CSR Legal Requirements

🤔 Useful Questions For Stakeholder Interviews. With good questions to ask when interviewing stakeholders — to understand their needs, key goals, gather requirements and keep them on your side ↓ --- 🔶 1. Design For Listening, Not A Conversation One of the most impactful strategies that worked for me over the years is to design the entire conversation around listening to stakeholders, not speaking about them or even with them. And typically it all starts with only one single question: “Please guide me through the product and explain its key features.” There is no small talk, no introductory questions, no dancing around the topic, no deep-dive into my workflow. I merely explain that in the next 45 mins I'm trying to find severe problems that are worth solving, understand the context about these problems and project goals — and ask for a permission to record the screen for studying it later. This opens the conversation immediately — and then I pay attention to features highlighted, features skipped, and ask plenty of follow-up questions to understand the motivations and the goals that a stakeholder has. --- 🔹 2. My Stakeholder Interview Template Dear Ms. Krajewski, As a UX lead on the project, my team and I are currently in the process of discovery. As we start our work, we’d like to better understand your pain points, expectations and success criteria. 1. What’s the purpose of this project for you? [Interest, engagement] 2. Where does this project fit in your daily work? [Their perspective] 3. What’s the most important thing to get right? [Priorities] 4. How would you describe the target audience? [Their view] 5. If you could understand one thing about users, what would it be? 6. What important insights did you learn about users recently? 7. What does success look like for you and your team? [Metrics] 8. What challenges are top priorities for your team? [Pain points] 9. What’s the success criteria for the project? [Ideal outcome] 10. What constraints or frequent issues should we know about? [Risks] 11. What is your ideal level of engagement for the project? [Max] 12. Anything else you think nobody said to me yet? [Hidden troubles] 13. Is there anybody else who you think I should speak to? [Leads] --- ♦️ 3. The Real Insights Aren’t In These Answers I absolutely love Anton Sten's point that the real insights usually won’t live in answers to all these questions. They live in the follow-up questions and answers — and often in a way of how a stakeholder responds, what they leave out, and what they overstate or repeat a number of times. As designers, too often we see our clients and stakeholders as adversaries. Yet we rarely know how our stakeholders work, so we shouldn’t expect them to understand what we need either. The crucial part is to be genuinely curious, positive and engaged to elicit useful insights. “The other person will only stay engaged as long as you do, and they can sense when you check out.” Useful resources ↓

As someone proudly committed to this work, I’ve watched the language of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging get distorted. Lately, DEIB has become a political talking point, a phrase some use to divide rather than connect. People are being labeled as “DEI hires,” as if creating access, representation, and fairness were something to be ashamed of. The truth is, people still have to rise to the merit in the room, DEIB just helps them get to the room. DEIB was never meant to exclude anyone. It’s contextual. It’s about recognizing that in every space, someone can be left out, overlooked, or carrying barriers they didn’t create. Depending on the setting, that person, or group, changes. Sometimes it’s women. Sometimes it’s men in nursing. Sometimes it’s veterans. Sometimes it's people in rural areas. Sometimes it's women in surgical specialties. DEIB isn’t about centering one group forever, it’s about noticing who’s being pushed to the margins in any given context. That’s why this work should matter to everyone. Belonging isn’t a privilege; it’s the foundation of how people, teams, and systems thrive. Let’s break it down 👇 Diversity is commonly seen as increasing representation of people of color, women, LGBTQ+ professionals, or people with disabilities. it's also: Recognizing the need for greater representation of men in nursing, second career nurses, rural clinicians, and first-generation college graduates. Equity is commonly seen as providing workplace accommodations for employees with disabilities. But it's also: Ensuring night-shift staff, working parents, or PRN nurses have the same access to growth, leadership, and recognition. Inclusion is commonly seen as ensuring cultural holidays and pronouns are respected. And also: Making sure introverted voices, remote team members, or those early in their careers are equally heard in meetings and decisions. Belonging is often seen a creating safe spaces for marginalized racial or gender identities. But also it's: Helping majority-group colleagues see their place within DEIB efforts, so everyone feels part of building the culture, not outside of it. ✨ DEIB is everyone’s work, because context changes everything. It’s not a trend. It’s not a checkbox. It’s how we create environments where people can lead, learn, and belong: together.

Inclusion isn’t a one-time initiative or a single program—it’s a continuous commitment that must be embedded across every stage of the employee lifecycle. By taking deliberate steps, organizations can create workplaces where all employees feel valued, respected, and empowered to succeed. Here’s how we can make a meaningful impact at each stage: 1. Attract Build inclusive employer branding and equitable hiring practices. Ensure job postings use inclusive language and focus on skills rather than unnecessary credentials. Broaden recruitment pipelines by partnering with diverse professional organizations, schools, and networks. Showcase your commitment to inclusion in external messaging with employee stories that reflect diversity. 2. Recruit Eliminate bias and promote fair candidate evaluation. Use structured interviews and standardized evaluation rubrics to reduce bias. Train recruiters and hiring managers on unconscious bias and inclusive hiring practices. Implement blind resume reviews or AI tools to focus on qualifications, not identifiers. 3. Onboard Create an inclusive onboarding experience. Design onboarding materials that reflect a diverse workplace culture. Pair new hires with mentors or buddies from Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) to foster belonging. Offer inclusion training early to set the tone for inclusivity from day one. 4. Develop Provide equitable opportunities for growth. Ensure leadership programs and career development resources are accessible to underrepresented employees. Regularly review training, mentorship, and promotion programs to address any disparities. Offer specific development opportunities, such as allyship training or workshops on cultural competency. 5. Engage Foster a culture of inclusion. Actively listen to employee feedback through pulse surveys, focus groups, and open forums. Support ERGs and create platforms for marginalized voices to influence organizational policies. Recognize and celebrate diverse perspectives, cultures, and contributions in the workplace. 6. Retain Address barriers to equity and belonging. Conduct pay equity audits and address discrepancies to ensure fairness. Create flexible policies that accommodate diverse needs, including caregiving responsibilities, religious practices, and accessibility. Provide regular inclusion updates to build trust and demonstrate progress. 7. Offboard Learn and grow from employee transitions. Use exit interviews to uncover potential inequities and areas for improvement. Analyze trends in attrition to identify and address any patterns of exclusion or bias. Maintain relationships with alumni and invite them to stay engaged through inclusive networks. Embedding inclusion across the employee lifecycle is not just the right thing to do—it’s a strategic imperative that drives innovation, engagement, and organizational success. By making these steps intentional, companies can create environments where everyone can thrive.

The recent publication of a detailed report on stakeholder attitudes marked the completion of the latest phase in the national discussion about the potential for reintroducing the Eurasian lynx to Scotland. A collaboration between three charities - Trees for Life, SCOTLAND: The Big Picture, and the Lifescape Project - the Lynx to Scotland project is exploring the desirability of restoring to the Highlands a population of this shy and solitary cat, which mainly hunts woodland deer. However, as experiences from other countries show, tensions between lynx and humans (and between different groups of humans) can arise. Last year, 53 people representing a wide range of rural interests, including livestock farming, hunting, forestry, tourism and conservation, met in a series of workshops facilitated by the IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group. The process was designed to address specific concerns about lynx reintroduction that had been raised during a previous round of multi-stakeholder study and to further assess the social feasibility of a potential Eurasian lynx reintroduction to the Scottish Highlands. My own role in all this (in a personal capacity), was to provide (hopefully!) trusted and balanced information about a species that is not well known in Scotland, following its extinction here several centuries ago. My input ranged from my book about the species and its relationship with people in modern Europe (The Lynx and Us) being made freely available to workshop participants, to being one of six people on the cross-sectoral Lynx Focus Group that helped to design the stakeholder engagement process, to giving a presentation on the subject at a reception in the Scottish Parliament. My most recent involvement, however, was to give scene-setting presentations on the particular topics at last year's stakeholder engagement workshops, i.e. on lynx habitat availability, livestock, deer management, endangered wildlife, gamebird rearing, and forestry operations. I stayed to answer any questions generated by the presentations, before leaving the workshop participants to get on with it. If you want to read more detail, I've included a link in the comments to download the stakeholder engagement report, which was published by the IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group. It will be fascinating to see where things go next... #nature #wildlife #ecology #environment #biodiversity #forestry #farming #tourism #Scotland #hunting

Decisions aren’t made in the meeting. They’re confirmed there. In Japan, this principle has a word: Nemawashi (根回し). Literally translated as “going around the roots,” it refers to the careful pre-alignment that happens before any official decision. Instead of debating and risking conflict in the room, leaders consult stakeholders one by one in advance—quietly gathering perspectives, addressing concerns, and building alignment step by step. I have encountered Nemawashi while working on a business in Japan. I initially assumed the meeting room would be the place for persuasion and debate, but I quickly discovered that someone had already done the groundwork beforehand. The most meaningful conversations took place in hallways, over coffee, or in quiet, one-on-one discussions. By the time everyone entered the meeting, stakeholders had already reached a consensus. What appeared to be a quick agreement in the room was, in reality, the result of weeks of careful listening, adjusting, and aligning that took place outside of it. This approach may feel unfamiliar to those accustomed to Western business practices, where decisions are often made after open discussion and debate in a meeting. However, Nemawashi highlights a universal truth, which is that influence usually occurs before visibility. The most successful outcomes are rarely the result of a single brilliant presentation or a dramatic last-minute pitch. Instead, they are the product of thoughtful groundwork. Understanding who matters, anticipating questions, adapting your message, and ensuring people feel heard long before the spotlight moment. For global leaders, this cultural lesson has a practical takeaway: before your next product launch, investment pitch, or strategic decision, spend as much time aligning stakeholders beforehand as you do preparing your slides. When people feel included early, they are more likely to support the outcome later. So, the next time you’re preparing for a big decision, remember Nemawashi. Do the quiet work in advance, and you’ll find the meeting itself becomes smoother, shorter, and more powerful. 👉How do you prepare stakeholders before a big decision? #Leadership #CrossCultural #DecisionMaking #JapanBusiness #StakeholderManagement

I would love nothing more than for DEI programs to become obsolete. Surprised? Actually, I think most people involved in DEI would agree with me. The goal of DEI has always been to create workplaces where leadership equity across gender, race, ability and sexuality is the norm, eventually eliminating the need for DEI programs altogether. So much progress we’ve made over the past decade is now at risk due to the current rollback, or watering down, of DEI initiatives and resources. Whether it’s blamed on activists, a lack of need, or the “executive order”, the impact will be significant. It already is. Despite the rationale provided by leaders and executives, I would encourage people to take a step back and remember why DEI began in the first place. The focus on diversity, equity and inclusion was originally established to help organizations thrive by ensuring leaders learnt from those with diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. Programs were intended to drive innovation, spark creativity, and help make smart decisions. Later, put in place to support employees from historically underrepresented groups, including the creation of affinity networks or E/BRGs (employee/business resource groups), and how those communities could come together inside an organization to support each other. Somewhere along the way, people lost sight of DEI’s real purpose. It's not about checking a box and for those doing it right, it wasn’t. It was about something much more fundamental: creating workplaces where people feel valued, heard, and empowered to contribute. As an athlete, I’m a fundamentals kind of person. Let’s go back to basics. At its core, DEI was designed to: ✅ Increase employee engagement and retention. When people see themselves represented, they’re more inclined to stay. ✅ Build stronger, more innovative teams. Diverse perspectives lead to better ideas, smarter decisions. ✅ Improve business outcomes. A Boston Consulting Group (BCG) survey found that companies with more diverse leadership teams saw up to 19% higher profits. ✅ Create better representation internally that reflect their customers/audience. Today DEI has become so politicized that some have forgotten (or ignored) these facts. The truth is, inclusive companies don’t just retain talent, they attract it. And when they represent their employees, they’re also better set up to reflect the needs of their customers and keep them. We know that having a more diverse workplace contributes to the bottom line and drives ROI. Diverse companies earn 2.5x higher cash flow per employee, according to a 2022 Research and Markets study. So let’s refocus. If DEI is done right, it helps everyone—including leadership—become more effective, more informed, and more customer-centric. It’s not just good ethics; it’s good business. And maybe if we truly achieve equity, instead of removing DEI, we actually won’t need it anymore. That would be a real success. #DEI #equity #leadership Luminary

A lot has been written about the EU #Omnibus proposal, but personally, I find it deeply disappointing. 😞 While framed as a simplification, it guts corporate sustainability reporting at a time when we need more transparency, not less. Where do things stand? The European Commission has proposed rolling back the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), raising the threshold so that only firms with 1,000+ employees and either €50M in revenue or €25M in assets must comply. This exempts nearly 80% of companies, drastically reducing CSRD’s scope. The argument? Less red tape. The reality? A step backward for corporate accountability. This contradicts what rigorous research has shown. A 2022 paper in Journal of Accounting Research, "Real Effects of a Widespread CSR Reporting Mandate" by Peter Fiechter, Joerg-Markus Hitz, and Nico Lehmann, examines exactly this. 📚 Their findings? ✅ Mandatory reporting led to real CSR improvements, not just greenwashing. Firms didn’t just disclose more; they launched sustainability projects, improved governance, and linked executive pay to CSR. ✅ The biggest improvements came from firms previously lagging on sustainability. Those with low pre-existing CSR engagement saw the strongest gains. ✅ Firms acted before the mandate took effect. Anticipating regulatory pressure, peer benchmarking, and stakeholder scrutiny, companies improved CSR well in advance. ✅ Social improvements were stronger than environmental ones. While labor practices and governance advanced, environmental impact remained limited—suggesting more, not less, policy support is needed. ✅ Real CSR investments had financial costs. Increased CSR activity led to short-term profitability hits, confirming these were real commitments, not box-ticking exercises. So what does this mean for Omnibus? If we scale back CSRD, we risk reversing these expected real gains. Companies that were just getting serious may now step back, and those that lacked incentives before will have even less reason to act. At a time when corporate sustainability should be accelerating, the EU is taking a major step in the wrong direction. Instead of diluting reporting, we should be strengthening it. Transparency drives action. Weakening disclosure doesn’t just ease compliance—it removes accountability, stakeholder pressure, and market forces that push firms to do better. Do we really want to trade long-term progress for short-term “competitiveness”? Because if this proposal moves forward, that’s exactly what will happen. Full paper here: https://lnkd.in/e7gBvXYw #Sustainability #ESG #CorporateAccountability #CSRD

When you answer the wrong question, you waste time and lose golden opportunities. Fulfilling a stakeholder request at face value usually leads to failure. You risk spending dozens of hours on a masterpiece that no one needs. And delivering a useless answer proves you are disconnected from the business. Stakeholders are rarely trained analysts. Their request is not the problem; it is a low-resolution proxy for a higher-stakes decision. You must find the business challenge hidden beneath the surface. This is your chance to prove you are more than a technician: you are a strategic business partner. Stop providing interesting data. Start delivering clinical evidence that is accurate, actionable, and aligned. To ensure this alignment, use the 5-step Strategic Audit: 1. Schedule a Live Discussion: Decline complex email requests to signal strategic priority. 2. Identify the Catalyst: Require the stakeholder to articulate the specific friction that prompted the request. 3. Quantify the Pain: Determine the immediate risk to the business if the problem remains unsolved. 4. Map the Path: Identify the specific decision or pivot that will occur once the answer is found. 5. Confirm the Mandate: Re-state the strategic objective to secure absolute alignment. Technical proficiency is a commodity. Strategic alignment is the value. Art+Science Analytics Institute | University of Notre Dame | University of Notre Dame - Mendoza College of Business | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign | University of Chicago | D'Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University | ELVTR | Grow with Google - Data Analytics #Analytics #DataStorytelling

Yesterday, I delivered an internal briefing for the Warden AI team on Connecticut's Public Act 26-15 (also known as the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act - the “CART Act”). From a recruitment and talent acquisition (TA) perspective, the most interesting and impactful feature of the Act is its shift from mandatory audit checklists to an evidentiary incentive model for anti-bias testing. Unlike NYC, Connecticut does NOT mandate a rigid annual bias audit checklist. Instead, it built an evidentiary incentive model that will fundamentally reshape how employers buy and use HR tech. Here are the 4 main takeaways every HR & TA leader needs to know: 1️⃣ "Blaming the Algorithm" is No Longer a Defense Starting October 1, 2026, Connecticut law explicitly states that delegating a hiring or promotion decision to software does not delegate your liability. You cannot escape a discrimination claim by pointing to a vendor’s tool. 2️⃣ Anti-Bias Testing is Now Key Evidence in Court While a formal audit isn't strictly mandatory, courts and the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) are authorized to weigh an employer's anti-bias testing as mitigating evidence. They will evaluate testing based on key factors: Quality & Efficacy Recency (a 2-year-old vendor audit won't cut it!) Scope (must cover your actual candidate pool, not just generic test data) Results & Your Operational Response 3️⃣ Transparency & Candidate Notice (Effective Oct 1, 2027) Before using automated employment-related decision technology (AEDT) to make or inform major employment decisions, employers must provide candidate notice detailing: • The tool's trade name & purpose • Categories and sources of personal data processed • How personal data is evaluated • Deployer contact information 4️⃣ AI-Driven Layoff Reporting (Effective Oct 1, 2026) In a first-of-its-kind requirement, employers filing a Connecticut WARN Act notice for mass layoffs must disclose whether the workforce reduction is connected to AI or technological change. 💡 The Bottom Line for TA, HR & Procurement Teams: Generic off-the-shelf vendor assurances won't protect you in court . The law rewards employers who continuously monitor their tools, test against their specific applicant pools, and maintain clear audit trails. Is your HR Tech stack ready for Connecticut's Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act?

Let’s be clear about what we’re fighting for—and against: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) 🔺"DEI has no place at work. We only want the best people." 👉 What DEI actually means: -Accessibility & disability inclusion -Inclusive leadership & decision-making -Gender equity -Representation that reflects the customers & communities we serve -Inclusive language -Addressing unconscious bias & mitigating microaggressions -Awareness of privilege, power & structural inequality -Neurodiversity inclusion -LGBTQIA+ inclusion  -Anti-misogynoir & racial equity -Honoring cultural heritage months (not just when it's Christian) -Hiring the best people—who also happen to be from diverse backgrounds -Efficient, equitable processes that improve outcomes for everyone -Psychological bravery & safety -Talent attraction & retention—without exclusionary filters -Mitigating AI, data, & tech bias -Expanding hiring pipelines to include ALL types of people who are young, middle age & older adults -Hybrid, remote & on-site work that supports diverse life experiences -Upskilling for future readiness -Conflict resolution—because "why can’t we just get along?" requires real work -And much more -And yes—basic human decency 🔺. "We don’t talk about politics at work." 👉. Except when we do, because "politics" is everyday life: -Pay equity & salary transparency -Anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, anti-racism, anti-ableism -Identity & human rights -Gender equity & intersectional feminism (yes, it’s still about equal rights) -Recognizing Black identity—both the word & lived experience (because "we don't see colour") -Immigration (fun fact: immigrants keep economies running) -Religion (especially beyond Christian/Western norms) -Global South realities vs. Global North -Healthcare & bodily autonomy -Climate & sustainability -Technology & media -Common sense inclusion. 🔺. "We only want a meritocracy." 👉. What “meritocracy” usually means in practice: -Cisgender, (mostly) heterosexual, non-disabled white men in leadership—qualified or not. When feeling generous, ‘token’ and yet overqualified white women.  -"Boys will be boys" and unchecked toxic masculinity -Nepotism disguised as "cultural fit" -"Christian values" used as a shield for bigotry & discrimination -A free pass to police and control others' bodies. -Worshipping the myth of meritocracy—because denial is comfortable Reality check ❗ I have yet to meet a woman, person of color, disabled person, LGBTQIA+ person, or anyone from a systematically marginalized group in senior leadership who isn’t at least as—if not far more—qualified than their peers. 🔺. Meritocracy is often a myth, favoring the privileged through nepotism, systemic barriers, and unequal access to education and opportunities. True meritocracy requires dismantling these inequalities first. 👉 So when someone says, "We only hire based on merit," the real question is: Who gets to define merit? And who has historically benefited from that definition?