Geopolitical Risks in Business

When in Doubt, Just Delete It? Corporate Climate Silence is Getting Louder 🌍🚨 According to a recent Financial Times investigation by Attracta Mooney and Susannah Savage, major U.S. corporations are quietly erasing climate commitments from public view. The report reveals that companies like Walmart, KraftHeinz, Meta, Ford Motor Company, and American Airlines have scrubbed or softened references to climate change from their websites. In some cases, bold pledges—like cutting emissions by 50% by 2030—have disappeared entirely. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. With political attacks on environmental policies intensifying, many companies are opting for "greenhushing"—downplaying or omitting sustainability efforts to avoid controversy. But of course, this makes perfect sense. After all, the election of Donald Trump has fundamentally altered the science of climate change and carbon emissions, right? Surely, CO₂ molecules now behave differently depending on who occupies the White House. 🤔🌱💨 (Okay, sarcasm over.) Here’s the real issue: erasing climate commitments doesn’t erase climate risks. 🔹 Investors are watching. The push for transparency in ESG reporting isn’t just about optics—it’s about long-term financial stability. Weakening climate targets today could mean increased regulatory scrutiny, shareholder activism, or even capital flight tomorrow. 🔹 Customers care. Greenwashing is bad. But greenhushing? It sends the message that a company’s commitment to sustainability is only as strong as the political winds allow. That’s a fast way to lose trust. 🔹 Employees are paying attention. Younger talent, in particular, prioritises sustainability. A quiet retreat on climate commitments could hurt not just a company’s brand, but also its ability to attract and retain top talent. Beyond the immediate reputational risks, this entire approach is staggeringly shortsighted. Climate change isn’t a PR issue—it’s a physical reality that will disrupt supply chains, displace populations, and drive economic instability. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the science, it only delays the inevitable reckoning. And at its core, this is deeply disappointing. Corporate leadership isn’t just retreating from climate action; it’s demonstrating a complete moral failure. If a company’s sustainability strategy evaporates the moment political pressure rises, was it ever real in the first place? 🌎💔 What do you think? Are we entering an era where businesses retreat on sustainability—not just in words, but in actions too? 🔗 Full article here: https://lnkd.in/egngPgqw #ClimateRisk #ESG #CorporateResponsibility #Greenhushing #Sustainability

Take 2:   Within hours of taking office, the newly inaugurated US president has already signed an order to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement — again.   This isn’t the first time the US has exited the historic and critical climate accord, so we may already have some clues as to what could come next. If history repeats itself, we’ll (hopefully) see other actors — cities and states, EU nations and China, NGOs and civil society, as well as businesses — step in to fill the void.   However, this time feels different; the context has changed. This move comes on the heels of several major US firms choosing to roll back on sustainability commitments, as the political climate shifts.   But what’s also changed is the climate. Since the US’ first withdrawal in 2017, global temperatures have continued to rise and extreme climate events grown — further evidence of our collective exposures to the consequences of an unhealthy planet.   And that’s where a glaring contradiction lies: The US is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, but, now, the one turning away from solutions to it. We need look no further than the recent fires in California or Hurricane Helene for evidence of the intensification of extreme climate events.   So instead of running from the environmental emergency by way of purchasing Greenland or Canada for their future mild climates, let’s opt for the pragmatic, actionable solutions that exist today. Businesses now (and once again) have an enormous opportunity to lead society in choosing resilience.   Companies cannot afford to gamble their futures on the shifting priorities and convictions that come with each new administration. Recent WEF estimates find that businesses that fail to adapt to physical climate risks could lose up to 7% of annual earnings by 2035. Whereas on the flipside, companies investing in adaptation, decarbonization and resilience are seeing up to $19 in avoided losses for every dollar spent. The business case is clear.   This is an opportunity to take the reins. The climate crisis is a business crisis. Let’s treat it like one and start accelerating action in the face of setbacks.   Proud to be supporting so many clients whose ambition to sustainability is unwavering.  

Short-term relief, long-term risk... 🌎 Wall Street’s retreat from climate coalitions, sparked by political shifts and short-term market pressures, may offer immediate relief to financial institutions facing regulatory and investor scrutiny. However, analysts warn this reversal could come at a high cost in the years ahead. The decision to pull back from sustainability commitments is not without consequence, particularly as global momentum toward climate action continues to accelerate. One of the most significant risks is regulatory. As international agreements and national policies continue evolving in favor of decarbonization, banks that scale back now may find themselves out of step with future requirements. Catching up later—whether by rejoining initiatives or aligning with stricter frameworks—could involve rushed investments, compliance penalties, and missed incentives. There’s also growing market risk. As green finance becomes more mainstream, investors are increasingly rewarding companies and institutions that lead on sustainability. Those that backpedal may lose access to capital or find their valuations affected by a perceived lack of long-term resilience. Being behind the curve on climate readiness can create a competitive disadvantage. Reputation is another factor. Public opinion, particularly among younger generations and institutional investors, strongly favors climate responsibility. Banks distancing themselves from environmental goals risk eroding trust and alienating key stakeholders. The reputational damage could have ripple effects across customer bases, hiring, partnerships, and shareholder relations. Finally, the financial sector cannot ignore physical climate risk. Climate-related disasters—floods, wildfires, droughts—are becoming more frequent and severe. Institutions exposed to high-risk assets or underprepared portfolios may face significant losses. In this context, stepping back from climate finance today may save on costs in the short term, but could significantly increase exposure and vulnerability in the long term. Source: Bloomberg #sustainability #sustainable #business #climatechange #risks

Blackrock just pulled out of the Net-Zero investment alliance. ‘Climate Risk is Investment Risk’- famous words by Larry Flink CEO of BlackRock in 2020, when the world's largest asset managers acknowledged the importance of climate change in investment decisions. 5 years later, BlackRock is distancing from climate-related commitments and alliances. What does this mean? Here is my take: 1. American financial institutions are leaving voluntary climate alliances to mitigate political and legal risks. There is pressure from republican lawmakers and an increase in state-level litigation  where republicans have filed lawsuits against asset management firms alleging antitrust violations linked to climate focused investment strategies. In November 2024, the Texas v. BlackRock lawsuit saw 11 state Attorneys General suing BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard for alleged antitrust violations. They claim these firms cooperated as shareholders in US coal companies to force a reduction in coal production. This case could become the test case for applying US antitrust law to sustainability cooperation and shareholder stewardship over portfolio companies. 2. Climate risk is investment risk, and smart investors know this. While their public positioning will change, we have to watch for what they are really doing: -Banks are adjusting mortgage terms and raising borrowing costs in vulnerable areas. -Major investment firms continue to factor carbon intensity into lending decisions. -Companies with higher environmental risks face higher loan spreads and borrowing costs, a trend accelerating as climate impacts intensify. -Access to capital increasingly depends on climate resilience. 3. Investors will continue to invest in projects that generate returns. Deploying renewables is cheaper, energy storage systems prices have fallen below tariff parity, the energy mix is changing. Investment firms will maintain their renewable energy portfolios because they generate competitive returns, regardless of public climate commitments.  Yes, banks are stepping back from public climate alliances, but the underlying economic realities have not changed. Climate risks are increasing and will continue to shape investment strategies, even if it's no longer at the forefront of corporate messaging. #climatetech #VC #investment #newbook #fundclimatetech #blackrock

Bank of America and Citigroup have officially left the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). The world’s largest climate alliance for banks. The NZBA is coalition of global banks committed to aligning their lending and investment portfolios with net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Banks in this alliance pledge to reduce their support for industries that contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions (like fossil fuels) and increase funding for green initiatives. Citi was one of the founding members in 2021, marking it as a strong proponent of sustainable finance. Why Citi and BofA’s Exit Matters: Their withdrawal signals a potential retreat from aggressive climate goals in favor of maintaining relationships with traditional energy clients. When leading banks pull out, it can weaken the collective momentum of global finance aligning with sustainability goals. This is also a sign that corporate America may retreat from climate goals during Donald Trump’s second term as US president. Both banks, like others in the US, have faced increasing scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, particularly in states where fossil fuels are critical to the economy. These lawmakers argue that such alliances constrain energy security and discriminate against traditional industries, including oil and gas. Citi stated it would focus more on climate initiatives in emerging markets, suggesting a shift from the UN-led framework to independent efforts. Why You Should Care: For Climate Advocates: This development is a wake-up call about the challenges of aligning corporate and environmental goals, especially under political duress. For Investors: The shift could signal changing priorities in major banks’ strategies, affecting ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investment portfolios. For Businesses: Companies reliant on fossil fuels may find easier access to financing, while those pursuing green projects could face higher hurdles. For Citizens: It reflects a broader trend where climate initiatives might take a backseat to economic or political priorities, potentially slowing global efforts to combat climate change. #ClimateChange #Banks #SustainableFinance

12 Things That Destroy Trust (Often Without You Realizing): 1. Blaming ↳"If you had just managed your time better and not procrastinated, this wouldn't have happened." Why? Shifting fault onto them will erode trust and damage your relationship. 2. Belittling ↳"This was a simple task. I can't rely on you for anything important going forward." Why? Diminishing their capability will destroy their confidence and lead to disengagement. 3. Threatening ↳"If you ever miss a deadline again, there will be consequences." Why? Fear-based threats rarely inspire accountability and often backfire. 4. Oversharing ↳"I need to let the rest of the team know that we can't depend on you." Why? Spreading negative impressions doesn't just undermine others' trust in that person, but also erodes trust in your own discretion and judgment. 5. Overreacting ↳"I can't believe you missed this deadline! Do you know how much this sets us back?" Why? This strong emotional response will make them feel attacked rather than supported. 6. Failing to deliver ↳"I said I'd have that analysis done by Wednesday but I don't have it yet." Why? Consistently not following through on commitments erodes dependability. 7. Dismissing feelings ↳"It's just one deadline, stop being so hard on yourself." Why? Invalidating their emotions prevents open communication and understanding. 8. Taking unfair credit ↳"That marketing campaign was all my idea even though we collaborated." Why? Misrepresenting contributions diminishes others' efforts and breeds resentment. 9. Deciding unilaterally ↳"I went ahead and extended our lease without consulting anyone else." Why? Failing to seek input on important decisions undervalues others' perspectives. 10. Avoiding accountability ↳"The low customer satisfaction scores aren't my fault." Why? Blaming external factors rather than taking ownership hurts integrity. 11. Withholding information ↳"I received the engineering report with safety recommendations but didn't pass it along." Why? Withholding relevant information strains transparency. 12. Not respecting confidentiality ↳"I informed our manager that you are considering a role within the Marketing department." Why? Disclosing private details without permission betrays confidence. Avoid at all costs. What am I missing? PS: Trust is not something you have, but something you do. ---- Follow me, tap the (🔔) Omar Halabieh for daily Leadership and Career posts.

New from Carbon Brief – “A victory for Donald Trump in November’s presidential election could lead to an additional 4bn tonnes of US emissions by 2030 compared with Joe Biden’s plans, Carbon Brief analysis reveals. This extra 4bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) by 2030 would cause global climate damages worth more than $900bn, based on the latest US government valuations. For context, 4GtCO2e is equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the EU and Japan, or the combined annual total of the world’s 140 lowest-emitting countries. Put another way, the extra 4GtCO2e from a second Trump term would negate – twice over – all of the savings from deploying wind, solar and other clean technologies around the world over the past five years. If Trump secures a second term, the US would also very likely miss its global climate pledge by a wide margin, with emissions only falling to 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. The US’s current target under the Paris Agreement is to achieve a 50-52% reduction by 2030. Carbon Brief’s analysis is based on an aggregation of modelling by various US research groups. It highlights the significant impact of the Biden administration’s climate policies. This includes the Inflation Reduction Act – which Trump has pledged to reverse – along with several other policies. The findings are subject to uncertainty around economic growth, fuel and technology prices, the market response to incentives and the extent to which Trump is able to roll back Biden’s policies. The analysis might overstate the impact Trump could have on US emissions, if some of Biden’s policies prove hard to unpick – or if subnational climate action accelerates. Equally, it might understate Trump’s impact. For example, his pledge to &drill, baby, drill’ is not included within the analysis and would likely raise US and global emissions further through the increased extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal. Also not included are the potential for Biden to add new climate policies if he wins a second term, nor the risk that some of his policies will be weakened, delayed or hit by legal challenges. Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” https://lnkd.in/eEnzY2-6

Want to kill team trust overnight? Play favourites. Favouritism is a silent culture killer that: - Breeds resentment - Destroys motivation - Tanks performance Here’s how it plays out: -Trust erodes: When people see that effort matters less than being in the ‘inner circle’. - Disengagement spreads: Why go above and beyond if the same people always get the credit, the opportunities, and the praise? - Teams fracture: you get cliques, resentment, and workplace politics. - Growth stalls: When leadership keeps rewarding the same voices, new talent gets overlooked. Innovation slows. The business suffers. Great leaders don’t play favourites. They: - Set clear expectations for all - Recognise performance consistently - Make sure opportunities are earned, not earmarked What would you add? All views are my own and do not represent my employer. Image description. The image features a white square centered on a textured green fabric background. Inside the white square, black text reads: “Trust is earned Respect is built Playing favourites destroys both.” In the bottom right corner of the white square, the text “@SALLY.PEDLOW” is written in a small, uppercase font. #career #leadership #management #culture #trust

Corporate Promiscuity, help or harms? The lure of quick gains can lead companies to corporate promiscuity—frequently changing partners, strategies, and suppliers for short-term benefits. Despite its apparent advantages, this approach can undermine a brand’s stability, reputation, and long-term success. Let's explore the pitfalls of #corporatepromiscuity and reveal why the pursuit of fleeting advantages can harm your #brand. By understanding these risks, #businesses can make informed decisions, focus on building enduring relationships, maintain consistent #brandidentity, and achieve #sustainable #growth 1. Erosion of #Trust A. #Partners and #Alliances: Frequent partner changes undermine long-term trust and mutual understanding B. #Customers: Perceived unreliability from constant changes leads to loss of customer loyalty 2. Inconsistency A. Brand Identity: Frequent strategic shifts dilute brand identity and hinder recognition B. Product and #Service #Quality: Changing #suppliers often results in inconsistent quality, damaging the brand’s #reputation 3. Employee #Morale and Loyalty A. High Turnover: A volatile #workenvironment lowers morale and productivity. B. Loss of #Knowledge: Frequent turnover leads to a loss of institutional knowledge, hampering long-term planning 4. #Strategic Confusion A. Lack of Direction: Constant #strategy changes create confusion and inefficient resource use B. Short-Term Focus: Overemphasis on short-term gains neglects long-term strategic goals 5. #Reputational Damage A. #Negative #Perception: Stakeholders view frequent changes as instability, decreasing confidence and market value B. #PublicRelations Issues: Frequent conflicts with partners and suppliers can lead to negative publicity 6. #Financial #Costs A. Switching Costs: Regular changes incur significant financial and time costs. B. #OpportunityCosts: Short-term focus leads to missed long-term opportunities 7. Operational #Inefficiency A. Disrupted Operations: Constant changes disrupt operations, reducing #productivity B. Increased Complexity: Managing many short-term changes increases operational complexity 8. Diminished #Innovation A. Fragmented Focus: Shifting strategies spread resources too thin, stifling innovation B. Lack of Deep #Collaboration: Short-term partnerships lack the depth needed for true innovation 9. Customer Confusion and Dissatisfaction A. Inconsistent Experience: Frequent changes confuse customers, leading to poor experiences B. Eroded Loyalty Programs: Constantly changing loyalty programs frustrate customers, reducing loyalty 10. #Regulatory and #Compliance #Risks A. Non-compliance Issues: Frequent changes lead to compliance lapses and potential #legal issues 10. Increased Scrutiny: Regulators may #scrutinize unstable companies more closely, increasing #audit and compliance costs #advertising #FDI #corporate Apppl Combine – Marketing & Advertising Agency Apppl Combine – Marketing & Advertising Agency Fox&Angel Raashi R Daas

Silent killers do not wear name tags; one of the deadliest is poor vertical communication, executives talking past teams, and teams whispering problems that never reach decision-makers. Millions are lost not because the strategy was wrong, but because the strategy was never truly heard. Executives, mid-level managers, PMs, and delivery teams often speak different languages. This “vertical miscommunication” is a silent killer that costs organizations millions. The strategy-to-value chain breaks when information only flows one way: executives broadcasting plans without listening, or teams flagging issues that never reach decision-makers. Communication failures are politically taboo, so problems fester silently. The evidence is overwhelming: 📌 McKinsey found that 95% of employees do not understand their company’s strategy, largely due to poor communication and lack of feedback loops. 📌 Harvard Business Review reports that organizations with strong communication practices are 3.5 times more likely to outperform their peers. 📌 Gallup shows that disengaged employees—often a product of unclear direction and ignored feedback—cost companies $8.8 trillion globally in lost productivity. 📌 MIT Sloan School of Management Review highlights that “employees will not provide candid feedback if they fear retaliation.” Without psychological safety, communication breaks down and blind spots multiply. 📌 Project Management Institute’s Pulse of the Profession consistently identifies “poor communication” as one of the top drivers of project failure, eroding billions in strategic value annually. Power moves to kill the “silent killer” and hard-wire strategy ↔ value communication. Add these to your playbook: 1. Strategy Briefs & Huddles 2. Feedback Channels 3. Digital Communication Platforms 4. Structured Communication Mechanisms Leadership Rituals 5. Leadership Office Hours (Skip-Levels) 6. Decision Logs & Ownership Maps 7. Strategy-to-Ops Translation Layers 8. Narrative Memos Over Slide Decks Risk & Escalation 9. Red-Team Reviews & Pre-Mortems 10. Issue Escalation Lanes with SLAs 11. Incident Communication Playbooks Culture & Safety 12. Psychological Safety Rituals 13. Alignment Audits 14. Rumor Trackers & Quick Corrections 15. Change Champion Networks Engagement & Alignment 16. Message Maps & Toolkits 17. Ask-Me-Anything (AMA) Forums 18. Cross-Level Shadow Boards 19. Meeting Operating Systems (MOS) 20. Two-Way OKRs 🔝Share some communication fixes ideas to help others. This is Day 3 of 100 in the Strategic Project Intelligence™ Challenge—helping leaders become the catalyst who accelerates value, builds alignment to get seen, heard, and promoted. #FolaElevates #StrategicProjectIntelligence #7FigurePM #CareerAcceleration #Leadership #SPIChallenge #StrategicAlignment