
The New Sustainability Playbook: 10 Questions For Business Leaders
Melanie Nakagawa, Chief Sustainability Officer Microsoft, at talking about "Accelerating climate ... More solutions with AI" on November 16, 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal.
The negative impacts of the Trump administration's tariffs are already taking effect and are projected to be even more consequential. Prices are projected to rise. At the same time, output and employment will be reduced, resulting in a net negative impact on the U.S. economy. In this context, every business with a global supply chain is facing an existential crisis: reduce investments in sustainability to save money in the short term, or stay the course and preserve long-term value? As cost rise from higher tariffs, business leaders need to understand the consequences of reducing investments in sustainability.
Cutting costs will jeopardize business relationships with global supply chain partners that require compliance with sustainability standards including GRI, ISSB, and SASB. Downsizing investments in sustainability will also alienate employees, consumers, and communities who reward businesses that reduce environmental impact, enhance social equity, and improve long-term resilience.
Every business leader will need to decide whether to maintain investments in sustainability that come with a cost but also deliver immense value. This new playbook will help leaders make the best choices for their companies.
Short-term cost savings can lead to long-term vulnerability. Cutting back on emissions reductions, renewable energy, or supply chain resilience might lower costs now. But it also raises the risk of climate impacts, harm to reputation, and fines from regulations. PG&E's failure to upgrade grid infrastructure to prevent wildfires resulted in the company facing an estimated $30 billion liability for damages from the two years of wildfires, according to the New York Times.
Many multinational clients and procurement partners now mandate sustainability metrics. Preferred supplier lists may remove companies that fail to align with frameworks like GRI, ISSB, or SASB may be removed from preferred supplier lists. This is especially true in sectors such as apparel, electronics, automotive, and food. If you are part of a global value chain, slashing ESG investments could mean losing business. Walmart requires key suppliers to report emissions and energy use. Suppliers that don't comply may be delisted.
Employees want to work for companies with purpose, consumers reward brands that do good, and communities are more supportive of responsible corporations. Scaling back ESG efforts to offset tariff-related costs could result in lower morale, higher turnover, customer churn, and social license to operate issues—intangibles that can rapidly transform into significant concerns. Patagonia's sustained customer loyalty and employee retention are closely linked to its genuine ESG commitments.
Institutional investors are placing greater emphasis on sustainability as a proxy for governance and future-readiness. While some shareholder segments may support short-term margin improvements, others—like pension funds and ESG-focused funds—may divest from companies seen as backtracking on sustainability. Before you cut ESG budgets, consider how it might change your investor profile. BlackRock has flagged companies with weak ESG disclosures as riskier and redirected capital toward ESG-aligned portfolios, according to ESG Today.
Sustainability efforts can benefit your company in the long run. You will save energy with efficient operations. Proactive compliance will cut regulatory costs. Plus, responsible sourcing will help your brand stand out. These investments may not appear on this quarter's balance sheet, but they build competitive advantage over time. What will you lose if you abandon what you've already built? Unilever's Sustainable Living Brands grew 69% faster than the rest of its portfolio, demonstrating tangible ROI.
The green transition is not a trend—it's an economic transformation. Companies in many fields are investing in sustainable innovation. They focus on electric fleets, biodegradable packaging, zero-waste operations, and inclusive hiring practices. If your rivals are pushing hard while you pull back, your market relevance could drop significantly. Ørsted shifted from relying on fossil fuels to becoming a top player in offshore wind. They moved faster than European energy giants who took longer to adapt.
Before making cuts, get insights from boards, investors, employees, NGOs, and community leaders. They likely have strong views on your sustainability goals. Often, stakeholders will advocate for re-prioritizing—not abandoning—ESG commitments. Transparency can protect your brand and build credibility, even in times of retrenchment. Interface, the carpet maker, teamed up with NGOs, suppliers, and customers for its sustainability plan. This likely helped maintain its brand trust during tough times.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and state-led green grants offer billions to companies investing in sustainability. Cutting ESG funding now could mean missing out on tax credits, rebates, and partnerships that offset costs and de-risk long-term investments. Have you explored every opportunity to turn sustainability into a net gain? First Solar secured over $700 million in federal tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act for U.S. manufacturing.
Sustainability and profitability should co-exist. ESG investments boost efficiency, cut waste, and make resource use better. They also reveal new business models. Leaders who see sustainability as central to performance, not just an extra, are most likely to succeed. IKEA's focus on circular practices and renewable energy cuts waste and saves money worldwide.
Will people remember you as the company that pivoted toward the future—or as the one that retreated when pressure mounted? Leadership is not just about getting through this quarter. It's about creating a story that builds confidence, pride, and progress. The choices you make today will shape your company's legacy. This is especially true during times of climate change and economic uncertainty. Microsoft's pledge is to become carbon negative by 2030. This makes it a leader for the future, even in tough economic times.
Tariffs and inflationary pressure are forcing difficult decisions. But cutting sustainability investments will likely be a costly mistake. Business leaders need a new approach. This should balance short-term costs with long-term stakeholder value, regulatory risks, and market expectations.
Sustainability is not a corporate responsibility—it's a strategic advantage. In the current environment, reducing investments in this area may seem like a sensible decision, but it can ultimately lead to weakened supply chain relationships, investor skepticism, employee disengagement, and lost consumer trust.
The strongest and most resilient and respected companies will maintain their investments in sustainability, even when times are tough. The most resilient and respected companies in the coming decade will be those that continue to lead—not retreat—on sustainability. As tariffs increase and economic strain grows, follow this playbook to make smart choices for your company.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets
LACONIA, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant told a New Hampshire jury Wednesday that he doesn't regret sending voters robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic former President Joe Biden and that he's confident he didn't break the law. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, has long admitted to orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before New Hampshire's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors allege, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who faces decades in prison if convicted of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate, said his goal was to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year's resolution to take action. 'This is going to be my one good deed this year,' he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court. He said his goal wasn't to influence an election, because he didn't consider the primary a real election. At Biden's request, the Democratic National Committee dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the 2024 nominating calendar but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in. Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll unsanctioned by the DNC. At the time the calls went out, voters were disenfranchised, he said. Asked by his attorney, Tom Reid, whether he did anything illegal, Kramer said, 'I'm positive I did not.' Later, he said he had no regrets and that his actions likely spurred AI regulations in multiple states. Kramer, who will be questioned by prosecutors Thursday, also faces a $6 million fine by the Federal Communications Commission but told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he won't pay it. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement in August. The robocalls appeared to come from a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, Kathy Sullivan, and told voters to call her number to be removed from the call list. On the witness stand earlier Wednesday, Sullivan said she was confused and then outraged after speaking to one of the recipients and later hearing the message. 'I hung up the phone and said, 'There is something really crazy going on,'' she said. 'Someone is trying to suppress the vote for Biden. I can't believe this is happening.' Months later, she got a call from Kramer in which he said he used her number because he knew she would contact law enforcement and the media. He also described his motive — highlighting AI's potential dangers — but she didn't believe him, she testified. 'My sense was he was trying to convince me that he'd done this defensible, good thing,' she said. 'I'm listening to this thinking to myself, 'What does he thing I am, stupid?' He tried to suppress the vote.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia chief calls AI ‘the greatest equalizer' — but warns Europe risks falling behind
PARIS (AP) — Will artificial intelligence save humanity — or destroy it? Lift up the world's poorest — or tighten the grip of a tech elite? Jensen Huang, the global chip tycoon, offered his opinion on Wednesday: neither dystopia nor domination. AI, he said, is a tool for liberation. Wearing his signature biker jacket and mobbed by fans for selfies, the Nvidia CEO cut the figure of a tech rockstar as he took the stage at VivaTech in Paris. 'AI is the greatest equalizer of people the world has ever created,' Huang said, kicking off one of Europe's biggest technology industry fairs. But beyond the sheeny optics, Nvidia used the Paris summit to unveil a wave of infrastructure announcements across Europe, signaling a dramatic expansion of the AI chipmaker's physical and strategic footprint on the continent. In France, the company is deploying 18,000 of its new Blackwell chips with startup Mistral AI. In Germany, it's building an industrial AI cloud to support manufacturers. Similar rollouts are underway in Italy, Spain, Finland and the U.K., including a new AI lab in Britain. Other announcements include a partnership with AI startup Perplexity to bring sovereign AI models to European publishers and telecoms, a new cloud platform with Mistral AI, and work with BMW and Mercedes-Benz to train AI-powered robots for use in auto plants. The announcements reflect how central AI infrastructure has become to global strategy, and how Nvidia — the world's most valuable chipmaker — is positioning itself as the engine behind it. At the center of the debate is Huang's concept of the AI factory: not a plant that makes goods, but a vast data center that creates intelligence. These facilities train language models, simulate new drugs, detect cancer in scans, and more. Asked if such systems risk creating a 'technological priesthood' — hoarding computing power and stymying the bottom-up innovation that fueled the tech industry for the past 50 years — Huang pushed back. 'Through the velocity of our innovation, we democratize,' he told The Associated Press. 'We lower the cost of access to technology.' As Huang put it, these factories 'reason,' 'plan,' and 'spend a lot of time talking to' themselves, powering everything from ChatGPT to autonomous vehicles and diagnostics. But some critics warn that without guardrails, such all-seeing, self-reinforcing systems could go the way of Skynet in ' The Terminator ' movie — vast intelligence engines that outpace human control. 'Just as electricity powered the last industrial revolution, AI will power the next one,' he said. 'Every country now needs a national intelligence infrastructure.' He added: 'AI factories are now part of a country's infrastructure. That's why you see me running around the world talking to heads of state — they all want AI to be part of their infrastructure. They want AI to be a growth manufacturing industry for them.' Europe, long praised for its leadership on digital rights, now finds itself at a crossroads. As Brussels pushes forward with world-first AI regulations, some warn that over-caution could cost the bloc its place in the global race. With the U.S. and China surging ahead and most major AI firms based elsewhere, the risk isn't just falling behind — it's becoming irrelevant. Huang has a different vision: sovereign AI. Not isolation, but autonomy — building national AI systems aligned with local values, independent of foreign tech giants. 'The data belongs to you,' Huang said. 'It belongs to your people, your country... your culture, your history, your common sense.' But fears over AI misuse remain potent — from surveillance and deepfake propaganda to job losses and algorithmic discrimination. Huang doesn't deny the risks. But he insists the technology can be kept in check — by itself. 'In the future, the AI that is doing the task is going to be surrounded by 70 or 80 other AIs that are supervising it, observing it, guarding it, ensuring that it doesn't go off the rails.' The VivaTech event was part of Huang's broader European tour. He had already appeared at London Tech Week and is scheduled to visit Germany. In Paris, he joined French President Emmanuel Macron and Mistral AI CEO Arthur Mensch to reinforce his message that AI is now a national priority. — Chan reported from London.