Altanova - Sustainable Strategy & Innovation

Dive into CSRD compliance with clarity and confidence! Join Apiday on 👉 the 24th of April, 2024, from 11am to 11:45am CET for a webinar on "CSRD: Top Challenges & How to Tackle Them." 🎙️ Featuring: Julien Soufflet, Corporate Sustainability Strategy Lead from Altanova - Sustainable Strategy & Innovation; Karen Massicot, Manager – ESG Strategy at ETYO; and Chloé Gouérec, our Head of ESG at Apiday. In this value-packed session, we'll explore: 1️⃣ Impacts, risks, and opportunities with the new Double Materiality matrix 2️⃣ Key changes and smooth transition strategies from NFRD to CSRD 3️⃣ Enhanced data collection, resource allocation, and monitoring with the 12 ESRS 4️⃣ Merge of financial and ESG reporting for improved auditability and transparency 5️⃣ Advice and tips to leverage reporting for informed decision-making 🚀 And an exclusive showcase of Apiday’s CSRD Module The deadline is rapidly approaching, and the consequences of non-compliance can be significant. Capitalise on this opportunity to be CSRD-ready! 🗓️ Mark your calendars and secure your free registration today: https://lnkd.in/ev5Ji36j

People are missing 3 of the 4 change modes that can help them be catalysts and get more done. 👉 Are you?   This post is the third in my series about being a catalyst. • Part one: https://lnkd.in/eQys6zN4. • Part two: https://lnkd.in/e7CT3-6N   Note: The model below is a key part of the training and consulting Valutus offers on how to be a catalyst. I’m sharing it here in the hope it helps you find new ways to catalyze more change, faster.   ➡️ There are four modes of catalytic change: 1️⃣ Intentional: this is the most attempted change mode. Here, you’re trying to get someone to decide to change something. When a company tries to get employees to choose healthier food at lunch – e.g., putting up posters encouraging them to choose healthier options – it’s using this mode.   2️⃣ Inertial: this change mode rests on changing the default choice, such as when the cafeteria changes the size of the most popular cookie from 6 ounces to 5 ounces. Most people will continue to eat the same number of cookies (although they could buy more, they usually won’t). However, because the cookies are smaller, they will be eating less unhealthy food.   (Note that this doesn’t mean people don’t notice what’s different. In inertial change, it’s assumed they will.)   3️⃣ Incidental: this is when people consciously make the change you’re after, but for a different reason.   An example is creating a grab-and-go section of the company cafeteria that has only low priced, healthy food. People who want to get their food more quickly or spend less on their lunch would then use the grab-and-go section, saving them time and money. They would also end up eating healthier food, but that wouldn’t be the reason they did it.   4️⃣ Invisible: in this mode, people don’t even realize that something has changed. Take a cafeteria that reworks a recipe so that it tastes the same but uses less fat, sugar, and salt. Employees order the same dish, and it tastes the same, but what they receive is healthier.   The reason it is important to use all four change modes is that we need more progress faster – and that means using all the catalytic tools that are available. 👉 What can you do?   1️⃣ Start by using the 4 Ws (as described in my last post) to identify who you want to influence, what you want them to do, and the obstacles blocking their path.   2️⃣ Then, when coming up with possible ways to help them get past those obstacles, use the four change modes. For each key obstacle, ask how each of the change modes could be applied to remove it. (If you want help with this, let me know.) 3️⃣ Use multiple change modes at once. Some audiences will be moved more by one mode, some by another. Used in combination, you can move more audiences, faster – which is exactly what’s needed.   #change #catalyst #sustainability #esg

Food miles: the most useless way to measure the impact of food. There, I said it. 🙊 Here are the facts: 📦 Transport only causes 4.8% of all greenhouse gases from food 🚚 Most of those emissions happen during local/regional road transport 🚢 Shipping covers the largest distances but only causes 0.17% of all food emissions ➡️ Paying attention to where your food comes from doesn’t reduce the carbon footprint. Here’s a good rule of thumb: think of how much space was necessary to grow that food, not how far it had to travel. 🥥 Coconut milk: one palm tree → low impact 🥩 Beef: fields of grass (and maybe even corn) to feed a cow → high impact So if your plant-based recipe includes coconut milk from across the world, that’s okay. People don’t like hearing this… There are still benefits for promoting a *local food system*: - more transparency - more connection to our food and landscape - more local crops and higher biodiversity But once you enter the supermarket, you’re already part of the global food system. In that context, paying attention to food miles is useless. I think this is good news, because it makes sustainable food choices simpler: make animal foods a luxury and don’t worry so much about all the other stuff. What do you think? And what does it make you feel? 😉 ---- 🙋♂️ I share facts about climate change and food. Follow me and join my exploration for a sustainable version of 'The Good Life‘. 📱 If you want to get more facts about the impact of our food (and recipes), download our free Fork Ranger app: https://lnkd.in/ewGh-zh5 #foodmiles #sustainablefoodystems #carbonfootprint Sources: Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. J. N. F. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198-209. Hannah Ritchie (2020) - “Very little of global food is transported by air; this greatly reduces the climate benefits of eating local” Published online on Our World In Data

The dangers of "Unthinking Stewardship": Pressure to demonstrate to clients and the media how commited to stewardship you are, and avoid accusations of greenwashing, leads some asset managers to: - Support every ESG resolution (irrespective of materiality or whether it micromanages the company) to rise up voting league tables - Hold as many company meetings as possible so that they can call them "engagement" (when some may be shooting the breeze) - Overburden companies with generic box-ticking data requests (when it's not clear what they'll do with the data once received or how they'll assess it in the context of the company's strategy, and responding to requests takes time away from value creation) What matters is stewardship quality, not stewardship activity. The goal of stewardship is to create long-term financial and social value, not to demonstrate to others how good stewards you are. One question I advise asset managers to ask themselves is: "If you couldn't tell anyone you were engaging or voting in this way, would you still do it?" Excellent article by Kimberley Lewis, co-winner of the Investor Forum's Simon Fraser Stewardship Award, in The Times https://lnkd.in/eqQ68Mqa

Lost in biodiversity translation? It does not have to be that way.   It is now obvious to many investors that biodiversity loss is material, but translating it into meaningful financial data and tools is complex.   This is why we have launched a whole new package to cut through this complexity: https://lnkd.in/esPDabXj. MSCI’s “Nature and Biodiversity Metrics” comprises raw data and biodiversity screens to help clients measure and report on nature and biodiversity-related risks and opportunities. It is packaged in a standalone product containing over 110 nature and biodiversity data points, including deforestation and biodiversity-sensitive area screens.   Reporting against the TNFD guidelines, CSRD and SFDR ESRS E4 is complex, too ? The new package supports investors by mapping data to those frameworks. It is available in our standard client facing tool and will be further enhanced with additional releases in the coming months.   Finally, we support this product launch with a new Research report: “An Investor's Guide to Nature and Biodiversity Risks and Impacts” (https://lnkd.in/e-Q7hkxP), drafted together with my colleagues Arne Philipp Klug and Mark Jwaideh. It is neither too short and simplistic nor too long and … well it will not bore you. One of the most interesting sections is a new biodiversity & nature data framework we have developed following countless interactions with clients and experts. This is the screenshot below. I believe it captures everything, and it should help understanding which metrics are to be used for what. This guide also contains a practical checklist designed to help investors start identifying which questions to ask and which metrics to consider as they begin incorporating biodiversity into their investment process.   We have a good track record in developing models and frameworks that provide a common language for investors when developing their ESG and net zero strategies. It is our hope that these new tools will bring more clarity to biodiversity investing.