The Greener Way

🌿 Is greenwashing evolving into a new risk era driven by climate reporting and emissions targets?
❓ Question: As climate disclosure becomes mandatory and regulators crack down on misleading environmental claims, is greenwashing becoming less about marketing spin and more about governance, reporting and accountability?
✅ Answer: According to Dr Mark Siebentritt, executive director at Edge Impact, greenwashing is entering a new phase. What was once largely viewed as an ethical issue is now a regulatory and governance concern, driven by enforcement action and mandatory climate disclosure requirements. Organisations can no longer rely on broad sustainability claims or aspirational net-zero statements. Instead, they must be able to substantiate their claims with evidence, robust data and credible implementation plans.
🌟 One of the most significant changes is the shift from voluntary to mandatory climate reporting. Dr Mark Siebentritt notes that sustainability reporting has become deeply embedded in organisational decision-making, particularly within finance, governance and risk functions. Climate-related risks and their financial implications are increasingly being treated as core business issues rather than standalone sustainability concerns.
🌟 Greenwashing has also moved from being an ethical debate to a regulatory risk. In the past, organisations were primarily challenged by stakeholders questioning environmental claims. Today, companies face potential consequences from regulators if they make claims that cannot be supported by evidence. This shift has elevated greenwashing from a reputational concern to a board-level risk.
🌟 Directors are paying closer attention because of both financial and reputational implications. According to Dr Mark Siebentritt, discussions around potential regulatory action often resonate strongly in boardrooms because directors have fiduciary responsibilities and need confidence that sustainability claims are supported by reliable data and governance processes.
🌟 Mandatory climate disclosure reporting is accelerating this trend. More than 6,000 Australian companies are expected to be affected by reporting requirements that include disclosure of climate-related risks and financial impacts, with assurance and auditing requirements increasing over time. Dr Mark Siebentritt describes the changes as among the most significant developments in financial reporting in recent years.
🚩 One challenge is the compressed timeframe facing organisations. While businesses may previously have developed gradual sustainability roadmaps, climate disclosure requirements and greenwashing regulations are now converging. Companies are under pressure to strengthen governance, reporting systems and evidence frameworks much sooner than many originally anticipated.
🚩 Another challenge relates to artificial intelligence. While AI can help organisations process large and complex datasets, identify patterns and improve reporting efficiency, Dr Mark Siebentritt warns that businesses cannot rely on technology alone. Climate risks remain real-world challenges that require informed judgement, credible analysis and high-quality information. AI-generated outputs that lack accuracy or real-world validation could create significant governance risks.
🌟 AI nevertheless presents important opportunities. Used appropriately, it can support the analysis of vast climate datasets, help uncover trends and strengthen reporting processes. However, organisations must ensure the resulting disclosures are based on robust evidence if they are to meet expectations for investment-grade reporting.
⚠️ Looking ahead, Dr Mark Siebentritt believes one of the biggest emerging greenwashing risks involves emissions-reduction targets. Organisations are increasingly required to disclose targets and explain how they intend to achieve them. This means broad declarations about achieving net zero or carbon neutrality are no longer sufficient without supporting evidence and realistic implementation pathways.
⚠️ He describes this as a potential "Greenwashing 2.0" challenge. The future risk may not be false marketing claims but rather targets that lack credible plans, achievable pathways or practical actions. Companies will need to demonstrate not only what they aim to achieve, but also how they will deliver measurable outcomes over time. For multinational organisations in particular, global commitments will need to be translated into credible local strategies and actions.
💡 Why it matters:
The sustainability landscape is rapidly maturing. As climate reporting requirements expand and regulatory scrutiny intensifies, organisations face growing expectations around transparency, evidence and accountability. Sustainability claims are no longer judged solely by what companies say, but increasingly by the quality of their data, governance and execution. The next generation of greenwashing risk may centre on ambitious climate promises that cannot be realistically delivered. For boards, executives and investors, the challenge will be ensuring environmental commitments are supported by credible plans, measurable actions and robust disclosure frameworks.
🎙️ Sources:
Dr Mark Siebentritt, executive director, Edge Impact
Michelle Baltazar, host, The Greener Way
⏱️ Timestamps:
00:00 – Greenwashing meets mandatory climate disclosure
01:24 – How Edge Impact's work has evolved
02:49 – Sustainability moves into finance, governance and risk teams
03:30 – The evolution of greenwashing from ethics to regulation
04:33 – Why boards are paying closer attention
06:16 – The impact of mandatory climate reporting
08:00 – Can AI accelerate climate disclosure reporting?
09:00 – The limits of AI and investment-grade reporting
10:35 – The emerging greenwashing risk nobody is talking about
11:00 – Why emissions targets now require evidence and action plans
12:07 – Greenwashing 2.0: From false claims to false targets
13:01 – Final reflections on regulation and accountability
🌿 We record on Gadigal Land and pay our respects to the traditional custodians of country and elders past and present.

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

🌿 Can committing just 1% of revenue help businesses drive meaningful environmental impact?
❓ Question: Can a relatively small commitment of 1% of annual revenue create measurable environmental outcomes, strengthen business performance and help companies embed sustainability into their long-term strategy?
✅ Answer: According to Kate Williams, chief executive officer of 1% for the Planet, the answer is yes – provided businesses treat environmental giving as a core operational expense rather than a discretionary donation. The organisation encourages members to commit at least 1% of annual revenue, not profits, to vetted environmental causes every year, regardless of business conditions. This approach is designed to integrate environmental responsibility directly into corporate strategy, planning and financial decision-making.
Founded in 2002, 1% for the Planet connects businesses with environmental partners across four key impact areas: just economies, resilient communities, rights to nature, and conservation and restoration. Member companies can direct their contributions according to their own sustainability priorities, while the organisation verifies and certifies their commitments.
🌟 One of the key insights from the discussion is why the 1% figure has endured for almost 25 years. Williams explains that 1% is both psychologically accessible and financially meaningful. It feels achievable for most organisations, yet when applied to annual revenue rather than profit, it becomes a substantial long-term commitment that can fund significant environmental initiatives.
🌟 The strongest area of support among members is resilient communities, which accounts for roughly 40% of certified contributions. Williams says this reflects growing recognition that environmental issues are fundamentally linked to people and communities. Businesses increasingly want their sustainability efforts to deliver both environmental and social outcomes, particularly as climate impacts become more visible.
🌟 Climate-related causes are receiving increasing attention. Climate adaptation attracted approximately $25 million in certified giving during 2025, representing around 22% of all contributions certified by the organisation. Renewable energy funding also experienced significant year-on-year growth, highlighting the increasing focus companies are placing on climate solutions.
🚩 One challenge is maintaining sustainability commitments during periods of economic pressure. Businesses globally are dealing with cost-of-living pressures, margin compression and uncertain economic conditions. In these environments, environmental spending can be perceived as an additional cost rather than a strategic investment.
🚩 Another challenge is demonstrating commercial value. Williams notes that organisations must be able to link environmental commitments to tangible business outcomes such as customer loyalty, brand differentiation, talent attraction and employee retention. Without a compelling business case, sustainability initiatives may struggle to gain long-term support from leadership teams and stakeholders.
🌟 To address these concerns, 1% for the Planet emphasises flexibility. Companies can contribute through cash donations, products or professional services. For example, a marketing agency may provide pro bono services to a non-profit partner, allowing businesses to maintain commitments even in years when cash budgets are constrained.
🌟 Williams also highlights the long-term strategic view. She argues that business viability ultimately depends on a healthy environment and functioning communities. Framing sustainability investments through this lens helps organisations move beyond short-term financial pressures and focus on long-term resilience and value creation.
⚠️ Looking ahead, one area of opportunity is the technology sector. Despite technology companies often generating significant revenues and strong margins, Williams says the sector remains underrepresented within the organisation's membership. She sees substantial potential for technology firms to play a larger role in funding environmental initiatives as stakeholder expectations continue to evolve.
⚠️ The organisation is also continuing to invest in its global community of members. Through events, peer networks and ongoing support, businesses can share ideas, refine their giving strategies and learn from others facing similar sustainability challenges. According to Williams, participation is designed to be an evolving journey rather than a one-off commitment.
💡 Why it matters:
As sustainability expectations expand beyond emissions reductions and reporting requirements, businesses are increasingly being asked what direct contribution they are making to environmental and social outcomes. Models such as 1% for the Planet aim to move environmental responsibility from the margins of corporate strategy into core business operations. By linking environmental giving to revenue rather than profits, organisations can create more predictable and accountable funding streams while potentially strengthening customer relationships, employee engagement and long-term business resilience.
🎙️ Sources:
• Kate Williams, chief executive officer, 1% for the Planet
• Michelle Baltazar, host, The Greener Way

⏱️ Timestamps:
00:00 – Why 1% of revenue became the benchmark
01:30 – How 1% for the Planet works
03:10 – The rationale behind revenue-based giving
05:00 – Trends in environmental funding and impact areas
06:00 – Why resilient communities receive the most support
07:00 – Climate adaptation and renewable energy funding growth
09:00 – Maintaining commitments during economic pressure
10:00 – The business case for environmental giving
12:00 – Flexible contribution models and in-kind giving
13:00 – Opportunities in the technology sector
15:20 – How businesses can join 1% for the Planet
16:20 – Community-building and member support
Link: https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/
🌿 We record on Gadigal Land and pay our respects to the traditional custodians of country and elders past and present.

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

🌿 Can carbon recycling turn industrial emissions into profitable products?
❓ Question:
Can captured carbon dioxide be transformed into valuable commercial products, and could this help heavy industries such as cement, steel and mining accelerate their path to net zero while creating new business opportunities?
✅ Answer:
According to Sophia Hamblin Wang, co-founder and chief operating officer of MCi Carbon, carbon dioxide should no longer be viewed as a waste product. Instead, it can become a feedstock for new industrial materials, creating a commercial incentive for companies to capture emissions rather than release them into the atmosphere.
MCi Carbon was founded in 2013 to commercialise a process known as mineral carbonation, which permanently locks CO₂ into mineral products that can be used across industries including cement, plasterboard, refractories, paper and construction materials. The company's vision emerged from research highlighting mineral carbonation as a viable long-term carbon storage solution, but at the time there were few examples of the technology being deployed at scale.
🌟 A major milestone was recently achieved with the opening of what MCi Carbon describes as the world's first fully integrated carbon refinery in Newcastle. The demonstration facility can permanently store approximately 2,500 tonnes of CO₂ each year while producing around 10,000 tonnes of low-carbon materials for industrial use.
🚩 One challenge highlighted in the discussion is the ongoing uncertainty around climate policy frameworks. While governments and corporations have broadly committed to net zero by 2050, many of the regulatory mechanisms needed to support large-scale decarbonisation are still evolving. Carbon markets, emissions trading schemes and standards continue to develop across different jurisdictions, creating uncertainty for climate technology companies seeking to scale globally.
🚩 Another challenge is convincing industrial companies to adopt new technologies at scale. Heavy industries have traditionally faced limited commercially viable options for reducing emissions, particularly in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals where emissions are difficult to eliminate. Success depends not only on environmental performance, but also on economics, operational integration and customer demand for lower-carbon materials.
🌟 One of MCi Carbon's differentiators is that its business model does not rely solely on carbon credits or emissions trading schemes. The company has designed its technology to generate revenue through the sale of valuable products created from captured CO₂. In some cases, customers are interested purely in removing emissions from their operations, leading to what Sophia describes as "carbon removal as a service".
🌟 The technology is also designed as a "bolt-on" solution that can be installed alongside existing industrial facilities. By locating operations close to major emitters, MCi Carbon can take captured CO₂ and convert it directly into useful materials, lowering barriers to adoption for industrial customers.
⚠️ Looking ahead, Sophia believes the next 18 months could be a pivotal period for industrial decarbonisation technologies. As pressure grows for heavy industries to reduce emissions and more governments establish climate transition frameworks, demand for commercially viable carbon utilisation technologies is expected to increase significantly. The company is also exploring opportunities linked to sustainable finance, including green bonds and infrastructure-style investment models.
💡 Why it matters:
Heavy industries account for a significant share of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet they remain among the hardest sectors to decarbonise. Technologies that can transform captured carbon into commercially valuable products offer a potentially powerful alternative to treating emissions solely as a compliance or waste-management problem. If successful, carbon recycling could help industries reduce emissions, unlock new revenue streams and accelerate progress towards net zero while creating entirely new markets for low-carbon materials.
🎙️ Sources:
• Sophia Hamblin Wang, co-founder and chief operating officer, MCi Carbon
• Michelle Baltazar, host, The Greener Way podcast
⏱️ Timestamps:
00:00 – Introduction to carbon recycling and industrial decarbonisation
01:30 – Why MCi Carbon was founded
04:15 – Building a carbon refinery in Australia
07:10 – Global investors and strategic partners
10:15 – Europe and Japan expansion plans
11:45 – Regulatory uncertainty and net-zero frameworks
13:00 – Carbon removal as a service explained
14:10 – Opportunities in steel, cement and heavy industry
15:15 – Future growth, green bonds and scaling commercial plants
16:00 – Why the next 18 months will be critical

🌿 We record on Gadigal Land and pay our respects to the traditional custodians of country and elders past and present.

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

🤖 Can good AI governance help companies become long-term winners?

❓ Question:
How are Australian company boards approaching artificial intelligence, and can strong AI governance help companies create long-term value while managing emerging risks?
✅ Answer:
Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming an investment issue rather than simply a technology issue. According to Sue Lyn Stubbs, associate director in sustainable investing at Fidelity International, investors are increasingly assessing not only whether companies are adopting AI, but how effectively boards are governing its implementation.
To better understand the state of AI governance in Australia, Fidelity engaged with 31 ASX-listed companies across sectors including financials, healthcare, technology and real estate. The research focused on five areas: strategy and value creation, board oversight and skills, risk and controls, governance and ethical AI, and workforce impacts.
One of the key findings was that many companies remain in the early stages of AI adoption. Fidelity's assessment framework, based on Microsoft's AI maturity model, required an additional category "Stage Zero" to classify companies that were not yet actively implementing AI. Most organisations currently sit between experimentation, pilot programs and early operational use.
🚩 One of the key governance red flags was a disconnect between executives and boards. In some cases, CEOs described ambitious AI strategies and extensive use cases, while boards appeared significantly more conservative in their understanding of AI opportunities. This mismatch raised questions about strategic alignment and whether AI investments were being directed effectively across the organisation.
🚩 Another concern was the absence of clearly defined "no-go" areas for AI. While many boards acknowledged potential risks, few could clearly articulate where AI should not be used, particularly in sensitive areas such as workforce surveillance or customer decision-making that could create biased outcomes. As AI becomes more embedded across organisations, investors are likely to expect stronger guardrails and clearer accountability.
🌟 Despite these challenges, the research highlighted several examples of emerging best practice. Leading companies are investing in AI talent, building internal capability, expanding workforce training and, in some cases, incorporating AI-related measures into employee incentive programs. Some companies are also engaging directly with regulators and policymakers on the future development of AI governance frameworks.
From an investment perspective, Stubbs believes strong AI governance could become an important indicator of long-term success. Drawing comparisons with previous technology disruptions, she argues that companies that can adapt their business models, embrace change and govern emerging technologies effectively may be better positioned to create sustainable shareholder value.
⚠️ The report also challenges the common assumption that "human in the loop" oversight is enough to manage AI risks. While human review remains important, there is a growing risk that employees become overly reliant on AI-generated outputs. Boards may eventually need additional layers of monitoring and control to manage potential errors, compliance issues and unintended consequences. Meanwhile, the growing use of unauthorised AI tools by employees, sometimes referred to as "shadow AI", presents another governance challenge for organisations seeking to protect intellectual property and manage operational risk.
Ultimately, the research suggests that investors should view AI governance as more than a compliance exercise. A board's ability to oversee AI effectively may provide valuable insights into whether a company can adapt, compete and thrive in a rapidly changing business environment.
💡 Why it matters:
Artificial intelligence is reshaping industries, workforces and business models at an unprecedented pace. While much of the public discussion focuses on productivity gains and innovation, investors are increasingly concerned with governance, accountability and risk management. Companies that can successfully balance AI opportunity with strong oversight may be better positioned to create long-term value, while those that fail to establish appropriate guardrails risk operational, reputational and strategic setbacks.
🎙️ Sources:
• Sue Lyn Stubbs, associate director, sustainable investing, Fidelity International
• Michelle Baltazar, executive director of media, FS Sustainability
⏱️ Timestamps:
00:00 – Why AI governance matters for investors
02:05 – Researching AI adoption across 31 ASX companies
04:59 – Understanding AI maturity and Stage Zero
07:33 – Red flags and governance gaps
11:39 – Examples of emerging best practice
15:25 – Linking AI governance to long-term value creation
17:51 – Why "human in the loop" may not be enough
19:50 – The risks of shadow AI
21:25 – What boards should focus on next

Link: Insights from Fidelity International’s 2025 Australian AGM season AI governance survey

🌿 We record on Gadigal Land and we pay our respects to the traditional custodians of country and elders past and present.

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

Can responsible investors justify defence exposure?

Question:
Can investors responsibly invest in defence companies while managing ESG risks, and where should they draw the line?
Answer:
Defence investing has become increasingly relevant as global conflict and government spending rise, but it remains complex for ESG-focused investors. According to Jess Cairns, head of responsible investment at Alphinity, the key is not blanket avoidance but having a clear, practical framework that balances responsible investing with investment opportunity.
Most investors already apply strict exclusions to controversial weapons (such as nuclear or banned weapons), often at a zero-revenue threshold. However, beyond that, there is significant variation across the industry, especially when it comes to conventional weapons and indirect exposure.
A major challenge is “dual-use” companies. Many industrial and technology firms produce components that can be used in both civilian and military applications, making it difficult to clearly classify exposure. Cairns notes that even small, generic components can end up in weapons systems, making traditional dual-use vs single-use distinctions unreliable in practice.
Instead, Alphinity’s approach is to:
• Apply a hard exclusion to companies directly manufacturing weapons.
• Allow some indirect exposure (e.g. components or services), but with strict limits.
• Use enhanced due diligence to assess how products are used, who they are sold to, and whether there are risks linked to conflict zones or human rights issues.
This due diligence includes analysing end markets, government contracts, sanctions compliance, and any controversies linked to misuse. For example, a company with a small portion of revenue tied indirectly to defence (around 5% in one case discussed) may still be investable if risks are well understood and managed.
However, the hardest decisions arise when companies are linked to active conflicts. Even minimal revenue exposure can create significant ethical and reputational concerns. In some cases, companies have limited control over how their products are ultimately used, forcing investors to weigh financial materiality against potential human rights implications.
Ultimately, responsible defence investing is about clarity and consistency, not perfection. Investors can participate in the sector, but only if they set clear boundaries, apply rigorous analysis, and remain accountable to stakeholders.
Why it matters:
Defence is no longer a niche or easily excluded sector, it’s becoming a meaningful driver of returns in global markets. At the same time, it carries significant ESG risks, particularly around human rights and conflict exposure. Investors who fail to define their approach may either miss opportunities or take unintended risks. A clear framework helps balance performance with responsibility and builds trust with clients and stakeholders.
Sources:
• Jess Cairns, head of responsible investment, Alphinity
• Michelle Baltazar, executive director of media, FS Sustainability
Timestamps:
00:00 – Why defence investing is back on the agenda
01:19 – How investors began reassessing the sector
02:45 – Mapping exposure and company disclosures
04:50 – Why dual-use classifications break down
07:14 – Building a practical investment framework
11:44 – Balancing risk and return
14:34 – Real-world ethical dilemmas and case studies
18:30 – Key insights from the responsible investment report
We record on Gadigal Land and we pay our respects to the traditional custodians of country and elders past and present.
https://www.fssustainability.com.au/

This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy