Stories about the fragility and complexity of once-invisible supply chains began splashing across headlines at the start of the COVID pandemic and have surged again in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

There is no question now that we ignore them at our peril. In the world of ESG, supply chains are also having a moment. Companies with mature sustainability programs or those with net-zero goals are increasingly looking upstream and downstream of their own operations to minimize negative environmental and social impacts and ensure business continuity over the long term.

At SustainabilityNext, we strive to stay on top of the ever-shifting field of ESG reporting frameworks. The overlap and slightly varying focus of the disparate frameworks leave many businesses wondering which one(s) to choose. Last summer, we wrote a blog post summarizing the state of the leading frameworks, including both the efforts to harmonize and streamline them that were underway as well as ongoing efforts to make elements of the frameworks mandatory rather than voluntary. Yet even in the past six months, major developments have occurred, warranting an update.

Even during non-pandemic periods, a company’s material issues - as reported by stakeholders - frequently change over time. This concept of “dynamic materiality” has been explored extensively. So you can imagine how events of the past two years have shaken up what is now viewed as material. Recently we have worked with a number of clients who are updating their ESG materiality assessments, and in our view, there couldn’t be a better time for it.

The alphabet soup of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) frameworks and standards - GRI, SASB, TCFD, CDP, SDGs and <IR> - can be confusing and overwhelming. Thankfully, the entities that created the frameworks and other international bodies have started to explore the possibilities to harmonize the existing frameworks. If successful, these efforts should make it easier for reporters to align with more universal principles and standards and for investors and other stakeholders to compare reports. In the meantime, we’ve created a tool that can help companies decide which framework(s) provide the best fit for their unique circumstances.

In just the last decade, the percentage of S&P 500 companies producing annual Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) or Sustainability Reports has sky-rocketed from about 20% in 2011 to 90% in 2019. Recently we found ourselves ruminating on whether ESG reporting among nonprofit organizations has mirrored this growth. Spoiler alert: it hasn’t.

In 2019, our client Millicom, an international telecommunications company, became the first company to issue a Sustainability Bond in Latin America. Last month Millicom issued its annual integrated report outlining its financial, social and environmental achievements. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the company has made many strides in moving toward its corporate responsibility goals over the past year. In part, those advances are due to the investments the company was able to make as a result of $214 million in funds raised through the Sustainability Bond. Millicom just recently reported on the results of the $214 million in funds raised through the bond and we thought this was a good opportunity to review the win-win projects this trending finance tool is making possible.

The recent upheaval at the nation’s Capitol caused a flurry of announcements from corporate America on curtailing their political donations. These changes come on the heels of an election in which corporate spending reached an all-time high. While the topic of corporate involvement in policy making and lobbying has been on the radar of ESG experts for years, these recent events have underscored the need for companies to have clear policies and transparent disclosures in place to mitigate risk and protect their reputations.