Top 100 Most Sustainable Companies in 2023
Really interesting to look through the Corporate Knights' most recent publication of the 100 most sustainable companies of the year. It's unsurprising that the top performers, according to this report, are out-performing the market, despite the economic tumult from the past several years. This is yet another display demonstrating that companies improve their ability to financially thrive in turbulent times, thanks - in part - to their efforts to reduce environmental and social risk, increase resiliency in their communities, and create robust governance policies.
Article here: https://www.corporateknights.com/rankings/global-100-rankings/2023-global-100-rankings/2023-global-100-most-sustainable-companies/#more-story
Zero Waste Hierarchy
Came across this interesting blog article on The Zero Waste Hierarchy that adds a few more layers to the reduce-reuse-recycle framework. I'm particularly interested in the first two layers of the concept - redesign and reduction.
The first layer (rethinking/redesigning how to build strong circular systems) is in dire need of market incentives. Ample opportunity rests in this space. However, like energy (think how solar has developed in the last 15 years), we're not going to see a shift until we see some policy that incentivizes capital expenditure in this area. Every country has different systems in place, each with their own problems that should be addressed. However because the U.S. wastes the most per capita, I think domestically is where I'd like to see change occur most.
I believe reduction piece of this puzzle goes largely ignored. Obviously, we can all do our individual part by consuming less and by choosing to spend our money on higher quality or longer lasting products. However, we are societally conditioned to want to buy more, so I think I'd be naive to deny that we are insatiable consumers. I believe the systemic solution probably comes down to a sector-by-sector adoption of the true costs of materials, a cost that incorporates the environmental impact of materials beyond production and consumption. ESG reporting is making progress in this direction, but what I'm envisioning a literal cost that is incorporated into financial statements.
Anyway, wanted to share some food for thought. Definitely check out the article - it's a quick read! Check out the rest of the Zero Waste Hierarchy - those shouldn't be ignore either!
Concept of ‘New Power’
I had a conversation with a client recently that stuck with me.
We were talking about the importance of vertical and horizontal trust within organizations. It is especially important to develop organizational structures that empower employees to contribute value, take risks [within reason], and communicate with transparency. He brought up the concept of 'New Power' and later sent me this article.
'New Power' is not necessarily good, nor will it necessarily prevail over 'Old Power'. Both models have their merits as well as vulnerabilities, and I believe every company can strike a balance that matches organizational values and goals.
Anyway, I definitely recommend checking this article out. Who knows - it may be useful to reflect on where your organization sits within this model? At the very least, you've got a fun conversation starter at happy hour (if that's a thing anymore).
Key to the COP27
COP27 is just two weeks away! Hoping progress can be made around goal-setting, building accountability and better distribution around financing climate projects, and achieving more structure around carbon markets. Here’s a quick article to hone in on these three important ‘keys’ to success…
Biodiversity policy action needed.
While the Endangered Species Act has done a good job saving animals from extinction, it has been unsuccessful (due to resource constraints) at helping species populations recover.
Just as an example, I read another article this week about Red Wolves and their continually threatened population (capped at around 300 individuals). If you google 'Red Wolves', the first news articles you'll see will be about sports mascots. Celebrating these animals is not the criticism. The point that I want to drive home is - general apathy around prioritizing endangered population growth contributes to inadequate policy action. I'm not exaggerating when I say that we are facing a serious biodiversity crisis that spans locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. The impacts of this crisis are deep and will affect our own long-term well-being. Plus, the Arkansas State Red Wolves should ideally represent a thriving population, right?
The U.S. should ratify its commitment to global biodiversity efforts and should place more resources into species recovery - yes, even in this economy. Despite radical actions (think UK Van Gogh soup episode) still playing a part in the conversation, I believe that environmental priorities have finally reached the Overton Window at a time when urgency is paramount. Companies should link their non-market efforts with their sustainability commitments and push for policies that encourage collective positive impact.
The Guardian: US law protecting endangered species hampered by poor resources, study says.
Greenwashing Satire
Got an email last week with this satirical article, written by GreenBiz Group Co-founder, Joel Makower. "How to Greenwash Like a Pro", where he gives a 12-step system to perfect how to be seen as a sustainable company. It made me laugh.
At the end of his 12 steps, he jokes, "Greenwashing is a complex thing, so don’t worry if you don’t get it completely right the first time. Keep at it! Wear your sustainability promises proudly. Never stop talking about them. Eventually, you’ll win. Winning, after all, is what it’s all about."
I enjoy satire and obviously think greenwashing is a major problem in the sustainability space. Like most global issues, the culpability falls both on the individual and on the system itself (yes - greenwashing is a negative byproduct of capitalism). However, heady conversations about systems change aside, I'd like to focus on the responsibility around the individual, since individual behavior is what the article addresses.
I think what's interesting about his conclusion is that you could substitute "sustainability" in for "greenwashing" and it would still be generally accurate. Here’s the breakdown:
"[Sustainability] is a complex thing, so don’t worry if you don’t get it completely right the first time. Keep at it!"
YES! All of sustainability's pillars are inherently imperfect. No organization can achieve a perfect social record, especially where equity is concerned. For instance, every company has disgruntled, disenfranchised employees. Proper corporate governance is a constant balancing act, and conflicts will always exist between operational innovation and stringent safeguards. The environmental pillar is existential and, in many cases, irreversible. Company's with the strongest environmental ESG records continue to have a long way to go. All of this to say - sustainability will continue to be imperfect. No company should expect to get it right the first time. Persistent improvement over time is the name of the game.
"Wear your sustainability promises proudly. Never stop talking about them."
I think it's OK the wear your sustainability promises proudly. The nuance here is that companies actually need to demonstrate action, measure performance, and candidly report progress and setbacks. I also believe that companies should also openly highlight its sustainable shortcomings - my belief is that transparency is refreshing and telling about a company’s intentions around improvement. Proud discussion of sustainability efforts can have positive effects, influencing consumers to care more and helping to set stronger standards for corporate peers. Of course, the caveat (again) is that talk needs to reflect action. Sustainability growth (and shortcomings) must be transparent.
"Eventually, you’ll win. Winning, after all, is what it’s all about."
Well, this one is harder to justify. While "winning" and competition are key components of market functionality, I think many of us have different opinions around ‘what it’s all about’. Trioli LLC philosophically stands for the premise that businesses must provide more than a product or service. I think there are two ways to look at this -
On an individual level, strong ESG records contribute to long-term firm success and significantly reduced company risk.
Global markets, businesses, consumers, and communities benefit from sustainability. Persisting in improving sustainability practices and processes contributes to a collective victory. I realize that this point can be construed as optimistic or hopelessly naive. However, I think there’s a little part of everyone who wants the greater good argument to prevail.
It’s funny how a satirical newsletter email could provide so much food for thought!
Upcoming SCOTUS Sackett Decision on Wetlands
I appreciated this insight on the upcoming Sackett SCOTUS ruling, which may redefine how the US legally defines water. This may ultimately change (and severely limit) the jurisdiction of The Clean Water Act. Conservationists across the US are worried that a narrowed definition will further affect critical ecosystems and, ultimately, water quality in many parts of the county.
Anyway, check this post out to learn more about the legal side of the issue.
Link to article here.
Man in the Hole
"Índio do Buraco", or Man in the Hole, of the Tanaru Indigenous Territory in Rondônia has died. He was the last of his tribe. This marks the first ~ recorded ~ disappearance of a tribe in Brazil. It is likely that most of his tribe were murdered by colonists and ranchers starting the the late 70's/early 80's. The rights of of indigenous and local peoples are intricately tied to proper stewardship of lands. This is a sad reminder for those who care deeply about both human rights and the protection of the natural world.
Thoughts on John Oliver’s carbon credit segment.
Entering the discussion late. Instead of watching John Oliver's episode from a week ago on carbon offsets and immediately reacting, I thought I'd take the time to read up and reflect.
Some of John Oliver's criticisms are valid. However, on the whole, I think his approach misses the mark on several specifics and, ultimately, the big picture. The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" was the most common phrase I heard in my discussions and research. I believe voluntary carbon offsets have strong potential to contribute to carbon and deforestation reductions.
A few specific thoughts:
-It is widely understood that carbon offsets are the LAST step to achieve Net Zero goals. Companies know this. No one claims that carbon offsets represent the entire solution. While greenwashing is absolutely a problem (think Shell and BP), it's not a carbon offset problem as much as it is a regulatory or standards problem.
-Despite what John Oliver says, there ARE accountability measures (i.e. IC-VCM) in place beyond certification entities like Verra.
-I thought his criticisms that called out groups in the offset space ranged from harsh to unfair. For example, NCX is a start-up that is operating on an innovative financial concept called ton-year accounting. It's an unproven method and NCX remains uncertified. However, I believe their work is fascinating and has potential for positive impact. A critical dialogue about their methodology is necessary... outright dismissal is not.
-Many (most?) projects have mechanisms in place to address leakage (cutting down trees 'next door').
-The forest fire criticism was weird, as these projects actively manage forests, which reduces fire risk. Despite this, most project models account for loss in projections with buffers.
Entering the discussion late. Instead of watching John Oliver's episode from a week ago on carbon offsets and immediately reacting, I thought I'd take the time to read up and reflect.
Some of John Oliver's criticisms are valid. However, on the whole, I think his approach misses the mark on several specifics and, ultimately, the big picture. The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" was the most common phrase I heard in my discussions and research. I believe voluntary carbon offsets have strong potential to contribute to carbon and deforestation reductions.
A few specific thoughts:
-It is widely understood that carbon offsets are the LAST step to achieve Net Zero goals. Companies know this. No one claims that carbon offsets represent the entire solution. While greenwashing is absolutely a problem (think Shell and BP), it's not a carbon offset problem as much as it is a regulatory or standards problem.
-Despite what John Oliver says, there ARE accountability measures (i.e. IC-VCM) in place beyond certification entities like Verra.
-I thought his criticisms that called out groups in the offset space ranged from harsh to unfair. For example, NCX is a start-up that is operating on an innovative financial concept called ton-year accounting. It's an unproven method and NCX remains uncertified. However, I believe their work is fascinating and has potential for positive impact. A critical dialogue about their methodology is necessary... outright dismissal is not.
-Many (most?) projects have mechanisms in place to address leakage (cutting down trees 'next door').
-The forest fire criticism was weird, as these projects actively manage forests, which reduces fire risk. Despite this, most project models account for loss in projections with buffers.