Promoting Open Communication

Academic publishing isn't just about sharing papers - it's about maintaining scientific integrity. Did you know that response articles are currently being hindered by massive publication fees? I recently came across an eye-opening article that highlights a critical issue in scientific communication. I wouldn’t spend $4,000 just to publish a response that corrects potential errors in research! That's exactly what happened to researchers challenging a paper about conservation policy in Western Canadian boreal forest. The real problem? Journals are creating financial barriers that: • Suppress scientific discourse • Limit diverse perspectives • Potentially spread misinformation Why does this matter? Because scientific advancement depends on: ✅ Transparent critique ✅ Open dialogue ✅ Rigorous evaluation This essentially is gatekeeping scientific truth. Journals are telling researchers that correcting mistakes is a luxury, not a responsibility. The solution? Journals must: • Drop response article publication costs • Encourage technical critiques • Prioritize scientific integrity over profit I always wonder - what can we do as a community to make publishing more sustainable? Share your thoughts below! #Publishing #Science #OpenAccess #Research #Professor #PhD #Postgraduate #Academia

The predominant narrative can't be changed by simply pointing to technological developments, financial investment in clean energy or green policy changes. All of that is important. But as individuals we will not be open to the narrative of capacity, capability and agency unless we touch that openness within ourselves, unless we are aware of the fact that we are incredibly powerful: that our thoughts, our words and our actions have an effect on the outside world, and that therefore we can, if we collectively choose to, address climate change in the timeframe that science has established. But it must start at the roots of who we are, who we want to be in this world, and how we show up.

What happens when a university loses its license to orchestrate the many voices within it? Australia is providing a cautionary tale. At the Australian National University and the University of Technology Sydney, staff and students have taken control of the public narrative about cuts, strategy, and governance. Their voices are passionate, diverse, and sometimes contradictory. The result is “narrative chaos,” in Tim Winkler’s phrase, where the story of higher education is being told not by institutions but by those who feel excluded from decision-making. New Zealand does not yet have an ANU or a UTS moment. But we would be naïve to think we are immune. Our universities face the same structural pressures and the same risk: if leaders do not communicate openly, clearly, and consistently, others will step into the vacuum. The lessons for New Zealand universities are straightforward but urgent: 🔹Internal communication is the foundation of trust. 🔹Staff and students will create their own narratives if they do not feel heard. 🔹 Professional staff voices matter as much as academic ones. 🔹 "Corporate-like" statements rarely cut through when set against lived experience and emotion. Universities hold a privileged role as convenors of diverse perspectives. When they lose that role, their legitimacy and their future are both at stake. Tim Winkler’s piece on Australia’s higher education “narrative chaos” is well worth reading for what it tells us about communications, leadership, and the fragility of institutional trust. #Universities #HigherEducation 👉 https://lnkd.in/gWGhPE8m

One of the communication challenges that my female clients wrestle with is how to “merge” into a work conversation that’s already happening — especially a conversation of male counterparts. In addition to our work exploring the mindsets and cultural norms that make interrupting feel like it’s not an option (which it is), we discuss enrolling allies in the meeting who will, at best, invite you into the conversation or, at least, notice when you’re trying to merge in. We also practice merging phrases such as: “Excuse me. I have something to add.” “I’m going to interrupt here. I want to share my perspective.” “Before you move on, I have something to share…” “Wait a sec; I haven’t spoken yet.” “Bill? I have something to say on this.” In your next meeting, please notice who might be trying to merge into the discussion — and invite them in. “Allie, did you have something you wanted to say?” #communication #leadership #womenleaders #DEIB #genderequity #meetings #allyship

Remember those bold corporate climate commitments? Yeah… about that Lately, I’ve noticed a worrying trend—companies quietly walking away from their climate pledges, hoping no one will notice. In New Zealand, several firms have dropped out of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) without a word. No announcements. No explanations. Just… gone. And they’re not alone. Globally, over 200 major companies—including Microsoft, Unilever, and Walmart—were recently delisted from SBTi for failing to follow through. Meanwhile, financial giants like Citigroup and Bank of America have exited the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. So, what’s going on? And why should we care? Why are companies backing out? Many signed up for climate commitments when the pressure was high—investors, customers, and employees were demanding action. But now, with economic challenges, changing regulations, and less scrutiny, some are quietly retreating. Decarbonization isn’t easy. It takes investment, structural changes, and real effort. But instead of being transparent about their struggles, companies are just… disappearing from these initiatives. Why does this matter? When companies break their climate promises, it’s not just disappointing—it’s dangerous. 1️⃣ It erodes trust – If companies can make big sustainability claims and walk away without consequences, how do we know who’s serious? 2️⃣ It slows down progress – If major corporations backtrack, it signals to others that climate action is optional. 3️⃣ It risks greenwashing – These commitments often drive PR and goodwill. But if there’s no accountability, it becomes all talk, no action. What should companies do instead? Backing out isn’t the problem—silence is. If companies are struggling to meet targets, they should: ✔️ Be transparent about the challenges ✔️ Adjust their strategy, rather than abandon it ✔️ Engage with stakeholders to find real solutions What can we do? As consumers, employees, and investors, we have power. We can: 💡 Ask companies tough questions about their progress 💡 Support businesses that are serious about sustainability 💡 Push for policies that make climate commitments enforceable #sustainability #greenhushing #esg

Following my recent meeting with Azerbaijan’s Energy Minister Parviz Shahbazov, whose country will hold the COP29 Presidency in Baku this November, I have prepared a thought leadership piece for the upcoming intergovernmental discussions. To align countries in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, I have defined all global economies into three categories, which I named the 'ENS Economies': 1. Enablers: Actively pursuing net-zero emissions, these economies lead in adopting green technologies, policies, and innovative financing methods that support the green transition. They also make it difficult to finance carbon-producing projects. 2. Slow Movers: Reluctant to accelerate the energy transition due to: • High Capital Costs: Investment needed for a greener economy can lead to “green inflation,” making the status quo more appealing in the short term. • Dependency on Carbon Economy: Economies reliant on carbon income face economic challenges in transitioning, potentially reducing GDP growth and competitive advantage. • Income from Taxation: Governments prefer carbon taxes, which generate revenue, over costly financial subsidies for the green transition. Only affluent nations can offer industry incentives like the US's Inflation Reduction Act, impacting energy transition investments. 3. Non-Movers: Struggling due to poor conditions and low credit ratings, these economies face challenges in: • Accessing capital • Acquiring technology and expertise • Developing infrastructure for the energy transition Aligning these streams is challenging. It requires identifiable benefits for all parties and fairness in the process. One solution is developing an international, globally accepted carbon trading market. The international community has become more protectionist, hindering trade, cooperation, and alignment. Countries should be able to trade carbon credits across borders without barriers. A clear and equitable system is needed to align global efforts on carbon emissions. This system could use a scoring method considering each country's historical emissions since industrialisation. The heavier carbon producing and emitting economies would assume greater economic responsibility by contributing into an international carbon reduction fund. This fund would be managed by multilateral banks. The fund would support poorer economies in achieving net zero with defined targets. Countries providing financial and technical innovation and resources to enable net zero should benefit by receiving discounts on their financial contributions to the international fund. I would advocate COP29 should adopt this framework to reach international alignment. This is an extract of a more detailed article: if you would like to receive the full article please email: contact@stirlinginfrastructure.com #COP29 #EnergyTransition #NetZero

As more companies embrace transparency and share environmental data, one platform’s shift raises concern. For years, CDP has been a cornerstone of voluntary environmental disclosure. Tens of thousands of companies have contributed data, and CDP made this information freely accessible to users worldwide. This open model empowered sustainability professionals—including myself—to benchmark, analyze, and drive progress. But recently, access has changed. CDP now restricts general users from downloading individual company reports without a subscription or partnership. While tools like the Corporate Environmental Action Tracker still offer aggregated insights, the move away from open access to detailed disclosures feels like a step backward. In a time when trust, transparency, and collaboration are more critical than ever, we need more openness—not less. Let’s keep sustainability accessible, credible, and inclusive. #Sustainability #Transparency #OpenData #CDP #ClimateAction #ESG #Accountability

📢New Article 🌍 As COP29 unfolds in Baku, we get reminded that tackling today's planetary challenges will require a bold, collaborative approach rooted in #openscience. ➡️ At the heart of this effort are two foundational pillars: Data Commons and Data Stewardship. Together, they operationalize the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and unlock the full potential of data to drive innovation and solutions. 🔑 Data Commons enable shared access to data, breaking silos and fostering global collaboration. They ensure that resources like climate data or generative AI training sets are equitably accessible, empowering diverse stakeholders to tackle our biggest challenges together. 🛡️ Data Stewardship ensures that data is made accessible for re-use responsibly, building trust and sustainability. Stewards play a vital role in safeguarding data integrity, enhancing transparency, and ensuring long-term usability and sustainability. 🤔 These twin pillars are critical to foster a more equitable, inclusive, and impactful data ecosystem that can accelerate progress toward addressing today's global polycrisis. 💻Read: https://lnkd.in/eXxnqSnK ✍️ With co-author Jean-Claude Burgelman 💻 See also: The need for climate data stewardship: 10 tensions and reflections regarding climate data governance: https://lnkd.in/eve6-X6N #COP29 #OpenScience #DataCommons #DataStewardship #FAIRprinciples #ClimateAction #Sustainability #AIforGood #Polycrisis

"𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐯𝐮𝐥𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞" This was the worst advice I ever received as a founder. And if I had followed it, we wouldn’t be where we are today. Back in 2015, when we were still figuring things out, we believed in one simple principle—𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭. We were open with our team about our numbers, challenges, and even vulnerabilities. But many seasoned founders at the time told us: "𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮." "𝘋𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴—𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬." "𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳." "𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵—𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦." We were shocked. And honestly, it hurt to be judged like that. But we followed our gut. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐈’𝐦 𝐬𝐨 𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐝 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝. Instead of hiding and restricting, we shared our challenges and educated our team on business impact. The result? 💡 A team that thinks like owners, not employees. 💡 Developers who build with business context, not just code. 💡 Sales teams that sell what can actually be delivered. 💡 A culture where people feel valued, not used. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭? 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. Not every piece of advice—deserves to be followed. Trust your instincts. Build the company you’d love to work at. And your people would fall in love with. #Entrepreneurship #Leadership #Transparency #Startup

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. In the context of high-performing teams, that means transparency, honesty, and open dialogue are essential for trust, innovation, and long-term success. When challenges, concerns, or differing perspectives remain in the shadows teams risk stagnation, missed opportunities, and even significant setbacks. This can be because of fear of conflict, hesitation to speak up, or an outdated mindset that prioritizes harmony over truth (aka the traditional way of thinking). The traditional way of thinking suggested that staying quiet was a way to protect colleagues from criticism, but in reality, the greatest disservice we can do to our teammates is to withhold valuable insights that could help them succeed. The strongest teams recognize that candor is not about tearing others down, but about a shared commitment to excellence, accountability, and continuous growth. When teams embrace open communication and operate in the full light of transparency, they unlock a level of trust and collaboration that makes it possible to achieve extraordinary results.