Media and Public Perception

The Gensol-BluSmart Saga: A Blueprint for Rebuilding Trust in India’s Corporate Ecosystem The collapse of Gensol Engineering and BluSmart Mobility isn’t just a corporate scandal—it’s a clarion call for systemic reform. With ₹978 crore in diverted loans, an 85% stock plunge, and 6,000+ EVs grounded, this case exposes critical gaps in governance. But within every crisis lies an opportunity to learn. Let’s transform lessons into action. The Problem: Governance Failures in Numbers ₹262 crore unaccounted: Funds meant for EVs diverted to luxury apartments (₹42.94 crore) and promoter-linked entities. 45% of Nifty 500 independent directors have promoter ties (SEBI, 2024), enabling unchecked decisions. 32% of large corporate loans (>₹100 crore) show fund diversion (RBI, 2024). Result: Investors lost ₹4,300 crore in market cap. Employees faced operational paralysis. Public trust eroded. The Solution: Two Innovations for Accountability and stronger corporate governance 1️⃣ Independent Directors Appointed by an Independent Body Issue: Promoter-influenced boards lack objectivity. Fix: A SEBI-regulated panel to allocate directors via sector expertise + randomized selection. Impact: Could have flagged Gensol’s ₹262 crore gap early. 2️⃣ Mandatory Nominee Directors for PSU Loans >₹100 Crore Issue: IREDA/PFC loans misused without oversight. Fix: Nominees with veto power to block suspicious spends (e.g., ₹50 crore routed to shell firms). Impact: IIM-A study shows nominee directors cut fraud by 27%. The Bigger Picture Investors: Lost ₹4,300 crore in market cap in Gensol. Employees: BluSmart’s operational collapse left thousands stranded. Public Trust: Every diverted rupee undermines India’s growth narrative. “Corporate governance is not a compliance exercise – it is the foundation of sustainable value creation.” Let’s transform this moment into a movement for stronger, ethical governance. 💼✨ Your thoughts? How can we collectively drive these reforms forward? ______________________________ CAGlobal - Corporate चाणक्य Professionals: Advocate for ethical frameworks, to embed governance into corporate DNA Integrity is everything, join us in ~50k growing entrepreneurs' community RisingIndia उभरता भारत

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

🌍 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐖𝐞’𝐫𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 — 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐎𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐈𝐭 🔥 A new study in the American Economic Review ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/eNjb32py) reveals why so many climate policies still struggle to gain traction—even though the majority of people worldwide believe climate change is a serious threat. After surveying over 40,000 people across 20 countries, the authors found that public support for climate policies hinges on three things: ✅ Does the policy reduce emissions? ✅ Is it fair to low-income households? ✅ Will I personally lose or benefit? That’s it. It’s not that people don’t care — they do (also a finding in our Triodos Bank survey for the Netherlands 👉 https://lnkd.in/enEc3-gZ). However, support drops unless climate policies are effective, fair, and relevant to daily life. 💡 The researchers tested how information changes minds. And here’s the kicker: Explaining how climate policies work (and why they’re fair) shifted attitudes far more than fear-based messaging about climate impacts. 🚨 This couldn't come at a more urgent time. Allianz, one of the world’s largest insurers, just warned that the climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism itself ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/ecPpF4ed). Insurers are already pulling out of high-risk regions. But this research shows there’s hope — and a path forward. We need to: 🔵 Communicate better — focus on how policies work, not just why we need them. 🔵 Design for fairness — people back climate taxes when the revenues go to those who need it most. 🔵 Move beyond "pay to pollute" — bans and public investments often feel fairer to citizens than market-based tools alone. Right now, it can feel like no one in power truly cares. But that’s exactly why we need to have better policy designs ready for when the political winds shift. One thing is sure: climate policies will become unavoidable. We can’t negotiate our way out of rising temperatures, and we can’t delay wildfires, floods, or food insecurity with parliamentary debates or denial. The sooner we prepare bright, fair, and effective solutions, the better positioned we’ll be when reality forces action. Let’s not waste that window.

You're too outspoken." "You should be more likable." "You're coming off as aggressive." Sound familiar? Women in the workplace hear these phrases far too often. These comments, whether subtle or overt, are attempts to silence women and limit our potential. From being talked over in meetings to being passed over for leadership roles, or even labeled as "too emotional" or "too aggressive," the message is clear: shrink yourself to fit in. But here’s the truth: If your voice didn’t have power, no one would care to silence it. Playing small has never changed the world. So remember to never allow anyone to dismiss your confidence as arrogance. There’s a difference: 👉Confidence is knowing your worth and owning your expertise. 👉Arrogance dismisses others. Too often, women are made to believe their confidence is arrogance to keep them small. Don’t fall for it. So, what can we do differently? 👉Speak up—even when it feels uncomfortable. 👉Take space—your presence is invaluable. 👉Advocate for yourself—promotions, raises, and opportunities don’t just come; they’re claimed. 👉Support other women—amplify each other's voices.

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

“Every sentence needs a fact.” That was the rule my boss gave me at Meta. No full sentences of opinion. No false precision. No faking certainty. No fact? No sentence. If it’s a hypothesis, call it a hypothesis. If you’re guessing, say so. Because stating opinion as fact isn’t just incorrect. It’s intellectually dishonest. And it doesn’t help teams make better decisions. If you want to build confidence, start with the truth. Start with facts. Add your opinion and taste on top, but don’t confuse the two. Don’t say, “Most marketers struggle to get work done on time.” -> Say, “42% of marketers we surveyed said hitting deadlines was their top challenge. (n =250, US-based marketers in B2B orgs)” -> No survey? Say, “We talked to five marketers and four mentioned deadlines unprompted.” -> No data at all? Say, “We have a hypothesis and we’re validating it through customer interviews with marketers.” It’s dangerous for your audience when they can’t tell the difference. But it’s even more dangerous for you. If you’re not clear on what’s true and what’s just your take, you won’t get the clarity you need. The sign of great thinking is crisp communication. Wandering language is a symptom of incomplete thought and unchecked assumptions. Betting on that just leads to more missed shots. On his last day, that same boss signed off with: “Stay crisp, friends.” It stuck. It still applies. If you want to up your hit rate, start by getting crisp.

Steven Bartlett’s AI panel had a major problem, and I’m fed up of pretending this is just an “oversight.” → Fed up of hearing, “We couldn’t find any women.” → Fed up of watching conversations about the future shaped exclusively by men. → Fed up of seeing the same voices, the same perspectives, and the same tired excuses. There wasn’t a single woman in sight. Women aren’t a niche. They’re not a “nice to have.” They’re half the population. A panel on the future… discussing AI, technology, and the impact on our lives, yet it was a room full of men. But this isn’t just about AI. It’s about a much bigger problem. 🚫 Tech events. 🚫 Business panels. 🚫 “Future of work” discussions. Over and over, we see the same story: a lineup of men, shaping decisions that will impact us all. They even talked about the fact that 80% of women are likely to be impacted by AI Agents! This is a choice. A lazy, blinkered, and outdated choice. If you have one of the most influential platforms in the world, like Steven Bartlett does, and you still can’t make space for women, that’s not an accident. That’s a problem. It's a problem that most media - traditional media and films and social media are dominated by men. Even podcasts. 80% of the top podcasts (one of the most influential media now) are hosted or produced by men. Where are the women's voices, opinions, ideas? Yet audiences are 50/50? If we only platform men - how do we ever change the perceptions of women in tech? Women in business? Women shaping the future? Investment in women (which is at a ridiculous 2% of VC money) And don’t get me started on the way we talk about AI itself. Fear-mongering. Clickbait. “AI will take all the jobs.” “Falling birth rates.” “No more work.” When the real conversation should be about responsibility, ethics, and opportunity. Leaning into the ideas and solutions that will help everyone benefit from AI. But without women at the table? We get the same recycled narratives. Women are leading in AI. They’re pioneering ethical tech. They’re building businesses and driving change across industries. But you’d never know it from panels like this. We need to change that. 👇 Who are the women in AI, tech, and leadership that everyone should know about? Drop their names below. Let’s make them visible. And, if you’re going to have a conversation about the future, make sure it actually includes all of us. Not just because it’s the right thing to do. But because it’s the smart thing to do.

🚫 Most women don’t lack ambition. What we lack is a clear transition between the rules for girls and the rules for leaders. 📉 People say, “Women need to advocate for themselves.” But they forget: many of us were raised to follow rules in childhood that no longer serve us in adulthood As girls, we were taught: ⁉️ Speak up? You’re showing off. ⁉️ Take credit? You’re selfish. ⁉️ Push back? You’re difficult. Then suddenly, somewhere between girlhood and leadership, the expectations flipped, But no one told us when the switch happened. So we get stuck between two rulebooks: 🤔 Be humble. But be visible. 🤔 Be kind. But be powerful. 🤔 Be modest. But get promoted. And when we hesitate, they say it’s because we’re not confident enough. But really, it’s because we’re playing a game where the rules keep changing. Here are five things I have learned and actually work: 🔁 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆. It shapes who you get to become tomorrow. Think long-term. Act like your future depends on it, because it does. 🧹 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲. You’re not interrupting. You’re contributing. Say what you mean. Own your space. 👀 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳. People do. And it’s your job to make sure the right ones are paying attention. 📊 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. Don’t wait until year-end reviews when the memory has faded. Keep a running list of results, decisions, and moments where you moved the needle. If you can’t name your impact, no one else will. 📅 𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘁. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗺. Block time each week to share progress, build alliances, and remind people what you’re leading. If you don’t make it part of your schedule, it won’t be part of theirs either. You don’t need to work harder. You need to get 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲. If you’re ready to shift from quietly capable to visibly in charge, join the waitlist for our next cohort of ⭐ From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader. ⭐ 🔗 Link in comments. 👊 If hard work alone were enough, you’d already be in the corner office.

We’re not going to be able to keep the planet habitable without fixing our democracies. It’s not just me saying it (https://lnkd.in/gmZHA6xq), but climate scientists are saying it too. And, not surprisingly, the mainstream (industry aligned) media aren’t reporting on it: “In 1988 the climate scientist James Hansen testified to Congress that the era of global warming had arrived and catastrophe could be expected if nothing was done. It was a testimony that made headlines around the world. Hansen became known as the father of global warming. This week, in a new paper, he said something equally notable. And it was completely ignored by the media. The paper itself wasn’t ignored by the media. CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, all ran stories on it. The research warns that Earth’s average temperature will rise nearly 5C when atmospheric carbon dioxide is double pre-industrial levels. We’re likely to see CO2 reach these levels in 50 to 60 years or so. Most scientists pin warming at 3C when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If Hansen is right, this is a terrifying, world-ending level of warming. We better hope he’s wrong. Some scientists think he is. But I don’t really want to talk about that. I want to talk about what happened when he tried to describe why nothing is being done to stop planetary collapse. When Hansen tried to do this, the media ignored it. He said that democracy is rigged. He said politicians have been bought by capitalists and big business: “The ideal of one person/one vote has been replaced by one dollar/one vote. Special financial interests—the fossil fuel industry, the chemical industry, the lumber industry, the food industry, for example—are allowed to buy politicians. It is no wonder that climate is running out of control, environmental toxicity is in the process of exterminating insects including pollinators, forests are mismanaged, and agriculture is designed for profit, not for nutrition and the public's well-being." He didn’t say this in an interview. It’s in the press release. Which means reporters definitely saw it. And it means Hansen and his co-authors put it in for a reason. They felt strongly about it. They wanted it to be reported. But no one did. You can check the stories. Hansen is right. Not in a theoretical or philosophical sense. This is just what politics is now.”

A new study challenges the assumption that experiencing extreme weather automatically increases climate policy support. Using the largest global dataset of its kind, researchers found that what people think caused extreme weather matters far more than whether they experienced it. Objective exposure to floods, droughts, heatwaves, and storms rarely predicts policy support, but subjective attribution to climate change strongly does. This suggests climate communication should focus on helping people understand the climate-weather connection rather than assuming direct experience drives action. Study by Viktoria Cologna, Simona Meiler, Chahan Kropf, Samuel Lüthi, Niels G. Mede, David N. Bresch, Oreskes Naomi, Mike S. Schäfer, Sander van der Linden, and the TISP Consortium.