Global CSR Trends

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

We’ve called efficiency the unsung hero of the energy transition in the past. While the energy transition will happen first through the transition of energy usages, like the shift with transport, from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles, or from fuel or gas boilers to heat pumps, we cannot ignore the utmost priority of the energy transition: efficiency. Efficiency is the greatest path to reduce our energy use, our impact on the world’s climate through CO2 emission reduction, and very importantly, the best way to make solid and practical savings. In its most historical form, energy efficiency is about better insulation, to reduce heating (or cooling) loss in buildings like family homes, warehouses, office high rises, and shopping malls. This is useful, but expensive and tedious to realize on existing installations. Digitizing home, buildings, industries and infrastructure brings similar benefits at a much lower cost and a much higher economic return. The combination of IoT, big data, software and AI can significantly reduce energy use and waste by detecting leaky valves, or automatically adjusting heating, lighting, processes and other systems to the number of people present at any given time, using real-time data analysis. It also allows owners to measure precisely progress, report automatically on their energy and sustainability parameters, and benefit from new services through smart grid interaction. And this is just the energy benefit. Automation and digital tools also optimize the processes, safety, reliability, and uptime leading to greater productivity and performance.

The cost of decarbonisation is shifting—and so is the competitive landscape. Goldman Sachs' latest Carbonomics report highlights a two-speed decarbonisation path: while technologies like batteries, solar and biofuels continue to fall in cost, hard-to-abate sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals are facing rising decarbonisation costs—especially those dependent on green hydrogen. One of the most striking findings: localising clean tech supply chains could raise decarbonisation costs by up to 30%. Tariffs of over 100% would be required to make Western production of solar panels and batteries cost-competitive with imports. The tension between industrial policy, energy security and climate ambition is growing. So, why should industry press ahead with decarbonisation now? Because the commercial rationale is stronger than ever: Cost leadership: Access to cheaper renewable energy, falling battery prices and maturing biofuels can lower input costs—particularly in energy-intensive sectors. Market access: Regulations such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) are making low-carbon production a requirement for global competitiveness. Resilience and control: Investing early in clean infrastructure and diversified energy sources reduces exposure to fossil fuel volatility and geopolitical risk. Customer and investor pressure: Procurement standards and financing conditions are increasingly tied to measurable decarbonisation progress. While policy uncertainty and supply chain politics remain real barriers, the business case for low-carbon strategy is becoming clearer—and more urgent. For companies in heavy industry, the next five years will be pivotal. Not just for compliance—but for margin, access, and long-term value. #decarbonisation #carbonomics #industrytransition #climatetech #energytransition #greeneconomy #sustainabilitystrategy #cleanenergy #cbam #netzero #goldmansachs

10 Sustainability Trends to Watch 🌎 Sustainability is no longer a peripheral concern but a key driver of business strategy, shaping how companies operate and compete in today’s market. The intersection of regulatory shifts, investor expectations, and consumer demands is pushing businesses to integrate sustainability more deeply into their core operations. As the global landscape evolves, several trends are emerging that will define the future of corporate sustainability. Decarbonization and climate adaptation are becoming central to long-term planning. Companies are not only expected to reduce their carbon emissions but also to build resilience against climate risks. This shift is being driven by stricter regulations and global climate commitments, forcing businesses to take proactive steps in emission reduction and climate-proofing their operations. Biodiversity and nature conservation are gaining momentum as businesses recognize the importance of protecting ecosystems. Practices like regenerative agriculture and habitat conservation are no longer niche but are increasingly integrated into corporate strategies to address biodiversity loss and enhance ecosystem services. Companies investing in these areas are positioning themselves as leaders in environmental stewardship. In response to rising regulatory pressure, greenwashing is under intense scrutiny. Claims of environmental responsibility must now be backed by verifiable data, and companies face significant legal and reputational risks if found to be misleading. This trend reflects a broader shift toward greater transparency and accountability in sustainability reporting. Supply chain sustainability is evolving beyond direct operations, with companies focusing on reducing environmental impacts across the entire value chain. Managing Scope 3 emissions is becoming a priority, and new technologies are enabling businesses to track and reduce these emissions more effectively. As a result, sustainable supply chains are now critical to meeting both regulatory requirements and consumer expectations. The role of technology in sustainability is also expanding. AI and data analytics are playing an increasingly important role in optimizing resource use, tracking sustainability performance, and identifying opportunities for carbon reduction. These tools are helping companies make data-driven decisions and improve their environmental impact, positioning technology as a critical enabler in achieving sustainability goals. As sustainability continues to reshape industries, companies that stay ahead of these trends will not only meet regulatory demands but also gain competitive advantage by demonstrating leadership in responsible business practices. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction 

I asked 25 contractors a simple question: If low‑carbon concrete costs the same, why aren’t we pouring it everywhere? Turns out… ...we can start today. Most projects tested switched to low‑carbon mixes with no cost increase, or a tiny 5% bump, while cutting tens of thousands of tonnes of emissions across 109 pilots. That’s not a moonshot. That’s procurement with a pulse. On big jobs, costs trended lower thanks to scale. Performance concerns were manageable. Access wasn’t the blocker. Old habits were. For leaders in the built environment and real estate, this is the rare win where sustainability, whole‑life carbon, and business performance align. We reduce embodied carbon now. We future‑proof assets against regulation. We open doors to sustainable finance. And we don’t blow the budget. This is not a PR exercise. It’s a margin play with a climate tailwind. Concrete with up to 32% less carbon is available at market rates or close to it. In one multimillion‑dollar project, the “green” premium was under $2,000. If that’s a deal‑breaker, the problem isn’t the concrete. What to do next: ↳ Tell your teams to spec below‑baseline mixes as the default. ↳ Bid with suppliers who provide EPDs and proven low‑carbon options. ↳ Track embodied carbon alongside cost and schedule—every job, every pour. ↳ Start with foundations, slabs, and parking structures, then scale. We’ve waited long enough for perfection. “Good, available, low‑carbon” just lapped “someday tech.” Pour the future now. 🔔 TL;DR: Low‑carbon concrete at no cost or ~5% is here. Cut emissions, meet codes, unlock capital, protect margins. If your projects aren’t using it, that’s a choice, not a constraint. Access the report here: https://lnkd.in/gd_NextA #LowCarbon #Concrete #Construction #RealEstate #BuiltEnvironment #Decarbonization #SustainableFinance #WholeLifeCarbon #CircularEconomy #ClimateAdaptation #CircularEconomy #Sustainability

39 countries have now adopted or are actively developing sustainability taxonomies (as of Dec 2025). Yet during the #Omnibus debate, policymakers argued that the EU is becoming isolated with its regulatory ambitions. This overview by Datamaran shows how taxonomy frameworks are rapidly evolving globally. While only 11 taxonomies are currently mandatory, the direction of travel is clear: many non-EU countries are moving to close the gap in sustainability regulation. We see a similar trend in sustainability reporting where major jurisdictions have released standards (e.g. China just very recently) and the ISSB's standards are gaining traction in many countries. 👉 In a global regulatory environment, it is vital to move early and keep pace. First movers shape standards, influence market practice, and create reference points that others build upon. Otherwise, the sustainability rules for EU companies will be written elsewhere...

The world isn’t ready for what’s coming next in sustainability data. We’re quietly living through the creation of a financial infrastructure for sustainability—and it’s happening faster than most realize. Over 2,000 sustainability regulations have emerged globally in the past decade, with a 155% surge in ESG-related rules since 2018. This isn’t just about compliance—it’s a fundamental shift in how we define value, risk, and performance. What’s driving it? • EU: CSRD & ESRS will impact over 50,000 companies, embedding double materiality. • India: BRSR Core is mandatory for top 1,000 listed firms. • China: CSDS expands carbon reporting in high-impact sectors. • California: SB 253/261 reshape U.S. climate disclosures. • Australia: AASB S2 aligns with IFRS S2, effective in 2025. • Brazil: CVM 193 adopts IFRS-aligned sustainability standards. • And more: Japan, Canada, Singapore, Nigeria, Turkey—all aligning with global standads. We’ve entered a phase where climate, nature, and transition risks are becoming embedded in financial decision-making—from underwriting and M&A to risk pricing and insurance modeling. In the real estate sector, GRESB has made third-party verified performance data (GHG, energy, water, waste) a best practice. ESG metrics are now more embedded in due diligence for loans, equity, and new acquisitions. Yes, today’s data is often backward-looking. And yes, we still need science-based thresholds and stronger assurance. But this foundational work is what allows us to get there. Without reliable, standardized, machine-readable data, we can’t scale action, track progress, or hold anyone accountable. Just as GAAP and IFRS created trust in financial markets, IFRS S1/S2, CSRD, and the GHG Protocol are setting the stage for credible, comparable sustainability data. It will not be a “parallel system.” in the future. We are building the groundwork for full integration into the global financial system. This shift will transform: • How we price risk • How capital is allocated • How resilient companies are rewarded • How we define long-term value creation It’s messy. It’s political. It’s imperfect. But it’s also historic. If you’re in this space, you’re not just reporting data—you’re helping build a new operating system for business and capital markets. One that rewards transparency, resilience, and climate alignment. Let’s keep building—with more rigor, more ambition, and more impact.

📌️ ESG Reporting A to Z ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting is a framework for companies to disclose their sustainability and ethical impact. It tracks everything from carbon footprint to fair labor practices, giving stakeholders a clear picture of whether a company is future ready or just chasing short term gains. With growing regulatory mandates (like the EU’s CSRD) and 85% of investors now factoring ESG into decisions, transparency is no longer optional but a competitive advantage. ESG reporting builds trust, mitigates risks, and attracts stakeholders who prioritize sustainability. Studies show that 66% of consumers prefer eco conscious brands, while employees seek purpose driven workplaces. As global regulations increase, businesses that adopt strong ESG practices succeed and add long term value. The future of business is accountable, and ESG reporting is leading the way. • Assurance: Third party verification to boost credibility (e.g., AA1000AS Standard). • Board & Governance: Oversight of ESG strategy and risks. • Compliance & Regulations: Meeting mandatory disclosure rules (e.g., CSRD in EU, SEC rules in US). • Double Materiality: Reporting on how sustainability affects the company (outside-in) AND the company's impact (inside-out). • Environmental: Climate, emissions, waste, water, biodiversity. • Frameworks: GRI, SASB, TCFD, CDP, ISSB. • Governance: Ethics, leadership, board diversity, executive pay. • Holistic View: Integrating ESG into overall business strategy. • Inclusivity: Engaging diverse stakeholders (employees, customers, investors). • Journey: ESG is an ongoing process, not a one off report. • Knowledge: Building internal expertise on ESG reporting. • Latest Trends: Staying ahead of evolving investor & regulatory demands (e.g., Gen Z demands). • Materiality Assessment: Identifying financially significant ESG issues for your industry. • Net Zero/Decarbonization: Key environmental goals and strategies. • Operational Integration: Making ESG part of core business, not separate. • Pillars: The core E, S, and G (and sometimes Reporting/Integration). • Quality Data: Ensuring accuracy, timeliness, and reliability. • Reporting: The act of disclosure (e.g., step-by-step guide). • Social: Labor practices, human rights, diversity, community impact. • Target Setting: Creating measurable goals (e.g., science based targets). • Understanding Requirements: Knowing what your specific regulations demand. • Value: Demonstrating financial value and risk management. • Working Groups: Cross functional teams to manage reporting. • X-Factor: The competitive advantage companies gain by embedding ESG into their core strategy. • Yield: Investor returns linked to strong ESG performance. • Zero Waste/Carbon: Ambitious environmental goals. #ESG #ESGReporting #Sustainability #SustainableBusiness #ResponsibleBusiness #Decarbonization #ImpactInvesting

Our global study on the state of trust in scientists in 68 countries is now out in Nature Human Behaviour! 🥳 Given narratives of a crisis of #trust in scientists, Niels G. Mede and I launched and led the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study to investigate trust in scientists around the world. With a consortium of 241 researchers at 179 institutions, we surveyed 71,922 individuals in 68 countries, providing the largest dataset on trust in scientists post-pandemic: https://lnkd.in/d9WsA5AN Here are some key findings: 💡 Across 68 countries, trust in scientists is moderately high (mean trust = 3.62, on a scale from 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust), with strong differences across countries. Our study confirms and strengthens previous work that refutes the narrative of wide-ranging low trust in scientists. 👐 Majorities perceive scientists to be qualified (78%), honest (57%), and concerned about people’s well-being (56%). 🗣️ 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate about science with the general public. 📣 49% believe that that scientists should actively advocate for specific policies (23% disagree). 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process (22% disagree). ➡️ Check out the TISP app for country-specific results: https://lnkd.in/dVbYyYhD ➡️ For more information on the TISP Project: https://lnkd.in/dUtZBCfY ____ On a more personal note: Leading the TISP-Consortium has been an incredibly rewarding experience. I’m deeply grateful to everyone who contributed to making the TISP project a success—it was a truly collaborative effort. A special thanks goes to the study co-lead Niels G. Mede, whose dedication and kindness made all the difference.  I also want to express my heartfelt gratitude to the TISP Core Team—our advisory board of nine experts—who played a pivotal role in shaping the project's success, providing guidance on all sorts of matters, and always having an open ear: Sebastian Berger John C. Besley Cameron Brick Marina Joubert Ed Maibach Sabina Mihelj Oreskes Naomi Mike S. Schäfer Sander van der Linden The biggest thanks go out to the many co-authors for their trust (🥁 pun intended), patience, and support. This would not have been possible without all of you. Special thanks go to Oreskes Naomi for hosting me at Harvard University for two years (funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation SNSF). Leading such a big project on short-term postdoc contracts was professionally and personally challenging at times, and I am grateful to the SOCRATES CAS at University of Hanover, Mike S. Schäfer and his team at UZH Department of Communication and Media Research (IKMZ), David N. Bresch and the Weather and Climate Risks Group at ETH Zürich, and the Collegium Helveticum and its fellows, for their support in the final year of the project. 🙏

The fashion industry’s journey toward sustainability is encountering significant challenges due to a volatile market, incoming regulations, and shifting politics. What started as a gradual shift has now become more pronounced. Brands that once proudly showcased their sustainable initiatives are now scaling back or pausing these efforts. This shift is accompanied by job cuts in senior sustainability roles, with companies like Nike and Canada Goose restructuring their teams. Moncler even removed its chief sustainability officer earlier this year. While some companies continue to hire for sustainability roles, the industry is rethinking how to resource and manage these teams. Brands like ASOS.com and Crocs have delayed or abandoned their climate targets, citing unrealistic initial goals. Companies claim they are restructuring to align with changing standards and business realities, not lowering their sustainability ambitions. However, these changes threaten to derail the industry’s already lagging climate progress, especially as record-breaking temperatures highlight the urgency of action. In the aftermath of the 2015 Paris Agreement and a pandemic-fueled consumer awakening, big brands set ambitious sustainability targets. However, as business priorities shift, sustainability efforts, which often have intangible benefits, are becoming easy targets for cost-cutting. This trend extends beyond fashion, particularly in the US, where political backlash against “woke capitalism” has led some companies to abandon both diversity and climate targets. Nike and Canada Goose have significantly cut their sustainability teams, though they maintain their commitment to sustainability. McKinsey & Company reports that about two-thirds of fashion brands are behind on their decarbonization schedules. The changes also reflect tightening regulations and evolving standards, prompting companies to reevaluate their sustainability initiatives. Many are becoming more cautious in communicating achievements and setting targets amid a crackdown on #greenwashing. Recruiters note that the structure of sustainability teams is changing, with C-suite positions being slashed and key activities integrated into more operational roles. New hires are focused on change management rather than grand strategy. The challenges are not unique to the fashion industry; various sectors are adjusting their sustainability goals in response to external pressures and evolving market conditions. As we navigate these turbulent times, it is crucial to find a balance between business realities and the urgent need for sustainable practices. In the meantime, the world keeps getting hotter.  🌱 #Sustainability #BusinessStrategy #ClimateAction #CorporateResponsibility #EnvironmentalGoals #Leadership #Innovation #FutureOfWork The Business of Fashion https://lnkd.in/g3SJ7Dqx