Why New Zealand Businesses Must Keep Abreast Of Evolving Environmental And Social Responsibility Regulations
Businesses in New Zealand now face increasing scrutiny from regulators, customers, investors and the wider community to demonstrate accountability and transparency regarding their ESG impact. Failure to comply can result in substantial reputational damage, loss of business opportunities and hefty penalties.
Unfortunately, the ESG regulatory environment is in a state of flux internationally. In Europe, businesses are grappling with proposed simplification reforms of the European Union's sustainability regulations. Meanwhile, federal support for ESG initiatives has significantly diminished in the United States since the Trump administration was re-elected.
Navigating the ESG regulatory landscape in New Zealand
In New Zealand, ESG-related regulations have intensified significantly with the introduction of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021, which mandates climate-related disclosures (CRD) for significant financial institutions. New Zealand is among the first nations globally to implement mandatory climate reporting, further solidifying its commitment to transparency and accountability. The first climate statements were filed in the first quarter of 2024.
Importance of proactive ESG management
To mitigate potential compliance breaches and operational disruptions, New Zealand businesses must proactively manage ESG risks, particularly in supply chain operations. Modern supply chains, often complex and spanning multiple jurisdictions, pose substantial ESG risks, making proactive management and thorough due diligence critical.
Robust Source-to-Contract (S2C) solutions play a pivotal role in ESG compliance. They enable companies to systematically incorporate sustainability criteria into supplier evaluation, contract negotiations and ongoing supplier management. These solutions facilitate comprehensive visibility into supply chains, allowing companies to assess and mitigate risks more effectively, enhance transparency and maintain regulatory compliance.
Organisations can enforce ESG standards for procurement through a strategic Source-to-Contract approach, embedding sustainable and ethical considerations into contractual obligations. This proactive stance ensures regulatory compliance, strengthens stakeholder trust and enhances corporate reputation, aligning operational practices with broader organisational values and public expectations.
Strategic benefits of ESG compliance
Businesses proactively addressing ESG regulations enjoy tangible strategic advantages beyond mere regulatory compliance. These include enhanced brand loyalty, stronger market positioning and improved risk management. Customers and investors increasingly demand proof of responsible ESG practices, rewarding companies that demonstrate robust compliance and penalising those that are behind.
Additionally, proactive ESG management provides valuable opportunities for innovation and efficiency improvements. Implementing ESG-compliant practices frequently results in resource optimisation, cost reductions and improved operational efficiencies. Such practices drive competitive differentiation, helping businesses establish clear market leadership.
Staying ahead of the curve
Given the rapid pace of ESG regulatory developments, New Zealand businesses must remain agile and proactive in their compliance approach. Staying informed about legislative changes and evolving best practices is crucial. Companies should regularly engage with regulators, industry groups and ESG solutions providers to ensure their practices are current and comprehensive.
For New Zealand businesses, recognising and effectively managing the four primary drivers of ESG-related legal risks, domestic regulations, international rules, litigation motivated by ESG issues, and external stakeholder pressures, is crucial. Companies strategically managing these elements will be better equipped to handle the fast-evolving ESG landscape and gain competitive advantages over organisations adopting fragmented or reactive approaches to ongoing regulatory changes.
Businesses also need to anticipate future regulatory trends. Emerging issues such as biodiversity conservation, human rights due diligence and circular economy principles will likely feature prominently in future regulatory frameworks. Businesses should consider pre-emptively aligning their practices with these potential regulations to avoid reactive compliance efforts and gain first-mover advantages.
Conclusion
As regulatory frameworks around ESG continue to evolve, New Zealand businesses face both a responsibility and an opportunity to engage proactively. Understanding and anticipating regulatory shifts, implementing robust ESG practices and leveraging strategic sourcing solutions are crucial. By embracing these steps, New Zealand businesses can safeguard compliance, reinforce their market positions, enhance resilience and deliver enduring value to all stakeholders.
The accelerated pace and complexity of ESG regulations across Australia and New Zealand present both a formidable challenge and a valuable opportunity. Businesses that proactively integrate ESG considerations into their core strategies and operational frameworks will meet compliance demands and significantly enhance their resilience, competitive edge and reputation in the market.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Future polls will show impact of tariffs, but it also matters what the political alternative is
In an early August YouGov poll for the Economist, voters' No. 1 issue was 'inflation/prices', which at 21% beat the next most important concern, 'jobs/economy' by 7%. Trump's job approval rating in this survey was cratering at 41%. The President's handling of the economy rated roughly the same, at 40%. Those poor numbers are driven in part by dour reviews from independents and fit with recent data produced by Democratic pollsters. In a poll conducted in late July for the centrist Democratic think-tank Third Way, Trump's job approval rating clocked in higher than the YouGov survey, hitting 45%. But a 41% plurality of registered voters said the President's second term was unfolding as 'worse' than expected and only 42% approved of his signature economic package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4. Approval of the OBBBA among independents, according to this poll? A dismal 32%. Moreover, an early summer Democratic poll shows that 58% of voters view the economy as 'Trump's economy', versus blaming former President Joe Biden. And if the polls are accurate, Trump's blue-collar voters are running out of patience. 'In the spring, many [blue collar voters] were willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his tariff plan - but by summer, many expressed serious concerns that tariffs are hurting their lives by making things more expensive,' reads a July 30 analysis of a focus group conducted by the Working Class Project, an initiative led by a Democratic super PAC. Taken together, these findings put congressional Republicans in dire straits. And if such views proliferate among the electorate, it's not only Republicans on Capitol Hill who will feel the political pinch. Republicans vying to succeed Trump in 2028, especially Vice-President JD Vance, could pay an extremely high price. But of course, there are other surveys, and other ways of interpreting the polling. Let's begin with Trump's average job approval rating, calculated by RealClearPolitics at 45.7%. That's not half bad in our polarised times. The President's handling of the economy rated a similar 45% in CNBC's 'All America Economic Survey' fielded from July 3 through to August 3. Granted, that was a high-water mark in recent assessments of Trump's leadership on this topic. Ultimately, the President's fate, and that of his party, will rest not only with how voters feel about the economy and the effectiveness of his governing agenda, but also on what the political alternative is. Recall, on the eve of President Barack Obama's re-election in 2012, the unemployment rate was hovering like a dark cloud over the economy at 7.9%, up one point from the previous month. That's a lot of Americans out of work - and nearly double the 4.1% rate just prior to Election Day 2024. But Republican Mitt Romney, a career businessman and corporate turnaround artist, did not ride those grim numbers into the White House. Doug Heye, a Republican strategist in Washington active in campaigns during the Obama era, said there's a lesson there for Democrats assuming Trump and the GOP are inexorably doomed based on voters' economic anxiety. But so, too, must Republicans be careful not to assume the trade deals Trump has lately touted, and macro indicators showing a resilient if not entirely strong US economy, will produce electoral victory. 'It's a fluid thing,' Heye, an occasional Trump critic, told me. Heye explained that Trump has been given some latitude (and time) by voters to improve the economy because they blamed Biden almost entirely for the inflation that spiked on his watch. That's even though higher prices were in part a reaction to the coronavirus pandemic, and resulting public policy decisions, that began during Trump's first term. 'That hangover that remains continues to give Trump the ability to blame things on Biden.' When might voters finally absolve Biden of responsibility and point fingers at Trump? 'Companies are absorbing costs thus far on tariffs. That's not going to last forever,' Heye said. Here, another parallel with Obama might be instructive. The 44th president pursued healthcare reform, convinced the eventual Affordable Care Act was good public policy and, as politicians are wont to say, therefore good politics. In the short term, the law known as Obamacare was a political disaster for Democrats, costing the party 63 seats in the House seats and seven in the Senate. With Trump's firm belief in tariffs and insistence on building a protectionist moat around voters' access to foreign products, a 'shellacking' of his own can't be ruled out. But of course, it matters what kind of alternative Democrats are offering.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Covid spending can be justified, despite Treasury report
Coverage of this report has focused on an implication that Treasury were opposed to much of the Covid-19 response and had sought to limit the extent of Government spending. Others have noted that the report does not say this directly, though the selective quotes from advice at different stages do not exactly discourage this reading. In the interests of full disclosure, I was an adviser to the Minister of Finance Grant Robertson from December 2020 onwards. Unsurprisingly, my perspective often differed from Treasury (which in some ways was a key required skill for that job), and readers may reasonably take that into account in the criticisms that follow. The risks highlighted in the report around the use of fiscal policy tend to underline the view that 'cyclical management should mostly be left to monetary policy run by an independent central bank'. This is not a new position – it is such an established aspect of economic orthodoxy that it is known as the 'consensus assignment'. Finance Minister Grant Robertson during the pandemic. Photo / Pool Why, then, would we use fiscal policy in response to a shock? Recent decades have seen very low interest rates, and therefore situations where central banks cannot cut rates to the level they believe necessary to support the economy. This issue is known as the 'effective lower bound' and was one of the major preoccupations of economic debates following the global financial crisis. However, it was clear that Treasury had done limited thinking on how fiscal policy should be used in a crisis. This was despite the fact that the official cash rate was just 1% as the pandemic approached. I recall my surprise at being briefed on a work programme to review Treasury's macro-economic framework – thinking that I would have assumed it had already taken place sometime in the previous decade. At different stages Covid-19 required spending to support overall economic activity (i.e. stimulus) as well as more targeted spending for workers and businesses directly affected by lockdowns. The LTIB notes that Treasury did support large-scale spending responses in the initial stages, but then 'advised shifting towards more targeted fiscal support and recommended against further stimulus from Budget 2022 onwards'. Covid-19-related supports had continued during this period, because large numbers of New Zealanders continued to be affected by Covid-19, most notably during the Auckland lockdowns. But the purpose of this spending was to support people and businesses during a time when normal economic activity was not possible, not to stimulate more economic activity. Despite the large initial cost of the wage subsidy scheme in 2019/20, the largest year for Covid-related spending was actually 2021/22, owing to the combination of business support programmes and the ramping up of the national health response. Former Beehive staffer Toby Moore. Photo / Supplied A further, separate category of spending is funding allocated through the Budget operating allowance, which is typically a mix of new spending and the increased cost of existing spending (cost pressures). In late 2021, the operating allowances for upcoming budgets were increased compared to what was previously signalled. Treasury has at times raised concerns that adjusting future allowances might undermine credibility; however, it was not an uncommon occurrence for parts of Treasury to raise such concerns and for other parts of Treasury to put advice to the Minister suggesting that allowance should increase. It is important to understand that budget allowances are not an end in themselves. Adhering to previously planned allowances come what may does not amount to a sensible fiscal strategy, and governments tend to put more focus on whether those allowances are contributing to them keeping debt or deficit levels in line with their intended objectives. The operating allowance for Budget 2022 was large, at $6 billion. But based on forecasts at the time, that level of spending was consistent with Government debt peaking at a much lower level than earlier forecasts, and the Government's books returning to surplus much earlier, in 2023/24. At the point Treasury states that they were not advising further stimulus, this was very much the Government's view as well. Economic and fiscal forecasts were looking much different from mid-2022 onward, and the economy continued to slow as the Reserve Bank tightened interest rates in response to rising inflation of the sort that was experienced around the world. While larger proportions of budget spending during this period were trying to maintain existing public services in the face of high levels of inflation, the other side of this story is the fact that forecast tax revenue has continually failed to eventuate. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during the pandemic. Photo / Mark Tantrum Ahead of Budget 2024, Nicola Willis alluded to a further downgrade in economic and fiscal forecasts, saying 'Sadly, I've learned to dread what comes out of the forecasters' mouths when they come into my office'. If nothing else, this is a sentiment shared across successive offices of the Minister of Finance. Repeated downward revisions of the tax-to-GDP ratio over time means that Budget 2025 forecasts for the current fiscal year are a full 3.3% of GDP lower than what forecasts in mid-2022 had anticipated. This has contributed to OBEGAL surplus getting pushed further out in the forecast period (and more recently, only showing surpluses on the Government's self-invented measure, OBEGALx). If decision-makers had cared only about inflation and nothing else, fiscal policy could potentially have done a lot more to reduce economic activity. With the Government not willing to resort to tax increases, more contractionary fiscal policy would have meant absorbing more of the burden of constraining demand through deteriorating public services, with the Reserve Bank having to do less through the OCR. Given the ongoing pressure on the health system today, we should be glad this was not the path that was taken. But far from being critical of this Budget spending, Treasury was also raising concerns that spending was not high enough. In the half-year update in 2022, Treasury expressed concern about what it described as the largest fall in real government consumption since 1987. As late as October 2022 Treasury was advising the Minister of Finance to increase the allowance for the next Budget from $4.5 billion to $5b. This incongruous array of advice was not a matter of mutinous radicals seizing control of the Government's lead economic adviser. Treasury was trying to tread the same narrow path that the Government was. The economy as a whole was hitting up against its capacity, and vulnerable New Zealanders needed targeted support towards the cost of living. Every dollar of additional spending risked adding to inflation and every dollar of spending that was withheld meant that rising costs would hit core government services or households directly. It is appropriate that we try to learn lessons from the experience of Covid-19. It is reasonable for people to disagree with some aspects of the fiscal response and it is highly unlikely that every decision taken was the right one. But the economic response was overwhelmingly guided by officials' advice rather than contrary to it. There may now be unease among some public servants about the level of debt that New Zealand assumed or the spending pressures that it is facing. But the other side of that debt is the businesses that are still operating, the people who were kept in work and the loss of friends and family members that were avoided because NZ chose to support each other through that most complex and challenging time. Toby Moore is a doctoral candidate at Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington and was previously a senior adviser to former Finance Minister Grant Robertson. He is also on the Labour Party's policy council, though the views here are his own
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Jamie Beaton's new venture Concord Visa aims to simplify US visa pathways for Kiwis
Concord charges between US$6500 ($10,912) and US$10,000 to shepherd an individual through a O-1 application, which Beaton says can potentially be approved in just over a month ('Concord' is a reference to speed). The price is pitched as being around 40% the rate charged by a law firm specialising in immigration (the traditional route). The US$10,000 tier offers more assistance 'building your profile'. Chance meeting As with Crimson, Concord was born in part out of Beaton's own experience, after earning the first of his (now half dozen) US post-graduate degrees at Princeton. 'When I first came to the US, I was on the F1, the student visa. And I wasn't really sure how one stays in the US post-degree for an extended period of time,' Beaton said. 'Getting an O-1 visa was totally random. I bumped into a fellow Kiwi entrepreneur, Divya Dhar, who mentioned she's secured a green card through this mystical process. After going through the application, I managed to land my visa, enabling me to build Crimson at full speed." Beaton said even with the serendipity of meeting Dhar, it was a slog, with around 200 pages of paperwork, and, as with trying to penetrate the Ivy League, it can be hard for a novice to navigate the best path. He sees a 'massive information barrier', now compounded by a growing AI slop of misinformation online. The New Zealander still has an O-1, today, which he's renewed several times. He says once you've secured it, the visa is relatively straightforward to renew. Beaton co-founded Concord with Kevin Park, a fellow Auckland University grad who is familiar with the ins and outs of immigration through his former role as Crimson's shock trooper, setting up beachheads in a series of countries during the firm's early days. "Trump is throwing visa bombs left, right and centre,' says Jamie Beaton (left), here with Concord Visa co-founder Kevin Park. 'Crimson went from one country to 20 really fast, with plenty of messy chaos, with Kevin and many other great folks leading the charge to go through that baptism by fire.' 'Trump throwing visa bombs' There's plenty of messy chaos in the US now, of course – though these days it's more likely to emanate from the White House. Beaton says Concord recently helped a crypto entrepreneur from China gain a visa to build his firm in the US. 'It's really exciting to see cases like this, especially as Trump is throwing visa bombs left, right and centre,' Beaton says. 'A lot of our families are very keen to have clarity as to what a multi-year journey looks like in America or other countries, and this is really designed to be that next step in the Crimson journey for them.' Park says it's important to get all your paperwork correct. But, as with trying to get into Harvard or Yale, it's also a matter of putting together the right 'narrative' for the talent-based O-1, which is often restricted to around 10,000 people each year. Park says Concord offers more than 10 types of visas, including those in various skills shortage categories, and will match a candidate to the best type. His pitch is that traditional immigration advisers are often used to dealing with the requirements of big corporates. He and Beaton are more savvy about the potential quirks and complications of smaller firms, like Silicon Valley startups, where a funding round or change of ownership can pull the rug out from under an E2 visa (a business investment and employee transfer visa that has been another traditionally popular way for Kiwis to set up shop in the US). A venture capital round that brings in a range of international investors would see a US-based firm majority-owned offshore, and an E2 visa holder suddenly asked to leave the country within 60 days, Park says. The firm also helps with immigration into Australia, Britain and New Zealand. Beaton says the business is a natural extension of Crimson, which has helped 'several thousand' students secure F1 visas. Although only up and running for a few months, Concord has already helped more than 100 people secure US visas, Beaton and Park say. Their hero client is Auckland brand-tracking start-up Tracksuit, which has been pushing into the US after a $42 million raise this year. Inside help It also helped the East Auckland-raised Wayne Zhou secure an O-1 visa for his move from Australia to the US as his Silicon Valley-based startup staged a US$20m Series A raise. Macleans College old boy Zhou has quite the backstory. He enrolled at the University of Sydney but was only two years into a seven-year path to a Doctor of Dentistry ('my immigrant parents' dream') before he dropped out. Zhou had been running a recruitment consultancy as a side hustle. 'I was basically helping my friends get jobs in the best industries; in finance, investment banking and professional services,' he says. 'Ruler', as he called his careers platform, blossomed during his second year, as the 2020 Covid lockdown hit – to the point where he left university. Crimson acquired Ruler in 2022, and Zhou stayed on until mid-2023, until striking out on his own again to form a fintech called Verve. 'It flopped,' he says. A year ago, he founded Paraform, 'a recruiting marketplace that connects companies with a network of specialised recruiters to fill their hardest roles'. With backing from the founders of Canva, among others, his start-up quickly grew to 40 staff, with plans for 100 by year's end. It's a roller-coaster story, especially for someone yet to hit 30. But how should it be framed in a bid for an O-1 talent visa? Zhou says the Concord consultant assigned to him had previously worked on the other side of the fence, where she had conducted more than 10,000 visa interviews while with the US Embassy in Australia. Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald's business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.
