Blog | Wednesday July 20, 2022

A Business Approach to Reinforcing Democracy

Preview

Editor's Note: 

It is obvious that we are living through a time of profound and accelerating change. Our world has been rocked by a series of disruptions: COVID-19, war and social conflict, rollback of rights and democracy, and now high inflation and the risk of recession. These developments have jolted society, and business.

To help our 300+ member companies navigate this volatile environment, we're releasing a series of blogs over the coming weeks to build insight into how to shape business approaches that address this unique moment. Following last week's piece on the "backlash" against ESG, today's piece explores changing expectations of business in protecting rule of law, rights, and democracy.

We’ll conclude with a deeper dive look into how BSR’s 2025 strategy can help your company to navigate these turbulent times—and how you can collaborate with our global network to push us further, faster, to achieve a more equitable, just world for all.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China’s suppression of civil liberties in Hong Kong. Ongoing attacks on voting rights, abortion access, and LGBTIQ+ health and safety in the United States. 

Around the world, we see these and other examples of democratic decline. From multiple directions, the foundational elements of societies based on rule of law, transparently and evenly applied, are facing significant threats. 

To state it bluntly: this presents a clear and present danger for business. Indeed, a recent poll from Morning Consult found that more than 80 percent of business leaders see threats to democracy as threats to business.

First and foremost, it is exceedingly difficult for business to thrive where rule of law is absent, where governments are paralyzed, and where instability is the status quo. Indeed, the decline of rule of law in Hong Kong is causing many companies to shift staff and offices away from that territory. This is not new. Businesses have long recognized that operating where the rule of law is strong is in their self-interest; after all, it protects business, employees, and consumers alike from harmful practices, and helps provide safeguards against governments which otherwise might engage in abusive practices. 

Second, business finds itself embroiled in polarized and angry debates that both reflect and cause the deterioration of public institutions. Many companies have been drawn into the crossfire of policymaking in various American states in the wake of the overruling of Roe v. Wade. Initial efforts by many companies to provide travel stipends for workers who need to travel to access abortion services have been challenged by political figures. Similarly, government inaction on climate change creates both economic and social risk, and it also can lead to an unpredictable environment in which some aim to fill the policy vacuum through litigation. This creates an inconsistent and unpredictable approach to policymaking. Dysfunctional governance creates and amplifies business risk and uncertainty. 

Third, many employees and consumers expect business to speak out on this, and other, important social issues. Worker, consumer, and investor sentiment supports companies taking decisive action. There also has been increased scrutiny of companies that continue to financially support elected officials in the United States that refused to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Fourth, and finally, there is a values case for action. We regularly engage with senior business people who are angry with the decline of democratic institutions in their home countries as well as in the wider world. Many business leaders do not want to stand aside while fundamental rights and freedoms are under attack. In addition to their own preferences, they also see employees, customers, and sometimes shareholders pushing them to express support for public institutions and processes. They face numerous cross-pressures, however, with many voices challenging the wisdom, and even the right, of companies and business leaders to speak out on topics many see as “political.” 

What Can Business Do?

First, business should extend its stated commitment to human rights principles to apply more explicitly to the protection of democratic institutions, wherever they are in peril. Most large companies have now committed to upholding the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Much of the impetus for this movement focused on human rights abuses and poor governance in the global south. It is now time to deploy them closer to home, for example by considering whether law enforcement is equitable when making siting or investment decisions.  

Second, business can take action through large-scale collaborations. Initiatives such as the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative are designed to combat non-democratic means of violating rights that affect business directly. Such efforts leverage strength in numbers, with companies, NGOs, and governments working together to achieve reforms that have made a real difference. These models, which promote law enforcement and provision of private security consistent with human rights principles, are good examples of how collaboration is a useful tool to address violations of rule of law.

Third, business can advocate for systemic or structural reforms. Though some will characterize these efforts as partisan, the actual approaches offered can be decidedly nonpartisan, such as supporting action on issues, including the protection of voting rights to ensure full and equal access, the potential for mandatory voting requirements, and other electoral reforms. 

Fourth, and particularly in the United States, companies can withhold political contributions from elected officials and aspiring candidates who fail to commit to upholding democratic processes and the rule of law, There is a rising tide of criticism of such practices, including in shareholder resolutions. The silver lining of the current situation is the opportunity to push back against the arms race of political funding.

Finally, it is time, once and for all, for companies to address the many concerns about the role of trade associations. Companies such as Volvo, Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, and others have conducted formal reviews, with public disclosure, of their membership in trade associations, aiming to reduce misalignment with their ESG priorities. It is also well past time for trade associations themselves to recognize that new threats require new thinking and new models. Advocating for reduced taxes and regulations cannot be the only priority if they are to have a positive impact not only for business, but also for society. If trade associations cannot rise to the occasion and see the bigger picture by calling for democracy protection, perhaps they have outlived their usefulness.

We can anticipate significant pushback against business taking on this agenda. This is “too political,” and business cannot “pick sides.” In fact, many businesses already do take sides when weighing in on legislation, e.g., with many businesses and associations arguing that the SEC is exceeding its mandate with its draft regulations requiring climate disclosure.

In the final analysis, it is no longer difficult to imagine a near total breakdown of the public institutions the West has taken for granted for the 75 years since WWII ended. Eric Vuillard wrote in The Order of the Day, his satirical account of the run-up to WWII, that “great catastrophes often creep up on us in tiny steps.” Business cannot afford to wake up one day and find that the societal foundations on which it relies have collapsed. Business is taking action to combat a similar challenge with respect to climate Isn’t it also time for business to recognize that it can no longer wait for others to address the looming disaster of the collapse of democratic institutions and processes?

Blog | Thursday July 14, 2022

Delaying Climate Action: The Challenges of Moderating Climate Misinformation on Social Media

Preview

Misinformation about climate change has been around for decades, mostly in the form of climate denialism. Today, climate misinformation is focused on seeding doubt about climate science and the measures that are taken to mitigate climate change. Examples include: suggesting that the consequences of global warming may not be as bad as scientists claim, arguing that climate change policies are bad for the economy or national security, describing clean energy as unreliable, or claiming that no action will be able to halt climate change.

These varying manifestations of climate misinformation all have the same outcome: delaying climate action.

Earlier this year, the IPCC drew attention to the impacts of climate misinformation for the first time:

Vested interests have generated rhetoric and misinformation that undermines climate science and disregards risk and urgency. Resultant public misperception of climate risks and polarized public support for climate action is delaying urgent adaptation planning and implementation.

Social media brings both opportunities and risks to the climate science dialogue. Scientific information related to climate change is accessible to larger populations through social media platforms—including real-life experiences of affected populations. On the other hand, social media can significantly undermine climate science by allowing for the rapid and widespread sharing of misinformation through user-generated content and online advertising. Social media platforms are also just one part of the information ecosystem, which also includes news media and professionally created entertainment.

At a point when delays in climate action may lead to catastrophic and irreversible harm, companies must address climate misinformation urgently and decisively. 

In 2021, Ford Foundation, the Ariadne Network, and Mozilla Foundation commissioned a research project to explore grantmaking strategies that can address issues at the intersection of environmental justice and digital rights. As part of this project, BSR wrote an issue brief on the role of social media companies in creating, shaping, and maintaining a high-quality climate science information environment.

The brief explores the specific challenges of moderating climate misinformation. We describe some of these challenges below:

• Climate Misinformation Is Happening in “Subtler” Ways and Is Increasingly Intersectional.
  While outright climate denialism is easy to refute, it is more difficult to identify subtle ways of spreading climate misinformation—such as claims that green policies are too costly. The response to climate change is a topic of political debate, making climate misinformation closely tied to politics, elections, and the larger civic space. These intersectional ties help grow the reach of misinformation and take it to different levels that can be difficult to anticipate.

• Existing Content Moderation Frameworks Are Not Sufficient in Addressing Climate Misinformation.
  Most of the content moderation principles and frameworks used by social media platforms today were written to address immediate harms related to hate speech, incitement to violence, and other objectionable content, and they are not as applicable for scientific misinformation that may be associated with broader, longer-term harms.

• Content Removals May Not Be Adequately Effective in Fighting Scientific Misinformation.
  While the removal of content is effective in fighting harmful content such as hate speech, scientific misinformation may require different approaches. Platforms should not only rely on content removal but also focus on tactics to reduce the visibility of misinformation and display high-quality information to inform users.

• Climate Misinformation Is Political and Is Backed by Institutions.
  Since the 1980s, climate disinformation campaigns have been largely driven by the fossil fuel industry’s intentional efforts to undermine climate science. Today, climate misinformation can still typically be traced to fossil fuel interests. In addressing climate misinformation, it is important to consider the material incentives of the producers of such content.

In our brief, we make recommendations to social media companies, as well as civil society actors, and funders. These include the addition of climate misinformation under content policies, applying content moderation frameworks to climate misinformation, strengthening fact-checking capabilities, investing in user resiliency, and increasing scrutiny on advertising by oil and gas companies. We envision a high-quality climate science information environment that supports informed public debate, ambitious business action, and science-based policy making.

Social media companies have made significant commitments to reduce the climate impacts of their businesses (i.e., reducing GHG emissions), but they also have a responsibility to address the potential harms that they may be connected to through climate misinformation on their platforms. 

Civil society groups and funders have an essential role to play in holding companies accountable for their actions or omissions to address climate misinformation and keep this topic on the agenda. Among these actors, it is our observation that environmental groups are less familiar about the practical challenges, complexities, and nuance of misinformation, and the content governance community is less familiar with how climate information can adversely impact our collective efforts to address the climate crisis. These communities would benefit from increased collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Fostering a deeper understanding of this topic across sectors will not only help remove one of the biggest barriers in the way of climate action, but it will also broaden our understanding of scientific information, and how human rights may be impacted online. 

BSR will continue to work with social media companies, civil society groups, and funders on this topic. Please reach out if you’re interested in connecting with us.

Blog | Wednesday July 13, 2022

What the ESG Critics Are Right About—And Where They’re Misguided

Preview

Editor's Note:

It is obvious that we are living through a time of profound and accelerating change. Our world has been rocked by a series of disruptions: COVID-19, war and social conflict, rollback of rights and democracy, and now high inflation and the risk of recession. These developments have jolted society, and business.

These and other developments are also reshaping the world of just and sustainable business. After considerable momentum, there is now a backlash against elements of the sustainable business agenda. Claims of greenwashing are rising, including legal actions. The regulatory environment is changing, with heightened requirements for business on human rights, reporting and disclosure, and other matters. Generational change is reshaping public views about business. The rollback of human rights and democratic institutions is leading to calls for business to “take a stand.”

To help our 300+ member companies navigate this volatile environment, we are launching a series of blogs over the coming weeks to build insight into how to shape business approaches that address this unique moment.

We begin with this initial piece on the “backlash” against ESG. Future entries in the series will explore changing expectations of business in protecting rule of law, rights, and democracy; the emerging harmonization of reporting and disclosure standards; the implications of increased regulation of sustainability; the role of business in combating societal fragmentation.

 We’ll conclude with a deeper dive look into how BSR’s 2025 strategy can help your company to navigate these turbulent times—and how you can collaborate with our global network to push us further, faster, to achieve a more equitable, just world for all.

Like consumer prices, sustainable business has been on a rollercoaster since COVID-19 emerged over two years ago. Sustainability or ESG (environment, social, and governance) considerations were a business, investor, and media darling. Until recently.

Judging from 2022’s headlines, a casual observer might conclude that sustainable business has gone from hero to zero overnight. Regulators are looking to set rules to govern when investment funds earn the ESG label. Media, consumers, and now regulators are leveling claims of greenwashing on a frequent basis. The public asks: “If every company is doing what they say, and airing slick commercials to convince me how good they are, why is climate change and income inequality getting worse?” And “ESG insiders” have come out of the woodwork to assert that “the ESG emperor has no clothes.”

Some of these questions are not only legitimate, but hugely important.  Some questions, which reflect political backlash, are much less so. And for all of us focused on just and sustainable business, we ignore this backlash at our peril.

To start, the critics get three big things right.

First, there is undeniably a gap between aspiration and delivery. The rise of “net zero” carbon commitments is necessary, but clearly insufficient—so far—to put the world on a trajectory towards a stable climate that can sustain a healthy economy. The same is true with respect to companies seeking to protect biodiversity and oceans by being “nature positive” but not yet achieving the promised benefits. These big aspirations mark a leap in ambition from even five years ago. We need simultaneously to ensure accountability without creating incentives for business to retreat to incremental change.

Second, it also is true that there remains a disconnect between companies’ aspirations and what they—or more often their trade associations—do to oppose public policies needed to put our economies on a more sustainable path. For example, too many companies prioritize opposition to tax reform over full-throated support for climate action through efforts such as Build Back Better and other measures. It is critical that business close the “say-do” gap both with respect to their actions and their policy advocacy.

Third, there is widespread and legitimate confusion over what the terms “sustainability,” “ESG,” and "net zero” actually mean. The rise of consistent standards is welcome and overdue. The promise of global standards defining what companies can and cannot label “ESG,” through efforts like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), will help bring badly needed order to the current chaos. This will help reduce concerns about greenwashing for the public, and will provide the certainty business needs to make ambitious commitments.

These critiques are both valid and valuable. It is also the case that those fostering the backlash get some big things badly wrong.  

First, sustainable business is about long-term change; it is, by definition, complicated to gauge progress quarter to quarter or year to year. Climate is the best test of this principle, with most net-zero targets up to decades away from full delivery. Showing progress today is needed, but it is to be expected that full delivery will take time. There is a big difference between critiquing illusory commitments and embracing structural change that, by definition, takes time. There must be space for companies to make long-term, high-ambition commitments, even as they know that technological innovation, consumer behavior, and public policy are massive dependencies that will also play a role in whether change takes hold.

Second, some of the backlash seems to be designed to provide an “off-ramp” for businesspeople who have been skeptical about the value of sustainability to begin with. It is remarkable how much media attention has been lavished on Stuart Kirk, who has now left HSBC after his infamous jeremiad against climate alarmists, or Tariq Fancy, who now claims that ESG investing is largely useless.

The media seem to be applying the same “bothsidesism” that climate skeptics have used to their advantage, never mind the science. Basic facts suggest that their critiques are at best overstated.  Climate and the destruction of nature quite clearly threaten business, imposing costs, and disruption. The flip side is also true: increased investments in new technologies, from energy storage to plant-based foods to inclusive hiring, deliver clear benefits. There will be inevitable ups and downs as these new markets mature and take hold; dismissing them is short-termism at its worst.

The final and most corrosive element of the backlash has immense importance, especially in the United States. Many political figures, including several aspirants for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 have attacked so-called “woke capitalism.” This is nothing more than political opportunism, unfairly dragging ESG into toxic culture wars. “Green-baiting” in the 2020s is no more justified than the red-baiting that injected venom into the American political scene in the 1950s. It has been laudable to see business leaders including JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon and BlackRock’s Larry Fink push back on this narrative. One would think that Dimon and Fink’s bona fides as capitalists would put these specious arguments to rest, but the attacks continue nonetheless.

It is obvious that our world faces immense challenges. Business action can be a great asset in creating innovative solutions and new investments in a world that is safer, fairer, healthier, and more resilient. By all means, business should be held accountable, and greenwashing should be called out for what it is. If sustainable business is going to deliver the goods, and navigate a new level of scrutiny because of its importance and prominence, it’s time to get more serious. It is also time to push back on specious arguments that say more about critics’ self-interest than our mutual interest in human progress.

Blog | Thursday July 7, 2022

What Business Needs to Know about the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

Preview

In the fast-changing landscape of sustainability reporting, the EU emerges as a front-runner. And in doing so, it is making a crucial impact not only in Europe but across the world. The EU has set an ambitious path to reorient capital flows toward a sustainable economy while avoiding greenwashing, and it has introduced far-reaching legislation, such as the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and the EU Taxonomy. To support the EU’s goals, investors need quality and comparable data from companies.

This is where the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) proposal comes in.

After a year of negotiations, the EU Council and EU Parliament reached a provisional agreement on June 30. The CSRD is set to replace the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). The name change is welcome, highlighting that sustainability topics are also financial topics rather than opposed to them. Ultimately, sustainability information should be considered as important as financial information.

The CSRD is not just about meeting investor needs. It will also enable civil society organizations, trade unions, and other stakeholders to assess companies’ impacts on society and the environment.

Here are six points that businesses should know about the CSRD:

1. More companies will be covered by the CSRD than the NFRD.

All large companies governed by the law of or established in an EU member state and all European stock exchange-listed companies (except micro-companies), as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), are under the scope of the new directive.  

A large company is defined as meeting two out three of the following criteria: (1) EUR€40 million in net turnover, (2) EUR€20 million on the balance sheet, and (3) 250 or more employees.

Companies that are not established in the EU but have securities on EU-regulated markets are also in scope.

For non-European companies, the requirement to report sustainability disclosures applies to all companies generating a net turnover of EUR€150 million in the EU and which have at least one subsidiary or branch in the EU.

2. The CSRD proposal applies double materiality.

Double materiality means that businesses must not only disclose how sustainability issues can affect the company ("impacts inward") but also how the company impacts society and the environment ("impacts outward"). For businesses that have historically assessed only risks to their business rather than their impacts on the world, the CSRD implies a fundamental shift in measurement and reporting.

3. Companies will need to report according to new EU sustainability reporting standards.

The European Commission has commissioned the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) to develop EU sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). The standards will be mandatory for large companies. EFRAG released a draft for public comment in April. BSR encourages its members and the general public to provide feedback on the exposure drafts ahead of the August 8 deadline.

The standards seek to align to the extent possible with global standard-setting initiatives such as GRI and the ISSB Standards, but they also aim to link other EU legislation and initiatives, such as the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, the EU Taxonomy, among others.

SMEs and non-EU companies will have separate standards.

4. Third-party assurance of the data will be mandatory.

Businesses will be required to seek "limited" assurance of the sustainability information by a statutory auditor. Individual member states may choose to allow other independent assurance service providers (IASP) or non-statutory financial auditors to perform the assurance. Although "limited" assurance still requires an auditor to evaluate the information, it falls short of what is required for the financial audit statement. The EU Commission will adopt standards for "reasonable" assurance by October 2028, which is a more demanding assurance process. 

5. Sustainability information must be included in the management report and digitally tagged.

Companies will need to report sustainability information in a dedicated section of the management report rather than in a separate report (i.e., a standalone sustainability report). This means that financial and sustainability information will be published at the same time and that the administrative, management, and supervisory bodies will be accountable for this reporting. Companies will also need to digitally tag sustainability information so that it can be fed into the European single access point database.

When it comes to reporting at a consolidated level versus entity level, the subsidiary exemption will not apply in the case where the subsidiary is listed on an EU stock exchange.  

6. CSRD application will be phased in.

The European Commission plans to adopt the final text of the CSRD in late 2022, after which member states will have 18 months to translate the directive into local law. The first companies that will need to comply to the Directive are companies that are currently within scope of the NFRD. They will need to report in 2025 based on fiscal year (FY) 2024 data.

• August 8, 2022: The public consultation of the sector-agnostic ESRS ends.
• November 2022: EFRAG proposes sector-agnostic standards to the EU Commission.
• June 2023: The EU Commission adopts sector-agnostic standards through delegated acts.
• January 1, 2024: The CSRD will come into force. Companies already in scope of the NFRD will need to report in 2025 based on FY 2024 information.
• June 2024: The EU Commission will adopt sector-specific standards, standards for listed SMEs, and standards for non-EU companies.
• January 1, 2025: Other large companies need to report in 2026 based on FY 2025 information.
• January 1, 2026: Listed SMEs need to report in 2027 based on FY 2026 information.
• January 1, 2028: Non-EU companies in scope will need to report in 2029 based on FY 2028 information. 

The ESRS standards developed via the CSRD will create a baseline for decision-useful information to both investors and stakeholders at large, and the sustainability reporting standards can both increase the impact of disclosure and reduce the burden of reporting on companies.

At BSR, we have supported greater harmonization and clarity in the field of sustainability reporting for a long time. Competing standards and diverging requests for sustainability information from stakeholders have created an unreasonable burden and reporting fatigue for companies, hindering the effectiveness and impact of reporting. We will continue to push for progress on that front, building on the leadership displayed by the EU.

It is essential that the evolution of these standards reflects the voice of report preparers, so we encourage companies to play an active part in the EU sustainability reporting standard-setting process.  If you would like to discuss this topic further, please reach out to our Future of Reporting collaborative initiative.

Blog | Wednesday July 6, 2022

Activating Directors on Sustainability: Six Questions for Your Board

Preview

Directors of companies headquartered in the EU will likely soon face a pivotal shift in their duties regarding sustainability with the upcoming EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Under the CSRD, companies will have to disclose how sustainability matters are managed at the board level and how sustainability is integrated into directors’ incentive schemes, while the CSDDD sets out ambitious new guidance on the personal duties of directors specifically.

The first blog in the three-part series detailed key recommendations for companies to prepare for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Here, we draw on our learnings from engaging with boards of BSR member companies and have identified six key questions for boards to determine their readiness to govern evolving expectations. We would also like to highlight the recent recommendations at the World Economic Forum related to human rights and the role of boards as an additional source.

A Holistic Approach across ESG

Governments, investors, and other stakeholders are increasing calls for boards to provide oversight on sustainability and environmental, social and governance (ESG) topics. Examples include the SEC’s draft rule on climate disclosure requirements, which would require board and management-related risk oversight and governance. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has also released exposure drafts on sustainability and climate-related financial disclosures.

The EU Commission’s proposed CSDDD is far-reaching in terms of responsibilities, with a comprehensive approach beyond climate, spreading across a broad range of ESG subjects. The CSDDD sets out two provisions on directors’ duties for EU-based companies:

• Directors’ duty of care: When fulfilling their duty to act in the best interest of the company, directors should take into account the consequences of their decisions for sustainability matters, including human rights, climate change, and other environmental considerations, in the short, medium, and long term.
• Directors’ oversight responsibility: Directors are responsible for overseeing a due diligence policy and processes, with due input from relevant stakeholders, including rightsholders impacted by the company’s business activity.

One of the groundbreaking elements of the CSDDD is its potential link between the company’s sustainability strategy and the variable remuneration of directors. As stated by the European Commission,

Where companies' directors enjoy variable remuneration, they will be incentivized to contribute to combating climate change by reference to the corporate plan.

Six Key Questions for Boards

Over the past 30 years, BSR has worked with companies and boards to integrate sustainability into business strategies and operations.  

Based both on that experience and an understanding of the likely impact of these impending changes, it is essential that boards go beyond “check-the-box” compliance to provide effective oversight and governance.

1. Composition: Does the board have access to relevant knowledge and training on human rights and wider sustainability questions?

There is increasing awareness on the part of business of the need to fill the gap in sustainability expertise and skills at board and management levels, including human rights due diligence. Companies can address this gap through dedicated training for all directors to ensure that due diligence becomes integrated into the companies’ processes and by securing external expert guidance. Boards can also review their skillset when considering sustainability risks, including how ESG and human rights topics relate to other company material issues.

2. Oversight: How does the board examine and oversee ESG issues? Is there a dedicated committee or is sustainability integrated across all board committees? 

The entire board must have the right level of understanding of human rights impacts and position these within the company’s wider ESG strategy. Relevant ESG topics can be integrated into respective committees (via nomination, audit, etc.) so they are addressed alongside other board considerations. This may also include a dedicated ESG committee.

3. Company impacts: Does the company have the appropriate approach in place to understand potential adverse human rights impacts on affected stakeholders?

Based on evolving norms in materiality and the CSDDD, companies should understand not just material issues to the business, but also salient human rights impacts. Potential adverse human rights impacts may vary widely, from supply chain labor to the use of algorithms in marketing campaigns to discriminatory effects of services. Such impacts may not be covered under narrower, “traditional” views of the financial materiality of ESG.

4. Stakeholder insight: Is the company conducting stakeholder engagement as a means of understanding relevant perspectives, risks and opportunities?

This could include two main components: Boards can first ensure company management has all necessary processes to create a meaningful and ongoing dialogue with affected stakeholders. In some cases, boards may themselves engage with and/or access regular insights from key stakeholders, including employees, trade unions, and affected community organizations, on salient issues covering sustainability strategy and ongoing relevant emerging issues. One mechanism through which this can be done is the establishment of a stakeholder advisory council, with which Board members may engage, along with management.

5. Emerging risks and strategic implications: Does the board have an approach—such as scenario planning—in place to identify emerging ESG and human rights risks and opportunities?  

Boards look at strategic, capital, talent, and other commitments that will affect a company for years or even decades to come—yet few have a method for considering the profound impacts that social, environmental, and other sustainability-related trends may have on these plans.

Futures thinking employing scenario analysis enables companies to identify emerging risks, opportunities, and their potential implications for the company. While perhaps not standard practice for boards today, directors and leadership teams can use these tools to ensure that their business has allocated the right resources, against multiple “what if” scenarios to ensure they are truly resilient in the face of tomorrow’s disruptions. Whether that’s linked to geopolitical risks such as the invasion of Ukraine, acute physical climate risks, or policy and legal risks on human rights, boards have a duty to long-term governance, versus reactive shifts.

6. Accountability: Is executive remuneration aligned with the company’s sustainability objectives?

Any flexible components of Board and executive remuneration should be linked to the achievement of measurable sustainability targets (time-bound and science-based in the case of environmental targets) set in the company’s strategy and certainly to outcomes beyond share price.

The dynamic business and social context all companies face means that Directors will be most effective when they consider a diversifying set of perspectives and considerations. New EU regulations, whether the CSRD or in this case the CSDDD, mean that heightened and more sophisticated attention to ESG is not only smart practice, but required, to ensure that their Boards’ can be effective stewards of company strategy and performance to deliver long-term value. We invite companies to collaborate with BSR in enhancing board leadership on an evolving and expanding set of questions.

Blog | Friday July 1, 2022

President and CEO Aron Cramer Responds to West Virginia v. EPA

Preview

BSR believes that today’s US Supreme Court hearing in West Virginia v. EPA is a deeply mistaken decision that wrongly undermines the US federal government’s ability to take decisive action to combat dangerous climate change.

As we continue to assess the specifics of the ruling, many things are clear. First and foremost, the science speaks in a way that is more authoritative than the Court, and it is clear that climate action is becoming more and more urgent by the day. Restricting the ability of the EPA, the main environmental regulator in the US, means that the United States will not be able to take steps necessary to shift to a clean energy economy.  Signs of further restrictions on other science-based steps to address environmental and other questions are also very troubling.  

The damage done by this decision emanates beyond the immediate impacts on the EPA’s regulatory authority. It will undermine American climate diplomacy, at a time when the world’s largest economies must band together to take action on a global basis. Reversal of climate action also creates a public health challenge, one that falls most heavily on women, people of color, and communities with fewer economic resources.  It also suggests that the Court, as it showed  in its recent decision to overrule and invalidate Roe v. Wade, and weaken states’ authority to enact gun safety legislation, is not only damaging to the rights of Americans, but also out of step with public opinion in ways that weaken its legitimacy.

Today’s decision reinforces the need for ambitious climate action on the part of business, states and cities, civil society, and all of us as citizens. We are pleased that so many companies from across the US supported an amicus brief supporting the EPA’s authority.  Even more, thousands of companies have committed to net zero climate strategies, and are investing in new business models, technologies, and transition plans to help lead the way to a clean energy future.

We are convinced that the future depends on this transition. While it is heartening to see action from state and local officials, investors, civil society, and businesses, it is extremely distressing that the Supreme Court has embraced a backwards looking ideological approach that will only create greater cost and economic uncertainty, worse public health outcomes, and even more political division. We will continue to work with our more than 300+ member companies and many partners to achieve a truly just and sustainable world.

Blog | Thursday June 30, 2022

The Norwegian Transparency Act: Key Insights for Business

Preview

Majestic fjords, Nobel Peace prizes, and cheese slicers are not the only special features of Norway—there is also an important culture of trust and transparency among peers. So much so that everyone’s income and taxes are made public for everyone to see. It is therefore not surprising that one of the most ambitious national laws on human rights due diligence to date, which takes effect on July 1, 2022, is called Åpenhetsloven—literally, the Transparency Act.

While the business and human rights field has been buzzing with talk of the EU Proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD), the imminent entry into force of the Norwegian Transparency Act follows a broader trend by national legislatures across Europe—including in France and Germany—to turn human rights due diligence into law.

Following France’s trailblazing Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law in 2017, the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act is set to come into force in early 2023. At a regional level, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD) Draft Directive will introduce due diligence obligations on thousands of large companies based and operating in Europe—albeit not before 2025-28.

As the Norwegian Transparency Act becomes the newest human rights due diligence law to enter into force, what does it mean for business with operations in Norway? How should they best prepare?

Below are key insights and recommendations based on work we conducted with our members on assessing their preparedness for the Transparency Act.

• Scope

  The size and volume threshold for in-scope companies is substantially lower than for other human rights due diligence laws across Europe. Large companies are defined as companies that meet at least two out of the three following criteria:

  (1) at least 50 full time employees during the fiscal year (or equivalent man hours)

  (2) An annual turnover of at least NOK 70 million (EUR€6.9 million or US$7.94 million)

  (3) A balance sheet of at least 35 million NOK (EUR€3.5 million, or US$3.97 million)  

   The Act requires companies to promote respect for human rights and decent working conditions (including the provision of a living wage) across their operations and supply chains. It covers companies in Norway and foreign companies that sell products and services in Norway.

• The Right to Request Information

  The right to request information is a unique aspect of the Norwegian Transparency Act and a first in the broader armory of human rights due diligence instruments (there is no such right in the German or French due diligence laws nor in the EU CSDD proposals). The requirement enables any individual to request information from a company on how it addresses actual and potential human rights impacts.

  In practice, it means that any member of the public, including investors, NGOs, and trade unions, can ask for information about a company’s due diligence efforts. How this right will play out in practice—including the level of information that companies need to provide—remains to be seen.

• Due Diligence in Line with the OECD Guidelines

  The Act does not deviate substantially from internationally recognized standards in terms of due diligence requirements, although it is more demanding in terms of supply chain coverage. This means all companies should conduct due diligence, in a manner proportionate to their type, size, sector, and operational context, and follow a risk-based approach.

• Human Rights Reporting Requirements

  The Act also establishes a human rights reporting obligation for companies. A company must publish an annual human rights statement by June 30 that is publicly available on the company’s website. It requires sign-off by all Board members.

• Oversight and Enforcement

  The Norwegian Consumer Authority will be the public enforcement authority responsible for overseeing the Act’s implementation. It is responsible for publishing appropriate guidance and enforcement in the case of non-compliance by businesses, including by issuing orders and fines (amount is unspecified). So far, there has been limited guidance from the Consumer Authority on key elements of the Act.

Recommendations for Business

Based on its work on the Norway Transparency Act and UNGPs and OECD Guidelines, BSR has three recommendations for in-scope companies:

1. Conduct Due Diligence in Line with Internationally Recognized Standards

The Norway Transparency Act is one of several emerging mandatory due diligence obligations to come into effect across Europe. To future-proof their work, companies can build a human rights due diligence approach that is consistent with the standards set out in the OECD Guidelines and the UNGPs.

2. Prepare for the Right to Request Information

The Right to Request Information is a novel feature in the human rights due diligence legislative landscape and requires the development of a clear process for responding to requests.

• Define a process and procedure for responding to requests: Determine appropriate tool, function(s), and process for receiving, assessing, and addressing human rights request and criteria for instances when request may be refused. Mobilize stakeholders and resources internally to ensure they are prepared to respond to requests for information on how they address potential and actual human rights impacts. Key functions for examples would be Sustainability, Compliance, and Public Affairs.
• Enhance visibility over human rights due diligence efforts: Map human rights due diligence efforts and relevant stakeholders across the company to enable a prompt and comprehensive response within the timeframe. Anticipate through stakeholder engagement what issues could be of interest to the public and prepare internal reports accordingly.
• Build capacity on human rights due diligence across the company: Engage with all relevant functions (e.g., Legal, Compliance, Procurement, Public Affairs and Communications) to help them understand the philosophy of the Act and the benefits of a more proactive and detailed transparency about the company’s human rights due diligence efforts.

3. Monitor Implementation and Engage with Regulatory Bodies

Lack of certainty remains around the scope of several of the Act’s key elements, including the Right to Request Information, the inclusion of living wage in the definition of decent working conditions, and requirements for downstream due diligence. The Norwegian Consumer Authority has indicated that producing clear guidance will be a key focus when the law enters into force and that it encourages businesses to come forward with any questions.

Human Rights and Sustainability functions can also work with colleagues in their regulatory teams to engage with the Norwegian Consumer Agency to keep abreast of the latest developments.

The construction of a risk-based human rights due diligence approach and transparency with external stakeholders on human rights efforts are foundational elements of the Norway Transparency Act. We encourage companies and members to follow the requirements above, not only to respond to the Act but to start building a robust architecture for human rights due diligence obligations to come across Europe. And who knows, full transparency may soon become the norm way beyond the beautiful Norwegian fjords.

Blog | Wednesday June 29, 2022

The Housing Crisis: Key Priorities for Investor Action

Preview

We are in the midst of a startling global housing crisis, with 100 million people homeless due to a lack of adequate and affordable housing. In the United States (US) alone, 23 million people—including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans—live in households that pay more than half of their income on rent and utilities in 2019.

Population growth, wage stagnation, a lack of public investment and government oversight, and decades of local opposition to the building of new affordable housing have all played a role in the housing crisis. Yet one factor has come into focus: the role of institutional investors.

In the first 3 months of 2021, 1 in 7 US homes were purchased by institutional investors—including private equity firms, pension funds, and publicly listed companies. In Europe, the rate at which institutional investors are buying up housing is also accelerating, driving up housing prices. Financialized landlords often rent out or sell these units to new buyers at inflated rates—causing individuals to divert funds from other basic needs like food or clothing to avoid eviction.

Earlier this month, The Shift Directives: From Financialized to Human Rights-Based Housing were launched in the EU Parliament, which call on governments to regulate financial institutions in the housing market. Regulatory and public policy pressure is also growing, and organized political and social movements against financialized housing are emerging. Meanwhile, widespread media coverage is zoning in on investors’ role in the housing crisis.

As investors increasingly consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles that are aligned with UN Responsible Investment Principles (PRI), Limited Partners’ (LPs) expectations, and emerging due diligence and disclosure regulations, there is no better place to start than with housing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out adequate and affordable housing as a fundamental human right.

Unanimously endorsed by governments in the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) clarify that all companies, including institutional investors, should take action to respect human rights. The UNGPs provide a process-based due diligence framework that helps investors identify and address human rights risks, recognizing that where risks to people are greatest, material risks to business often follow.

The most effective efforts will be founded upon a human rights-centered approach to housing that considers how the purchase, maintenance, and sale of real estate assets impact people—including renters, homeowners, and community members at large. Here are key actions for investors to consider:

1. Make A Public Commitment

Commit to upholding adequate housing as a core policy commitment that is integrated into investment-level policies and subsequently integrated into ESG screenings, including human rights risk assessments, real estate asset allocations, and stewardship. Ensure third-party operators also commit to these principles. 

2. Assess Risks and Impacts by Engaging Stakeholders

Listen to the people most impacted by housing shortages and rising costs, including tenant associations, renters and homeowners, NGOs, and local officials. Come to the table not to defend your investment portfolio, but to learn about systemic risks to adequate housing, the role your investments may play, and workable solutions grounded in people’s lived realities.  

3. Establish Fair Housing Practices, including: 

• Fair Rent Levels—Set rents commensurate with income levels (e.g., no more than 30 percent of wage levels), and the costs associated with housing should be at such a level that other basic needs are not compromised.
• Tenant Protections—Establish tenant protections including missed payment grace periods, rental freezes for warranted cases (e.g., sickness, temporary joblessness), and the removal of ‘hidden’ fees, such as administration fees and payment convenience fees.
• Pathway to Ownership—Create a path for renters to become homeowners, including via rent-counting, fair and transparent rent-to-own models, financing options for tenants, and waiving of early termination fees. 
• Accountability and Access to Remedy—Ensure tenants can easily identify who owns and manages their home, can raise grievances and receive remedy in a timely and efficient way, and have an active say in housing decisions affecting their lives. Hold third-party operators accountable for their human rights performance. 

4. Align Policy Advocacy

Support pro-housing affordability policies and be transparent via external and internal communication where policy dollars are being spent related to housing issues. 

5. Track and Disclose Performance

Track and disclose, on a consistent basis, efforts to ensure adequate housing, as well as efforts of third-party operators. Such disclosure should be accessible and decision-useful for affected communities and LPs. Specific metrics for disclosure should include rent levels (compared to median wages), grievances/complaints received, and tenant engagement activities.

The housing crisis is not the fault of institutional investors alone and can only be solved through systemwide approaches. However, with their unique financial leverage, investors have both a responsibility and an opportunity to play a key role in the solution.

We look forward to further engagement on the solutions proposed, and we invite all institutional investors who are interested in responsible and human rights-respecting investment to contact us to learn more.

Blog | Friday June 24, 2022

Key Ways for Business to Respond to the Fall of Roe v. Wade

Preview

The sweep of the ruling on abortion is staggering and destabilizing for business in America.

Abortion is now illegal in at least 13 states, and more will certainly follow. New restrictions in other states would make the procedure even more difficult to actually obtain, even in many places where it might technically remain legal. Chaos lies ahead, as some states race to the bottom with criminal abortion bans, forcing people to travel across multiple state lines and, for those without means to travel, carry their pregnancies to term—dictating their health, lives, and futures. Today’s decision will ignite a public health emergency.

This Supreme Court ruling will unleash months of intense pressure on business to mitigate harm and meet rising worker, consumer, and investor expectations. More importantly, women in some parts of the country, particularly the South, will have to travel hundreds of miles to reach an abortion provider. This ruling disproportionately impacts lower-income women and women of color given existing structural inequities. In addition, women who don’t have access to abortion care are three times more likely to leave the workforce.

One in four working women will have an abortion at some point; this could be an unplanned pregnancy, a planned pregnancy where something goes tragically wrong or as part of fertility treatments. Americans broadly support the Supreme Court upholding Roe v Wade. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll finds 75 percent agree that such decisions should be left to the woman and her doctor. 

Recent research by Morning Consult also underscores this broad support by a 2:1 margin: employed adults, across all demographics, would prefer to live in a state where abortion is legal and accessible.

There is a business case that connects how access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare impacts a company’s bottom line and the corporate workforce. One study found existing abortion restrictions already cause $105 billion in economic losses annually. We can expect additional impacts to the ability of business to attract, retain and support their workforce in a labor market that is already quite challenging. We also anticipate increased expectations for companies to respond to employee and consumer demands to take a public stand on this topic. 

Top talent wants reproductive healthcare–including abortion access, to be part of corporate gender equity efforts. Roughly 7 in 10 respondents say access to reproductive healthcare should be an issue companies address when it comes to gender equity in the workplace. Further, companies in more restrictive states may be at a competitive disadvantage. The same Morning Consult research showed that adults want to understand the social policies in a state before deciding to move there, with 71% agreeing social policies should be considered in a decision to move.

There also is a tie-in with the childcare crisis: companies are already struggling to attract and retain workers due to a lack of affordable childcare and the COVID-19 pandemic; taking away women’s ability to decide when they can have children will only exacerbate this situation. An investment in accessible reproductive healthcare allows women to fully engage and advance in the workplace. 

Furthermore, 7 in 10 consumers believe it is important for companies to take a stand on social issues, 86% of which want them to take a stand on reproductive health. This puts reproductive health in line with the demand for action on other social issues, such as gender equity (92%), racial justice (94%) and voting rights (92%).

While the situation continues to unfold rapidly, there are six key points for business to consider. Some point to immediate actions, and some relate to longer-term impact. 

Mitigate Harm

Companies can ensure equitable and inclusive benefits are available to support the spectrum of workers’ reproductive health needs. A self-audit can identify, and redress obstacles faced by employees who need to obtain abortion and other reproductive healthcare. The Society for Human Resource Managers recently provided a recommendation for employers along these lines. Beyond covering travel costs, companies can address gaps in their paid sick leave programs and provide support for time-sensitive care in a confidential way. Companies can also consider practices to support pregnant workers who travel to states where abortion is illegal and may need to access care in emergency situations. For workers who may not be eligible for benefits and therefore lack access to programs or policies that would support them in accessing abortion care, companies should increase or enhance programs centering the needs of non-benefits-eligible workers who need timely access, while protecting privacy. 

Business also can create a supportive culture around reproductive health benefits by sharing clear information about coverage and finding ways to reduce stigma around comprehensive reproductive health in conversations about benefits. A previous BSR blog offers more in-depth advice on how companies can be prepared for workforce impact.

Companies can also highlight relevant and accurate information on healthcare services that continue to provide abortion access. Comprehensive directories such as I need an A, Abortion Finder, and the National Abortion Federation Hotline provide visitors with trusted individual, private, and non-profit clinics. Plan C also offers updated information on at-home abortion and medicine access based on location. The Pro Repro Playbook offers employers—especially small and medium sized businesses and non-profits—with strategies to protect the reproductive health of their workers who can become pregnant.

Engage in Relevant Public Policy at the State and Federal Level 

Many large companies are members of business associations that could play a significant role when it comes to supporting federal policy priorities to protect abortion access. At the federal level, the Women’s Health Protection Act would codify Roe yet remains stalled. At the state level, where a historic number of abortion restrictions have already been passed, companies still have the opportunity to weigh in with elected officials. Companies have an opportunity and a powerful platform to make their voices heard with policy makers, local business associations, and other influential organizations about the workforce impact and economic costs of harmful abortion restrictions.  

Align Political Contributions with Workforce Values, Equity, and ESG Commitments

It’s time for companies to align—once and for all—their public positions, their operational / workforce policies, and their political influence. They have to all be pointing in the same direction. In a world where Roe v Wade was settled law, companies could avoid taking a public position. We now expect that this issue will be legislated in every state, which means company’s public and internal commitments to women’s empowerment may directly contradict with how they spend their lobbying dollars; and that contradiction will be untenable. 65% of American adults agree that companies should cut back on political donations to elected officials who are working to limit access to abortion, according to the Morning Consult research.  

Protect Voting Rights

The Court’s diminishing of the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance powers means lawmakers can impose burdens on voting to narrow the electorate. It will be crucial for companies to use their voice and influence to address both restrictive social policies and efforts to limit voting, so that avenues for countering extreme social policies through normal democratic channels are protected. Morning Consult data indicates that 67% of adults agree with companies speaking out against efforts to limit access to voting for eligible voters.

Speak Out

While most Americans support access to abortion, ending gun violence, and protections for LGBTIQ+ people, among other issues, public policy solutions are stalled. Business has been increasingly expected to take a public position—to show how support for these issues is important to the business community, to their workers, to their customers, and to the communities in which they operate.

This involves not only public statements of support, but aligned action such as decisions to reconsider locations of events, meetings, and future operations given a state's reputation, and climate on social issues. Recent prominent examples include Salesforce’s actions in protest of Indiana’s proposed anti-LGBTIQ+ religious freedom bill, Major League Baseball pulling the All-Star game out of Atlanta to protest Georgia’s restrictive new voting law. 

Support Relief Efforts

Business can provide financial, logistical, and other support that can mitigate the current and anticipated harm incurred by workers navigating new burdens to access care. Support abortion funds directly and support advocacy organizations through awareness raising and other efforts unique to your business and expertise. Coalitions such as the Brigid Alliance and Midwest Access Coalition help with travel coordination and costs.

Grant Access to Remote Work

Companies can consider how overturning Roe informs their stance on remote work policies. For businesses with operations in states with trigger laws or that have old laws on the books, employees who would otherwise be expected to work in the office can leverage remote work policies to be based in states where their healthcare access is protected. However, for workers where remote work is not possible, additional support as mentioned above (i.e., travel, paid sick leave) needs to be made accessible.

At BSR, we are committed to working with member companies of all industries to promote women’s empowerment as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion—in the workplace and beyond. Without access to reproductive healthcare, women’s economic empowerment can only go so far. Business can meet this moment to address the workforce and economic impact and demonstrate commitments to equity and social justice. 

Additional Resources: 

Navigating the SCOTUS Rulings: Recommendations for Business Advancing Social Equity and Justice | Upcoming Events | BSR

SCOTUS Overrules Roe v. Wade: Part I: Potentially Wide-Ranging Impact on Companies Navigating Employee Benefits, Privacy Protections, and Law Enforcement Demands | Jenner.com

Employers: Checklist for a Post-Roe Workplace | Workforce Bulletin

Blog | Wednesday June 22, 2022

Inside BSR: Q&A with Olivia Li

Preview

Tell us a bit about your background. Where are you from, and where are you based? What is your favorite hobby?

I was born and raised in Shanghai, China and currently work as manager in Sustainability Management at BSR.

In my spare time, I enjoy dancing—jazz and hip hop—as well as jogging and swimming. I’m also a fan of Chinese contemporary arts. I visit art galleries on a regular basis and would love to introduce these talented artists to the world.

How did you first get involved in sustainable business? How long have you been at BSR? What is your current role, and what does that entail?

My career has been driven by a passion for advancing diversity and inclusion, and a practical approach to social entrepreneurship. 

I was exposed to real-life social issues in my undergraduate years, and directly interacted with the first generation of social entrepreneurs and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) practitioners through my work at student associations and volunteer groups. With their support, I organized on-campus events to spread knowledge on social inclusion and combat discrimination against people living with HIV and AIDS.

In subsequent years, I visited slums in Nairobi and Delhi, where I witnessed real-life challenges facing c women and children in poverty. I worked at a well-established NGO in Toronto that benefited from one of the best social support systems in the world. I connected with a community of colleagues, friends and mentors who were passionate about bringing positive impact through different professions and methods.

My experiences abroad inspired me to come back to China and work in sustainable business, with the aim of mobilizing corporate resources to help build a more sustainable and equitable world.

I joined BSR’s Beijing office as an intern, and then moved to the newly established Shanghai office as a coordinator. Since then, I have done extensive work in supporting companies to implement their sustainability strategies, plans and programs, including in-depth research on the most cutting-edge sustainability issues affecting China and Asia.

What are some interesting projects that you get to work on as part of your role at BSR? What do you enjoy about them?

A project that I am proud of—and that I currently manage—involves working with a technology company to design a socially inclusive project using wireless technology. The mobile application offers audio and visual support as well as volunteer accompanying services to assist blind and visually impaired people to overcome their daily challenges.

Before launching the service to users, the project team conducted various pilots to ensure that the mobile application could smoothly link the blind user and our partner volunteer organizations.

Xiao Wang was our first pilot user of this service. He needed to travel from Yantai, Shandong alone to Beijing for his summer internship at a blind massage center. Our mobile application helped him find a volunteer to pick him up at a Beijing Railway Station and accompany him to his home in the suburbs.

One year later, Xiao Wang informed me that he had left his massage job, and was about to take the National Bar Exam to practice law. He would very possibly be the first blind law practitioner of his province. He is continually giving back to his local community to support the disabled, and mentioned that our work has been a source of inspiration.

I was deeply inspired by his inner strength, kindness and resilience. There have been challenging times throughout my career; either responding to a complex client requests, or living as an entrepreneur to create and execute innovative solutions. Xiao Wang’s story reminds me of my original goals, which has helped to reinforce my passion and resilience toward my work.

What issues are you passionate about and why? How does your work at BSR reflect that?

I have a natural passion for writing. I write in the Wechat Blog platform in Chinese to share my knowledge on sustainability consumption and green lifestyles. At BSR, I have co-written the China blog series to unpack the sustainability and business impacts of China’s 14th Five Year Plan toward the western sustainability community.

At BSR, I am a member of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) taskforce, a voluntary group that assesses organization culture, policies and procedures related to DEI, and provides recommendations.

I also actively engage in diversity and inclusion related projects at work, including leading the mobile App project that supports blind people in China, conducting women’s empowerment research in Asia-Pacific, implementing women’s economic empowerment programs in Vietnam, and executing women’s health programs in the global supply chain.

What were the things that brought you joy amid the uncertainty and challenges of the past two years? What are you looking forward to in 2022?

The past 2-3 months were extremely difficult for us in Shanghai due to the city lockdown, especially in early April, when delivery and logistics were cut off and we had issues with accessing food and other essential products.

I appreciated the companionship of colleagues and friends at the Shanghai office, who helped turn the frustrating moments into trivia and jokes, as well as the support and positive messages from colleagues and clients across the globe. 

The constant reminder of the impact of my ongoing and past projects is a great source of energy for me and helps me navigate through difficult moments knowing that I am giving back to my community.