Environmental and Social Governance: A guided approach to creating shared value and partnerships to create impact

Introduction to ESG

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance is rapidly becoming a necessary focus for organisations internationally. Increased awareness of the reputational and financial risks associated with negative environmental and social impact has meant increased responsibility on organisations to develop strategies, as well as strengthen their reporting and governance systems. Beyond this, there is ever-growing evidence that companies with good ESG performance improve their financial bottom line in the current social climate, and that socially or environmentally purposed agencies optimise their impact when improving ESG performance.

However there is a disconnect of knowledge between those tasked with developing and implementing ESG strategies and an understanding of how to create true impact through environmental, social and governance strategies. This means that many organisational ESG strategies can be perceived as a marketing exercise, rather than creating genuine value for their stakeholders or for the environment. Considering the increasing directives, standards and regulations around ESG and sustainability performance, this could mean failing to meet ESG obligations sufficiently, which could mean a host of various legal, financial, reputational, social and sustainability risks. 

Common sustainable reporting standards include indicators for environmental, social and governance performance, although these currently focus on managing risks, rather than creating a positive impact. Moreover, these indicators do not cover all of the areas where negative impacts — including reputational damage — could occur. Standards are generally set as a minimum (at the moment for risk management) rather than an optimum (managing risks holistically and moving towards genuine sustainability while creating shared value). It means a missed opportunity: to improve the triple bottom line; increase investment in the organisation; and make a positive social and environmental impact overall. 

Opportunities for genuine impact 

Going beyond simple compliance, we see the huge unrealised potential for organisations to leverage their social, environmental and governance imperatives in a truly transformative manner that creates opportunities, for instance, by:

  • Maintaining and strengthening the brand and its reputation where customers will pay more for socially or environmentally sustainable products and services.

  • Attracting and retaining talent through consistent messaging that is aligned with company action, and by keeping the workforce engaged.

  • Better management of risks as the application of a robust framework leads to proactive management of risks.

  • Accurate valuations through better measuring of performance and consistent collection of data.

  • Increased efficiency through more strategic use of resources, optimization of supply chain enabled by better data, and improved worker performance due to increased commitment and satisfaction.

  • Create new opportunities for partnerships and innovation as the NGO and public sector (development cooperation, international governmental organisations) is actively shifting towards identifying long-term private sector partnerships with companies that are aligned to the sustainable development goals in order to optimise impact. And companies are looking to partner strategically with NGO and public sector agencies that can help them improve their ESG performance, for example, through social programming to combat child labour or other rights violations in the supply chain.

  • Increased sustainability through stronger stakeholder engagement and a net positive impact on wider society and the environment

These opportunities can be harnessed by strengthening the following domains:

  • Environmental: only monitoring environmental impact to a ‘net zero’ emissions standard. As this means balancing greenhouse gas emissions with greenhouse gas reduction, this does not include any other environmental impacts the organisation may have, such as pollution, biodiversity, natural resources and circular economy. There is a missed opportunity for a positive impact overall.

  • Social: many companies have fundraising targets for charities, and engage their staff around fundraising activities for staff engagement. Whilst this is good for both charities and the staff who engage, many organisations (companies, NGOs and public sector) do not turn their eye internally, to their own social impact on staff. Many organisations do not have, for example, a Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) team that reports to executive leadership. In addition, many companies do not have a comprehensive supply chain audit that uncovers issues of exploitation or human rights concerns at the bottom rungs of nested supply chains. There are opportunities for organisations to improve work culture, retention of talent, productivity and efficiency internally and externally, to have stronger stakeholder engagement and support to proactively mitigate risks.

  • Governance: many organisations monitor and manage their financial and legal risks, but may not ensure that their board has a strong understanding of issues related to sustainability or ESG. The EU Commission has proposed a new Directive for mandatory human rights and climate change due diligence down the supply chain. If accepted by the EU Parliament, member states will have two years to incorporate into national law. This law would affect around 16,800 companies of larger size (500+ employees) and turnover (EUR 150m), and may require changes to their governance system in relation to improved ESG performance, including board composition, and would require leadership from organisational directors. There is an opportunity (which could soon be a legal requirement in many nations) for organisations to improve their governance towards better ESG performance and positive environmental and social impact.

Many organisations do not have a dedicated ESG team at an operational level. Even though some do, those positioned in these roles may not have the background required, or the mandate from leadership, to develop strategies towards creating positive impact, rather than monitoring risks or collecting reporting data. 

The solution: Impact-focused ESG strategies

ESG performance relates to many different functions of an organisation and will look different from one organisation to another, depending on their value proposition and operations. This means that an ESG strategy must be tailored to an organisation based on many factors including: their risk appetite; a double-materiality assessment of what environmental and social impact they have; and what impact the environment and society may have on them, and how their strategy could tie into their ESG goals.

As implied by the new EU Directive proposal, it is important for ESG capacity to be present at the board level, and for organisational leadership to feel comfortable weaving ESG into their organisational strategy. For this strategy to be implemented, an ESG team may be required. To be effective in achieving the opportunities to build sustainability, this team should be mandated and qualified to: identify ESG gaps; coordinate improvements; and monitor progress. It is helpful for this team to have high visibility from executive leadership (ideally a direct reporting line), as they will be working strategically, across departments, and may need to lead organisational change processes. A strong ESG strategy will normally span across multiple functions including auditing, legal and compliance, HR, operations, programmes and communications.

Considering that improving ESG performance is relatively new to the majority of organisations, there are pioneering organisations and those that will follow. To reduce any competitive disadvantage that comes from investing in improvements (in the short term) it may be useful to incorporate advocacy and communication with trade associations and standard-setting agencies into the organisation’s ESG strategy. This can act as a platform for organisational recognition, as well as encouraging more organisations — with good practice examples and healthy competition — to catalyse the movement. It is already becoming common for trade platforms and associations to recognise or even award organisations based on ESG performance.

Considering the complex conversation around ESG at the moment, it can be hard to work out where to start, and what to do, practically, as an organisation to improve performance and sustainability — especially for organisations without current internal ESG capacity. Outsight offers a distilled, evidence-based, consultative offer to organisations wishing to take the next step.

Our proposal: A holistic approach, at the level you require

Possessing 65+ years of experience in the humanitarian and development space, working on social and environmental issues, Outsight International is extremely well placed to help organisations assess, develop and implement ESG approaches that deliver genuine impact to themselves and the communities they serve.

Our subject matter experts cover all aspects of the ESG process and we offer a comprehensive menu of services: from targeted coaching on specific issues to complete strategy development and implementation. 

For ESG to provide genuine impact, we have developed a five step process which is based on our experience in the sector. We can help organisations follow the complete process or help with the specific activities of each step.

  1. Understand ESG: By their nature, environmental, social and governance performance are extremely complex topics which can take years to understand and even longer to master. As a first step to assist organisations, we offer a standalone resource package that can help ESG implementers and key stakeholders get to grips with the topic, appropriate frameworks and critical issues. This can be run as a coaching program with ESG focal points, or as a training toolbox. 

  2. Simplify complexity and identify the gaps: ESG strategies need to embrace the complexity of their organisations and distil the most meaningful action. From leadership buy-in to supply chains, the cross-cutting nature of ESG means the process should start by engaging experts and key stakeholders to capture the complexity of real-world choices, dependencies, and tradeoffs in visual system maps that show how the parts fit together. Our system innovation experts help organisations do this in an efficient way, bringing with them years of experience in making sense of complex ecosystems and identifying the key gaps and priority areas to leverage change. 

  3. Identify the most appropriate framework: There are a range of ESG frameworks that can be chosen to apply ESG principles to your operations — there may be regulatory requirements also, depending on the sector. We help you identify the best fit for your existing systems and impact goals.  

  4. Put in place a reporting system and establish a baseline: With an understanding of your organisation's existing ESG systems and reach, and with an appropriate framework selected, the next step is to put in place the right reporting systems and audit methods to collect baseline data, on which your ESG progress can be tracked. Outsight’s reporting expertise can help set up these systems easily and efficiently. 

  5. Create a strategy and roadmap: The final and most important stage of the process is to create an impact-focused ESG strategy and roadmap. This should be built on the foundational work of the previous steps and is the point at which theory is put into practice. Strategies will vary in size depending on the goals and objectives of each organisation. They can (and should) include the following:

    1. Engagement with your stakeholders: Engage stakeholders with discussions and analysis of complex challenges that build on visual maps to co-create desired future states and a shared roadmap to get there. Co-creation enables solutions to be adapted to their specific context but also ensures legitimacy and relevance of strategies so that performance may be meaningfully improved through an efficient process. If stakeholders feel they share ownership of a plan of action, implementation becomes much easier. 

    2. Identify the right support: Depending on the organisation, Outsight can identify specialist agencies that can help them implement their ESG strategies. There is a range of outsourcing options to support the ESG implementers i.e. human rights in the supply chain, environmental impact, and good governance experts. Partnerships with organisations working in these spaces are essential to moving beyond just the box-ticking exercise that ESG can fall into. 

    3. Strategy formation: Once the right stakeholder and support have been identified, Outsight helps harmonise this with the chosen regulatory and reporting frameworks to create a strategy that can be put into practice. 

    4. Building staff capacity: Outsight can provide supporting instruction on the basics of ESG thinking and support the development of staff to engage on the topic through the use of self-assessment tools and change initiatives. Utilising this approach will enable better top-to-bottom engagement in the topic. 

    5. Communications: It’s important to encourage sustained use of system descriptions and visuals in communications, using these tools to help expand the conversation. Interactive tools, courses, and communications materials can be built for the organisation’s customers and partners, and provide an aligned strategy for understanding and addressing the effects of complex challenges. Many companies and NGOs are striving toward sustainability, beyond simply mitigating ESG risks. Considering these organisations are the pioneers, it can be useful to put pressure on the national Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC), trade associations, relevant Ministries or task-force groups surrounding operations, to recognise good practices and raise standards for other organisations. Outsight can support by mapping the system, communications and strategies for this advocacy as well. 

This approach can be widely applied to diverse challenge areas in climate action and widely shared in different educational, corporate, and community environments.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND OUTSIGHT INTERNATIONAL

Harriet Milsted
Harriet is a Research, M&E and Reporting Consultant specialising in measuring and improving social impact, and with experience in measuring and improving environmental impact and governance systems. She is a member of the ESG Special Interest Group of the Institute of Risk Management where she was invited to speak in their first publicly broadcast panel discussion around the opportunities for improving ESG performance of private companies and NGOs respectively, through strategic partnerships. She coordinated sustainability reporting for Save the Children against the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Grand Bargain and Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) and was also the Accountability representative in the corporate Risk Assurance Network. Recently she was working on an EU Spotlight initiative around improving ESG performance, with UNICEF and Baan Dek Foundation, a Thai NGO, where she facilitated the development of the corporate engagement strategy and tools for the construction sector in Thailand including property developers, contractors and subcontractors at the bottom rungs of the supply chain. She is currently consulting around ESG-related initiatives, including child labour remediation in the supply chain, combatting trafficking in persons and rights violations of migrant workers, and improving organisational sustainability for CSOs.

Outsight International
Beyond the complex systems design and communication strategy which we have outlined above,
Outsight International builds teams based on the specific needs of an innovation initiative. Much like a Hollywood movie builds its production teams to match the right talent with a particular movie, Outsight compiles the right expertise to tackle the unique challenges of a particular initiative. In the case of ESG, we are well placed to provide assistance to organisations looking to break down, solve and communicate problems. If you’d like to discuss working with the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.

Landscaping AI-assisted diagnostics for respiratory illness

Outsight was recently contracted by FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics, to help them scope the existing landscape of AI-assisted diagnostics for respiratory illness. The aim of this work was to help FIND identify platforms that could be appropriate for use in the Global South. There are specific challenges in these contexts, different to those in Europe or North America, which is where most of the solutions are developed. For example, different racial backgrounds show up differently on X-rays, and the level of background noise in crowded health structures can be higher. It is essential to test the ability of AI algorithms to cope with these contextual differences. To do so, FIND used context-appropriate datasets from these regions — that might not normally form the foundation of the AI dataset testing — to evaluate performance of these solutions for use in these types of contexts.

The Outsight team identified a long list of 75 digital solutions of interest from around the world. These solutions included a range of signal-input methods, including thorax image capture (X-rays, CT, MRI), auscultation, cough sounds and pulmonary function tests, and captured data with traditional medical devices, as well as smartphones. Of the 75, 25 of these solutions were taken forward to a short list (based on discussions with the FIND team), where detailed information was requested from the companies developing these solutions. This information was assessed and a final list of 11 solutions of particular interest was drawn up.

Moving forward with this work, the hope is that FIND will be able to use the information gathered to help shape their diagnostic strategy in various disease and technology areas.

About Outsight International

Outsight International provides services to the humanitarian and development sector in an efficient and agile way. Outsight International builds on the range of expertise offered by a network of Associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand. If you’d like to discuss working with the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.

Worth the risk? Humanitarian innovation's risk challenge

Any meaningful change comes with new risks. The merit of the change depends on the balance of benefits and risks that the change offers. Ideas that deliver essential value that cannot be obtained elsewhere may well easily justify the risks that are incurred. Deducting the risk against potential benefit can offer a way of visualising if an intervention can be justified or not. 

Humanitarian innovators have become increasingly aware of the risks associated with new creative processes, services and products. These risks are of concern when they are borne by already vulnerable people. In particular, technology change has the unintended potential to create widely distributed ripple effects that are often not immediately visible. Understanding these consequences can be daunting in their scope, as illustrated by the 2018 ICRC report “Doing No Harm in the Digital Era”, which catalogued over 100 pages of digital risks in the humanitarian context. The current humanitarian discourse is to do no harm. But is doing no harm possible when also innovating?

The Dilemma - Risk as a Barrier to Beneficial Change

The range of innovation risks is not limited to digital technologies. Drones, robotics, and even construction projects all inevitably create new risks when they change the status quo. Considering risks is an essential step in any proposed innovation, particularly one that affects people with limited resources or resilience. However, a too narrow focus on risk can bring even valuable change to a standstill.  

Whilst it is clearly wrong to needlessly expose people to risks and harm, it is also unreasonable to deny communities of potentially beneficial innovations that could substantially improve overall wellbeing.

The risks and benefits of an innovation should be assessed and measured using the same scale and common indicators as status quo programming, helping the innovators to compare, contrast and make an informed decision on whether this idea is taking acceptable risk. This is especially important as there can be a tendency to veto innovation proposals based on small risks due to perception biases. For example, risks are perceived as irrationally high when:

  1. The risk taken is involuntary.

  2. Prevalence and reach of the innovation increase to affect more people.

  3. An innovation is particularly novel.

Overall, this inherently tips the scale in favor of the status quo when dealing with innovations even though more good may be achieved through the means of innovation at equal or lesser risk as the status quo.

And what type of risk? Usually, we don’t go further in depth during risk assessments. Any sort of ‘harm’ closes the door and the idea is put ‘on hold’ indefinitely. ‘Risk’ as a general term is vague and abstract: harm needs to be considered on relative levels if it is life-threatening, financial, legal or if it is compromising the future plan of a specific person. This needs to be entered into the calculation before pausing a new idea. 

Within the humanitarian and development space also there is an added imperative to include financial risk within this calculation: money spent on an innovation that fails, could have been spent on proven methods such as vaccinations or supplies instead. This seems a legitimate points, but this is not the whole picture. As a new report from Elrha will detail, there are financial resources available to humanitarians, outside of an organisation’s operational budget i.e. through organisations like Grand Challenge Canada, foundations and impact investment grants. Through this, the level of financial risk can be mitigated. 

Finally, on how risk is assessed, we reach the problem of individual prestige. Identifying such risks in projects is a profession. Ensuring that there are people there to raise risks where they have been missed is undoubtedly important. However, such assessments often have a clear leaning towards detail, rather than the bigger picture and, as such, can lead to excessive scrutiny and stop a project in its tracks.

Comparing risk and benefit on the same scale

The relative weighing of benefit — or utility from a philosophical standpoint — is something that harks back to political philosophers of the past. John Stuart Mill – an ardent support of individual liberty — famously described the correct use of weighing utility as: 

"that actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

Mill is one of the founders of modern liberalism, widely regarded as underpinning many of the foundational principles of the current world governance. Therefore, why would we choose not to apply this principle in the case of humanitarian innovation when it’s good enough for the operation of modern democracy? 

Ultimately, the benefit and risk of two whole systems need to be compared. For example, the mortality rates for women undergoing childbirth in remote areas can be dramatically reduced through the use of drone deliveries of blood supplies.  The first system - unassisted childbirth - is the status quo, which has substantial unmitigated risks of death. The second system leverages the delivery of blood supplies by drone. This system offers strong medical benefits that are amplified by the lack of other effective alternatives. Yet, drones also come with concerns associated with safe operation in a shared airspace.  These whole systems need to be compared and contrasted with each other. 

If, as often happens, the questions around privacy or the risk of crashing a drone are seen in isolation, it’s easy to understand why permissions are difficult to obtain. Yet, if you’re to consider the possible gains of an overall system in terms of lives or disability-adjusted life year’s (DALYs), then the situation can look significantly different. 

When deciding on whether the risks of a clinical trial are acceptable, an Ethical Review Board will consider the possible improved patient outcomes in a relative manner. It seems odd this luxury is rarely extended to innovation projects, often dealing less directly with patients. Indeed, many innovation projects are deemed unacceptable because of a perceived risk to privacy or data management. Whilst this is a significantly less serious risk than the risk of side-effects in a clinical trial, it is given a disproportionately high prescience. 

Finally, when considering potential harms, it’s important to consider how we each operate within the social norms of our societies. Engaging with beneficiaries’ points of view is commonly accepted as best practice. Yet, there lies significant contradictions when considering the normative nature of humanitarian and development work. One classic example is identity and privacy. For those operating from Europe and North America, there is a tendency to see the right to privacy as fundamentally essential. Take the UK public’s resistance to identity cards, or the French law prohibiting the collection of ethnographic data for example. However, for many other regions, especially where having a recognised official identity can lead to greater access to social service provision, there is less concern for hiding personal details. Whilst this may be based on the levels of trust in government, the debate is far from definitive. Given the decolonisation of aid narrative in the humanitarian and development space, these cultural differences seem to rarely be accounted for. 

Using Systems to Support Responsible Innovation Tradeoffs

Discussions surrounding risk and harm need to be based on a broader view of the opportunity for change. This does not imply there is a blank check for change: a rigorous review of the benefits and harms alongside a consideration of alternative systems should be done for any proposed innovative change. 

A well-reasoned discussion can only be had with a big picture of both the current situation and an open mind to the proposed new combination of benefit and risk. The work that has already been done to identify potential sources of risk has laid a solid foundation on which to take this next step in analysis.  

It is now time to routinely embrace taking a more holistic view of status quo challenges and the alternative systems that are proposed to replace them. This whole systems view would not only allow a more balanced view of the value of change, it would also offer a broader range of alternatives for mitigating potential risks, or at the very least make them better understood to those involved.


About the authors and Outsight International

Dan McClure, Lucie Gueuning, Denise Soesilo, Monique Duggan, Louis Potter for Outsight International
Outsight International provides services to the humanitarian and development sector in an efficient and agile way. Outsight International builds on the range of expertise offered by a network of Associates in order to deliver quality results adapted to the specific tasks at hand. If you’d like to discuss working with the Outsight team, please get in touch or follow us on LinkedIn for regular updates.