CSR and Corporate Governance

Most of the academic literature on climate litigation focuses on what claimants argue. Far less attention has been paid to how corporate defendants respond, and even less to how courts engage with those responses. Our new guide addresses both gaps. "Corporate defences in climate litigation: a comparative analysis of arguments and court responses" is the second in the Grantham Climate Litigation Guides series. The guide builds on my recent article in Transnational Environmental Law, which mapped corporate defence arguments across climate cases. This guide expands that analysis, covering a wider range of defence strategies and, crucially, examining how courts have responded to them. Drawing on 10 case studies from eight jurisdictions, we identified six recurring defence strategies. Three findings stand out for practitioners: → The "drop in the ocean" defence is losing ground. Courts in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands have rejected the argument that a company's share of global emissions is too small to establish liability. In Lliuya v. RWE, the Hamm court confirmed that being "one of many" emitters does not preclude a claim in principle. → Some defences don't defeat claims but reshape remedies. In Milieudefensie v. Shell, arguments about scientific uncertainty didn't eliminate Shell's duty of care, but they did prevent the court from imposing a specific emissions reduction target. The market substitution argument played a similar role in narrowing the scope of the order. → The battleground is shifting toward science. As cases clear threshold questions of duty and justiciability, defendants are focusing more on technical challenges to attribution science and causation. That has direct implications for how evidence is prepared, presented and contested. The guide is designed as a practical resource for lawyers, judges, scholars and scientists engaging with corporate climate litigation. Co-authored with Jameela Joy Reyes (Joy), Nicholas Petkov and Julien O. Beaulieu. Read the full guide here: https://lnkd.in/eSFPfucJ

🆓 Last week, a new legal opinion on directors’ duties and nature risks in the UK made one thing clear - nature risks are no different from any other business risks. Directors should manage them in the same way or risk personal liability. The legal opinion written by a team of highly respected corporate barristers - Sharif A. Shivji KC, Rebecca Stubbs KC, Karl Anderson, Hossein Sharafi, James Burton - recommends the following five steps for any director: 1️⃣ Identify the nature-related risks facing their company 2️⃣ Assess which of those risks are relevant and non-trivial 3️⃣ Take expert advice when needed and where appropriate 4️⃣ Decide in good faith whether a course of action is appropriate to mitigate those risks and take such steps accordingly 5️⃣ Record their decision-making process in writing The opinion contains much more detailed recommendations and analysis of the law as well as the most recent cases on director’s duties, including the recent ClientEarth v Shell derivative action.    #biodiversityrisk #biodiversityliability #naturerisk #directorsduties #CCLI #TNFD Pollination Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI) Jenni Ramos Eniye Alex Igbanibo Thea Philip Laura Waterford Veda FitzSimons Olivia Back

Why do smart leaders use conflict as a competitive advantage? (When most people think conflict at work is bad.) Because conflict itself isn’t the problem... How you use it is. Here are 5 ways to turn conflict into your secret weapon: 1. 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘆, 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 ↪ Conflict exposes what’s unclear. Say, “It seems like we’re not aligned on [specific point]. Let’s unpack that so we can move forward with clarity.” ↪ Don’t aim to smooth things over, aim to solve the real issue. Say, “I’d rather we have an uncomfortable conversation now than carry silent frustration for weeks.”   2. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗽 ↪ Every disagreement reveals blind spots. Say, “This tension is highlighting a gap in how we’re approaching [specific project]. What are we missing?” ↪ Invite friction as a sign of growth. Say, “If we’re all agreeing too quickly, we’re probably missing something important. Let’s challenge this.”   3. 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ↪ Strategic conflict sparks innovation. Say, “What if we’re wrong about this assumption? Let’s stress-test it and see where it breaks.” ↪ Challenge ideas, not people. Say, “I’m pushing back because I believe there’s a stronger approach here, not because I’m dismissing your perspective.”   4. 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗘𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆 ↪ Conflict isn’t bad, unmanaged conflict is. Say, “I can tell this is a charged topic, which means it matters. Let’s focus on the issue, not the emotion.” ↪ Label the tension to neutralise it. Say, “It feels like we’re hitting a wall here. Let’s pause and figure out what’s really driving this friction.”   5. 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 ↪ Healthy conflict shows people care enough to speak up. Say, “I’d rather you challenge me directly than stay silent and disengaged. Disagreement means we’re invested.” ↪ Silence isn’t peace, it’s disengagement. Say, “If no one’s pushing back, I get worried. Let’s make sure we’re not missing critical perspectives.”   The cost of avoiding conflict isn’t less stress... it’s less growth.   Conflict reveals what’s broken, sharpens ideas, and strengthens teams... (if you know how to handle it). 📣 What’s the biggest conflict lesson you’ve learned? ↳ Drop your thoughts in the comments.   🔔 Follow me (Mostyn Wilson) for more strategies to achieve your ambitions. __ Get my newsletter every fortnight to make you even more successful in your career: https://lnkd.in/eE287NTG

CSRD's key legal interconnections  🌎 The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) marks a significant evolution in the European Union's approach to sustainability reporting, with amendments and links to several critical legal frameworks. This integration ensures a cohesive regulatory environment that supports the EU's sustainability goals. Here’s how the CSRD interconnects with other crucial directives and regulations: EU Taxonomy Regulation: The CSRD integrates with the EU Taxonomy Regulation to define and enforce disclosure requirements about the environmental sustainability of corporate activities. This alignment ensures that companies report on how their operations align with EU-defined sustainable activities. European Climate Law: The CSRD complements the European Climate Law by requiring companies to disclose their climate transition plans. These disclosures must demonstrate how corporate strategies align with limiting global warming to 1.5°C and achieving a carbon-neutral status by 2030. Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive: This directive extends the reach of the CSRD by mandating companies to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse sustainability impacts within their direct business operations. This comprehensive approach enhances transparency and accountability across corporate supply chains. EU Climate Transition and Paris-Aligned Benchmarks: Linked to the CSRD, these benchmarks set minimum standards for identifying sustainable economic activities, providing a clear framework for companies aiming to align with the Paris Agreement goals. Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR): The SFDR requires financial institutions to disclose how sustainability factors are integrated into investment decisions. This regulation relies on data provided under the CSRD. European Single Access Point (ESAP): Set to launch by 2028, the ESAP will provide a centralized digital platform for accessing financial and sustainability information, enhancing the visibility and accessibility of sustainability reports filed under the CSRD. Accounting Directive: Amended by the CSRD, this directive now includes specific provisions for the content of sustainability reports within the annual management report, ensuring uniformity in financial and sustainability disclosures across the EU. Transparency Directive: The CSRD's amendments to the Transparency Directive aim to bolster the transparency of sustainability reporting for companies listed on regulated markets, aligning these requirements with those of non-listed companies under the Accounting Directive. Audit Directive and Regulation: The CSRD introduces stringent requirements for the audit of sustainability information, ensuring that audits provide reasonable assurance on the accuracy of sustainability disclosures. Source: CSRD ESSENTIALS #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #reporting #CSRD #EU #compliance #CSDDD

#Climate reporting is dead. Long live 氣候揭露! [with a #DoubleMateriality cherry on top] ICYMI, late last year, the Chinese Ministry of Finance released 企業永續揭露準則第1號－氣候 (试行) | Corporate Sustainable Disclosure Standard No. 1 – Climate (Trial). The Chinese standard aligns with IFRS’s S2 climate reporting standard, but importantly includes the requirement to report on both how climate change affects a company’s finances as well as the impact of their business activities and value chains on the environment. Also notable that whilst the Ministry has said the new standard will at first be voluntary, in time it will expand implementation “from listed companies to non-listed companies, from large enterprises to SMEs, from qualitative requirements to quantitative requirements, and from voluntary disclosure to mandatory disclosure.” This new reporting standard is particularly relevant for Aotearoa #NewZealand given China’s position as one of the country’s most important trading partners, and the rapidly shifting geopolitical sands. The standard’s release also reinforces calls for NZ companies impacted by the recent rollback of domestic #ClimateReporting requirements to continue building on the foundations of recent years, understand and focus on where the process can best derive strategic value, and prepare for the inevitable requests from international value chains and customers captured by their reporting regimes.

In the last major internal conflict I had, I stopped and thought: am I the first one to live this?! Hostility. Threats. Ah, and I was in the car on the way back from the hospital from giving birth. Nice welcome back 😂 Managers spend up to 40% of their time handling conflicts. This time drain highlights a critical business challenge. Yet when managed effectively, conflict becomes a catalyst for: ✅ Innovation ✅ Better decision-making ✅ Stronger relationships Here's the outcomes of my research. No: I wasn't the first one going through this ;) 3 Research-Backed Conflict Resolution Models: 1. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (TKI) Each style has its place in your conflict toolkit: - Competing → Crisis situations needing quick decisions - Collaborating → Complex problems requiring buy-in - Compromising → Temporary fixes under time pressure - Avoiding → Minor issues that will resolve naturally - Accommodating → When harmony matters more than the outcome 2. Harvard Negotiation Project's BATNA Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement - Know your walkaway position - Research all parties' alternatives - Strengthen your options - Negotiate from confidence, not fear 3. Circle of Conflict Model (Moore) Identify the root cause to choose your approach: - Value Conflicts → Find superordinate goals - Relationship Issues → Focus on communication - Data Conflicts → Agree on facts first - Structural Problems → Address system issues - Interest Conflicts → Look for mutual gains Pro Tips for Implementation: ⚡ Before the Conflict: - Map stakeholders - Document facts - Prepare your BATNA - Choose your timing ⚡ During Resolution: - Stay solution-focused - Use neutral language - Listen actively - Take reflection breaks ⚡ After Agreement: - Document decisions - Set review dates - Monitor progress - Acknowledge improvements Remember: Your conflict style should match the situation, not your comfort zone. Feels weird to send that follow up email. But do it: it's actually really crucial. And refrain yourself from putting a few bitter words here and there ;) You'll come out of it a stronger manager. As the saying goes "don't waste a good crisis"! 💡 What's your go-to conflict resolution approach? Has it evolved with experience? ♻️ Share this to empower a leader ➕ Follow Helene Guillaume Pabis for more ✉️ Newsletter: https://lnkd.in/dy3wzu9A

"Navigating the Sustainability Reporting Landscape: SR vs. BRSR 💡 " In the realm of sustainability reporting, businesses face a pivotal decision: Should they opt for the homegrown Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework or cast their net wider with the versatile Sustainability Report (SR) ? In this blog, we delve into the nuances of these two approaches, highlighting their distinctions and strategic implications. BRSR: Tailored for India's Unique Landscape BRSR (Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting) is a dedicated framework designed with Indian companies in mind. Crafted to align seamlessly with local regulatory requirements and standards, BRSR provides a standardized pathway for Indian businesses to comprehensively report their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices and performance. For companies within India's borders, BRSR is the compass that ensures adherence to regional regulations while promoting transparency. SR: The Versatile Global Perspective SR (Sustainability Report), on the other hand, is a broader term, signifying reports that possess the adaptability to align with a variety of international reporting frameworks such as GRI, SASB, TCFD, SFDR, and more. SR grants international businesses the flexibility to choose the most appropriate global reporting framework, ensuring that their sustainability disclosures resonate with both international best practices and stakeholder expectations. Strategic Choices: Tailoring Your Reporting Approach So, what's the optimal reporting tool? For Indian-based companies dutifully following BRSR regulations, a Sustainability Report finely tuned to the BRSR Framework proves to be the strategic choice. This ensures compliance with local regulations while providing a consistent and comprehensive approach to reporting sustainability metrics within the Indian context. Global companies, on the other hand, can harness the power of a standard SR report. This versatile format allows them to align their reporting with applicable international standards, ensuring consistency and compatibility with global sustainability norms. In essence, the choice between a BRSR-aligned Sustainability Report and a global SR report boils down to a strategic decision. It's about catering to local regulatory demands while aligning with international sustainability reporting standards. This approach fosters transparency, accountability, and effective stakeholder engagement, regardless of a company's geographical footprint. So, as you embark on your sustainability reporting journey, consider your path carefully - whether you tread the local road with BRSR or embrace the world stage with SR, the goal remains the same : a sustainable future for all....

The era of standalone sustainability reporting is officially over 🌎 With the latest updates to the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS), nonfinancial data is now subject to the exact same rigorous audit scrutiny as your core financials. For C-Suite executives and Sustainability Managers across the UK, EU, and the US, this represents a fundamental shift in corporate governance. Recent geopolitical instability and energy market disruptions have made one thing clear: Understanding your environmental impact and supply chain vulnerabilities is no longer just about compliance. It is about sheer business survival and operational resilience. In my recent conversations with enterprise CFOs, the tone has completely shifted. CFOs are no longer simply asking if their company is compliant. They are asking if their ESG data can survive a financial audit. If your organization still relies on fragmented workflows and manual spreadsheets, you are carrying a massive business risk. Here is what the new standard of "audit-ready" sustainability requires: 📊 Moving beyond manual processes: Manual data collection leads to credibility gaps and poor transparency. At Sweep we work with companies who tell us they need consistent, entity-level data that flows seamlessly across distributed operations. 🔗 Mastering Scope 3 emissions: Over 90% of a company's carbon footprint is typically hidden within its value chain. Tackling this requires systems capable of real-time tracking across complex, global supply chains. 🤝 Breaking down data silos: Sustainability, finance, procurement, and risk teams must operate from a single source of truth. Every reported number must be backed by documented methodologies that can stand up in the boardroom. Treating the UK SRS as a simple reporting checkbox will expose your company to financial penalties and an erosion of investor confidence. Conversely, leaders who integrate nonfinancial data into their core business strategy will turn transparency into a distinct competitive advantage. The clock is ticking on mandatory disclosures. Are your systems ready for financial-grade scrutiny? 💡 If you are unsure how to get there, you are not alone. Follow SWEEP’s LinkedIn page to join a global community of leaders. We share weekly, expert insights to help you navigate complex global regulations, build audit-ready systems, and turn your sustainability data into your strongest business asset. 👉 Follow us here: https://lnkd.in/eg-vuEaM

“Just brush it under the carpet!” Do that, and you’ll see your organisation turn into an Ekta Kapoor TV serial, where everyone gossips about each other behind their back! Avoiding conflict might feel peaceful in the moment, but make no mistake... it builds frustration and creates invisible walls within the team, and that leads to gossip, groupism, politics, and at the end of it all, the business suffers. The right way to deal with conflict is to address it and have a mature conversation. Here’s how you do that: Step 1: Root Cause Analysis Dig deeper. Understand the situation. Ask each person why they feel the conflict started. The best way to do this is to use the ‘5 Whys’ technique. Ask “Why?” five times. Example: A & B are arguing over who’s at fault for a delayed project. Ask: 1) Why do you think the project got delayed? → B didn’t send the file on time. 2) Why didn’t B send the file on time? → The client delayed the project update. 3) Why was the update delayed? → Because C delayed the MVP delivery to the client. 4) Why did C delay it? → Because the timeline wasn’t documented, so everything was in the air. By the 4th “Why,” you realise: A & B are fighting over blame, but the real issue is the lack of a formal documentation process like CRM updates or email records. Step 2: Have a 1-on-1 Conversation Talk to each person privately. Just listen, without judgement. Listen not to respond, but to understand. This helps defuse emotions before the joint discussion. Step 3: Act as a Mediator Don’t be a ringmaster - be a mediator. Bring all parties together and facilitate the conversation. Don’t lecture or dictate. Focus on finding the solution, not figuring out who’s right. Step 4: Win-Win Solution Encourage them to find a resolution where all parties win, by solving the real problem together. Step 5: Action Steps & Follow-Up Close the conversation with clear next steps on the process and workflow going forward. Follow up after a few weeks to check if the solution is working. Share this with your network and help a business owner resolve team conflicts the right way.

Conflicts within a team are rarely about tasks alone—they often come from unresolved emotions like comparison, lack of recognition, or past grievances carried silently. When managers try to solve these issues by simply #grouping people together in the same assignment, it only masks the problem for a short time. The unspoken tensions will show up in missed deadlines, subtle resistance, or lack of trust. It’s important to realize that outer collaboration without inner healing is like painting over cracks in a wall—the structure still remains weak. True leadership requires going #deeper than surface solutions. Managers carry a responsibility not just to distribute work but to create an environment where inner conflicts can dissolve. This means moving from task management to people understanding. They can hold one-on-one conversations to listen without judgment, facilitate team circles where concerns can be voiced respectfully, and lead by example through fairness and humility. Introducing mindful check-ins, communicating transparently, celebrating small wins, and recognizing efforts equally helps reduce hidden competition. Over time, these practices shift the team’s energy from ego-driven reactions to collective trust. A manager who takes responsibility in this way does more than resolve conflicts—they cultivate a culture where people evolve, both as professionals and as human beings.