Category: Corporate Social Responsibility

Understanding Climate Resilience Is Requisite for Climate Competence

Published by

Underlying the growing pressures for climate-competent boards is this fundamental question: how resilient is the organization to the impacts of climate change?

Few organizations or boards are capable of answering this question with any degree of certainty. Yet, the question is being raised with greater frequency and urgency due to actions by investors, regulators, customers, supply-chain partners, and competitors.

Click to enlarge in a new window.

Across every industry the increased focus on climate change is accelerating other megatrends such as disruptive technologies, digitization, urbanization, and evolving demographics. Underpinning these megatrends are a combination of technological leaps and upheavals in global society and the environment that will reshape economies, businesses, and lifestyles. For example, over $1 trillion worth of new markets for manufacturers are expected to develop over the next decade as industries transform. This shifting landscape creates many uncertainties, risks, and opportunities for new products, services, supply-chain structures, and improvements in resource management, among many others.

Taken as a whole, these pressures are driving companies to better assess, define, and enact strategies to increase their climate resilience. In their strategic oversight role, boards need better insights on the direct impacts of climate change on the organization as well as the indirect risks and opportunities associated with transitioning to a lower-carbon economy.

Yet, recent NACD corporate governance survey data suggests that many boards need a rethink on this issue. Six percent of respondents indicated that climate change would have the greatest impact on their businesses over the next year. The previous year’s report found that over 90 percent of public company directors believe that climate change would have negligible impact over the next five years.

Companies that focus primarily on climate change’s projected physical impacts expected to play out over the coming decades will have “blind spots” to the indirect risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Companies must to go on the offensive to build climate resilience in order to gain competitive advantage.

Climate resilience has the capacity to adapt and succeed in the face of direct and indirect impacts of climate change. In addition to addressing and managing risks, it encompasses the ability to capitalize on the strategic opportunities presented by the shift to a lower-carbon and resource-constrained economy.

To provide boards with a line of sight into its organization’s climate resiliency, management teams can undertake one or more of the following actions:

  • assess climate vulnerability of operations and facilities;
  • embed climate impacts into enterprise risk management programs; or
  • undertake scenario analysis to enhance decision making around risks and opportunities.

As a start, companies can model the risk of physical assets to identify location-level risk exposure and the vulnerability of properties and assets to evolving weather events and climate change. A geographic portfolio review can also help map demographic and infrastructure vulnerabilities to natural hazards to better understand how supply chains may be impacted by weather events.

Existing enterprise risk management (ERM) and risk assessment processes can be used to increase awareness of climate risks and better assess resilience across the organization. Leading organizations are using their ERM processes to identify how direct and indirect climate impacts—including regulatory and technology developments—serve to accelerate or otherwise change the velocity of other trends and risk events. Framing climate as a risk driver helps to align the timeframe of the risk and opportunity assessment to that of most corporate planning cycles.

Scenario analysis is recommended by the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures as a technique to assess climate impacts. Modeling different environmental scenarios (such as warming by a margin of 2 degrees Celsius and associated changes) gives form to the amorphous problem of climate change and provides mechanisms to discuss potential future states of operation. In selecting and devising scenarios, companies should consider the appropriate trade-offs in quantification, but also avoid excess complexity and optionality. When assessing for operational climate-risk resilience, it is critical to include a minimum of one favorable and unfavorable scenario respectively. This empowers organizations to make informed decisions regarding their longer-term strategies.

Overall, it is clear that the dialogue on climate change within boardrooms and among C-suites of companies across all sectors must evolve to a focus on how climate change will impact their businesses. The real measure of a climate-competent board is one that can address this critical question: how climate-resilient is the organization?

Lucy Nottingham is a director in Marsh & McLennan Companies’ Global Risk Center and leads research programs on governance and climate resilience. All thoughts expressed here are her own. 

The Pillars of Courageous Leadership

Published by

According to acclaimed researcher and author Brené Brown, being vulnerable can be a strategic asset to any organization. Although this may sound counterintuitive to some, Brown made the case for how vulnerability cultivates innovation to a rapt audience of directors and corporate-governance professionals gathered at the 2017 NACD Global Board Leaders’ Summit.

Brown became an Internet sensation after she discussed her academic research on these themes at a TEDxHouston event in 2010. Although her presentation was enthusiastically received by her in-person audience, she was frustrated by negative online comments left on the video. But soon after, she discovered a quote by President Theodore Roosevelt that not only has reframed how she viewed her experience, but also has guided her subsequent work:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Brown then identified the following four qualities that, when operationalized within an organization, will create a culture of courageous leadership:

  1. Vulnerability. Based on Brown’s research, there is no job where a person is not vulnerable. She noted that vulnerability is not the same as cowardice. Rather, it’s the willingness to expose your new ideas to public scrutiny. Without trying to do something new, and risking the possibility of failing horribly, progress can never happen.
  2. Courage. It takes courage to compete in business. Luckily, Brown’s research into the behaviors of 80 senior leaders and more than 300 MBA students demonstrates that courage is a skill that can be taught and measured. She recommends four practices to instill a culture of bravery in an organization: (1) encouraging vulnerability, (2) defining the organization’s values and operationalizing those values, (3) inculcating trust between individuals and teams, and (4) empowering people with “rising skills,” or the skills to pick one’s self up and brush one’s self off after failing. Regarding rising skills, Brown pointed out that if your employees cannot recover from and learn from their failures, they will begin to feel that they need to be on the defensive—a mind-set that can hinder creativity and innovation.
  3. Ethics. One of the most difficult situations a person can encounter in a business setting is standing up to someone who is making unethical choices. According to Brown, ethics should be the grounding framework that drives behavior. When someone acts outside the set of ethics that the organization adopts or outside the law, leaders must be brave enough to call out that person’s missteps. Her point holds particular relevance to directors and executives who are responsible for overseeing business ethics and promoting a culture of ethical performance.
  4. Trust. Brown asked the audience, “If you can’t see a person’s vulnerability, will you ever be able to trust them?” Vulnerability is a key to building trust, and top-performing teams rate trust in their coworkers as the deciding factor for success.

Brown noted that people who lack trust in one another are likely to avoid confronting their fears and anxieties. Trust makes workers brave enough to develop and share their ideas, and allows them to discuss failures in a respectful manner.

“Can innovation come without exposure?” Brown asked. “Can you have innovation without vulnerability? No. It doesn’t exist.”

Sustainability and Social Responsibility: Considerations and Tools for Boards

Published by

Ashley Marchand Orme

Learning how to implement sustainable business practices can be challenging for companies in any industry, and boards may wonder how to integrate sustainability issues into discussions with management. NACD has compiled a set of resources offering practical information to help boards discuss climate-related risks, as well as opportunities associated with environmentally- and socially-sustainable business practices.

The first step is to assess why sustainability and social responsibility are such hot topics for the boardroom. Two important factors to consider are the political environment and shareholder expectations.

Signals From the Current Administration

President Donald J. Trump in June announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, an international deal in which 191 countries have pledged to work toward goals to restrict the increase in temperatures globally to less than 2.0°C and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being created.

The president in April also signed an executive order aimed at “promoting energy independence and economic growth,” curtailing federal environmental regulations. The order instructs the Department of the Interior to lift former President Obama’s ban on coal leasing activities on federal land.

Watchdog group Environmental Integrity Project recently reported that this year, the Trump administration, when compared to the prior three presidential administrations in the same period, has collected approximately 60 percent less in fines from companies’ violations of pollution-control regulations.

Opposing Pressure From Shareholders

Despite strong signals from the current administration that enforcement of environmental-related regulations will decrease over time, shareholders are applying an opposing pressure on corporations.

More than half (56%) of shareholder proposals introduced this year on proxy ballots related to social, environmental, or policy issues, and Proxy Monitor reports that this proportion is the highest it has seen since it began tracking such data in 2006.

Shareholder proposals relating to environmental and social issues 10 years ago sought fairly basic changes such as increased clarity into companies’ environmental policies. The proposals now seek, for example, enhanced disclosures around what the company is doing to manage climate risks and how executive pay links to sustainability initiatives, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Proposals about environmental issues received a record breaking average of 27 percent support this year, according to Proxy Monitor. That percentage was 21 percent last year and fell in the teens before that.

Meanwhile, State Street Corp., a global financial services and investment management firm with $2.47 trillion in assets under management, published a report earlier this year in which they found that traditional obstacles (like the lack of quality data about ESG) to investing more heavily in companies that prioritize ESG initiative are diminishing.

“Over the long-term, environmental, social and corporate governance issues can have a material impact on a company’s ability to generate returns,” Ron O’Hanley, president and CEO of State Street Global Advisors, said in a press release.

NACD’s Responses

Given the increasing expectations of shareholders and NACD’s continued focus on long-term value creation—a focus that requires a sustainability-focused mindset—NACD has curated its Resource Center: Sustainability and Social Responsibility.

Resource centers are repositories for NACD content, services, and events related to top-of-mind issues for directors. In these resource centers, individuals can find practical guidance, tools, and analyses on subjects varying from board diversity to cyber-risk oversight. Below we have highlighted a sample of helpful materials from our new resource center on sustainability and social responsibility.

Thought Leadership & Research

The resource center features a handbook called Oversight of Corporate Sustainability Activities—part of the NACD Director’s Handbook Series—that offers guidance aimed at strengthening the board’s oversight of sustainability issues.

The handbook, produced in conjunction with EY, centers around four key recommendations:

  • Directors should understand the company’s definition of sustainability in the context of the company’s strategy and specific circumstances.
  • The board and management should align on the sustainability message and information the company chooses to report publicly.
  • Boards should clarify roles for oversight responsibility for sustainability activities, including external reporting.
  • Directors need to establish parameters for sustainability reporting to the board regarding the information required to support robust discussions with management.

Expert Commentary

A number of items included in the resource center provide expert commentary on myriad issues related to sustainability and social responsibility. A favorite of mine is “Living in a Material World,” an article written by Veena Ramani, program director of the Capital Markets Systems, at sustainability-focused nonprofit Ceres.

Ramani discusses the corporate director’s critical role in engaging with management over which sustainability issues are material for the enterprise. She offers four suggestions for board members who want to address the materiality of certain sustainability risks.

Boardroom Tools & Templates

The resource center houses several tools and templates to assist directors as they oversee sustainability-related risks and opportunities. One such tool is the “Self-Assessment: Is Your Board Sustainability-Ready?” evaluation. Directors can answer a set of questions to gauge their board’s level of engagement—or lack thereof—in sustainability oversight.

Videos and Webinars

The NACD BoardVision—Sustainability Oversight video in the resource center features a candid discussion by EY subject matter experts Brendan LeBlanc and Kellie Huennekens on how investors are engaging with boards around sustainability and social responsibility issues. (A transcript of the video is also available here.)

Conclusion

Our hope is that you find this resource center useful and visit it often. We will continue to update it regularly with new and interesting content. If you would like help finding resources on a specific subject matter, please let us know. We welcome the opportunity to engage with directors on pressing needs and concerns.