by Meera Robins | Nov 6, 2024 | Blog
There are plenty of climate issues to tackle at the upcoming COP29 this month, but the overwhelming spotlight has been on the controversial host country: Azerbaijan. This will be the second year running that the annual UN climate change conference is held in a petrostate and the third consecutive year in an authoritarian state with a questionable human rights record. Azerbaijan’s love affair with oil and gas and history of suppressing those who speak out against it has left people wondering: should a country like this host a COP?
A petrostate host
No country – petrostate or renewables haven – should be excluded from contributing to climate action. Having a petrostate host a climate COP can increase international pressure on the country to live up to its climate commitments. But Azerbaijan’s lack of decarbonisation progress is concerning. Considered to be a “gift from god” by its president, Ilham Aliyev, fossil fuels make up 90% of Azerbaijan’s exports. Despite claiming to be in an active green transition and setting targets to reduce emissions by 40% by 2050, the government is yet to provide a detailed fossil fuel phase-out plan, as agreed in a landmark pact at COP28. Gas has now replaced oil as the country’s leading export, and production is set to increase by a third in the next decade. Critics have argued that having Azerbaijan – a country where decarbonisation is not a priority – host a global climate summit is troubling.
An autocratic state host
Azerbaijan ranks as one of the least democratic countries globally, with severe limitations on freedoms of expression and assembly of civil society groups, journalists and dissidents. Civil society groups have accused Azerbaijan of hypocrisy after it labelled itself a peacemaker and called for a global truce during this year’s two-week climate conference. The accusation follows a year of campaigning for the release of Gubad Ibadoghlu, Azerbaijani energy markets expert at the London School of Economics and vocal critic of the country’s oil and gas policies. Before his 2023 arrest, Ibadoghlu was outspoken in his belief that Azerbaijan couldn’t replace Russia as an alternative oil and gas supplier to the EU due to limited capacity and geopolitical tensions. Azerbaijan’s government arrested him for religious extremism and counterfeiting money – claims that have been refuted by global advocacy groups and lawyers. There’s concern that Azerbaijan’s harsh crackdown on dissidents, particularly those that oppose current climate policies, will intensify after the conference.
Azerbaijan’s foreign policy chief dismissed the human rights abuse claims, stating that “overburdening the COP agenda with issues not having direct and immediate linkage to climate change is not helpful but detrimental.” But history shows us that, in many cases, effective climate action relies on respect for human rights. Decades of speaking out against governments and large corporates paved the way for the climate policies and regulations we have today. On the one hand, Azerbaijan is hosting a conference centred on climate justice and empowering developing nations, yet on the other, the country is suppressing core pillars of climate activism – freedom of expression and association, and peaceful assembly.
Paul Polman – former Unilever CEO and major sustainability advocate – sums up the controversy: “Rewarding such behaviour by allowing the country [Azerbaijan] to host COP29 sends the wrong message to the international community…how can you push others to higher ambition, while continuing to build your economy on fossil fuels? How can you convene the different players in a spirit of inclusion and compromise, while violently suppressing dissent?”
Global advocacy and civil society groups are pushing national governments, such as the US and the UK, to pressure Azerbaijan to release its political prisoners. After months of campaigning, the message seems to be getting through. In early October, US lawmakers urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken to press President Aliyev on upholding human rights protections ahead of COP29. The EU Parliament took this one step further, condemning Azerbaijan’s human rights record and encouraging EU leaders to use the conference as an opportunity to address the issue. EU Parliament members even stated that Azerbaijan’s abuses were incompatible with hosting COP29.
How can a host country’s human rights transgressions be addressed at future COPs?
Civil society groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have been advocating for increased human rights protections for COP participants in the host country agreements (HCAs). They’ve also called for HCAs to be publicly available immediately after the climate COP host country is announced. This stems from the fact the COP29 HCA is still not public nearly a year on from the announcement of Azerbaijan as the host. Human Rights Watch did obtain a copy of Azerbaijan’s HCA and uncovered significant shortcomings and ambiguities on the protection of human rights for conference participants. It’s no surprise that the involvement of Azerbaijani civil society in this year’s COP is expected to be extremely limited, with state-supported groups filling their space instead. Undertaking the actions proposed by civil society groups would mean future COP participants – especially those from the host country – are able to speak freely during the conference without fear of persecution afterwards.
What happens at COP29 in terms of climate negotiations and how Azerbaijan will respond to human rights criticism remains to be seen. Despite the international scrutiny, the petrostate is not shying away from the global climate stage. In September 2024, Azerbaijan announced its bid to host another global environmental summit – the COP17 UN Biodiversity Conference in 2026. It seems the discourse around Azerbaijan’s role in global sustainability conversations isn’t over yet.
by Kyisin Aung | Oct 24, 2024 | Blog
Companies currently reporting toward Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB) or Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) will need to transition to the new International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Sustainability Disclosure Standards for reporting years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.
Launched by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in 2023, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (also known as the ISSB standards) provide investors with decision-useful, globally comparable sustainability-related information. Whether or not companies have previously reported to SASB and TCFD, those looking to voluntarily apply IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and S2 (Climate-related Disclosures) will benefit from a newly launched guide. It offers essential guidance as companies work toward full disclosure with the standard.
Our key takeaways from the guide include:
1. Voluntary application and investor expectations
IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 respond to investor need for transparent, comparable, and reliable data on climate and sustainability risks. While full compliance is encouraged, companies may implement the standards progressively. This flexibility allows companies to gradually build the necessary reporting systems and capabilities.
2. Clear communication on compliance
Companies will need to clarify the extent of their application by regularly updating and communicating their assessment of their progress toward compliance.
3. Transition reliefs and phased implementation
Recognizing that some companies may require time to converge on full disclosure, the ISSB has introduced transition reliefs. For example, companies may focus on climate-related disclosures in the first reporting year, with broader sustainability disclosures phased in later. Additionally, although IFRS S1 requires sustainability-related financial disclosures to be reported simultaneously with financial statements for the same period, companies may delay reporting sustainability information alongside financial statements and may defer certain disclosures, such as Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions[i].
4. Proportionality mechanisms
To address varying levels of readiness, the ISSB has included proportionality mechanisms. These allow companies to report using “reasonable and supportable” data available at the time, without incurring excessive costs or efforts. Companies can apply qualitative approaches where quantitative data may be difficult to obtain initially, which is particularly helpful for first-time reporters or those with limited resources.
As companies transition to the ISSB standards, it’s important to note that many jurisdictions worldwide are either considering or have already mandated sustainability reporting aligned – either closely or partially – with the ISSB standards. At the time of this posting, jurisdictions that have adopted ISSB-aligned disclosure regulations include Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Turkey, and Nigeria. Other jurisdictions such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom have adopted climate-related disclosure standards based on the TCFD recommendations. The UK government has also announced plans to create UK sustainability disclosure standards based on the ISSB standards.
No matter where you’re at in your disclosure journey Context can help. Whether its pulling together your first IFRS index, disclosing to CSRD, or creating a sustainability report that your stakeholders want to read, we can support you. Please reach out to myself (kyisin.aung@contextamerica.com) if you’d like to discuss your organization’s needs.
[i] Although the ISSB offers transition relief on Scope 3 emissions, California has enacted a new law (Senate Bill 219) requiring businesses to disclosure their climate-related financial risks and carbon emissions, including Scope 3. For companies operating in California, analyzing Scope 3 emissions will be a priority.
by Peter Knight | Oct 16, 2024 | Blog
Corporation: an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Ambrose Bierce penned this definition sometime between 1881, when he began a weekly newspaper column, and 1906, when a version was published in The Devil’s Dictionary. This period was also the high tide of the Robber Baron era in the US, when the words “corporate” and “responsibility” seemed barely compatible. For example, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire controlled around 90% of the oil market until it was disbanded for breaching anti-trust legislation in 1911. Businesses exploited their legal freedoms to keep wages low and profits high. Safety was not a priority and children were put to work in the mines, mills, and factories. The first UK Factories Act protecting children was passed in 1833, but several riveters and their child assistants were said to have been accidentally sealed into the double hull of Brunel’s Great Eastern steamer, launched in 1859.
Attitudes changed, partly through legislation and partly because of the paternalism of tycoons who lived their Christian (often Quaker) values — Cadbury, Rowntree, and Lever among them. These became companies that decided it was good business as well as good morals to sell trustworthy products — an early example of the famous “win–win” where business benefits by doing the right thing. William Hesketh Lever, who built a fortune selling affordable soap, provided houses and leisure facilities for his workers near Liverpool in the UK. His Port Sunlight Village, founded in 1888, became synonymous with responsible business values.
Product safety was seen as the responsibility of the purchaser and occupational safety the responsibility of the worker. But gradually the public became outraged at finding sawdust and slaughterhouse workers’ fingers in their ground beef, and governments legislated. The first Sale of Goods Act protecting consumers in the UK was passed in 1893. In the US, the Pure Food and Drug Act began to protect consumers from adulterated food in 1906.
Trade unions also gained legal status towards the end of the 19th century and tougher labour laws reined in employers’ freedoms. The first environmental legislation also appeared during this period — the UK Alkali Act was passed in 1863 and Yellowstone became the first US national park in 1872. But the environment remained exposed to exploitation by ever-expanding economies hungry for natural resources.
During the first half of the 20th century the emphasis was on tightening labour laws and consumer protection. Government action was the priority, rather than corporate activity. It was in the 1960s that US economist Milton Friedman developed his famous (and controversial) concept that: “the business of business is business”.
When the environmental movement took off in the 1960s, corporations were not the first target. But pressure groups began to change their aim when it became obvious that legislation was not the full answer. Companies also became an easy target when they were involved in chemical disasters such as Seveso in Italy, or when their discharges caused US rivers to catch fire.
With labour issues covered by trade unions and legislation, consumer issues became more prominent with the rise of activists such as Ralph Nader in the US. In the UK, social issues also rocketed to prominence in the early 1980s after riots highlighted the threat to business from social deprivation and a lack of wealth distribution. Business in the Community was formed in 1982 to harness the tradition of Port Sunlight-style paternalistic concern towards mending Britain’s broken cities. In the US, however, the environment remained the most significant corporate sustainability issue, fuelled partly by the growth of intergovernmental activity.
The first intergovernmental gathering to tackle the issue was the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. In 1983, the UN put together a Commission to report on why the developing world was not developing and the environment was not being protected. This World Commission on Environment and Development (also called the Brundtland Commission after its chair, the Norwegian then Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland), reported in 1987. It championed the concept of sustainable development, introducing the now standard definition: “progress that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
A year later, the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess the science related to climate change. Since then IPCC has issued six assessments based on the work of author scientists around the globe.
Few observers realised that this idea of meeting the needs of the present — a present in which billions of people lack basic necessities — made sustainable development a radical concept. Many politicians and business leaders in Europe, Canada, and parts of Asia and Latin America became excited about this neat way to join environment and development concerns: economic growth in ways that do not rob future (bigger) generations of resources such as fresh water, topsoil, clean air, fish, and trees.
In the political vanguard were unlikely environmentalists Margaret Thatcher and George Bush senior. Better known for “small government” doctrine, both leaders made significant sustainability interventions. In her 1988 speech to the Conservative Party annual conference, Thatcher declared: “It’s we Conservatives who are not merely friends of the Earth — we are its guardians and trustees for generations to come… No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy — with a full repairing lease”. Echoing Thatcher in 1990, George Bush told the IPCC: “We know that the future of the Earth must not be compromised. We bear a sacred trust in our tenancy here and a covenant with those most precious to us — our children and theirs”. While few environmentalists celebrated either politician’s track record in office, the lyrics of Dylan echoed, the times they were a-changin’.
Further evidence of change came with the UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio “Earth Summit”) in 1992. The Earth Summit spawned the Conference of Parties (COP) and the launch of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Business began to engage seriously with sustainability post Rio. The conference was midwife to the Business Council for Sustainable Development, which subsequently married the environmental group from the International Chamber of Commerce to form the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Also in 1992, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) formed in the US to help companies be better citizens. By this time, Business in the Community in the UK had already established Business in the Environment, in 1989.
The 1990s were the decade of globalisation, the internet, and the rise of ethical consumerism, including socially responsible investment (SRI). Television began to broadcast gory details of what companies were doing in African river deltas and Asian sweatshops. Consumers began to realise they could make a difference, encouraged by ethical brands like Ben & Jerry’s and The Body Shop.
The three legs of sustainability — environmental, social, and economic — came together in the anti-globalisation movement. Riots in Seattle in 1999 formed around the World Trade Organization (WTO). But the main targets were the multinationals that were allegedly destroying the environment, exploiting workers, and causing economic havoc in developing countries.
Companies, under increasing pressure from consumers, investors, and others to disclose how their practices impacted the environment and society, began publishing sustainability reports. While helpful, this created a dilemma. How were stakeholders to evaluate and compare company practices, impacts, and risks? In July 2000, the UN again stepped in, launching the UN Global Compact (UNGC), a set of nine (now ten) guiding principles related to human rights, labour, the environment, and anti-corruption. The goal was to work with company leaders to get them to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies, and to report on implementation.
A UNGC report arguing that environmental, social, and governance considerations should be factored into companies’ financial decisions first used the acronym ESG in 2004. Although it would be another decade before the term would become common boardroom-speak, it eventually gave investors and companies a way to split the complexities of sustainability into three manageable pillars.
By the end of the decade, companies could no longer opt out of corporate sustainability (CS). In 2010, nearly a billion people were on Facebook and Twitter and other social media — with the rise of these platforms, news of corporate disasters travelled faster, and backlash became more immediate. When three million barrels of oil seeped into the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil rig explosion in 2010, over 700,000 people joined a “Boycott BP” Facebook group. Three years later, the Rana Plaza garment factory collapsed in Bangladesh, killing over one thousand workers. Consumers in more than 100 countries took to social media using #whomademyclothes to demand answers from brands. The anniversary of the collapse became Fashion Revolution Day — a signal to companies that the industry was indeed in need of a revolution.
Consumers and investors alike were holding companies to higher sustainability standards. Failure to meet their expectations carried quick penalties. When news broke in 2015 that Volkswagen was lying about its vehicles’ emissions, tens of thousands of tweets about the scandal flooded Twitter within a week. Within months, the company’s share price had fallen by nearly half.
Pressure on politicians increased. In September 2014, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators joined the People’s Climate March through New York City — the largest climate change march in history, with similar events in 156 countries. Governments took note. In 2015, 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement, a UN climate treaty legally committing its signatories to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius. Within two years, the Science-Based Target initiative (SBTi) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) provided the frameworks for industry to align with the Paris goals.
In 2018, 15-year-old Greta Thunberg skipped class to sit outside the Swedish parliament alone, holding a sign that said: “SCHOOL STRIKE FOR CLIMATE”. She returned every week, joined by more friends, teachers, and parents. Within a year, Greta had mobilised over four million people — many young — to march in climate protests in over 90 countries. By 2019, she’d become a regular invitee to UN climate talks. Leaders were listening.
Social issues rose up the agenda. In 2017, the Me Too movement was catalysed by reports of sexual abuse by film producer Harvey Weinstein. Millions took to the streets in the global #MeToo march to say “enough” to sexual harassment and misogyny. Then in 2020, a Minneapolis policeman killed African American George Floyd during an arrest — captured live on video by a bystander. Over 15 million Americans and others around the world marched in support of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Together, #MeToo and BLM sparked a global conversation on sexism and racism in corporations that complacently thought they were free from prejudice. Ever since, diversity and inclusion have been high on the corporate agenda.
In 2020, COVID-19 forced governments and corporations to look inward to protect their populations and employees from the virus and its economic impact. After fighting the pandemic, governments started battling each other over clean tech leadership using carrots and sticks.
In the US, Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act offered a gargantuan green carrot with $369 billion of funding to attract energy security and climate change investment — targeting a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030. The EU’s Green Deal — a roadmap for a climate neutral Europe by 2050 — includes a raft of CS regulatory sticks, such as the 2023 Directive on Green Claims and the extensive Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Fearing a debilitating surge of green investment migration to the US, the EU quickly offered €250 billion of financial incentives, including tax breaks for investment in net zero technologies within the EU.
Sustainability’s brief history has taught us that interest among governments and corporations comes in waves, driven by science, events, and public opinion. What then are the prospects for CS as we head for 2030 and beyond?
Despite mixed signals from politicians, the underlying forces of change make us optimistic. Businesses have never been more aware of sustainability issues and most are committed to change — for good business reasons. Investors have decided that CS impacts the future value of their targets and are using their influence accordingly. Employees actively seek to work for companies with strong social and environmental principles. And in many areas, innovative technologies are beginning to solve long-standing sustainability problems.
We remain — as we have for over 25 years — fully committed to support our clients in channelling the forces of change to make a better, sustainable future for all.
by Sarah Walkley | Oct 10, 2024 | Blog
What is nature?
It’s not a trick question. I’m inviting you to pause for a moment and think about what the word brings to mind. Chances are your head is full of images of wild landscapes or specific creatures. I’ll wager you didn’t put yourself or another human in the picture.
Well nor does the Oxford English Dictionary. It defines nature as ‘the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.’
Similarly, the Collins Concise Dictionary makes a distinction between humans and the rest of the natural world — a distinction that is not reflected in our growing scientific understanding that we are part of an intricately interconnected web of life.
We rely on healthy ecosystems for water, food, medicine, our general wellbeing and much more, while our activities have a significant impact (often negative) on the world around us. For Lawyers for Nature — the team that helped House of Hackney put nature on the board — the linguistic separation between humans and the natural world has resulted in ‘misconceived superiority over Nature [that] has contributed to the ecological crisis we find ourselves in today’.
Disconnection from nature has been described as possibly ‘the world’s greatest environmental threat’ in that it perpetuates an attitude where natural resources are to be taken, used and then disposed of. Conversely, building a deep-rooted emotional connection with nature offers far greater opportunity to affect broad-scale systems change. Those with the strongest connection to nature adapt how they interact with the world around them to make more efficient use of resources, are more likely to act to protect and boost biodiversity and tend to be healthier and happier — all behaviours we need to encourage to build a more sustainable future.
If language can divide us, it is also a great connector.
In April 2024, Lawyers for Nature began the fight back with a campaign to change the dictionary definition of nature to one that includes humans. But that is just one way that language could reconnect or bring us back together with the natural world.
But even using the phrase ‘nature connection’ is problematic for some — indicating just how much the words we choose to talk about the world around us matter. Nature connection describes our relationship with the natural world. It covers everything from a material reliance on natural resources to a deeper appreciation of the importance of nature and our place in the natural world. Using the word ‘connection’ implies that there are two entities — humans and nature — and that they are linked, though maybe only by the most fragile of bonds. It doesn’t suggest humans and nature are one. However, nature connection is probably the best phrase for describing the different relationships humans have with the world around them — leading to its growing popularity and use as a term.
There are many ways that we could build appreciation for the environment — by foraging for food and cooking it, painting the landscape or going out for a walk. Changing how we think and talk about the world could also make a difference.
Traditionally, we have seen ourselves in the landscape and felt a connection with the landscape within ourselves. It is reflected in the words we chose to describe our surroundings. In English, we refer to the ‘brow’ of the hill or the spine of a ridge. The Welsh describe parts of the natural landscape as a ‘cefn’ (back or ridge), ‘moel’ (bald, indicating a bare or barren hill), ‘pen’ (head or peak), ‘braich’ (arm or ridge), ‘esgair’ (an old Welsh word for leg or ridge) or ‘talcen’ (forehead or front of a hill). Shoulder is used in English, French (épaule) and Welsh (ysgwydd) to refer to a projecting ridge close to the top of a mountain.
All languages contain magic words. Not abracadabra, hocus pocus, or any spell or charm used by Harry Potter. But names. We give names to our children, our pets and our first car. Instantly they stand out from the crowd and become special to us.
One of Simon Barnes’ top tips to Rewild Yourself is to learn the names of different species — whether that is birds, trees, butterflies or any other plant or animal.
The same goes for natural features of the landscape. These days we tend to lump all waterways together as rivers, not making the distinction between a ‘brook’, a ‘beck’, an ‘estuary’, or a ‘stream’. In all probability, the last time you used the word ‘stream’, it was to refer to the latest thing you watched on Netflix, not to describe the landscape.
The Welsh have multiple words for hills and mountains. Iceland famously has 85 words for snow, while Scotland and Ireland excel at the number of different ways to describe rain. These variations were coined by people that have lived in the same place for so long that they notice and appreciate the differences.
Losing our ‘literacy of landscape’ can have profound consequences. Young people in parts of North Alaska no longer recognise the different Iñupiat and Yupik words for ice, making it hard for elders to warn them when they stray on to a dangerous patch of ice rendered unstable by rising temperatures.
We know the power of words. A good book has always been able to transport us to another realm. Perhaps if we pay greater heed to the words we use and what they mean, it could change our relationship to the physical world in which we live. It starts with changing the dictionary definition; who knows where it will lead.
by Talia Vicars | Oct 9, 2024 | Blog
Working in the field of sustainability, the world’s most pressing social and environmental challenges are front and center. In our day-to-day work we cover increasingly extreme weather phenomena, social injustices, and extinct species, to name a few.
Working with such proximity to this reality (as well as in other professions that focus on caring), can result in burnout. The Maslach Burnout Inventory describes three aspects of burnout, including emotional exhaustion (you’re tired), depersonalization (you’re becoming less yourself), and reduced personal accomplishment (you feel your contributions or work don’t really matter).
In sustainability, burnout may also be characterized as eco-anxiety. Eco-anxiety is a mishmash of the negative emotions we associate with anxiety – like worry, guilt, and sadness – but directly related to the environmental state of the world. It is defined by the American Psychology Association as “the chronic fear of environmental cataclysm that comes from observing the seemingly irrevocable impact of climate change and the associated concern for one’s future and that of next generations.”
In the wise words of the Bear Hunt nursery rhyme: We can’t go over it, we can’t go under it – we’re just going to have to go through it. So, how do we keep ourselves dedicated to the work, bringing positivity and optimism along the way?
When navigating and addressing the challenges of eco-anxiety and avoiding burnout, there are some skills and tools we can lean on. One of the great modern examples of turning this feeling into action is Greta Thunberg, who took her depression and drive to affect change and turned it into global activism.
At Context, we believe that positivity and joy are essential to progress. In the face of serious challenges, celebrating achievements is an important part of the journey. Below are some ways our team brings joy into our work and daily lives.
- Lean on community
- Be in nature
- Incorporate mindfulness practices
- Accept that change doesn’t happen overnight
- Know that knowledge is power
Lean on community
When down in the climate-related dumps, one of the ways to pull yourself up is by surrounding yourself with other folks who are also dedicated to conservation and sustainability. In fact, collective engagement with environmental issues can increase feelings of efficacy, leading to hope and wellbeing. To make this possible, we need to co-create spaces where people can imagine the kinds of lives we want to live and how to make them happen. Look for community spaces, like those provided through volunteering, to find your people.
Be in nature
Getting outside and spending time in greenspaces is actually linked to lower stress, anxiety, and depression than those who visit public greenspaces less often. A recent study of 20,000 people found that 120 minutes in nature per day was the hard threshold for folks to report feeling healthy and having a strong sense of well-being. Playing outside – regardless of occupation, ethnic group, socioeconomic class, and ability – had this impact.
Incorporate mindfulness practices
Harkening back to burnout, the first critical step to addressing it is acknowledging, with compassion, that feelings of burnout are happening and are an expected reality of this kind of work. One way to acknowledge this is through mindfulness—the practice of learning to focus with an attitude of curiosity, openness, and acceptance. Mindfulness-based stress reduction, which originates from Buddhist spiritual practices, can have broad antidepressant and antianxiety effects. You can use mindfulness apps, like Calm and Headspace, to help guide some simple mindfulness practices.
Accept that change doesn’t happen overnight
It’s no secret that waiting to see the fruits of our labor is tough. And this is common— difficulty delaying gratification can play a role in anxiety and depression. It requires time and patience to affect large scale systemic change. One way to learn how to sit with the discomfort of delayed gratification is through understanding this theory of change (ToC). ToC is a description of why and how change happens within a specific context. In the context of sustainability, the framework of ToC in Sustainability Science can be useful:
- Identify a goal or problem
- Identify the contextualized causes of unsustainability
- Explain how change may happen to address these causes and, in turn, the goal or problem.
- Bring in subject matter experts to fill gaps.
- Specify activities and pathways to lead to intended outcomes and impacts.
- Operationalize this process and repeat!
This process takes time, but it’s proven to lead to long-lasting and meaningful change.
Know that knowledge is power
It’s understandable to want to dig our heads into the sand ostrich-style and tune out the realities of the world. However, in addressing our eco-anxiety and burnout, we need to acknowledge how serious the situation is. Luckily for us (and the planet!), the climate crisis is becoming more visible in the West, and, as a result, we’re better suited to tackle it.
Google Ngram illustrates the popularity of certain words in general discourse. This chart shows a snapshot from Google Ngram, tracking a steady rise in discussions of conservation since the 1900s to the mid-2000s (which peaks correspond to major US periods of national legislation) and the rise of “sustainable” since the 1990s. It is becoming more and more part of our conversations, and the more we’re able to name the problem, the better suited we are to tackle it.
The Main Take-Aways
In the journey towards sustainability, it’s essential to acknowledge the weight of the challenges we face, but we can’t allow them to dampen our spirits. By cultivating joy, leaning on community, and embracing the slow and steady march towards progress, we can navigate the complexities of sustainability with optimism and purpose.
by Sarah Walkley | Sep 24, 2024 | Blog
Businesses have long recognised that they can and should make a meaningful contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). And there’s a big prize on offer for solving major economic, environmental and social challenges and delivering on the goals — an estimated $12 trillion in business opportunities.
Over 90% of members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development mentioned at least one of the 17 goals in their 2023 annual report. At least three-quarters of sustainability professionals believe their business is aligned with delivering the aims of the SDGs.
But in a growing number of cases, alignment is superficial, leading to accusations of SDG-washing — using the SDGs as a way to imply greater social and environmental impact. For example, the company mentions that it is partnering to deliver the SDGs (goal 17) because it has joined an industry body aimed at tackling deforestation, inequality, or another recognised sustainability challenge. Yet, it has not made any changes to its current sustainability strategy or ways of working.
Here are Context’s top tips for using the SDGs to drive meaningful change within your business.
1. Create a detailed map to guide your journey
For each of the 17 high-level goals, there are up to 12 targets — 169 targets in total. And for each target, there are between two and four indicators of progress. But many companies don’t look beyond the headline goals.
A comprehensive approach to SDG mapping requires companies to assess both their positive and negative impacts at the target level. It enables you to understand where the organisation can have the biggest impact, but also identify the trade-offs — where pursuing benefits in one area could cause harm in another. Building a new coal-fired power station improves access to affordable energy (goal 7), but also generates increased emissions slowing climate action (goal 13). A thorough evaluation also ensures no opportunities or risks are overlooked.
You will need to look at many of the same sources you use to identify and assess your company’s sustainability matters as part of any Double Materiality Assessment. Combining the two provides a rounded view of the company’s impacts, risks and opportunities.
2. Explore the full value chain
SDG mapping should cover the full value chain — not just the company’s own operations. A pharmaceutical company’s core focus on improving health and wellbeing (goal 3) may be undermined if new treatments can’t get to market. Looking upstream and downstream helps to identify the areas where partnership is essential for delivering on the aims of the SDGs (goal 17).
3. Adopt a less is more approach
With the exception of some multinational, portfolio businesses, few organisations can have an impact on all 17 SDGs. It is better to focus on just a few core goals without becoming blinkered to the company’s impacts — positive and negative — on other SDGs.
If impact is genuinely broader than just a few goals, you could reference linked goals where company actions create co-benefits. For example, providing better nutrition (goal 2) may help children to concentrate better in schools and enjoy the benefits of quality education (goal 4).
Transparency breeds trust. Stakeholders expect a company to explain its approach to prioritising the SDGs. That means showing the company has selected the areas where it can make the biggest impact and directly contribute to the target. A record of providing employee training does not represent a contribution to quality education (goal 4), though improving access in emerging markets to the textbooks the company produces might.
It also means acknowledging that the company can’t have a positive impact in all areas — and indeed in furthering one goal may generate trade-offs in another area.
4. Mind the gap
Companies should focus on the SDGs where they can have the greatest impact. But less scrupulous organisations have adopted the same approach with dubious motives.
Consider the soft drinks company that focuses on sustainable consumption and production (goal 12), but fails to address (or even acknowledge) its impact on good health and wellbeing (goal 3). Or how about the fossil fuel company that focuses on decent work and economic growth (goal 8), but overlooks climate action (goal 13).
These are deliberate instances of SDG-washing. But companies can face similar accusations when they fail to explain why they have chosen to put the focus on some areas and not others.
5. Integrate the SDGs into the core business
Some companies pepper their annual sustainability report with logos of the individual SDGs, but then the goals are not mentioned again until the following report. True impact only stems from integrating the goals and targets within the business.
Researchers at Stanford University have identified companies that have embedded the SDGs into everything they do. African technology company Safaricom has woven the goals into its statement of purpose, descriptions of team tasks and even personal objectives. This helps to explain how the finance team provides ‘transparency and visibility on our procurement practices and fighting corruption in all its forms (goal 16)’ or HR promotes decent work and good labour practices (goal 8).
Meanwhile, Danish biotechnology company Novozyme uses the SDGs as a lens to decide which new products to advance and which to shelve.
6. Measure and demonstrate progress
Impact is hard to measure, particularly in relation to systemic issues. Over 80% of business leaders have indicated that measurement challenges prevent progress towards the goals.
This is where comprehensive SDG mapping comes into its own. The Stanford researchers highlighted how Ramboll assessed revenues against its priority SDGs to identify which business units directly contributed to delivery of the goals and which didn’t. By shifting focus on to the business units with greatest impact, it was able to demonstrate progress towards the goals, while reducing negative impacts elsewhere.
7. Approach the SDGs as you would other reporting frameworks
Most companies mention their contribution to the SDGs in their annual sustainability reports, but rarely treat disclosures with the same level of thoroughness as other reporting frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the IFRS’s International Sustainability Standards.
Greater visibility is needed. If a company says it is contributing to the SDGs, its commitment and actions should be clearly connected to the SDGs targets — and supported by robust data. The GRI’s business reporting database provides guidance on how the SDGs align with common reporting frameworks, enabling the SDGs to be integrated into wider reporting activities. Done well, it reassures stakeholders that companies are serious about their social and environmental impact and build trusts.
Referencing the company’s contribution to the SDGs in the CEO’s introduction to the annual sustainability report demonstrates that the commitment comes from the top of the organisation.
Context supports companies to map their impacts and understand their contribution to the SDGs and their material issues. This provides the foundation for robust sustainability strategy, reporting and communications – beyond the addition of a few SDG logos to your report. If you would like to talk about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or helen.fisher@contexteurope.com.
Photo designed by Freepik
