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 Peter Knight | May 6, 2020 | Blog
Gone are the days of optional CSR reporting. Indeed, they disappeared a couple of years ago for large companies in Europe – all thanks to the catchily-named EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive.
With this directive now under review, we look at sustainability reporting laws across the European Union to see where things stand for business.
The background
The European
Commission adopted the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive 2014/95 – to use its full name – back in December 2014. Its roots stem from a realization around 2011 that greater attention needed to be paid to corporate sustainability risks and impacts. EU member states wrote the Directive into national law, with large listed companies (among others) expected to report first, in 2018.
Under the Directive, companies with over 500 employees must publish annual reports detailing risks and policies concerning: environmental protection, social responsibility and working conditions, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery, and diversity on company boards. This non-financial reporting supplements financial figures, providing better insight into a company’s risks.
The Directive is principles-based and does not dictate the format of the reporting – only that companies should make the required information available or provide reasons why not.
What of the present?
As part of the Green Deal, the EU’s new growth strategy announced in 2019, the Commission states companies and financial institutions need to increase disclosure of climate and environmental data. Only with more data, it is argued, can investors properly understand the long-term health of their investments. This announcement kickstarted the review of the Directive. It’s now under public consultation until 14 May 2020.
So how have the different member states implemented the Directive? And have any introduced stricter reporting requirements that go beyond the Directive? We looked at ten EU member states to find out.
A note on methods
Specifically,
we researched Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom – some of the EU’s largest economic hubs. We focused on statutory reporting provisions, requiring disclosure of environmental and social information to shareholders or directly to the public. Note, we excluded corporate governance reporting requirements.
What must business report?
All ten EU member states reviewed had, unsurprisingly, transposed the Directive into national law. But national variations abound. Governments have tailored policy applicability to suit national contexts, with Denmark and Sweden requiring companies with over 250 employees to report – half that required under the EU Directive.
Variations in the timings permitted for releasing information are also plentiful. For example, companies in Austria must disclose information at the same time as their management report, while companies in Ireland have six months to publish non-financial information. Other variations include where information must be available, how long it must be available for, and the level of guidance on what disclosures should cover.
Some member states have gone beyond the content of the Directive. In terms of mandatory public reporting requirements, France, the UK, and Germany are of note. The topics covered by further legislation break into three camps:
- Gender pay gap reporting: France, the UK and Germany all require companies to report on metrics related to equalizing differences between genders in the workplace. Requirements vary. For example, following a phased introduction of the provision, French law necessitates companies with over 50 employees to report. Meanwhile UK regulations require reporting from companies with over 250 employees and German law requires status reports from those with over 500 employees. Reporting is required every 3-5 years in Germany, but it’s expected annually in France and the UK.
- Human rights reporting: Companies must release statements disclosing human rights due diligence measures and their implementation. The UK Modern Slavery Act requires companies to publish an annual statement, available from their website’s homepage, while the French Duty of Vigilance Law obliges companies to report on implementation of due diligence procedures in their annual management report.
- Greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting: Some member states have more detailed requirements concerning disclosure of GHG emissions. France, for instance, requires certain companies to publish a GHG inventory every 3-4 years, while in the UK companies of a certain size are expected to report carbon dioxide emissions in their annual director’s report.
Into the future
There’s broad consistency in the types of information EU member states (or former member states as in the UK’s case) seek companies to disclose, with the most regulatory detail currently focused on social issues including human rights and gender equality. It’s clear we’re likely to see stronger requirements – and that these requirements will probably focus in on broader issues such as climate change, all through the lens of making information more accessible to investors.
Companies
should examine the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures and be ready to link reporting on environmental and social risks more clearly to financial accounting. This might sound daunting, but leading businesses are already making the connections.
Now’s the time to future proof by ensuring a sound sustainability strategy, supported by information and data that complies with the law and underlines the authenticity of your commitments.
by Simon Propper | Jun 21, 2018 | Blog
For years CR professionals have argued that ‘employee recruitment and retention’ is part of the business case for companies becoming more ethical and sustainable. HR surveys regularly confirmed that people prefer to work for responsible companies — a rising trend among millennials.
Yet once safely enrolled in their flex-time, hot desking, yoga-rich corporate environments, the values of most corporate employees are muted. The perks of corporate life are simply too good to be jeopardized by making a name for yourself as a trouble-maker.
In fact, when companies did really bad things, like VW faking emissions tests, it was surprising that nobody blew the whistle to stop the illegal activity. Such was the power of employment contracts and the fear of losing one’s job.
Not any more.
Emboldened by a huge talent shortage in digital technology, young ethically-minded workers are openly challenging their management. Not in quiet chats with their line managers, but in public petitions and social media discussions. They have no fear of losing their jobs because they know they can immediately find another one. And they instinctively do not buy-in to the convention that senior management make decisions and employees act on instructions. They expect to be part of decision making, regardless of age or experience.
Google was first to experience significant employee activism when news of its now infamous ‘project Maven’ for the U.S. Pentagon seeped out. Maven is developing AI visual recognition to make drones more effective at recognizing targets. An open letter to CEO Sundar Pichai, signed by more than 4,000 employees, demanded:
“… that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology”.
Google did not immediately acquiesce, and it’s now reported that twelve employees have resigned in protest. There is also a rumour that Google is quietly walking away from a second phase of the project.
In a second high profile case, Microsoft is struggling to explain to its employees why it is working for the U.S. Immigration Service, ICE, at a time when its actions are so controversial. Recent reports of over 2,000 children being forcibly separated from their parents and detained in cages, is making shocking headlines.
Another open letter, this time to CEO Satya Nadella from 100 employees, called the separation of families inhumane:
“…as the people who build the technologies that Microsoft profits from, we refuse to be complicit. We are part of a growing movement, comprised of many across the industry who recognize the grave responsibility that those creating powerful technology have to ensure what they build is used for good, and not for harm”.
So far Microsoft has not caved-in, but the issue is so toxic, one wonders how much reputational damage the company will be willing to endure to protect its relationship with the U.S. government.
At present employee CR activism is an exclusively American phenomenon, centered on the tech pressure cooker of San Francisco and the Bay Area. And America is a highly polarized society. But could this dynamic spread to other countries and industries?
I think it is possible. Wherever there is a young educated workforce, a shortage of talent, and an ethically divisive workstream, there is the potential for employees to organize and express their objections, in public through social media.
