Addressing Climate Change in CSR

What happens when companies break their climate promises? Almost nothing. A new study has uncovered troubling truths about corporate climate commitments. Out of 1,041 companies with emissions reduction targets set for 2020: -9% (88 firms) openly failed to meet their goals. -31% (320 firms) stopped reporting on their targets without explanation. What happens when companies miss these targets? Practically no consequences: -Only three failed companies faced media scrutiny. -No significant market backlash, media sentiment shifts, or ESG rating downgrades. In contrast, companies were rewarded with positive press and improved ESG ratings simply for announcing these targets. The bigger issue: This accountability gap threatens the credibility of ambitious 2030 and 2050 climate pledges. Unlike financial targets, which are rigorously monitored, emissions goals often exist in a vacuum—without oversight or real consequences for failure. Interestingly, the study found that: -Firms in common-law countries and those with stronger media accountability had better success rates. -High-emitting sectors like energy and materials struggled the most, with the highest rates of "disappeared" targets. With more companies backing away from climate action, we cannot afford to let this cycle continue. It’s time for corporate sustainability leadership to move beyond announcements and deliver measurable, transparent results. Accountability mechanisms—demanded by both regulators and stakeholders are urgently needed. A great piece of work by Xiaoyan Jiang, Shawn Kim, and Shirley Simiao Lu! Let’s learn from these insights to ensure that corporate climate pledges actually deliver. #climatechange #netzero #esg

The stark contrast in per-capita consumption-based carbon emissions between countries in the Global North and the Global South. This disparity underscores a fundamental inequity: nations that contribute the least to global #greenhousegasemissions often bear the brunt of #climatechange's adverse effects. The graph shows the consumption-based emissions, carbon emissions to the country where goods and services are consumed rather than where they are produced. This methodology reveals the true carbon footprint of a nation's lifestyle. Wealthier nations have higher consumption patterns, leading to more significant emissions. This is not just due to industrial activities but also because of the demand for goods and services that have high carbon footprints. Many developed countries have shifted manufacturing and production to developing nations. While this move reduces their production-based emissions, their consumption-based emissions remain high because they still consume these goods. Developed countries have historically contributed the most to cumulative global emissions due to early industrialization. This historical context adds another layer to the injustice, as past emissions continue to affect the current climate. As we lead to the next round of negotiations at #COP29 we must recognise that those who contribute most to emissions have a greater responsibility to lead in mitigation efforts and provide financial and technological aid to countries in the Global South to help them adapt to climate impacts and develop sustainably.

ESG Metrics for MSMEs 🌎 Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) are increasingly recognized for their impact on the global business landscape. As larger firms adapt to transparency in their operations, MSMEs are also drawn into the fold of sustainability reporting. Against this backdrop, Project Savannah, inaugurated in June 2023 by UNDP, MAS, and GLEIF, provides a beacon for MSMEs to align with global reporting standards, setting the stage for a harmonized approach to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics. MSMEs are often at a distinct stage in the sustainability journey compared to larger corporations. The image provided offers a strategic view of ESG metrics that can guide MSMEs in structuring their sustainability reports. These metrics include direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption patterns, and the nuances of social aspects like workforce composition and safety measures. Each metric is a thread in the larger tapestry of sustainable practices, contributing to the holistic picture of an enterprise's impact. For instance, Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are crucial indicators of an enterprise's direct and energy-related carbon footprint. By reporting on these, MSMEs can not only monitor their impact but also identify areas for improvement and efficiency enhancements. Similarly, metrics on water consumption and waste generation offer insights into resource stewardship, a key aspect of environmental responsibility. Social metrics such as headcount, youth, and women hires, and workplace safety reflect an MSME’s commitment to fostering an equitable and safe working environment. These metrics not only enhance internal practices but also shape external perceptions, potentially influencing customer and investor decisions. The governance metrics presented—business registration, compliance, and transparency in financial transactions—serve as indicators of an MSME's adherence to ethical practices and regulatory requirements. This commitment to governance can play a vital role in securing trust and investment. The overview provided by these metrics equips MSMEs to communicate their sustainability efforts effectively. With these measures, MSMEs can align with global sustainability trends, address stakeholder concerns, and potentially unlock new market opportunities. Source: United Nations Development Programme #sustainability #sustainable #sustainablebusiness #sustainabilityreporting #esg #climatechange #socialimpact #business

More than half of Salesforce’s most strategic suppliers — based on the amount the $38 billion software company spends on their goods and services — have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions as part of binding provisions in their contracts. Those clauses are part of the Salesforce Sustainability Exhibit, introduced four years ago in May 2021 as an amendment to the company’s standard contact. Many large companies actively encourage suppliers to reduce emissions through science-based targets, and some offer educational resources and technical assistance to help. Salesforce remains unique in codifying those commitments as part of its procurement process, although customer service software company Zendesk — a Salesforce supplier — was inspired enough by the approach to introduce a similar set of contract clauses in November 2024. Best practices for companies interested in shaping similar programs: ➡️ Get procurement teams involved. They can help prioritize engagement and signal which suppliers might find new requirements difficult to meet. ➡️ Provide technical support. Many companies, especially smaller ones, will need an education on the concept of net zero. ➡️ Offer options. Allow suppliers to choose the emissions reduction path that makes the most sense for their business rather than dictating a one-size-fits all approach.  ➡️ Look for ways to support supplier investments. For example, a corporation could motivate supplier investments in renewable energy or lower-emissions materials through better procurement terms. Lessons from Salesforce’s unique contracting process: https://lnkd.in/eHZ7qGvm Cooper Wechkin Louisa McGuirk Serena Ingre Emily Damon Amy Garber

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

This one feels different. After nearly a decade co-founding and helping scale Ethic to $7B+ AUM, I kept asking myself: where are the climate solutions that don’t just meet the market, but can outperform while driving systemic climate impact? For scale, nothing matches real estate. It’s the largest asset class in the world,3x public equities. It’s also one of the most carbon-intensive, and right now it’s undergoing the biggest repricing in history as insurance markets retreat, lenders pull back, and climate risk reshapes values. At the same time, America faces an urgent affordable housing shortage. That’s why I've co-founded Resilience Investments: a platform built to marry massive economic opportunity with systemic climate action by solving three crises in one strategy: 🏘 Affordable housing supply ⚡ Decarbonization and resilience retrofits 📈 Institutional-grade returns in climate-resilient markets Resilience fits into my broader portfolio of work, like THE NAT and nature finance, where I focus on systemic, markets-driven solutions that create scalable, self-sustaining capital flows to solve the climate and nature crisis. This isn’t just about impact. It’s about positioning capital where the future is already moving, and proving that resilience is both investable and scalable. I couldn’t be more excited to share this next chapter. If you want to learn more, DM Resilience Investments. 🔗 Realtor.com / WSJ study: https://lnkd.in/e3uwKgPn #climatefinance #realestate #resilience #sustainableinvesting #adaptation #insurancecrisis To my amazing partners: Ashby Monk Hunter Maats Andy Boyum Mandi Ainslie Brooks DiPaula Caleb Neumeyer Sean Watson Kristie Cole

Just checked out Stand.earth's latest fashion sustainability rankings. Even though H&M came out on top, it only scored a B+ While doing good sustainable practices shouldn't be a competition, it's worth celebrating and holding companies accountable when they lead or lag behind in climate action. Stand.earth's 2025 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard ranked 42 major apparel brands on their efforts to decarbonize. ✅ Leaders making progress: • EILEEN FISHER, INC. (B-): Strong on materials, reduced emissions 59% vs baseline • Kering (C+): Clear renewable energy targets, robust material standards • H&M Group (B+): First brand to achieve A+ in commitments, actively financing supplier decarbonization ❌ Laggards falling behind: • Abercrombie & Fitch, Aritzia, Columbia (F): No Scope 3 emissions reduction targets • SHEIN (F): Increased emissions 170% in 2 years; if it were a country, would be the 100th biggest emitter globally 66% of these brands say they care about reducing emissions. But when it comes to doing something about it, like helping the factories that make their clothes switch to renewable energy? Only 29% are stepping up. And only 33% have actually lowered their pollution. The report makes clear that setting targets isn't enough. Brands must actively fund and enable the energy transition through supplier financing, long-term contracts, and fair pricing. Read the full scorecard: https://lnkd.in/eR9S_pk2 ✨ Follow for more stories on luxury fashion, sustainability, and everything VOGUE CS from a Central and Eastern European perspective!

As a communicator, I love reading about climate solutions. Over the weekend I learned about Teto Verde Favela - a nonprofit that teaches residents in Brazil's favelas how to build a green roof to cool their homes without overloading electrical grids or paying to run fans. Typically, green rooftops are heavy and expensive, requiring layers for soil, insulation, and drainage. But a collaboration with a civil engineer produced a safe and affordable solution - bidim a lightweight polyester geotextile made of recycled drink bottles that allows plants to grow without soil. Now green roofs are seen all over - people's homes, bus stops, moto taxi shelters. The benefits are far reaching, beyond cooling they dampen noise pollution, improve building energy efficiency, prevent flooding by reducing storm water runoff, and ease anxiety. Climate solutions are out there and we should talk about them! This is a great example of an innovation that is both practical and affordable. Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/eSqhqTgk via NPR #UrbanGreening #CommunityGarden #UrbanWilding #BeatTheHeat

Does climate activism work? The short answer is yes, and there was lots of research last year showing precisely how. Here are some highlights: In Germany, the probability that a random person is concerned about climate change increases by 1.2% in the 14 days after a big climate protest. In other words, protests 'convert’ previously unconcerned people – and 1.2% is quite a lot given that concern was already high at over 80%. This effect was the same for both legal marches by Fridays for Future, and disruptive actions by Extinction Rebellion and Ende Gelande. In other words, there was no 'backlash' from disruptive action, even among right-leaning people. https://lnkd.in/evpJJDyq A second study from the UK provides evidence to undermine an argument often used to dismiss activists – that their actions will "just put people off your cause." In fact, the M25 motorway blockades by Just Stop Oil led to a 3.3% increase in support for a moderate organisation, Friends of the Earth. This is equivalent to 2 million people in the UK. This is evidence for the 'radical flank effect', whereby high-profile actions that stretch the boundaries of acceptable thought make more moderate organisations look reasonable and attractive in comparison. https://lnkd.in/ebcD2k7d So activism does appear to have a positive effect on the public, but what about policy? Analysis of UK parliamentary debates shows that climate protests in 2019 greatly increased discussion of climate change in parliament and changed the way it was talked about. Interviews with politicians and civil servants, meanwhile, showed those same protests were "extremely influential in persuading Theresa May’s government to legislate for net zero (…) extremely quickly" https://lnkd.in/e2Bu5uee Lastly, Laura Thomas-Walters and friends review 53 studies on the impacts of climate activism. They find strong evidence for positive impacts on public opinion and media coverage, and more moderate evidence for impacts on voting, policy changes, stock prices and other mechanisms. Note, however, that the absence of evidence for many impacts shouldn't be taken as evidence for the absence of impact. For one thing there has been very little research, and many questions have barely been asked, but it’s also the case that many impacts will be hard to measure or otherwise intangible. https://lnkd.in/eMjBDtar   So if climate activism works, why aren't we seeing more of the changes we need? I think it's partly that it's not all as effective as it could be, since we lack an evidence base for what works and in what contexts. But mainly it's because there's too little of it. We are too few. The key research questions going forward, then, are: how do we build our movement and bring more people on board? And what works, in what contexts, and how can our strategies and tactics be improved?

Is sustainable business dead? If you believe the headlines, corporate sustainability is circling the drain. “Big Business Is Abandoning Its Climate Goals,” cries Bloomberg. “Corporate Sustainability Is in Crisis,” proclaims HBR. Critics gleefully pile on — seemingly giddy and gloating — with charges of greenwashing, hypocrisy, and “woke capitalism.” But the doom loop narrative is misleading — and dangerously simplistic. The truth? Sustainability isn’t dead. It’s just growing up. Behind the scenes, companies are doubling down on the hard stuff: integrating sustainability into strategy, supply chains, risk management, and core operations. They’re talking less, but doing more. The performative era is giving way to one of pragmatism and progress. Yes, some targets are being scaled back. Some commitments are being softened. But that’s not failure — it’s recalibration. It’s the messy, necessary evolution of a movement adapting to fierce political headwinds, economic uncertainty, and increasing scrutiny. What's noteworthy are not any perceived missteps but the fact that companies are making progress at all considering the obstacles. According to PwC, more companies are strengthening their climate goals than retreating. Target-setting is nine times higher than five years ago. And globally, from China to Chile, businesses and governments are pressing ahead with the business of #decarbonization — even as the U.S. gets mired in #ESG culture wars and climate denialism. Is it perfect? Far from it. Even the leadership companies are committing what I call aggressive incrementalism — far less than what's called for in this moment. Still, this isn’t the end, not even close. It’s the beginning of a more rigorous, resilient sustainability agenda. So let’s stop declaring sustainability's death and start demanding its depth. Let’s talk about what’s worth scaling — and what's worth laying to rest ("hospicing," in the words of some). Let’s reward companies that are doing the work, even if they’re not shouting about it. And yes, let's prod them to go further, faster. Curious? Skeptical? Fired up? Read my latest Trellis Group piece and let’s have a conversation. I'm looking at you, Alison Taylor Andrew Winston Aron Cramer Auden Schendler Catherine Greener Dave Stangis Gil Friend • Sustainability OG • CxO Coach Hunter Lovins Jeffrey Hogue Joe Romm, Ph.D. John Elkington Justin Adams OBE Kate Brandt Ken Pucker Mindy Lubber Paul Polman Peter Bakker Solitaire Townsend Tim Mohin William Sisson 👉 https://lnkd.in/gaK7wD3Q #Sustainability #ESG #ClimateAction #Leadership #Recalibration #CorporateStrategy #Greenhushing #ProgressNotPerfection #SystemsChange