Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
How measuring nature at the DNA level unlocks financial growth
Katie Critchlow is CEO of NatureMetrics, a company that, well, measures nature. But how?
"We use eDNA; that's all the DNA that's left behind in the environment by every species because every species in the world contains DNA," she explains during the livestream discussion "Time for nature: Turning biodiversity risk into opportunity," hosted by GZERO in partnership with Suntory.
But the animals and plants you see, Critchlow points out, are only a tiny fraction of total life on earth. There's a lot of very small stuff too.
Those microbes, fungi, and nematodes are what matter most to business risk because they "drive the nutrient cycles and the carbon cycles and basically keep us all alive."
Learn more about this GZERO Media live discussion: https://www.gzeromedia.com/sustainability
3 ways mining companies can help protect biodiversity
You'd think the best thing an extractive industry like mining can do for biodiversity would be to go out of business. Think again, says International Council on Mining and Metals CEO Rohitesh “Ro” Dhawan.
He shares three ways mining can have a positive impact on reversing the course of nature's destruction during "Time for nature: Turning biodiversity risk into opportunity," a livestream conversation hosted by GZERO in partnership with Suntory.
First, conservation. Second, restoration. And third, disclosure of lots of data.
Once mining firms "understand what species there are in the area, they change their mining plan to make sure it doesn't disturb those species," Dhawan says.
Learn more about this GZERO Media live discussion: https://www.gzeromedia.com/sustainability
- Biodiversity loss: Is nature-positive the new net zero? ›
- COP15 biodiversity wish list for the private sector ›
- Reversing biodiversity loss by 2030: "We don't have a choice," says Magali Anderson ›
- "We don't have any right to destroy nature" — Suntory CEO Tak Niinami ›
- How do financial disclosures help protect biodiversity? - GZERO Media ›
- US-Canada can and will extract critical minerals sustainably, says top US diplomat - GZERO Media ›
"We don't have any right to destroy nature" — Suntory CEO Tak Niinami
In biodiversity circles, many are talking up nature-positive as the new net zero. But for some companies, striving for a world where nature is being restored and is regenerating rather than declining is more than a buzzword.
"We don't have any right to destroy nature," Suntory CEO Tak Niinami says during the livestream discussion "Time for nature: Turning biodiversity risk into opportunity," hosted by GZERO in partnership with Suntory.
For Niinami, corporations need to make money, but also contribute to society. And companies have a lot of know-how they can apply to help reverse biodiversity loss in the future.
"Nature positive is not nature-neutral," he says. "Nature-positive is additional value for us to create for the generation to come."
Learn more about this GZERO Media live discussion: https://www.gzeromedia.com/sustainability
Why companies are losing the culture wars
Over the last decade, we’ve gotten used to seeing some of the world’s largest companies weighing in on hot-button social and political issues.
Following George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, large numbers of big multinationals expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Nike drew ire from conservatives who demanded Colin Kaepernick be blacklisted over his protest of racial injustice. Last April, Republicans vowed retribution against Major League Baseball over its decision to move its All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law. And in the summer, Heineken sparked a boycott when it came out in favor of the highly controversial *checks notes* Covid vaccines.
Most recently, you’ll remember how in the aftermath of Jan. 6, many major corporations and industry groups issued statements condemning the insurrection and pledging to suspend donations to the “Sedition Caucus,” the 147 Republican members of Congress who had voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
(Sure enough, that didn’t last. According to a watchdog group, many companies have since reneged on their promise.)
The initial reaction to Jan. 6—which featured brands like AXE, the deodorant maker, voicing support for the peaceful transition of power—is a bellwether of a much bigger trend in American life: extreme polarization making it harder and harder for companies to keep politics out of business.
As Red vs. Blue divisions have grown to become a matter not just of disagreement but of personal enmity, it’s gotten much more difficult for corporates to steer clear of the nation’s culture wars. Why? Because Americans are demanding that the companies they buy from and work for take a strong stance—the “correct” stance—on social and political issues they care about.
Part of this phenomenon is a natural outgrowth of our country’s growing polarization, which has spilled out the realm of electoral politics and infected all aspects of everyday life. Yet some of it is also due to a generational shift. Millennials and Gen Zers pose a triple threat to brands: many are woke, expect corporates to align with them on values, and know how to leverage their voices and their pocketbooks to punish them when they don’t. They are able to get away with it in large part thanks to the amplifying power of social media and, in recent times, to their newfound bargaining power brought about by the Great Resignation.
For most companies, taking sides in political debates is risky, a double-edged sword. Because our country is so divided on everything, speaking up often means alienating a non-negligible proportion of your consumers, employees, and investors. Americans of both parties (that’s right, it’s not just woke lefties) are eager to cancel brands they disagree with on issues that have nothing to do with the goods and services these companies provide. According to a recent study, 64% of consumers will buy or boycott a brand solely because of its position on a social or political issue.
Damned if they do, damned if they don'tSproutSocial, 5WPR, CNVC/SurveyMonkey, Gartner, Glassdoor/Harris
But not taking sides is often riskier, because neutrality is viewed as complicity. If a company takes a stand against abortion bans, it’ll face fury from conservatives. If it comes out in favor of abortion bans, it’ll invite backlash from liberals and progressives. But if it doesn’t take a stand at all, it could take flak from everyone. The blowback can be severe even for companies that put forth certain stances but fail to back them up with credible action (aka virtue signaling).
The upshot? Politics has become so toxic and so insidious that no matter how brands position themselves on a given issue, they are angering a big chunk of their consumers and employees.
This year features a particularly mined calendar, full of ready-made flashpoints like the Beijing Winter Olympics and the US midterm elections. The abortion law in Texas, the voting law in Georgia, the bathroom bill in North Carolina, the transgender law in Arkansas—these are issues where Americans will be looking at corporates and asking where they stand.
They’d better have an answer.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
Corporations losing the culture wars — Angela Hofmann
For Angela Hofmann, practice head for Industrial & Consumer at Eurasia Group, the world's most visible brands are in for a very rocky year.
Navigating culture wars will be very tricky, as well as fighting with competing demands from consumers, employees, and regulators on issues like China, diversity, and voting rights.
Consumers, empowered by social media, are using their voices and purchasing power to influence non-market issues, with a focus on supply chains.
These consumers are forcing multinationals to have visibility and accountability for all of their levels of production.
Firms face be a double-edged sword: fury from hyper-charged consumers utilizing social media, and pressure from US regulators.
Hofmann says companies must focus on ESG "with a particular focus on that S."
“Reinventing supply chains and investing in compliance issues, but with the expectations from the public and new regulations on the way, there's just simply no going back."
Watch the full discussion here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/events/top-risks-2022-w...
Business leaders & the environment post-pandemic
Kevin Sneader, global managing partner for McKinsey & Company, explains why businesses should continue to invest in the environment.
How should businesses think about the environment in a post-pandemic world?
For many, the environment was the issue at the turn of the year. Indeed, CEOs rushed back from Davos to proclaim that now there was really going to be action on the environment. But as stimulus packages have come and gone, as unemployment has soared to high levels, and as a depression has set in, the question must be asked, does the environment merit its place as a top priority?
I think the answer is yes. It may be different from the contagion risk that we've seen, but it is an accumulation risk. It's getting worse over time and ultimately it could kill. That's why many businesses have decided and continue to invest behind their environmental initiatives. That's why many governments have linked stimulus packages to investment in green efforts. It's why some call for a Green New Deal. It's why we do see that investors continue to underscore the E in ESG.
Business leaders will continue to find ways to invest in the environment, even if in the immediate term, their number one priority, of course, is to keep their businesses afloat and get their employees back to productive work.
The Future of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)
Kevin Sneader, global managing partner for McKinsey & Company, provides perspective on how corporate business leaders should reassess their approach to ESG criteria.
What's going to happen to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)?
The answer in one way is quite simple, "S" is going to become a whole lot more important. Social. Many CEOs rushed to sign declarations of purpose at the end of last year. We're going to find out now what those mean. As I chatted with CEOs across the globe, one of things that struck in my mind from one of them was that now we have to deliver. What will it take to deliver on purpose? First thing is to be clear on what that purpose is. Many businesses have been working on that.
Most importantly, what are we going to do that's different?
Some simple words of advice come to mind. The first is make sure that our people will now see this in metrics, and in responsibility and accountability. This matters more than anything. Secondly, be clear on how you as a leader are going to hold people to account on those metrics. Thirdly, walk the talk. Make sure your own house is in order. Do everything you can to ensure that before you talk about what the world should do, you're clearer on what you should do