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

SDGs and Carbon Credits 🌎 Carbon credits, particularly from the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM), offer companies a pathway not only to achieve decarbonization but also to address broader sustainability objectives. These credits can contribute to various targets such as natural resource conservation, biodiversity protection, and socio-economic development, thereby supporting multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nature-based solutions (NCS) and technology-based solutions (TbS) represent two primary categories of projects within the carbon credit system. NCS projects often generate substantial co-benefits, including biodiversity protection and enhancements in soil, air, and water quality. These projects directly support ecosystem services and climate adaptation efforts while improving livelihoods through job creation in areas like nursery management and landscape restoration. Similarly, TbS projects like direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) contribute to industrial development and innovation. These projects typically offer measurable and permanent impacts but may also present challenges, such as significant energy requirements and potential conflicts over land use. The balance of these factors must be carefully managed to optimize both environmental and social outcomes. The selection of specific projects by businesses can vary based on their sustainability goals. For instance, companies may prefer forestry projects for their dual benefits of biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development, or they might opt for DACCS projects to stimulate technological advancement and infrastructure growth. Each type of project aligns with specific SDGs in distinct ways. Forestry projects, for example, are integral to achieving goals like Zero Hunger through the support of agro-ecosystems, Gender Equality by empowering women in community forest management, and Life on Land by maintaining biodiversity. Additionally, these projects support Decent Work and Economic Growth by revitalizing rural economies. Ultimately, the strategic use of carbon credits in NCS and TbS projects offers a robust method for companies to extend their impact beyond mere emissions reductions. It is essential, however, to recognize that carbon credits cannot substitute for the fundamental need to decarbonize operations and value chains. Companies must prioritize direct reductions in their carbon emissions as the cornerstone of their environmental strategy. Utilizing carbon credits should be seen as a supplementary measure, supporting and extending the reach of these primary decarbonization efforts. Source: WBCSD – World Business Council for Sustainable Development #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction #strategy #sdgs #sustainabledevelopment

🌍 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.

If you're navigating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) integration in your organization, ISO standards offer globally recognized frameworks to structure and elevate your efforts. Here are some key ISO standards relevant to ESG: ✅ Environmental (E): ♻️ ISO 14001 – Environmental Management Systems 💧 ISO 14046 – Water Footprint 🌱 ISO 14064 – Greenhouse Gas Accounting & Verification 🔁 ISO 50001 – Energy Management Systems 🔍 ISO 14067 – Carbon Footprint of Products ✅ Social (S): 👥 ISO 26000 – Guidance on Social Responsibility 🧑🏫 ISO 21001 – Educational Organizations Management Systems ⚖️ ISO 45001 – Occupational Health & Safety 🏗️ ISO 30414 – Human Capital Reporting ✅ Governance (G): 🔐 ISO 37001 – Anti-Bribery Management Systems 🔍 ISO 37301 – Compliance Management Systems 🧭 ISO 37000 – Guidance for Governance of Organizations 🔎 ISO/IEC 38500 – Governance of IT These standards are not just checklists—they’re tools to enhance credibility, manage risk, and drive sustainable performance. #ESG #Sustainability #ISOStandards #Governance #Environment #SocialImpact #Compliance #RiskManagement #GreenTransition #SustainableLeadership #NetZero #IFRS #ClimateDisclosure

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

Last week I had the honour and privilege to meet with our long time supporter, Vice President and Fauna & Flora friend Sir David Attenborough and the UK’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy. This was at the invitation of the Foreign Secretary to discuss the new government’s foreign policy ambitions for global leadership in encouraging international action on nature and climate. This was a wide-ranging discussion from the deep ocean, high seas and coastlines, to the temperate and tropical forests, grasslands and mountains. We are eager to support the work of this new Government through our efforts and to give voice and visibility to the local and community-based partners we work with worldwide who are most affected by climate change and biodiversity loss.    As the UK Government's nature and climate international policies evolve, here are five areas where I think they, and indeed other governments, can have a real and lasting impact as we go into the Biodiversity Summit (CoP16) and the next climate CoP29.   1.    Leadership in Nature Protection: The UK government has an opportunity to lead globally by focusing on proactive protection, restoration, and investment in nature, prioritising the improvement of natural resources for long-term benefits to people and the planet, while restoring marine and terrestrial ecosystems to mitigate climate change, enhance resilience, and protect vulnerable communities.   2.    The Ocean as a Climate Solution: The ocean plays a crucial role in combating climate change and promoting sustainable development. The UK must continue to support and invest in ocean-based climate solutions, such as coastal ecosystem restoration, which provide "no regrets" benefits for both nature and local communities.   3.    Nature Finance: Funds flowing to locally led approaches is the only route to legitimacy and sustainability in conservation, because local people, organisations and individuals are best suited to identify and implement appropriate conservation actions, and should be enabled, equipped, and funded to do so. The UK should seek opportunities and establish incentives for more effective and efficient funding systems.   4.    Private Sector's Role in Sustainability: Business will be essential for scaling solutions to climate and nature challenges. The UK government should create incentives for sustainable investments and encourage philanthropy, while pushing for transparency, responsible supply chains, and integrity in nature markets like carbon and biodiversity credits.   5.    Locally-Led Climate Adaptation: Climate change impacts are felt locally, and solutions must be driven by local communities. Top-down approaches are insufficient; instead, there must be support for locally-led adaptation and recovery efforts, with innovative funding that shares risks and encourages bold investments in nature.   #SavingNatureTogether Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

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

Guidance on Climate Transition Plans under ESRS For organisations navigating climate reporting and sustainability compliance, the new guidance on implementing climate transition plans under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) provides valuable support! The guidance provides an approach for organisations to meet the ESRS requirements by detailing disclosure obligations that align with key EU regulations, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the EU Taxonomy. This alignment helps ensure climate transition activities and sustainability disclosures meet broader European compliance standards, reinforcing their commitment to responsible and sustainable practices in line with EU legislation. 1️⃣ Purpose: Offers non-binding guidance to help organizations create effective transition plans for climate change mitigation. 2️⃣ Compliance: Maps out how ESRS aligns with EU laws like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and EU Taxonomy, ensuring regulatory alignment 3️⃣ Structure: Covers all aspects of climate disclosure—from European frameworks and disclosure requirements to international standards 4️⃣ Paris Agreement Alignment: Organizations must disclose targets that align with the 1.5°C goal, showing commitment to global climate efforts 5️⃣ Decarbonization: Outlines required emissions reduction actions, including operational changes and product modifications. Organisations are required to outline specific actions, known as "decarbonization levers," which may include operational adjustments, product changes, and other emissions reduction initiatives 6️⃣ Investments: Specifies the need for transparent reporting on investments, including EU Taxonomy-aligned CapEx for sustainable projects 7️⃣ Disclosures: Companies involved in EU Taxonomy activities must show their alignment with taxonomy criteria for sustainable finance 8️⃣ Governance: Transition plans should be embedded within overall corporate strategy, backed by governance bodies to ensure alignment with broader goals 9️⃣ Progress: Regular updates on implementation are required, measuring action effectiveness toward emissions targets 🔟 IROs from climate change mitigation: The guidance stresses the need for organisations to assess and disclose social and environmental impacts, risks, and opportunities linked to their climate transition plans The guidance emphasises that climate transition plans should be fully embedded within a company's overarching strategy and be actively supported by governance bodies. This integration ensures that climate goals are not treated as standalone objectives but are interwoven with long-term corporate planning. By doing so, organisations can align their climate ambitions with their overall business objectives, securing strategic and governance-level commitment to climate action.

I got to talk to the FT’s Sustainable Views on the corporate ‘retreat’ from sustainability in this interesting (free to read!) piece, where I argue that the most credible corporations are clearly acknowledging the limits of single company action, and pivoting to a more focused strategy, targeting issues where the company has both legitimacy and direct leverage. Unilever first shaped this approach in early 2024, but others have since moved in a similar direction. I also try to contextualize whether the retreat is partly about dropping unrealistic goals, which were all the rage back in 2015. “The Trump-driven backlash is certainly convenient, because everybody was setting overly ambitious goals 10 years ago that they’re now missing,” Alison Taylor, clinical professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, tells Sustainable Views. “Having an excuse to basically drop disclosure is very convenient.” A March 2025 study found that around 40 per cent of companies that had set 2020 emissions targets either missed or abandoned them altogether. BP, PepsiCo and Royal Bank of Canada have all abandoned or postponed various climate targets since the start of 2025. In May, PepsiCo said it was “refining” its sustainability goals to focus on regenerative agriculture, water usage and plastic packaging. This is not necessarily a bad thing, Taylor adds. “I would much rather see more sober, restrained disclosures. Companies like PepsiCo admitting they failed, but now doubling down on areas [where] they can drive change is really interesting,” she says. She suggests companies should “focus on four things where you have legitimacy and leverage, rather than 40 things”. Other potential drivers for the change of focus include: fiscal tensions; trade tensions; shifting regulations; concerns about legal risks; concerns about unrealistic corporate target setting; and companies’ thinking on sustainability generally maturing.” In June, Aberdeen chair Douglas Flint criticised asset managers for making “ridiculously extravagant claims” that sustainable finance could save the world. Other executives have fired similar shots at the sustainability crowd: that the early-2020s bubble was too focused on morality and not enough on performance. But NYU Stern’s Taylor says this is a “false narrative” designed to “distract from the real issues”. The bigger issue, she says, is that the excitement around sustainability was based on a series of assumptions. These included that the western liberal 20th century consensus would remain in place; that organisations such as the UN would remain fit for purpose; and that regulations were heading broadly in the same direction across the world. “That theory of change is now looking very vulnerable,” she adds. https://lnkd.in/dnzyNACR