Encouraging Social Responsibility

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.

Once upon a time, "stakeholder engagement" was about showing up at UNGA and Davos, and working with big, prestigious NGOs like WWF on commitments to provide reputational top cover. That is how corporations sought to control the sustainability narrative and build a social license to operate. But now, the activist landscape has fragmented, big NGOs have both declined in influence and localized, and tiny, faceless organizations have the power to bring down large corporations. There is a whole section of my book about this! Here, Charlotte Moore at Sigwatch provides the concrete data to back up these arguments: The decline of large institutional NGOs has coincided with - and in many cases, accelerated - the prominence of newer, more agile pressure actors: Digital-first Campaigns - Movements like Target Fast or Latino Freeze can go viral in days, driven by content rather than a central office. They are hard to engage in traditional dialogue because there is often no formal leadership. Shareholder Activists - Groups such as Follow This or ShareAction buy stakes in companies and use investor rights to force climate, governance, or human rights resolutions — a form of market pressure that can bypass public campaigns entirely. Influencer-led Consumer Advocacy - Individuals like Vani Hari (Food Babe) or Robby Starbuck can rally large audiences to demand brand changes, often targeting retail-facing companies with little warning. Grassroots Legal Activism - Small, specialised groups file strategic lawsuits — often in multiple jurisdictions — to set precedent or delay projects. These actors can be local in scope but global in impact. Super interesting read! https://lnkd.in/d9u4FGqm

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, corporate messaging has defaulted to two modes: silence or reactive damage control. Richard Dickson and Gap Inc. are taking a very different approach that's made me look twice. No employee scandal or brand connection to the incident. No reason to say anything at all. Yet on Sunday, Gap published "Let's Be the Bridge", a public statement positioning the retailer as a cultural mediator in America's fractured moment. Now, if you've followed Dickson's 19-month transformation of Gap, the pattern is clear: relevance is revenue. The former Mattel, Inc. executive who turned Barbie into a $1.45 billion cultural phenomenon is effectively applying the same playbook - make culture a measurable business lever. What I found so interesting is that the "Let's Be the Bridge" statement reads like brand positioning disguised as crisis response. They explicitly anchored their reaction in company DNA ("bridging gaps is in our name"), announced plans to externalize their internal "Courageous Conversations" platform, and framed the moment as proof their purpose "has never been more meaningful." From what I see, Gap is betting that in a polarized landscape, there's market value in inclusive authenticity. Very different from the three dominant corporate modes we tend to see: → Performative activism (2020-2022 vintage statements that aged poorly) → Strategic silence (safe but forgettable) → Partisan positioning (cheap engagement, real reputational risk) Gap is testing a fourth lane I'm calling "principled without preachy". It's the same strategy driving their collabs with Troye Sivan and Parker Posey, inserting the brand into conversations that matter without taking sides that alienate. The early metrics suggest it's working. Gap has taken market share for eight straight quarters under Dickson's "brand-led transformation." They're treating culture as operational infrastructure, not marketing fluff. But here's the tension as I see it: This is much, much harder to execute than going viral for outrage or staying safely silent. Success depends on reading cultural moments correctly and having the brand authority to own the space you're claiming. These are not small things. So the real test isn't whether Gap's statement was well received. It's whether they can consistently execute this "inclusive without pandering" positioning across future flashpoints.... because there will be more. What do you think? Can a heritage retailer really thread this needle at scale? Or does authentic bridge-building eventually force you to choose a side?

Sustainability Value Creation Framework for Investors 🌍 The PRI’s new framework offers a clear structure to help investors in private markets translate sustainability into financial outcomes. Developed with Bain and NYU Stern, the Sustainability Value Creation framework reflects input from over 400 investors across regions and asset classes. Rather than treating ESG as a reporting exercise, the framework positions sustainability as a driver of operational efficiency, risk reduction and growth. It shows how sustainability can unlock financial value through improved customer trust, stronger employee engagement and increased resilience. The framework addresses both investment firm level actions and portfolio company strategies, recognizing that value creation happens across the lifecycle. At the firm level, the focus is on aligning sustainability with business objectives and embedding it in every stage of investment decision making. At the portfolio level, it is about identifying material ESG topics, prioritizing initiatives with financial relevance and tracking performance over time. Organisational enablers such as leadership buy in, quality data and aligned incentives are central to delivering results. The framework is part of a multi phase effort. Phase Two focuses on methodologies to quantify the financial impact of sustainability. Phase Three will assess how ESG contributes to real liquidity events. Evidence suggests that the financial relevance of sustainability will increase and that firms equipped with credible ESG strategies will be better positioned for the future. This is especially relevant for private markets where access to data and long term engagement allow for deeper integration and clearer accountability. The framework is an invitation to build stronger investment strategies using sustainability as a lever for performance rather than compliance. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg

Companies like The Walt Disney Company and Patagonia often take bold public stances on controversial social and political issues, sparking debates about the role of business in activism. Why do some firms engage in this type of progressive corporate activism, while others remain silent? An insightful new paper titled 'When Ideologies Align: Progressive Corporate Activism and Within-Firm Ideological Alignment,' published in Strategic Management Journal and authored by Anna McKean and Brayden King, offers a compelling explanation: it's about ideological alignment within the firm. 🌍📚 The authors examined data from 1,328 U.S. public companies, focusing on their involvement in high-profile letter-signing campaigns around progressive issues, such as climate action, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration reform. By analysing political donation data, they created a measure of ideological alignment between the top management team and employees, shedding light on the factors that drive firms to engage in activism. Key insights from the paper: 🧠 Ideological Alignment Drives Activism: The study finds that progressive corporate activism is most likely to occur when there is ideological alignment between the top management team (TMT) and the employees. When both groups share liberal political leanings, firms are more willing to take public stances on progressive issues, signalling a strong internal alignment of values. 📊 CEO's Ideology Alone Isn't Enough: Contrary to the belief that a firm's activism might simply reflect the CEO's personal views, the study finds that the CEO's ideology alone does not drive progressive corporate activism. Instead, activism emerges when there is a broader ideological consensus within the firm, particularly between the TMT and the employees. 🤝 Collaboration Across Echelons: Progressive activism is not a top-down phenomenon. Rather, it reflects a collaborative process where the shared values of leadership and employees come together to shape corporate action. This alignment minimizes potential conflicts within the firm and strengthens the firm’s external positioning on progressive issues. 💬 Progressive Activism as a Strategic Tool: Engaging in progressive activism can also be seen as a strategic tool for firms that wish to reinforce the person-organization fit. By aligning their public stance with the values of their employees, firms enhance employee engagement and demonstrate a commitment to shared ideals, which can have positive effects on organizational culture and performance. 🔄 Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: This research differentiates progressive corporate activism from traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR). While CSR often serves the firm's business interests, progressive activism stems from ideological commitments, even when such actions carry risks of alienating stakeholders or attracting political backlash. #CorporateActivism #ESG #Impact #ProgressiveActivism

We are not yet ready for this. A growing army of autonomous agents are engaging with not just humans and other agents, but also economic and legal institutions. An "agent infrastructure" of systems and protocols could maximize benefits and contain risks, suggest a group of researchers from Centre for the Governance of AI (GovAI) Harvard Law School University of Oxford University of Cambridge and others (link in comments). Most AI safety research is focused on AI system-level interventions. However different approaches are required in a proliferating multi-agent environment. The researchers propose 3 major functions in effective agent infrastructure: Attribution, Interaction, and Response: 💡 Attribution: Ensuring accountability. Attribution is critical for linking AI agent actions to responsible parties, such as users or organizations. Mechanisms including identity binding, to associate an agent’s actions with a legal entity. Certification provides verifiable assurances about an agent’s behavior, such as data handling policies or autonomy levels. Implementing agent IDs enables tracking and monitoring specific agents, facilitating incident response and accountability. 🤝 Interaction: Shaping behaviors. Interaction infrastructure defines how agents engage with the world to enable reliability and security. Dedicated agent channels isolate agent activities from regular digital traffic, reducing risks like data contamination or accidental disruptions. Oversight layers empower users or managers to intervene when necessary, improving operational control and accountability. Inter-agent communication protocols support seamless collaboration and negotiation among agents, promoting cooperative outcomes in multi-agent systems. 🔄 Response: Mechanisms to mitigate harm. Response infrastructure addresses problems caused by agents using proactive and reactive measures. Incident reporting systems collect detailed data on harmful events, enabling developers and regulators to understand root causes and implement safeguards. Rollback mechanisms allow reversal of unintended actions, such as erroneous financial transactions, protecting users from significant harm. The concept of agent infrastructure and proposed framework provide a very useful framework to build the next phase of scalable agent ecosystems. We need to develop and agree on these principles soon, as the foundations of a burgeoning agent economy will be built through this year.

Ai innovation without physician oversight puts patients at risk! Last week, Utah launched a pilot program allowing an artificial intelligence tool to autonomously renew certain prescription medications without physician oversight. While innovation in health care is essential, this approach raises serious concerns about patient safety, clinical accountability, and the future of medicine. At the American Medical Association, we believe AI can be a powerful tool to support physicians. But medicine is not a simple equation. Every medication carries risks and benefits. Determining whether a prescription should be renewed often requires clinical judgment: reviewing a patient’s evolving symptoms, assessing side effects, considering drug interactions, and, in many cases, ordering or interpreting laboratory tests. These are not optional steps; they are fundamental to safe, high-quality care. Removing physicians from this decision-making process ignores the reality that patients change over time. What was appropriate six months ago may no longer be safe today. AI tools, no matter how sophisticated, lack the full clinical context and accountability required to make these determinations independently. Here’s the big-picture concern: This kind of legislation is the first step down a slippery slope. What may seem limited and low-risk today can quickly fast-track us toward agentic AI – systems making increasingly complex clinical decisions without human oversight. Once physicians are removed from one decision, it becomes easier to remove them from the next. There is a better way forward. AI should be designed to augment physicians, not replace them — flagging concerns, prompting necessary labs, and supporting clinical decisions while keeping a licensed clinician firmly in the loop. Responsible innovation means pairing technology with appropriate oversight, clear standards, and rigorous evaluation. Innovation must move health care forward, not around the safeguards that protect patients. We can embrace and maximize the opportunity of AI while maintaining the human judgment that lies at the heart of medicine. #ai #aihealth #prescribing #utah #prescriptionsrenewal

“Trust but verify”.   ^ That’s the 3-word summary of the policy approach proposed by the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models (attached below).   Even if you’re not based in California, this is a fantastic rulebook on AI policy and regulation.   It's one of the more nuanced and deeply-thought papers that cuts past the generic “regulation v innovation” debate, and dives straight into a specific policy solution for governing frontier models (with wisdom draw from historical analogies in tobacco, energy, pesticides and car safety).   Here’s my quick summary of the “trust but verify” model.   1️⃣ TRANSPARENCY In a nutshell, the “trust but verify” approach is rooted in transparency, which is essential for building “trust”. But transparency is such a broad concept, so the paper neatly breaks it down in terms of: ▪️ Data acquisition ▪️ Safety practices ▪️ Security practices ▪️ Pre-deployment testing ▪️ Downstream impact ▪️ Accountability for openness There’s nuance and different transparency mechanisms to each area. However, transparency alone doesn’t guarantee accountability or redress. In fact, the paper warns us about “transparency washing” – i.e. where policymakers (futilely) pursue transparency for the sake of it without achieving anything. Transparency needs to be tested and verified (hence the “verify”).   2️⃣ THIRD PARTY RISK ASSESSMENT This supports the “verify” aspect, and the idea of “evidence-based transparency” (i.e. transparency that you can actually trust). This is not just about audits and evaluations, but also specific things like: ▪️ researcher protections (i.e. safe harbour / indemnity protections for public interest safety research) ▪️ responsible disclosure (i.e. infrastructure is needed to communicate identified vulnerabilities to affect parties)   3️⃣ WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION This means legal safeguards to protect retaliation against whistleblowers who report misconduct, fraud, illegal activities, etc. It might be the secret to driving *real* corporate accountability in AI.   4️⃣ ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING A reporting regime for AI-related incidents (similar to data breach reporting regimes) help with identification and enforcement + regulatory coordination and information sharing + analytics. 5️⃣ SCOPE What type of frontier models should be regulated? The paper suggests these guiding principles: ▪️ "Generic developer-level thresholds seem to be generally undesirable given the current AI landscape"   ▪️ "Compute thresholds are currently the most attractive cost-level thresholds, but they are best combined with other metrics for most regulatory intents"   ▪️ "Thresholds based on risk evaluation results and observed downstream impact are promising for safety and corporate governance policy, but they have practical issues" 👓 Want more? See my map which tracks AI laws and policies around the world (see link in 'Visit my website'). #ai #tech #airegulation #policy #california

A reporter recently asked me if there’s a #bottomline impact to firms or #CEOs for taking public stances on #socialissues. At the time, I couldn’t really answer the question, but now, a recent study finds that, at least for CEOs and to some extent, for companies, publicly speaking out on more progressive/liberal issues is actually beneficial. Anahit Mkrtchyan Jason Sandvik @Vivi Zhuc look at the impact of CEO statements on social/political issues on #marketreturns. They specifically combine data on CEO/firm postings on Twitter/X about social/political issues and news articles reporting on publicly made statements to create a measure of #CEOactivism. They find that between 2011 and 2019, almost 75% of CEO activism is liberal in nature, with extremely few (less than 1%) being conservative. There’s a lot more interesting stuff in there about trends in CEO activism, but here’s the real meat (and I’ll quote so there’s no potential for misunderstanding): “Nevertheless, the aggregate effect of CEO activism is positive and translates into a $10–$27 million gain in shareholder value, based on the median announcement returns and the median market capitalization of $13.72 billion.” AND “we do not observe that CEO activism events are followed by significant return reversals over the 10, 20, or 60 trading days following the event.” “The positive reaction to controversial activism events is limited to topics related to #diversity and the #environment (e.g., LGBT, climate change), whereas the market reaction is insignificant for topics related to politics and other social issues (e.g., President Trump, gun control, abortion, and immigration).” This isn’t to say that there aren’t risks to CEOs taking public stances; there is a negative impact to being reported on in conservative news outlets, but the negative effects are far outweighed by the positive effects of being reported on in liberal outlets. CEOs, don’t be (as) scared of making your personal values known! This is especially true if your stakeholder base has those same values! However, if you’re going to do it, your statements should be credible in nature. Meaning, if you’re going to say something, it should align with your personal values as you’ve expressed in the past. Kudos to these researchers for a really interesting and impactful study. The level of nuance and the lengths to which they went to uncover potential mechanisms and moderators was exceptional. Truly one of the more impressive papers I’ve come across.

If you plan to give more than a few thousand dollars to charity this year, consider whether giving stock instead of cash might be worthwhile. Here’s why… When you give cash to charity, you get to deduct the amount you donate from your taxable income which is a solid tax benefit. But when you give highly appreciated stock instead of cash, you not only get to deduct the value of the stock from your taxable income, you also get to skip paying the long term cap gains tax on those shares. For our clients in CA and NY that’s about 35% in tax savings. This can be a great way to both increase the tax benefit of charitable donations AND unload shares of stock without paying capital gains taxes. Win win! Think about this strategy for old RSUs you’ve held onto over the years, or those Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta, or Nvidia shares you bought that are now worth waaaay more than when you bought them. Assumptions: - You want to donate to charity - You itemize deductions - You’ve held your stock for more than a year - You can give shares of stock either directly to the charity you’d like to support or through a donor advised fund