gap in abortion access as part of workplace health, safety, and readiness in the years that followed. Simply stated, abortion access is part of gender equality, implicating over half of the workforce at various points in their career trajectories, as well as the economy on a macro level.

Furthermore, efforts to criminalize and ban abortion access harm more than just workers’ access to healthcare. Heading into 2025, threats to data privacy, commerce, travel, and regulatory structures add cost, chaos, and uncertainty across business operations.

Throughout 2024, the public’s support for abortion access increased across party lines, and demonstrable advances were made in the states. Voters in seven states expanded and protected abortion access for millions of people.

The stakes for business continue to grow as they wrestle with the workforce impact as tragic stories break through—from mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives—who have faced needless barriers to accessing care resulting in fatal or severe consequences from delays or ‘turnaways’ from emergency rooms. These women are executives, board members, frontline workers, and community leaders. 

While the new U.S. president said he plans to “leave the issue to the states,” it is more likely that the administration will spur an onslaught of additional barriers to accessing abortion, along with other forms of reproductive healthcare, ranging from contraception and miscarriage management to IVF.

Notably, there may be an effort to seek enforcement of the Comstock Act, which could be weaponized and interpreted in a way to serve as a legal basis for a nationwide ban on medication abortion. Additionally, threats to employee benefits and how they are administered may be on the horizon. Another concerning prospect is that federal contracting could be weaponized to disincentivize companies from protecting their workforce. 

At the state level, attorneys general and legislators will continue to have an important role in determining how abortion laws are protected or enforced. Access to abortion, fertility care, and maternal health care increased in 25 states and the District of Columbia. Simultaneously, there were continued attacks on reproductive health care, with a focus on creating barriers to fertility care, maternal health care, and abortion access, perhaps muted somewhat because these measures are not popular to amplify in an election year.

As state policies diverge, businesses will continue to play an increasingly important role as a firewall for their workforce. Restrictive policies continue to sow confusion and fear as healthcare providers navigate opaque laws creating avoidable medical emergencies and compounding existing issues from financial to travel burdens as distances to access care increase.

Physicians, threatened with criminal and financial penalties, continue to leave states or residency where abortion is banned, exacerbating healthcare deserts.

In an increasingly fraught landscape with new and quickly changing restrictions on a state-by-state basis, companies can expect to see increased litigation and costs. Companies should be prepared for the following actions from both state and federal actors, and their stakeholders: 

• Increased scrutiny and enforcement from attorneys general. In 2023, Republican state attorneys general threatened a civil suit against pharmacies dispensing mifepristone (one of two drugs commonly used in medication abortion). Recently, Texas sued a New York doctor for prescribing to a patient near Dallas, launching one of the first challenges in the U.S. to shield laws. Expect more actions from Republican attorneys general moving forward, with a sustained emphasis on medication abortion and the Comstock Act.
• State laws imposing financial penalties. Expect state legislators in abortion-restrictive states to continue to introduce bills seeking to penalize companies for policies that arguably conflict with state law. As an example, during the last legislative session, lawmakers in Texas introduced bills that would remove tax incentives for companies that provided abortion-related funding or would prevent local governments from doing business with such companies (even if the benefits were provided only outside the State of Texas). 
• Pressure from a company’s stakeholders, such as shareholder proposals regarding abortion, and employee demands. Companies should be prepared for increased scrutiny not only from state actors, but also from their stakeholders who will be interested in the company’s response to further legal changes moving forward. 
• U-turns on regulation. While much of health policy will be shaped by executive and legislative action under the incoming administration, a variety of pending lawsuits also may be affected. The outcome of pending litigation and potential regulatory changes under the new administration will determine whether employers must provide accommodations to employees after an abortion as part of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. 

In response, companies can take the following actions to prepare, anticipate, and protect their workforce, as well as communities where they live and work. 

1. Review employee health plans to understand and evaluate how they provide reproductive healthcare; what employees or groups of employees are entitled to this care; and how this care is provided in various states. Audit the availability of care to ensure coverage under all circumstances within networks through medical plans where the company operates, including remote workers. Companies are encouraged to: 

• Establish or expand overarching programs that support employees in emergencies and/or with travel costs associated with seeking healthcare in addition to paid sick days. 
• Close the gap on abortion access for workers that may not be eligible for regular benefits, such as hourly workers and contractors. 
• Communicate benefits and existing programs available to workers to help them access time-sensitive and confidential healthcare rather than making it hard to locate. 
• Take the Reproductive and Maternal Health (RMH) Compass benchmark, a new comprehensive performance standard for employers to measure their reproductive and maternal health benefit offerings.
• Have policies that support workers in the face of emergencies, such as a pregnant employee facing a healthcare crisis while traveling for work in a banned state. 

2. Make reproductive health access part of event and office site selection: Reproductive health influences people's choices about where they want to live and work. In the past two years, reproductive healthcare was included as a factor in determining CNBC’s Top States for Business. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently tracked that since the second quarter of 2023, the 13 states with total abortion bans are collectively losing 36,000 residents per quarter. Additionally, for the third consecutive year, a BSR/Morning Consult poll indicates by a 2 to 1 margin, workers want to be in states where abortion is legal and accessible. 

Companies may not publicize that reproductive health access is a decision-maker in site selection, but it is a new variable. Business leaders can: 

• Understand and manage the growing safety risks related to travel for your workforce. Review existing or consider establishing travel policies that acknowledge the risks of hosting events in places where abortion is illegal or inaccessible.
• Ask questions relevant to event site selection as well as long term footprint. For events, consider using contract language that allows cancellation without penalty if a destination state enacts legislation that would repeal existing legal protections or bans access to healthcare.  
• Consider state restrictions on reproductive health when selecting office locations, data centers or related assets that might give a state jurisdiction over the user data. 

3. Conduct a human rights due diligence assessment to identify risks to reproductive health privacy that may be associated with the development or use of new or existing platforms, devices, products or product features. The collection of user data by companies in all industries, and tracking of user’s online activity, movement and information creates significant risks to seekers and providers of reproductive healthcare services. This leads to operational and reputational risk for employers, brands and companies. (For example, the greater the distance an individual must travel to access abortion, the greater the digital trail created). Within recent years, an increase in litigation shows the direct risks of breached data privacy in relation to those seeking abortion care as cases surrounding geolocation data sharing, social media messaging, and digital information concerns escalate. Companies can: 

• Apply best practices for privacy principles such as data minimization, purpose limitations, purpose-based data retention, and user transparency and control.
• Deploy end-to-end encryption on private messaging services.
• Set default privacy settings to the highest level of privacy protection and ensure privacy protections are based on an opt-out model, not an opt-in model.

Shareholders are calling on companies to safeguard sensitive customer and user data that may be used to prosecute abortion cases, and regulators are requiring global companies operating in the EU to assess, address, and report on the negative human rights impacts connected with activities. 

4. Implement abortion-specific subpoena-response plans that are compliant with federal and state data privacy laws but scrutinize what is requested as well as informing consumers or clients of requests. As part of these plans, companies should ensure that their internal legal teams are involved and directly engaged in compliance efforts. Prosecutors may work in collaboration with law enforcement to gather financial information such as purchasing history or transaction data to prosecute individuals and healthcare providers. While the tech industry is often the most scrutinized, the finance, travel and retail pharmacy industries are also implicated. BSR published a roadmap, Navigating the Rollbacks in Protection of Reproductive and LGBTQI+ Rights in the United States: A Guide for Financial Institutions to equip consumer and institutional client-serving financial firms to assess and address the threats caused by criminalization.

5. Educate officeholders and decision-makers about the cost, chaos and collateral damage of abortion bans on the private sector. Business leaders should share with officeholders and decision-makers how abortion access is a material business concern. The collateral harm of restrictions extends well beyond abortion access – implicating talent pipelines, state reputation/rankings and creates unnecessary burden for business in an already fraught environment. Collective diplomacy by the business community can be a powerful way to educate officeholders on the cost and chaos caused by bans and restrictions. In particular, small businesses are among the most trusted institutions across the political spectrum. Companies can: 

• Prepare executives, including board members, to understand the topic and the vast implications. Executive awareness, understanding and support for wrestling with the complexities within the company is a prerequisite.
• Privately work in coalition through business associations at the local, state and federal level to find ways to raise the issue as a geographic and/or industry concern.
• Join amicus briefs to signal an understanding of the greater stakes. A historic number of companies have signed onto litigation supporting reproductive healthcare since 2022. 
  • In the case of Idaho v. United States where abortion care is considered a stabilizing medical treatment under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), businesses argued that Idaho’s reproductive health care restrictions were negatively impacting the economy and business. Previously, a business amicus was also submitted in the Zurawski v. Texas case as well as a multi-industry response on the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA case. 
• Get updates from Don’t Ban Equality, a platform that enables companies to work with peers across the private sector on the workforce impact and economic costs of abortion restrictions. Companies can sign onto the platform and/or select to receive updates including monthly newsletters and quarterly calls. 

6. Reconsider political giving from this perspective. In a highly divisive political environment, the unmet need for companies to find ways to better align political influence with operational and workforce policies is harder and more necessary than ever. Abortion access is widely supported and also now legislated in every state. Steps companies can take include:

• Consider how well the company’s political contributions align with stated values, mission and policy priorities. Review and update criteria for making political contributions and test what giving preference to candidates and organizations that support abortion access, IVF, miscarriage care and reproductive health, overall, could look like.
• If reallocation is not possible, commit to educating recipients of political donations on how their positions on social issues harm the workforce, have demonstrable collateral damage and are not conducive to a robust business environment.

BSR’s Center for Business and Social Justice works with experts in reproductive health to provide actionable guidance to business. BSR members can contact the Center with inquiries.

Blog | Monday April 20, 2020

Women in Supply Chains: On the Frontlines of COVID-19's Impact

Preview

The COVID-19 pandemic has quickly transformed from a global health crisis into a financial crisis, particularly for low-income female workers in global supply chains. However, companies can effectively deploy preventative measures to support workers and workplaces to protect their health and strengthen their financial resilience.  

Developing countries—where many supply chain production sites are located—are not equipped with the economic resources and medical facilities and commodities required to mount an effective public health response. Compounding this issue, businesses faced with the mass cancellation of orders from global brands or government lockdowns are closing their business doors and laying off low-income workers.

In the context of a health emergency, the implications of gender inequality are stark. COVID-19 is no exception and will affect women and girls disproportionately. With approximately 190 million women working in global supply chains, the outbreak is especially concerning for low-income female workers, resulting in:

• Added economic hardship on a population whose financial status is already stretched too thin and put at risk of being unable to pay for bare survival necessities;
• Exacerbated risk of violence against women, increasing the level of stress and the disruption of social and protective networks and decreasing access to protective services;
• Being relegated to traditional gendered roles as primary caretakers by both solely looking after children during school closures as well as the sick and elders;
• Increased exposure to COVID-19 as those most in contact with sick family members and elders (who are most at risk of the virus) and also likely nexus of transmission by being primary caretakers.

Women already have limited financial means and struggle to meet expenses under normal circumstances. With many of them paid in cash wages, sudden workplace closures or layoffs can also mean pay delays or reductions or worse. In Cambodia, workers in garment factories suspended due to COVID-19 will only receive $70 a month (about 37 percent of their monthly minimum wage), a shock which could have a dramatic and long-lasting impact on their lives. In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Association has reported that over $2.4 billion of ready-made garment orders have been cancelled or suspended by global buyers, describing it as a "catastrophic" move which will directly affect almost 2 million workers, mostly women. This drastic slowdown in commerce, combined with the preexisting financial inclusion gender gap, makes female workers even more vulnerable and less likely to have access to remittances, savings, or insurance that could help them in emergencies.   

Not going back to work is not an option.  Workers are more concerned about getting paid—regardless of the health risks. "We have not been paid for two months. We are starving," a female garment worker, Brishti, recently told AFP during a protest in Dhaka. "If we don't have food in our stomach, what's the use of observing this lockdown?"

But how can workers reintegrate into factory work in a safe and sustainable way? Workplaces need to implement preventative measures, upholding social distancing and improving hygiene practices. Workplaces, which gather people from different and densely populated communities into a confined space and have them handling the same objects, are an obvious vector for communicable disease transmission. Garment factories, which are staffed by approximately 60-80 percent women workers globally, are exceptionally at risk because the production process requires workers to operate in close proximity while passing products from one to another. It’s been documented that the coronavirus can be transmitted through handling cardboard boxes passed between workers. As the material of choice for packhouses, this puts packhouse workers at higher risk of picking up traces from carton to hand.

So how should businesses consider the needs of female workers when reopening their doors?

Reproductive Health to Ensure the Sustainable Return of Women at Work

Health resources normally dedicated to reproductive health go towards emergency response in times of crisis. At the same time, past pandemics have showcased a rise in domestic violence which lead to additional unwanted pregnancies. Ensuring continued access to family planning resources and preferred contraceptive methods during COVID-19 will be key to ensure that low-income women who are already facing financial hardship from this pandemic are not faced with the added economic hardship of having a child. Furthermore, it ensures that they are able to return to work and not forced to drop out to care for a newborn. Access to contraceptives may be hampered, however, by potential supply shortages during lockdown which reduce the stockpile of available commodities. Furthermore, low-income women suddenly out of work may find it difficult to make out-of-pocket payments while navigating insurance practices that often limit reimbursement to just one month of prescription drugs at a time. COVID-19 is an exemplary reason why employers should ensure their workforce’s modern family planning needs are provided for at the workplace clinic or through referral mechanisms.

Physical Health and Safety in the Community and at Work

HERhealth baseline data in 2019 showcased that personal hygiene practices are weak and conducive to spreading germs like the coronavirus both at work and at home. For example, across eight factories in Bangladesh, 55 percent of 363 women workers could name only one benefit of hand washing. And yet, 13 years after we first launched a personal hygiene model, some donors ask us whether it is still relevant. Of course, the topic is now back on the map as a central public health concern, crossing both personal and professional spaces in order to survive the pandemic. Imparting a culture of handwashing, however, relies both on behavior and access to clean water and soap. HERhealth is reaching workers—both at work and in their communities—via digital means to improve hygiene best practices.

Production Pressure and Stress

It is commonly reported that poverty-related stress and economic insecurity can lead to an increase in intimate partner violence. When unemployment rates skyrocket and economies slow to a halt, intimate partner violence is likely to increase at home as a result of related stress. Similarly, following the reopening of factories, orders that were on hold will lead to increased production pressures. We know from experience that in times of stress, managers sometimes resort to abusive behaviors, such as shouting, insulting, and cursing, in an effort to motivate increased production. Such practices are unacceptable, and they give rise to conflicts, confrontations, and grievances that require negotiation and mediation. Support for managers and workers, especially female workers, while navigating the pressure of making up for lost profit and time while the factory was closed and its implications on management stress repercussions on women workers will be key to reopening factory doors.

Building Financial Health and Resilience

Although the protocol for wage payments during factory closures is determined by government, brands, and factories, we know that wage digitization is a more convenient, efficient way for factories to pay workers remotely, which also supports social distancing. For example, the Government of Bangladesh's $590m bailout package stipulates that workers must have financial accounts to receive wages.  This enables workers to be paid, even if it’s through family members' financial accounts. More support will be required to ensure that workers, especially women, are able to control and benefit from their digital wages. Participants in the HERfinance Digital Wages program have been able to manage their finances better and increase their savings, helping to make them more resilient. The program found a 21-percent increase in both male and female workers reporting that they save regularly, and women were 17 percent likelier to report feeling confident that they can meet such unexpected costs as an emergency or family problem in the next two years.

Collaboration and good communications across brands and their suppliers, garment associations, governments, and development organizations will be key to helping garment workers recover from the COVID-19 shutdowns and build their resilience for future health and economic crises. Looking ahead, it will be crucial to consider how additional partnership efforts can support and prioritize workers’ health and financial resilience as businesses reopen. Early, bold, and effective action will reduce short-term risks to employees and long-term costs to businesses and the economy.

Blog | Wednesday October 30, 2024

Adequate Wages vs. Living Wages: Implementation Guidance for Companies

Preview

The term “Adequate Wage” has emerged across several EU legislations and the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) first ever guidance on Living Wage. As employers navigate complex regulatory environments, we have seen widespread confusion on how Adequate Wage compares to Living Wage and Minimum Wage.

Latest Developments

The recent advancements to drive improved wages both in the EU and globally include:

• ILO Position on Living Wage: The ILO came out with an official definition for Living Wage and published principles that data providers can follow. It is the first ILO framework to guide data providers and employers on Living Wages.
• EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages: A 2022 directive that requires EU countries to increase their Minimum Wages to align with “Adequate Minimum Wages.” This is defined as a 'double decency threshold' in which no Minimum Wage should be set below 60 percent of a country’s median wage and 50 percent of the gross average wage. Minimum Wages of EU member states that are below this threshold are expected to increase.
• EU Pay Transparency Directive’s (EU-PTD) Focus on Gender: To align with the EU-PTD by April 2026, companies must conduct gender pay assessments using specific standards, remediate those impacted by identified gender pay gaps, and publish the results of the gap analysis for the public.
• Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive’s (CSRD) use of Adequate Wage: In order to comply with CSRD’s requirements, companies should work toward collecting, analyzing, and reporting data that address any Adequate Wage gap.
• The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): CSDDD requires companies to evaluate and adapt their business plans, strategies, and operations, including purchasing practices, to ensure that they contribute to “Living Wages and incomes for suppliers and employed workers.”

How does Adequate Wage relate to Living Wage, Minimum Wage, Average Wage, and Collective Bargaining?

Minimum Wages are the lowest wage allowed by law. Collective bargaining agreements, driven by unions, also can shape wage rates for a particular industry or job position in a country. Many people question why evaluating Living Wages is necessary when the concept of a Minimum Wage was originally intended to reflect the wage rate required for a worker and their family to live a decent life.

In practice, Minimum Wages are shaped by governments, meaning that the level and frequency at which they are increased to align with costs of living varies, and is often insufficient. Similarly, collective bargaining agreements only exist with strong working unions. Beyond legally compliant wage obligations, compensation teams pay close attention to average wages that reflect labor market conditions. A Living Wage, on the other hand, is based on cost-of-living, and is not shaped by politics, negotiation, or economics conditions.

The concept of Adequate Wage aims to take into account the different roles each of these wage rates play. According to ILO, an Adequate (Living) Wage is “a wage that meets the needs of a worker and their family, taking into account the national economic and social conditions of a country.” While the implementation of Adequate Wages at the country level is still underway, this guidance will aim to inform companies on how to measure Adequate Wages to prepare for CSRD requirements.

How can companies prepare to meet Adequate Wages in the coming years?

The CSRD explains that companies must “disclose whether or not its employees are paid an Adequate Wage.” Companies should start by evaluating if Minimum Wages are paid. This is an important first step, but due to the fact that in some countries a Minimum Wage may not be enough to cover the needs of a worker and their family, a secondary level of analysis is required to determine if the Minimum Wage is an Adequate Wage by looking at Living Wage benchmarks and the double decency threshold.

Understanding the Adequate Wage for a country or region is dependent on each location’s context, in order for companies to close any pay gaps to meet regulations like the CSRD, companies will need to conduct a gap analysis for Minimum Wage, Adequate Wages and Living Wages.

In many cases, Minimum Wages may be sufficient for reporting. Nevertheless, it is important to compare it to Living Wages and the double decency threshold to anticipate where Minimum Wages will likely be increasing. According to WageIndicator’s Adequate Wage Guide, the Adequate Wage is determined by whichever figure is highest. Follow these steps to start your gap analysis:

• Step 1: Check the Statutory Minimum Wage as applicable in the country, sector, industry, region, age-level etc. The Minimum Wage is the law and the minimum threshold.
• Step 2: In countries where there is no Statutory Minimum Wage, where applicable and possible, check the lowest negotiated wages as stipulated in Collective Agreements for your sector, industry, or company.
• Step 3: Check the ‘double decency threshold’ for a country (50 percent of the average wage and 60 percent of the medium wage) as well as the Living Wage estimates for a country and region. In cases where the Living Wage estimates are highest, use those.
• Step 4: If the ‘double decency threshold’ exceeds the Living Wage estimate, consider the Adequate Wage, but first verify regional Living Wage variations.
• Step 5: The CSRD requires companies to report on an “Adequate Wage.” Depending on the country, this could be the Statutory Minimum Wage, a collective bargained wage, an Adequate Wage, or a Living Wage estimate.

How BSR can help

BSR has worked with dozens of companies for twenty years to conduct Living Wage gap analyses and advance their Living Wage programs. For more information on BSR’s services on Living Wage, please contact us.