So what? He’s right and it’s not good enough. There was relief that a deal was agreed given it could have completely fallen apart a day earlier. Important decisions have been made on boosting climate adaptation funds and protecting rights in a green economy. But limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is increasingly unlikely when

• delegates failed to come up with a roadmap on ending deforestation;
• there was no mention of fossil fuels in the final summit text; and
• the US elected not to send a delegation.

Cut to the chase. Brazil, which hosted the fractious summit in the city of Belém, published a draft text on Tuesday that referred to a roadmap to phasing out fossil fuels. It was designed to build on Cop28, location of the first agreement to explicitly mention a transition away from oil, gas and coal. That text wasn’t binding, but in climate negotiations language matters.

Cutting room floor. By Friday the Cop30 draft had removed any mention of fossil fuels, even though its inclusion was supported by the UK and dozens of other countries. The final agreement followed all-night talks and merely nodded to the “United Arab Emirates consensus”. It did, at least, reiterate that the 1.5C target requires “deep, rapid and sustained” emission cuts.

Good luck with that. Ani Dasgupta from the World Resources Institute said that “intense lobbying from a few petrostates weakened the deal”.

Not naming names. Leading the charge were Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. They were arguably emboldened by the absence of the US, the top oil producer and consumer.

For the record. Donald Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and recently called climate change the “greatest con job” in history.

Woodchucked. Also excised from the final text was a roadmap to the end of deforestation, which was a major goal of Cop30. The summit had been deliberately hosted in the Amazon to focus minds on the role of trees in tackling climate change.

Scant comfort. Brazil softened the blow by unilaterally announcing the creation of the roadmap and launching an investment fund to compensate nations that preserve tropical forests. Both were taken outside the UN process. It also committed to a fossil fuel roadmap, which will

• similarly sit outside the UN;
• proceed under the leadership of Colombia and the Pacific Islands; and
• report back to Cop after dialogue that includes an international conference in April.

The problem is that the US would probably block any global agreement that follows.

Take a bow. There were some things to celebrate. Countries agreed to a so-called just transition mechanism, a plan to protect human rights when moving to a green economy. This is the result of hard-fought campaigning by the Global South, including Indigenous groups.

Progress of sorts. The final text also trebles adaptation finance to help poorer nations deal with a warmer world, another good thing. But the 2035 deadline was initially 2030, and the goal of roughly $120 billion a year is well short of the $300 billion target set at Cop29.

Unvarnished truth. Many countries were also unhappy at the indicators adopted to measure progress on adaptation. Sierra Leone’s climate minister said the list was not the one “crafted by experts”. He dismissed its contents as “unclear, unmeasurable, and in many cases, unusable”.

Beyond Cop. For all the small wins and sinewy multilateralism, countries have still not come up with national climate plans that will come close to keeping the world within 1.5C of warming.

What’s more… One word that made it into the final text was “overshoot”, which was used to refer to this threshold and specifically to the world that lies beyond. It draws closer by the day.

The post Some like it hot first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post Some like it hot appeared first on ESG Foundation.

The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) today warns that the UK’s legally binding climate targets are under threat, as a new report, Leading the Pathway to Net Zero: Transforming Management and Leadership for a Sustainable Future, reveals a critical management and leadership skills gap stopping organisations from turning net zero ambitions into action.

The research, spanning organisations across the UK economy, highlights a fundamental “say-do” gap in the net zero transition: while nearly three-quarters of managers (74%) say sustainability is a priority for their employers, one-third (33%) lack confidence in their organisation’s readiness to deliver the necessary change.

The management and leadership skills deficit

The report also shows that the net zero challenge is managerial, not just technical. Over half of managers (57%) in organisations with a net zero plan report lacking clarity on what is expected of them, leaving strategies stuck on paper instead of translating into practical day to day action. At the same time, demand for green-skilled management has soared by 69% between 2015 and 2024, highlighting the urgent need for capable leaders to drive what will be complex organisational changes.

Closing this skills gap is not just about hitting climate targets, it’s also a business imperative as organisations are increasingly required to demonstrate their sustainability commitment for procurement opportunities and in the face of consumer demand for businesses that behave responsibly when it comes to their environmental impact. The CMI research also shows that investing in management can boost organisational performance by 23%, demonstrating that skilled managers are also essential to improved productivity.

Professionalising the Green Transition

The report concludes that the UK cannot achieve net zero without upskilling leaders at all levels, from the C-suite to frontline managers. Successfully navigating the transition requires professionals capable of systems thinking, change leadership, and clear stakeholder engagement.

Ann Francke OBE, CEO of the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), said:
“The transition to a sustainable, net zero economy is one of the greatest challenges and opportunities of our time. This transformation will reshape the labour market and redefine how we all work, and at the heart of that change are managers and leaders with the skills to turn sustainability ambitions into tangible actions. 

“This report highlights the scale of the challenge ahead, exposing the widening management and leadership skills gap that risks slowing our progress. To achieve lasting impact, we must develop managers who can lead sustainably, embedding environmental responsibility, resilience and innovation into everyday business decisions. Doing so well will benefit rather than burden the bottom line – so it’s a win for everyone.“ 

Martin Baxter FISEP, Deputy Chief Executive of the Institute of Sustainability and Environmental Professionals (ISEP), added:
“There is an urgent need to embed green skills across a wider range of different professions beyond environment and sustainability specialists, from finance and engineering, to accountancy and procurement. This research by the CMI highlights that skills gap extends to people in leadership and management positions as well – who are facing growing levels of responsibility and accountability for achieving net zero and sustainability goals more broadly.

“At ISEP we are seeing more and more evidence that the success of any organisation in improving performance in areas like carbon reduction can be directly linked to management being visible champions and proactively leading efforts to support sustainability. And the best way to ensure this happens is for managers to have knowledge and skills developed through training and qualifications.”

CMI Sustainability Leadership Qualifications

To address this gap, CMI has launched a new suite of Sustainability Leadership Qualifications (Levels 3, 5, and 7) designed to build green management competencies across careers. These qualifications enable managers to:

• Implement strategy: Translate high-level net zero plans into clear, measurable operational targets.
  

• Lead change: Build the professional confidence to manage complex, systemic change and resistance effectively.
  

• Professionalise the workforce: Equip organisations with a quality-assured pathway to develop managers capable of delivering on ESG commitments.

About the Chartered Management Institute (CMI)

The Chartered Management Institute is the professional body for managers and leaders. We have a membership community of over 230,000 aspiring and practising managers and more than 150,000 people are currently studying on one of our management and leadership programmes. Our Royal Charter defines our charitable mission as increasing the number and standard of professionally qualified managers and leaders.

Further information:

Izzy Pougatch, Senior Account Executive, Atalanta +44 (0)7712 256399

www.atalanta.co

(Picture credit: Pexels.com)

The post CMI: Management skills gap threatens UK net zero targets first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post CMI: Management skills gap threatens UK net zero targets appeared first on ESG Foundation.

𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘌𝘚𝘎/𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘪, 𝘉𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘚𝘢𝘰 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘰, 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘬𝘰𝘬, 𝘛𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰, 𝘋𝘰𝘩𝘢, 𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘺𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘺. 𝘌𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 & 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

From my experience advising on cross-border sustainability regulations, I’ve seen that though there are still significant overlaps, “ESG compliance” has its jurisdictional nuances, with those differences widening continuously.

Here’s a quick summary of where things stand today:

Africa: ISSB reporting mandates (Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya). New climate change regulations & Green Finance Guidelines gaining ground.

Asia: Mandatory disclosures (Singapore, Japan, Korea, India). Human rights due diligence & supply chain transparency on the rise.

Europe:  CSRD, CSDDD, EU Taxonomy, CBAM, etc., Europe remains the centre of regulatory gravity with extraterritorial reach.

Latin America: Mandatory reporting (Brazil, Chile, Mexico). Enforcement tied to deforestation, FPIC, & indigenous rights litigation, etc.

Middle East: ESG reporting now standard for listed firms. Green taxonomies & hydrogen transition policies taking shape.

North America: SEC climate rules (pending), California SB 253/261, Canadian disclosure standards + forced labour. Litigation & state-level action defining the tone.

Oceania: Mandatory climate disclosure under AASB S2 in Australia. Modern slavery & biodiversity frameworks expanding.

This is the “now” – the enforceable layer of ESG law – but the “next” is where the real risks & opportunities lie. Essentially, this is where most entities – especially multinationals – will either get ahead or fall behind.

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴/𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰/𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝘄𝗼-𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱).

#ESGLaw #ESGCompliance #SustainabilityCompliance

The post What ESG Compliance Means in Different Parts of the World first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post What ESG Compliance Means in Different Parts of the World appeared first on ESG Foundation.

Peers who dismiss ESG with phrases like, “too much cost,” “burdensome regulation,” or “woke excess” are not defending their companies – they’re defending inertia. To say ESG is expensive without saying that inaction is more expensive is intellectual dishonesty. To insist governance or social fairness are optional extras when they increasingly determine access to capital is risk insanity.

Many procurement leaders in Europe are currently caught off guard by shifting sands in regulation – amendments in the February 2025 Omnibus have introduced both delays and narrower scopes for key directives (CSRD, CSDDD), and uncertainty over what compliance will really require. Those delays do not equal escape. They are signals. Signals that the regulatory system is adjusting, but also tightening its grip. Companies that treat this as “more time to adapt,” instead of “more pressure to deliver,” are those who will be left floundering when enforcement becomes unforgiving.

Look at Uzbekistan’s ongoing reform: state-owned enterprises are being compelled, by Presidential Decree, to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), including sweeping changes to governance and transparency. That may feel distant if you’re operating in Western markets, but it underlines how global standards are moving inexorably toward higher accountability. If large, previously opaque institutions in developing economies can embrace serious reform under top-down enforcement, what excuse remains for companies in stable democracies to lag?

Then there’s the matter of materiality: an article “Materiality: the new measure of sustainability” emphasises that risks and opportunities which companies once dismissed as “non-financial” are now central to survival. A supplier switch after Brexit, for example, which might seem operational or logistical, turns into a financial liability if it hits sustainability standards. If firms keep mis-assessing what truly matters – or underestimating the cost of inaction- they will see those costs inflicted anyway by regulation, market shifts, or reputational meltdown.

“Advancements in Solar Energy” is not just a feel-good story – it is a warning: technology is moving, government policies are tilting, and competitors investing in renewables are getting ahead. If your R&D budget, or your capital allocation plan, still treats solar (or wind, or low-carbon energy) as secondary, you’re effectively betting against market forces, environmental necessity, and regulatory direction.

Consider also “An Inconvenient Truth: Why Private Jets Have No Place in a Climate-Conscious World.” It illustrates stark hypocrisy: elites continue to champion climate action in media statements while indulging practices that multiply emissions.

When senior leadership authorises or overlooks such contradictions, it communicates that ESG is only for optics. But stakeholders – investors, employees, customers, Gen Z generally – can see through facades. They will judge companies not by what they say on glossy slides but by what they do when the private jet is taxed, or the jet-charter is regulated, or public outrage forces policy change.

It’s time to call out the Heads of Sustainability who silently shifted away from calling themselves Heads of ESG, because it was professionally expedient to kowtow to the Trump administration’s lead.

The moral core of ESG isn’t soft. It demands integrity, transparency, accountability – values the Quaker philanthropists for example embodied long before modern regulation. It demands that companies stop masking harm, stop cherry-picking data, stop assuming future forgiveness. “Sustainability” and especially “Purpose” – the new label de jour – can mean anything to anyone. ESG doesn’t ask for perfection; it demands alignment between what you say and what you do. That alignment is fast becoming mandatory, not optional. It’s hard. “Nothing worth having ever came easy,” as the saying goes.

The ESG Foundation will not be changing it’s name.

So here is an ultimatum: adapt now – meaning embed ESG into your core strategy and operations – or risk irrelevance. Because those who lead in ESG are not “nice” or “progressive” -they are the only ones looking to encourage resilient organisations in a changing world.

Those who have back-tracked are not courageous – they are betting that society, regulators, nature itself will ignore the contradictions. And that is a bet they cannot win.

If you’d like to join the ESG Foundation and continue to champion the obvious economic and social value of not giving up on people, planet and purpose, we’d love to hear from you: https://esgfoundation.org/join-us

(Picture credit: Pexels.com_Anna Shvets)

The post Embarrassed by ESG? You’re the embarrassment first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post Embarrassed by ESG? You’re the embarrassment appeared first on ESG Foundation.

Uzbekistan is pushing ahead with a sweeping overhaul of financial reporting across its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as part of a wider campaign to improve transparency, attract investment, and modernize corporate governance.

Under reforms mandated by Presidential Decree No. 4611, a growing number of major enterprises are now required to produce financial statements in line with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The first wave of compliance, launched in 2021, is beginning to bear fruit, with government officials hailing early successes and promising full adoption across all largest SOEs by the end of 2025.

A recent seminar in Tashkent brought together finance leaders from SOEs, international audit firms, and regulators to share progress and lessons learned. Officials from the Ministry of Economy and Finance noted that 20 major state enterprises are on track to submit IFRS-compliant reports by the end of this year.

Among the most recent adopters is Navoiyuran, the state uranium producer, which has already published two consecutive years of IFRS financials. The company received an unqualified audit opinion from Deloitte, marking a significant milestone. Its statements included fair-value assessments of key assets – an essential step for the company’s ambitions to secure a credit rating from Fitch. As a result, on 13 June Fitch Ratings has published State Enterprise Navoiyuran’s Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) of ‘BB-‘ with a Stable Outlook. The Standalone Credit Profile (SCP) is ‘BB-‘.

“This is not just about ticking boxes,” said Bobur Abdinazarov, Chairman of UzAssets. “It’s about laying the foundations for greater accountability, market confidence, and eventual investment.”

The IFRS push is part of a broader reform agenda backed by the Asian Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Alongside new accounting standards, SOEs are being required to implement governance frameworks covering anti-corruption measures, internal audits, and whistleblowing protections.

The Ministry of Economy and Finance has translated and endorsed more than 60 IFRS documents into Uzbek, while working with the Big Four accounting firms to train finance teams and build capacity. Auditors have been deployed to guide first-time adoption and ensure quality control during the transition period.

In the mining sector, beyond uranium, companies such as Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Complex (NMMC) and Almalyk Mining and Metallurgical Complex (AMMC) have already institutionalized IFRS reporting, with their financial statements audited by Big Four firms for several consecutive years. With a strategic role in Uzbekistan’s gold, copper metals output, NMMC and AMMC is seen as a bellwether for sector-wide financial reform. Greater transparency is a prerequisite for foreign investor interest in the country’s vast mineral reserves.

Uzbekneftegaz, the largest company in the country’s oil and gas sector, adopted IFRS in 2018. Its financial statements for the year ended 2024 were issued in April 2025, setting a new benchmark for accelerated financial reporting among SOEs. This marked a significant improvement, as the company had historically released its audited financial statements in July. Other key sector players, including Uztransgaz and Hududgazta’minot, also report under IFRS. However, significant delays persist in their period-end closing and issuance of audited IFRS financial statements, which limit the flexibility for those companies to have efficient communication with investors. The reforms are seen as critical to attracting capital for infrastructure upgrades and gas export expansion.

In manufacturing, the state has earmarked enterprises in textiles, chemicals, and automotive production for IFRS alignment. Firms such as UzAuto Motors, a key employer and export contributor, have been issuing IFRS-based financials for several years as part of broader engagement with capital markets and preparation for future privatisation initiatives.

The energy sector, which comprises strategic and infrastructure-related assets is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Following the unbundling of Uzbekenergo in 2019, the sector was restructured into separate entities for generation (Thermal Power Plants JSC), transmission (National Electric Grid of Uzbekistan JSC), and distribution (Regional Electric Networks JSC). These entities have been publishing IFRS-compliant financial statements for several years and are actively preparing for partial privatization as part of Uzbekistan’s broader energy sector reform agenda.

The transport and logistics sector, particularly Uzbekistan Railways and the national airline Uzbekistan Airways, is also part of the IFRS drive. IFRS-based reporting has already become standard practice for Uzbekistan Airways, positioning the company among SOEs in terms of financial transparency. Uzbekistan Railways, after undergoing diagnostic assessments and internal restructuring, is set to publish its first IFRS-adopted financial statements by the end of 2025. These efforts aim to enhance transparency, financial accountability, and investment attractiveness across one of the country’s most capital-intensive sectors.

Yet challenges remain. Some enterprises are struggling to find qualified personnel, and the rollout of modern internal controls has been uneven. In many cases, there are still significant delays in the preparation and issuance of audited financial statements. To support transparency, improve oversight, and build investor confidence – particularly in the context of upcoming privatizations – a fast financial close process and full transition to IFRS are essential. Observers caution that sustained political will – and continued investment in governance systems – will be crucial to meeting the 2025 deadline.

Still, the government insists it is on track. “We are building a culture of financial discipline,” continues Mr Abdinazarov. “And that starts with telling the truth on the balance sheet.”

As Uzbekistan’s state sector prepares for potential privatisations and greater engagement with international markets, the ability to produce credible, transparent financial data could prove critical. With the 2025 deadline looming, all eyes will be on whether this ambitious shift from former government secrecy to global accounting standards can hold.

The post Uzbekistan’s State Enterprises Embrace IFRS as Reform Drive Gains Pace first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post Uzbekistan’s State Enterprises Embrace IFRS as Reform Drive Gains Pace appeared first on ESG Foundation.

The appeal of private aviation is clear. It offers time-pressed executives, celebrities and the ultra-wealthy the flexibility to travel on their own schedule, avoid crowded airports and maintain privacy. But this convenience comes at a staggering environmental price. Each hour in the air can emit up to two tonnes of carbon dioxide, meaning a single transatlantic trip may generate more emissions than the average person in the EU produces in an entire year (“CO2 emissions from private jets.” European Federation for Transport and Environment AISBL, 2021).

In the context of ESG thinking, this poses a reputational and  ethical problem for individuals and organisations alike. Companies committed to reducing their carbon footprint cannot credibly champion net zero strategies while continuing to rely on private jets for corporate travel. This hypocrisy risks undermining stakeholder trust and negating the gains made through other sustainability initiatives.

At your next AGM of a publicly listed company ask how many private jet flights any of their employees took.

The ESG Foundation has previously highlighted how innovation can help address environmental challenges in Bright Ideas: Advancements in Solar Energy, pointing to the need for rapid adoption of cleaner technologies. In the aviation sector, while experimental electric aircraft and sustainable aviation fuels show promise, these are not yet viable at scale. Until such alternatives become widespread, the only genuinely sustainable choice is to reduce private jet use drastically.

There is also an equity dimension to consider. In Greening the Screen: Tackling ESG Challenges in the UK Film and TV Industry, the Foundation explored how industries can take responsibility for their environmental impact. Private jet travel stands out as a luxury accessible to a tiny fraction of the global population, yet it disproportionately contributes to the climate crisis that affects everyone. Continuing to normalise such travel deepens the perception that climate responsibility is optional for the wealthy.

Approximately 40 million commercial flights take off worldwide each year, private jets accounting for around 1 million flights annually globally – roughly 2.5% of commercial flight volume. Yet, private jets produce up to 14 times more CO₂ per passenger than commercial flights (Transport & Environment, 2021).

Alternatives exist. High-speed rail in Europe offers a comfortable and significantly lower-carbon option for journeys of under 1,000 kilometres. For longer trips, scheduled commercial flights, especially those using newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft, dramatically reduce per-passenger emissions. Advances in virtual conferencing also allow many business meetings to take place without travel at all.

If ESG principles mean anything, they require consistency. It is time for organisations and individuals who claim to prioritise environmental stewardship to make a clear choice: either embrace lower-carbon modes of travel or admit that convenience outweighs commitment. The climate emergency leaves no room for half-measures. As the ESG Foundation continues to document, the solutions are within reach – but are you willing to take them?

The post An Inconvenient Truth: Why Private Jets Have No Place in a Climate-Conscious World first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post An Inconvenient Truth: Why Private Jets Have No Place in a Climate-Conscious World appeared first on ESG Foundation.

Their principles – integrity, fairness, stewardship and accountability – would not be out of place in any modern ESG policy. But theirs was not a response to regulatory pressure. It was a matter of conscience.

Quakers were excluded from many professions due to their refusal to swear oaths, bear arms or conform to the established church. In response, many turned to trade, where their reputation for honesty became a competitive advantage. But more than that, they saw business itself as a moral endeavour – a way to serve society while making a living.

The most visible legacy of Quaker commerce lies in chocolate. Firms such as Cadbury, Fry’s and Rowntree became household names not just because of their products but because of how they treated people. Cadbury’s Bournville estate, built for factory workers near Birmingham, offered decent housing, schools, healthcare and green spaces – a deliberate rejection of the slums that surrounded most industrial sites. Joseph Rowntree went further, establishing charitable trusts to tackle the root causes of poverty. These were not philanthropic add-ons; they were integral to the business model.

Other Quaker-founded firms took a similarly progressive approach. Clarks Shoes, established in Somerset, offered fair pay, safe working conditions and resisted child labour – at a time when such practices were rife. Huntley & Palmers, the biscuit makers of Reading, built a company town with employee education and welfare baked into its structure. Even the world of finance was not immune: the early incarnations of Barclays and Lloyds banks were shaped by Quaker principles of prudence and trust, serving communities before shareholders.

What these firms shared was an instinctive sense of what is now described in ESG terms. Environmental concerns were framed as stewardship – a duty to care for the land and use resources responsibly. Social impact was felt in the way workers were housed, fed and educated. Governance was often collective and transparent, rooted in the Quaker tradition of decision-making by consensus. None of this was encoded in formal policies. It was lived practice, sustained by a belief that business could be a force for good.

Today’s ESG frameworks are more structured and more scrutinised. Investors demand disclosure. Regulators demand compliance. Critics question authenticity. Yet the challenges remain remarkably similar: how to make profit without exploiting people or planet; how to lead with integrity in the face of pressure to grow; how to balance short-term results with long-term consequences.

The Quaker experience offers both inspiration and caution. These were not perfect companies. Some, like Barclays, grew beyond their roots and left their founding values behind. Others were absorbed into larger conglomerates where social purpose became harder to sustain. But their legacy matters. They demonstrate that ethical business is not a new idea, nor a fringe concern. It has deep roots in British commercial history – and it worked.

In an age where ESG is often treated as either a marketing exercise or a compliance burden, the Quaker tradition offers something more radical: a vision of business as a moral enterprise, judged not just by how much it makes, but how it behaves.

If you’d like to learn more about ESG, there are lots of resources on the ESG Foundation’s website to explore:

Keeping Current: https://esgfoundation.org/keeping-current

The ESG Podcast: https://esgfoundation.org/esg-podcast

ESG Reports Showcase: https://esgfoundation.org/reports-showcase

The ESG Reporting App: https://reportingapp.esgfoundation.org/login/?redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Freportingapp.esgfoundation.org%2F

(Image credit:Pexels.com)

The post The Quiet Origins of ESG first appeared on ESG Foundation.

The post The Quiet Origins of ESG appeared first on ESG Foundation.