In this evolving multipolar landscape, public understanding of global affairs becomes increasingly important. Media narratives, political discourse, and public perception all shape how societies respond to international tensions.

Yet research across economics, political science, and international relations consistently shows that the drivers of war and peace are often misunderstood or oversimplified in public debate.

Below are ten insights drawn from academic research that can help citizens better understand the forces that influence global stability.

1. War Has No Long-Term Winners

Although some actors may benefit economically or politically in the short term, research consistently shows that wars impose enormous long-term costs on all parties involved.

Beyond human suffering, conflicts destroy infrastructure, disrupt trade, weaken institutions, and slow economic development.

Countries experiencing prolonged conflict often lose decades of development progress (World Bank, 2011).

2. Violence Is Extremely Expensive

The global economic cost of violence is staggering.

According to the Global Peace Index, violence costs the world economy more than $17 trillion annually, representing roughly 13% of global GDP (Institute for Economics and Peace, 2024).

These costs include military spending, lost productivity, displacement, and the long-term economic consequences of instability.

3. Economic Interdependence Reduces Incentives for War

Modern economies are deeply interconnected through trade, financial markets, and supply chains.

Research in international political economy shows that countries with strong economic ties face higher economic costs from conflict, which can reduce incentives for military confrontation (Gartzke, 2007).

Globalisation has therefore created powerful economic incentives for cooperation.

4. Institutions Help Manage Global Tensions

International institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and international financial institutions help create mechanisms for dialogue and dispute resolution.

These frameworks can play an important role in managing tensions between major powers and reducing the risk of escalation.

5. Information Shapes Perception

Media coverage strongly influences how people interpret global events.

Research in communication studies demonstrates that media not only report events but also shape the issues that audiences perceive as important (McCombs and Shaw, 1972).

Responsible reporting therefore plays a crucial role in helping societies understand complex global dynamics.

6. News Often Focuses on Conflict

One reason conflict dominates headlines is structural: negative events are more likely to be selected as news because they attract attention and appear more dramatic.

This phenomenon, known as negativity bias, has been widely documented in media research (Soroka, 2012).

As a result, stories about cooperation, diplomacy, and long-term stability often receive less attention.

7. Diplomacy Prevents Many Conflicts That Never Make Headlines

Many international disputes are resolved quietly through diplomatic negotiation.

Because successful diplomacy often prevents crises before they escalate, these outcomes rarely become major news stories.

Yet diplomacy remains one of the most important mechanisms for maintaining global stability.

8. Technology Competition Does Not Automatically Lead to War

The world is currently witnessing intense competition in areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.

While technological rivalry can increase geopolitical tensions, it does not inevitably lead to conflict if supported by governance frameworks and international cooperation.

9. Businesses Benefit from Stability

Companies rely on predictable markets, stable institutions, and functioning supply chains.

Conflict disrupts investment, trade, and economic growth, making peace and stability essential for long-term business success.

This is one reason why many multinational companies support international cooperation and responsible governance.

10. Citizens Play a Role in Shaping the Conversation

Public understanding and dialogue influence how societies respond to global challenges.

Citizens can contribute to constructive discourse by:

• seeking reliable information
• supporting responsible journalism
• engaging in informed debate
• encouraging balanced discussion about global issues.

In an interconnected world, informed citizens are an essential component of stable and resilient societies

Understanding the Foundations of Peace

War and peace are not determined by a single factor. They are shaped by complex interactions between economics, institutions, information, technology, and human decision-making.

Understanding these forces is essential for navigating the challenges of an increasingly multipolar world.

Informed public dialogue—supported by responsible journalism, research, and open debate—remains one of the most important foundations of global stability.

References

Gartzke, E. (2007) ‘The capitalist peace’, American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), pp. 166–191.

Institute for Economics and Peace (2024) Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace.

McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972) ‘The agenda-setting function of mass media’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 176–187.

Soroka, S. (2012) ‘The Gatekeeping Function: Distributions of Information in Media and the Real World’, Journal of Politics, 74(2), pp. 514–528.

World Bank (2011) World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

The post Ten Things Every Citizen Should Understand About War and Peace appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

Key observations from recent geopolitical and economic research:

• War has no long-term winners; even those who benefit in the short term eventually bear its consequences.
• Global stability increasingly depends on cooperation among multiple major powers.
• The economic costs of conflict are enormous and divert resources from climate action, social welfare, and long-term development.

The global political landscape is undergoing a profound transformation. For much of the late twentieth century, international relations were largely shaped by a unipolar system dominated by a single superpower. Today, however, power is increasingly distributed across multiple actors, including the United States, China, the European Union, India, Russia, and a growing number of influential middle powers.

This shift toward multipolarity is unfolding alongside several other transformative forces: accelerating competition in artificial intelligence, rapidly evolving technological capabilities, economic interdependence across global supply chains, and heightened geopolitical tensions.

While competition among major powers is not new, the combination of technological rivalry, economic interdependence, and information flows at unprecedented speed makes the current geopolitical moment particularly complex.

In such an environment, how societies understand global events becomes critically important. And this understanding is shaped to a large extent by the media.

Responsible reporting therefore plays a vital role in promoting informed public discourse and supporting global stability.

The Information Environment in a Multipolar World

In a multipolar system, geopolitical relationships become more complex and less predictable. Traditional alliances may evolve, new partnerships may emerge, and economic and technological competition may intensify.

At the same time, the information ecosystem has become far more fragmented. Digital platforms allow news, commentary, and opinion to circulate instantly across the world.

While this increased access to information can strengthen democratic debate, it also increases the risk of misinformation, polarisation, and oversimplified narratives about complex global developments.

Research in media studies shows that journalism does not merely transmit information; it also plays a role in shaping how audiences interpret events (McCombs and Shaw, 1972).

The way conflicts, technological competition, and geopolitical developments are framed can therefore influence public perception, political discourse, and ultimately policy choices.

Why Conflict Dominates the News

One structural feature of modern journalism is the tendency for conflict and crisis to dominate news coverage. This phenomenon is widely recognised in media studies and is often referred to as negativity bias in news reporting.

Research has shown that negative events—such as conflict, disasters, or political crises—are more likely to be selected as news because they are perceived as more immediate, dramatic, and attention-grabbing for audiences (Soroka, 2012).

In addition, traditional news values prioritise stories that involve conflict, tension, and unexpected developments (Galtung and Ruge, 1965). As a result, media coverage often focuses on geopolitical rivalries, crises, and military developments, while longer-term processes that support stability—such as diplomatic negotiations, economic interdependence, or institutional cooperation—receive comparatively less attention.

This does not imply that journalists intentionally promote conflict. Rather, it reflects structural incentives within the news industry that reward immediacy and dramatic narratives.

However, in a world increasingly shaped by complex global interdependence, it becomes even more important that reporting also explains the structural factors that promote stability, including economic cooperation, international institutions, and diplomatic engagement.

Providing this broader context helps audiences understand not only the risks of conflict but also the mechanisms that sustain peace.

The Rise of Technological Rivalry

One of the defining features of the current geopolitical landscape is the growing competition over advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence.

AI is expected to transform economic productivity, military capabilities, cybersecurity, and global economic leadership. Governments and corporations around the world are investing heavily in AI development in what some analysts describe as a global race for technological leadership.

However, research also shows that technological competition does not necessarily lead to conflict if it is accompanied by international cooperation, governance frameworks, and responsible communication about technological risks and opportunities (Varian, 2019).

Clear and balanced reporting on technological developments can therefore help societies understand both the opportunities and risks associated with emerging technologies.

The Economic Foundations of Peace

Another defining feature of the modern international system is the high degree of economic interdependence among countries.

Global trade networks, financial integration, and multinational supply chains have connected economies in ways that significantly raise the economic costs of conflict.

Research in international political economy shows that countries with deep economic integration face strong incentives to avoid military confrontation because conflict disrupts trade, investment, and economic growth (Gartzke, 2007).

The economic consequences of violence are also substantial. The Global Peace Index estimates that violence costs the global economy more than $17 trillion annually, representing approximately 13% of global GDP (Institute for Economics and Peace, 2024).

Understanding these economic realities is essential for informed public debate.

Yet these structural factors often receive less attention in daily news cycles, which tend to focus on immediate events rather than underlying systems that sustain stability.

The Role of Responsible Journalism

Journalism plays a critical role in helping societies interpret complex developments.

Responsible reporting can contribute to global stability by:

• providing context for geopolitical events
• explaining the economic costs of conflict
• highlighting diplomatic efforts and international cooperation
• presenting diverse perspectives
• avoiding sensationalism that amplifies fear or polarisation

Scholars in peace and media studies have also emphasised the importance of peace journalism, an approach that encourages reporting on the causes of conflict, potential solutions, and long-term structural factors rather than focusing solely on violent events (Galtung, 2002).

Such approaches can help audiences better understand the broader dynamics shaping global stability.

A Constructive Challenge to the Media

In an era characterised by geopolitical competition, technological transformation, and rapid information flows, the responsibilities of journalism become even more significant.

This raises an important question:

How do the media organisations we follow contribute to promoting peace and stability?

Mainstream media outlets play a powerful role in shaping public understanding of global events. As readers, citizens, and members of the global community, we can encourage constructive journalism by engaging with the media we follow.

Readers may wish to ask media organisations questions such as:

• How do you ensure balanced reporting on geopolitical tensions?
• How do you explain the economic and human costs of conflict?
• How do you highlight diplomatic and cooperative solutions to global challenges?
• How do you prevent sensationalism from distorting complex international issues?

These questions are not intended as criticism but as an invitation to strengthen the role of journalism in supporting informed public discourse.

An Invitation to SustainCase Readers

At SustainCase, we believe that informed dialogue and responsible leadership are essential components of sustainable societies.

The transition to a multipolar world will undoubtedly bring new challenges and new opportunities.

Constructive engagement with the media can help ensure that public conversations about global affairs remain informed, balanced, and oriented toward stability and cooperation.

We therefore invite our readers to engage with the media they follow and ask how their reporting contributes to a better understanding of the forces shaping peace, stability, and global cooperation.

Responsible journalism, informed citizens, and constructive dialogue are all part of the foundations of a stable and sustainable world.

References

Galtung, J. (2002) ‘Peace journalism – A challenge’, in Kempf, W. and Luostarinen, H. (eds.) Journalism and the New World Order. Göteborg: Nordicom.

Galtung, J. and Ruge, M.H. (1965) ‘The structure of foreign news’, Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), pp. 64–91.

Gartzke, E. (2007) ‘The capitalist peace’, American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), pp. 166–191.

Institute for Economics and Peace (2024) Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace.

McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972) ‘The agenda-setting function of mass media’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 176–187.

Pinker, S. (2018) Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Viking.

Soroka, S. (2012) ‘The Gatekeeping Function: Distributions of Information in Media and the Real World’, Journal of Politics, 74(2), pp. 514–528.

Varian, H.R. (2019) Artificial Intelligence, Economics, and Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

World Bank (2011) World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

The post Why Responsible Journalism Matters in a Multipolar World appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

For most of modern history, global power has been concentrated among a small number of dominant states. Today, the international system is gradually shifting toward a more multipolar world, where several major powers influence global affairs. This transition raises an important question:

Can the world move toward multipolarity without conflict?

According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, violence costs the global economy more than $17 trillion annually—around 13% of global GDP. Understanding the economic foundations of peace is therefore essential for navigating this transition.

A growing body of academic research suggests that the answer may be yes—if economic cooperation, institutions, and transparency evolve alongside geopolitical change.

War Is Economically Irrational

Modern research consistently shows that armed conflict carries enormous economic costs.

The Global Cost of Violence: Over $17 Trillion Annually. These costs include:

• military expenditure
• destruction of infrastructure
• lost productivity
• displacement of populations
• long-term economic instability

Studies from the World Bank show that countries experiencing major conflict typically lose decades of economic development.

In other words, war is not only tragic—it is economically destructive for all parties involved.

Economic Interdependence Reduces the Incentive for Conflict

Political science research has long shown that trade and economic integration reduce the likelihood of war.

Economists studying international relations have found that countries with strong trade relationships face much higher opportunity costs for conflict.

Research associated with scholars such as Erik Gartzke suggests that economic openness and financial integration can significantly reduce incentives for military confrontation.

When economies become deeply interconnected, conflict disrupts supply chains, financial markets, and trade networks—creating powerful incentives to avoid escalation.

Institutions Help Manage Power Transitions

Multipolarity itself does not automatically lead to conflict.

Research in international relations shows that institutions and rules help manage power shifts peacefully.

Organisations such as:

• United Nations
• World Trade Organization
• International Monetary Fund

provide mechanisms for dialogue, dispute resolution, and economic coordination.

These institutions help create predictability and shared rules, which are critical when multiple global powers interact.

Historical research indicates that institutional cooperation can significantly reduce the risks associated with shifting global power balances.

Transparency and Governance Reduce Instability

Economic stability also depends heavily on governance and transparency.

Corruption, weak institutions, and inequality often increase the risk of social instability and conflict.

Research from Transparency International shows that countries with stronger governance systems and lower corruption levels tend to experience higher levels of social stability and investor confidence.

Sustainability reporting frameworks such as those developed by the Global Reporting Initiative encourage transparency and accountability in corporate behaviour, contributing indirectly to stronger institutions.

Businesses Also Play a Role

Companies operate across borders and often connect economies that might otherwise have little interaction.

Responsible businesses contribute to stability by:

• creating employment
• strengthening supply chains
• promoting transparency
• encouraging cross-border cooperation

When global supply chains link multiple economies together, conflict becomes increasingly costly for everyone involved.

A Peaceful Multipolar Future Is Possible

History shows that shifts in global power can be dangerous. But research increasingly suggests that economic integration, institutions, and transparency can significantly reduce the risks.

A peaceful multipolar world depends not only on diplomacy, but also on:

• strong economic interdependence
• responsible business practices
• transparent governance
• international cooperation

In this sense, sustainability and responsible business conduct contribute not only to environmental protection and social progress — but also to global stability and peace.

Multipolarity Does Not Necessarily Lead to Conflict

A growing body of international relations research suggests that the emergence of a multipolar world—where influence is shared among major actors such as the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, India, and others—does not inevitably lead to conflict.

Contemporary scholarship highlights several stabilising forces.

First, deep economic interdependence raises the costs of war because disruption to trade, finance, and supply chains would impose major losses on all parties. Empirical studies of globalisation show that stronger economic linkages significantly reduce incentives for interstate conflict.

Second, international institutions and multilateral frameworks provide mechanisms for dialogue, rule-making, and dispute resolution that help manage power shifts.

Third, the increasing role of middle powers and multi-alignment strategies—where countries cooperate with several blocs rather than choosing rigid alliances—creates diplomatic flexibility that can dampen escalation.

Together, these dynamics suggest that while geopolitical competition will likely intensify, a multipolar order can remain stable if economic integration, institutional cooperation, and responsible governance continue to evolve alongside shifting power balances.

References

Gartzke, E. (2007) ‘The capitalist peace’, American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), pp. 166–191.
Goldstein, J.S. (2011) Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide. New York: Dutton.

Institute for Economics and Peace (2024) Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace.

Mousseau, M. (2013) ‘The democratic peace and the roots of war’, International Security, 37(4), pp. 186–217.

North, D.C., Wallis, J.J. and Weingast, B.R. (2009) Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018) States of Fragility 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pinker, S. (2018) Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Viking.

Rodrik, D. (2011) The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: W.W. Norton.

United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.

World Bank (2011) World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Ikenberry, G.J. (2018) A World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kupchan, C.A. (2012) No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The research cited above consistently shows that economic cooperation, strong institutions, and transparency significantly reduce the likelihood of conflict and support long-term stability.

The post The Economics of Peace appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

We then conducted further analysis and curated additional evidence so SustainCase readers have strong, credible data they can reference in conversations about conflict, risk and long-term value. What follows is a concise synthesis of the most powerful findings that sustainability professionals, investors and civic leaders can use to argue effectively against war-driven policy choices and to promote stability, resilience and transparent risk governance.

Economists show war isn’t just a moral tragedy — it’s a measurable economic crisis that knocks decades off growth.

War is often framed in political or military terms. The evidence shows it is equally an economic disaster. The onset of war leads to a sustained decline in real GDP of approximately 13 per cent. There is little sign of recovery even a decade later. Economies do not simply bounce back once fighting stops.

The damage reaches households directly. Consumption falls by around 11 per cent, meaning lower living standards and reduced access to goods and services. Investment drops by roughly 14 per cent as uncertainty deters both private capital and public infrastructure spending. Trade weakens sharply, with exports declining by about 13 per cent and imports by 7 per cent. Inflation pressures intensify, with price levels rising dramatically and remaining elevated for years.

Crucially, the research shows that all parties involved suffer long term economic harm. There are no true economic winners in war. Growth, trade, fiscal stability and institutional resilience are all weakened.

Key Evidence Points

• War reduces national GDP by around 13 per cent, with no meaningful recovery even a decade after conflict onset (Benmelech and Monteiro 2025, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-economic-price-we-pay-for-war)
• Household consumption falls by roughly 11 per cent, directly lowering living standards and economic opportunity (Benmelech and Monteiro 2025, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-economic-price-we-pay-for-war)
• Investment declines by about 14 per cent as uncertainty discourages private capital formation and public infrastructure spending (Benmelech and Monteiro 2025, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-economic-price-we-pay-for-war)
• Exports drop by around 13 per cent and imports by approximately 7 per cent, weakening trade integration and global supply chains (Benmelech and Monteiro 2025, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-economic-price-we-pay-for-war)
• Inflation rises sharply, with price levels increasing significantly and remaining elevated for years, eroding purchasing power and fiscal stability (Benmelech and Monteiro 2025, https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/newsletters/the-economic-shocks-of-war)
• The broader macroeconomic impact is persistent across both winners and losers, with long term structural damage to growth, fiscal space and institutional resilience (Federle et al. 2025, European Central Bank Working Paper, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/conferences/shared/pdf/20251031_ECB_IMF/S4_paper1_Federle.pdf)

Sustaincase readers who live in democratic systems have another lever: direct engagement with elected representatives.

A short, structured letter can ask clear, measurable questions.

For example:

1. What diplomatic initiatives is our government actively supporting to prevent escalation?
2. How are conflict risks being assessed within national economic and fiscal planning?
3. What safeguards exist to ensure parliamentary oversight of military commitments and defence spending?
4. How is the government strengthening multilateral cooperation, trade stability and institutional resilience to reduce the likelihood of conflict?
5. What independent economic impact assessments are conducted before major security decisions are taken?

SustainCase Readers – Evidence-Based Civic Engagement

Environmental protection, social prosperity and peace are interconnected public goods. Stability underpins sustainable development and long-term economic resilience. Informed civic participation helps strengthen accountability. Engage constructively with institutions, ask for transparency and evidence in decision-making, and support cooperation that promotes stability. Sustainable outcomes depend on active, informed citizens.

If you found this article valuable, please feel free to share it.

References

Benmelech, E and Monteiro, J (2025) The Economic Price We Pay for War. Kellogg Insight. Available at: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-economic-price-we-pay-for-war (Accessed: 3 March 2026).

Benmelech, E and Monteiro, J (2025) The Economic Shocks of War. Kellogg Insight Newsletter. Available at: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/newsletters/the-economic-shocks-of-war (Accessed: 3 March 2026).

Federle, J, Meier, A, Müller, G et al. (2025) The Price of War. European Central Bank / Kiel Institute Working Paper. Available at: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/conferences/shared/pdf/20251031_ECB_IMF/S4_paper1_Federle.pdf(Accessed: 3 March 2026).

Watson Institute Costs of War Project (2025) Costs of War. Brown University. Available at: https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/economic (Accessed: 3 March 2026).

Stiglitz, JE and Bilmes, L (2008) The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

The post Why Every Conflict Is a Lose–Lose for Growth appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

With the number of businesses and organisations who are setting net-zero commitments steadily increasing across the globe, decarbonisation has become a top priority. Moreover, a recent report by the World Economic Forum highlighted the need for organisations to focus on their Scope 3 emissions, as they typically account for more than 70% of overall GHG emissions.

As part of the Reuters Insight Sustainability Survey 2022, Reuters Insight surveyed senior business practitioners and C-Suite executives, asking them to rank the strategic priority of decarbonisation within their organisation relative to other ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) key performance indicators and objectives.

Key findings include the following:

• Decarbonisation was seen as a top to mid-level priority by the vast majority (82%) of respondents. In over 50% of cases, decarbonisation was regarded as either the top priority or a high priority.
• The majority (57%) of senior sustainability practitioners surveyed by Reuters Insight indicated that their organisations were still not engaging with their Scope 3 emissions.
• 44% of survey respondents who were not currently engaging in their Scope 3 emissions had plans to do so within the next 24 months. This means that 56% of respondents whose organisations were not engaging with Scope 3 emissions did not have plans to change in the next 24 months, showing that these organisations may need external incentives to pursue Scope 3 reporting.
• Climate-related disclosures by organisations rose with the adoption of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework. Since 2022, eligible UK companies were required to produce a TCFD report for the first time.
• Among respondents who confirmed their organisation had a carbon-neutral target in place, a majority (62%) had a science-aligned and verified target.
• Without mandatory reporting requirements once targets were set, fewer than half of the companies included in the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)’s 2021 analysis reported progress on their targets, indicating, once more, that mandatory requirements are the main driver of Scope 3 reporting.
• With a lack of clear reporting requirements for the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, most companies that had Scope 3 targets and reporting were only focused on company travel (which is only one among many sources of Scope 3 emissions).
• Companies not currently reporting on or not planning to report on their Scope 3 emissions are likely to be incentivised to do so in the near future, with more progressive regulatory requirements.
• Although regulation is likely to be the principal driver for incentivising Scope 3 reporting, large organisations need to be more proactive in promoting  further Scope 3 reporting, not least by implementing internal policies to drive improvements in reporting or by requiring suppliers to adhere to a supplier code of conduct and showcase their plans for actively reducing their emissions.

Overall, increased government intervention is likely to motivate more organisations to report on their Scope 3 emissions, as mandatory reporting requirements are a clear driver in increasing sustainability reporting. Large organisations also have a key role to play in enhancing Scope 3 reporting, mandating disclosure from suppliers and lobbying governments to set clear Scope 3 reporting requirements. Companies, especially large multinationals, can drive progressive policies to increase Scope 3 reporting, through their own internal policy requirements or by liaising with governments to influence regulatory enhancements. Last but not least, carbon pricing can drive further Scope 3 reporting, also incentivising accuracy, with companies creating pressure down their supply chains to begin or to improve their reporting.

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

7 GRI sustainability disclosures get you started

Any size business can start taking sustainability action

GRI, ISEP, CPD Certified Sustainability courses (2-5 days): Live Online or Classroom  (venue: London School of Economics)

• Exclusive FBRH template to begin reporting from day one
• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and People
• Formulate in group exercises your plan for action. Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP. 
• Benchmarking methodology to set you on a path of continuous improvement

See upcoming training dates.

This article is based on published information by Reuters Insight. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://insight.reuters.com/sustainable-business/articles/role-regulation-policy-incentivizing-scope-3-reporting-2023-02-06

The post Incentivising Scope 3 reporting through regulation and policy appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

In the 11th edition of the KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting, KPMG professionals reviewed sustainability reporting from 5,200 companies in 52 countries and jurisdictions, in the most extensive survey in the series to date. The companies surveyed also included the top 100 companies by revenue in each of the 52 countries and jurisdictions researched.

The survey examined global trends in sustainability reporting, offering insights for business leaders, company boards, sustainability professionals, investors, asset managers and ratings agencies. Based on several months of research by KPMG sustainability professionals who analysed thousands of corporate reports and websites, the survey focused on three key aspects of sustainability reporting:

• Reporting on the risks of biodiversity loss
• Reporting on climate-related risk and carbon reduction
• Reporting on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Key global trends in sustainability reporting the survey highlighted:

• 80% of companies globally now report on sustainability: This underlying global sustainability reporting rate has risen by 5% since the last KPMG survey in 2017, from 75 to 80 percent.
• Third-party assurance of sustainability information has become a majority business practice: The number of companies investing in independent third-party assurance of their sustainability information exceeds 50%, for the first time since the KPMG survey began in 1993.
• Americas lead in sustainability reporting: The sustainability reporting rate in the Americas, comprising North America and Latin America, has increased by 7% since 2017 to an impressive 90 percent of companies reporting.
• GRI remains the dominant global standard for sustainability reporting: GRI remains the most commonly used sustainability reporting standard, used by approximately two-thirds of the 5,200 companies surveyed and around three-quarters of the world’s 250 largest companies.
• Almost all industry sectors exceed 70 percent reporting rate: In 2020, at least 70 percent of the 5,200 companies surveyed reported on sustainability in all industries, except for the retail sector which also lagged in 2017.

As regards the survey’s three focus areas, the findings were as follows:

• Reporting on the risks of biodiversity loss:
  • Few companies currently disclose risks from biodiversity loss: Only around one-quarter of companies surveyed at high or medium risk from biodiversity loss currently disclose that risk in their corporate reporting.
  • Mining leads in disclosure of biodiversity risk: The mining sector currently stands alone as the only at-risk sector in which a majority of companies report on the risks they face from biodiversity loss.
  • Latin America leads while North America lags in biodiversity risk reporting: Almost one-third of Latin American companies surveyed reported risks from the loss of biodiversity. By contrast, North American companies had the lowest rates of biodiversity risk reporting.

• Reporting on climate-related risk and carbon reduction:
  • More companies acknowledge the financial risks of climate change: The number of companies acknowledging the risk of climate change in their financial reporting has increased significantly since KPMG’s last survey in 2017, to around 40%.
  • North American companies lead in acknowledging climate risks in financial reporting: Regionally, North American companies were the most likely to acknowledge climate risk in their financial reporting – the only region where a majority of companies did so.
  • One in five companies reports in line with TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) recommendations: Almost one in five of the 5,200 companies surveyed (18 percent) and over one-third of the world’s 250 largest companies (37 percent) reported in line with the recommendations. North America and Europe lead for reporting in line with TCFD.
  • The majority of companies globally have carbon targets in place: The survey revealed a notable increase since 2017 in the number of companies disclosing carbon reduction targets, with two-thirds of the 5,200 companies surveyed and three-quarters of the world’s 250 largest companies now doing this. There is also a growing trend to link corporate carbon targets to global climate goals.

• Reporting on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
  • The SDGs have a strong and growing profile in sustainability reporting:  A significant majority of companies – over two-thirds (69 per cent) of the 5,200 companies surveyed and almost three-quarters (72 percent) of the world’s 250 largest companies – now connect their business activities to the SDGs in their corporate reporting.
  • SDG reporting is mostly unbalanced and often disconnected from business goals: Corporate reporting on the SDGs focused almost exclusively on companies’ positive contributions towards achieving the goals, lacking transparency of their negative impacts.
  • Companies focus on economic growth and climate SDGs but largely ignore biodiversity: The survey showed wide disparity and no clear pattern in the number of SDGs that companies prioritised as a focus for their businesses, with few companies prioritising the two SDGs that focus on biodiversity: SDG 14 and SDG15.

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

7 GRI sustainability disclosures get you started

Any size business can start taking sustainability action

GRI, ISEP, CPD Certified Sustainability courses (2-5 days): Live Online or Classroom  (venue: London School of Economics)

• Exclusive FBRH template to begin reporting from day one
• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and People
• Formulate in group exercises your plan for action. Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP. 
• Benchmarking methodology to set you on a path of continuous improvement

See upcoming training dates.

This article is based on published information by KPMG. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2020/12/The_Time_Has_Come_KPMG_Survey_of_Sustainability_Reporting_2020.pdf

The post The time has come: KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020 appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

This research by GRI explores how a sample of 206 GRI reporters (companies reporting on their sustainability performance using the GRI Standards) communicate their support and actions regarding the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The study is based on published sustainability reports and information from the reporters’ websites.

The research team rated companies against five criteria: Commitments, Plans, Actions, Progress and Suppliers. For each category, a traffic light system was applied and each company was awarded either a green, amber or a red colour rating for their support of the SDGs. A green rating in any given category equalled to one star, so five stars meant that a company achieved a green rating (the best possible) in all five categories.

• Commitments
• A total of 83 companies (40.3%) were awarded a star for explicitly linking measurable commitments to the SDGs. 74 companies (35.9%) indicating measurable commitments to tackle social and environmental issues that indirectly supported the SDGs were given amber ratings, while 49 businesses (23.8%) were given red ratings for not outlining any specific and measurable commitments to the Global Goals.

• Plans
• 143 companies (69.4%) were awarded a star for their statement of support for the SDGs, and for mentioning which SDGs they prioritised. 27 companies (13.1%) were given an amber rating for showing general support of the SDGs but not clarifying which Goals were most relevant to their business. 36 businesses (17.5%) were awarded a red rating for not expressing any support, through statements, for the SDGs. A star for plans towards the SDGs was awarded to businesses across at least 16 different industries.

• Actions
• A total of 61.2% of the companies researched (126 companies) achieved a star for showing how their positive actions supported the SDGs and addressed social and environmental issues, aligning those actions with a specific SDG. 62 companies (30.1%) were awarded an amber rating for taking actions to tackle social and environmental issues but not aligning them with a particular Goal, while 18 companies, or 8.7%, were given red ratings for not taking any actions in support of the SDGs.

• Progress
• 42 companies (20.4%) were awarded a star for their progress in support of the SDGs, evidencing measurable data of their actions and explicitly aligning them to a particular SDG. 70 businesses (34.0%) achieved an amber rating for progress made towards achieving the Goals, but without an explicit link to any specific SDG. 94 companies (45.6%) were given a red rating for their reporting efforts and progress made. 100% of companies within Aviation, Equipment, Railroad, Retailers and Water Utilities received a star for reporting progress on their contribution to the SDGs.

• Suppliers
• Only one of the companies researched achieved a star for encouraging their suppliers to explicitly support the SDGs. 157 companies (76.2%) were awarded an amber rating for working with their suppliers to tackle environmental and social issues, while 48 companies (23.3% ) were given red ratings for not showing or mentioning how and if their suppliers supported the Global Goals.

Key research findings include:

• Of the 206 companies researched 0.5% achieved five stars, 34.9% were awarded four stars, 14.1% were given three stars, 13.6% were awarded two stars, 7.3% achieved one star and 29.6% were awarded zero stars.
• 83% of companies stated their support for the SDGs.
• The most common Goals supported by businesses were SDGs 8 (Decent Work And Economic Growth), 12 (Responsible Consumption And Production), and 13 (Climate Action).
• 69% of businesses stated which Global Goals were most relevant to their business.
• 40% of the companies researched made measurable commitments towards the SDGs.
• Businesses in Asia Pacific showed the highest level of reporting against the Global Goals.
• Only 13 businesses (6.3%) reported that their current operations may have a negative impact on one or more of the SDGs.
• The largest companies appeared to have more developed reporting against the SDGs.

The study concludes that today, more than ever before, strong international cooperation is necessary to ensure that humanity recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and achieves the SDGs. Both the global community and businesses play a key role in this recovery, and in creating a more equitable and sustainable post-Covid world.

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

7 GRI sustainability disclosures get you started

Any size business can start taking sustainability action

GRI, ISEP, CPD Certified Sustainability courses (2-5 days): Live Online or Classroom  (venue: London School of Economics)

• Exclusive FBRH template to begin reporting from day one
• Identify your most important impacts on the Environment, Economy and People
• Formulate in group exercises your plan for action. Begin taking solid, focused, all-round sustainability action ASAP. 
• Benchmarking methodology to set you on a path of continuous improvement

See upcoming training dates.

This article is based on published information by GRI. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www.globalreporting.org/media/ab5lun0h/stg-gri-report-final.pdf

The post State of Progress: Business contributions to the SDGs appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) promotes the use of sustainability reporting in order for companies and organizations to become more sustainable and be a vital part of a sustainable global economy. GRI has a mission: to make sustainability reporting standard practice. Thus, GRI produces free Sustainability Reporting Standards for all companies and organizations to report their economic, environmental, social and governance performance and positive or negative impacts.

Sustainability reporting will help your company identify key issues to focus on and, accordingly, improve productivity and reduce costs. Additionally, through gaining access to new markets and clients your company’s competitiveness will improve. And these are just some of the benefits.

Let us take a closer look at the main benefits of sustainability reporting, based on the experiences and testimonies of companies that GRI has engaged with in a number of projects:

• Attracting, motivating and keeping employees. Sustainability reporting shows beyond doubt that your company takes sustainability issues seriously and is prepared to publicly discuss, measure and, most importantly, act on them. This will enhance your company’s reputation empowering, motivating and attracting employees committed to your company’s strategic objectives.
  …more

• Spotting strengths and weaknesses. The reporting process will help you identify and evaluate problem areas before they become unwelcome surprises and, also, discover unexpected opportunities ahead of your competitors. During the reporting process you may also realize that certain matters were not dealt with as well as you thought or had not been considered at all.
  …more

• Developing your sustainability vision and strategy. The reporting process will encourage and motivate your company to determine its vision and strategy for operating more sustainably and for providing more sustainable products and services.
  …more

• Improving management systems and setting goals. Sustainability reporting allows your company to track and appraise its performance, highlighting and making changes in areas that need improvement, such as productivity or business costs. Once your company starts reporting there will be increased expectations regarding its performance goals.
  …more
  

• Attracting funding. Lending institutions and investors increasingly take account of a company’s vision and performance in key sustainability issues when making funding decisions. A GRI reporting process will help your company manage sustainability issues more efficiently and be prepared to discuss openly its performance.
  …more

• Transparency and stakeholder engagement. Sustainability reporting will enhance your transparency and will be instrumental in building a solid relationship, based on mutual trust, with the company’s stakeholders whether these be clients, suppliers or shareholders, employees, local communities, NGOs or local government.
  …more

• Gaining competitive advantage. As sustainability reporting is still not common practice across all business sectors, your company can become a “leader in sustainability”.
  …more

• Improving your reputation, building trust and respect. Your company’s reputation, the trust and respect you have gained are of the utmost importance for your stakeholders. Accurate, honest, complete corporate reporting (reporting both on what goes well and on where there is room for improvement) builds trust and respect for your company.
  …more

Related SustainCase section:

“Why Sustainability is important – Articles-Research”. The latest research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised Sustainability Course | Venue: London LSE

By registering for the next 2-day FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised course you will be taking the first step in gaining the many benefits of sustainability reporting.

The post The value of sustainability reporting appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

Millennials, who are today in decision-making positions and Generation Z, who hold our future in their hands, are overwhelmingly pro-sustainability and are showing this with their every action. Worldwide, companies and organisations are taking action to benefit from the transition to the Sustainable, Circular Economy. Are your competitors better prepared? Are they dealing more successfully with stricter regulations and changing buying and decision-making patterns?

• Deloitte: Business leaders can win the loyalty of millennials by driving societal and economic change.
• Morgan Stanley research results: Companies must engage with sustainable development or face being left out of investment decisions by Millennials, one of the largest generations in history moving into its prime spending years.
• 84% of Millennial investors interested in sustainable investing (Morgan Stanley)
• There is an accelerating growth of people choosing sustainable brands (Nielsen 30,000 consumers in 60 countries)
• Millennials love CSR (Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK)

More research: Sustainable Development Makes Good Business Sense

• 2 out of 4 major consumer trends relate to sustainability (Mintel)
• Mintel research: Key 2018 consumer trends relate to sustainability
• Corporate sustainability and profitability are interrelated (Oxford University)
• High Sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, in both stock market and accounting performance (Harvard Business School)
• Gender diversity across a company increases productivity (MIT News)

Generation Z is emerging as the Sustainability Generation

According to a recent study by First Insight cited by Forbes, the vast majority of Generation Z shoppers prefer to buy sustainable brands, and are most willing to spend 10 percent more on sustainable products.

The study also found that Generation Z, along with Millennials, are the most likely to make purchase decisions based on personal, social, and environmental values and principles.

According to another survey by DoSomething, also cited by Forbes, 75 percent of Generation Z respondents wanted to see that brands were ensuring employee and consumer safety.

Additionally, according to the 2022 Gartner Sustainability Opportunities, Risks and Technologies Survey:

• For 86% of business leaders, sustainability is an investment that protects their organisations from disruption
• Four out of five leaders think sustainability helps their organisation optimise and reduce costs
• 83% say their sustainability programme activities directly generated both short- and long-term value for their organisations

We firmly believe that we must all take a step back and see the forest. We must address serious environmental issues but also take positive action to develop the economies and societies on which we rely for growth and profit.

Also read:

• How to use the GRI Standards ASAP to accelerate positive change
• Case Studies: How companies are cleaning their supply chains of bad environmental and social practices
• Case studies: How companies are affecting positive change on the economies and societies they operate in and rely on for profit/growth
• Laying the foundation for good communication with responsible CSR/ sustainability reporting
• Are your competitors better prepared?

Simon Pitsillides
Sustainability Reporting and Marketing Communication Strategy Expert. Simon is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (FCIM) a Fellow of the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (FISEP) and a Chartered Marketer, and holds an MBA in Marketing. He is a GRI and ISEP Trainer, the publisher of www.sustaincase.com and owner of www.fbrh.co.uk. Simon teaches the FBRH GRI Standards Certified, ISEP & CIM Recognised Course (venue: London School of Economics (LSE). 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-pitsillides

78% of the world’s 250 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised Sustainability Course | Venue: London LSE

By registering for the next 2-day FBRH GRI Standards Certified & ISEP recognised course you will be taking the first step in gaining the many benefits of sustainability reporting.

The post License to operate – Millennials, Generation Z appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.

As the trends and challenges leading to the rise of the social enterprise became, in 219, even more prominent, CEOs and business leaders around the globe will have to lead the social enterprise  Tweet This!, beyond just practicing corporate social responsibility or engaging in social impact programmes.

The social enterprise: creating value for stakeholders, not just shareholders

A social enterprise is an organisation that focuses not only on revenue growth and profit-making, but also on the need to respect and support its environment and stakeholders, listening to the trends that shape today’s world. It is an organisation that accepts its responsibility to be a good citizen, serves as a role model for its peers, and promotes multilevel collaboration. Accordingly, leading a social enterprise means recognising that businesses must not just generate a profit and deliver a return to shareholders, but also improve the lives of workers, customers, and the communities in which they operate.

Why reinvent?

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is bringing disruption to the political, economic, and social fabric, impacting work, workers, and employers. Income inequality, wages, and the role of businesses in society, are under widespread debate globally. Deloitte’s 219 Global Human Capital Trends survey highlights key workplace trends and issues, including the following:

• In 218, the United States experienced 2 major work stoppages involving 485, workers (the most since 27), while income inequality is growing in many developed economies, including the United States – where the bottom 9 percent of earners have only seen a 5% wage increase over the past 18 years.
• Eighty-five percent of employees globally are not engaged or are actively disengaged from their jobs. They are working more hours, and problems of financial and mental stress seem to prevail. In the United States, over 4 percent of the workforce now works on a contingent basis.

Social enterprises perform better financially

Deloitte’s 219 Global Human Capital Trends survey revealed trends and facts that confirm the rising significance of the social enterprise:

• When CEOs rated their most important measure of success in 219, the number-one issue they mentioned was “impact on society, including income inequality, diversity, and the environment,” showing the urgency of this issue.
• According to 56% of the survey’s respondents, the social enterprise will become more important to organisations over time.
• Survey respondents confirmed the social enterprise’s positive link to financial performance: 32% of more mature social enterprises (industry leaders) expected greater than 1% growth in 219, compared to 218.

Five human principles for the social enterprise

There are five key principles that frame the “human focus” for the social enterprise, against which any action or business decision affecting people can be measured:

• Purpose and meaning: Giving organisations and individuals a sense of purpose at work, moving beyond profit and focusing on doing good things for individuals, customers and society.
• Ethics and fairness: Using data, technology, and systems ethically and fairly.
• Growth and passion: Designing jobs, work, and organisational missions to cultivate passion and a sense of personal growth.
• Collaboration and personal relationships: Building and developing teams, focusing on personal relationships.
• Transparency and openness: Sharing information openly, discussing challenges and mistakes.

78% of the world’s 25 largest companies report in accordance with the GRI Standards

SustainCase was primarily created to demonstrate, through case studies, the importance of dealing with a company’s most important impacts in a structured way, with use of the GRI Standards. To show how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success – and how you can too.

Research by well-recognised institutions is clearly proving that responsible companies can look to the future with optimism.

FBRH GRI Standards Certified and ISEP approved Sustainability Course | Venue: London LSE

By registering for the next 2-day FBRH GRI-Standards Certified and ISEP approved Course you will be taking the first step in gaining the many benefits of sustainability reporting.

References:

This article is based on published information by Deloitte. For the sake of readability, we did not use brackets or ellipses. However, we made sure that the extra or missing words did not change the publication’s meaning. If you would like to quote these written sources from the original please revert to the following link:

https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/human-capital-trends.html

The post Deloitte: Organisations should reinvent themselves around a human focus appeared first on SustainCase - Sustainability Magazine.