Corporate Social Responsibility

This visual helps explain 3 concepts that A LOT of people forget about solar☀️   Solar energy’s fuel (sunshine) is free and delivered daily.   Therefore, electricity from solar does not include the cost of each marginal unit of fuel. That makes sense to people.   But the full implications of an energy system built upon a zero-cost, abundant fuel source are often still dramatically underestimated.   There are three other kinds of savings that solar provides:    Infrastructure Savings – As shown in the graphic, the world spends billions of dollars every year extracting oil, gas, and coal and transporting to the places it will be burned. The infrastructure to mine, refine, and move these fuels from point A to point B, whether by boat, rail, or pipeline, requires regular maintenance and TONS of investment. With solar, the sun does it all for us, delivering usable photons every morning.   Predictability Savings – When you’re relying on a globally traded commodity to produce electricity, the final cost of each gigawatt can fluctuate with the current price of oil and coal. Market uncertainty can send the price of these commodities (and the final price for electricity) soaring on a whim. But it doesn’t need to be this way. Once a solar farm is installed, the cost of each unit of electricity is basically fixed. This helps utilities better predict their costs and that’s a huge benefit to consumers.   Energy Independence Savings – Because oil, gas, and coal rely on complex international supply chains and lots of global infrastructure, there is a lot more that can go wrong. Geopolitical shocks, natural disasters, port congestion, and accidents (remember the Suez Canal blockage?) can all impact the predictability and reliability of coal and gas generation. No one can embargo the sun or interrupt its delivery to us, so solar energy is fundamentally more local and more independent.   I think it’s important to explain these hidden savings when talking to naysayers because, while they may understand that free sunshine = free fuel, they may not understand just how much they’re paying for the infrastructure, uncertainty, and volatility of fossil fuels.

IndiGo (InterGlobe Aviation Ltd) CRISIS WASN’T IN THE SKIES. IT WAS IN THE LEADERSHIP CABIN. Three things stood out. One: Employees were left alone to face furious customers. No leader should ever let that happen. If you don’t stand by your people in a storm, don’t expect them to stand by your customers in the sun. Customer experience collapses the moment employees feel abandoned. Two: In any crisis, honesty is the only strategy that works. This time, the communication wasn’t transparent. When leaders hide the full picture, years of goodwill can disappear overnight. A crisis can earn trust, but only if you tell the truth. Three: The belief that “we are too big to be ignored” has ended more companies than competition ever has. Customers always have a choice. And if they don’t, they will create one. We shouldn’t watch the Indigo crisis like spectators. This is a reminder for every leader to build their own crisis blueprint. Because crises will come, when they do, your response becomes your reputation. There is more to business than profits. There are people, trust, and how you show up when it matters most.

People sometimes see Acumen raising large amounts of commercial capital and assume we no longer need philanthropy. No sooner had we announced $250M for our Hardest-to-Reach fund — to bring off-grid light and electricity to 70 million people across 17 of Africa’s most challenging markets — than some concluded Acumen must be set. In fact, the opposite is true. First, let me acknowledge how tough this fundraising environment is. I couldn’t be prouder of the team and partners who made our Hardest-to-Reach announcement possible after 2.5 years of relentless effort. And yet it’s worth underscoring: none of this would have been possible without philanthropy. Philanthropy is the first mover. It allows us to place early bets in fragile markets like Malawi and Benin, cover the development costs needed to structure and raise investment across the capital spectrum and provide the technical assistance that builds capacity. To put a finer point on it: of the nearly $250M raised for Hardest-to-Reach, more than $80M is philanthropic. That risk-taking anchor made it possible to prove new models — and ultimately unlock institutional investment. During Climate Week last month, I met philanthropists who see this as the time to pivot from grantmaking toward impact investing. While I understand the instinct, I want to offer a reframing: it’s not either/or. If you want your capital to have lasting impact, there may be no better use than catalytic philanthropy — especially when deployed through blended finance models like Hardest-to-Reach. Philanthropy cannot see itself at the margins. It is catalytic capital — risk-taking, patient, and unabashedly impact-first — creating the conditions for commercial capital to follow. And it's more important now than ever as traditional aid shrinks and many governments shift from grants to investment approaches. At Acumen, philanthropy from donors at all levels remains our bedrock. It enables us to reach the hardest-to-reach, build inclusive markets where none exist, and keep social impact at the center of everything we do. And because solving problems of poverty is Acumen’s mission, raising philanthropic capital will remain essential to our work.

The European Parliament has officially passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation that fundamentally shifts the responsibility for textile waste management to fashion brands and retailers – with far-reaching global implications. This new law requires all producers, including e-commerce platforms, to cover the full cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling textiles, regardless of whether they are based within or outside the EU. The financial burden of Europe's textile waste now falls squarely on the brands that create it. What are the critical business implications? UNIVERSAL SCOPE: The legislation applies to all producers selling in the EU market, including those of clothing, accessories, footwear, home textiles, and curtains. No company is exempt based on location. FAST FASHION PENALTY: Member states must specifically address ultra-fast and fast fashion practices when determining EPR financial contributions, creating cost penalties for unsustainable business models. GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTION: As the world's largest textile importer, the EU's new rules will ripple across global supply chains, particularly impacting exporters from Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, and India who supply much of Europe's fast fashion. TIMELINE PRESSURE: Officially adopted September 2025, this creates immediate operational and financial planning requirements. COMPETITIVE RESHAPING: Brands and retailers will inevitably pass increased costs down their supply chains, fundamentally altering supplier relationships and pricing structures globally. What are the implications for various stakeholders? For CEOs and board members: This represents more than regulatory compliance – it's a complete business model transformation. Companies must now integrate end-of-life costs into product pricing, rethink supplier partnerships, and accelerate circular design strategies. For sustainability and decarbonisation executives: This creates unprecedented opportunities for circular economy solutions, sustainable material innovation, and traceability system development across global supply chains. Link: https://lnkd.in/dTyHtHuD #sustainablefashion #circulareconomy #textilwaste #epr #fashionindustry #sustainability #supplychainmanagement #fastfashion #environmentalregulation #businessstrategy #decarbonisation #textilerecycling #fashionceos #boardgovernance #climateaction #wastemanagement #producerresponsibility #fashionsustainability #textileindustry #greenbusiness

🗞️ 🇺🇦 Fascinating reporting this week on Russia 🇷🇺 ‘s sophisticated “digital occupation” of #Telegram within occupied Ukrainian territories, using thousands of bot. Incredibly thorough work by Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) and OpenMinds analysts. 👉🏼🤖 automated campaigns distorting local sentiment, legitimizing occupation, drowning out Ukrainian voices- overpowering platform-based takedown efforts. 🧠 A concerning long term impact of a « #digital #occupation » is our future ability to understand the war truthfully. What data will historians work on ? During eventual reintegration of occupied territories, understanding fully the tactics of a « digital occupation » will be vital for rebuilding media resilience &restoring #informationintegrity. 🎯Between Jan 2024 and Apr 2025, 3,634 automated accounts (bots) posted over 316,000 comments 🔹2.9 million comments analysed, in 110 Telegram channels tied to Russian‑occupied Ukrainian territories 🔹Expanded dataset to ~3.37 million comments across ~4,500 channels. 🔹Employed topic modeling, manual annotation (3,450 samples), keyword classification, and GPT‑4 assistance to define 69 narrative themes and train a classifier 🤖 They deployed 3 main narrative types: pro‑Russian, anti‑Ukrainian rhetoric, neutral or abstract “anti­‑war” peace appeals. 🔹In channels linked to occupied areas, pro‑Russian messages—praising Russian infrastructure, culture, government—were prevalent 🔹Messages reacted to local events—water/electricity shortages—and proactively praised Russian state services initiated locally. 🔹Activity surged around key events—Ukrainian shortages, Putin’s re‑election, terrorist attacks—reactive propaganda. In occupied areas, they stabilized backgrounds of “normalcy” with infrastructure repair messaging. 🔹bot automation : Accounts used incoherent language, some posting over 1,000 comments/day, recycled links to pro‑Russian or Western outlets, and had generic profile data 🔹 A single #bot published 1,391 comments in one day across 65 channels, weaving through 40 themes and criticizing Zelenskyy in 24 % of its posts. 🔍 Effects 🔹flooding local chats with supportive messages creates illusion of widespread approval of Russian occupation 🔹Suppressing accurate info: digital offensive complements infrastructure control, limiting access to Ukrainian media and reinforces Kremlin narratives 🔹mass is making Telegram’s efforts to remove bots inefficient; new accounts quickly replace banned ones. = complicates Ukrainian authorities’ ability to reach occupied populations with truthful information. 👉🏼Full report : https://lnkd.in/eQaJWxPu 🙏🏻 Thank you & congrats to the 2 editors Layla Mashkoor, deputy director of research at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab Sviatoslav Hnizdovskyi, CEO and founder of OpenMinds 🧑🧑🧒🧒And their teams!

One image just disrupted a £22 billion fashion empire more effectively than a thousand sustainability reports. 🔥 This isn't an official SHEIN campaign gone wrong. It's artist Emanuele Morelli's AI creation—a haunting visualisation showing what fast fashion's "affordability" really costs us. The image speaks volumes: a SHEIN billboard where the model's flowing dress transforms into a cascade of textile waste. Art communicating what statistics alone cannot. 5 uncomfortable truths this image forces us to confront: 1. The scale of fashion waste is staggering → 92 million tonnes of textile waste produced annually  → The equivalent of one rubbish lorry of textiles dumped every second  → Most fast fashion items designed to be worn fewer than 10 times 2. The business model depends on our amnesia → Constantly changing trends keep us buying  → Ultra-low prices remove financial friction  → Digital marketing creates artificial scarcity and FOMO  → We're trained to forget yesterday's purchases 3. The true cost isn't on the price tag → Environmental damage from production chemicals  → Microplastics shedding into water systems  → Supply chain ethics compromised for speed and cost  → Communities near production sites bearing health consequences 4. Our definition of "affordable" is broken → When clothing is cheaper than a coffee, someone else is paying  → True cost spread across communities, environments, and future generations  → Psychological cost of constant consumption never factored in 5. Solutions exist but require systemic change → Circular fashion models gaining traction  → Rental and resale markets growing rapidly  → Consumer awareness rising but needs to translate to behaviour While SHEIN isn't the only culprit in the fast fashion ecosystem, Morelli's artwork throws a spotlight on an uncomfortable reality we've normalised. What we wear reflects our values more than our taste. What is your wardrobe saying about yours? Image: Emanuele Morelli ♻️ Found this helpful? Repost to share with your network.  ⚡ Want more content like this? Hit follow Maya Moufarek.

This Danish foundation gives away $1.3 billion annually – and their secret isn't efficiency ratios, it's something far more radical: They implement nothing. Behind this Danish foundation's rapid rise is Ozempic – the blockbuster diabetes and weight-loss drug that's generated unprecedented profits for Novo Nordisk. The Novo Nordisk Foundation, which owns about a quarter of the pharmaceutical giant, has become one of the world's wealthiest charitable foundations with assets around $167 billion. Yet rather than hiring armies of staff like other major philanthropies, they've gone the opposite direction. In a recent interview, their Chief Scientific Officer for Health Flemming Konradsen revealed their secret to me: They don't implement – they only work through partners. Zero programs. Zero direct service delivery. The model: ➡️ Find what already works  ➡️ Partner with governments who own the strategy ➡️ Create sustainable markets, not dependency  ➡️ Stay for 15+ years, not 3-year cycles Example: Their school feeding programs create permanent markets for local farmers while training health workers and scaling AI solutions across continents. The hard part? Saying no to putting your name on things. Letting partners get the credit. Trusting that influence matters more than control. For development professionals: This approach creates new opportunities. These ultra-efficient funders skip the usual suspects and source partners who can be trusted with strategy, not just execution. They're looking for implementers who think like owners. If you can demonstrate government relationships, long-term thinking, and the ability to build sustainable systems (not just deliver projects), you become invaluable to this new breed of funders. What could your organization accomplish if it stopped trying to do everything itself? Disclaimer: I’ve edited this post as it’s been flagged that Novo Nordisk Foundation has 250 employees. #Philanthropy #Partnership #Foundation 📷 Novo Nordisk Foundation

🌍 How can humanity continue to develop without destroying the foundations of life on Earth? A major new study, co-authored by the PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, charts a scientific path forward — and warns of the cost of inaction. Business-as-usual leads to ongoing deterioration in climate, biodiversity, freshwater, and nutrient cycles. But when ambitious climate policy is paired with systemic sustainability measures — like shifting to a low-meat diet, halving food waste, reforesting land, and managing water and nutrients efficiently — the damage can be halted, even reversed. By 2050, the planet can return to 2015-level conditions. By 2100, Earth systems could begin to recover significantly. 🧭 This study combines the planetary boundaries framework with integrated climate models to create a navigation system for decision-makers. At the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), we emphasize the power of climate services — turning science into actionable policy — to help countries and companies manage these risks, anticipate disruptions, and build long-term resilience. We need coordinated global action, driven by data and grounded in science. Because protecting our future means safeguarding the systems that sustain life. The tools are here. The science is clear. The time is now. https://lnkd.in/eVuR9yDu

Global sales of EVs and hybrid vehicles hit 1.2 million units in February 2025. That's a massive 50% jump compared to last year. But get this: China accounted for nearly 75% of those sales! I've posted before about the pace in China, and it just keeps accelerating. EV sales there are up 76% year-on-year. Brands like BYD, Xiaomi, Xpeng, and Zeekr are launching new models at lightning speed, moving from plug-in hybrids to fully electric in record time. In Europe, the race is still on. Volkswagen boosted BEV sales by 180%, BMW overtook Tesla, and Chinese-owned brands reportedly outsold Tesla in Europe for the first time. Meanwhile, Tesla's EU market share hit a five-year low. But what I still can't get over is the insane pace in China! I recently drove a Xiaomi EV in Shanghai that felt like a one-to-one copy of the Porsche Taycan for $40,000. Incredible materials, smooth drive, and great steering. Even my engineer, who was with me, was impressed. And this is just four years after Xiaomi said, "Let's make cars." Now, they're producing 100,000 a year. Also extremely interesting is that 20% of the car's cost is subsidised. That kind of scale-up is of course possible based on massive government backing. On the autonomous side, I've experienced Waymo in San Francisco and Hyundai's lidar-based system in Shanghai: fully self-driving, even in chaotic traffic. The future is already here. And I've become a real fan, especially when I need to work between meetings or get to the airport. Same as Vay for teledriven car sharing. There’s so much going on! Has Europe lost the race? No! Not yet. But we're under pressure. And we need to move faster. The future is 100% electric: that's crystal clear to me. Hybrids may be an important bridge, but the long-term path is electrification, enabled by renewables. So the real question is: Can Europe match China's speed, scale, and tech leadership? Or are we looking at a permanent power shift in the EV industry?  I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments. #EV #ElectricVehicles #Mobility #Innovation #ChinaEV #EuropeEV #Automotive

Congo's war isn’t just killing people—it’s tearing down forests, silencing activists, and fueling an illicit trade worth millions. The resurgence of the M23 rebel group in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) 🇨🇩 has triggered a humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and thousands killed. Yet another casualty has received less attention: the environment. The conflict is exacerbating deforestation, undermining conservation efforts, and fueling the illicit exploitation of natural resources. The Albertine Rift, home to endangered eastern lowland and mountain gorillas, is under severe pressure. Virunga and Kahuzi-Biega National Parks—both UNESCO World Heritage Sites—have become battlegrounds. Since late 2021, M23 has taken control of towns surrounding Virunga, including Rutshuru, Rwindi, and Masisi, while in February 2025, it pushed into Kahuzi-Biega, seizing areas adjacent to the park’s highland sector. ⚠️ Deforestation in Virunga has accelerated: In 2023, 1,222 hectares of tree cover were lost in a charcoal production zone, more than double the annual average of 571 hectares from 2019-2022. ⚠️ Kahuzi-Biega’s forests are following suit: The same year, deforestation in its charcoal production zone surged to 1,171 hectares , up from 521 hectares annually over the previous four years. ⚠️ Charcoal demand is a key driver: With 800,000 displaced people arriving in Goma, the price of charcoal has spiked, shifting supply chains from Virunga to Kahuzi-Biega. Armed groups have long profited from the region’s natural wealth. The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) previously controlled much of Virunga’s charcoal trade but M23’s territorial gains have disrupted this balance. The group now levies taxes on charcoal and timber transport. In Kahuzi-Biega, illegal logging is surging, facilitated by newly constructed ports on Lake Kivu. While M23 touts itself as a pro-conservation force, its environmental record is contradictory. It has banned charcoal production in some areas while profiting from the timber trade elsewhere. Meanwhile, park rangers struggle to operate: since 1996, over 200 have been killed. Caught in the crossfire are Indigenous groups such as the Batwa, forcibly displaced by the conflict and unable to access their forests for sustenance. Activists attempting to expose illicit extraction have been silenced, some fleeing, others disappearing. The future of DRC’s forests—and those who depend on them—hangs in the balance. THE WAR 📰 NGOs flee (Elodie Toto): https://mongabay.cc/C8aqxx 📰 The environmental toll (Fergus O’Leary Simpson, Joel Masselink, Lara Collart): https://mongabay.cc/3p5AcP 📰 Toll on Indigenous people (Aimable TWAHIRWA): https://mongabay.cc/c5QGnY 📰 Key factors (John Cannon): https://mongabay.cc/ZMwBNz