People

Cecilia Chiu

Preview

Cecilia ensures the smooth running of the Hong Kong office by being its key contact for human resources, finance, and information technology, a lead on all internal functions for the office. Cecilia also supports RISE and BSR’s post-award grants administration, monitors the logistics of programs enrollment, and manages a multitude of administrative tasks necessary to keep project teams up and running. She collaborates with project managers and a multidisciplinary team on financial administrative issues, including financial reporting and coordination with the shared services team in San Francisco.

Prior to joining BSR, Cecilia worked for Kaplan Financial, where, as an assistant project leader, she implemented management and operational strategies during the company’s office and training center relocation in Hong Kong. Cecilia also has provided consulting services to students and parents on language learning and study in the UK.

Cecilia holds a Bachelor of Commerce in management and marketing from Curtin University of Technology in Australia.

People

Asako Nagai

Preview

With more than 20 years of sustainability experience, Asako advises global technology companies as well as BSR members and partners in Japan to better integrate sustainability into core business strategies.

Prior to joining BSR, Asako was Head of the CSR Management Section at Sony Corporation, and she has more than 10 years of experience leading global sustainability strategies. She has experience in sustainability reporting, stakeholder engagement, supply chain management, and responsible mineral sourcing and human rights. She also played a key role in shaping the industry framework for the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition.

Asako holds dual master’s degrees in Business Administration and Science from the Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan.

People

Willis Harris

Preview

As Manager, Willis implements BSR’s internal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategy for the US in line with the recently launched People Plan, in collaboration with the People Council and the DEI Taskforce. He is responsible for exhibiting and maintaining a robust understanding of emerging issues related to DEI and identifying relevant trends.

Prior to joining BSR, Willis worked with a range of organizations to create DEI strategies focused on talent acquisition, employee engagement, people leadership, and relationship management. He developed and delivered course content (online and face-to-face) to organizations as large as 4000 employees. Willis is also a recognized thought leader and subject matter expert on the intersectional nature of DEI and access. He has a decade of progressive experience in higher education, local government, and the private sector.

Willis has a JD from Florida Coastal School of Law and a BS in Legal Studies from Florida Gulf Coast University.

People

Chhavi Ghuliani

Preview

Chhavi oversees BSR’s relationships with governments and foundations in North America, where he seeks to create cross-sector partnerships between the private sector and donors to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

Prior to joining BSR, Chhavi worked for a socially responsible investment firm, where he combined financial and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) analysis to make sustainable investment recommendations. He also spent several years as an operations manager for Oracle’s Asia-Pacific and Americas regions, opening a new operation in India. He also developed a CSR strategy for a spirits company in Mexico, developed sustainability reports for companies in India and Saudi Arabia, and worked as a freelance CSR consultant for the Institute of Public Health. He speaks English, Spanish, and Hindi.

Chhavi holds an M.B.A. from the Wharton School of Business and an M.A. in International Studies from the Lauder Institute of the University of Pennsylvania. He holds a B.A. in English and Computer Science from Rutgers University.

People

Aron Cramer

Preview

Aron is recognized globally as a preeminent authority on just and sustainable business. In addition to leading BSR, which has grown substantially throughout his tenure as President and CEO, Aron advises senior executives at BSR’s 300+ member companies and other global businesses and partners on the full spectrum of environmental, social, and governance issues.

Aron joined BSR in 1995 as the founding director of its Business and Human Rights program. He later opened BSR's Paris office in 2002, where he worked until becoming President and CEO in 2004. Aron has served on advisory boards to CEOs at AXA, Barrick Gold, Marks & Spencer, Nike, Recruit Holdings, SAP, Shell, and he serves as a director of the We Mean Business Coalition and RISE.

Aron speaks frequently at leading business and public fora and is widely quoted in top-tier media, such as the Financial Times, Le Figaro (France), The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Axios, and Politico. He is co-author of the book Sustainable Excellence: The Future of Business in a Fast-Changing World, which spotlights innovative sustainability strategies that enable business success.

Prior to joining BSR, Aron practiced law in San Francisco and worked as a journalist at ABC News in New York. He holds a BA from Tufts University and a JD from the University of California, Berkeley.

Blog | Wednesday August 10, 2022

Business Leadership in the Great Fragmentation: Part 2

Preview

Editor's Note:

It is obvious that we are living through a time of profound and accelerating change. Our world has been rocked by a series of disruptions: COVID-19, war and social conflict, rollback of rights and democracy, and now high inflation and the risk of recession. These developments have jolted society, and business.

To help our 300+ member companies navigate this volatile environment, we're releasing a series of blogs over the coming weeks to build insight into how to shape business approaches that address this unique moment. Following the first piece on the role of business in combatting societal fragmentation, today we focus on how business can reorient their efforts around four main objectives.

We’ll conclude with a deeper dive look into how BSR’s 2025 strategy can help your company to navigate these turbulent times—and how you can collaborate with our global network to push us further, faster, to achieve a more equitable, just world for all.

The Business Response

The divisions caused by “The Great Fragmentation” are a barrier to achieving an economy that drives equitable and sustainable progress. This represents the great project of the 21st century: enabling all people to thrive and live in dignity on a healthy planet.

The Great Fragmentation also presents an extremely serious challenge for business. Social division, political dysfunction, and constant conflict result in complexity, costs, and structural barriers that undermine the ability to plan and operate. 

To meet the needs of our fragmented world, business can reorient their efforts around four main objectives: 

• Close the gap between ambition and delivery on ESG: Business can accelerate delivery of existing commitments. The gap between corporate ambitions and tangible impact hinders social progress and invites skepticism of the bona fides of business’ stated objectives. The gap between stated net-zero commitments, for example, and tangible delivery—let alone progress—sparks cynicism and social division. Delivering on goals is not only an end in itself—it can also heal divisions regarding economic models and establish trust in business as a credible partner.
• Take on the sources of fragmentation directly: Business activities are an important source of fragmentation. Mis- and disinformation, income inequality, and gender and racial pay gaps arise in part from business models and actions. Businesses cannot be a bystander as society fragments. It has an opportunity—and obligation—to remedy the steps it is taking that contribute to widening divisions. The failure to act is a missed opportunity and risks further erosion of trust in business and, more broadly, global market economies. 
• Modernize and strengthen the social contract: At the root of this fragmentation is the fact that our social contracts have outlived their use. Existing social contracts are largely based on the world as it was in the immediate aftermath of World War II and are no longer fit for purpose. Modernized and strengthened social contracts can provide the security and mobility people need and deserve, establish the foundation for dynamic and equitable economies, and address 21st-century questions, such as the role and application of new technologies and the energy transition. For business, a more constructive role regarding social contracts also means moving away from reflexive opposition to tax and regulation.
• Increase engagement in constructive public policy solutions: Finally, it is essential that business reorient how they use influence in the development of public policy. It is long past time that the discrepancy between business aspirations and the lobbying efforts of trade associations was erased. In many places, not least the United States, this also means that business should engage more forcefully to ensure that democratic processes are restored and sustained. Business can make fundamental changes to their approach to political contributions and be willing to withdraw support for political figures undermining democracy and rule of law, even if they may advance other policies seen to be “business-friendly.”

Conclusion

There is little doubt that many business leaders would prefer not to have this assignment. Traditional business questions are challenging enough with an economic downturn looming, the ongoing march of new technologies, and continuing disruption of business models. Diving into the fragmentation presents a risk. Turning away from this central problem, however, creates even greater risk. It is unrealistic on the part of business to assume that others will step in to turn the page. It is irresponsible for business to look away from the sources of fragmentation where they take responsibility. And it is unwise to assume that business is immune from the impacts of our deep fragmentation.

By redoubling efforts to deliver on ESG ambitions, helping to reshape the social contract, directly addressing the causes of fragmentation, and taking a more active role in positive policy engagement, business can help reorient societies away from a vicious cycle of division and restore a more favorable operating environment. This is the only sensible path forward if we are to collectively escape the descent to further fragmentation and a world that is increasingly ungovernable, inequitable, and unlivable.

People

Deb Gallagher

Preview

Deb leads BSR’s climate work in the US. She works closely with BSR’s external partnership teams to accelerate decarbonization while engendering climate justice. She works with Transform to Net Zero (TONZ) collaborative initiative members to amplify leadership behaviors that promote a just and resilient future. Deb leads efforts to create a series of TONZ Transformation Guides on issues such as climate transition action plans (CTAPs), climate policy engagement, and climate justice.

Prior to joining BSR, Deb was a professor at Duke University, where she led the Business and Environment program. Her research focused on business leadership behaviors required to advance sustainability, including stakeholder relationship management, ESG data acquisition and use, public policy engagement, and design of strategic partnerships. Over the course of 20 years at Duke, she mentored over 200 sustainability leaders. Prior to Duke, she held environmental leadership positions in manufacturing and government.

Deb holds a PhD in Public Policy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Master's in Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School, and a BS in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University

Blog | Friday July 29, 2022

BSR Response: How the EU’s Sustainability Reporting Standards Will Be a Game Changer

Preview

In April, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) released a set of sector-agnostic exposure drafts that form the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). These standards will become mandatory under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and will have a significant impact on companies doing business in the EU.

This is one of several major milestones toward the standardization of sustainability reporting on a global scale. This spring, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) individually released exposure drafts for sustainability-related disclosures. 

These public consultations are a unique opportunity to influence the future of mandatory sustainability reporting standards and build a sustainability reporting system designed to enhance both business and sustainability performance.

BSR commends EFRAG for its leadership and efforts in creating the sector-agnostic standards. 

Below, we summarize our response to EFRAG’s public consultation which is informed by 30 years of hands-on experience implementing best practices with member companies. BSR’s comments are made in the service of reporting standards, designed to support improved sustainability performance by companies and the achievement of EU sustainability policy objectives. 

Granularity of Disclosure Requirements

The disclosure requirements outlined in the exposure drafts demand a level of detail and specificity that goes beyond standard reporting practices—even those of the most advanced reporters. While BSR believes that comparable disclosures require ambitious, specific, and prescriptive reporting standards, we question whether all the elements of each disclosure are decision-useful for stakeholders. We support the disclosure requirements to the extent that compliance with them does not (1) overshadow the most decision-useful information and (2) divert resources away from sustainability performance improvement.

Alignment with Other Standards 

We encourage EFRAG to further align disclosure requirements with established standards (such as the Global Reporting Initiative, or GRI) and emerging reporting standards (such as the SEC’s draft climate rule and IFRS Standards). We believe that harmonization is fundamentally important to creating a system that maximizes impact and achieves efficiency and comparability. Even minor differences in language between different reporting standards present the risk that companies will spend time and resources developing separate disclosures concerning the same topics but for different jurisdictions, which would make reports less useful for readers. BSR proposes that EFRAG map the final standards against GRI and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Standards and cross-label or explicitly reference them as appropriate.

Double Materiality

BSR fully endorses the concept of double materiality. However, we believe that the proposed definition of impact materiality is too broad and lacks the concept of prioritization. Similarly, we encourage EFRAG, the ISSB, and the SEC to align their definitions of financial materiality. Multiple definitions will make it difficult for companies to report across jurisdictions. BSR supports a definition of financial materiality that is consistent, interoperable, and substitutable.

Rebuttable Presumption

BSR does not support EFRAG’s proposal for the rebuttable presumption. We believe it will be difficult and resource-intensive for companies to prove a topic is not material based on “reasonable and supportable evidence,” adding an unnecessary layer of complexity and leading to less concise, less focused, and less decision-useful reporting.

Architecture and Presentation

The standards can be streamlined to avoid duplication and make them easier to understand and navigate for report preparers and users.

Boundaries, Restatements, and Value Chain

BSR agrees that the boundary for the sustainability statement should mirror that of financial reporting and extend to the company's upstream and downstream value chain. While the draft standards request estimates when the full boundary cannot be measured, we believe overusing estimates could be misleading and unhelpful.

Estimates

BSR believes that the current exposure drafts rely too heavily on the use of estimates when data are not available or difficult to collect. We believe that EFRAG should propose a “comply or explain approach” via omissions for disclosures beyond a core set, in line with the approach of the GRI Standards.

Targets

According to ESRS 1, if there are no targets in place, the company needs to provide valid reasons. We believe this sets an unreasonable expectation that companies should be setting measurable outcome-based targets across all risks, opportunities, and impacts. There is a possibility that this will result in companies establishing targets across several topics where targets may not be relevant, meaningful, or useful.

Format of Statements

BSR believes that the standards should allow more flexibility in referencing disclosures inside the management report. This would improve overall usability and avoid duplication within the management report when information is provided in other sections.

Feasibility

BSR recommends identifying additional disclosures as optional or considering phasing in certain topic-specific standards or disclosure requirements (e.g., biodiversity disclosures). In many cases, protocols for reporting on such topics are immature, which risks mandating the disclosure of information that may be less than fully accurate.

Use of Entity-Specific Disclosures

It is unclear whether the ESRS suggests completely phasing out entity-specific disclosures over time as sector-specific standards are created. BSR feels that companies should be allowed to continue to disclose entity-specific information as they deem it relevant and appropriate.

We believe that these exposure drafts are an important first step toward achieving our common goal of improved company disclosure and sustainable outcomes for all. BSR will continue to engage in the development of reporting standards, and in ESG reporting more broadly, through our Future of Reporting collaborative initiative. 

We encourage companies to participate in the consultation process and share their perspective on how to maximize the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of reporting in support of resilient business and a more just and sustainable world.

Blog | Thursday July 28, 2022

How IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards Can Contribute to Further Harmonization

Preview

At COP26 in November 2021, the IFRS Foundation announced the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), a sister board to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). This was an exciting development for the investor community, which had expressed a clear need for global and comparable investor-focused sustainability disclosure. Who better to play in this space than the IFRS Foundation? The announcement was particularly timely considering developments such as the SEC’s proposed rule on climate-related disclosures and the EU Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

With sustainability disclosure standards converging, reporting practitioners and the sustainability community at large have a unique opportunity to shape the outcome of the global sustainability reporting landscape for years to come. We have the power to advocate for increased compliance that not only reduces the reporting burden on companies but also drives concise and decision-useful disclosure. 

BSR welcomes and has responded to the ISSB’s two exposure drafts released in March 2022, grounding our comments in 30 years of experience working with member companies. We want to express our congratulations to the ISSB for this milestone and commend their efforts. Please read our General Sustainability-Related Disclosure and Climate-Related Disclosure comment letters for additional details. 

BSR would like to see final standards that:

1. Strike a balance between prescriptive disclosures and flexibility

Prescriptive disclosures may lead to more comparable reporting; however, every company’s operating context is different. A degree of flexibility—complemented by clear guidance—would allow disclosures to reflect those differences while ensuring that reporting is not overly burdensome.

BSR suggests developing additional guidance on the location of reported information, such as examples of where and how this information can be found based on jurisdictional requirements, or the ISSB’s perspective on best practice. 

2. Align with the jurisdictional definition of “materiality”

We recommend that the ISSB work with jurisdictions to ensure that reporting against one regulator’s materiality definition or set of requirements satisfies those of—or is otherwise accepted by— the requirements of another. Definitions should be consistent, interoperable, and substitutable. Otherwise, they can be interpreted and reported on differently.

BSR proposes that the ISSB clarify that companies may utilize other jurisdictions’ disclosures (e.g., those proposed by EFRAG), which are also intended to satisfy investor needs in the absence of further ISSB standards or where gaps with SASB disclosures remain.

Close alignment between the SEC’s rule on climate-related disclosures and the ISSB Standards is key. BSR encourages the ISSB to maintain close alignment with the TCFD recommendations and include additional topics of disclosure only when deemed necessary to fill significant gaps.

3. Require verifiable climate-related financial disclosures that follow a structured compliance timeline

The ISSB Standards serving as a global baseline for sustainability-related financial reporting implies that jurisdictions will build on them, allowing for the possibility of divergence across jurisdictions. To prevent this, the ISSB should provide guidelines for the adoption of the Standards by regulatory authorities.

Not all jurisdictions will adopt the ISSB Standards, but investors may continue to request ISSB-aligned disclosures as these build on SASB metrics, which will form the basis of the ISSB’s industry-based standards. As such, we recommend that the ISSB continue to provide guidance on how companies can report against the ISSB standards, including on a voluntary basis.

We support the verifiability of climate data as it is especially critical for investors and other stakeholders and features more established collection methodologies. 

BSR believes the effective date of both exposure drafts should be the same given that they were created in tandem. We encourage the ISSB to move forward with a common process and compliance timeline for additional standards

4. Include cross-industry requirements required for decision-useful climate-related financial disclosures

We support the breadth of disclosure topics included in the climate exposure draft, including alignment with TCFD. The ISSB should direct companies to additional guidance that would help disclosure of complex topics like scope 3 emissions. The use of climate scenario analysis is an important tool for identifying and assessing climate-related risk and opportunities. As such, companies should only use alternative assessment techniques if they cannot perform a scenario analysis. The ISSB should also remain flexible on disclosure of transition plans as guidance is evolving.

5. Leverage existing industry-based requirements for climate-related disclosures

We strongly support the ISSB’s proposal to include industry-based requirements (Appendix B) that are derived from the SASB standards. Moreover, we support the ISSB’s efforts to develop additional topic-specific standards over time, and we believe that each topic standard should be accompanied by industry-based requirements derived from SASB.

The consolidation of the Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) into the IFRS Foundation is a critical differentiator and brings years of industry-focused sustainability standards setting experience into a well-established financial standard setting entity. We commend the ISSB for its efforts thus far. We encourage them to continue building relationships with voluntary reporting standards and frameworks, to deepen connections between jurisdictional authorities that are developing their own standards, and to take forward future efforts to build on the two ISSB Exposure Drafts.

BSR will continue to engage on this issue, and in ESG reporting more broadly, through our Future of Reporting collaborative initiative. We encourage companies to get involved in the consultation process by showing support for the IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards in harmonizing the reporting landscape and highlighting ways the ISSB can strengthen the standards for the benefit of all investors.

Blog | Wednesday July 27, 2022

Business Leadership in the Great Fragmentation: Part 1

Preview

Editor's Note:

It is obvious that we are living through a time of profound and accelerating change. Our world has been rocked by a series of disruptions: COVID-19, war and social conflict, rollback of rights and democracy, and now high inflation and the risk of recession. These developments have jolted society, and business.

To help our 300+ member companies navigate this volatile environment, we're releasing a series of blogs over the coming weeks to build insight into how to shape business approaches that address this unique moment. Following last week's piece on changing expectations of business in protecting rule of law, rights, and democracy, today's piece is the first of two blogs on the role of business in combating societal fragmentation. 

We’ll conclude with a deeper dive look into how BSR’s 2025 strategy can help your company to navigate these turbulent times—and how you can collaborate with our global network to push us further, faster, to achieve a more equitable, just world for all.

The recent US Supreme Court hearing that overruled Roe v. Wade is yet another reminder of the profound divisions plaguing the United States. The decision has caused states to take wildly different approaches to women’s rights, business to face the question of how to respond, and a society at each other’s throat.

As momentous as this decision is, it is but one example of the many ways that the world is fragmenting: politically, economically, environmentally, and culturally. Signs are everywhere: growing conflict between illiberal governments and liberal democracies, generational splits regarding the value of market capitalism, and culture wars in the US and many parts of Europe. 

This fragmentation is driven by a set of interconnected and accelerating factors, which present not only serious risks to human progress, but also a massive challenge for business. This is particularly true for those of us advocating for more just and sustainable business. 

Sources of Fragmentation

To understand—and address—our current context, it is essential to understand the six interlocking factors that are accelerating fragmentation. Each is potent, and taken together, they reinforce and amplify each other, creating challenges that metastasize by the day. 

• The Digital World: Digital technologies and social media are both sources and enablers of fragmentation, with three key elements. First, social media enable communities of interest to gather in ways they never could in the physical world. While this is not inherently negative, the phenomenon is clearly corrosive. Second, disinformation and misinformation are turbocharging the digital communities’ embrace of their own realities, untethered to fact. Finally, the rise of the “splinternet,” with multiple walled off internets replacing the initial vision of a single, connected web (e.g., the Great Firewall of China and the “Putin-net”), prevents universal access to information, fostering further division.  
• Social Progress…and Backlash: The rise of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter and increased recognition of LGBTIQ+ rights are, on balance, leading to more equitable societies, with greater awareness of the structural inequities that plague us. There is also a powerful backlash, resulting in expressions of hate and violence. Business is increasingly being pulled into these culture wars, with competing claims of “woke capitalism” from the right and expectations from many, including the rising generation of employees and consumers, that business speak out for social justice. 
• Income Inequality: Our societies also continue to face income inequality that both reflects and reinforces fragmentation. According to the New York Times, the CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio in the US reached 339-1 in 2021, a tenfold increase from the late 1960s. Coming at a time of structural change and dislocation, this fuels extreme distrust, as well as populist movements from both right and left. Brexit, Trump, and Le Pen all galvanized widespread political support, often expressed through and with fear and xenophobia, by capitalizing on income inequality as proof that the system is rigged for the benefit of the wealthiest, leading to further social division.  
• Political and Geopolitical Division: Political divisions within and between countries are also on the rise. The recent French parliamentary elections spread votes across four coalitions, including two that are far to the right and left. The US has been mired in gridlock for two decades. “The Great Sorting” of populations has created urban and rural political divides in Europe and North America. The same is true globally, with sharpened geopolitical tensions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s increasingly muscular nationalism, and competition between liberal democracies and illiberal regimes are creating a more politically volatile environment than we have seen since in decades. 
• Social Impacts of Environmental Collapse: Human-caused environmental collapse also fuels fragmentation. The direct impacts of climate change already are more than enough for society to manage. The second- and third-order effects of climate change, however, are sparking additional social division. Climate refugees are adding to human migration, both to Europe from Africa and the Middle East and to the US from Central America, exacerbating already sharp divisions over migration and contributing to further xenophobia. The sheer scope of the energy transition, with the undeniable fact that there will be winners and losers, and pitting historical emitters against vulnerable nations, also magnifies fragmentation. Whether and how to act is also politicized, especially in the United States, where one political party has systematically—and cynically—denied climate science.
• Maximalist Thinking: Finally, these factors, which are powerful enough on their own, are also amplified—and at times weaponized—by the troubling rise of maximalist thinking. Various communities see “their issue,” whether climate or equity or democracy protection as the issue of existential importance. No matter how legitimate—indeed important—their vision and objectives, this kind of thinking has contributed to an environment in which tribes of reformers fail either to achieve their goals or to build needed coalitions. As Ford Foundation President Darren Walker put it recently in The New York Times, “[W]e are mired in a culture of absolutism and tearing ourselves apart at the seams. Everything right now, it seems, is black or white, all or nothing, perfect or unacceptable.” Indeed, if every cause is presented as an existential threat, advocates will retreat to their own corners, many others will simply tune out, and the consensus needed to make progress is rendered impossible.

Each of these developments has immense significance for business. Taken together, they are reshaping the expectations of customers, employees, and other stakeholders; the ways business communicates; and the policy environment shaping crucial issues from climate to employment to reporting and disclosure. 

In Part 2, we will spell out how business can respond to reduce these sources of fragmentation and adapt their activities to address them.