People

David Korngold

Preview

David partners with corporate boards, executives, and investors to develop high-impact sustainability strategies. As part of BSR’s Transformation team, he co-leads engagement with boards of directors to promote effective board governance and leadership ambition on sustainability. 

Having previously led BSR's Financial Services team, David continues to work closely with financial companies on sustainability, ESG integration, and impact investing. David has led engagements in nearly all of BSR’s focus areas and major industry groups. This includes leading climate scenarios workshops with boards, creating net-zero road maps for investment firms, designing and operationalizing a leading impact investing fund, conducting materiality assessments, undertaking human rights impact assessments, and co-authoring research on topics like ESG for emerging public companies and responsible investment policies for private equity firms.

Before joining BSR, David worked in strategy and management consulting at Bain & Company.

David holds a BA in History from Amherst College.

People

Asako Nagai

Preview

With more than 20 years of sustainability experience, Asako advises global technology companies as well as BSR members and partners in Japan to better integrate sustainability into core business strategies.

Prior to joining BSR, Asako was Head of the CSR Management Section at Sony Corporation, and she has more than 10 years of experience leading global sustainability strategies. She has experience in sustainability reporting, stakeholder engagement, supply chain management, and responsible mineral sourcing and human rights. She also played a key role in shaping the industry framework for the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition.

Asako holds dual master’s degrees in Business Administration and Science from the Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan.

People

Chhavi Ghuliani

Preview

Chhavi leads BSR’s global engagement with governments and foundations, building cross-sector partnerships that mobilize business, philanthropy, and the public sector to address urgent sustainability challenges. He works with partners around the world to identify shared priorities, unlock collaboration, and advance practical solutions for a more just, resilient, and sustainable economy.

Chhavi has developed large-scale, multi-million-dollar, multi-country partnerships with companies and donors, translating shared ambition into initiatives with tangible impact. He previously served as a lead for corporate engagement and financial inclusion for HERproject, now RISE, where he worked with companies and partners to advance inclusive business practices and improve outcomes for women in global value chains.

Chhavi brings a multidisciplinary background spanning sustainable finance, corporate sustainability, operations, and international development. Prior to joining BSR, he worked at a socially responsible investment firm, integrating financial and environmental, social, and governance analysis to develop sustainable investment recommendations. He also served as an operations manager for Oracle across the Asia-Pacific and Americas regions, where he helped launch a new operation in India.

His advisory experience includes developing sustainability strategies for companies in Mexico, India, and Saudi Arabia, as well as supporting public health initiatives as a freelance consultant for the Institute of Public Health. He speaks English, Spanish, and Hindi.

Chhavi holds an M.B.A. from the Wharton School and an M.A. in International Studies from the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. He also holds a B.A. in English and Computer Science from Rutgers University.

People

Aron Cramer

Preview

Aron served as BSR's President and CEO from 2004–2026 and is recognized globally as a preeminent authority on just and sustainable business. In addition to leading BSR for 22 years, which has grown substantially throughout his tenure, Aron advised senior executives at BSR’s 200+ member companies and other global businesses and partners on the full spectrum of environmental, social, and governance issues.

Aron joined BSR in 1995 as the founding director of its Business and Human Rights program. He later opened BSR's Paris office in 2002, where he worked until becoming President and CEO in 2004. Aron has served on advisory boards to CEOs at AXA, Barrick Gold, Marks & Spencer, Nike, Recruit Holdings, SAP, Shell, and he serves as a director of the We Mean Business Coalition and RISE.

Aron speaks frequently at leading business and public fora and is widely quoted in top-tier media, such as the Financial Times, Le Figaro (France), The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Axios, and Politico. He is co-author of the book Sustainable Excellence: The Future of Business in a Fast-Changing World, which spotlights innovative sustainability strategies that enable business success.

Prior to joining BSR, Aron practiced law in San Francisco and worked as a journalist at ABC News in New York. He holds a BA from Tufts University and a JD from the University of California, Berkeley.

Blog | Wednesday August 10, 2022

Business Leadership in the Great Fragmentation: Part 2

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 the first piece on the role of business in combatting societal fragmentation, today we focus on how business can reorient their efforts around four main objectives.

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.

The Business Response

The divisions caused by “The Great Fragmentation” are a barrier to achieving an economy that drives equitable and sustainable progress. This represents the great project of the 21st century: enabling all people to thrive and live in dignity on a healthy planet.

The Great Fragmentation also presents an extremely serious challenge for business. Social division, political dysfunction, and constant conflict result in complexity, costs, and structural barriers that undermine the ability to plan and operate. 

To meet the needs of our fragmented world, business can reorient their efforts around four main objectives: 

• Close the gap between ambition and delivery on ESG: Business can accelerate delivery of existing commitments. The gap between corporate ambitions and tangible impact hinders social progress and invites skepticism of the bona fides of business’ stated objectives. The gap between stated net-zero commitments, for example, and tangible delivery—let alone progress—sparks cynicism and social division. Delivering on goals is not only an end in itself—it can also heal divisions regarding economic models and establish trust in business as a credible partner.
• Take on the sources of fragmentation directly: Business activities are an important source of fragmentation. Mis- and disinformation, income inequality, and gender and racial pay gaps arise in part from business models and actions. Businesses cannot be a bystander as society fragments. It has an opportunity—and obligation—to remedy the steps it is taking that contribute to widening divisions. The failure to act is a missed opportunity and risks further erosion of trust in business and, more broadly, global market economies. 
• Modernize and strengthen the social contract: At the root of this fragmentation is the fact that our social contracts have outlived their use. Existing social contracts are largely based on the world as it was in the immediate aftermath of World War II and are no longer fit for purpose. Modernized and strengthened social contracts can provide the security and mobility people need and deserve, establish the foundation for dynamic and equitable economies, and address 21st-century questions, such as the role and application of new technologies and the energy transition. For business, a more constructive role regarding social contracts also means moving away from reflexive opposition to tax and regulation.
• Increase engagement in constructive public policy solutions: Finally, it is essential that business reorient how they use influence in the development of public policy. It is long past time that the discrepancy between business aspirations and the lobbying efforts of trade associations was erased. In many places, not least the United States, this also means that business should engage more forcefully to ensure that democratic processes are restored and sustained. Business can make fundamental changes to their approach to political contributions and be willing to withdraw support for political figures undermining democracy and rule of law, even if they may advance other policies seen to be “business-friendly.”

Conclusion

There is little doubt that many business leaders would prefer not to have this assignment. Traditional business questions are challenging enough with an economic downturn looming, the ongoing march of new technologies, and continuing disruption of business models. Diving into the fragmentation presents a risk. Turning away from this central problem, however, creates even greater risk. It is unrealistic on the part of business to assume that others will step in to turn the page. It is irresponsible for business to look away from the sources of fragmentation where they take responsibility. And it is unwise to assume that business is immune from the impacts of our deep fragmentation.

By redoubling efforts to deliver on ESG ambitions, helping to reshape the social contract, directly addressing the causes of fragmentation, and taking a more active role in positive policy engagement, business can help reorient societies away from a vicious cycle of division and restore a more favorable operating environment. This is the only sensible path forward if we are to collectively escape the descent to further fragmentation and a world that is increasingly ungovernable, inequitable, and unlivable.

Blog | Friday July 29, 2022

BSR Response: How the EU’s Sustainability Reporting Standards Will Be a Game Changer

Preview

In April, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) released a set of sector-agnostic exposure drafts that form the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). These standards will become mandatory under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and will have a significant impact on companies doing business in the EU.

This is one of several major milestones toward the standardization of sustainability reporting on a global scale. This spring, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) individually released exposure drafts for sustainability-related disclosures. 

These public consultations are a unique opportunity to influence the future of mandatory sustainability reporting standards and build a sustainability reporting system designed to enhance both business and sustainability performance.

BSR commends EFRAG for its leadership and efforts in creating the sector-agnostic standards. 

Below, we summarize our response to EFRAG’s public consultation which is informed by 30 years of hands-on experience implementing best practices with member companies. BSR’s comments are made in the service of reporting standards, designed to support improved sustainability performance by companies and the achievement of EU sustainability policy objectives. 

Granularity of Disclosure Requirements

The disclosure requirements outlined in the exposure drafts demand a level of detail and specificity that goes beyond standard reporting practices—even those of the most advanced reporters. While BSR believes that comparable disclosures require ambitious, specific, and prescriptive reporting standards, we question whether all the elements of each disclosure are decision-useful for stakeholders. We support the disclosure requirements to the extent that compliance with them does not (1) overshadow the most decision-useful information and (2) divert resources away from sustainability performance improvement.

Alignment with Other Standards 

We encourage EFRAG to further align disclosure requirements with established standards (such as the Global Reporting Initiative, or GRI) and emerging reporting standards (such as the SEC’s draft climate rule and IFRS Standards). We believe that harmonization is fundamentally important to creating a system that maximizes impact and achieves efficiency and comparability. Even minor differences in language between different reporting standards present the risk that companies will spend time and resources developing separate disclosures concerning the same topics but for different jurisdictions, which would make reports less useful for readers. BSR proposes that EFRAG map the final standards against GRI and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Standards and cross-label or explicitly reference them as appropriate.

Double Materiality

BSR fully endorses the concept of double materiality. However, we believe that the proposed definition of impact materiality is too broad and lacks the concept of prioritization. Similarly, we encourage EFRAG, the ISSB, and the SEC to align their definitions of financial materiality. Multiple definitions will make it difficult for companies to report across jurisdictions. BSR supports a definition of financial materiality that is consistent, interoperable, and substitutable.

Rebuttable Presumption

BSR does not support EFRAG’s proposal for the rebuttable presumption. We believe it will be difficult and resource-intensive for companies to prove a topic is not material based on “reasonable and supportable evidence,” adding an unnecessary layer of complexity and leading to less concise, less focused, and less decision-useful reporting.

Architecture and Presentation

The standards can be streamlined to avoid duplication and make them easier to understand and navigate for report preparers and users.

Boundaries, Restatements, and Value Chain

BSR agrees that the boundary for the sustainability statement should mirror that of financial reporting and extend to the company's upstream and downstream value chain. While the draft standards request estimates when the full boundary cannot be measured, we believe overusing estimates could be misleading and unhelpful.

Estimates

BSR believes that the current exposure drafts rely too heavily on the use of estimates when data are not available or difficult to collect. We believe that EFRAG should propose a “comply or explain approach” via omissions for disclosures beyond a core set, in line with the approach of the GRI Standards.

Targets

According to ESRS 1, if there are no targets in place, the company needs to provide valid reasons. We believe this sets an unreasonable expectation that companies should be setting measurable outcome-based targets across all risks, opportunities, and impacts. There is a possibility that this will result in companies establishing targets across several topics where targets may not be relevant, meaningful, or useful.

Format of Statements

BSR believes that the standards should allow more flexibility in referencing disclosures inside the management report. This would improve overall usability and avoid duplication within the management report when information is provided in other sections.

Feasibility

BSR recommends identifying additional disclosures as optional or considering phasing in certain topic-specific standards or disclosure requirements (e.g., biodiversity disclosures). In many cases, protocols for reporting on such topics are immature, which risks mandating the disclosure of information that may be less than fully accurate.

Use of Entity-Specific Disclosures

It is unclear whether the ESRS suggests completely phasing out entity-specific disclosures over time as sector-specific standards are created. BSR feels that companies should be allowed to continue to disclose entity-specific information as they deem it relevant and appropriate.

We believe that these exposure drafts are an important first step toward achieving our common goal of improved company disclosure and sustainable outcomes for all. BSR will continue to engage in the development of reporting standards, and in ESG reporting more broadly, through our Future of Reporting collaborative initiative. 

We encourage companies to participate in the consultation process and share their perspective on how to maximize the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of reporting in support of resilient business and a more just and sustainable world.

Blog | Thursday July 28, 2022

How IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards Can Contribute to Further Harmonization

Preview

At COP26 in November 2021, the IFRS Foundation announced the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), a sister board to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). This was an exciting development for the investor community, which had expressed a clear need for global and comparable investor-focused sustainability disclosure. Who better to play in this space than the IFRS Foundation? The announcement was particularly timely considering developments such as the SEC’s proposed rule on climate-related disclosures and the EU Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

With sustainability disclosure standards converging, reporting practitioners and the sustainability community at large have a unique opportunity to shape the outcome of the global sustainability reporting landscape for years to come. We have the power to advocate for increased compliance that not only reduces the reporting burden on companies but also drives concise and decision-useful disclosure. 

BSR welcomes and has responded to the ISSB’s two exposure drafts released in March 2022, grounding our comments in 30 years of experience working with member companies. We want to express our congratulations to the ISSB for this milestone and commend their efforts. Please read our General Sustainability-Related Disclosure and Climate-Related Disclosure comment letters for additional details. 

BSR would like to see final standards that:

1. Strike a balance between prescriptive disclosures and flexibility

Prescriptive disclosures may lead to more comparable reporting; however, every company’s operating context is different. A degree of flexibility—complemented by clear guidance—would allow disclosures to reflect those differences while ensuring that reporting is not overly burdensome.

BSR suggests developing additional guidance on the location of reported information, such as examples of where and how this information can be found based on jurisdictional requirements, or the ISSB’s perspective on best practice. 

2. Align with the jurisdictional definition of “materiality”

We recommend that the ISSB work with jurisdictions to ensure that reporting against one regulator’s materiality definition or set of requirements satisfies those of—or is otherwise accepted by— the requirements of another. Definitions should be consistent, interoperable, and substitutable. Otherwise, they can be interpreted and reported on differently.

BSR proposes that the ISSB clarify that companies may utilize other jurisdictions’ disclosures (e.g., those proposed by EFRAG), which are also intended to satisfy investor needs in the absence of further ISSB standards or where gaps with SASB disclosures remain.

Close alignment between the SEC’s rule on climate-related disclosures and the ISSB Standards is key. BSR encourages the ISSB to maintain close alignment with the TCFD recommendations and include additional topics of disclosure only when deemed necessary to fill significant gaps.

3. Require verifiable climate-related financial disclosures that follow a structured compliance timeline

The ISSB Standards serving as a global baseline for sustainability-related financial reporting implies that jurisdictions will build on them, allowing for the possibility of divergence across jurisdictions. To prevent this, the ISSB should provide guidelines for the adoption of the Standards by regulatory authorities.

Not all jurisdictions will adopt the ISSB Standards, but investors may continue to request ISSB-aligned disclosures as these build on SASB metrics, which will form the basis of the ISSB’s industry-based standards. As such, we recommend that the ISSB continue to provide guidance on how companies can report against the ISSB standards, including on a voluntary basis.

We support the verifiability of climate data as it is especially critical for investors and other stakeholders and features more established collection methodologies. 

BSR believes the effective date of both exposure drafts should be the same given that they were created in tandem. We encourage the ISSB to move forward with a common process and compliance timeline for additional standards

4. Include cross-industry requirements required for decision-useful climate-related financial disclosures

We support the breadth of disclosure topics included in the climate exposure draft, including alignment with TCFD. The ISSB should direct companies to additional guidance that would help disclosure of complex topics like scope 3 emissions. The use of climate scenario analysis is an important tool for identifying and assessing climate-related risk and opportunities. As such, companies should only use alternative assessment techniques if they cannot perform a scenario analysis. The ISSB should also remain flexible on disclosure of transition plans as guidance is evolving.

5. Leverage existing industry-based requirements for climate-related disclosures

We strongly support the ISSB’s proposal to include industry-based requirements (Appendix B) that are derived from the SASB standards. Moreover, we support the ISSB’s efforts to develop additional topic-specific standards over time, and we believe that each topic standard should be accompanied by industry-based requirements derived from SASB.

The consolidation of the Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) into the IFRS Foundation is a critical differentiator and brings years of industry-focused sustainability standards setting experience into a well-established financial standard setting entity. We commend the ISSB for its efforts thus far. We encourage them to continue building relationships with voluntary reporting standards and frameworks, to deepen connections between jurisdictional authorities that are developing their own standards, and to take forward future efforts to build on the two ISSB Exposure Drafts.

---

BSR will continue to engage on this issue, and in ESG reporting more broadly, through our Future of Reporting collaborative initiative. We encourage companies to get involved in the consultation process by showing support for the IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards in harmonizing the reporting landscape and highlighting ways the ISSB can strengthen the standards for the benefit of all investors.

Blog | Wednesday July 27, 2022

Business Leadership in the Great Fragmentation: Part 1

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 changing expectations of business in protecting rule of law, rights, and democracy, today's piece is the first of two blogs on 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.

The recent US Supreme Court hearing that overruled Roe v. Wade is yet another reminder of the profound divisions plaguing the United States. The decision has caused states to take wildly different approaches to women’s rights, business to face the question of how to respond, and a society at each other’s throat.

As momentous as this decision is, it is but one example of the many ways that the world is fragmenting: politically, economically, environmentally, and culturally. Signs are everywhere: growing conflict between illiberal governments and liberal democracies, generational splits regarding the value of market capitalism, and culture wars in the US and many parts of Europe. 

This fragmentation is driven by a set of interconnected and accelerating factors, which present not only serious risks to human progress, but also a massive challenge for business. This is particularly true for those of us advocating for more just and sustainable business. 

Sources of Fragmentation

To understand—and address—our current context, it is essential to understand the six interlocking factors that are accelerating fragmentation. Each is potent, and taken together, they reinforce and amplify each other, creating challenges that metastasize by the day. 

• The Digital World: Digital technologies and social media are both sources and enablers of fragmentation, with three key elements. First, social media enable communities of interest to gather in ways they never could in the physical world. While this is not inherently negative, the phenomenon is clearly corrosive. Second, disinformation and misinformation are turbocharging the digital communities’ embrace of their own realities, untethered to fact. Finally, the rise of the “splinternet,” with multiple walled off internets replacing the initial vision of a single, connected web (e.g., the Great Firewall of China and the “Putin-net”), prevents universal access to information, fostering further division.  
• Social Progress…and Backlash: The rise of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter and increased recognition of LGBTIQ+ rights are, on balance, leading to more equitable societies, with greater awareness of the structural inequities that plague us. There is also a powerful backlash, resulting in expressions of hate and violence. Business is increasingly being pulled into these culture wars, with competing claims of “woke capitalism” from the right and expectations from many, including the rising generation of employees and consumers, that business speak out for social justice. 
• Income Inequality: Our societies also continue to face income inequality that both reflects and reinforces fragmentation. According to the New York Times, the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio in the US reached 339-1 in 2021, a tenfold increase from the late 1960s. Coming at a time of structural change and dislocation, this fuels extreme distrust, as well as populist movements from both right and left. Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen all galvanized widespread political support, often expressed through and with fear and xenophobia, by capitalizing on income inequality as proof that the system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthiest, leading to further social division.  
• Political and Geopolitical Division: Political divisions within and between countries are also on the rise. The recent French parliamentary elections spread votes across four coalitions, including two that are far to the right and left. The US has been mired in gridlock for two decades. “The Great Sorting” of populations has created urban and rural political divides in Europe and North America. The same is true globally, with sharpened geopolitical tensions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s increasingly muscular nationalism, and competition between liberal democracies and illiberal regimes are creating a more politically volatile environment than we have seen since in decades. 
• Social Impacts of Environmental Collapse: Human-caused environmental collapse also fuels fragmentation. The direct impacts of climate change already are more than enough for society to manage. The second- and third-order effects of climate change, however, are sparking additional social division. Climate refugees are adding to human migration, both to Europe from Africa and the Middle East and to the US from Central America, exacerbating already sharp divisions over migration and contributing to further xenophobia. The sheer scope of the energy transition, with the undeniable fact that there will be winners and losers, and pitting historical emitters against vulnerable nations, also magnifies fragmentation. Whether and how to act is also politicized, especially in the United States, where one political party has systematically—and cynically—denied climate science.
• Maximalist Thinking: Finally, these factors, which are powerful enough on their own, are also amplified—and at times weaponized—by the troubling rise of maximalist thinking. Various communities see “their issue,” whether climate or equity or democracy protection as the issue of existential importance. No matter how legitimate—indeed important—their vision and objectives, this kind of thinking has contributed to an environment in which tribes of reformers fail either to achieve their goals or to build needed coalitions. As Ford Foundation President Darren Walker put it recently in The New York Times, “[W]e are mired in a culture of absolutism and tearing ourselves apart at the seams. Everything right now, it seems, is black or white, all or nothing, perfect or unacceptable.” Indeed, if every cause is presented as an existential threat, advocates will retreat to their own corners, many others will simply tune out, and the consensus needed to make progress is rendered impossible.

Each of these developments has immense significance for business. Taken together, they are reshaping the expectations of customers, employees, and other stakeholders; the ways business communicates; and the policy environment shaping crucial issues from climate to employment to reporting and disclosure. 

In Part 2, we will spell out how business can respond to reduce these sources of fragmentation and adapt their activities to address them.

Blog | Tuesday July 26, 2022

In Egypt, Digital Payroll Helps Garment Workers Reap What They Sew

Preview

Port Said, at the northern tip of the Suez Canal, is uniquely attractive to national and international fashion brands due to its direct shipping connections, its free zone, and easy access to so-called “white gold”—superior Egyptian cotton, one of the finest natural fibers in the world. After “black gold”—oil—and actual gold, textiles and apparel are among Egypt’s top exports, and the sector employs more than 1.5 million workers, half of which are women.

In a country with strict gender norms and roles, where men tend to be seen as the breadwinners and women as the main caregivers, this sector offers a unique opportunity for women’s economic empowerment.

Most workers in this industry still receive their wages in cash. It can lead to unfortunate consequences for all parties: Paying employees in cash is risky for factories—it requires them to transport large amounts of money. Another danger for women: They are also more at risk of being robbed than men. Female workers usually have limited control over their salaries, and family members might have easy access to their cash. Additionally, workers stand in long lines to receive their wages, which cuts down on productivity and personal time.

We recently piloted “HERfinance Digital Wages” with workers at Lotus Garments Group, a Levi Strauss & Co. manufacturer in Port Said. Bringing the benefits of the digital economy to cash-dependent workers, the initiative helps managers digitize their payroll while ensuring the specific needs of female workers are considered.

Nearly three years later, 9,310 workers at Lotus were being paid digitally into financial accounts—that’s nearly 90 percent of the factory workforce. Now the initiative is expanding with the aim of supporting nine more factories supplying global brands, including M&S, Kontoor, PVH and The Children’s Place. The goal is to reach 20,000 workers in total.

Marwa, a worker at the Lotus factory, says the training she received as part of the digital wages program helped her save and budget better during the COVID-19 crisis.

Building financial capability for workers, especially women, is a vital part of digital payroll services. With support from the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, participants in the Digital Wages program receive gender-sensitive training, including technical guidance using their new payroll accounts and associated financial services. They also learn lessons on financial planning, budgeting, savings, and discussing finances with their families.

The training especially addresses women workers' needs, acknowledging the discriminatory situations they might face at the workplace and the different challenges they encounter when accessing digital financial services.

“At the beginning, I knew only how to withdraw the money from an ATM, and I used my bank account in the same way as a cash envelope,” says Amal Fahmy, one of the Digital Wages peer educators at Lotus Garments. “Once my salary was put on my account, I withdrew all my money. After the training sessions, I learned about the many services offered by my payroll account and other financial skills. Now I save part of my salary in my account and withdraw only the needed amount of money.”

Digital accounts were also a critical asset during the COVID-19 lockdowns, as many facilities closed and workers receiving payments in cash faced long delays in their salaries. In contrast, most workers with a bank account received payment on time. The knowledge workers gained from the training sessions also helped them cope with uncertainty and foster resilience: “I’ve been using what I learned to follow up on my expenses and build a budget,” says Marwa, 29, a female garment worker. “I think this knowledge on saving and financial planning was especially useful during the COVID-19 crisis.”

After digitizing wages and participation in the HERfinance Digital Wages program, Lotus reported a 42 percent reduction in time spent on payroll, and 96 percent of workers interviewed reported that they prefer to be paid in a bank account, rising from 25 percent at the start of the program. Four in 10 women surveyed reported saving every month after the program implementation.

By sharing digital tools and training, we can improve the long-term financial health of women and, in turn, make the communities in which they live — and the supply chains on which we all depend — stronger and more resilient.

“One of the barriers to digitizing wages was the lack of opportunity for workers to cash out wages on payday,” says Tamer El-Dessouki, sustainability manager at Lotus Garments. With only one ATM near the factory, the company arranged for a mobile ATM to be on-site for payday and the days following. Managers staggered workers’ breaks to reduce demand for the ATM and factory transport buses stopped at other ATMs on the way home. “The next step is to encourage workers to use more financial services, which will reduce their need to cash out on payday,” El-Dessouki says.

The partnership also developed technology tools to facilitate the transition to digital wages at scale. Together with Quizrr, the initiative developed a technology learning tool for workers based on the HERfinance Digital Wages program and training curriculum. The tablet-based training tool uses engaging films, quizzes, and animation to support workers in increasing their knowledge of financial services, improving financial health, and building their digital literacy. Peer educators said the tech tool makes the session more enjoyable and entertaining, and they related to the characters and situations that are used to explain the core concepts.

The collaboration also created a HERfinance Digital Wages Tech Toolkit for Managers, which sets out best practices and guidance for garment managers to transition toward digital payroll in a responsible and efficient manner.

The Egypt Digital Wages partnership has shown that digitizing wages, accompanied by financial capability training, can lead to increased financial inclusion and resilience for female garment workers. Mastercard and HERproject will continue to work together to build the business case for wage digitization and support the scale-up by sharing best practices, insights, and digital training tools with key stakeholders, including employers, buyers, and financial service providers.

Originally appeared on Mastercard.

Blog | Thursday July 21, 2022

Just Transition: Clean Energy with a Clear Conscience

Preview

The Biden administration recently announced a bold plan that would boost US clean energy production by authorizing the Defense Production Act (DPA) to reduce energy costs, strengthen the power grid, and create well-paid jobs. The Administration’s action is a welcomed move to spur the clean energy transition, which enables the continued import of solar components that are required to construct clean energy projects on a domestic scale.

The rise in manufacturing renewable energy technologies, however, may impact workers, including through forced labor, abuses of Indigenous rights, “and the denial of workers’ rights to decent work and a living wage,” all of which cause immeasurable harms and can risk the clean energy transition. While we can celebrate increased clean energy production in the US, policymakers and business have an opportunity to take meaningful action to reimagine a world where clean energy isn’t soiled by human rights abuses.

The DPA would insulate solar importers from potential penalties raised by a recent US Department of Commerce investigation of solar cell anti-dumping circumvention. Originally from a petition filed by a US solar panel manufacturer, the investigation examines claims that solar cells imported into the US were manufactured in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, using Chinese parts that would otherwise be subject to tariffs.

The new plan would then allow for “a 24-month bridge as domestic manufacturing rapidly scales up to ensure the reliable supply of components that US solar deployers need to construct clean energy projects.” Federal procurement would also support internal US production through a system that would help domestic clean electricity providers sell their products to the US government.

The rights and well-being of people around the world depend on accelerating the energy transition—and we applaud the decision to allow imports of solar products while the alleged tariff circumvention investigation continues. However, that transition shouldn’t come at the expense of the rights of workers and communities impacted by the mining and manufacturing of solar panels.

Concerns around forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region, combined with the fact that around 45 percent of polysilicon—essential in photovoltaic cells—reportedly comes from Xinjiang, in part drove the development of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) that came into force on June 21. An estimated 15-30 percent of global cobalt supply, critical to storing solar energy, is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in conditions considered to foster child labor and the exploitation of local miners.

Both the US government and the business community have an opportunity to reconcile long- and short-term plans for heightened production with respect for human rights. It’s possible, though seemingly unlikely, that the bans on solar components from Xinjiang under the UFLPA could herald a more permanent shift in sourcing for US solar cells. Alternative locations outside Xinjiang, and China more broadly, will almost certainly not have the capacity to immediately increase production commensurate with a US solar industry backed by DPA authorization. The US government and US solar companies will need to proceed with this in mind. 

First, addressing the broader nexus between environmental protection and modern slavery risks will require the Biden administration to deliver on its promises of encouraging “the use of strong labor standards…that empower the clean energy transition in low-income communities.” Although the statement calling for project labor agreements and community benefits agreements may be directed domestically, these elements should also be included in manufacturing contracts regardless of geography.

Companies will be expected to enhance their modern slavery policies and map of business activities and relationships with suppliers. Heightened due diligence across value chains is essential to prevent and mitigate the risk of forced labor in sourced components, especially in high-risk geographies. Notably, the UFLPA requires this additional due diligence from companies sourcing products from Xinjiang and China; such practices should also be put in place for Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Businesses can also actively engage with human rights and labor organizations to ensure that policies and strategies to address forced labor risks reflect current realities in sourcing countries and keep abreast with modern slavery risks in the solar value chain.

Finally, if the goal is to achieve a slave-free, clean energy transition, then meaningful multi-stakeholder cooperation between business, governments, labor experts and environmental justice groups is essential. The Administration’s commitment to “convene relevant industry, labor, environmental justice, and other key stakeholders” is a good first step, and businesses should follow suit and conduct their own dialogues.  

Taking action on climate change, the just transition, and modern slavery requires more than ticking a box. Compliance with the UN Guiding Principles, the UFLPA, and a host of environmental standards is the floor for corporate behavior, not the ceiling. It might be difficult to balance environmental and social obligations with governmental and corporate needs, but that is the cost of doing business.