Improving Corporate Transparency

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

📊 Exciting new research from the European Central Bank (ECB) sheds light on how banks are pricing climate risk in their lending practices! 🌿 In their working paper, Carlo Altavilla, Miguel Boucinha, Marco Pagano, and Andrea Polo combine euro-area credit register data with carbon emission information to uncover fascinating insights into the intersection of finance and climate change. 🏦 The study finds that banks are indeed factoring climate risk into their lending decisions. Firms with higher carbon emissions face higher interest rates, while those committed to reducing emissions enjoy lower rates. Interestingly, banks that have publicly committed to decarbonization goals (through initiatives like Science Based Targets initiative) are even more aggressive in this pricing strategy. 💶 But here's where it gets really intriguing: the researchers uncovered a "climate risk-taking channel" of monetary policy. When the ECB tightens monetary policy, banks not only increase their overall credit risk premiums but also amplify their climate risk premiums. This means that during periods of monetary tightening, high-emission firms face a double whammy of increased borrowing costs and reduced access to credit compared to their greener counterparts. The authors argue that while restrictive monetary policy may slow down overall decarbonization efforts, it inadvertently creates a more favourable environment for low-emission firms and those committed to going green. 🌍 These findings are crucial for understanding how the financial sector is adapting to climate change and how monetary policy interacts with climate-related financial risks. It's also clear that the greening of finance is not just a trend, but a fundamental shift in how risk is assessed and priced in our economy. #ClimateFinance #SustainableBanking #MonetaryPolicy #ECB #GreenEconomy #ClimateRisk

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.

Regulatory frameworks and directives that drive sustainable supply chains: EUDR, CSDDD, and CBAM are supported by a transparency directive, CSRD Together, these regulations ensure that companies not only report their impacts (transparency) but also actively engage in sustainable practices (accountability) to meet the EU's goals of environmental protection, human rights, and sustainability in global supply chains. ◦ CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) mandates corporate accountability across the value chain by ensuring companies have due diligence processes in place to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse impacts on human rights and the environment ◦ EUDR (EU Deforestation Regulation) requires companies to avoid products that contribute to deforestation and biodiversity loss. It mandates due diligence to ensure that products entering the EU market are deforestation-free ◦ CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) serves as a carbon pricing mechanism for imports, aimed at curbing carbon emissions associated with goods transferred into the EU ◦ CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) – unlike the other three – focuses on transparency through reporting. It requires companies to disclose their sustainability practices, impacts, and goals, including economic activities aligned with sustainable objectives While CSDDD, EUDR, and CBAM focus on embedding sustainability into operational and management processes, CSRD is dedicated to streamlining reporting. The CSDDD mandates due diligence across the chain of activities, ensuring that companies actively oversee risks related to human rights and the environment. Similarly, the EUDR enforces due diligence to ensure that products are free from deforestation, while the CBAM adds a financial incentive by taxing carbon-heavy imports, encouraging companies to manage their emissions. These regulations drive proactive behavior within supply chains, pushing companies to continuously monitor and adjust their practices to meet sustainability standards. The CSRD differs in its emphasis on transparency rather than operational control. This directive requires companies to publicly disclose on sustainability, providing stakeholders with information about sustainable practices. It is more about accountability to external stakeholders, fostering transparency and comparability in sustainability reporting. Reporting under the CSRD allows investors, consumers, and policymakers to assess a company's sustainability efforts, contributing to informed decision-making. It complements the process-oriented directives by ensuring that companies disclose the outcomes and practices they implement for sustainability. Frameworks like the TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures), TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures), and Science Based Targets support the CSRD and EU Taxonomy disclosures and foster streamlined reporting and interoperability in disclosures.

Your team isn't missing deadlines because they're lazy. They're missing them because you let them. That's a hard thing to sit with.  It was for me. For years I called it being understanding.  It was really just avoidance. And every deadline I let slide quietly reset the standard for the whole team. Accountability isn't something you enforce. It's something you build. Here are 3 tests to build it: Test 1: The Clarity Test Can they tell you exactly what's due, when, and what "done" looks like? ↳ If no, you have an expectations problem, not a performance problem. ↳ You can't hold people to a standard you never defined. Test 2: The Peer Test Are they accountable to the team, or only to you? ↳ If it's only you, your authority lets them rationalize mediocrity. ↳ Nobody wants to fall short in front of their peers. Make commitments visible. Test 3: The Pattern Test When a deadline slips again, do they diagnose and improve? ↳ If no, that's not ownership. That's hope. And hope isn't a strategy. ↳ Real accountability means learning from the miss, not just apologizing for it. So if your team keeps coming up short, look here first: ↳ They don't actually know what "done" means. ↳ They didn't commit publicly to their peers. ↳ They aren't learning from their mistakes. Leaders create the conditions. The team does the hard work. Fix these three, and accountability stops being something you chase. It becomes something they own. ♻️ Share to inspire a leader to build real accountability. 📕 Get my high-performance MGMT OS: mgmtplaybook.com 🔔 Follow Dave Kline for more leadership insights.

Culture is everything 🙏🏾 When leaders accept or overlook poor behaviour, they implicitly endorse those actions, potentially eroding the organisation’s values and morale. To build a thriving culture, leaders must actively shape it by refusing to tolerate behaviour that contradicts their values and expectations.
 The best leaders: 
 1. Define and Communicate Core Values: * Articulate Expectations: Clearly define and communicate the organisation’s core values and behavioural expectations. Make these values central to every aspect of the organisation’s operations and culture. * Embed Values in Policies: Integrate these values into your policies, procedures, and performance metrics to ensure they are reflected in daily operations. 
 2. Model the Behaviour You Expect: * Lead by Example: Demonstrate the behaviour you want to see in others. Your actions should reflect the organisation’s values, from how you interact with employees to how you handle challenges. 3. Address Poor Behaviour Promptly: * Act Quickly: Confront and address inappropriate behaviour as soon as it occurs. Delays in addressing issues can lead to a culture of tolerance for misconduct. * Apply Consistent Consequences: Ensure that consequences for poor behaviour are fair, consistent, and aligned with organisational values. This reinforces that there are clear boundaries and expectations.
 4. Foster a Culture of Accountability: * Encourage Self-Regulation: Promote an environment where everyone is encouraged to hold themselves and others accountable for their actions. * Provide Support: Offer resources and support for employees to understand and align with organisational values, helping them navigate challenges and uphold standards.
 5. Seek and Act on Feedback: * Encourage Open Communication: Create channels for employees to provide feedback on behaviour and organisational culture without fear of reprisal. * Respond Constructively: Act on feedback to address and rectify issues. This shows that you value employee input and are committed to maintaining a positive culture.
 6. Celebrate Positive Behaviour: * Recognise and Reward: Acknowledge and reward employees who exemplify the organisation’s values. Celebrating positive behaviour reinforces the desired culture and motivates others to follow suit. * Share Success Stories: Highlight examples of how upholding values has led to positive outcomes, reinforcing the connection between behaviour and organisational success.
 7. Invest in Leadership Development: * Provide Training: Offer training and development opportunities for leaders at all levels to enhance their skills in managing behaviour and fostering a positive culture. 8. Promote Inclusivity and Respect: * Build a Diverse Environment: Create a culture that respects and values diversity. Inclusivity strengthens the organisational fabric and fosters a more collaborative and supportive work environment.

When I toured a coffee roastery recently, something struck me. You could see every step of the process: the green beans arriving, the roasting, the grinding, the packaging. Watching it unfold makes you appreciate how much thought and craft goes into a simple cup of coffee. It made me realize how rarely we give our clients that same visibility. Most of the time, the people we serve only see the finished product of the report, the deliverable, the campaign, the insight. They don’t get to witness the expertise, preparation, and decision-making that bring it all to life. But when customers understand the steps behind your work, they value it more deeply. They begin to see the layers of experience that make your results possible and the thinking that separates your process from anyone else’s. Every professional, whether you’re in consulting, design, education, or tech has a unique way of doing things. Those steps might feel routine to you, but to your clients, they can be fascinating. It’s how they start to understand the “special sauce” that makes your work distinct. Mapping out your customer journey isn’t just an internal exercise. It’s a way of telling the story of your expertise. It shows how you gather insights, make choices, and translate ideas into outcomes. When you make that process visible, you invite your clients to come along for the ride. They feel invested, aligned, and more confident in your approach because they can see the logic and care behind every stage. That transparency turns ordinary transactions into long-term relationships. It builds trust, fosters appreciation, and reminds people that your value isn’t just in what you deliver—it’s in how you do it.

Last week someone asked me a simple question during a webinar on AI agents: “Who is responsible when the agent does something unexpected?” Everyone jumped to indemnities, warranties, and disclaimers. But the real answer isn’t in any of those provisions. It’s in the architecture of the system. If you strip away the noise, one principle sits underneath every credible AI agent contract: Responsibility follows control and visibility. If you can’t control it, you can’t be fully responsible for it. If you can’t see it, you definitely can’t be responsible for it. AI agents make this unavoidable. They interpret goals, choose execution paths, and take actions across systems that no human re-approves in real time. Yet many contracts still rely on language written for traditional software, where everything was deterministic and monitored after the fact. That structure doesn’t hold anymore. When I review an AI agent agreement, I look for three conditions: Control. Who controls the model, the guardrails, the updates, the allowed integrations, the system configurations? Responsibility must map to these domains. Visibility. What can each party actually see? Not vague “logs on request,” but defined log content: action taken, system touched, triggering input category, timestamp, human-validation flag. Alignment. Does the contract assign responsibility only where the party has meaningful control and real visibility? Or does it assign responsibility where neither exists? If responsibility is assigned without control or visibility, the clause will fail the moment the agent chains actions in a way no one anticipated. This is where most drafting breaks. And it’s also where lawyers can add the most value. Before fixing provisions, map the system. Before allocating risk, map the levers. Before accepting responsibility, make sure you can actually see the thing you are agreeing to own. Responsibility = Control + Visibility. If either is missing, it isn’t governance. It’s guesswork. — Olga V. Mack I build legal systems for real life.

You want to balance Security and Trust imperatives when running your GRC programs? 6+1 tips to better align your program with both Security and Go-To-Market stakeholders. 1️⃣ Make company security the baseline, not frameworks Stop implementing "SOC 2 controls" and start implementing "our security baseline" that happens to satisfy SOC 2. When security is the goal and compliance is the byproduct, you shift focus from checking boxes to securing systems. Your framework should be an output, not an input. 2️⃣ Implement risk-based KPIs alongside sales metrics Balance "deals unblocked" with "critical risks mitigated" and "mean time to remediation". When your performance depends equally on sales enablement AND security improvement, priorities naturally align. What gets measured gets managed - so measure what matters for security. 3️⃣ Build remediation-driven compliance Make remediation the centrepiece of your program. Every finding should have an owner and timeline. Every certification project should be measured by issues fixed, not just paper collected. Celebrate remediation velocity like you celebrate deal velocity. Evidence collection is a means, not an end. Find ways to help owners get further on the remediation side. 4️⃣ Develop automation-first GRC programs When use-cases are custom, easy or complex, invest in building rather than buying. This doesn't just save money - it puts technical capability at the heart of your GRC function, ensuring you speak the same language as engineering and can evaluate vendor claims critically. Your GRC team should also own some code, not just spreadsheets. 5️⃣ Converge GRC and security engineering Break down the divides. Embed GRC people in security engineering teams and vice versa. Make knowledge transfer explicit and continuous. When "Trust" people understand the technical reality and engineers understand the compliance requirements, both sides make better decisions. 6️⃣ Value actual security outcomes over compliance artefacts Start celebrating actual security improvements. Did your controls actually reduce the attack surface? Did your risk management identify and address a real threat? The true measure of your program is effectiveness, not documentation. A successfully defended system is worth more than a perfectly documented one. BONUS: 7️⃣ Celebrate security-driven business decisions Redefine success to include deals you shaped for better security outcomes, not just those you rubber-stamped. Recognise team members who improved contract terms, strengthened vendor security requirements, or helped sales understand realistic compliance timelines. Security still shouldn't just be about saying "no" - it should be about finding secure paths to more "yes." Trust and security aren't opponents; they're partners. Engineers who respect your GRC program and customers who recognise your security maturity—that's the sweet spot. Time to build both, not sacrifice one for the other.

Transparency can be an empty promise, or it can be a true practice to engender trust. At Rubrik, we’ve always believed that it should be a true practice - which is why we held open board meetings for our first 7-8 years, till a few years before we went public. Our open board meetings showed our employees that we were genuinely committed to transparency, and this commitment was key to our success as we grew…because it bred trust. When you’re an early-stage startup, you often bring in top talent and ask for their prime years as you work hard to build your company from the ground up. The least leadership can do in return? Provide full transparency about the company’s status so that employees are never in doubt about where their efforts are going. Plus, early-stage startups have no obligation to be transparent about their financials the way public companies do - so sharing information without anyone asking is a great way to show employees that you care about them being in the loop as you grow. This full transparency has a cascading positive effect, in that it breeds a high-trust environment. In a high-trust environment, everyone has the same information as everyone else, so it’s easy to align and easy to move fast. That’s exactly the sequence we’ve seen as we’ve built Rubrik: we started with transparency, built trust, and moved fast. Now, we’re a public company with a bright future. Transparency is a superpower - so don’t just talk about it. Act on it.