PLANETARY BOUNDARIES OF BUSINESS

Identifying key planetary processes, quantifying the boundary level for each process,
objective to avoid unacceptable global environment change

Resilience of the planet: threshold and boundary/ abrupt & non-linear change
Threshold: non-linear transitions in the functioning of human-environment
systems (e.g., loss of polar ice sheets, weakening of carbon sinks); defined by
position along one or more control variables
Boundaries: human determined values of a control variable (e.g.,
concentration of O3, ppm CO2), at “safe” distance from dangerous level or
global thresholds

Planetary Boundaries: safe operating space for humanity with respect to the
functioning of the Earth Systems→ quantifiable values of the control variables
PARIS CLIMATE TREATY

At COP21 in December 2015, nearly 200 countries agreed to hold “the increase in
the global average temperature to well below 2 deg C above pre-industrial
levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 deg C”.
 Temperature Rise CO2-e concentration Reference Year
Reference 280 ppm 1880
1 deg C 400 ppm 2015
1.5 deg C 430 ppm 2100
2 deg C 450 ppm 2100
3 deg C 650 ppm 2100
4 deg C 1000 ppm 2100

▪ For global 2 deg target

▪ Budget: 1 trillion tons
▪ Used: 515 billion tons
▪ Available: 485 billion tons

▪ GHG: carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs
(Sulphur Hexafluoride, Nitrogen trifluoride)
 ▪ Any other issues apart from cost and
C2C under consideration here?

▪ Tactical and Strategic Issues

PVC OR TPU IN
THE MIRRA CHAIR ▪ Tactical: Cost, Quality, Schedule, Brand,
Internal Credibility
ARM PAD?
▪ Strategic: Making a statement, Impact
on other products, Alignment with
Organizational Strategy, Competitive
Dynamics, Evolving Policy Environment
 Sustainability
More the Merrier?
Multi-disciplinary
More the Messier?
Multi-dimensional

Vertically Organized? Decision variables-

Horizontally Organized? Cost & Price?

Partnerships
Internal and External
Initial idea in
ENERGY Rapid growth
1960s-1970s in 1990s

LCA
RAW
EMISSIONS
MATERIAL
Mainstream
in 2000s
 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)
▪ The most comprehensive approach for
assessing environmental impact.

▪ A method in which the energy, raw material

consumption, and different types of
emissions related to a specific product are
measured and analyzed over the product’s
entire life cycle from an environmental point
of view.

▪ Guided by several international protocols

and standards
▪ Product level- ISO 14040, ISO 14044, ISO
14024, ISO 14021, PAS 2050 etc.
▪ Corporate level- ISO 14064, DEFRA etc.
LCA

Four main steps/activities:

1. Goal definition

2. Inventory Analysis- Life

Cycle Inventory (LCI) phase

3. Impact Assessment- Life

Cycle Impact Assessment
(LCIA) phase

4. Interpretation
 WHY LCA FOR BUSINESS?
▪ To identify the multiple environmental & resource issues across the entire life-
cycle of the product

▪ Helps business activities: planning, procurement, design, resource strategy,

marketing & sales
▪ Evaluating footprints at a product or a corporate level
▪ Developing detergents for washing clothes at a lower temperature (e.g., Unilever)
▪ Substituting materials in automobiles for lowering life cycle emissions (e.g., BMW)
▪ Switching to cleaner sources of energy in production phase for automobiles
▪ Help come out with environmental product declaration (EPD) (e.g., Tata Steel)

▪ Improved market position, better customer image, closer cooperation with

suppliers, better relations with authorities, image building, sending a signal,
peer-pressure etc.
TATA STEEL AND LCA
 CHALLENGES IN LCA FOR BUSINESS?
▪ Gathering baseline data- measurement and monitoring

▪ Inter and intra firm coordination

▪ Resources availability- time, money, manpower, technical knowhow,

data etc.
EU grid- 43% fossil fuels,
29% renewables, 2% CHP
26% nuclear

Swedish grid- 80% hydro

+ nuclear, 12% wind,
8% CHP

Polish grid- 84% coal,

9% other fossil fuels,
7% hydro+ wind

I II III IV
India’s commitments to climate change mitigation – Paris Agreement, NDC

Paris Agreement India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC)

Member countries to make binding

commitments to curb CO2 emissions to To reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by
keep avg. global temp. rise below 1.5°C 01 33-35 % by 2030 from 2005 level.

To achieve about 40% electric power installed

India is responsible for 6% of the global
CO2 emissions after China, US and EU 02 capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy
resources by 2030
To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3
India ratified the Paris Agreement on 2nd Oct
2016, exactly one year after the submission of its
03 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through
additional forest and tree cover by 2030
INDC
To reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by
Revised 45 % by 2030 from 2005 level.
NDC To achieve about 50% electric power installed
IPAT- Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology (Aug 2022) capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy
resources by 2030
CO2 emissions = Population * (GDP/Population) * (Energy/GDP) * (Emissions/Energy)
= Population * GDP per capita * Energy Intensity of GDP * Emission Intensity of Energy
 GHG REPORTING STANDARDS
▪ Direct emissions: emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the entity
Indirect emissions: emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the entity but
occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity(ies)
Scope 1: direct GHG emissions from sources owned or controlled by the entity

Scope 2: indirect GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam,
and heating/cooling consumed by the entity for business operations of the entity

Scope 3: indirect GHG emissions from sources not owned by the entity but connected
with the business operations of the entity

▪ Two types of boundaries: operational boundaries and organizational boundaries

▪ Setting operational boundaries comes after setting the organizational boundaries
Six GHG
included in the
Kyoto Protocol
 TYPES OF GHG EMISSIONS
Scope 1: Scope 2: Scope 3:
- emissions from combustion in boilers - emissions from generation of - extraction and production of
and furnaces; purchased electricity at the purchased materials and fuels;
generation plant
- generation of electricity/heat/steam; - employee travel for business
- does not include emissions during purpose;
- process emissions (physical/chemical); T&D of purchased electricity
- other transportation related
- transportation of materials, product, emissions;
waste, and employees in company
owned or controlled sources; - emissions related to post-
consumption waste disposal
- flared hydrocarbons;
- fugitive emissions
▪ Company A- Independent Power Producer (IPP)
▪ Produces 100 MWh of electricity; 20 tonnes of GHG
emissions; Sells electricity to Company B

▪ Company B- power trader

▪ Resells the purchased electricity to Company C

▪ Company C- power utility owning and maintaining

the T&D systems
▪ Self-consumption of 5 MWh and sale of remaining 95
MWh to Company D

▪ Company D- end user (steel firm)

▪ Consumption of 95 MWh of electricity

▪ How will Companies A, B, C, and D report their

emissions from consumption/sale of electricity?
 GHG REPORTING STANDARDS & PROTOCOLS
▪ Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Initiative- a multistakeholder partnership driven by the World Resources
Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
▪ Launched in 1998: Most widely recognized and used international standard for calculating GHG emissions
▪ Standards of GHG Protocol at different levels: Corporate level, Project level, and Product level
▪ Based on 5 principles: Relevance, Completeness, Consistency, Transparency, Accuracy

▪ Different requirements by different sustainability reporting frameworks/standards

▪ ISSB (under IFRS) requires disclosure as per GHG Protocol standards
▪ BRSR requirements: Scopes 1 & 2 emissions (essential indicator) and Scope 3 (leadership indicator)
▪ Total Scopes 1 & 2 emissions, Total Scopes 1 & 2 emission per rupee of turnover, Total Scopes 1 & 2
emission intensity
▪ India GHG Inventory Program- acting as a Centre of Excellence
▪ Helps in inventorization and benchmarking of GHG emissions
▪ Three founders: World Resources Institute (WRI), CII, TERI Business Council for Sustainable Development
▪ Founding members: ITC, ACC, Tata Tele, Tata Chemicals, Infosys, NTPC, GAIL, IOCL etc.
 GHG REPORTING STANDARDS
▪ Corporate standard reporting: importance of setting the organizational boundaries
▪ If the company partly owns all its operations (e.g., joint operations), it can report emissions
using either of the approaches
▪ Equity share approach: company accounts for GHG emission from operations according to its share of
equity (economic) in the operation
▪ Equity means ownership percentage; economic substance takes precedent over legal substance
▪ Control approach: company accounts for 100% of GHG emissions according to operations on which it
has control; excludes emissions from operations with interest but no control
▪ Financial control
▪ Operational control
▪ If the company wholly owns all its operations, the organizational boundary remains same in
either of the approaches
Equity Share Approach Control Approach

100% 100% (Op),100% (F)

83*50%=41.5% 0%(Op), 50%(F)

83% 100% (Op),100% (F)

83*75%=62.2% 100%(Op), 100%(F)

33% 100% (Op),33.3% (F)

43% 100% (Op),100% (F)

56% 0% (Op), 0% (F)

0% 0% (Op),0% (F)
 REPORTING STANDARDS- SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS
▪ Location based accounting: Average emission intensity of grids on which energy consumption occurs
(using mostly grid-average emissions factor data)
▪ Market based method of accounting: reflects emissions from electricity that companies have
purposefully chosen (or their lack of choice); it derives emissions from contractual instruments
▪ Contractual instruments: RECs, direct contracts (open access), supplier specific emission rates etc.
 Exchange Coupons Collection Targets Partnerships
Linear or Circular
Waste or Wealth?
Informal Sector Why only Producers?
Advance Disposal Fee (ADF)

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Regulations
Product Takeback
Cost of Not doing Vs Cost of Doing Formal Sector

Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR)

Producer Responsibility
Organizations (PRO)
Reverse Logistics

Societal Awareness Deposit Refund System

IMPLEMENTING EPR
▪ Product take-back ▪ Institutional issues in
▪ How? developing economies
▪ When? ▪ Issues in regulations and
▪ Where? infrastructure
▪ Business Landscape ▪ Differences in nature of markets
▪ Competitive dynamics ▪ Large presence of informal
▪ Evolving laws, regulations, and sector, particularly in waste
stakeholder expectations management
▪ Sectoral and Cross-sector
Partnerships
▪ Innovative approaches
▪ Impact on organizational
strategy
KEY POINTS
▪ TetraPak’s partnerships with different stakeholders
▪ Value chain: working with Saahas and SMS
▪ Legitimacy: working with TERI
▪ Leveraging existing networks in informal sector: working with Saahas
▪ Creating awareness and sensitization: workshops for public

▪ Expectations from TetraPak for such partnerships

▪ Clear communication and reinforcement of mutually acceptable goals
▪ Holding the partners accountable for their actions
▪ Working hand in hand to overcome implementation obstacles
▪ Financially supporting the NGOs/partners in meeting environmental/social goals
EVOLVING EPR PARADIGM IN INDIA
▪ 2011/2012- E-waste Management and Handling Rules introduced; amended in 2016, 2018,
and 2019
▪ First waste management rules in India to be explicitly based on the EPR framework

▪ 2016- Plastic Waste Management Rules introduced; amended in 2018 and 2021
▪ EPR on producers, importers, and brand owners for collection and recycling of plastic packaging
waste; EPR for both pre-consumer and post-consumer packaging waste

▪ 2021- Rules for EPR for Plastic Packaging introduced

▪ Covers rigid plastic packaging, multi layer plastic packaging (MLP), and flexible plastic
packaging of single layer or multi layer (e.g., sachets)
▪ Includes reuse, recycling, use of recycled plastic content, and end of life disposal
▪ EPR targets for PIBO- category wise and state/UT wise

▪ 2021- End of Life Vehicle (ELV) Waste Management Rules introduced

SUPPLY CHAIN OF CONFLICT MINERALS
▪ Minerals-> mining-> assessing-> sorting (all at local trading houses)->
distributors-> smelting and refining-> distributor or supplier-> Intel

▪ Deep, wide, and ‘invisible’ supply chain- dispersed and large spatial distribution
▪ Processed metals could contain minerals from multiple sources around the world
WHY/HOW DID INTEL DO IT?
▪ Fallout of the Dodd-Frank Act 2010
▪ More disclosures, Implications for fines and penalty, Potential for first mover advantage

▪ Pressure from interest groups like Enough

▪ The larger the firm, the greater the sustainability impact, the greater the goodwill and/or
the potential for reputational damage, the more the scrutiny from stakeholders

▪ Drive from the top (leadership)

▪ “Krzanich was so into this issue that he had monthly review meetings on our progress”
▪ Direct involvement and support of a C-suite executive eased the process
▪ Internal buy-in
LOOKING INSIDE INTEL
▪ Key Issues to ponder
▪ Conflict minerals- 3TG; Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
▪ Section 1502 [e(4)] of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
2010
▪ Visibility of supply chain
▪ Local, national, regional and global NGOs
▪ “Building trust could be a time-consuming process”- trust within and outside industry, with
various actors
▪ It took us quite a while to go in and get an openness and a willingness to share the information
with us
▪ Gaining legitimacy- importance of independent audits
▪ Transparency in value chain- Unlisted vs. Listed firms- implications for disclosures and
compliances
▪ Need for partnerships- partnerships within and outside firm, e.g., EICC, GeSI, and CFSI
SUPPLY CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY
▪ Set of managerial practices that include Some of the things it could mean
▪ Environmental and social impact as an natural resource use,
imperative environment,
▪ Consideration of all stages across the entire emission,
value chain energy,
▪ Multi-disciplinary perspective across the transport and logistics,
product life-cycle
human and labour rights,
climate change,
▪ Includes the following stages and processes compliance with regulations,
▪ Production planning, scheduling and control
voluntary commitments
▪ Inventory management
▪ Reverse supply chain (reverse logistics)
Across the value chain
▪ Product recovery- recycling & remanufacturing
SUPPLY CHAIN VISIBILITY
Assumptions #1 Assumptions #2
▪ Wants are natural & infinite; ▪ Wants are culturally influenced and
encouraging unlimited strongly shaped by marketing and
consumption is good other forces
▪ Planet’s resources are infinite ▪ Planet’s resources are finite
▪ Earth’s carrying capacity for ▪ Earth’s carrying capacity for
pollution & waste is infinite pollution & waste is fairly limited
▪ Quality of life and personal ▪ Quality of life and personal
happiness increases with happiness don’t always increase
increased consumption and want with increased consumption and
satisfaction want satisfaction

(IR)RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION?
GREEN MARKETING
▪ First wave of green marketing triggered by the developments in 1980s
▪ 1980s: A period of environmental concern in the US & West Europe
▪ 1987: Brundtland Commission Report is published

▪ Initial arguments: heightened environmental awareness and growing

consumer interest in “greener” products would lead to pronounced
willingness of consumers to pay for “greener” features

▪ After the first 5-7 years of initial euphoria, market for green products
didn’t increase as anticipated

▪ Growing recognition that difference between concern and actual

purchasing
 FALSE MARKETING : : GREEN WASHING
▪ Investigations found out that the ▪ Green Spinning- “dirty” industries
reason was false marketing. going on a glossy PR offensive
▪ Thrust marketing- using
environment as a mere ▪ Green Selling- merely tweaking
dimension for advertising existing campaigns hoping green
▪ Marketing department would sell
marketing- working in silos,
failure to have holistic outlook
▪ Green Harvesting- pricing green
▪ Accountant’s marketing- products at a premium, not always
short term profitability vs. due to increased costs of production
long term brand building
▪ Formula marketing- focus
▪ Compliance Marketing- merely
on marginal changes and
respond to regulations
avoiding major changes
The tricky part
 Scepticism: wait and see attitude
 Over-diversification– declining profitability- restructurings- slow and
adversarial decision making- stagnant growth
 First outsider brought in as CEO
 “Radical” pushing a “transformational” agenda?
 Radicalism vs Incrementalism
 Past corporate initiatives: bloom and die
 What can scepticism do?
 Employees unclear with their roles, considered USLP unrelated to strategy,
concerned about merits of USLP

 Inherent contradictions between conventional marketing objectives &

sustainability targets
 Internal and external communication
 Chief Marketing Officer made responsible for Communications and
Sustainability
The tricky part
 Short term pains vs long term gains
 Backdrop of global financial crisis
 Changing habits take decades

 Partnerships with adversaries?

 Partner to win and innovation eco-systems (IIMB)
 Do they share Unilever’s vision?

 Integrating sustainability into business strategy

 PR driven corporate responsibility program?
 Strategy to stimulate growth, cut costs, engage consumers, and
motivate employees
 Breadth of USLP
What are ecolabels?
 Signal to consumer environmental attributes of a product

 The
intent is to provide easily interpretable information to
consumers
Ecolabels: the origin
 Origin
in public movements in Europe and the US on
environmental concerns

 Late 1980s: first ecolabels enter the market

Why ecolabels?
 Increased consumer awareness on environment and sustainability

 Increased push from government, civil society and regulators

 Reduce information asymmetry between producers of “green”

products and consumers

 Foster informed purchasing decisions and reduce information search

cost for consumers

 Important strategic consideration for firms

Why should a firm go/not go for ecolabels?

 Cost of getting ecolabels

 Understanding the context and the target segment

 Type of ecolabels: wide acceptability, easy recognition

 Potential benefits: customer loyalty, customer retention,

product/brand differentiation etc.

 Strategy: long term goals, signaling, vision of company

Why ecolabels?
 Increased consumer awareness on environment and sustainability

 Increased push from government, civil society and regulators

 Reduce information asymmetry between producers of “green”

products and consumers

 Foster informed purchasing decisions and reduce information search

cost for consumers

 Important strategic consideration for firms

Why should a firm go/not go for ecolabels?

 Cost of getting ecolabels

 Understanding the context and the target segment

 Type of ecolabels: wide acceptability, easy recognition

 Potential benefits: customer loyalty, customer retention,

product/brand differentiation etc.

 Strategy: long term goals, signaling, vision of company

SUSTAINABILITY DRIVERS
▪ Policies: government policies (supra-national, national, and local);
regulations; policy instruments

▪ Markets: consumers; competitive advantage (reputation, branding,

consumer loyalty etc.); competitors; NGOs; stock exchanges

▪ Leadership: business leadership; vision, mission and values;

organizational culture
POLICIES AS DRIVERS: SUSTAINABILITY
Policies

▪ Can influence business strategies (e.g., TetraPak, Herman Miller etc.)

▪ Can dictate what firms can or cannot do (e.g., ban on single-use plastics in
India, ban on junk food TV advertisements before 9 PM in the UK etc.)
▪ Can dictate what firms ought to do/must do (e.g., CSR, Intel Conflict Minerals,
Affirmative Action Policies etc.)
▪ Can create a framework for market players to interact (e.g., RECs, RPOs, Carbon
Credit Market, ESCerts etc.)
▪ Can incentivize market actors (e.g., subsidies for EVs/roof-top solar)
▪ Can provide a vision for long term trajectory (e.g., EV mission, Just Transition
etc.)
SOCIETY-FIRM RELATIONSHIP
▪ Rights people expect ▪ Roles expected from firms
▪ Social Rights- rights that ▪ Provider
provide individuals freedom to
participate in society

▪ Civil Rights- rights that

▪ Enabler
provide individuals freedom
from abuses & interference
from 3rd parties

▪ Political Rights- rights for ▪ Channelizer

individual’s active participation
in society
 High
LATENTS DOMINANTS

- Keep satisfied - Closely manage

Interest/Power
Framework
Stakeholder
Power
MARGINALS OBSERVERS

- Monitor - Keep informed

Low
Low Stakeholder Interest High
 High

[Supportive] [Mixed blessing]

- Involve/Exploit - Collaborate
Stakeholder’s
Potential for Potential for
Cooperation Threat/Cooperation
with Framework
Organization

[Marginal] [Non-supportive]
- Hold & Monitor - Defend
Low
Low Stakeholder’s potential for threat to Organization High
A BRIEF HISTORY OF CSR
Commonly studied under 3 phases

▪ Rise and extension: 1950s

▪ What is/should be the role of business: stewards of their & societal resources
▪ Focus more on business people and not as much on business

▪ Further expansion: 1960s- 1970s

▪ Growth of CSR and attempts to bring together different ideas

▪ Full-fledged proliferation: 1980s- 1990s

▪ Attempts at refining previous conceptualizations & emergence of different themes:
business ethics, social responsibility, stakeholder theory etc.
CSR: MULTIPLE LENS
▪ Mode of business engagement and value creation,
that can meet or exceed
legal, ethical, and public societal expectations
AND
act in a manner that respects the legitimate goals and demands of all stakeholders

▪ Responsibilities of companies with regard to other actors in society

▪ CSR is located in wider systems of responsibility in which businesses,

governments, legal and social actors operate according to some measure of
mutual responsiveness
CSR: TWO DOMINANT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
▪ Archie Carroll’s conceptualization (1979): Discretionary
▪ economic, legal, ethical, discretionary

Ethical
▪ Archie Carroll’s revised conceptualization
(1991):
▪ Socially required: economic, legal Legal
▪ Socially expected: ethical
▪ Socially desired: discretionary
Economic
CSR: TWO DOMINANT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS
▪ G.P. Lantos’ conceptualization (2001):
▪ Ethical: mandatory fulfilment of firm’s economic, legal, and ethical
responsibilities

▪ Altruistic: fulfilment of firm’s philanthropic responsibilities

▪ Strategic: fulfilment of firm’s philanthropic responsibilities that will also

benefit bottom-line
MULTIPLE MODELS/APPROACHES IN INDIA
▪ 4 dominant models of CSR in India
▪ The ethical (Gandhian) model
▪ The statist (Nehruvian) model
▪ The liberal (Friedman) model
▪ The stakeholder (Freeman) model

▪ Religion and charity in India influence CSR, the stakeholder approach is

the most favoured, caring or profit motive >> strategic or profit motives,
lack of resources and difficulty in implementing CSR are major barriers

▪ Moral and strategic imperatives exist and co-drivers of CSR in India;

Indian concept of Dharma might help understand CSR better.
CSR: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
▪ Zadek’s organizational learning model (2004): 5 stages through which businesses
typically go through CSR implementations
▪ Denial: refuse to accept social & environmental impact of their businesses

▪ Compliance: focus on complying with legal rules

▪ Managerial: beginning of understanding of CSR/CER beyond legal requirements in a

number of managerial processes

▪ Strategic: strategic manner of looking at CSR: competitive edge

▪ Civil: genuine concern about issues; look at ways to support their CSR objectives
COMPANIES ACT 2013
Section 135: Corporate Social Responsibility of Chapter 9 (Accounts of companies)
“Every company having net worth of rupees five hundred crore or more, or turnover of
rupees one thousand crore or more or a net profit of rupees five crore or more during any
financial year shall constitute a Corporate Social Responsibility Committee of the Board
consisting of three or more directors, out of which at least one director shall be an
independent director.”
The Annual Report shall disclose the composition of the CSR Committee which shall:
formulate and recommend to the Board, a CSR Policy (activities to be undertaken)
recommend the amount of expenditure to be incurred on CSR activities
monitor the CSR policy from time to time
The Board shall disclose CSR policy in its report, place it on company’s website and ensure that
the company spends, in every FY, at least 2% of the average net profits of the company made
during the three immediately preceding FY
preference to be given to local areas and areas around which the company operates
specify the reasons if company fails to spend the amount
WHO DOES CSR APPLY TO
Applicable to all companies incorporated in India and having either of the following
in any financial year:

▪ Net worth of Rs. 500 crore or more; OR

▪ Turnover of Rs. 1000 crore or more; OR

▪ Net profit of Rs. 5 crore or more

WHAT IS NOT CSR
The CSR projects/programs/activities that benefit only the employees of the company and
their families shall not be considered as CSR

Contribution of any amount directly or indirectly to any political party

Expenses incurred for fulfilment of regulations of any other Act

Activities undertaken by companies in pursuance of its course of normal business

Projects undertaken outside India

One-off events
CSR SPEND TRENDS
Total CSR Spend by India Inc States CSR Spending (Rs Cr) MPI
(in Rs. Crores) FY 20-21 Rank
FY 2021-22: 26,211 Maharashtra 3426 17
FY 2020-21: 25,714 Gujarat 1443 13
FY 2019-20: 24,955
Karnataka 1265 19
FY 2018-19: 20,197
FY 2017-18: 17,098 Tamil Nadu 1145 33
FY 2016-17: 14,394 Delhi 714 25
UP 680 3
Odisha 567 9
West Bengal 465 12
Jharkhand 210 2
Bihar 79 1
SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP
▪ Pioneer systems change (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil)
▪ Drive market demand for sustainability (Patagonia)
▪ Build culture of responsibility and sustainability (Marks & Spencer’s)

▪ Know the issues and engage in science-based leadership (Patagonia)

▪ Extend responsibility to ecosystem and lift others up (Tetrapak)
▪ Collaborate non-competitively (Intel)

▪ Take sustainability personally (Patagonia)

▪ Hold the organization to account and engage investors (Unilever)
▪ Lead change with authenticity and vulnerability (Patagonia)