- Shaken Not Burned
- Posts
- Coding for Kids with Mama.Codes
Coding for Kids with Mama.Codes
News, changemakers and sustainability solutions
Shaken Not Burned
February 29, 2024
Shaken Not Burned 29/02/24
News, changemakers and sustainability solutions
Welcome to the latest edition of Shaken Not Burned. On this week's podcast, we discussed three stories which tell us about the changing market environment.
First, we looked at how the growing popularity of fast fashion giants Shein and Temu is impacting air freight demand. This pressure on global supply chains is cause for concern, especially as geopolitics and disruption on the Suez Canal have pushed shipping rates up 400%.
Next, we look at the UK's return to court for failing to set a clear net zero strategy and explore the role of the legal system in changing state and corporate behaviour, Finally, we ponder China's introduction of ESG reporting, highlighting the growing demand for corporate transparency and accountability.
If you have any questions, or have anything you’d like to learn more about do drop us a line at [email protected]. We hope you enjoy the newsletter and thanks for listening to the podcast.
Giulia, Heather and Felicia
This week’s podcast episode
Coding for Kids with Mama.Codes In this episode, we discuss the most interesting news of the week and Felicia talks with Rumbi Pfende, co-founder of Mama.Codes, about the importance of digital literacy in a rapidly changing world, how learning to code can help transform children’s learning and the importance of access to digital skills in a just and sustainable society. |
Glossary - Double Materiality
Materiality is a key issue in financial reporting, based on the idea that companies have a duty to report risks that may be material to their business. Double materiality extends the concept to acknowledge the two-way relationship between the company and the social, environmental and economic setting within which it operates. Risks to the business are considered alongside the impact the business has in return.
Busting a myth
“Recycling will solve our resource problems” |
The need for recycling is abundantly clear, with the UN's Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 report projecting a huge surge in waste generation to 3.8 billion tonnes by 2050 - costing a staggering $640 billion per year. This is an over 75% increase compared to 2020, when the world produced an estimated 2.1 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste, before even accounting for industrial waste. As well as the escalating costs of waste management, we must consider the hidden costs of tackling pollution, healthcare and climate change. Still, recycling is not the be-all and end-all. Current technologies do not offer a complete solution for every material used, and virgin extraction and production will continue to impact the planet for as long as demand continues to rise. Ultimately, we must embrace recycling as a partial solution with substantial room for improvement, while also exploring additional solutions such as new approaches to materials consumption models, product design, end-of-life management and more. |
Stories that highlight a changing market
One of the biggest pieces of news this week is the passing of the EU’s Nature Restoration Law. After several months of heated controversy, this step signals a commitment to reversing land degradation. While this may prove to be a challenge for the agriculture industry, it points to a major shift in expectations around land management. This shift is becoming more prominent, as seen in the UK with the new Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.
The future of the food, beverage and agricultural industries is under threat. While Ceres’ latest report on North American food and drink shows a significant improvement from 2021, we need more urgent and ambitious action. In particular, Ceres is encouraging companies to show how they intend to meet their net zero targets. Already, 37 out of its 50 studied companies have engaged through its Food Emissions 50 initiative and reported their supply chain greenhouse gas emissions. To date, 32 of them have set targets to reduce those emissions.
Carbon Tracker’s latest analysis warns that large companies are still not being transparent on climate-related risks to their operations, let alone their impact on the world around them. According to its report, companies and their auditors are leaving investors in the dark, with only 40% providing some information in financial statements and audit reports - a minor increase from the 35% recorded last year.
One of the ways in which companies can achieve their emissions reduction targets is through the use of offsets. This is a controversial approach, as the goal should be to cut operational and product lifetime emissions. Indeed, the Science Based Targets initiative recommends that only 5-10% of emissions should be offset, with the rest being avoided entirely. Still, the EU has approved the development of a certification system for carbon removal credits. Much of the technology is still in its earliest stages and there are ongoing arguments about the integrity of nature-based options, but this could be a big leap forward for companies looking to manage their reputations. Ultimately, removal sounds a lot better than mere avoidance.
One of the big challenges facing companies is how they can avoid engaging in greenwashing by exaggerating or misrepresenting their efforts in sustainability. With the European Council having just approved a new directive to prevent consumers from being misled, the pressure will only intensify. As the rules become clearer, companies are going to have to clear up their acts.
Reply