he world is facing a daunting time, as evidenced by these megatrends. At the forefront of crises we must grapple with is a bevy of worsening climate emergencies. To meet the moment, we are in dire need of more responsible and enlightened leaders at every level (international, national, and local), in every sector (business, government, and social), and from all areas of expertise. Those leaders, acting in an enlightened and responsible way, can better act to adopt coordinated, thoughtful, and systemic governance practices to achieve real climate progress at COP27 and beyond—thereby averting climate Armageddon.
To help make that happen, in this piece I will discuss my typology of Responsible and Enlightened Leaders, with examples based on great data from Just Capital. To convert talk into action, this piece also offers a checklist of questions you should ask yourself about your leaders (as well as yourself) so that we can all do a better job in both finding and becoming such leaders. This way we can best deploy an effective and urgent resilience-forward approach to climate action and planetary survival.
Responsible and Enlightened Leadership in a Turbulent World
I have previously explored what makes for a good leader when it comes to environmental, social, governance, and technology (ESGT) risks and opportunities. I developed an ESGT Leadership Typology (summarized in Figure 1) in my book Gloom to Boom (further teased out in the ESGT Megatrends annual series) which asks the question:
How do the top leader, management team, and board of any type of entity address the array of ESGT risks and opportunities that are relevant to their entity’s purpose, strategy, offerings, and stakeholders? Do they do their work in an Enlightened, Responsible, Superficial, or Irresponsible way?
Figure 1: A Typology of ESGT Leadership
The difference between the top two leadership types has to do with creativity, innovation, and new value creation (the Enlightened Leader does more of that). However, both Enlightened and Responsible Leaders are focused on setting a good-to-great tone from the top on all things ESGT (including a culture of integrity and ethics). They also both provide sufficient resources for their entity to properly manage among other exigencies, environmental risks and opportunities.
The difference between the two bottom categories of ESGT leadership is that while the Superficial Leader is the prototypical “green-washer,” whereas the Irresponsible Leader goes a step further. They are intentionally ignorant or negligent about ESGT issues and are the most likely to commit legal violations and even crimes. Examples from the Vale environmental disaster in Brazil and the compounded BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Mexican Gulf to the Fukushima Nuclear Plant disaster in Japan all come to mind. In each of these cases leadership (management and the board) were either negligent or intentional in not providing basic environmental, health, and safety risk management in advance of the horrific environmental and human tragedies that ensued.
The Stakeholder Lens on Leadership
I recently analyzed the results of the Just Capital 2022 Rankings for a set of leading technology companies which provides a nice illustration of the ESGT leadership typology. Just Capital, a nonprofit think tank, annually studies and ranks almost 1,000 publicly traded US based companies around five stakeholder groups (workers, communities, customers, environment, shareholders/governance) and their key 19 “stakeholder issues”. See Figure 2 below for this list of issues for 2022, per stakeholder group, which covers some of the most salient ESG issues most businesses need to tackle.
Figure 2: Just Capital 2022 Stakeholder Issues
For my analysis of these results, I considered six leading U.S. technology companies: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and Tesla. Of these, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Apple scored well across all metrics—#1, #3, and #7 respectively—with Apple and Microsoft both scoring notably well in environment. Amazon, Tesla, and Meta rank #105, #608, and #712, respectively.
Figure 3: Just Capital 2022 – Three Leading U.S. Technology Companies
Figure 4: Just Capital 2022 – Three Lagging U.S. Technology Companies
The top Just Capital companies for 2022 from the standpoint of the environmental stakeholder are:
- VMWare
- Microsoft
- Intuit
- Apple
- Moody’s
- Mastercard
- PayPal
- Etsy
- HP Inc.
- PVH Corp.
Looking at the six tech companies’ rankings on the environment stakeholder dimension alone, an interesting fact is that all but Alphabet rank higher than across all five stakeholder dimensions cumulatively:
Is there a Relationship Between the Type of Leader and the Overall and Environmental Stakeholder View?
If we turn to matching the Just Capital 2022 ranking performance to the actual leader/founder of each of these companies, a picture emerges which begs an interesting question: Is there a relationship between the type of ESGT leader and the corresponding stakeholder view and impact?
Figure 5
The Tech Companies Examined and Their Leaders
If we take the view that there is a relationship (not necessarily causation but perhaps correlation) between the type of ESGT leader and the overall stakeholder view of the company, something dramatic seems to emerge. Companies whose leaders have been the least controversial and most admired for their leadership on ESG and tech issues (from Alphabet, Microsoft, and Apple) clearly contrast to those tech company leaders who have been more controversial, less consistent, and sometimes outright problematic on ESGT issues—namely, the founders of Amazon, Tesla and, especially, Facebook/Meta.
However, an interesting difference seems to emerge regarding Meta—while they are the most poorly ranked overall by stakeholders, on the environmental stakeholder dimension they do very well. An interpretation of this might be that while on most ESGT issues Meta fairs very poorly on the environment they do better, perhaps because (a) their environmental footprint may be more limited than say that of a Tesla, Amazon or Apple—and (b) they may just be doing better generally on their environmental impact.
Futureproofing – A Checklist for Identifying Better Leadership
Each of us has a role to play in this difficult and challenging world—whether as individuals, professionals, or leaders. Amongst some of the key questions we should be asking about ourselves and our leaders and how committed we/they are to the climate emergency and other important ESGT issues (especially environmental when it comes to COP27 and future COP meetings) are the following:
- Focus: Is it big picture or little picture? Short term or medium/long term? The bigger picture and longer term the better for ESGT issues, and especially environmental which take often longer to unfold.
- Decision-making: Is it purely economic or broader, including relevant ESGT issues? The more holistic and situationally aware, the more insightful and strategic. Leaders who don’t factor climate impacts into their decision-making are burying their heads in the sand.
- Constituents: How inclusive or exclusive are we about key stakeholders? The more inclusive of key stakeholders the better—as the Just Capital results underscore. This means incorporating key environmental stakeholders into strategic and tactical considerations.
- Social license to operate: Do you worry about it? Do you even know what it is? If you don’t, you are flying blind without a net.
- Risk: Are you risk-blind or risk-savvy? Flying risk-blind is completely irresponsible to stakeholders as well as leaves money on the table—knowing risk affords new opportunities. Look at the climate tech explosion—where do you think that’s coming from? Exploding environmental opportunity.
- The future of Capitalism: Shareholder, Stakeholder, Regenerative, other? The more one understands what is and what will be, the better strategy and preparedness can be built especially as we move to greater circularity and regeneration as core market components.
- Governance: Inclusive? Exclusive? Command and control? Emotionally intelligent? In an age of deep and complex turbulence—including multiple climate storms—emotionally informed and inclusive governance is necessary.
- Values and ethical principles: Are they core to your strategy, performance, cultural ethos? If not, go back to the books and start again.
- Sustainability: Are you wasteful or utilitarian or are you circular or regenerative in your approach? This one speaks for itself.
- Resilience: Nice to have or must have? Must have.
I would suggest that asking these questions of our leaders will help provide a roadmap to understanding who an Enlightened or Responsible Leader is and who isn’t. And, likewise, such answers may help us separate the leadership wheat from the chaff and help us become less susceptible to choosing/settling for the Superficial or Irresponsible type of ESGT Leader—the greenwashing marketeer and the grossly negligent polluter. Why? Because the future of the planet depends on it.
Our Unique, Fragile & Gorgeous Blue Planet Needs Our Help
If we don’t want to commit planetary suicide, we need to up our game dramatically on how we choose and empower leaders in all institutions to bend toward the Enlightened and Responsible Leaders over the Superficial and Irresponsible.
While this sounds easier said than done, most of us have at least some power to influence where we work, who we vote for (politically and as shareholders), and what/how we do at work and in our leisure time. I humbly suggest self-examination and proceeding accordingly if we think our fragile but beautiful ecosystem and its inhabitants deserve a chance to correct course for a better future.
a global affairs media network
You Can’t Fight the Climate Emergency Without Enlightened, Responsible Leadership
Photo by Alfred Aloushy via Unsplash.
November 9, 2022
At the forefront of current crises are worsening climate emergencies. To meet the moment, we are in dire need of more responsible and enlightened leaders at every level, in every sector, and from all areas of expertise, writes Andrea Bonime-Blanc.
T
he world is facing a daunting time, as evidenced by these megatrends. At the forefront of crises we must grapple with is a bevy of worsening climate emergencies. To meet the moment, we are in dire need of more responsible and enlightened leaders at every level (international, national, and local), in every sector (business, government, and social), and from all areas of expertise. Those leaders, acting in an enlightened and responsible way, can better act to adopt coordinated, thoughtful, and systemic governance practices to achieve real climate progress at COP27 and beyond—thereby averting climate Armageddon.
To help make that happen, in this piece I will discuss my typology of Responsible and Enlightened Leaders, with examples based on great data from Just Capital. To convert talk into action, this piece also offers a checklist of questions you should ask yourself about your leaders (as well as yourself) so that we can all do a better job in both finding and becoming such leaders. This way we can best deploy an effective and urgent resilience-forward approach to climate action and planetary survival.
Responsible and Enlightened Leadership in a Turbulent World
I have previously explored what makes for a good leader when it comes to environmental, social, governance, and technology (ESGT) risks and opportunities. I developed an ESGT Leadership Typology (summarized in Figure 1) in my book Gloom to Boom (further teased out in the ESGT Megatrends annual series) which asks the question:
How do the top leader, management team, and board of any type of entity address the array of ESGT risks and opportunities that are relevant to their entity’s purpose, strategy, offerings, and stakeholders? Do they do their work in an Enlightened, Responsible, Superficial, or Irresponsible way?
Figure 1: A Typology of ESGT Leadership
The difference between the top two leadership types has to do with creativity, innovation, and new value creation (the Enlightened Leader does more of that). However, both Enlightened and Responsible Leaders are focused on setting a good-to-great tone from the top on all things ESGT (including a culture of integrity and ethics). They also both provide sufficient resources for their entity to properly manage among other exigencies, environmental risks and opportunities.
The difference between the two bottom categories of ESGT leadership is that while the Superficial Leader is the prototypical “green-washer,” whereas the Irresponsible Leader goes a step further. They are intentionally ignorant or negligent about ESGT issues and are the most likely to commit legal violations and even crimes. Examples from the Vale environmental disaster in Brazil and the compounded BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Mexican Gulf to the Fukushima Nuclear Plant disaster in Japan all come to mind. In each of these cases leadership (management and the board) were either negligent or intentional in not providing basic environmental, health, and safety risk management in advance of the horrific environmental and human tragedies that ensued.
The Stakeholder Lens on Leadership
I recently analyzed the results of the Just Capital 2022 Rankings for a set of leading technology companies which provides a nice illustration of the ESGT leadership typology. Just Capital, a nonprofit think tank, annually studies and ranks almost 1,000 publicly traded US based companies around five stakeholder groups (workers, communities, customers, environment, shareholders/governance) and their key 19 “stakeholder issues”. See Figure 2 below for this list of issues for 2022, per stakeholder group, which covers some of the most salient ESG issues most businesses need to tackle.
Figure 2: Just Capital 2022 Stakeholder Issues
For my analysis of these results, I considered six leading U.S. technology companies: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and Tesla. Of these, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Apple scored well across all metrics—#1, #3, and #7 respectively—with Apple and Microsoft both scoring notably well in environment. Amazon, Tesla, and Meta rank #105, #608, and #712, respectively.
Figure 3: Just Capital 2022 – Three Leading U.S. Technology Companies
Figure 4: Just Capital 2022 – Three Lagging U.S. Technology Companies
The top Just Capital companies for 2022 from the standpoint of the environmental stakeholder are:
- VMWare
- Microsoft
- Intuit
- Apple
- Moody’s
- Mastercard
- PayPal
- Etsy
- HP Inc.
- PVH Corp.
Looking at the six tech companies’ rankings on the environment stakeholder dimension alone, an interesting fact is that all but Alphabet rank higher than across all five stakeholder dimensions cumulatively:
Is there a Relationship Between the Type of Leader and the Overall and Environmental Stakeholder View?
If we turn to matching the Just Capital 2022 ranking performance to the actual leader/founder of each of these companies, a picture emerges which begs an interesting question: Is there a relationship between the type of ESGT leader and the corresponding stakeholder view and impact?
Figure 5
The Tech Companies Examined and Their Leaders
If we take the view that there is a relationship (not necessarily causation but perhaps correlation) between the type of ESGT leader and the overall stakeholder view of the company, something dramatic seems to emerge. Companies whose leaders have been the least controversial and most admired for their leadership on ESG and tech issues (from Alphabet, Microsoft, and Apple) clearly contrast to those tech company leaders who have been more controversial, less consistent, and sometimes outright problematic on ESGT issues—namely, the founders of Amazon, Tesla and, especially, Facebook/Meta.
However, an interesting difference seems to emerge regarding Meta—while they are the most poorly ranked overall by stakeholders, on the environmental stakeholder dimension they do very well. An interpretation of this might be that while on most ESGT issues Meta fairs very poorly on the environment they do better, perhaps because (a) their environmental footprint may be more limited than say that of a Tesla, Amazon or Apple—and (b) they may just be doing better generally on their environmental impact.
Futureproofing – A Checklist for Identifying Better Leadership
Each of us has a role to play in this difficult and challenging world—whether as individuals, professionals, or leaders. Amongst some of the key questions we should be asking about ourselves and our leaders and how committed we/they are to the climate emergency and other important ESGT issues (especially environmental when it comes to COP27 and future COP meetings) are the following:
- Focus: Is it big picture or little picture? Short term or medium/long term? The bigger picture and longer term the better for ESGT issues, and especially environmental which take often longer to unfold.
- Decision-making: Is it purely economic or broader, including relevant ESGT issues? The more holistic and situationally aware, the more insightful and strategic. Leaders who don’t factor climate impacts into their decision-making are burying their heads in the sand.
- Constituents: How inclusive or exclusive are we about key stakeholders? The more inclusive of key stakeholders the better—as the Just Capital results underscore. This means incorporating key environmental stakeholders into strategic and tactical considerations.
- Social license to operate: Do you worry about it? Do you even know what it is? If you don’t, you are flying blind without a net.
- Risk: Are you risk-blind or risk-savvy? Flying risk-blind is completely irresponsible to stakeholders as well as leaves money on the table—knowing risk affords new opportunities. Look at the climate tech explosion—where do you think that’s coming from? Exploding environmental opportunity.
- The future of Capitalism: Shareholder, Stakeholder, Regenerative, other? The more one understands what is and what will be, the better strategy and preparedness can be built especially as we move to greater circularity and regeneration as core market components.
- Governance: Inclusive? Exclusive? Command and control? Emotionally intelligent? In an age of deep and complex turbulence—including multiple climate storms—emotionally informed and inclusive governance is necessary.
- Values and ethical principles: Are they core to your strategy, performance, cultural ethos? If not, go back to the books and start again.
- Sustainability: Are you wasteful or utilitarian or are you circular or regenerative in your approach? This one speaks for itself.
- Resilience: Nice to have or must have? Must have.
I would suggest that asking these questions of our leaders will help provide a roadmap to understanding who an Enlightened or Responsible Leader is and who isn’t. And, likewise, such answers may help us separate the leadership wheat from the chaff and help us become less susceptible to choosing/settling for the Superficial or Irresponsible type of ESGT Leader—the greenwashing marketeer and the grossly negligent polluter. Why? Because the future of the planet depends on it.
Our Unique, Fragile & Gorgeous Blue Planet Needs Our Help
If we don’t want to commit planetary suicide, we need to up our game dramatically on how we choose and empower leaders in all institutions to bend toward the Enlightened and Responsible Leaders over the Superficial and Irresponsible.
While this sounds easier said than done, most of us have at least some power to influence where we work, who we vote for (politically and as shareholders), and what/how we do at work and in our leisure time. I humbly suggest self-examination and proceeding accordingly if we think our fragile but beautiful ecosystem and its inhabitants deserve a chance to correct course for a better future.
