Improving Corporate Transparency

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

The Brutal Truth About Consumer Trust in Home Care Why do some brands inspire trust effortlessly while others struggle to convince consumers? Home care isn’t like beauty or food, where customers instinctively check labels. For decades, legacy brands have relied on familiarity over transparency—building trust through big advertising spends rather than real ingredient disclosures. But that’s changing. Consumer trust is now shifting toward brands that disclose, educate, and take a stand. 1️⃣ The Parle-G Effect: Legacy Trust vs. New-Age Transparency For years, people have trusted brands like Surf Excel, Vim, and Harpic—not because they knew what was inside, but because they were always there on shelves and TV screens. This is the "Parle-G effect"—familiarity breeds trust. But today, trust is no longer inherited; it’s earned. The rise of brands like Kapiva (Ayurveda transparency), The Whole Truth (ingredient honesty) shows how modern brands build trust differently—by being upfront about what’s inside. 2️⃣ The Johnson & Johnson Shock: When Legacy Trust Breaks For decades, J&J was the gold standard for baby care. But lawsuits over talcum powder contamination with asbestos shattered consumer confidence worldwide. Even in India, brands like Mother Sparsh surged because young parents started reading labels—they no longer assumed safety just because a product was from a heritage brand. 3️⃣ The Patanjali vs. FSSAI Scandal: Why Trust Must Be Backed by Proof Consumers initially believed in Patanjali’s “natural” positioning. But repeated quality violations (like the recent FSSAI crackdown on misleading claims) eroded trust. The lesson? Trust cannot be built on slogans alone. If a brand claims toxin-free, natural, or safe—it must prove it consistently. 4️⃣ The Decathlon & Ikea Strategy: Trust Through Radical Transparency Decathlon shares detailed product breakdowns—how much polyester is used, where a product is made, and even the carbon footprint. Customers trust them because they don’t have to “guess” what they’re buying. Ikea lists every material, every environmental impact, and even assembly instructions upfront. No surprises. Just facts. In home care, Koparo is taking the same approach—putting ingredients front and center. Not just saying "toxin-free," but explaining why certain ingredients matter for better or worse (like the bioaccumulation of harmful chemicals in traditional cleaners). So What’s Next for Consumer Trust in Home Care? ✅ Brands that educate will win over brands that advertise. ✅ Ingredient transparency will become a non-negotiable (just like food labels). ✅ Consumers will demand not just safe products—but proof of safety. At Koparo, we’re all in on radical transparency. No vague claims. No marketing gimmicks. Just home care that’s safe, effective, and backed by science. The real question is—do you know what’s inside your cleaning products? #ToxinFree #Koparo #HomeCareRevolution 🚀

In an industry with 300-500% markups, this company revealed their exact profit margins on every product. This transparency is almost rebellious. Here's why it's working: Let me share something fascinating: A retail brand called VIRGIO,  founded by former Myntra CEO Amar Nagaram is doing the unthinkable - displaying their exact profit margins on every product. Yes, you read that right. Everything from production costs to serving costs is out there for everyone to see. (Virgio’s Instagram page) → In its first year of operation (FY23), Virgio reported a revenue of ₹7.4 crore (approximately $1 million). → However, the company faced challenges, incurring a loss of ₹40.75 crore (approximately $5 million) during the same period. → The EBITDA margin stood at a negative 534.3%, and the Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) was estimated at -16.2%. (TheKredible) But they're not alone. Remember when Patagonia published a full-page ad in The New York Times saying "Don't Buy This Jacket"? They openly admitted their products impact the environment and urged consumers to think twice before purchasing. (New York Times) Their authenticity paid off - growing from $540M in 2012 to $1.5B in revenue in 2022. (The Business of Fashion Report 2023) Here's what I've learned about honesty in business: 📌 It builds unshakeable trust 📌 Creates authentic connections with customers 📌 Differentiates you in a crowded market 📌 Attracts loyal customers who align with your values In today's world where everyone is tired of being "sold to," honesty isn't just ethical - it's brilliant marketing. Which brand's transparency initiative impressed you the most?

🔔 The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) just released its draft guidance on transition plans, marking a significant milestone for companies across Europe. This guidance isn’t just a framework—it’s a roadmap for action on the journey to Net Zero. Here’s why this matters: 🔹 Clear Steps for Companies: The draft emphasizes practical steps for companies to create, report, and implement credible transition plans. This will directly influence how companies integrate climate action into every level of their business strategy. 🔹 Investor-Grade Transparency: Investors are looking for transparency—and this guidance delivers. By clarifying EU expectations for transition plans, EFRAG is setting the stage for disclosures that meet rigorous, investor-grade standards. Expect greater scrutiny on targets, timelines, and accountability. 🔹 Alignment with Global Standards: @EFRAG’s guidance aligns closely with International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and UK Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) outputs, promoting interoperability and global coherence on effective and accountable transition plans 🔹 Beyond Emissions: The guidance goes beyond emissions alone, covering risk management, financial impacts, and resilience. It encourages companies to disclose how climate risks are incorporated into financial planning and decision-making—a critical step for robust corporate resilience. Why This Matters: The draft guidance isn’t just about meeting requirements; it’s an implementation playbook for companies to future-proof themselves. 📈 As investors, policymakers, and consumers demand action, businesses must prioritize credible transition plans—or risk falling behind. 💬 What’s your take on EFRAG’s draft transition plan guidance? Will this raise the bar for transition plans across Europe? Let’s discuss! #NetZero #TransitionPlans #EFRAG #Sustainability #ClimateAction #CorporateGovernance #ESG #Finance #EU #Investing

✳️ Have you been greenhushing recently ? ✳️ They say companies are stepping back from their ESG commitments. Not so fast. The real trend is not abandonment, but strategic silence. 🤫 Recent articles suggest a collapse of corporate ESG programmes, with fund closures and political pressures mounting. Yet, a rigorous study tracking 75 global companies (April 2024 - May 2025) reveals a different story: ▫️ Only 13% have scaled back their sustainability efforts. ▫️The vast majority (85%) are maintaining or actively expanding their commitments. (Source: Harvard Business Review — link in comments.) So why the widespread perception of decline? The answer is, apparently, Greenhushing. What HBR tells us is that faced with increasing political scrutiny and reputational risks, many companies opt for strategic silence. They continue their sustainability work - but quietly, rather than loudly broadcasting progress. Leading to a totally new phenomenon: ▫️Where Greenwashing was misleading communication that promoted an insincere ecological message … ▫️Greenhushing is systemic silence on sincere convictions and actions, driven by self-protection. 🤔 The main concern ? This cautious communication shields firms but creates a serious collective cost: a distorted market perception that ESG efforts are waning, which could slow down the systemic momentum needed for transformative change. What makes a company resilient in this environment? Three factors emerge: 1. Operational Integration: When sustainability is embedded in the business model (supply chain, product design), rolling back destroys value. It's about performance, not just reputation. 2. Value Creation: Where sustainability drives clear benefits (cost savings, revenue growth, resilience), efforts are defended robustly. 3. Leadership Stability: Experienced CEOs (11+ years in office) are far more likely to hold the course, with only 5% scaling back, compared to newer leaders reacting to short-term pressure. ❇️ Where do you think the line is ? Should companies prioritize "prudent discretion" to protect progress, or "visible leadership" to inspire collective action ? #ESG #Greenhushing #Sustainability #Leadership #CorporateStrategy #ClimateAction

This is important! Let's introduce #greenhushing! 🌿 "Greenhushing" is a trend where some companies choose not to publicise their climate goals (or any other sustainability goals) due to the crackdown on #greenwashing, overstating environmental credentials. 💨 Governments are taking action against deceptive environmental marketing, leading companies to stay silent to avoid lawsuits and criticism. 📊 Last year saw an increase in corporate commitments to climate action, but companies realised that achieving net-zero emissions would be challenging. 🔒 Some countries have regulations against greenwashing, making companies cautious about sharing climate targets. ⚖️ Lawsuits and regulatory uncertainty have contributed to the silence, while Republican backlash against "woke investing" might also play a role. 🚫 Overconcentrating on greenwashing and lacking transparency about companies' environmental and social impact hampers progress. It results in less ambitious public commitments. 😕 We observe this trend in climate goals and even newer areas like biodiversity loss, with companies and financial institutions being hesitant to take action. 🤔 So, what's the solution? Be more lenient on greenwashing? Absolutely not! 🙅♀️🙅♂️ ✔️ Instead, the focus should be on promoting transparency. Implementing #CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) or similar legislation for all sizable companies is crucial and should happen as soon as possible. 💯 Full and mandatory disclosure of all impacts is the only way forward. 📝 Transparency empowers accountability and drives real change. 👊💚 https://lnkd.in/eFNYeTsx

“Trust but verify”.   ^ That’s the 3-word summary of the policy approach proposed by the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models (attached below).   Even if you’re not based in California, this is a fantastic rulebook on AI policy and regulation.   It's one of the more nuanced and deeply-thought papers that cuts past the generic “regulation v innovation” debate, and dives straight into a specific policy solution for governing frontier models (with wisdom draw from historical analogies in tobacco, energy, pesticides and car safety).   Here’s my quick summary of the “trust but verify” model.   1️⃣ TRANSPARENCY In a nutshell, the “trust but verify” approach is rooted in transparency, which is essential for building “trust”. But transparency is such a broad concept, so the paper neatly breaks it down in terms of: ▪️ Data acquisition ▪️ Safety practices ▪️ Security practices ▪️ Pre-deployment testing ▪️ Downstream impact ▪️ Accountability for openness There’s nuance and different transparency mechanisms to each area. However, transparency alone doesn’t guarantee accountability or redress. In fact, the paper warns us about “transparency washing” – i.e. where policymakers (futilely) pursue transparency for the sake of it without achieving anything. Transparency needs to be tested and verified (hence the “verify”).   2️⃣ THIRD PARTY RISK ASSESSMENT This supports the “verify” aspect, and the idea of “evidence-based transparency” (i.e. transparency that you can actually trust). This is not just about audits and evaluations, but also specific things like: ▪️ researcher protections (i.e. safe harbour / indemnity protections for public interest safety research) ▪️ responsible disclosure (i.e. infrastructure is needed to communicate identified vulnerabilities to affect parties)   3️⃣ WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION This means legal safeguards to protect retaliation against whistleblowers who report misconduct, fraud, illegal activities, etc. It might be the secret to driving *real* corporate accountability in AI.   4️⃣ ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING A reporting regime for AI-related incidents (similar to data breach reporting regimes) help with identification and enforcement + regulatory coordination and information sharing + analytics. 5️⃣ SCOPE What type of frontier models should be regulated? The paper suggests these guiding principles: ▪️ "Generic developer-level thresholds seem to be generally undesirable given the current AI landscape"   ▪️ "Compute thresholds are currently the most attractive cost-level thresholds, but they are best combined with other metrics for most regulatory intents"   ▪️ "Thresholds based on risk evaluation results and observed downstream impact are promising for safety and corporate governance policy, but they have practical issues" 👓 Want more? See my map which tracks AI laws and policies around the world (see link in 'Visit my website'). #ai #tech #airegulation #policy #california

What if your biggest competitive advantage is hiding in plain sight in your competitors' customer complaints? While most B2B executives chase the latest growth tactics, strategic leaders are systematically mining competitor trust gaps to win enterprise deals. In today's procurement environment, trust isn't just a vendor evaluation criterion—it's become the decisive factor in contract decisions worth millions. The reality of enterprise buying is stark: procurement teams have stopped believing vendor promises. They demand transparency in pricing models, proof of service delivery capabilities, and verification of product claims. Most vendors fake this transparency with polished sales decks and case study theater. The winners convert their competitors' credibility deficits into contract wins. Here's how B2B growth leaders are operationalizing trust to capture enterprise market share: Audit Competitor Credibility Gaps. Deploy systematic analysis of competitor RFP losses, customer churn patterns, and service delivery failures. Every trust breakdown in their client base represents a qualified prospect for your pipeline. Engineer transparency into your sales process. Move beyond vendor presentations. Provide independent verification of ROI claims. Offer transparent pricing with no hidden implementation costs. Make radical honesty your competitive differentiation in the procurement process. Align revenue operations around building trust. Tie sales comp, customer success KPIs, and product delivery SLAs directly to trust-building behaviors. When trust becomes measurable in your CRM and tied to quota attainment, it becomes operationalized. Build enterprise trust intelligence. Create account-level dashboards tracking trust indicators across your target prospect base. Monitor competitor service failures, contract disputes, and client satisfaction scores to time your outreach perfectly. The enterprise opportunity is massive: procurement teams are actively seeking vendors they can trust with mission-critical initiatives. While competitors struggle with credibility issues, you capture their displaced enterprise accounts. Ready to transform competitor weaknesses into enterprise wins? Start with a systematic audit of trust vulnerabilities among your top 50 target accounts. The pipeline impact could be transformational. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eRV9sWAK __________ For more on growth and building trust, check out my previous posts. Join me on my journey, and let's build a more trustworthy world together. Christine Alemany #Fintech #Strategy #Growth

Emissions reporting under the GHG Protocol 🌎 Scope 3 emissions, which account for 70-90% of a company’s carbon footprint, are increasingly recognized as a critical focus in achieving climate goals. These emissions are produced indirectly, outside of an organization’s direct control, spanning 15 categories from upstream suppliers to downstream logistics, product use, and disposal. Their significance cannot be understated in the broader context of carbon accountability. Unlike Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, Scope 3 emissions present unique challenges. They require detailed engagement with external stakeholders, including suppliers and partners, to gather accurate data. This process is often time-consuming and resource-intensive, making it difficult for organizations to efficiently manage. Even with data in hand, consistency and accuracy remain significant hurdles. Robust internal systems are necessary to support effective data capture and reporting processes. Without these systems, the data collected may not provide the reliable insights needed for comprehensive decarbonization efforts. Visibility into extended supply chains adds another layer of complexity. Large organizations often struggle with limited transparency in their supply networks, particularly when it comes to secondary and tertiary suppliers. This lack of visibility can impede efforts to accurately measure and report Scope 3 emissions. The quality of primary data from suppliers is also a key factor in the accuracy of Scope 3 reporting. Organizations rely heavily on the availability and reliability of this data, which can vary significantly across different suppliers and regions. Ensuring this data is both consistent and accurate is essential for effective climate strategies. Allocating sufficient resources to manage, validate, and analyze Scope 3 emissions data remains a significant challenge. The process demands specialized skills and a commitment to maintaining high standards of data integrity. Despite these challenges, focusing on Scope 3 emissions is essential for any organization committed to achieving substantial and lasting reductions in their carbon footprint. Source: KPMG #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction #Scope3 #emissions

I strongly believe that technology can drive processes in a way that builds and strengthens trust between clients & vendors. Tech platform services have made processes in project procurement faster, data-driven, and transparent. Tasks like vendor scouting, assessments, and comparisons that once took weeks can now be done in days. Trust is built when decisions are backed by data and transparency—stakeholders understand why a vendor was chosen. Responsiveness is equally critical; when clients promptly address vendor queries, it fosters confidence on both sides. I remember we worked with a client struggling to find the right vendor for a specialized CapEx project. Through Venwiz, they: - Identified pre-verified vendors in a flash. - Assessed vendor capabilities with over 20+ custom data points. - Used the platform to share updates and ensure alignment with vendors. The result? A faster, more objective, and transparent process that strengthened trust on both sides. For me, the intersection of technology and trust makes decisions more objective and better informed. But these are my experiences, would love to hear your thoughts/additions. #Procurement #CapEx #Trust #Technology