CSR And Stakeholder Feedback

🚨 [EU POLICY] The report "The Future of European Competitiveness" adds the GDPR & the AI Act as factors REDUCING competitiveness in Europe, in a controversial nudge to EU regulatory authorities; take a look at what it says: "Companies in Europe face three main hindrances from the rising weight of regulation. First, they need to comply with the accumulation of or frequent changes to EU legislation over time, translating into overlap and inconsistencies. (...). Second, EU companies face an extra burden due to national transposition, for instance as Member States “gold plate” of EU legislation or implement laws with divergent requirements and standards from one country to another. As touched on in chapter 2, GDPR in particular has been implemented with a large degree of fragmentation which undermines the EU’s digital goals. Third, EU regulation imposes a proportionally higher burden on SMEs and small mid-caps than on larger companies, yet the EU lacks a framework to assess these costs. (...)." - Regulatory barriers to scaling up are particularly onerous in the tech sector, especially for young companies (...). Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways. First, complex and costly procedures across fragmented national systems discourage inventors from filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), hindering young companies from leveraging the Single Market. Second, the EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation: the EU now has around 100 tech-focused laws and over 270 regulators active in digital networks across all Member States. Many EU laws take a precautionary approach, dictating specific business practices ex ante to avert potential risks ex post. For example, the AI Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on general purpose AI models that exceed a pre-defined threshold of computational power – a threshold which some state-of-the-art models already exceed. Third, digital companies are deterred from doing business across the EU via subsidiaries, as they face heterogeneous requirements, a proliferation of regulatory agencies and “gold plating” of EU legislation by national authorities. Fourth, limitations on data storing and processing create high compliance costs and hinder the creation of large, integrated data sets for training AI models. This fragmentation puts EU companies at a disadvantage relative to the US, which relies on the private sector to build vast data sets, and China, which can leverage its central institutions for data aggregation. (...) The net effect of this burden of regulation is that only larger companies – which are often non-EU based – have the financial capacity and incentive to bear the costs of complying. Young innovative tech companies may choose not to operate in the EU at all." ➡️ Read the report below 🔥 To stay up to date with the latest developments in AI policy, compliance & regulation, join 35,000+ people who subscribe to my newsletter (below) #AIRegulation #AIAct #GDPR

In light of the planned omnibus (#CSRD, #CSDDD, #EUTaxonomy) proposal, over 90 organizations published a multi-stakeholder statement yesterday. Key message: "Instead of playing ping-pong with the legal framework, we strongly encourage focusing on smart and easy implementation and consider the current lack of key data relevant for the economic transformation." Some highlights: 1️⃣ On Legal Uncertainty: "Any arbitrary change or cut in the standards would risk confusing the market, and demand more efforts from companies which are already investing in the application of the EU standards." 2️⃣ On the 25% Reporting Reduction Goal: "The 25% reduction target for reporting obligations [...] lacks precise modelling and fails to demonstrate how it aligns with the actual reporting requirements necessary to achieve policy objectives: it is arbitrary." 3️⃣ On Needed Evidence for Policy Interventions: "Following the EC Better Regulation principles, any policy intervention must be informed from evidence." My remark here: Such evidence is difficult to produce right now, as we do not have reliable data (only first implementation experiences). The CSRD is not even fully transposed by all countries and CSDDD transposition is in very early stages. 4️⃣ On Adopting a Long-Term View: "It must be recognised that these challenges [implementation costs] will also decrease after two or three reporting cycles. Similarly, the recurring costs are expected to be significantly lower after the first-time investment." The way forward? (1) The Statement points to the need for better practical guidance and implementation support. (2) It also points out to provide capacity building for States so that they can better assist companies, especially SMEs. (3) It also urges to ensure consistency across EU regulations (e.g., on definitions and methods). #sustainability, #esg, #eugreendeal

📢 New analysis on the EU’s draft “ESRS 2.0” sustainability reporting standards. Important changes to consider! The European Commission says the revised standards would reduce:  • Mandatory datapoints by 60%+   • Total datapoints by 70%+   • Reporting costs by more than 30%  Some of the biggest changes include:  • A much more top-down double materiality assessment   • Expanded ability to omit commercially sensitive information   • More flexibility on GHG reporting boundaries   • Three-year reliefs for certain value chain disclosures   • Reduced granularity in several environmental and social disclosures Importantly, double materiality remains. The real question will be whether simplification improves usability or whether it allows disclosures to be watered down. Unlike the changes on who was in scope, I believe these changes will support a more efficient and effective set of sustainability disclosures.  The consultation period is open until June 3, with final adoption expected later this year. Have your say on the consultation here: https://lnkd.in/eJNhpe-Q If you have any questions on how this might impact you, don’t hesitate to reach out!  #esrs #csrd #esgreporting #esgregulation #sustainabilityreporting 

Big Week For Plastic. Anyone else following the Geneva talks? The city’s in full negotiation mode this week as INC-5.2 gets underway. The last stretch of talks to finalise a global plastics treaty, and the outcome could shape the future of packaging for decades. The ambition's to create a legally binding agreement to tackle plastic pollution from production to disposal. But getting there means untangling decades of conflicting priorities, economic interests and political pressure. The focus is simple, but the politics aren’t. Countries are trying to agree on a legally binding plan to tackle plastic pollution at every stage of its life. That means talking about what gets produced, how it’s used, what goes into it, and who’s responsible for cleaning it up. Packaging sits right in the middle of the debate. There appears to be growing support for a cap on virgin plastic production. Over 100 countries back it. The idea is to stop the flow at the source and push industry investment into reuse, recycling and alternative materials. But big producers aren’t on board. The US, China and others are calling for the focus to stay on waste, not supply. That disagreement alone is slowing everything down. Chemical regulation is another sticking point. Some parties are pushing for stricter controls on additives like PFAS, along with full disclosure on what goes into plastics. That’s a challenge for brands using multi-layer films, barrier technologies or opaque formulations. But without transparency, there’s no real way to track impact or enforce standards. Extended Producer Responsibility is also under discussion. The idea’s to make companies legally and financially responsible for the full life of their packaging, including clean-up and disposal. Not a new concept, but if this becomes global law, it changes the equation for design, sourcing and cost. Then there’s the issue of fairness. Developing countries are being asked to hit the same targets without the same infrastructure. The treaty text includes references to support and flexibility, but so far, there’s little agreement on what that looks like in practice. Even the basics are still contested. Delegates can’t agree on definitions, on the scope of the treaty, or whether health impacts should be included. And with no formal voting procedure in place, a handful of countries can block consensus. That’s happened before, and it could happen again. All very complex, but the direction’s appears clear. Brands and manufacturers are facing a future where business as usual won’t cut it. If this treaty lands with teeth, it will impact everything from sourcing to design to disposal. What’s being decided in Geneva is more than policy but a marker of where the world is heading and how fast the packaging industry is expected to move. No brand is too big or too niche to be affected by this Worth keeping an eye on! Where should the responsibility land first design, production, or policy?

Mario Draghi’s report delivers a sounding alarm and a stinging slap on EU competitiveness. #VW is the old man of Europe, #ASML maybe in the same spot in a decade and saddest part is indeed there are no startups that grew in the past decade, neither there seem to be any that ma become 1Bn, 10Bn companies. This is most troublesome to us all , to be honest 😓 Here are a few highlights of the report - #GDPGap: A significant GDP gap has emerged between the EU and the US, largely due to a slower productivity growth in Europe. - #LivingStandards: Since 2000, real disposable income per capita has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU. - #Innovation #Gap: The EU lags behind the US and China in innovation, particularly in advanced technologies. - #Industrial #Structure: Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure, with few new companies rising to disrupt existing industries or create new growth engines. - #MarketCapitalization: No EU company with a market capitalization over EUR 100 billion has been created from scratch in the last 50 years, while all six US companies valued over EUR 1 trillion have been established within this timeframe. - #Academic #Excellence: The EU has only three research institutions ranked among the top 50 globally based on top academic science journal publications, compared to 21 in the US and 15 in China. - #Regulatory #Barriers: Complex and fragmented regulatory systems in the EU hinder tech sector growth, especially for young companies. Regulatory barriers include: - #IPRs Filing: Discouraging inventors from filing Intellectual Property Rights due to costly and complex procedures. - #Precautionary Approach to #AI: The EU's regulatory stance often imposes preemptive restrictions that hamper innovation, such as the AI Act's additional requirements on high-powered AI models. - #Fragmentation: Heterogeneous requirements and national regulations make it difficult for digital companies to operate across the EU, leading to high compliance costs. - #Data Constraints: Limitations on data storage and processing increase compliance costs and hinder AI model training, putting EU companies at a disadvantage compared to the US and China. - #Competition and #Cooperation:EU competition enforcement may inhibit cooperation within industries, further stifling growth. - #Public #Procurement Rules:Different national rules in public procurement create ongoing costs for cloud providers, benefiting larger, often non-EU-based companies. This report underscores the pressing need for the EU to close these gaps and address the structural issues holding back its competitiveness.

  Keeping up with proposed changes and additions to notable climate and nature standards from organizations including (but not limited to) the Science Based Targets initiative, Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Science Based Targets Network (SBTN), ISO - International Organization for Standardization and so forth is time-consuming. Developments over the past few weeks alone include a call for input about the next three years of standards priorities by the Global Reporting Initiative’s Global Sustainability Standards Board focus. Elsewhere, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) seeks feedback on its net-zero standard for automakers until March 22. The EV sales slowdown makes it increasingly likely that many big companies will walk away. To make the task simpler, I assembled a timeline of highly anticipated updates or public consultations for voluntary net zero, carbon accounting, nature and circular economy standards from — both established guidance and emerging alternative frameworks. The featured categories: Emissions accounting Net-zero targets Circularity Biodiversity and nature Methodologies to watch Peek to see a timeline of what's in store this year. I'll be updating this article regularly, so bookmark it! And PM me with suggestions about what to add: https://lnkd.in/ewSeJTZj

📢SEBI has just released a Consultation Paper on expanding the scope of Sustainable Finance framework in the Indian securities market. Here’s what’s on the table: 📌Expanding ESG Debt Securities: SEBI proposes to widen the scope of sustainable finance by introducing frameworks for Social Bonds, Sustainable Bonds, and Sustainability-Linked Bonds, alongside the existing Green Debt Securities (which allow use of funds raised for 13 identified activities or projects, including transition finance, sustainable water managements, and solar energy generation). 📌Introducing Sustainable Securitised Debt Instruments (SDIs): SEBI is also considering a framework for Sustainable SDIs, allowing issuers to raise funds through sustainable finance credit facilities. 📌International Frameworks: The proposed ESG debt securities and Sustainable SDIs shall be governed under appropriate international frameworks by ICMA, CBI or LMA. SEBI may also prescribe other frameworks or adjustments to international frameworks to suit Indian requirements. 📌Independent External Review: To ensure transparency and credibility, SEBI proposes that all issuers or originators of ESG Debt Securities and Sustainable SDIs shall appoint independent external reviewer. In line with international approach, such review may be in the form of a second party opinion, verification, certification, or scoring/ rating. Why does this matter? 🔗 Supports India's journey towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 🔗 Encourages long-term investments in sustainable projects. 🔗 Enhances the credibility and trust in sustainable finance instruments. Your Input is Crucial! 💬 SEBI is inviting public comments on these proposals until September 06, 2024. This is your chance to contribute to the future of sustainable finance in India.🌱 (Link to the consultation paper in comments below.) #SustainableFinance #ESGBonds #SEBI #GreenEconomy #ResponsibleInvesting #FinanceForGood

Most strategy review workshops are a waste of time. Not because people don’t care. But because they ask shallow questions and avoid uncomfortable truths. This week, I ran a leadership session with a simple goal: 👉 Review how our transformation is really going. 👉 Decide what to change, double down on, or let go of. We used this structure to get deep, fast. We explored 5 key dimensions: 1️⃣ Strategic Progress → Are we making progress on what we said matters most? → How well are we addressing the strategic challenges we set out to solve? → Which goals or priorities are on track, off track, or obsolete? → Are we solving real problems, or just executing activity? 💡 This focuses the group on outcomes rather than busyness. 2️⃣ Organizational Behavior & Culture → Are we behaving differently, or just talking about it? → What new behaviors are becoming the norm? → Where is old culture pulling us back? → Are people taking ownership or waiting for direction? 💡 This surfaces whether the transformation is truly lived or just branded. 3️⃣ Collaboration & Decision-Making → Are we leading as a team, or still operating in silos? → Are we making cross-functional trade-offs or defending turf? → Are decisions made fast and close to the action, or slow and political? → Do we challenge each other constructively or avoid conflict? 💡 This reveals if the leadership team is truly aligned and acting as one. 4️⃣ Execution System & Governance → Do we have the right mechanisms to move forward with clarity and speed? → Do we have clear ownership, milestones, and feedback loops? → Are strategic initiatives (EPICs, programs, workstreams) delivering? → Is governance enabling or bureaucratic? 💡 This shows whether your transformation engine is tuned for progress or stuck in planning. 5️⃣ Customer & Market Impact → Is the transformation visible to the outside world? → What’s changed for our customers or stakeholders? → Are we delivering new value or just optimizing internally? 💡 This gets you out of the building. Then we asked 3 provocative questions at each dimension: – What needs to shift? – What do we need to double down on? – What’s becoming more (or less) important? Here’s how it worked: ✅ Small rotating groups ✅ Flipcharts at each dimension ✅ Start–Stop–Continue format ✅ Gallery walk + dot voting to surface shared priorities ✅ Team-wide synthesis to define clear next steps The result? No buzzwords. No corporate theater. Just clarity, alignment, and commitment. What's your go-to format for strategy reviews? ♻️ Please share to help someone you know make better strategy. Follow Dr. Marc Sniukas for more practical strategy insights.

Too many companies treat Voice of the Employee like a box to check. An annual survey. Generic questions. A vague promise to “do better next time.” Managers sometimes don’t even see the feedback, and nothing changes.    And here’s the problem: beyond just being surveyed, employees want to be seen, heard, understood, and most importantly, they want their feedback acted on.    Too often, traditional VoE feels like a formality, and it’s no wonder employees stop speaking up.   I’ve always advocated for VoE programs to be drivers of performance and engagement, rather than delayed listening exercises. It’s how I built it into the Centrical platform and how I run our company.    It looks like short, targeted pulse surveys about what actually affects people’s day-to-day work: → Are priorities clear?  → Is the workload manageable?  → Do they feel confident in their knowledge of newly launched processes or initiatives?  → Is coaching effective?  → Are they okay?     And when someone signals something’s off, managers get alerted, coaching triggers, and conversations start. It all happens in the flow of work.     Feedback without action isn’t listening.    When employees see that their voice leads to action, trust grows, engagement deepens, and performance improves.    We need better, faster, more human feedback loops, powered by technology, but driven by empathy.     #VoiceoftheEmployee #VoE #EmployeeExperience 

🚨 New Data from Basel Action Network: Plastic Waste Flooding Türkiye and Asia 🚨 In April 2025, countries claiming environmental leadership—many from the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (HAC)—continued exporting vast volumes of plastic waste to countries like Türkiye, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. 📊 Just to Türkiye: 🇩🇪 Germany (HAC): 12.4 million kg 🇧🇪 Belgium (HAC): 6.8 million kg 🇳🇱 Netherlands (HAC): 5 million kg 🇬🇧 UK (HAC): 9.5 million kg 🇪🇸 Spain (HAC): 4 million kg 🇮🇹 Italy (HAC): 2.8 million kg Instead of managing their plastic waste at home, these countries continue to exploit weaker economies where recycling is partial at best—often ending in open burning, dumping, and toxic exposure for local communities. The injustice is stark. 📄 In our newly published policy letter in Cambridge Prisms: Plastics, we argue that the upcoming Global Plastics Treaty must close these loopholes once and for all. We call for: ✅ Basel Prior Informed Consent (PIC) for all plastic waste ✅ Full transparency in global waste flows ✅ Controls on hidden plastics like textile and B3011 waste ✅ A strong treaty foundation focused on plastic production reduction 🌍 If we don't act now, this pattern of waste colonialism will only intensify—undermining both the spirit and substance of global environmental cooperation. ✊ High Ambition must mean action—not export. #PlasticWaste #BaselConvention #PlasticPollution #EnvironmentalJustice #WasteColonialism #HAC #PlasticsTreaty #PolluterPays #GlobalSouth #PlasticWasteTrade