Search

Editor's note: The following is an op-ed, and the opinions presented are not necessarily those of TriplePundit or its partners.

 

By Kerry Preete

The historic drought in California is making headlines across the United States, but any farmer, anywhere in the world, knows firsthand that this isn’t an isolated event. The weather everywhere is posing more and more frequent challenges.

So, the issue before us today isn’t whether climate change is real, but how we adapt and respond to increasingly volatile weather. As someone who works for a company focused solely on agriculture, I can tell you that doing nothing is not a viable option. We must put all ideas on the table and commit to embracing solutions, wherever we may find them.

Nobody is more vulnerable than farmers to the effects of climate change, but the success of growers impacts everyone – through, among other things, the price of food at supermarkets in developed countries and the overall availability of food in parts of the developing world. In short: A healthy, robust agriculture system plays a vital role in economic, social and political stability.

To respond to the challenges posed by climate change, while at the same time producing enough food to nourish a global population that’s expected to add another 800 million people over the next decade, agriculture must put innovation and sustainability at the forefront of everything we do.

The good news is that while some industries have faced significant disruption from new technologies, agriculture has always been quick to adapt and harness the power of innovation to help farmers get better harvests while using resources more efficiently.

The 2012 drought in the Midwest, for instance, was very similar to a drought we saw in 1988. But in 2012, through genetically modified seeds and updated farming practices, corn yields were 41 percent higher.

Improved, non-GMO seeds are also positioning farmers around the world to do better in adverse conditions.

Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), a public-private partnership Monsanto participates in, provides drought-tolerant seeds to smallholder farmers. Initial results are very positive. Kenyan growers reported corn harvests in 2014 more than twice the national average, and we believe that GMO seeds could provide them added benefits in the future.

Additionally, our industry is advancing rapidly in the growing field of precision agriculture, which is helping farmers evolve from making many decisions based on intuition to making those decisions based on data.

Today, precision agriculture applications, many of which can be run on tablets and smart phones, are providing very specific guidance on what seeds to plant and when to plant based on weather trends.

Then during the growing season, some of these same apps can let farmers know when their crops need water, herbicide or pesticides – so they’re using only the resources they need, exactly when they need them.

Of course, for companies like mine, helping our farmer customers is only part of the equation. We must also take a very hard look at our own operations. At Monsanto, we’re making significant progress toward our public goal of increasing our irrigated water-use application efficiency on the land where we grow our seeds by 25 percent by 2020. This will save between 30 billion and 80 billion gallons of water annually, as well as provide valuable insights we can share with our customers and partners.

I’m encouraged by many of the things my company and the agriculture industry as a whole are doing, but the reality is we don’t have all the answers – nor does any single government, non-profit or university.

A lot of groups are doing really impressive work, but the magnitude of the challenge before us means we need to do a lot more – and quickly.

For our industry, that means pushing even harder on our sustainability and innovation efforts – because I believe we’ve only scratched the surface of what’s possible.

And for all of us, in and out of agriculture, that means sharing ideas and making an extra effort to be open to the kind of discussion, debate and collaboration that makes everyone stronger.

Image credit: Flickr/U.S. Department of Agriculture

Kerry Preete is Executive Vice President of Global Strategy at Monsanto. He leads a team that analyzes emerging trends and their impact on agriculture, and shapes Monsanto's work to create solutions to help farmers overcome environmental challenges, increase the sustainability of their operations, and meet the nutritional needs of a fast-growing global population.

By Carol L. Cone

I recently attended a meeting of social entrepreneurs and other leaders from business, government, philanthropy, academia and the nonprofit sector at an event called the Gathering of Leaders, hosted by New Profit, a Boston-based national venture philanthropy fund.

New Profit’s mission is to harness America's spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship to help solve our country's most pressing social problems, and the Gathering’s goal was on point: to catalyze the development of new ideas, relationships and resources to scale social innovation and transform public problem-solving on a broad scale.

This year’s Gathering focused on a few critical questions for the social sector to address:

• What does it mean to be on a path to opportunity in the U.S. today?


• What are we learning about the ways that race and class wind through these pathways from people who have cracked the code themselves?


• How is technology closing — and widening — gaps?

One of my favorite discussions was called “Big Bets,” featuring curated concepts from social entrepreneurs – ideas with the potential to make large-scale, transformative change in education, early childhood development, economic empowerment and public health. These 'bets' aim to provoke bold thinking and ultimately action to change the lives of millions of underserved individuals and families.

I trust they will inspire you as they did me.

1. Creating the next generation of peacemakers: Peace First

Peace First, a New Profit grantee and partner in the Reimagine Learning Fund, exists to create the next generation of “peacemakers” -- youth who are taking action in schools and communities to create greater understanding, cooperation and engagement for societal benefit.

“It’s not enough to teach a group of young people a set of skills, and then send them off into a world that doesn’t acknowledge them —and worse, actually undermines their 'peacemaking' efforts,” offered Peace First President Eric Dawson.

“We live in a culture of violence, hatred and intolerance. We need a compelling and competitive alternative — a cultural counterweight — that we can only create through a movement led by young people, who are powerful agents of social change.”

2. Revolutionizing pediatric medicine: Center for Youth Wellness

The Center for Youth Wellness is part of a national effort to revolutionize pediatric medicine and transform the way society responds to kids exposed to significant adverse childhood experiences and toxic stress. Founder and CEO Dr. Nadine Burke Harris was inspired by the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente, which demonstrated the strong correlation between early childhood experiences of abuse, neglect and household dysfunction and poor adult health including asthma, heart disease and cancer.

“The medical community has not even begun to have a comprehensive response to this crisis,” she said. Her 'big bet:' to develop a system of comprehensive routine screening, early detection and effective intervention to reduce the morbidity and early mortality from ACEs and toxic stress.

3. A one-stop-shop for resources: Single Stop

Single Stop, a grantee in the New Profit Innovation Fund, provides coordinated access for underserved populations to resources related to higher education, jobs and financial self-sufficiency – all through a unique one-stop-shop.

Like Amazon or Walmart, Founder and CEO Elizabeth Mason wants to provide an online marketplace – a “single stop” for social services. Single Stop aggregates and simplifies social service information linking to nonprofit services and government benefits creating comprehensive resources reaching millions to significantly reduce poverty.

4. Micro-loans for individuals: Kiva Zip

Over 8,000 small business loan applications are rejected by banks in the U.S. every day. Renowned international micro-loan NGO Kiva asked: Why can’t this country provide micro-loans to individuals? And do it with a new type of repayment criteria?

That led to a new Kiva service, called social underwriting. Kiva Zip bases its lending decisions on a borrower character and trust network, re-inserting human relationships into the U.S. financial system.

5. Mobile solutions for low-income patients: CareMessage

Inspired by his personal journey to lose 100 pounds and realizing that the medical system needed to follow up on patient care beyond the initial visit, Vineet Singal started CareMessage to offer underserved populations a way to receive feedback for personal healthcare needs through mobile technology.

“Being a low-income patient is a significant predictor of low health literacy and poor self-management skills in terms of health behaviors. Being connected to healthcare providers especially via text messaging can often alleviate and prevent many common ailments, as well as support post treatment compliance,” he said.

CareMessage has already established contractual relationships with nearly 100 healthcare organizations and social services agencies in 17 states across the country joined by a shared vision of improving clinical outcomes and reducing cost of care.

Big bets? You bet.

For me the Gathering was a unique experience: quirky, compelling and immensely energizing. I was exposed to terrific new ideas, I met individuals with deep appetites for powerful collaboration and gained wonderful inspiration for my ongoing work to create distinctive public-private partnerships for business and societal impacts.

Want to connect with any of these entrepreneurs? Email me at [email protected].

Image credits: 1) New Profit 2) and 3) Carol L. Cone

Carol L. Cone is a Global Chief Strategist for Business + Social Purpose at Edelman.

By Marta Maretich

Definitions — we are so over them in the social investing sector.

I mean, we wrangled over those darn meanings for years: ethical investing, responsible investing, socially responsible investing, triple- and double-bottom-line investing, green investing, sustainable investing and finally — boom! — impact investing.

We split hairs, we waved banners, we made colorful infographics to settle the matter once and for all—and then, worn out with all the talking, we got on with the work of building the social investing sector and tried to forget about definitions for awhile.

Definitions are to social investing what balance and reaction time are to surfing: You need them, but if you think about them too hard, you just can’t stand up on the board.

On the other hand…

Once in a while a new definition comes along and we really need to pay attention.

That’s the case with the definition for social investing proposed by a new report, After the Gold Rush, from the Alternative Commission on Social Investment (ACSI). Rather than splitting yet more definitional hairs, this report highlights telling developments in the practice of social investing and yields a new, clarifying meaning for the term.

The green shoot is wilting!

Before we get down to what that meaning is, let’s take a look at the source of this report.
The ACSI describes itself as initiative established “to investigate what’s wrong with the U.K. social investment market and to make practical suggestions for how the market can be made more accessible and relevant to a wider range of charities, social enterprises and citizens working to bring about positive social change”.

One look at this group’s spare website and signature image — a cupped hand, full of dirt, supporting a dead seedling — tells us that the ACSI are working in a very different key to, say, the G8 Social Impact Investment Taskforce. We’re not going to get cheerleading from these people, their branding suggests; they’re going to make us face facts.

The ACSI shuns the international glamor that has recently surrounded social investing. Its focus is national, not global. Its approach is practical, not theoretical or political. ACSI intends to cut through the hype. It wants to know, specifically and categorically, whether the U.K. social enterprise sector -- especially its largest player, state-bankrolled Big Society Capital -- has delivered all that it promised for social investing.

Keeping it real

What they demonstrate in this report, with dead plant images on several pages, is that it hasn’t. The reasons behind this failure, which fill out the body of the paper, make sobering reading for anyone who wants to see the practice of social investment flourish for real.

Problems range from basic errors — such as the assumption that social sector organizations don’t have access to finance from mainstream lenders (they do) — to more subtle but potentially damaging issues, such as a mismatch between the support social sector organizations actually need and the kind of finance social investors are currently offering.

Confusion around definitions is part of the trouble. The report rounds up a range of definitions from various authorities including the OECD, the Charity Commission and the U.K. Cabinet Office—all strikingly different. Then it offers a new one.

Just one more definition, please

The ACSI suggestion is really less of a definition than a set of characteristics that helps us tell whether an investment really counts as “social” or not. A social investment, in their eyes:

• pursues and accountable social or environmental purpose;


• is autonomous of the state;


• has the mission of the investee as the principle beneficiary of any investment;


• is transparent about measuring and reporting the social value it seeks to create;


• is structured to create financial value or organizational capacity over time, for example, by helping the investee invest in growth, acquire an asset, strengthen management, generate income and or make savings.

Like all definitions of social investing, this one is up for discussion—it seems we’ll never lose our taste for arguing about terms.

At the same time, a couple of things stand out about this particular definition. One is the statement that a social investment should be “autonomous of the state," which is to say, not politically motivated or subject to state control.

That’s an interesting stipulation to come out of the U.K., whose early leadership in social investing was based on the involvement of a series of governments who saw it, at least in part, as a way of shrinking the state benefits burden. It may also shine a light on why the U.K. seems now to have lost its position as a leader in social investing. Perhaps state control and authentic social investing are incompatible?

The second remarkable point about ACSI’s definition is the focus on “the mission of the investee as the principle beneficiary of the investment.”

This emphasis has the effect of directing attention away from the motives of investors and the mechanisms of investment, subjects that so often, in this sector, preoccupy us. It focuses instead on the impacts and outcomes of the investment, on the mission ends, rather than the means. This has a clarifying effect, reminding us of the real reason we are doing any of this investing at all, and keeping the focus of the argument practical and close to home.

Lessons — and satire

At a time when the idea of social investing is gaining mainstream traction — with more national governments as well as mainstream finance organizations getting involved — this report holds lessons about the realities of making social investing work in practice.

One of them is that hype has the power to hijack even good ideas and prevent them from delivering results on the ground. Another is that there’s a danger of loss of focus in our sector, with the emphasis shifting away from social benefit and the organizations that can, with support, deliver it. A third is that more attention needs to be paid to the fact that, despite claims, most social investing is still subsidized in one way or the other — and that is fine, so long as it creates real benefit for real people.

But the biggest lesson of the ACSI report is probably that the presence of a dissenting voice in our sector is a very good thing. With its focus on the practical, and its satirical bent (“Social investing is dead!” reads one subhead, and another, “Long live social investing!”) it makes refreshing reading and should encourage others to pitch in and provide alternative points of view.

Now go and water your plants!

Image credit: Stock photos

Marta Maretich writes about impact, sustainable and social investing for Maximpact.com, a deal listing portal and information hub for the new finance sector. She is Chief Editor of the Maximpact blog.

By Russ Klettke

The vast majority of American cities do not provide for municipal food waste composting. San Francisco began such a program more than 15 years ago, and a select few other cities (New York; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Hoboken, New Jersey; and Austin, Texas, among others) have in place or are testing ways to divert the approximately 25 percent of waste that is organic and compostable.

For several reasons, this list may not grow very large or very quickly in the near future. But that doesn’t mean more composting can’t or won’t happen by other means.

Composting offers several direct and indirect benefits. Simply keeping food and yard waste out of landfills reduces garbage-generated emissions of methane -- a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The end result of composting is rich, bioactive humus that can be used in gardening, agriculture (including urban farms), silviculture and landscaping to create a permaculture that reduces or eliminates the use of chemical fertilizers.

Many more cities and counties provide a means to dispose of yard waste, tree leaves in particular, largely due to prohibitions on burning instituted a generation ago. And Americans have learned to recycle glass, metal and plastics. This notably suggests that homeowners and commercial enterprises can adopt habits and operations to serve the public good.

Food waste has special quirks

Kitchen waste, however, is in a different category. It needs to be sorted out from other things (recyclables and non-recyclable trash) in a kitchen. Food waste is also notorious for attracting critters, particularly when meat products ­– meat scraps, bones, juices – are part of the mix. Backyard composting should include only plant material and eggshells.

Commercial-scale composting can include animal products and biodegradable food packaging such as oil-stained cardboard pizza boxes. Trucks hauling compostables add to costs and greenhouse gases, but revenues from rich soil and biogas can offset those factors.

So, why isn’t composting mandatory in cities and towns? At least four barriers need to be overcome:

1. Disruption. Large-scale composting incurs significant operational changes. While city trash haulers typically have systems in place to receive yard waste with different trucks on different days retrieving bags of leaves, trimmings, Christmas trees and the like – often taking it to a mulching facility that chips it for consumer and commercial use – instituting a separate food-waste pickup and processing facility requires a large investment. Cities that do this right are notably progressive, populated with taxpayers and leaders willing to spend the money upfront and realize the benefits over the long term.

2. Money. Mother Jones magazine and other media have reported that private waste haulers, a growing trend, have lobbied against the complications of organic waste diversion because it challenges their business model (more waste volume = more revenue). Those companies counter that, where economically viable, landfill methane capture is happening. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that as of March 2015, 645 methane-capture programs in 595 landfills in 48 states were converting methane to fuel, which has grown from less than 150 landfills in 1995. Still, that’s only about a quarter of all U.S. landfills.

3. Distance. Add to this how compost operations are typically established far away from population centers where land is cheaper. For example the Hoboken program, launching in 2015, will carry the food waste all the way to West Virginia for processing. This adds to cost and, ironically, burns more fossil fuels.

4. Science. And while it may seem as if mixing food waste with chipped up trees and leaves would be ideal, blogger Steve Savage urges caution. Trained as a plant pathologist and involved in agricultural technologies for more than three decades – and a gardener – Savage has run calculations on the carbon footprint of large-scale composting. The problem is that the anaerobic conditions of composting (the “hot” phase of the process) still create methane that escapes open-air piles.

But Savage and others suggest instead that mechanical anaerobic digesters could efficiently convert waste to nutrients while capturing methane for use as fuel. Alternatively, commercially-available digester technologies that are sometimes used in restaurants and hotels break down meat, bones, dairy products and baked goods as well as plant refuse.

Taking food waste matters into their own hands

According to Nation’s Restaurant News, a trade publication, recognition of food waste problems has risen among restaurateurs – and they are taking action. Solutions include engaging staff in finding efficiencies, composting on site, contracting with haulers that have composting capabilities and installing their own aerobic digesters.

That doesn’t change much for at-home cooks, 68 percent of whom say they would participate in a community-based composting program if it were available (per a Harris Interactive poll conducted in 2014 for the National Waste & Recycling Association).

So, municipal-scale composting might not become commonplace soon – until, perhaps, commercial operators find ways to make it profitable. But with advances in technology, knowledge and culture – and political pressure – all things are possible.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/Jason Tester 2) Flickr/Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Russ Klettke is a business, health and sustainability writer based in Chicago. He is also an organic gardener, a compost-obsessive and competitive triathlete.

By Tom Reddon

The incorporation of sustainable practices into warehouse and distribution center design has proven  to be a winning strategy for business. Warehouse designs incorporating sustainability alleviate harmful effects on our environment while encouraging worker security and comfort level.

Sustainable warehouses earn respect from customers and community members. Moreover, they lower a company's operating costs and ultimately improve a company's profit margins.

1. Ensure reliable access to energy

The energy sources that a company uses directly impacts the surrounding community's quality of life. According to McGraw Hill Construction's report for 2010, approximately 20 percent of the world's population is living without direct access to electricity. People forced to contend with this circumstance have limited access to conventional education. Consequently, citizens of these communities have few options for economic and social development.

Moreover, some communities that have access to electricity may lack the infrastructure needed to create a more stable energy grid. Energy interruptions at a company's warehouse or distribution center often negatively impact commercial operations and could possibly endanger lives.

Sustainable warehouses provide more reliable electricity access since power is produced on the actual worksite -- meaning products kept in these warehouses can be held in ideal conditions. Goods held in sustainable warehouses are also more secure since security systems are less likely to experience interruptions in electricity access.

2. Protect your building from energy price volatility and supply shortages

Energy prices rise and fall according to consumer demand. Today, much of the world is in the process of developing its infrastructure. Additionally, war and unstable trading conditions can cause huge price increases and limit access to energy sources.  For instance, unstable conditions in the Middle East directly affect the world's energy markets.

Rising energy prices can slow growth in developing countries. In some cases, price increases can halt a country's growth completely.

By generating power from alternative energy sources, sustainable warehouses shield companies against the adverse effects of war and political uncertainty. They provide a dependable energy supply in locations that previously lacked the resources needed to stabilize its energy supply through traditional means.

3. Protect your company from evolving energy efficiency incentives

Government mandates that regulate commercial buildings are becoming increasingly strict where pollution is concerned. Current trends clearly indicate that operating sustainable buildings will be the standard for commercial enterprise in the near future. One such example of government-regulated changes into green operations is the Energy and Performance of Buildings Directive issued in 2010 by the European Parliament and the Building Council of the European Union.  Some of the requirements mentioned in this directive are:

• By 2020 all new buildings must be able to achieve "nearly zero energy" results and must gain most of its energy supply from renewable resources.


• By the end of 2018 each new building owned or occupied by the public must be nearly zero-energy buildings.


• By 2020, all buildings must get at least 20 percent of their energy supply from renewable sources.

4. Improve your company’s return on investment

There are several economic reasons why a company should consider moving toward sustainable warehousing and distribution centers. Sustainable design provides efficiency improvements and reduces operation cost over the lifetime of a building. CDP's annual report issued in 2011 stated the following:

• Operating costs decrease by approximately 13.6 percent for new buildings and roughly 8.5 percent for existing buildings.


• Occupancy of rates increase by 6.4 percent in sustainable buildings and increase by 2.5 percent in existing constructions.

5. Sustainable constructions inspire better overall company performance

Reports from Global 500 companies show a positive correlation between negative returns on equity and abandoning corporate social responsibility standards. Consequently, one can easily understand how owning sustainable warehouses and distribution centers can improve a company's bottom line.

Image credit: patpitchaya, Fotolia

Tom Reddon is a forklift specialist and blog manager for the National Forklift Exchange. Tom also sits on the Material Handling Equipment Distributors Association (MHEDA) Executive Dialogue team. Follow him on Twitter at @TomReddon.

Ethically-minded early adopters are helping to drive the boom in the UK's ethical market which increased by 9% in 2013 according to the annual Ethical Consumer Markets Report.

Sales of electric, hybrid and other tax-band A-rated cars grew by 78% and are now worth almost £5bn and represent the strongest growth in the sector.

Overall spending on ethical goods and services grew by 9% in 2013 and is now worth over £32bn.

Rob Harrison, co-editor of Ethical Consumer magazine which compiled the report said: “Early adopters, the people who try out new products first, are continuing to lead the way to a more sustainable future. The continued strong performance of the UK's ethical market is also particularly good when compared to economic growth of 1.9% over the same period.”

Ethical food and drink also saw strong growth of 8% and is now worth almost £9 billion.

In addition to surveying what ethical goods shoppers are buying the survey also includes a YouGov poll to find out whether shoppers are boycotting any company or product.

The poll reveals that almost 20% of shoppers are boycotting specific products or retail outlets as a result of their ethical concerns with almost three million shoppers now actively boycotting companies over their tax avoidance policies.

The Ethical Consumer Markets Report has been acting as an important barometer of green spending since 1999 by tracking sales data across a wide range of consumer sectors from food to fashion.

This year the project is a new collaboration between Ethical Consumer and the Consumer Data Research Centre, a project run by the Universities of Leeds, Liverpool and Oxford and University College London.

 

Picture credit: © Changered | Dreamstime.com - 3d Green Living Room With Sofa Photo
 

ShareAction staff and a group of individual shareholders assembled outside BP’s Annual General Meeting this week in London, displaying a banner highlighting the risks of climate change to BP and calling on the company to “give climate change a seat at the table”.

The banner was designed to draw attention to the shareholder resolution on climate change to be discussed at the meeting. ShareAction brought together a coalition of individual shareholders to complement an effort by institutional investors, filing shareholder resolutions at BP and Shell this year, calling on the companies to disclose more information on the growing business risks associated with climate change.

ShareAction chief executive Catherine Howarth said: “BP's AGM is an important day for shareholder democracy. Dozens of small shareholders played a crucial role in filing this shareholder resolution, and thousands of pension savers have petitioned their schemes to vote in support. Climate change is everybody's business, and today proves it.”
 

A Critically Endangered and evolutionarily distinct species of frog has been bred in a UK zoo for the first time ever.

The Zoological Society of London’s (ZSL) team of amphibian keepers at ZSL London Zoo are the first in the world to have successfully bred Lake Oku clawed frogs (Xenopus longipes), marking a momentous step in ensuring the future survival of the species.

Classed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List, Lake Oku frogs are ranked as number 35 on ZSL’s EDGE List (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered) due to their perilous conservation status and unique evolutionary history.

Native only to Lake Oku, a single high altitude freshwater lake in Western Cameroon, Africa, the small, totally aquatic frogs are some of the most genetically unusual creatures in the world, having developed extra chromosomes throughout their evolution.

Ben Tapley, head of the reptile and amphibian team at ZSL London Zoo said: “These Critically Endangered amphibians represent a unique branch of the evolutionary tree of life. Due to their restriction in the wild to just a single and relatively small site, they’re incredibly vulnerable to threats of invasive species or disease, which would be catastrophic if introduced to Lake Oku.

“We will now be able to share our insights gleaned from naturally breeding these frogs with conservation biologists working with the species in Cameroon and zoos around the world to help ensure a sustainable population can be maintained."


Picture credit: Ben Tapley, ZSL
 

A new study from IMD Business School and PR firm Burson-Marsteller has identified the key drivers of authentic corporate purpose and reveals a questionnaire that companies can use to assess themselves if they want to discover, define and deliver their corporate purpose.

Drivers are divided into those that relate to identity and those that relate to image range, from how transparent and open to self-regulation a company is, to its long-term orientation and consistency. It also takes into consideration differentiating factors such as passion and originality.

Based on a quantitative survey and interviews with business leaders, “Keeping it real” - How authentic is your corporate purpose? shows widespread understanding by business leaders that having a well-communicated corporate purpose is not enough to benefit reputation.

“An authentic corporate purpose guides business decisions and is central to developing strategy. It also plays a key role in guiding and motivating employees. Communicating it internally and externally is critical. But the purpose comes first – it is not a communications tool,” said Jeremy Galbraith, CEO of Burson-Marsteller Europe, Middle East & Africa and Worldwide head of strategy.

“It is not surprising that leadership emerged as a strong and consistent driver of authentic corporate purpose. Leaders need to be relentlessly committed to embedding the purpose throughout the organisation. Our study on authenticity seeks to provide executives with a roadmap for discovering, defining and delivering authentic corporate purpose for their organisations.”

Aileen Ionescu-Somers, Director of IMD’s CSL Learning Platform points out: “What we have now - as a result of this research - is a veritable diagnostic toolset that can be used by companies to drive authenticity throughout their organizations.”

The study builds on an on-going collaboration on leadership and strategic issues related to corporate purpose since 2008 between IMD’s CSL Learning Platform at the Global Center for Sustainability Leadership (CSL) and Burson-Marsteller.

 

Picture credit: © Marinini | Dreamstime.com - Strategy And Business Concept Words In Silver Grey Gearwheels Photo
 

A new report on 19 European countries and 3 EU institutions shows undue influence on politics across the region and in Brussels.

Transparency International (TI), the anti-corruption group, found that of 19 European countries assessed, only seven have some form of dedicated lobbying law or regulation, allowing for nearly unfettered influence of business interests on the daily lives of Europeans.

The 19 countries together score just 31% (out of 100%) when measured against international lobbying standards and best practice in the report “Lobbying in Europe: Hidden Influence, Privileged Access”.

“In the past five years, Europe’s leaders have made difficult economic decisions that have had big consequences for citizens. Those citizens need to know that decision-makers were acting in the public interest, not the interest of a few select players,” said Elena Panfilova, Vice-Chair of Transparency International.

Slovenia comes out at the top with a score of 55%, owing to the dedicated lobbying regulation in place, which nevertheless suffers from gaps and loopholes. Cyprus and Hungary rank at the bottom with 14%, performing poorly in almost every area assessed, especially when it comes to access to information.

Eurozone crisis countries Italy, Portugal and Spain are among the five worst-performing countries, where lobbying practices and close relations between the public and financial sectors are deemed risky. The report shows that post-crisis financial sector reform efforts at the national and EU levels have been thwarted and watered down, in large part due to intense lobbying by the financial sector in Europe.

You can access the report and online infographics here. 

 

Picture credit: © Tupungato | Dreamstime.com - Corruption Photo