Positive Impact Blog

Thought provoking insights for change makers


by Leave a comment

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!


by

Mehr Mut und weniger alte weiße Männer

Dieses Interview erschien am 22. Mai 2021 auf ZEIT ONLINE. Das Interview führte die Journalistin Petra Pinzler im Rahmen eines Fellowships am THE NEW INSTITUTE.

Notiz der Authorin: der Titel wurde von der Zeit gewählt und muss als kontextfreier, provokativer Anreiz zum Lesen gedeutet werden. Ich empfehle dem Leser, sich auf das Interview einzulassen und sich nicht unnötig am Titel zu reiben (auch wenn dazu Berechtigung besteht).

Frau Muff, The business of business is business – hat der Nobelpreisträger Milton Friedman mal gesagt und damit gemeint, das sich Unternehmen aufs Geldverdienen konzentrieren sollen. Was ist falsch an dem Satz?

Das ist einfach zu simpel gedacht: Die Wirtschaft ist ein Teil der Gesellschaft und die wiederum ein Teil des Planeten. Wenn wir den ruinieren, dann funktioniert weder die Gesellschaft noch die Wirtschaft. Also müssen Unternehmen ihre Wirkung auf die Umwelt und die Gesellschaft mit im Blick haben.

Friedman glaubte an die Idee, dass alle Menschen egoistisch handeln, das aber in einer Marktwirtschaft trotzdem zu einem guten Ergebnis führt – weil der Markt die Wünsche aller koordiniert und das am Ende zur bestmöglichen Verteilung von Gütern führt. So ähnlich jedenfalls lernen das die meisten Ökonomie-Studierenden bis heute schon im ersten Semester.

In modernen Studiengängen lernen sie aber auch, dass auch das so einfach nicht stimmt. Die berühmte unsichtbare Hand des Marktes, die Angebot und Nachfrage so steuert, dass am Ende immer etwas Gutes herauskommt, funktioniert ja nicht. Es braucht Regeln, die der Staat bestimmt. Und es wird auch nicht alles gut, wenn in Unternehmen nur ans Geldverdienen gedacht wird.

Anscheinend überzeugt das auch immer mehr Leute in den Chefetagen. Kürzlich gelobten jedenfalls 180 Chefs namhafter US-Konzerne wie Amazon und Walmart in einem Statement of Corporate Purpose künftig auch ihrer Belegschaft, der Gesellschaft und der Umwelt nützen zu wollen – statt nur den Aktionären. Wird die Wirtschaft gerade grün und gut?

Na ja, die Ankündigungen sind das eine, Handeln das andere. Natürlich ist es erst mal positiv, wenn Chefs versprechen, dass sie beim Wirtschaften mehr Rücksicht auf die Natur und auf die Menschen nehmen wollen. Aber das ist nur der erste Schritt. Als nächstes muss das ganze Unternehmen umdenken und umlernen.

Was muss da konkret passieren?

In Unternehmen, die sich so auf den Weg machen, verändern sich vier Dinge.

Erstens, die interne Kultur, was sich nicht nur an neuen Kriterien für die Beförderung, sondern auch konkreten Unternehmenszielen zeigt. Klimaziele, zum Beispiel, müssen überprüfbar sein. Wenn ein Unternehmen verspricht, bis 2050 klimaneutral werden zu wollen, aber keine kurzfristigen Umsetzungspläne hat, dann geschieht nichts.

So was ist, zweitens, nur gemeinsam mit anderen erreichbar. Und dazu muss ein Unternehmen sich als Teil der Gesellschaft sehen, statt nur sich selbst im Mittelpunkt zu stellen. Es geht um mehr.
‍
Drittens, braucht es einen zukunftsfähigen Aufsichtsrat, in dem darf nicht immer der gleiche Typ Mensch sitzen, diversere Aufsichtsräte bringen strategische Gesellschaftsthemen stärker auf den Tisch. Da wird dann in einer Aufsichtsratssitzung nicht mehr nur nach der Umsatzrendite und Risikominimierung gefragt, sondern auch nach neuen Geschäftsfelder, die helfen, die Gesellschaft zu verbessern oder Umweltprobleme zu lösen.

Dies ist der vierte Punkt: Wie zeigt sich das alles in neuen Dienstleistungen?

Notiz der Authorin: hier wird auf den Strategischen Innovationscanvas der Positive Impact Organizationen verwiesen, dieser enthält vier Differenzierungsmerkmale sowie acht Innovationsanstösse. Ein kurzer Online-kurs dazu hier.

Wenn ich die Nachhaltigkeitsberichte von Unternehmen lese oder Begriffe wie Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) höre, dann gruselt es mich häufig. Da stehen so viele schöne Worte und so wenig harte Fakten …

Tatsächlich schleichen sich viele Unternehmen noch mit schönen Worten in ihren Nachhaltigkeitsberichten weg. Dabei gibt es längst wissenschaftlich fundierte harte Fakten, die man messen kann: beispielsweise die Diversität des Managements oder der CO2-Ausstoß des Unternehmens. Und es gibt Verbände, die ihren Mitgliedern dabei helfen, solche Nachhaltigkeitskriterien strategisch anzuwenden. Dort lässt sich auch von Vorbildern lernen, von Unternehmen, die visionäre Versuche wagen und sich wirklich richtig ehrgeizige Ziele setzen – beispielsweise ein 2030 Netto-Null Ziel, für sich und die eigenen Kunden, was im Unternehmen vieles auf den Kopf stellt.

Die Wirtschaft ist ein Teil der Gesellschaft und die wiederum ein Teil des Planeten. Wenn wir den ruinieren, dann funktioniert weder die Gesellschaft noch die Wirtschaft.

Müssen Unternehmen, die die Übernutzung der Natur wirklich ernst nehmen, nicht noch einen viel radikaleren Schritt gehen: Müssten sie nicht einfach eine Menge der Produkte aus ihren Katalogen streichen? Wer braucht in Zeiten der Klimakrise beispielsweise noch Privatjets oder in Zeiten der Wasserknappheit einen privaten Pool – um nur zwei Beispiele zu nennen.

Diese Beispiele zeigen genau die Größe des Problems. Man kann ja nicht einfach sagen: Schließt doch besser euren Laden! Das wäre ein sehr kurzes Gespräch. Aber machen wir es konkret, nehmen wir Coca-Cola. Die Welt wäre wahrscheinlich ein gesünderer Ort, wenn es keine hart beworbenen zuckerhaltigen Süßgetränke gäbe …

… zumindest hätten wir dann viel weniger Kinder mit Zahnschäden oder Übergewicht …

Genau. Wenn sich das Unternehmen aber zum Ziel setzt einen sinnvollen gesellschaftlichen Beitrag zu leisten, dann sollte es seine Kernkompetenzen klüger nutzen. Coca-Cola schafft es, ein perfekt gekühltes Süssgetränk bis ans Ende der Welt zu bringen. Das ist eine ungeheure logistische Leistung. Wer schafft das sonst schon? Könnte man diese Kompetenz nicht auch dafür nutzen, mit Nährstoffen und Vitaminen angereicherte Nahrungsmittel in genau diese Enden der Welt zu bringen? Das ist es jetzt nur eine Idee, und soll zeigen, welche Fragen sich Unternehmen stellen, die eine positive Wirkung haben wollen. Es geht nicht nur darum, den negativen Fußabdruck des aktuellen Geschäftes zu vermindern, sondern auch neue sinnvolle Geschäftsfelder zu entdecken und zu entwickeln. Wie der US-Ökonom Peter Drucker schon sagte:«jedes ungelöste gesellschaftliche Problem ist eigentlich nichts anderes als eine grosse unentdeckte Martkchance.»

Gibt es für solch einen Umbau auch Argumente, die den altmodischen Kriterien standhalten? Es heißt, nachhaltige Unternehmen seien langfristig auch ökonomisch stärker als andere …

Ja, und nicht nur das. Nachhaltigkeit ist auch wichtig, um gute Leute zu bekommen. Junge Leute finden es heute viel wichtiger als in der Vergangenheit, was und wie ihr Arbeitgeber im Markt anbietet. Sie bestimmen zunehmend, was verlangt wird. Bereits heute buhlen in einigen Industrieländern immer mehr Unternehmen um die besten hochqualifizierten Talente. Die wollen für inspirierende Unternehmen arbeiten, die wollen etwas Sinnvolles tun. Auch im Unternehmen motiviert ein Sinn jenseits der Rendite alle diejenigen, denen es nicht nur ums Geld geht.

Es geht nicht nur darum, den negativen Fußabdruck des aktuellen Geschäftes zu vermindern, sondern auch neue sinnvolle Geschäftsfelder zu entdecken und zu entwickeln. Regierungen müssen sich schon fragen, was gut für ihre Gesellschaft und die Umwelt ist. Und dann müssen sie das auch in verbindlichen Regeln festschreiben.

Können Sie das belegen?

Ich habe erst vor ein paar Tagen mit dem Chef eines großen internationalen Konzerns gesprochen und der hat mir gesagt, dass Klimaschutz und ein inspirierender Purpose bei der Mitarbeiterwerbung einen noch viel höheren Stellenwert als noch vor 10 Jahren haben. Es gibt auch eine Studie der Young Presidents Organization, in welcher CEOs nach der Bedeutung von Nachhaltigkeit gefragt werden – und die zeigt, wie sehr sich auch bei denen die Stimmung in den vergangen fünf Jahren verändert hat: 93 Prozent finden, dass ein Unternehmen einem gesellschaftlichen Zweck dienen muss, was dem neuen Verständnis von Nachhaltigkeit entspricht und wo auch das Klimaproblem dazugehört. Und dies aus drei Gründen: erstens wegen Druck von Mitarbeitern, zweitens wegen Druck der eigenen Kinder und drittens wegen Druck der Kunden.

Ist das Klima jetzt so wichtig, weil alle jetzt darüber reden? Oder erleben wir da wirklich einen grundsätzlichen Wandel, eine Moralisierung der Märkte, setzt sich da die Idee der planetaren Grenzen durch – also die Idee, dass wir die Erde in vielfacher Hinsicht überlasten und daran etwas ändern müssen?

Immer mehr Leute, egal an welcher Stelle im Unternehmen, wollen etwas Sinnvolles tun. Dies hat oft mit Nachhaltigkeit zu tun und kann das Klima betreffen, die Umwelt, oder die Biodiversität. Es kann aber auch die wachsende Ungleichheit in der Gesellschaft oder andere soziale Themen betreffen.

Welche Rolle spielen dabei die Finanzmärkte? Vor allem bei Aktiengesellschaften heißt es immer wieder, dass die gar nicht anders können, als den Gewinn zu maximieren. Würden sie sich anders verhalten, würden die Aktionäre die Vorstände und Aufsichtsräte davonjagen.

Da habe ich gute Nachrichten. Was da im vergangenen Jahr passiert ist und in diesem Jahr auch noch passieren wird, wird die Welt verändern. Die Verwalter der großen Fonds haben begriffen, dass man mit Nachhaltigkeit Geld verdienen kann und dass die Renditen bei nachhaltigen Unternehmen langfristig gut und sicher sind. Schweizer Großbanken wie die UBS oder auch die Black Rock, der weltweit grösste Investor, verändern ihre Kriterien für Investitionen gerade stark, nicht nur wegen den Vermögenstransfers an die nächste Generation, die einfach andere Prioritäten hat und das Geld bewusst anlegen will.  Jedenfalls ist der Zuwachs bei sogenannten nachhaltigen Geldanlagen und beim Impact Investment rasant.

Impact Investment bedeutet …

… dass Menschen ihr Geld dort investieren, wo es es etwas bewegt und zwar nicht philanthropisch sondern als profitables Geschäftsmodell mit gutem Zweck.

Reden Sie sich die Welt da nicht schön und ist die Realität nicht doch noch eine andere? Kürzlich hat RWE, das große deutsche Energieunternehmen, die niederländische Regierung vor einem Schiedsgericht auf Schadenersatz verklagt – weil die Niederlande schnell aus der Kohleverstromung aussteigen wollen. Gleichzeitig wirbt RWE in großen Anzeigen, dass das Unternehmen künftig ganz grün werden will. Das passt doch nicht. Das Argument für diese Art von Klagen ist dann immer: Wir müssen das tun, sonst werden wir von den Aktionären verklagt.

Einerseits fordern gewisse Investoren nun was anderes. Auf der Aktionärsversammlung von Unilever wurde dem Unternehmen vor Kurzem der Auftrag gegeben, die Klimastrategie ins Zentrum der Unternehmensstrategie zu stellen. Es spielen jedoch tatsächlich die Aufsichtsräte häufig noch eine hinderliche Rolle. Den Aufsichtsräten geht es zu oft nur um die eigene Risikominimierung, die wollen nicht von den Aktionären verklagt werden und haben eine zu kurzfristige Perspektive. Da wünsche ich mir mehr Mut und weniger weiße alte Männer. Denn schon wenn Sie die Gremien anders zusammensetzen, würde das viel verändern.

Das klingt verblüffend einfach. Eine andere Personalpolitik in den Chefetagen und damit dort eine andere Sicht auf die Welt – und alles wird gut?

Wir sind im Moment tatsächlich in der glücklichen Lage, dass Unternehmen von allen Seiten Druck bekommen. Und für ein solches Umdenken bringen jüngere, weiblichere und insgesamt diverse Chefetagen und Aufsichtsräte den nötigen frischen Wind und Weitblick.

Wäre das leichter, wenn wir strengere staatliche Regeln hätten, die von allen Unternehmen verlangen, dauerhaft und nachprüfbar anders mit der Umwelt umzugehen?

Ja, das wäre sicherlich hilfreich. Regierungen müssen sich schon fragen, was gut für ihre Gesellschaft und die Umwelt ist. Und dann müssen sie das auch in verbindlichen Regeln festschreiben. Der New Green Deal der EU setzt ein hervorragendes Zeichen,  der einen schonenderen Umgang mit der Umwelt für die Wirtschaft verbindlich zu machen will. Diese signalisieren der zögerlichen Wirtschaft: Euer Sandkasten wird gerade verschoben. Und unterschätzen Sie dann die Unternehmer nicht. Die sind sehr innovativ, wenn es darum geht, ihr Spielzeug dann auch zu verschieben.

Es kursieren im Moment viele Ideen für andere Unternehmensformen. Da gibt es Social Entrepreneurship, in den USA die B-Corps, in Deutschland die Bewegung der purpose economy. Bei allen geht es im Kern darum, dass schon in den Statuten des Unternehmens nicht nur die Gewinnmaximierung steht, sondern auch andere sinnvolle Ziele. Für wie wirkmächtig halten Sie die?

Die stoßen auf jeden Fall etwas an. Und sie knüpfen im Grunde an eine alte Idee von Unternehmertum an. Nehmen Sie beispielsweise den Gründungsgedanken von Unilever oder Nestle. Die wurden gegründet, weil sie ein gesellschaftliches Problem lösen wollten. Bei Nestle ging es darum, die Kindersterblichkeit zu senken, Unilever wollte die Hygienestandards in England verbessern.

Ich kenne Nestle vor allem, weil es immer wieder für die Privatisierung von Wasser kritisiert worden ist – und dafür, dass es viele Tonnen unnötiger Plastikflaschen produziert. Also nicht gerade als Modell.

Stimmt, da müsste wohl einiges passieren, damit der Ursprungsgedanke wieder stärker in den Fokus kommt. Unsere Forschung zeigt, dazu braucht es einen CEO mit entsprechenden Zukunftskompetenzen und ein Unternehmen, welches ko-kreativ mit anderen Akteuren arbeiten kann.

Kennen Sie eigentlich ein Unternehmen, bei dem alles stimmt – das gute Produkte hat, gutes Geld verdient, gut für die Umwelt ist und für die Gesellschaft? Oder ist das die Quadratur des Kreises?

Wir nennen solche Unternehmen „Positive Impact Organisationen“. Es gibt alternative Banken, die ihr Geld nachhaltig und nach ethischen Kriterien anlegen. In der Schweiz gibt es Choba-Choba, welches die Kakaobauern am Unternehmen beteiligt. Und die SV-Gruppe, ein Catering-Unternehmen, das seinen Klimaimpact dank einer Umschulung der Chefköche massiv reduzieren konnte, mit gleichem Profit. Oder es gibt Climeworks, ein Zürcher Unternehmen das CO2 aus der Luft holt und nicht nur bindet, sondern auch Mineralwasser-Herstellern weiterverkauft. Wir sammeln einerseits Beispiele solcher Unternehmen um zu inspirieren (Kurzvideos hier auf Sustainability-Today.com) und helfen Unternehmen andererseits beim Entdecken solcher neuer Geschäftschancen. Packen wir’s an, denn die Zeit läuft!


by

When the Stakeholder Perspective takes a Purpose Orientation

Understanding Business Sustainability Types in terms of stakeholder engagement

Every organization talks about stakeholder engagement – yet what does this really mean? In the era of positive impact, engaging with stakeholders goes beyond reaching out to your employees, customers, suppliers and concerned civil society institutions. A truly sustainable organization will have recognized that it is itself a stakeholder in a much larger context, in which it doesn’t play the central role. Creating a positive impact through focusing on purpose is all about recognizing one’s own limited perspective and value contribution to a society which includes other perspectives such as civil society and government.

The purpose orientation of business has become a popular topic recently. It is hard to open a new book on the current and future challenges for business and society and not stumble over the purpose topic. In analyzing the evolution of business sustainability empirically, Grayson et al. conclude in their book “All In” (2018: 30-32) that we have entered the “Purpose Driven Era” in 2016. For them, today’s best corporate leaders focus what they do through the lens of the purposeful and positive impact they aspire to have in the world.

This understanding of purpose contrasts with another popular interpretation of the role of business, the stakeholder model. The Business Roundtable, an association of some 200 CEOs of major U.S. companies, published a widely acclaimed statement on the purpose of a corporation in August 2019. These companies committed for the first time since 1997 to a responsibility to all stakeholders – namely customers, employees, suppliers, the communities in which they operate, and their owners. All stakeholders are seen by them as important, and value must be created for all of them. This is a significant extension of understanding from seeing the shareholder as the one primary stakeholder of business.

What is the difference between these two interpretations of business and its role in society?

What is the difference between the purpose orientation of business and the stakeholder model? And how do they relate to each other?

A helpful answer can be found in the Davos Manifesto 2020 on the role of business in the 21st century presented by Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum. This manifesto goes beyond the Business Roundtable’s position in two different ways. First, it includes society in the catalog of stakeholders. Second and more significantly, it sees business not only as an economic entity in the service of wealth creation for different stakeholders, but also as a societal institution delivering multiple values. Along with government and civil society, business here is seen as another, equally important “stakeholder of our global future”. Business is expected to contribute through its specific resources and capabilities to improve the state of the world, together with government and civil society. To achieve this, a purpose orientation is needed to guide the business.

How do we make sense of this evolution of understanding of stakeholders?

In a first step, an organization extends its understanding from a single stakeholder, often the owner or shareholder, to a more extensive group of business-relevant stakeholders. This is the shift from Business Sustainability 1.0 to Business Sustainability 2.0 in the Dyllick-Muff Typology (see below).  This extension from a single to a number of relevant stakeholder groups can be viewed as a “horizontal extension,” with new stakeholder groups being added to existing ones. A majority of organizations are in this conceptual phase of understanding stakeholder engagement. At this stage, the central focus, however, remains on the business, which is seen to fulfill multiple demands through its activities.

When an organization, in a further step, starts to consider itself as a societal stakeholder, this is a completely different perspective. It represents the shift from inside-out to outside-in thinking which means that an organization is able to look at its own role from an external meta level. It starts perceiving itself as just another stakeholder in society. It is society which takes on the central space, no longer the organizations which sees its role as providing a positive value to society. This shift introduces an additional dimension and can be seen as a “vertical expansion” of the relevant perspective. This new position is what Business Sustainability 3.0, or true business sustainability, is all about.

The graph illustrates that we are in effect dealing with two different perspectives on business and society. And these two perspectives bring about two quite different discussions, as has been demonstrated also in developing our concept of True Business Sustainability.

In reviewing the established approaches to Business Sustainability, we developed a typology that focuses on effective business contributions to sustainable development (Dyllick and Muff, 2016). We call it the Business Sustainability Typology (BST). It ranges from Business Sustainability (BST) 1.0 to BST 2.0 and BST 3.0.

What do we mean by this?

In a first phase of BST 1.0 companies recognize that through sustainability management they can save costs and reduce risks, they can increase their reputation on the job market as well as their differentiation in the product markets. We defined this early form of Business Sustainability 1.0 as a form of “refined shareholder value-management” where shareholders play the dominating role. This is reflected in the interaction between business and their shareholders in the graphic.

In a second phase, companies start broadening their stakeholder perspective beyond their shareholders, thereby pursuing a triple bottom line approach. Value creation mow includes economic or social values to other stakeholders as well. This advanced view of BST 2.0 we have called “Managing for the Triple Bottom Line”. In contrast to BST 1.0 not only economic objectives, but also social and environmental objectives are pursued by business as part of their stakeholder management. But the companies still look at things from the inside out, from its own activities to stakeholders and to society. And it is about diminishing the negative side effects of the economic activities. This is well reflected in the horizontal extension to multiple stakeholders in the above graphic.

In a third phase, companies shift from an “Inside-Out-Thinking” to an “Outside-In-Thinking”, i.e. when the company starts from society and its problems and then asks itself which opportunities arise by contributing to solving societal challenges? This results in BST 3.0 or “True Business Sustainability” and is well reflected in the perspective where an organization sees itself as a societal stakeholder.

With regard to the vertical expansion the relevant questions address the needs of society to continue solving its problems and the relevant contributions made by government, civil society, and business. It raises questions about the role of business and its purpose in the development of the economy and society. This requires business to engage with the broader external environment, beyond the economic and market environments. And it requires an “outside-in perspective” instead of the dominant “inside-out perspective.” Such a perspective considers the company and its impact from the outside, starting with the societal problems and challenges; rather than from the inside, starting from the goals and concerns of the company itself.

This is a major step change in thinking about the development of business sustainability, or more generally, about business and society. It opens the discussion for the new question about corporate purpose. And it frames the discussion in a different way. Not as adding value to more stakeholder groups, but as focusing on very different challenges, societal challenges, where corporate contributions are much in need.


by

Reimagining capitalism – Three concrete options for business

Rebeccca Henderson is a University Professor at Harvard Business School in the area of sustainable business. In her passionate new book “Reimagining capitalism” she looks at a world on fire and develops a model of what sustainable business in a fundamentally transformed capitalism would require and look like.  She distinguishes three strategy levels for business, which I find very helpful and which I link to my experiences in Switzerland.

Massive environmental degradation, skyrocketing economic inequality, and institutional collapse (by looking at the USA and other nations turning increasingly autocratic, but also at multilateral organizations like the WHO or the WTO) grow more important by the day. She argues convincingly that this is something that cannot be left to governments and civil society alone, as classical economic thinking declares, while companies continue with business-as-usual. If we fail in transforming capitalism and putting its significant power and resources to better use, we will not be able to effectively address these problems. And business will put its own – but also our future at risk.

What can be done in such a situation? What are the available options for business?

Three different progressively more far reaching but also more demanding strategy levels can be found in the book, although in a somewhat different logic and argumentation as presented here.

Creating Shared Value

A first strategy level is based on the idea of creating shared value, a concept championed by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer. They define shared value creation as creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. “In today’s world, reimagining capitalism requires embracing the idea that while firms must be profitable if they are to thrive, their purpose must be not only to make money but also to build prosperity and freedom in the context of a livable planet and a healthy society.” (R. Henderson) However, as long as shared values are defined by business looking from the inside out, their perspective will focus on reducing the bads of their existing activities. They will reduce waste, resources, or risks and happily report on newly created shared values. This cannot be sufficient. Only when they start to look from the outside in, starting from the problems society is facing and finding economic solutions for them, will their contributions address problems of real social relevance. Only then, they may be approaching what Katrin Muff and I call “true business sustainability”. For this, they clearly will have to follow a larger purpose than simply maximizing their profits.

Cooperative Self-Regulation

A second strategy level is based on cooperative self-regulation. It engages firms with each other, with the third sector, and with government partners in the pursuit of solutions to common problems, which cannot be solved by any of the partners alone, often prototyping solutions that prove to be a model for subsequent practice. Famous examples are Nike trying to get child labor out of its supply chain by creating the Sustainable Apparel Coalition or WWF and Unilever which spearheaded the creation of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, both as a response to the massive critique by NGOs. A current example on a national level, where the author is personally engaged, is PRISMA, an inter-industry cooperation of major companies in the food production, retailing, and packaging sector engaged in bringing about a circular economy solution in Switzerland for consumer goods packaging. While the existing system of materially separated collection systems has been working well in the past, it has reached its limits of including new packaging materials and of demanding an increasingly difficult contribution from the consumers to separate and collect the different materials. The new model developed and promoted by the PRISMA-coalition is an innovative One-For-All collection and recycling system. It consists of a blueprint for a future collection system, prototypes of different elements of a practical solution, and a roadmap for developing and promoting an industry agreement.

Supporting Inclusive Political Action

Cooperative self-regulation is a powerful new way to mobilize the business community in support of promoting collective goods. The increased reach, however, comes at a price. It is hard to achieve and even harder to sustain over time. It needs to be carefully managed. To create more stability and to counter market deficiencies, we need to turn to the third strategy level which is supporting inclusive  political action. Environmental degradation, climate collapse, inequality, and public health are systemic problems that cannot be solved without government action. Free markets need democratic, transparent and effective governments, if they are to survive, as well as the other institutions of an open, inclusive society including the rule of law, shared respect for the truth, and a commitment to vigorous free media. Free markets need free and effective politics to continuously balance and rebalance the evolving rules of the market in light of changing conditions and challenges.

The challenges are huge

Energy demand is projected to double over the next 50 years. Stopping global warming will mean ensuring that every new plant that’s built is carbon-free. It also means shutting down or decarbonizing the world’s existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Inequality, poverty, and migration present a similarly tough set of intertwined systemic problems that can only be fully addressed through government action. Most of these challenges are beyond the reach of individual countries and need international political cooperation. A good example is the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals which became effective 1989. It has been remarkably successful. It proved to be possible to find CFC substitutes relatively quickly, despite strong opposition from major business players, and the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to return to its 1980 status by 2030. It has also reduced global Green House Gas emissions by about 5,5%.

The systemic problems we are facing today confront us with the fact that we must build effective global institutions. Business must become an active partner in shoring up the institutions that we have and in building the new ones that we need. And to be clear, this is not about improving the framework conditions for one’s own business or industry. It is about supporting the foundations of our society and of its healthy development. It is about protecting and developing the institutions that have made business and all of us rich and free.

A current example from Switzerland is the public vote on a popular initiative holding Swiss corporations legally accountable for environmental and human rights violations outside Switzerland. While 50,7% of the people voted in favor of the initiative, the second condition for an acceptance – the majority of cantons – was not achieved. The strong lobby of multinational corporations, their business associations and political allies prevented a move that could have paved the way for a more responsible and accountable form of supply chain management in a developing world context. In this case, it was a missed chance to go beyond simply reporting good news and demonstrate real engagement in one of the current hot spots of global development, although public and political pressure in Switzerland and on an international level will not go away It demonstrates how challenging it is for business to find a new role in this profound process of social change and business transformation.

Different strategy levels – different reach – different competences

Creating shared value, cooperative self-regulation, and supporting inclusive political action – on a national or an international level, depending on the issue at case – must be seen as three crucial sustainability strategies for business. While the first strategy is located on an organizational level and allows companies to act by themselves, this is easier to do, but its reach is also limited. Cooperative self-regulations offer a wider reach, often including whole industries or multi-industry and stakeholder coalitions. But this is clearly more challenging and demands very different competences and resources in the collaborative field to practically succeed. And a strategy of supporting inclusive political action aims at the political level and needs again very different competences and resources to act effectively. Here it will need political coalitions with business being only one player among many. But this level may prove to be the most important in the years to come.