Positive Impact Blog

Thought provoking insights for change makers


by Leave a comment

What is a business school for in 2027?

Prof. em. Thomas Dyllick/Prof. Katrin Muff

As the 2026/2027 academic year is beginning, it is worth asking a surprisingly basic question: What is a business school actually for? 

For a long time, the answer seemed obvious. Business schools provided access to management knowledge, developed professional skills, connected students to employers and offered a credential that opened doors. None of these functions has disappeared. But each of them is changing.

A student can now ask an AI system to explain a financial model, compare strategy frameworks, summarize a case, challenge a business plan or draft a market analysis within seconds. Employers are reconsidering how they organize entry-level work. Geopolitical tensions increasingly enter decisions that were once treated mainly as questions of cost and efficiency. Sustainability, thereby has moved from a specialist topic into strategy, finance, operations and regulation.

At the same time, expectations of business schools themselves are becoming broader. They are expected to prepare employable graduates, produce relevant research, work with companies, contribute to society, respond to technological change and demonstrate their own positive impact. This makes the question of purpose more important, not less.

When knowledge is no longer scarce

Business schools were built in a world in which access to good management knowledge was relatively scarce. Faculty selected, interpreted and transmitted it. Libraries contained information students could not easily obtain elsewhere. Cases brought distant companies into the classroom. A degree provided structured access to concepts, experts and professional networks. That scarcity is disappearing.

Artificial intelligence does not make knowledge irrelevant. It changes what is valuable about knowing. Business schools themselves have recognized the speed of this transition. In 2026, collaborations across the business education sector have increasingly examined how AI is affecting curriculum design, assessment, research, faculty development and institutional strategy. The obvious response is to teach students how to use AI. This is necessary, but not sufficient.

If AI can produce a reasonable first answer to many technical questions, knowing the answer is no longer the end of the learning process. Students need to know whether the answer makes sense. What assumptions sit underneath it? Which evidence should be trusted? What has been left out? Which trade-offs are hidden? And, ultimately, what should be done? The scarce resource is shifting from information to judgment.

Learning to make decisions when there is no clean answer

Management has never been only about applying frameworks correctly. Consider a company deciding where to locate a new production facility. Costs matter, but so do geopolitical exposure, emissions, access to critical resources, labor conditions, resilience, local communities and future regulation. An AI system can provide data and scenarios. It can help analyze alternatives. But it cannot take responsibility for the decision. 

This distinction should become central to management education. Future leaders will need to work with increasingly powerful analytical systems while remaining capable of questioning their outputs, understanding conflicting interests and making decisions under uncertainty. 

This changes what a good classroom looks like. There is still a place for lectures and conceptual knowledge. Students cannot challenge assumptions they do not understand. But knowledge needs to be put under pressure. Cases, simulations, field projects, debates, company challenges and work with communities create situations where information is incomplete and different stakeholders want different things. That is much closer to management itself.

Providing part of the learning that work used to offer

There is another change underway. Early career jobs have traditionally been an important part of management education, even if they happened after graduation. Junior employees learned by preparing analyses, observing more experienced colleagues, attending meetings, making smaller decisions and gradually taking on greater responsibility. 

AI is beginning to change some of these pathways. Employers are increasingly reconsidering how junior roles are structured and what capabilities graduates are expected to bring from the beginning. Analysis, adaptability, communication, judgment and problem-solving are all becoming more important earlier in a career.

The consequences are still uncertain. But if some traditional junior tasks become automated, business schools may have to provide more opportunities for students to practice responsibility before they enter the workplace. This gives experiential learning a different significance. A consulting project with a company, a negotiation with a real stakeholder, the management of an investment fund or a community project is no longer simply an engaging alternative to classroom learning. It can become part of the apprenticeship through which students learn how to work with real consequences. The classroom becomes a safe place to make difficult decisions before those decisions become expensive.

The institution matters more when the content matters less

If knowledge becomes easier to access digitally, one might assume that the institution becomes less important. In some respects, the opposite may happen. What may seem like a paradox: the institution matters more when the content matters less.

A business school is not simply a collection of courses. At its best, it is an unusual meeting place. Students meet people with different nationalities, professions and assumptions. Researchers interact with companies and policymakers. Executives return to the classroom. Entrepreneurs test ideas. NGOs and public institutions bring problems that do not fit neatly into a textbook. Alumni connect generations of students and practitioners.

This network cannot be reduced to downloadable content. It also gives business schools a potential role that extends beyond educating individual students: they can become places where different parts of society meet and work on problems together.

This matters in an increasingly fragmented business environment. Trade, technology, energy, climate policy and security are becoming more interconnected. Decisions that appear commercially rational from one perspective may create vulnerabilities or negative consequences from another.

Business schools cannot solve geopolitical fragmentation, climate change or inequality. And they should not pretend that they can. But they can create spaces where these issues are examined across disciplines and stakeholder groups, rather than being reduced to isolated business variables.

From preparing people for business to preparing business for society

This brings us to a more fundamental shift. Historically, much of management education has asked how students can become successful within existing organizations and markets. A business school in the 2026/2027 academic year also needs to ask a second question: How can organizations themselves contribute to a functioning society?

This is not a rejection of business performance. Companies need to be economically viable. It is an acknowledgement that businesses operate within social and ecological systems and increasingly influence them.

Across business education, societal impact has become much more central to accreditation, curriculum, research and institutional strategy. The difficult part is what comes next.

It is relatively easy to add a sustainability course, an AI elective or a social impact project. The harder task is preparing students to recognize societal consequences when they appear inside ordinary management decisions: investment, pricing, sourcing, product development, technology deployment, hiring or restructuring. Responsible leadership should therefore not become another specialization. It should influence how management itself is understood.

Students are asking for a different kind of school

Interestingly, students themselves appear to be pointing in this direction. In the 2026 Positive Impact Rating, the strongest global request from students was for more real-world, hands-on learning. They also asked for stronger partnerships with companies, NGOs, communities and public-sector organizations, deeper integration of social impact and purpose, and stronger student support. At the same time, they criticized passive, theory-heavy teaching and sustainability that remains cosmetic or disconnected from institutional practice.

These requests are revealing. Students are not simply asking business schools to provide more information about sustainability or business. Much of that information is already available. They are asking for opportunities to experience what responsible management looks like in practice.

This includes working with people outside the school, dealing with constraints, seeing conflicting interests, testing solutions and understanding that decisions have consequences beyond the organization making them. Perhaps this is where the future purpose of the business school becomes clearest.

Business schools as interactive platforms for addressing societal change

In the 2026/2027 academic year, a business school should still teach finance, strategy, marketing, operations, economics and organization. Technical competence remains essential. But transmitting management knowledge can no longer be its defining contribution. Its deeper role is to create the conditions under which knowledge becomes judgment, judgment becomes responsible action, and individual learning connects with organizational and societal change.

This means helping students understand technology without surrendering judgment to it. It means providing real situations in which they can practice decision making. It means connecting them with organizations and communities rather than keeping management inside the classroom. And it means treating the school itself as part of society rather than as an institution observing society from the outside.

The strongest business schools of the coming years may therefore not be those that teach the largest amount of new content. They may be those that become particularly good at bringing together knowledge, experience, different perspectives and real problems.

In a world in which answers are increasingly easy to generate, learning how to ask the right questions, decide what matters and act responsibly may become the most valuable education a business school can offer.

This article was created with the support of ChatGPT.


by

From Insight to Action: Implementing Student Expectations in Business Schools

Prof. em. Dr. Thomas Dyllick, The IBS/PIR, Lucerne

Over the past six years, the Positive Impact Rating (PIR) has generated a substantial body of insight about how students perceive the societal contribution of their business schools. The findings consistently highlight strengths, identify persistent gaps, and provide schools with an increasingly robust evidence base for improvement. This accumulated experience suggests that the central challenge has now shifted. The question is no longer whether business schools have sufficient evidence to understand student expectations, but how they can translate it into meaningful institutional change. The next stage is therefore one of implementation.

The experiences presented in the 2026 PIR Report demonstrate that closing the implementation gap requires more than isolated initiatives or additional sustainability activities. Instead, it requires institutions to develop mechanisms that systematically connect stakeholder feedback with governance, decision-making, resource allocation, organizational learning, and cultural development. Positive impact becomes sustainable when student feedback is no longer treated as an external evaluation but as an integral part of how the institution operates.

Embed Student Feedback in Governance

A first lesson concerns governance. Student feedback creates value only when it becomes part of the school’s regular decision-making processes. Collecting survey results is relatively straightforward; ensuring that these results influence institutional priorities is considerably more challenging. Effective implementation therefore depends on establishing governance routines that provide a clear pathway from insight to action. These routines include interpreting findings, identifying priorities, assigning responsibilities, allocating resources, communicating decisions, and reviewing progress over time. Rather than becoming another reporting exercise, student feedback becomes part of a continuous institutional learning cycle.

Transparency is an essential element of this process. Students need to understand not only that their perspectives have been collected but also how those perspectives have influenced subsequent decisions. This requires institutions to communicate openly what they have learned, which actions have been taken, which issues remain unresolved, and why certain priorities have been selected over others. Such transparency strengthens institutional credibility, reinforces trust in the feedback process, and transforms student engagement from consultation into dialogue.

Move from Student Voice to Student Agency

A second lesson concerns the role of students in institutional change. Traditional feedback systems often position students primarily as respondents whose involvement ends after completing a survey. The evidence presented here suggests a more ambitious understanding of stakeholder participation. Students create the greatest value when they contribute not only to identifying challenges but also to interpreting findings, designing responses, and supporting implementation. This represents a shift from student voice to student agency.

Meaningful participation requires formal structures rather than occasional consultation. Advisory bodies, representative mechanisms, collaborative design processes, and regular dialogue between students and institutional leadership ensure that stakeholder perspectives become part of governance. Such structures also provide continuity despite the inevitable turnover of student cohorts. Importantly, this does not imply transferring decision-making authority to students. Leadership accountability and faculty expertise remain essential. Rather, shared responsibility improves both the quality of institutional decisions and the legitimacy of the resulting changes. Student participation thus becomes an ongoing organizational capability rather than an isolated event.

Build Operating Systems Instead of Isolated Initiatives

The report also points to a broader organizational challenge: moving beyond individual initiatives toward institutional operating systems. Many business schools have developed sustainability courses, centers, projects, competitions, partnerships, or student-led activities. These initiatives often generate innovation and visibility, but they frequently remain disconnected from the institution’s core management processes. As a result, their long-term success often depends on committed individuals and may diminish when leadership or institutional priorities change.

Sustained implementation requires embedding positive impact into the everyday operating logic of the institution. Strategic objectives need to be translated into departmental responsibilities, measurable objectives, planning processes, review mechanisms, and resource allocation. Impact should become part of budgeting, strategic planning, performance discussions, and institutional reporting rather than remaining an additional program alongside existing structures. Such operating systems create continuity by making positive impact an expected component of routine institutional management rather than an exceptional initiative.

The same principle applies to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Across business schools, the SDGs have become a widely recognized reference framework. Yet their contribution varies considerably depending on how they are used. Referencing the SDGs in mission statements or labeling existing activities provides valuable direction but rarely changes institutional behavior. Their transformative potential emerges when they influence strategic priorities, governance structures, partnerships, performance indicators, and resource allocation. The question, therefore, is not whether institutions acknowledge the SDGs, but whether the SDGs influence institutional choices.

Measure Outcomes, Not Just Activities

Another important lesson concerns impact measurement. Business schools have made considerable progress in documenting their activities. They increasingly report courses, partnerships, events, student participation, research projects, outreach initiatives, and sustainability programs. These indicators provide valuable evidence of institutional engagement and commitment. However, they primarily measure inputs and activities rather than outcomes.

The next stage of institutional development requires moving beyond measuring what schools do toward understanding what changes because of these activities. This distinction is fundamental. Educational programs, partnerships, and projects create the conditions for positive impact, but they do not automatically demonstrate impact itself. A more mature measurement approach therefore examines changes in student competencies, behaviors, organizational practices, stakeholder relationships, institutional decisions, and contributions to addressing societal challenges. Such outcome-oriented assessment remains methodologically demanding, but distinguishing activities from outcomes represents an essential conceptual advance for business schools seeking to strengthen their societal contribution.

Make Culture a Transformation Capability

Finally, the report highlights the importance of organizational culture. Governance systems, operating procedures, and measurement frameworks are necessary, but they alone cannot sustain institutional transformation. Positive impact ultimately depends on shared beliefs, routines, relationships, and everyday behaviors. Culture determines whether institutional ambitions become embedded in daily practice or remain aspirational statements.

A deliberate approach to culture focuses less on institutional narratives and more on institutional practices. It asks how new students become familiar with the school’s impact ambitions, how leaders demonstrate these ambitions through their own behavior, how collaboration and dialogue are encouraged, how difficult trade-offs are addressed, and how institutional memory is preserved despite changes in leadership and student cohorts. Culture becomes a strategic capability when it consistently reinforces learning, responsibility, openness, and continuous improvement.

Toward Systemic Institutional Change

Taken together, these lessons suggest that implementation is fundamentally an organizational challenge rather than a technical one. The evidence generated through PIR already provides schools with valuable guidance on stakeholder expectations. The remaining task is to create institutional mechanisms that enable this evidence to shape everyday decisions. Governance routines translate feedback into priorities. Student participation strengthens institutional learning. Operating systems integrate impact into management processes. Outcome-oriented measurement strengthens accountability. Organizational culture sustains change over time.

Importantly, the evidence does not point to a single model that every business school should adopt. Institutional contexts, missions, resources, and stakeholder environments differ substantially. The objective is therefore not uniformity but institutional coherence. Each school must develop mechanisms that fit its own context while ensuring that student feedback consistently informs how the institution learns, makes decisions, allocates resources, and evaluates progress.

The broader implication is clear. Closing the implementation gap does not require fundamentally new concepts or additional frameworks. It requires embedding existing evidence within the institution’s everyday routines of governance, management, participation, measurement, and culture. Positive impact becomes durable when it is no longer added to the institution as a separate agenda but is woven into the way the institution itself functions. In this sense, student feedback is more than a source of evaluation. It becomes a mechanism for continuous organizational learning and a catalyst for the ongoing transformation of business schools toward greater societal impact.

Read the full Positive Impact Rating 2026 Report and explore further insights here: https://www.positiveimpactrating.org/the-rating/2026-report

This article was created with the support of ChatGPT

experiental


by

Experiential learning for sustainability

Prof. Dr. Thomas Dyllick

Sustainability challenges are complex, cross functional, and deeply tied to relevant decisions for organizations and communities. For business schools, this creates a clear gap: students can learn frameworks in class, but they also need structured opportunities to apply them under real constraints, with stakeholders, trade offs, data limitations, and accountability.

This is where experiential learning becomes a powerful lever for sustainability education. It turns sustainability from a topic into a practice, helping learners develop the skills, mindsets, and confidence to act.

1. Why experiential learning matters for sustainability

Experiential learning is commonly described as learning through experience and reflection, where students build knowledge by moving through cycles of action, sense making, and testing new approaches. The most widely used model by David Kolb describes four stages: concrete experience (doing), reflective observation (reflecting), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and active experimentation (acting).

For sustainability, this approach fits the nature of the challenge. Learners need to develop not only knowledge, but also competencies such as systems thinking, collaboration, and the ability to navigate ambiguity.

2. What counts as experiential learning in business education

In practice, experiential learning for sustainability can take many forms, as long as it includes three core ingredients:

• A real problem, with real constraints
• A structured learning process, including reflection and feedback
• A tangible output, such as a recommendation, prototype, report, or implemented change

This can include field projects with companies or public institutions, service learning with community partners, simulations, challenge based courses, living labs on campus, and student led initiatives.

Evidence from higher education research also suggests that experiential service learning can improve sustainability awareness and community engagement, compared with lecture only approaches.

3. Design principles that make it work

Not all “hands on” projects deliver the same learning value. The strongest sustainability oriented experiential learning designs tend to share a few principles:

• Reflection is not optional: students need guided reflection to convert experience into learning, and to connect action back to theory.
• The challenge is authentic: messy problems and incomplete data are part of the learning, not a flaw.
• Stakeholders are involved: external partners, communities, alumni, and practitioners increase realism and accountability.
• Outcomes are assessed: students are evaluated on both quality of thinking and quality of delivery.

4. What it looks like in practice

Across business schools, sustainability oriented experiential learning often clusters into a few repeatable formats.

Service learning and community immersion

A strong example is a compulsory service learning course that combines reflection and action. Goa Institute of Management in India describes GIVE GOA, built around a reflection module and a community based action component aligned with the SDGs.

Applied projects with SDG aligned outcomes

Some schools institutionalize applied projects as core curriculum. For example, GIBS Business School in South Africa describes an Applied Business Project where student groups choose an SDG and develop evidence-based, implementable solutions, including field visits and work with local organizations.

Partnered capstone work with external evaluation

EADA Business School in Barcelona highlights the expectation that final projects include a real life component, supported by practitioners, and strengthened through a partnership with Ashoka Spain so participants can develop work with an Ashoka fellow and be evaluated by multiple stakeholders.

Challenge based learning together with an industry partner

Monash University in Australia shows how “authentic problem based education” can be paired with sustainability reporting and impact narratives for partners, including projects such as a Textile Waste Day and reporting deliverables for an industry partner.

Whole program models built around real world practice

University of Vermont’s Sustainable Innovation MBA is described as grounded in real world application, systems thinking, and sustainability leadership, including a full time summer internship with partner organizations, plus student-led initiatives like managing an impact investment fund and participating in an impact investing competition.

Sasin Business School in Thailand describes a learning module designed to bridge values and sustainable business practices, combining online learning, residential weekends, and application to a case from an alumni owned business.

5. Measuring quality, not just activity

A common trap is to count the number of projects, partners, or events, without assessing learning quality or impact. A more robust view looks at:

• Learning outcomes: what sustainability competencies students develop
• Depth of engagement: duration, responsibility, and stakeholder involvement
• Reflection quality: how well students connect experience to concepts and values
• Real outcomes: changes implemented, partner value created, and student career readiness

This matters because stakeholders increasingly expect sustainability in business education to be embedded, credible, and connected to practice, not limited to isolated electives or statements.

6. Conclusion 

Experiential learning is one of the most practical ways for business schools to prepare future leaders for sustainability. When done well, it builds competence through action, reflection, and real accountability. The strongest approaches combine authentic challenges, stakeholder engagement, and clear learning outcomes, then measure what students actually experience.

If your school is strengthening experiential learning for sustainability, the Positive Impact Rating for Business Schools  can help you understand where you stand, learn from peer practices, and turn student and faculty insights into a specific agenda for improvement.

This blog was produced in interaction with ChatGPT.


by

Mapping Responsible Leadership Competencies to LeadershipImpact in Business Sustainability

Katrin Muff & Thomas Dyllick

Read full article: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/793

Business decisions increasingly influence societal challenges like climate change, water scarcity, inequality or corruption. As a consequence leadership for sustainability requires competencies that go beyond internal performance and short-term effectiveness. It requires the ability to navigate ambiguity, build trust with diverse stakeholders, manage conflicts of interest, and understand systemic interdependencies. The question is not only how leaders behave, but how their competencies enable organizations to become more capable actors in sustainability transformation.

This article strengthens the bridge between responsible leadership and business sustainability by identifying where leadership can make a difference inside organizations—through specific “impact areas” that enable external contribution. We describe organizations that orient their strategy and value creation toward addressing societal and environmental challenges as Positive Impact Organizations (PIOs). PIOs aim to create products and services that solve relevant problems while maintaining financial viability. They are led by impact leaders: leaders who recognize that contributing to societal problem-solving can be integral to long-term business success and legitimacy.

Conceptual approach

In this article we develop a mapping between a responsible leadership competency model and a developmental sustainability model that share a compatible worldview: sustainability is not only a risk to be managed, but an opportunity to align organizational purpose and value creation with societal needs.

For leadership competencies, many established models explain effectiveness mainly in terms of individual performance, emotional intelligence, or organizational climate. By contrast, the Competency Assessment for Responsible Leadership (CARL) explicitly integrates ethical orientation, stakeholder relations, and systems thinking, and frames leadership in relation to sustainable development. CARL also distinguishes three action domains—knowing, doing, being—which enables competency development to be examined as knowledge bases, visible skills, and underlying value orientations. Here our emphasis is on the doing domain: observable leadership actions that influence organizational change.

For organizational sustainability development, reporting standards, assessment systems, and strategic concepts provide useful classification and benchmarking, but they often lack a developmental logic explaining how organizations progress toward higher levels of societal contribution. The PIO concept addresses this by describing transformation as a shift from an inside-out orientation (reducing negative impacts, managing risks) to an outside-in orientation (societal needs defining strategic priorities, innovation, and accountability).

This alignment supports the introduction of impact leadership: leadership that builds on responsible and sustainable leadership competencies but adds an explicit outcome orientation toward positive societal and environmental contributions via organizational transformation.

The impact cascade: How impact leadership functions

Leaders rarely create societal impact directly. They create it indirectly by shaping the organization that produces it. Their behavior influences governance, incentives, culture, and decision routines. These organizational conditions shape how products are developed, how supply chains operate, how partnerships are formed, and how trade-offs are handled. Only then do outcomes appear in the wider world. We call this the impact cascade.

This shifts sustainability leadership from moral aspiration to practical leverage. The key question becomes: which leadership behaviors strengthen which organizational levers so sustainability becomes part of value creation? Let’s now look at how this impact cascade is internally connected.

Competencies of impact leaders (CARL)

CARL conceptualizes responsible leadership through five competency dimensions:

  1. Ethics and values: integrity and fairness in dilemmas; values-based decision-making.
  2. Self-awareness: reflective practice; adapting communication; learning transparency.
  3. Stakeholder relations: trust-building; dialogue; consensus-oriented engagement across differences.
  4. Change and innovation: challenging the status quo; translating ideas into actionable sustainability change.
  5. Systems thinking: understanding interdependencies; navigating complexity and ambiguity; anticipating consequences.

These competencies matter because sustainability transformation increasingly involves extended value chains and multi-actor ecosystems. Leaders must collaborate beyond organizational boundaries and combine internal execution with external engagement.

Strategic leadership impact areas inside organizations

While sustainability impact is often discussed as external contribution, leadership impact operates first inside organizations. Leaders influence structures and processes that enable the organization to generate credible and scalable external outcomes. We identify five strategic impact areas in which leadership can have direct organizational influence:

  1. Governance alignment: embedding sustainability in decision rules, roles, accountability, incentives, and transparency mechanisms.
  2. Sustainability culture: establishing shared norms and routines that prioritize sustainable solutions, cross-functional collaboration, learning, and long-term orientation.
  3. External validation: integrating stakeholder perspectives into decision-making, supported by credible transparency and responsiveness.
  4. Higher purpose: translating purpose into product and service innovation aligned with societal and environmental challenges.
  5. Transformative sustainability: applying a transformational perspective across all domains—moving beyond incremental improvements toward systemic contribution.

These areas can progress developmentally: from compliance and episodic initiatives toward integrated decision-making, externally oriented priorities, and accountability for measurable outcomes.

Mapping competencies to organizational impact areas

A core contribution of this article is a mapping that connects each leadership competency to the organizational leverage point it most directly strengthens:

  • Ethics and values → Governance alignment. Values-based, fair decision-making builds trust and supports credible accountability structures, decision rights, and transparent performance assessment.
  • Self-awareness → Sustainability culture. Reflective leaders model learning, openness, and adaptive communication, enabling norms and incentives that make sustainability part of daily work.
  • Stakeholder relations → External validation. Trustful collaboration and structured dialogue integrate legitimate external perspectives into decisions, reducing symbolic engagement and strengthening legitimacy.
  • Change and innovation → Higher purpose. The capacity to challenge assumptions and implement solutions translates purpose into tangible offerings, partnerships, and business model evolution.
  • Systems thinking → Transformative sustainability. Systems awareness supports navigation of complexity, helps avoid unintended consequences, and aligns transformation efforts with system-level outcomes.

This mapping is intentionally simplified: competencies overlap, and contextual factors may moderate what leaders can achieve (e.g., organizational culture, sector pressures, geography, life circumstances, and geopolitical conditions). The framework is therefore best seen as a heat map of primary leverage points, not a full causal explanation.

Implications for leadership development and research

By mapping CARL leadership competencies to strategic organizational impact areas drawn from the PIO concept, this framework clarifies how leadership development can connect to concrete mechanisms of sustainability transformation—governance, culture, stakeholder integration, purpose-driven innovation, and transformative systems change.

For educators and leadership development specialists, the mapping enables two complementary approaches:

  • Strength-based focus: leaders can concentrate on the organizational impact area that matches their strongest competency.
  • Developmental scaffolding: leaders can actively develop weaker competencies through targeted learning and support.

Practical development might include ethical deliberation and policy implementation; 360-degree feedback and reflective routines; stakeholder mapping and co-creation workshops; pilot projects and innovation processes; and scenario planning and systems training.


by

ESG backlash and the changing sustainability agenda

Over the past decade, ESG (environmental, social, and governance) performance became synonymous with responsible, forward-looking business. Companies invested heavily in dedicated teams, reporting systems, and KPIs; investors integrated ESG data into financial analysis; consumers scrutinized supply chains; and policymakers created regulatory frameworks that placed sustainability at the center of economic strategy.

But as ESG moved into the mainstream, a counter-movement emerged. Today’s backlash – fueled by political polarization, misunderstanding, and regulatory fatigue – is reshaping how organizations communicate, prioritize, and operationalize sustainability. Some now argue ESG distracts from “real business,” while others insist it remains essential but requires reform. The result is strategic uncertainty.

Yet this moment is not about the end of ESG. Rather, it signals a shift toward a more mature phase of sustainability, where credibility, transparency, and measurable outcomes matter more than labels. Understanding the roots of resistance and adjusting corporate strategy is now critical for leaders.

1. The rise of ESG and the roots of resistance

ESG’s rapid ascent builds on decades of environmental and social progress. The environmental movement of the 1960s–80s raised public awareness of pollution and resource depletion; the Brundtland Report (1987) gave sustainable development a global policy foundation; and frameworks like the Millennium Development Goals and the 2015 Paris Agreement embedded sustainability in global economic planning. Between 2015 and 2020, ESG commitments surged, sustainable finance accelerated, and companies with strong ESG credentials enjoyed valuation premiums.

But this momentum also set the stage for backlash. In the United States, ESG became entangled in ideological battles. Critics framed it as political overreach, unnecessary DEI activism, or a threat to competitiveness. Several states introduced legislation restricting ESG-oriented investment, fueling the narrative that ESG is “anti-business.”

Europe’s backlash is more technocratic and political than ideological. Companies cite compliance overload, reporting complexity, cost pressure on SMEs, and concerns about competitiveness. Regulatory adjustments, such as phased CSRD (Corporate sustainability reporting directive) implementation and delayed deforestation rules, reflect these tensions.

2. Why ESG became a target

Several structural issues made ESG susceptible to criticism:

Overstretch and overpromising
ESG became a catch-all concept expected to serve as climate strategy, social policy, risk indicator, and investor communications tool. Its expanding scope blurred its meaning and fueled skepticism.

Overlapping standards
Companies navigated an ecosystem of overlapping standards—GRI, SASB, TCFD, ISSB, CSRD—creating duplication, inconsistency, and reporting fatigue. This burden fell hardest on smaller companies without large sustainability teams.

Greenwashing and greenhushing
High-profile accusations of greenwashing undermined trust. Fear of scrutiny pushed many companies into greenhushing: quietly continuing sustainability work while reducing public communication.

Politicization
In the US, sustainability, diversity, and governance became cultural identifiers. What began as risk management turned into an ideological battleground.

3. Diverging global pathways

While the backlash is most visible in the US, global ESG pathways are diverging:

United States: ESG under pressure
Political polarization shapes public debate. Some states restrict ESG integration in public investments, and fund managers rebrand ESG products. Yet private companies continue sustainability work behind the scenes, driven by risk management, customer expectations, and regulatory exposure.

Europe: Reduce and reform
Rather than rejecting ESG, Europe is reducing and reforming it. While existing legislation remains in place, new regulations are slowed and scaled down. While investments remain strong companies demand clearer guidance and less administrative burden. Europe is entering a phase of “doing less ESG and better” not abandoning it.

Asia and Emerging Markets: Acceleration
In contrast, momentum is accelerating in Asia and in emerging markets. Governments treat climate and nature risk as economic realities rather than political controversies. Supply-chain legislation from Europe forces sustainability requirements downstream, and emerging markets increasingly shape global standards through manufacturing, infrastructure, and resource industries.

4. The impact on business

The ESG backlash has concrete implications for companies:

Capital allocation is more demanding
Investors now expect verified emissions data, credible governance, and detailed transition plans. Narrative-driven sustainability is no longer enough.

Reputation is harder to manage
Companies face pressure from both anti-ESG critics and advocates demanding faster, deeper action.

Supply chain expectations are rising
Companies must demonstrate deforestation-free sourcing, human rights due diligence, Scope 3 emissions transparency, and circularity strategies—requiring new data and closer supplier engagement.

Talent and culture are affected
Younger employees value purposeful work. Reducing sustainability ambitions risks weakening morale and employer branding.

5. How leading companies are responding

Companies that remain ahead of the curve are shifting from ESG as a reporting function to ESG as a strategic capability:

  • Embedding sustainability into corporate strategy (operations, procurement, finance, R&D)
  • Prioritizing measurable impact over polished storytelling
  • Investing in high-quality data—real-time carbon management, audited LCAs, digital product passports
  • Pushing for simplification and alignment across regulatory frameworks
  • Moving away from the politically charged “ESG” label toward terms like positive impact, transition strategy or responsible business

6. What leaders can do now

Executives can navigate this new phase by:

  1. Reframing ESG in terms of risk, innovation, competitiveness, and resilience.
  2. Strengthening governance with clear roles, accountability, and board oversight.
  3. Investing in robust data systems for Scope 1-3 emissions, supplier visibility, and third-party verification.
  4. Preparing for increased scrutiny by aligning marketing and sustainability teams and ensuring all claims are evidence-based.
  5. Focusing on material issues such as climate, biodiversity, human rights, circularity, and governance.
  6. Collaborating across value chains, recognizing sustainability as a shared challenge.

Conclusion

Despite the political noise, the direction of travel is clear: climate risk is financial risk; biodiversity loss affects economic stability; resource constraints shape competitiveness; and regulation – whether streamlined or expanded – is here to stay. ESG is not disappearing, but it is evolving.

The organizations that succeed in this new landscape will be those that build credibility, demonstrate real impact, manage risks rigorously, and innovate within new constraints. ESG and sustainability may no longer dominate headlines, but they have become a core element of corporate strategy and a foundation of long-term business resilience.

This blog post was revised with the help of Chat GPT.


by

Beyond Green Promises: why listening to Business School’ stakeholders is the next step in Sustainability

Sustainability has become a defining issue for business and education. Companies and schools alike are quick to showcase commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, green operations, and responsible practices. Yet, today’s critical challenge is not about adding more promises. It is about creating systems of accountability that genuinely reflect the voices of those most affected.
Listening is no longer optional. Employees, students, customers, communities: all demand to be heard. And for business schools, which shape the leaders of tomorrow, this means embedding stakeholder feedback directly into strategy, teaching, and governance.

From awareness to accountability

For years, many institutions focused on net zero commitments or isolated sustainability projects. These were important first steps, but they are no longer enough. Stakeholders now expect:

  • Authenticity over greenwashing: measurable actions instead of symbolic initiatives.
  • Integration over isolation: sustainability woven into every decision, not just a single department.
  • Participation over hierarchy: transparent governance where students, staff, and faculty can co-create solutions.
  • Practical relevance over theory: practice-based learning that connects classrooms with real-world sustainability challenges.

In other words, progress depends not only on what schools do, but on how their communities experience it.

Why stakeholder voices matter

Stakeholder expectations are also becoming more sophisticated. Students call for systemic change in curricula, mental health support, and partnerships with ethical businesses. Communities demand engagement that goes beyond research papers and includes tangible collaboration. Faculty, too, want their institutions to model the values they teach.

When schools ignore these voices, they risk credibility gaps that undermine their mission. However, when they embrace them, they gain legitimacy, innovation, and long-term trust.

The Positive Impact Rating: turning voices into insights

This is precisely where the Positive Impact Rating (PIR) comes in. Now in its sixth year, PIR provides schools with a structured way to assess their societal impact, directly through the perceptions of their own stakeholders.

In 2025, over 17,000 students worldwide participated, offering clear calls to stop outdated practices and start embedding sustainability in meaningful ways. New in recent editions, PIR also integrates faculty perspectives, enabling a dual stakeholder comparison. This allows schools to see where perceptions align, where blind spots exist, and where dialogue can build coherence and trust.

Such insights are more than data points. They are practical tools that schools can use to adapt curricula, strengthen governance, and meet international standards such as  AACSB, EQUIS, and PRME.

A call to act

The journey toward sustainability is no longer about declarations. It is about measurable impact, visible accountability, and authentic inclusion of those who matter most.

Business schools ready to embrace this shift can now join PIR 2026. By registering, institutions will not only benchmark themselves globally but also gain actionable insights from the very people who experience their education.

Registration is open. Shape the next edition of the Positive Impact Rating and show your commitment to a future where business education drives real, positive change.

https://positiveimpactrating.org


by

Moving Business from Net Zero to Positive Impact

Business is playing a central role in causing many of the societal problems we are facing globally. As I will argue in this contribution, we will also need business to help solving the societal challenges. We need business because it has the know-how, the resources, and the reach to effectively address the challenges. I will show, what business needs to do to be successful. It will not be an easy task. There remains a lot to do for a new generation of leaders from business and from society who are prepared to approach this task collaboratively in a new and different way. You can also view this post in this TEDx talk.

Introduction

As a researcher and teacher in business sustainability, I became more and more concerned about the escalating problems our humanity is facing. We were living far beyond the planet’s means.[i] And governments were incapable to effectively deal with these problems. I was relieved and hopeful to see business get into the game and make sustainability increasingly their business. Why? Because they have the know-how, the resources, and the global reach needed to address these problems. But it has been troubling to see that there was a big disconnect between the approach to business sustainability taken and the scale of the problems we are facing. Something was badly out of sync.

As a response to these concerns, we developed a model of “True Business Sustainability” [ii] to adequately address the sustainability challenges of our times. In doing this, two fundamental problems became clear to us. Existing models of business sustainability, in theory and in practice, don’t address the problems our societies are facing, but the economic benefits for business in addressing societal issues. This so-called “business case” of sustainability is primarily good for business, but not for the world. The second problem we found, was that business sustainability is focused on minimizing the negative impacts of business activities, not on creating a positive impact in relevant areas for society and the planet. What is needed, however, is aiming to increase the societal goods, not only to decrease the bads done by business itself. In other words, reducing carbon emissions is good but capturing carbon from the air is much better and in reality, it is essential.

Watch a video about True Business Sustainability

The model of “true business sustainability” helps us to move business from net zero, where the negative impacts of business are driven towards zero, to positive impact, where business contributes to solving societal challenges. In this contribution I will put the model of true business sustainability into practice. My focus will be on five big questions and answers.

1. Societal Challenges as Opportunities

My first question: How can business make a positive contribution to society? And my answer is: by looking at societal challenges as opportunities. In support of this insight, let me cite Management Guru Peter Drucker who remarked a long time ago:[iii]

Positive contributions to societal challenges can be found in all areas of the economy. And they offer great opportunities. In the food sector, they lie in the development of healthy diets and lifestyles in highly developed countries and the creation of affordable food and access to clean water in developing countries. They lie in areas like developing a sustainable energy supply without having to accept irresponsible climate risks and in creative approaches to using construction waste to produce new construction materials.

2. Putting purpose into strategy

My second question is: Why are so many companies today committed to a wider societal purpose that goes beyond a purely economic purpose? My answer is: They do it because their stakeholders are demanding it.

Employees are expecting it from their employers. The social commitment of their employer is of great concern to the employees, often a matter close to their hearts. And on the market for talent, it needs a clear and convincing purpose to attract the highly sensitized millennials, which make up 35% of the market.[iv]  Consumers prefer companies that take a position on issues like sustainability, transparency, and human rights. And the millennials are leading again.[v] Investors have been rushing into social and sustainable investments because they want to combine social impact with economic goals. And financial institutions are happily offering products to support this trend.

A purpose is aimed at a positive societal goal, not at increasing profit. It defines the company’s reason to be and are not in contradiction to economic goals. They are rather their precondition. They secure support from society and guide the company’s development in the longer term.[vi] But a true purpose is certainly more than a lofty declaration on paper. It needs to be backed by credible action. It must reflect in the company’s products, its investments, and its incentive systems. Actions speak louder than words![vii]

A good example is outdoor clothing company Patagonia with its bold purpose “to be in business to save our home planet.” [viii] How do they act on it? Among other things they use 100% organic cotton. And while globally 15% of used clothing is recycled, 87% of their raw materials are made with recycled inputs. They also offer repair services and recycle products that are beyond repair.

3. Integrating sustainability into regular business

My third question is: What should companies do to create maximum impact? My answer is they should integrate sustainability into regular business.

Sustainability efforts of companies are mostly handled by specialized units for sustainability, social responsibility, or communication. Their function is often reduced to shielding the corporate core from disruptive influences. This is extremely limiting.

It should be easy to see that the necessary “clout” for mastering sustainability challenges can only be achieved if sustainability is integrated into regular business, so that all the strengths and competencies of the company are brought to bear on the issues. Only then we can succeed in creating an offensive dynamic that points the way forward instead of a defensive dynamic that neither gives pleasure nor corresponds to entrepreneurial thinking.

What needs to be integrated? Sustainability needs to be integrated into company processes, so that it will be taken care of automatically in the company’s decisions and actions. Product innovations need to focus on products with a net positive impact, not simply on making existing products a bit better. And it will need fully committed leaders, who can win the hearts and minds of the people, internally and externally.

4. Simultaneous orientation on several time horizons

My fourth question is: How do companies go about innovating their business? My answer is they must orient their business on several time horizons.[ix] In times of far-reaching and dynamic structural changes, companies will have to build the business of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in parallel to keeping-up today’s business as long as necessary.

Sustainability problems are dynamically evolving. Take the automotive industry which started out in a first phase with modest sustainability demands driven by the quest to make cars better. Issues were increasing fuel efficiency, reducing unhealthy exhaust, and recycling cars. In a second phase, the discussion centered around the more fundamental question “How long will oil reserves last?” Its focus was on the core of the car, its internal combustion engine. The race for alternative drive technologies and fuels has seen hybrid cars and electric cars come out as winners. And in a future third phase, driven by traffic jams, congested cities, and individualized demand,  we will see transform car companies into networked mobility providers offering rent, leasing, car sharing and ride sharing, in short: mobility-on-demand. In each phase the business models are dramatically different and need dynamically changing companies.

5. Collaborations

My fifths question is: Is it a good thing we see more and more collaborations between business and government? My last answer is that collaborations are necessary.[x]

Overcoming the societal problems of our time is beyond the reach of even large companies. Challenges such as the phasing out of plastic waste or the switch to renewable energies are simply too big and too complex. These challenges require collaborations across supply chains and sectors as well as the integration of private, public, and civil society actors.

We have seen many collaborative platforms being created in recent years. Platforms for sustainable forest management or fisheries, for palm oil, cocoa, or fashion. They demonstrate that global problems require collective solutions that bring all relevant stakeholder groups together at one table.

We will also need creative solutions to shape political change. Companies still view government relations mostly as a way to resist regulation or fight for preferential treatment. But some companies approach regulators openly and transparently to help them improve the collective rules and solve larger problems. Establishing circular economy models for products and packaging for example, need active support from companies. And it needs business also to support policies that accelerate investments in areas that improve the living conditions for everyone. Think of health care and education. This will not only make the world a better place, but it will also allow business to flourish in a healthy and stable environment.

Closing

In closing, let me summarize the five areas discussed in this contribution to move business from net zero to positive impact:

  1. Societal challenges as opportunities
  2. Putting purpose into strategy
  3. Integrating sustainability into regular business
  4. Simultaneous orientation on several time horizons
  5. Collaborations

My message has been, that we need business to help solving societal challenges. I have shown how business can do it. Clearly, there is lots to do for a new generation of leaders from business and from society.  For them, my five answers developed above should help to get off to a good start.

This contribution is based on the author’s TEDx HSG talk delivered on December 4, 2021, at University

[i] Nobel Prize Laureates and other experts (2021): Our planet, our future. An urgent call for action. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Statement: April 29, 2021.  https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/04/nobel-prize-laureates-and-other-experts-issue-urgent-call-for-action-after-our-planet-our-future-summit (accessed Dec 8, 2021); Union of Concerned Scientists (1992): 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity. Published Jul 16, 1992 (Updated Oct 29, 2002) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity (accessed: Dec. 8, 2021); World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity (2017): A Second Notice. BioScience, Volume 67, Issue 12, pages 1026–1028; https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229 (accessed: Dec. 8, 2021).

[ii] Thomas Dyllick & Katrin Muff (2016): Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a Typology from Business-as-usual to True Sustainability. In: Organization & Environment, Vol. 29, No. 2, 156-174. (2016 Organization & Environment Best Paper Award)

[iii] Cited in: Cooperrider, D. (2008). Social Innovation. BizEd, July/August, 32-38.

[iv] Dhingra, N.; Samo, A., Schaninger, B.; Schrimper, M. (2021): Help your employees find purpose – or watch them leave, McKinsey Quarterly, September, 93-100. Gast, A.; Illanes, P.; Probst, N.; Schaninger, B.; Simpson, B. (2020): Purpose: Shifting from why to how, McKinsey Quarterly, April.

[v] Edelmann (2018): Two thirds of consumers worldwide now buy on beliefs. October 2, 2018. https://www.edelman.com/news-awards/two-thirds-consumers-worldwide-now-buy-beliefs (accessed:  October 12, 2021)

[vi] Fink, Larry (2019):  Profit & Purpose. Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs, https://www.blackrock.com/americas-offshore/en/2019-larry-fink-ceo-letter (Accessed: 12.15.2020). Fink, Larry (2018): A Sense of Purpose. Larry Fink’s 2018 letter to CEOs, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2018-larry-fink-ceo-letter

(accessed: December 15.2020). Dyllick, T. & Muff, K. (2021): Anforderungen an eine echte Purpose – Orientierung von Unternehmen, in: Controlling, Vol. 33., Special Issue «Purpose und Controlling», Spring, 31-35. Grayson D./Coulter C./Lee M. (2018): All in. The future of business leadership, 1st ed., Milton Park.

Polman, P. & Winston, A. (2021). Net Positive. How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, pp. 74.

[vii] Samuelson, Judy (2021): The Six New Rules of Business: Creating Real Value in a Changing World. Berret-Koehler, Oakland.

[viii] Beer, Jeff (2018): Exclusive: “Patagonia is in business to save our home planet.” In an exclusive interview, founder Yvon Chouinard talks about how the new mission will reshape how the company does business. Fast Company, December 13.  https://www.fastcompany.com/90280950/exclusive-patagonia-is-in-business-to-save-our-home-planet (Accessed: Dec. 8, 2021)

[ix] Business & Sustainable Development Commission, Better Business Better World, January 2017 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2399BetterBusinessBetterWorld.pdf (accessed: December 10, 2021)


by

Erstmalige Messung des gesellschaftlichen Impacts im Vergleich zum traditionellen ESG-Risiko Management von 55 Top Schweizer Unternehmen

Kommentar zur Publizierung des Green Business CEO Rating 2021 in der Bilanz vom 25.6.2021

Endlich ist es soweit, mit der Lancierung des Green Business CEO Ratings können wir erstmals die Unternehmensleistung der «inside-out» und «outside-in» Perspektive vergleichen (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Die 50 grössten Schweizer Unternehmen wurden so erstmals auf die zwei Kerndimensionen der unternehmerischen Nachhaltigkeit geprüft. Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement wird bis heute noch weitgehend gleich gesetzt mit unternehmerischem Risikomanagement (oder: inside-out). Dabei geht es heute um sehr viel mehr: um positive Beiträge zur Lösung der grossen gesellschaftlichen Herausforderungen, die ohne Wirtschaft und Unternehmen nicht bewältigt werden können (oder: outside-in). Diese Herausforderungen können und sollen als neue Geschäftsfelder statt nur als Risiken erkannt und genutzt werden. Wir sind überzeugt, dass nur so Unternehmen einen relevanten gesellschaftlichen Impact in Bereichen wie Klimaschutz und Energieversorgung, Kreislaufwirtschaft, vernetzte Mobilität, nachhaltige Ernährung oder krisenresistente Gesundheitssysteme erzielen können.

Um dieses erweiterte Denken zu fördern misst das «Green Business CEO Rating» sowohl das Risikomanagement wie auch die positive Impact-Wirkung von Unternehmen:  

  • Inside-out: Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement als Risikomanagement fokussiert darauf, Kosten und Risiken für das Unternehmen zu reduzieren und die Wahrnehmung einer gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Es dient primär der Absicherung des Unternehmens und basiert auf Erkenntnissen von der ESG-Ratings. Es dominiert eine Inside-Out-Perspektive, vom Unternehmen und seinen Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft. Die Ergebnisse bestehen zumeist aus Verminderungen der negativen Auswirkungen des Unternehmens (CO2-Belastungen, Ressourcenverbrauch, Abfälle, Emissionen).
  • Outside-in: Hier geht es um positive Beiträge zur Lösung der gesellschaftlichen Nachhaltigkeitsherausforderungen. Diese bedingen eine Outside-In-Perspektive, einen Blick von der Gesellschaft auf das Unternehmen und von der Zukunft auf die Gegenwart. Diese Perspektive orientiert sich am Impact des Unternehmens auf die Gesellschaft wie sie sich in Gesetzgebungsverfahren wie dem Europäischen Green Deal oder am Kapitalmarkt im Zeichen des Impact Investings und einer expliziten Purpose-Orientierung von Unternehmen niederschlagen. Ihre Messung basiert auf Beiträgen zur Bewältigung der UN Sustainable Development Goals, der SDGs.

Das «Green Business CEO Rating» zeigt den positiven sozialen und ökologischen Impact der besten Grossunternehmen der Schweiz. Es bewertet erstmalig die Leistung von Unternehmen bezüglich eines positiven Beitrags zur Lösung der drängenden globalen Herausforderungen.

  • Die Inside-out Perspektive wird einfachheitshalber mit der bekannten ESG-Bewertung (Environmental, Social & Governance) gleichgesetzt.
  • Die Outside-in Perspektive wird kurz und prägnant als «Impact» bezeichnet.
Abbildung 1: Übersicht der Methodik

DER BEITRAG DER UNTERNEHMEN ZUR LÖSUNG DER DRINGENSTEN PROBLEME UNSERER ZEIT

Die Nachhaltigkeitsperformance von Unternehmen kann in vier Quadranten gegliedert werden. Sie werden durch die beiden Achsen Risikomanagement (ESG) und “positive Wirkung auf Gesellschaft und Umwelt” (IMPACT) gebildet (siehe Abbildung 2). Auf einer 10er Skala liegt der gemessene Mittelwert aller Unternehmen bei 4.0. Dies zeigt auf, wie gross das Potential noch ist, um auf beiden Achsen besser zu werden.

Gruppe 1 – WIRKUNGSVOLL

Hier finden sich Unternehmen mit einem proaktiven Engagement bzgl. der Absicherung ihres Unternehmens vor Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken, welche sich gleichzeitig in Märkten befinden, die einen positiven Impact auf die SDGs haben. Hier befinden sich die Top-5 CEOs mit ihren Unternehmen, z.B. Swiss Re, Migros und Novartis. Diese Unternehmen sind in gesellschaftsrelevanten Märkten unterwegs, welche sie bereits früh dazu geführt haben, eine proaktive Haltung bezüglich gesellschaftlicher und ökologischer Probleme einzunehmen. Insbesondere ein Rückversicherer wie Swiss Re ist ein ausgezeichnetes Beispiel eines Unternehmens, das schon früh die hohen Kosten von Natur- und Klimaschäden – für die Gesellschaft und für sich selber – erkennen musste und daraus strategische Konsequenzen abgeleitet hat. Aber auch Unternehmen wie Migros oder Coop, sind in ihren Märkten direkt mit ökologischen und gesundheitlichen Problemen konfrontiert worden und haben die Erwartungen der Gesellschaft zu spüren bekommen. Sie haben schon früh eine wirkungsvolle Haltung eingenommen.

Gruppe 2 – EFFEKTIV

Hier finden sich Unternehmen, welche Produkte und Dienstleistungen in Märkten mit grosser Relevanz für Gesellschaft und Umwelt anbieten. Entweder weil sie seit jeher in diesen Märkten positioniert sind, oder aber ganz bewusst SDG-relevanten Dienstleistungen zur Lösung gesellschaftlicher Probleme entwickelt haben.  Sie sind unauffällig, was ihr Risikomanagement betrifft, was auch an einer fehlenden Transparenz oder Berichterstattung liegen kann. Beispiele solcher Unternehmen sind Stadler Rail, Partners Group oder Baloise.

Gruppe 3 – AKTIV

Hier finden sich Unternehmen mit einem aktiven Engagement bzgl. Reduktion ihres negativen Impacts, welche Märkte bedienen, die nur einen geringen positiven Impact für Gesellschaft und Umwelt aufweisen. Unternehmen wie SGS, Holcim und Schindler sind aktiv und engagiert in ihrem Risikomanagement. Mit ihren Produkten und Dienstleistungen haben sie aktuell jedoch nur eine schwache Wirkung auf die Lösung von Nachhaltigkeitsherausforderungen im Sinne der SDGs.

Gruppe 4 – PASSIV

Hier finden sich Unternehmen mit nur geringem oder erst erwachendem Interesse an Nachhaltigkeit, welche in Märkten mit nur kleiner Relevanz für Gesellschaft und Umwelt aktiv sind. Ebenso wird ein Unternehmen hier aufgeführt, wenn es bezüglich seiner Nachhaltigkeitsperformance sehr intransparent kommuniziert. Beispiele solcher Unternehmen sind Swatch, Ems Chemie oder SFS Group. Unternehmen in dieser Gruppe weisen weder eine gute ESG-Bewertung, noch sind sie mit ihren Produkten und Dienstleistungen in SDG-Impact relevanten Märkten positioniert.

Abbildung 2: Die positive Impact Orientierung der untersuchten 55 Unternehmen

Die vier Kategorien in Abbildung 2 entstehen durch die beiden Unternehmensbewertungen – einerseits das ESG-Rating zur Absicherung des Unternehmens und andererseits das SDG-Impact-Rating bzgl. eines positiven Beitrags zu Gesellschaft und Umwelt. Die entsprechenden Positionierungen zeigen gut auf, wo Unternehmen stehen, sowohl bezüglich ihres Engagements für die Nachhaltigkeit als auch bezüglich des Impacts ihrer Produkte und Dienstleistungen. Die Unterschiede zwischen den beiden Ratingverfahren machen deutlich, dass es sich hierbei um ganz verschiedene Bewertungsperspektiven handelt (siehe Abbildung 1).

  • ESG Rating für die traditionellen CSR Aktivitäten eines Unternehmens: Die ESG Best Practices Daten der Ratingagentur ISS fokussieren auf die klassischen ESG Kriterien (Umwelt, Soziales, verantwortungsvolle Unternehmensführung) und basieren auf einer Risikoperspektive der Nachhaltigkeit. Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement als Risikomanagement fokussiert darauf, Kosten und Risiken für das Unternehmen zu reduzieren und die Wahrnehmung einer gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung zum Ausdruck zu bringen (Inside-Out-Perspektive). Die Ergebnisse bestehen zumeist aus Verminderungen der negativen Auswirkungen des Unternehmens (CO2 Belastungen, Ressourcenverbrauch, Abfälle, Emissionen), aber nicht in positiven Beiträgen zur Lösung der gesellschaftlichen Nachhaltigkeitsherausforderungen.
  • SDG-Impact Rating für die zukunftsorienterte «positive impact» Perspektive: Die SDG Analytics Daten der Ratingagentur Standard & Poor’s (S&P)/Trucost analysieren den positiven und negativen Impact jedes Unternehmens hinsichtlich aller 17 SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals der UN). Der Fokus liegt auf dem Blick von der Gesellschaft auf das Unternehmen und von der Zukunft auf die Gegenwart. Diese Outside-in-Perspektive orientiert sich am Impact des Unternehmens und der gesellschaftlichen Ausrichtung seiner Produkte und Dienstleistungen.

Es macht einen grossen Unterschied, ob die Absicherung des eigenen Unternehmens vor Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken mittels ESG-Daten bewertet wird oder der gesellschaftliche Impact des Unternehmens in Bezug auf die SDGs gemessen wird. Es gibt Unternehmen, die gut bzgl. ihrer ESG-Absicherung und solche die gut bzgl. ihres SDG-Impacts abschneiden. Es geht hierbei um die Ausrichtung der Nachhaltigkeitsaktivitäten, nicht um das Nachhaltigkeits-Engagement des Unternehmens. «Aktive» Unternehmen können sehr viel Aufwand betreiben, um ihr Unternehmen vor Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken zu schützen und Leistungen bzgl. der vielfältigen Messindikatoren nachzuweisen, ohne dass dies für den SDG-relevanten Impact viel bringt. Andererseits erreichen «effektive» Unternehmen aufgrund ihrer Produkt- und Marktausrichtung hohe SDG Impact-Werte, ohne dass dies zwingend eines besonderen Aufwandes bedarf.

Schlussendlich geht es aber nicht darum, die Leistungen in einem Bereich gegen den anderen auszuspielen.  Beide Bereiche sind wichtig und wurden entsprechend für das Unternehmensrating auch gleich gewichtet.

Ihre Meinung interessiert uns. Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Kommentare!


by

Première mesure de l’impact social par rapport à la gestion traditionnelle des risques RSE de 55 grandes entreprises suisses

Commentaire sur la publication du Green Business CEO Rating 2021 dans le Magazine PME du 30.6.2021

Le moment est enfin venu, avec le lancement du Green Business CEO Rating, nous pouvons pour la première fois comparer la performance des entreprises du point de vue “inside-out” et “outside-in” (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Les 50 plus grandes entreprises suisses ont ainsi été évaluées pour la première fois sur les deux dimensions essentielles de la durabilité des entreprises. À ce jour, la gestion de la durabilité est encore largement assimilée à la gestion des risques de l’entreprise (ou : inside-out). Aujourd’hui, cependant, il s’agit de bien plus que cela : de contributions positives à la résolution des grands défis sociaux qui ne peuvent être maîtrisés sans les entreprises et les sociétés (ou : outside-in). Ces défis peuvent et doivent être reconnus et exploités comme de nouveaux domaines d’activité plutôt que comme de simples risques. Nous sommes convaincus que ce n’est que de cette manière que les entreprises peuvent avoir un impact social pertinent dans des domaines tels que la protection du climat et l’approvisionnement en énergie, l’économie circulaire, la mobilité en réseau, l’alimentation durable ou les systèmes de santé résistant aux crises.

Pour encourager cette réflexion plus large, le Green Business CEO Rating mesure à la fois la gestion des risques et l’impact positif des entreprises :  

  • Inside-out : La gestion de la durabilité en tant que gestion des risques se concentre sur la réduction des coûts et des risques pour l’entreprise et exprime la perception de la responsabilité sociale. Il sert principalement à protéger l’entreprise et se fonde sur les résultats des évaluations ESG. La perspective dominante est celle de l’intérieur, de l’entreprise et de son impact sur la société. Les résultats consistent principalement en une réduction des impacts négatifs de l’entreprise (pollution par le CO2, consommation de ressources, déchets, émissions).
  • Outside-in : Il s’agit de contributions positives à la résolution des problèmes de durabilité de la société. Celles-ci exigent une perspective extérieure et intérieure, une vision de la société à l’entreprise et de l’avenir au présent. Cette perspective est orientée vers l’impact de l’entreprise sur la société, comme en témoignent les processus législatifs tels que le Green Deal européen ou sur le marché des capitaux sous le signe de l’investissement d’impact et d’une orientation explicite de la finalité des entreprises. Leur mesure est basée sur les contributions aux objectifs de développement durable des Nations unies, les ODD.

Le “Green Business CEO Rating” montre l’impact social et environnemental positif des meilleures grandes entreprises de Suisse. Pour la première fois, il évalue la performance des entreprises en termes de contribution positive à la résolution des défis mondiaux urgents.

  • Par souci de simplicité, la perspective inside-out est assimilée à l’évaluation ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) bien connue.
  • Le point de vue extérieur-intérieur est succinctement appelé “impact”.
Figure 1 : Aperçu de la méthodologie

LA CONTRIBUTION DES ENTREPRISES À LA RÉSOLUTION DES PROBLÈMES LES PLUS PRESSANTS DE NOTRE ÉPOQUE

La performance des entreprises en matière de durabilité peut être divisée en quatre quadrants. Ils sont formés par les deux axes de la gestion des risques (ESG) et de “l’impact positif sur la société et l’environnement” (IMPACT) (voir figure 2). Sur une échelle de 10, la valeur moyenne mesurée pour l’ensemble des entreprises est de 4,0, ce qui montre à quel point le potentiel d’amélioration est encore important sur ces deux axes.

Groupe 1 – ORIENTÉ VERS L’EFFET

Vous trouverez ici des entreprises qui s’engagent de manière proactive à protéger leur société contre les risques liés au développement durable, et qui sont également situées sur des marchés ayant un impact positif sur les ODD. Voici les 5 premiers PDG et leurs entreprises, par exemple Swiss Re, Migros et Novartis. Ces entreprises sont actives sur des marchés socialement pertinents qui les ont amenées à prendre très tôt une position proactive sur les questions sociales et environnementales. En particulier, un réassureur comme Swiss Re est un excellent exemple d’une entreprise qui a dû reconnaître très tôt les coûts élevés des dommages naturels et climatiques – pour la société et pour elle-même – et en a tiré des conséquences stratégiques. Mais des entreprises comme Migros ou Coop ont également été directement confrontées à des problèmes écologiques et sanitaires sur leurs marchés et ont ressenti l’impact des attentes de la société. Ils ont adopté une position efficace dès le début.

Groupe 2 – EFFICACE

Vous trouverez ici des entreprises qui proposent des produits et des services sur des marchés présentant un grand intérêt pour la société et l’environnement. Soit parce qu’ils ont toujours été positionnés sur ces marchés, soit parce qu’ils ont délibérément développé des services en rapport avec les ODD pour résoudre des problèmes sociaux.  Ils passent inaperçus en termes de gestion des risques, ce qui peut également être dû à un manque de transparence ou de reporting. Des exemples de telles entreprises sont Stadler Rail, Partners Group ou Baloise.

Groupe 3 – ACTIF

Nous trouvons ici des entreprises qui s’engagent activement à réduire leur impact négatif, en servant des marchés qui n’ont qu’un faible impact positif sur la société et l’environnement. Des entreprises telles que SGS, Holcim et Schindler sont actives et engagées dans leur gestion des risques. Toutefois, leurs produits et services n’ont actuellement qu’un faible impact sur la résolution des problèmes de durabilité au sens des ODD.

Groupe 4 – PASSIF

Cette catégorie comprend les entreprises dont l’intérêt pour la durabilité est faible ou tout juste émergent, qui sont actives sur des marchés dont l’importance pour la société et l’environnement est mineure. Une entreprise figure également sur cette liste si elle communique ses performances en matière de durabilité de manière très peu transparente. Des exemples de telles entreprises sont Swatch, Ems Chemie et SFS Group. Les entreprises de ce groupe n’ont pas une bonne notation ESG et leurs produits et services ne sont pas positionnés sur des marchés ayant un impact sur les ODD.

Figure 2 : L’orientation vers l’impact positif des 55 entreprises étudiées

Les quatre catégories de la figure 2 résultent des deux notations de l’entreprise – d’une part, la notation ESG pour protéger l’entreprise et, d’autre part, la notation de l’impact SDG concernant une contribution positive à la société et à l’environnement. Les positionnements correspondants montrent bien où se situent les entreprises, tant au niveau de leur engagement en faveur de la durabilité qu’au niveau de l’impact de leurs produits et services. Les différences entre les deux méthodes d’évaluation montrent clairement qu’il s’agit de perspectives d’évaluation très différentes (voir figure 1).

  • Notation ESG pour les activités traditionnelles de RSE d’une entreprise : Les données sur les meilleures pratiques ESG de l’agence de notation ISS se concentrent sur les critères ESG classiques (environnement, social, gouvernance d’entreprise responsable) et sont basées sur une perspective de risque de durabilité. La gestion de la durabilité en tant que gestion des risques se concentre sur la réduction des coûts et des risques pour l’entreprise et exprime la perception d’une responsabilité sociale (perspective inside-out). Les résultats consistent principalement en une réduction des impacts négatifs de l’entreprise (charges de CO2, consommation de ressources, déchets, émissions), mais pas en une contribution positive à la résolution des problèmes de durabilité de la société.
  • SDG Impact Rating pour une perspective d'”impact positif” orientée vers l’avenir : Les données SDG Analytics de l’agence de notation Standard & Poor’s (S&P)/Trucost analysent l’impact positif et négatif de chaque entreprise au regard des 17 SDG (Objectifs de développement durable de l’ONU). L’accent est mis sur la vision de la société à l’entreprise et de l’avenir au présent. Cette perspective “outside-in” est basée sur l’impact de l’entreprise et l’orientation sociale de ses produits et services.

Il est très important de savoir si la protection de l’entreprise contre les risques liés au développement durable est évaluée à l’aide des données ESG ou si l’impact social de l’entreprise est mesuré par rapport aux ODD. Il y a des entreprises qui sont performantes en termes de protection ESG et d’autres qui le sont en termes d’impact sur les ODD. Il s’agit de l’alignement des activités de durabilité, et non de l’engagement de l’entreprise en faveur de la durabilité. Les entreprises “actives” peuvent consacrer beaucoup d’efforts à la protection de leur entreprise contre les risques liés à la durabilité et à la démonstration de leurs performances par rapport aux multiples indicateurs de mesure, sans faire grand-chose pour l’impact lié aux ODD. D’autre part, les entreprises “efficaces” atteignent des valeurs d’impact élevées sur les ODD grâce à leur orientation produit et marché, sans que cela ne nécessite nécessairement d’effort particulier.

En fin de compte, cependant, il ne s’agit pas d’opposer les performances d’un domaine à celles d’un autre.  Ces deux domaines sont importants et ont été pondérés de manière égale pour la notation de l’entreprise.

Votre avis nous intéresse. Nous attendons vos commentaires avec impatience !


by

First-ever measurement of societal impact compared to traditional ESG risk management of 55 top Swiss companies

Comment on the publication of the Green Business CEO Rating 2021 in the Bilanz of 25.6.2021 and PME of 30.6.2021

The time has finally come, with the launch of the Green Business CEO Rating, we can for the first time compare corporate performance from the “inside-out” and “outside-in” perspectives (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). The 50 largest Swiss companies were thus assessed for the first time on the two core dimensions of corporate sustainability. To this day, sustainability management is still largely equated with corporate risk management (or: inside-out). Today, however, it is about much more: positive contributions to solving the major societal challenges that cannot be mastered without business and companies (or: outside-in). These challenges can and should be recognized and exploited as new areas of business rather than just as risks. We are convinced that only in this way can companies achieve a relevant social impact in areas such as climate protection and energy supply, circular economy, networked mobility, sustainable nutrition or crisis-resistant healthcare systems.

To encourage this broader thinking, the Green Business CEO Rating measures both risk management and the positive impact of companies:  

  • Inside-out: Sustainability management as risk management focuses on reducing costs and risks for the company and expressing the perception of a social responsibility. It primarily serves to safeguard the company and is based on findings from ESG ratings. An inside-out perspective dominates, of the company and its impact on society. The results mostly consist of reductions in the company’s negative impacts (CO2 pollution, resource consumption, waste, emissions).
  • Outside-in: The aim here is to make positive contributions to solving society’s sustainability challenges. These require an outside-in perspective, a view from society to the company and from the future to the present. This perspective is based on the impact of the company on society as reflected in legislative processes such as the European Green Deal or on the capital market in the context of impact investing and an explicit purpose orientation of companies. Their measurement is based on contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the SDGs.

The “Green Business CEO Rating” shows the positive social and environmental impact of the best large companies in Switzerland. For the first time, it evaluates the performance of companies in terms of a positive contribution to solving pressing global challenges.

  • For the sake of simplicity, the inside-out perspective is equated with the familiar ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) assessment.
  • The outside-in perspective is briefly and succinctly referred to as “impact”.
Figure 1: Overview of the methodology

THE CONTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS TO SOLVING THE MOST PRESSING PROBLEMS OF OUR TIME

The sustainability performance of companies can be divided into four quadrants. They are formed by the two axes “risk management” (ESG) and “positive impact on society and the environment” (IMPACT) (see Figure 2). On a scale of 10, the measured mean value of all companies is 4.0, which shows how great the potential still is to improve on both axes.

Group 1 – IMPACTFUL

Here you will find companies with a proactive commitment to protecting their company against sustainability risks, which are also located in markets that have a positive impact on the SDGs. Here are the top 5 CEOs with their companies, e.g. Swiss Re, Migros and Novartis. These companies are in socially relevant markets that have led them early on to take a proactive stance on societal and environmental issues. In particular, a reinsurer like Swiss Re is an excellent example of a company that had to recognize the high costs of natural and climate damage – for society and for itself – at an early stage and derived strategic consequences from this. But companies such as Migros or Coop, have also been directly confronted with ecological and health problems in their markets and have felt the impact of society’s expectations. They took an effective stance early on.

Group 2 – EFFECTIVE

Here you will find companies that offer products and services in markets with great relevance for society and the environment. Either because they have always been positioned in these markets, or because they have deliberately developed SDG-relevant services to solve social problems.  They are inconspicuous in terms of their risk management, which may also be due to a lack of transparency or reporting. Examples of such companies are Stadler Rail, Partners Group or Baloise.

Group 3 – ACTIVE

Here we find companies with an active commitment to reducing their negative impact, serving markets with only a low positive impact on society and the environment. Companies such as SGS, Holcim and Schindler are active and committed in their risk management. However, their products and services currently have only a weak impact on solving sustainability challenges in the sense of the SDGs.

Group 4 – PASSIVE

This category includes companies with little or only just emerging interest in sustainability, which are active in markets with only minor relevance for society and the environment. Likewise, a company is listed here if it communicates its sustainability performance in a very non-transparent manner. Examples of such companies are Swatch, Ems Chemie or SFS Group. Companies in this group have neither a good ESG rating nor are they positioned with their products and services in SDG impact relevant markets.

Figure 2: The positive impact orientation of the 55 companies studied

The four categories in Figure 2 result from the two company ratings – on the one hand, the ESG Rating to safeguard the company and, on the other, the SDG-Impact Rating regarding a positive contribution to society and the environment. The corresponding positionings show well where companies stand, both in terms of their commitment to sustainability and in terms of the impact of their products and services. The differences between the two rating methods make it clear that these are quite different assessment perspectives (see Figure 1).

  • The ESG rating for the traditional CSR activities of a company: The ESG best practices data of the ISS rating agency focus on the classic ESG criteria (environmental, social, responsible corporate governance) and are based on a risk perspective of sustainability. Sustainability management as risk management focuses on reducing costs and risks for the company and expressing the perception of a social responsibility (inside-out perspective). The results mostly consist of reductions in the company’s negative impacts (CO2 burdens, resource consumption, waste, emissions), but not in positive contributions to solving societal sustainability challenges.
  • The SDG Impact Rating for the forward-looking “positive impact” perspective: The SDG Analytics data from Standard & Poor’s (S&P)/Trucost rating agency analyzes the positive and negative impact of each company with respect to all 17 SDGs (UN Sustainable Development Goals). The focus is on the view from society to the company and from the future to the present. This outside-in perspective is based on the impact of the company and the social orientation of its products and services.

It makes a big difference whether the company’s own protection against sustainability risks is assessed using ESG data or whether the company’s social impact is measured in relation to the SDGs. There are companies that perform well in terms of ESG protection and those that perform well in terms of SDG impact. The focus here is on the alignment of sustainability activities, not on the company’s commitment to sustainability. “Active” companies can put a lot of effort into protecting their company from sustainability risks and demonstrating performance against the multiple measurement indicators without doing much for SDG-relevant impact. On the other hand, “effective” companies achieve high SDG impact values due to their product and market orientation, without this necessarily requiring any special effort.

Ultimately, however, it is not a question of playing off performance in one area against the other.  Both areas are important and have been weighted equally for the company rating.

We are interested in your opinion. We look forward to your comments!