Jan Konietzko

♻️ The #CircularEconomy is much more than the opposite to the "take-make-dispose" linear model. The loops have to be designed with certain characteristics. Here is my pitch. When I speak with governments or businesses, I try to shift the focus away from simply comparing circular economy to the linear model we all know. Instead, I invite people to visualize the loops — the flow of products and materials through production, use, reuse, disposal, and reintegration. But that’s just the beginning. A truly circular economy doesn’t just loop -it loops with intention. Here's how: 🔄 1. Loops are slow Design products to last. Circularity is not about keeping waste moving quickly—it’s about keeping materials and products in use for as long as possible. Durability, repairability, and reuse come first. 🎯 2. Loops are lean Only essential resources should be used—nothing extra. This is where sufficiency matters most, especially in high-consumption economies. You can't bend massive material flows—you must reduce them. 🏘️ 3. Loops are local Circular systems work best when waste and resources flow within local or regional ecosystems. No long-distance waste exports. Communities should benefit directly from the value kept in the loop. ☣️ 4. Loops are clean Toxic materials have no place in a circular system. They harm health, pollute ecosystems, and disrupt recycling by contaminating resource streams. 🌞 5. Loops are powered sustainably Circularity must run on renewable energy and make use of regenerative materials. It’s not circular if it relies on fossil inputs. 🌱 6. Loops are regenerative Most importantly, circularity should restore and improve. It's about building systems that make life better—for people and for the planet—not just doing less harm. read the full interview here: https://lnkd.in/dHBpwfXX

136

9 commentaren

My personal vendetta against the 'sustainability backlash' misinformation continues. We need to stop the nonsense. Way too many people in my network seem worried about sustainability losing importance. In fact, the opposite is true — and a wave of recent studies proves it, again. Despite the headlines, companies are not abandoning sustainability. The latest Accenture–United Nations Global Compact CEO Study (https://lnkd.in/d6bVXfEV, 2025) reinforces this point powerfully. It’s based on interviews with 2,600+ CEOs across 128 countries and 18 industries. The message aligns strongly with Bain & Company recent Visionary CEO’s Guide to Sustainability (https://lnkd.in/d4PmVqGN, 2025), which notes that “2025 is the year CEOs turned down the volume — and accelerated action.” What stood out to me: 🟢 Commitments are holding. The CEO study states: “Despite today’s complex global environment, CEOs remain steadfast in their commitment to sustainability and the UN Sustainable Development Goals". Even under pressure, the course remains. 🟢 Doing more, saying less. “CEOs are shifting their focus from commitments to action". Instead of broadcasting everything they do, companies are embedding sustainability deeper into strategy and operations: 63% are launching sustainable products, 74% are reskilling their workforce, 54% are addressing Scope 3 emissions. Bain echoes this shift, highlighting that leading CEOs are now using advanced tools (like AI) and proven levers (decarbonization, circularity, supply chain redesign) to scale sustainability, because it drives real business value. The work is accelerating — just in stealth mode. 🟢 Sustainability is a business strategy. “CEOs increasingly see sustainability as core to business resilience and growth". This is no longer about 'sustainability' — it’s about cost efficiency, supply chain stability, capital access, and long-term competitiveness. Bain similarly points out that many CEOs are no longer treating sustainability as a side agenda — but as a central source of productivity and growth. I think we can abandon the terms 'greenlash' or 'ESG/sustainability backlash'. Based on all evidence, the work not only continues, but accelerates where it matters, in the companies. Maybe the obvious outcome is to stop talking about sustainability altogether. Eventually, this is about building companies that can survive the next hundred years — which should be business-as-usual. #Sustainability #Leadership #Strategy #Resilience #SDGs

151

9 commentaren

Double Materiality Assessment Butterfly Diagram 🌍 Double materiality is becoming a central concept in sustainability reporting. It helps companies connect the dots between their impact on the world and the world’s impact on them. The idea is simple but powerful. One side looks at how a company affects society and the environment. The other side examines how sustainability issues affect the company’s financial performance. This dual view creates a more complete picture of risks and opportunities. It avoids the narrow focus of traditional financial materiality and recognizes broader responsibilities. On the impact side, the assessment asks: how do business activities contribute to climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, or labor issues? These are outward effects on people and the planet. On the financial side, the lens is reversed. It looks at how climate risks, regulatory changes, resource constraints, or social expectations shape the company’s bottom line. The two perspectives are interdependent. What is seen as an “impact today” often evolves into a financial risk or opportunity tomorrow. Climate change is the clearest example. This is why many organizations use the “butterfly diagram.” It illustrates the two wings of materiality meeting in the center, where sustainability topics sit as both impact and financial factors. Interpreting the diagram requires looking for convergence. Issues that appear on both wings are highly material and demand immediate action. It also highlights differences. Some issues may be critical for society but less financially significant now. These should still be monitored, as expectations and regulations evolve quickly. For businesses, double materiality provides a roadmap. It informs strategy, helps prioritize actions, and ensures reporting aligns with emerging standards like CSRD. For stakeholders, it builds transparency. It shows that the company is not only protecting its value but also accounting for the value of ecosystems, workers, and communities. Ultimately, double materiality changes the lens of decision-making. It makes sustainability part of strategy, risk management, and long-term value creation. Source: Ford 2025 Integrated Sustainability and Financial Report #sustainability #business #sustainable #esg

145

10 commentaren

“The Quiet Collapse of ESG—and Why Decarbonization is the Only Path Forward” 🔻 Brutal truth: The ESG era is collapsing under its own weight. Glossy scores, fluffy frameworks, and PR-friendly disclosures are being exposed for what they really are: a distraction from what truly matters—decarbonization. Is your company still hiding behind a high ESG rating? The conflict is real. Behind the scenes, regulators and investors are recalibrating. The trust in ESG scores is eroding—fast. And here’s what I’m seeing on the ground: -Companies with “top ESG ratings” still show rising emissions year-on-year. ESG reports are still seen as a check-the-box compliance exercise, not a strategy driver. -Scope 3 is either excluded, under-reported, or marked “not applicable”—even in supply chain-heavy industries. -Teams are buried in data collection and rating questionnaires—but no actual decarbonization strategy exists. 🚨 A client of ours—a well-known FMCG exporter—was recently delisted by a European retailer. Why? They had great ESG ratings… but no science-based targets, no Scope 3 roadmap, and no real GHG reductions. What’s truly wild is this: The very thing ESG was supposed to protect companies from—regulatory risk, investor flight, and market exclusion—is now happening because companies over-invested in reporting and under-invested in action. This isn’t just about sustainability anymore. This is about license to operate, access to markets, capital, and talent. 🧠 The shift is clear: ESG scores ≠ sustainability. Verified GHG reductions = credibility. Absolute decarbonization = competitive advantage. Businesses that are proactively setting science-based targets, measuring Scope 3 emissions, and embedding carbon strategy into procurement, product design, and operations—these are the companies investors want and regulators trust. 📣 The Call to Action: If your ESG report looks great but your emissions are climbing… You’re not ESG-aligned. You’re exposed. 👉 If you’re ready to move from ESG noise to decarbonization strategy, let’s connect. #earthood is helping organizations transform compliance into competitive edge. #decarbonization #esgstrategy #netzero #scope3 #carbonaccounting #sustainability #climateleadership #sciencebasedtargets #transitionrisk #climatefinance #earthood #earthoodies #manufacturing Microsoft India India Kawasaki Motors Pvt. Ltd. kawasaki india pvt Manufacturing Decarbonization Partners Assurance Partners LLP, Singapore | Audit & Assurance

152

19 commentaren

EU Taxonomy vs. ESG Ratings – From Green Intentions to Green Impact I recently came across this study on the EU Taxonomy Regulation and found it really interesting. It sheds light on how markets respond differently to Taxonomy alignment compared to traditional ESG ratings. 🔎 Key insights: > Companies with higher EU Taxonomy alignment (revenues from sustainable activities) enjoy a market premium. > Investor attention matters > Traditional ESG ratings did not explain these market effects. 💡 Why the difference? ESG ratings focus on firm-level policies, disclosures, and governance. They can vary widely across providers and often reward communication as much as impact. EU Taxonomy defines sustainability at the activity level using strict, science-based thresholds. It requires firms to disclose the share of revenue, capex, and opex aligned with six environmental objectives (es: climate change mitigation and adaptation; Circular Economy) ⚖️ Limitations & future research: > The Taxonomy currently centers on environmental objectives, leaving the S& G dimensions less defined. > The study focused on the early implementation phase, future research can explore whether the alignment premium persists over time. 🚀 Takeaway: The EU Taxonomy shifts the lens from green intentions to green impact. For investors, regulators, and companies, this offers a much clearer framework - and it’s only the beginning of how sustainable finance will evolve.

72

5 commentaren

Everyone’s talking net zero… but how many are actually addressing Scope 3? Earlier this week, I posted about the three scopes and why Scope 3 is the most important to address. Today I came across a study that surveyed hundreds of sustainability professionals, mostly in North America and Europe. It’s a good reference to see where the trends are heading. Here’s what I found interesting: - 79% of reporting companies now disclose on all three scopes (up from just 52% last year). - 87% report voluntarily, even without regulations - 47% of companies which have not reported Scope 3 plan to start reporting within two years - 62% struggle with internal data quality - 57% struggle with internal data availability. - Product use and end-of-life remain underreported due to lack of methods and data. While addressing scope 3 emissions is not only about reporting, but it starts there. It good to see that some major companies are taking measures in this regard, but I believe we are still at early, early stages. What do you think? What is the situation in your market? What consists of Scope 3 emissions? Check this out: https://lnkd.in/db2vyUsj Want to learn about the difference between Scope 1, 2, 3 ? Check this: https://lnkd.in/dGDb7nb3 Have you heard of Scope 4 and 5 emissions? Learn more here: https://lnkd.in/drmsCpm4 ➡️ Follow Majd Fayyad for more insights about sustainability and decabronisation. 🔄 Repost and share with your network

130

20 commentaren

🔥 For over 50 years, the plastics industry has knowingly lied to the public—claiming that recycling was a viable solution to plastic waste, all while their own internal documents said otherwise. 🧾 New reporting from DeSmog reveals that DuPont privately admitted as early as 1974 that recycling most plastics was “not feasible.” Yet instead of changing course, the industry leaned into a PR and lobbying playbook that built the #recyclingmyth #gaslighting the public into believing waste was a consumer problem, not a production one. 📕 In #TheProfiteers, I explore how this kind of corporate gaslighting lets companies offload environmental and social costs while maximizing profits. These tactics—strategic misdirection, blame-shifting, and regulatory deflection—aren’t exceptions; they are core business strategies. ♻️ Despite knowing recycling wasn’t scalable, industry groups fought against any binding limits on plastic production. They even pushed for the recycling symbol to appear on all packaging, further obscuring the truth from consumers. 🔍 We need to better recognize how the recycling myth was a deliberate deception from large plastics and packaging companies. Until we name these deceptions for what they are, we risk reinforcing systems where corporations profit while the public and planet pay the price. https://lnkd.in/ecvB9GXQ

37

4 commentaren