sustainability essay points

Now is the time for change. A confluence of multiple global crises have upended our lives. The way we work, the way we interact, the way we move about. This can be a turning point. Let's seize the moment and change course - toward more sustainable lifestyles. Small changes in your daily life can save you money, improve your health and help cut harmful pollution.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As such, the Agenda's Sustainable Development Goals aim not only to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – but also to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies, realizing the human rights of all.

They offer a blueprint for tackling the defining issues of our time, such as climate change, which requires urgent and transformative action that leaves no one behind.

The United Nations and its agencies, funds and programmes are working with Member States, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders to accelerate progress toward the Goals, in a spirit of global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

• Sustainable Development Goals
• ActNow Campaign
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• Infographics

This exhibit was launched in September 2020 and updated in August 2023

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Environmental Sustainability

Essays on Environmental Sustainability

History of electric cars, incorporating population education in schools, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Futura Bar Research Paper

Global assembly line analysis, leading change: essential traits for success, media stereotypes of haiti, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Reflection Paper on Guest Speaker

Solar city case study, ethical ethics of costco, evolution of electric cars, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Lorax Discussion Questions

Essay on wind energy, swot analysis: new belgium brewing company, united parcel service airlines: a case study, balancing wind wolf: environmental benefits and wildlife impacts, summary of novella carpenter's urban farm, wind energy: a sustainable and viable source for the future, my vision for america, argumentative essay on solar energy, topics in this category.

• Wind Energy
• Alternative Energy
• Solar Energy
• Sustainability
• Fossil Fuels
• Renewable Energy

Popular Categories

• Environmental Protection
• Earth & Nature
• Environment Problems
• Climate & Weather
• Human Impact

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Why You Need Sustainability in Your Business Strategy

• 06 Nov 2019

In today’s ever-evolving world, debating whether to incorporate sustainability into your business strategy is no longer an option. Considering a values-driven approach when developing business strategies can be vital to long-term success.

Before getting into why sustainability is essential to successful business strategies, it's important to define what sustainability in business is.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Sustainability in Business?

In short, sustainability in business refers to the effect companies have on the environment or society.

A sustainable business strategy aims to positively impact one or both of those areas, thereby helping address some of the world’s most pressing problems.

Some of the global issues that sustainable business strategies help to address include:

• Climate change
• Income inequality
• Depletion of natural resources
• Human rights issues
• Fair working conditions
• Racial injustice
• Gender inequality

Although it may sound like it, sustainability in business is not purely altruistic. As Harvard Business School Professor Rebecca Henderson notes in the online course Sustainable Business Strategy , you can't use business to do good in the world if you're not doing well financially. Doing well and doing good are intertwined, and successful business strategies include both.

Many of today’s firms have adopted the triple bottom line , which suggests that organizations should focus on more than just profits, or the “bottom-line,” and also measure their environmental and social impact. These focuses can be referred to as “the three Ps,”: people, planet, and profit. Quite often, this sustainable approach to business ultimately boosts business performance.

Why Is Sustainability Important?

In addition to driving social and environmental change, sustainability initiatives can contribute to an organization's overall success. It may seem counterintuitive that spending more money on sustainable business practices can boost a company’s profitability, but studies show that the most sustainable companies are also the most profitable.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics are often used to determine how ethical and sustainable an organization is. According to McKinsey , companies with high ESG ratings consistently outperform the market in both the medium and long term. While sustainability strategies might be an investment in the short term, they can lead to long-term benefits.

Benefits of Sustainability in Business

1. you’ll protect your brand and mitigate risks.

Ending up on the front page because of a scandal is a CEO’s worst nightmare. Not only do improper practices damage an organization’s reputation and cost it customers, but dealing with a public relations disaster can divert valuable human and financial resources from the core business.

You don’t want to become the company that allowed an oil spill or forced employees to work in unsafe conditions. By instituting a sustainable strategy that protects the environment and your workers, you also protect yourself from any damaging incidents.

2. Being Purpose-Driven Is a Competitive Advantage

Sustainability doesn't detract from business goals, and infusing your company with purpose can help attract a motivated, skilled workforce that drives financial success . In a Facebook Live discussion , Henderson noted a recent study showing that 89 percent of executives believe an organization with shared purpose will have greater employee satisfaction. Additionally, 85 percent say they're more likely to recommend a company with strong purpose to others.

Making your company an organization that does good in the world—rather than just a place that provides a paycheck—can be a competitive advantage when attracting the best talent.

Related : HBS Professor Explores the Impact Purpose Can Have on Your Organization

3. There's a Growing Market for Sustainable Goods

A 2019 study found that 73 percent of global consumers are willing to change their consumption habits to lessen their negative impact on the environment, and sustainable product sales have grown by nearly 20 percent since 2014. Millennials in particular are more willing to pay more for products that contain sustainable ingredients or products that have social responsibility claims. If your organization commits to sustainable products and practices, it could gain market share by converting sustainability-minded customers and increasing sales.

4. Cooperative Action Can Drive Change

As an individual, it can feel overwhelming, isolating, or simply impossible to effect change in a meaningful way. That’s not the case when the most innovative, successful, and powerful companies are collaborating to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems. While governments struggle to address public goods problems, purpose-driven companies working together to address these issues have experienced great success.

For example, palm oil is cheap, versatile, and found in about half of all packaged products, including soap, lipstick, and ice cream. But palm oil production has resulted in record greenhouse gas emissions and contributed to climate change.

In light of this, consumer goods producer Unilever committed to only using palm oil from certified sustainable sources in 2008. The organization cooperated with its competitors—as well as governments, NGOs, and indigenous peoples’ organizations—to lead an industry-wide adoption of sustainable palm oil. As a result, Unilever continues to be a thriving organization, and the world has reaped the environmental benefits of sustainable palm oil harvesting practices.

The Value of Sustainability

Sustainability doesn’t mean sacrificing profits or putting success on the backburner. Instead, it has become a crucial element to any organization’s successful strategy. A business that doesn't factor in sustainability risks is less successful in several measures, including profitability, growth, and employee retention.

By integrating sustainability into your business strategy , you can find success because, rather than in spite, of sustainability.

Do you want to take a more values-driven approach to business? Explore our three-week online course Sustainable Business Strategy and learn how organizations can succeed financially while also playing a role in solving some of the world’s most pressing problems.

This post was upated on March 22, 2021. It was originally published on November 6, 2019.

About the Author

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Sustainability?

How sustainability works, corporate sustainability.

• How to Create Sustainability

Real-World Example

• Sustainability FAQs

The Bottom Line

• Sustainable Investing

What is Sustainability? How Sustainabilities Work, Benefits, and Example

Investopedia / Daniel Fishel

In the broadest sense, sustainability refers to the ability to maintain or support a process continuously over time. In business and policy contexts, sustainability seeks to prevent the depletion of natural or physical resources, so that they will remain available for the long term.

Key Takeaways

• Sustainability is ability to maintain or support a process over time.
• Sustainability is often broken into three core concepts: economic, environmental, and social.
• Many businesses and governments have committed to sustainable goals, such as reducing their environmental footprints and conserving resources.
• Some investors are actively embracing sustainability investments, known as "green investments."
• Skeptics have accused some companies of "greenwashing," the practice of misleading the public to make a business seem more environmentally friendly than it is.

Accordingly, sustainable policies emphasize the future effect of any given policy or business practice on humans, ecosystems, and the wider economy. The concept often corresponds to the belief that without major changes to the way the planet is run, it will suffer irreparable damage.

As concerns about anthropogenic climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution have become more widespread, the world has shifted to embrace sustainable practices and policies, primarily through the implementation of sustainable business practices and increased investments in green technology .

3 Pillars of Sustainability

The idea of sustainability is often broken down into three pillars: economic, environmental, and social—also known informally as profits, planet, and people.

In that breakdown, the concept of "economic sustainability" focuses on conserving the natural resources that provide physical inputs for economic production, including both renewable and exhaustible inputs.

The concept of "environmental sustainability" adds greater emphasis on the life support systems, such as the atmosphere or soil, that must be maintained for economic production or human life to even occur. In contrast, social sustainability focuses on the human effects of economic systems, and the category includes attempts to eradicate poverty and hunger, as well as to combat inequality.

In 1983, the United Nations created the World Commission on Environment and Development to study the connection between ecological health, economic development, and social equity. The commission, then run by former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, published a report in 1987 that has become the standard in defining sustainable development.

That report describes sustainable development, or the blueprint for attaining sustainability, as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

In business contexts, sustainability refers to more than just environmentalism. Harvard Business School lists two ways to measure sustainable business practices: the effect a business has on the environment, and the effect a business has on society, with the goal of sustainable practice being to have a positive impact on at least one of those areas.

Corporate sustainability emerged as a component of corporate ethics in response to public concerns of long-term damage caused by a focus on short-term profits.

This view of responsibility encourages businesses to balance long-term benefits with immediate returns, and the goal of pursuing inclusive and environmentally sound objectives. This covers a broad array of possible practices . Cutting emissions, lowering energy usage, sourcing products from fair-trade organizations, and ensuring their physical waste is disposed of properly and with a smaller carbon footprint would qualify as moves toward sustainability.

Companies have also set sustainability goals such as a commitment to zero-waste packaging by a certain year, or to reduce overall emissions by a certain percentage.

Many corporations have made such sustainability promises in recent years. For example, Walmart Stores, Inc. ( WMT ) has pledged to reach zero emissions by 2040. Morgan Stanley has pledged net-zero "financed emissions" by 2050. Google has pledged to operate carbon-free by 2030.

The push for sustainability is evident in areas such as energy generation as well, where the focus has been on finding new deposits to outpace the drawdown on existing reserves. Some electricity companies, for example, now publicly state goals for energy generation from sustainable sources such as wind, hydropower, and solar.

Because these policies tend to generate public goodwill, some companies have been accused of " greenwashing ," the practice of providing a false impression that makes a business seem more environmentally friendly than it is.

Cost Cutting

Moreover, many companies have been criticized for cost-cutting measures that make it harder to evaluate their sustainability. For example, many companies might move some parts of their business to less-regulated markets, such as by offshoring production to obtain cheaper labor. This can make it harder to assess the costs of production on workers and the environment.

Sustainability practices "significantly affect" the offshoring activities of multinational corporations, according to an examination of data from 1,080 multinational corporations.

Challenges Surrounding Business Sustainability

The switch to sustainability can be difficult. The Santa Fe Institute outlines three major impediments for firms seeking to improve their environmental impacts: First, it is hard to actually understand the impact of any individual firm. Second, it is difficult to rank the environmental impact of some activities, and finally, it is difficult to predict how economic agents respond to changing incentives.

Sustainable investing surveys over the past couple of years have suggested that half (or in some cases, more than half) of investors say that sustainability is "fundamental" to investing strategy.

Not everyone concerned with investments shares the enthusiasm. In July 2021, for instance, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce argued that not only would environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure mandates violate the agency's authority, but it may also "undermine financial and economic stability."

According to Peirce, the "inherently political" sustainability metrics were "unabashedly" created to direct capital toward certain businesses. In response to public comments and regulatory pressure to look into such mandates, Peirce said that it would be a violation of the SEC's "historically agnostic approach" to regulations.

Eiji Hirano, a former chairman of the board of visitors for Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund, has said that there's a bubble in ESG investing and that the fund needs to rethink its ESG investments, according to interviews with Bloomberg News .

Benefits of Business Sustainability

In addition to the social benefits of improving the environment and elevating human needs, there are also financial benefits for companies that successfully implement sustainability strategies. Using resources sustainability can improve the long-term viability of a business concern, just as cutting waste and pollution can also help a company save money.

For example, using more efficient lighting and plumbing fixtures can help a company save on utility bills, as well as improve its public image. There may also be government tax incentives for companies that adopt certain sustainability practices.

Sustainability can also make a company more attractive to investors. A 2019 HEC Paris Research paper showed that shareholders value the ethical dimensions of a firm so much that they are willing to pay $.70 more to purchase a share in a firm that gives a dollar or more per share to charities. The study also revealed a loss in valuation for firms perceived as exercising a negative social impact.

Based on interviews with senior executives across 43 global investing firms, Harvard Business Review has argued that the perception among some business leaders that environmental, social, and governance issues are not mainstream in the investment community is outdated.

The "sea change" in investor attitudes described by Harvard Business Review draws on the increased commitments of investors. The Principles for Responsible Investment, a United Nations-supported effort to bring these issues into investing, had 63 investment companies with $6.5 trillion in assets under management that committed when it launched in 2006. In 2018, it had 1,715 companies with $81.7 trillion in assets.

While it's tempting to support companies that seem environmentally friendly, some companies are less sustainable than they seem. This use of misleading advertisements or branding to create a false impression of sustainability is sometimes called " greenwashing ."

Creating a Sustainable Business Strategy

Many corporations are seeking to integrate sustainability practices into their core business models. Companies can adopt sustainability strategies in the same way that they develop their other strategic plans .

The first step to integrating sustainability practices is to identify a specific weakness shortcoming. For example, a company might determine that it generates too much waste , or that its hiring practices are causing harm to the surrounding communities.

Next, the company should determine its goals, and identify the metrics it will use to measure its achievements. A company might set an ambitious target for reducing its carbon footprint, or set a specific percentage goal for diversity hiring. This will allow the company to determine objectively if its goals have been met.

The final step is to implement the strategy and assess its results. This requires continuous re-evaluation, as a company's goals may change as the company grows.

There are some common pitfalls for companies aiming for sustainability. One of them is the knowledge-action gap: even though many executives set sustainability as one of their core business values, few of them take concrete actions to accomplish sustainability objectives.

Another is known as the compliance-competitiveness gap. While improving sustainability metrics can make a company more competitive in the market, these goals should not be confused with the mandatory compliance requirements that a company must adhere to. While sustainability is desirable, compliance is mandatory.

An interesting example of a successful sustainability strategy is Unilever, the parent company of Dove soaps, Axe body spray, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, Hellmann's mayonnaise, and many other familiar brands. In 2010, the company implemented the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, a ten-year blueprint for reducing the environmental impact of its brands while providing a more fair workplace.

By the end of Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, the company was able to announce major achievements in improving its environmental footprint as well as the company's bottom line. By working to conserve water and energy, the company was able to save more than 1 billion euros between 2008 and 2018. Moreover, by creating more opportunities for women, Unilever also become the preferred consumer goods employer for graduate students in 50 countries.

What Are the 3 Principles of Sustainability?

The principles of sustainability refer to the three core concepts of environmental, social, and economic sustainability–sometimes broken down as "people, planet, and profits." This means that in order to be considered sustainable, a business must be able to conserve natural resources, support a healthy community and workforce, and earn enough revenue to remain financially viable for the long-term.

What Activities Promote Sustainability?

Many sustainable businesses seek to reduce their environmental footprint by using renewable energy or by reducing waste. Companies may also be more sustainable by promoting diversity and fairness in their workforce, or enacting policies that benefit the local community.

What Is Economic Sustainability?

Economic sustainability refers to a company's ability to continue its operations over a long-term horizon. In order to be economically sustainable, a company must be able to ensure that it will have adequate resources, workers, and consumers for its products into the distant future.

What Are the Most Sustainable Companies?

There are many different ways to measure and compare sustainable companies. Canadian research firm Corporate Knights publishes a list of the 100 most sustainable companies. The list is topped by the Danish companies Vestas Wind Systems and Chr Hansen Holding, Autodesk Inc., in the United States, Schneider Electric in France, and City Developments in Singapore.

What Products Are Not Sustainable?

Non-sustainable products uses resources that cannot be replaced or replenished at the same speed that they are consumed. Products that rely on fossil fuels cannot be sustainable, because the resources used to make them can never be replaced. Other resources such as as rainforest timber, fishery stocks, sea corals, and other wildlife can be sustainable, if they are only harvested be limits that allow existing stocks to be replenished.

As consumers become more environmentally conscious, more companies and businesses are finding ways to reduce their impacts upon the planet and their community. Sustainability practices allow companies to highlight their social benefits while continuing to attract customers.

World Commission on Environment and Development. " Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future ," Page 16.

University of California Los Angeles. " What Is Sustainability? "

Harvard Business School. " What Does Sustainability Mean in Business? "

Walmart. " Climate Change ."

Morgan Stanley. " Morgan Stanley Announces Commitment to Reach Net-Zero Financed Emissions by 2050 ."

Google. " We Must Help Build a More Sustainable Future for Everyone ."

Economic Policy Institute. " Truth and Consequences of Offshoring ."

Lartey, Theophilus A., et al. "Environmental Sustainability Practices and Offshoring Activities of Multinational Corporations Across Emerging and Developed Markets." International Business Review, vol. 30, no. 5, 2021, pp. 101789.

Santa Fe Institute. " The Complexity of Sustainability and Investing ."

BlackRock. " Sustainability Goes Mainstream ."

Securities and Exchange Commission. " Chocolate-Covered Cicadas ."

Bloomberg News. " Beware of ‘ESG Bubble,’ Says Ex-Chair of World’s Biggest Pension ."

Bonnefon, Jean-Francois. "Do Investors Care About Corporate Externalities? Experimental Evidence." HEC Paris Research Paper No. FIN-2019-1350, September 2019, pp. 1-48.

Harvard Business Review. " The Investor Revolution ."

Principles for Responsible Investment. " Signatory Directory ."

International Institute for Management Development. " Why All Businesses Should Embrace Sustainability ."

Unilever. " Four Ways that Sustainability Has Made Us a Stronger Business ."

Corporate Knights. " The 100 Most Sustainable Corporations of 2022 ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

INTERNATIONAL ESSAY COMPETITION

SUSTAINABILITY

Certificate + Publication & more

REGISTRATION DEADLINE

Saturday, 30 September, 2023

Competition Introduction

Introduction The essay competition aims to explore the critical role of architecture in promoting sustainability and creating a better future for our planet. As the world faces environmental challenges and the urgent need for sustainable development, architects play a crucial part in designing and constructing buildings that minimize their environmental impact and contribute to the well-being of occupants and communities. This competition invites participants to delve into the concept of sustainability in architecture, showcasing innovative ideas, best practices, and the potential of architecture to drive positive change. Essay Requirements: 1. Define Sustainability in Architecture: Explain what sustainability means in the context of architecture and its fundamental principles. Discuss the importance of sustainable design, materials, and construction techniques, highlighting their potential benefits for the environment, society, and the economy. 2. Sustainable Design Strategies: Explore various sustainable design strategies employed in architecture, such as passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste reduction. Discuss how these strategies can be integrated into architectural projects to minimize the ecological footprint and promote long-term sustainability. 3. Case Studies: Select and analyze one or more real-life architectural projects that embody sustainability principles. Describe the key features, design choices, and technologies employed in these projects, emphasizing their environmental and social impact. Assess their success and identify any challenges encountered during the implementation. 4. Urban Planning and Community Engagement: Address the role of architecture in urban planning and community engagement for sustainability. Discuss how architects can collaborate with urban planners, policymakers, and local communities to create sustainable neighborhoods, revitalized public spaces, and resilient cities. Explore the importance of social equity and inclusivity in sustainable architectural design. 5. Technological Innovations and Future Trends: Investigate emerging technologies and innovations that have the potential to revolutionize sustainable architecture. This could include advancements in materials, construction techniques, renewable energy integration, and smart building technologies. Assess the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting these innovations and discuss their potential impact on the future of architecture. 6. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the essay, emphasizing the pivotal role of architecture in shaping a sustainable future. Reflect on the potential of sustainable design and architectural practices to mitigate environmental impact, improve human well-being, and foster resilient communities. Highlight the responsibility architects hold in promoting sustainable development and encourage further research and innovation in the field. Participation: • This competition is open to all. • You can participate individually or as a team (Maximum 4 members in a team)

Detailed Competition Brief

The brief can be downloaded as often as required. It contains all the information about this competition; no additional information will be provided after registration.

BRIEF + SUBMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS

Prizes & Recognition

Recognition is the key to success for any design professional. Archiol is providing an opportunity to showcase your creativity at the global level. This opportunity is open to all.

CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT

PUBLICATION ON OUR PARTNERING MEDIA PLATFORMS

(TEXT + VIDEO)

PUBLICATION OF AN ARTICLE / DESIGN ON ARCHIOL.

ARCHIOL INTERNAL JURY FAVOURITE 

PUBLICATION CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT

+3  HONOURABLE MENTIONS

+10  SHORTLISTED ENTRIES

Music files

Select and download a music piece from below:

We collaborate with leading architects, designers, and academicians of international repute to participate as jury members in our competitions. Contacting any of the jury members leads to disqualification from the competition. Communication regarding the competition should be carried out with archiol staff only. For any queries please contact us at [email protected]

Registration Deadline

Submission Deadline

Thursday, 12 October, 2023

Result Announcement

Sunday, 24 December, 2023

All deadlines are 11:59 PM  UTC  (Coordinated Universal Time)

Competition Question & Answer

TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE COMPETITION CLICK BELOW.

Registration Fees Details

UNIVERSITY DISCOUNTS

Contact us to receive university discounts.   Send us  a request from your university email address along with basic information about yourself and your university/school. Attach your university ID cards to the email.  

Architecture Students group

min. 5 participants from the same institution: 10% off on regular & late registration fee.

min. 15 participants from the same institution: 20% off on regular & registration fee.

DISCOUNT FOR INDIAN PARTICIPANTS

10% off on standard & late registration fee.

Register Now!

Media partners.

• How do I create my participation code? Participation code / registration code details are in the final registration form. Final registration form link appears after paying the registration fees.
• Where do I submit my entry? Submissions to be emailed at [email protected], Please follow the submission instructions mentioned in the competition brief.
• How do I ask a query that is not mentioned here? Email us your query at [email protected]
• How do I register my team members? Team registration form- link will appear after paying the registration fees.
• How can I modify my submission? You cannot modify your submission. In extreme situations please get in touch with us at [email protected] and we will get back to you within 24 hours.
• How can I be sure that you have received my entry? You will receive a confirmation email acknowledging receipt of your entry within 24 hours. Please check your spam folder in case you don't find it.
• How can I receive judges ratings and comments? We cannot offer individual comments to its entrants due to high volume of entries.
• How can I withdraw my entry / get refund? No refunds shall be issued once the registration is completed. Please do not contact us for refunds.

Competition Organizers

competitions

LATEST COMPETITIONS!

©  2022

TERMS & CONDITIONS

PRIVACY POLICY

COOKIE POLICY

Senior Adithi Reddy wins 2024 Prize for Excellence in Sustainability Research

By Abigail Brewer

Sustainable Carolina is excited to announce  Adithi Reddy as the winner of this year’s Prize for Excellence in Sustainability Research. Reddy will graduate this month with a degree in global studies. She also minored in public policy and sustainability studies.

Amy Cooke and Kelly Alexander advised Reddy’s research, titled, Agriculture and Aquaculture: Exposing the Nexus Between Mangrove Deforestation, Climate Change and Modern Slavery in Southeast Asia. Cooke is a teaching associate professor and director of undergraduate studies in the UNC Environment, Ecology and Energy Program (E3P). Alexander is an assistant professor in the Department of American Studies.

This is the second year Sustainable Carolina has awarded the prize at the Celebration of Undergraduate Research . Susan Cohen, assistant director of the UNC Institute for the Environment, has served as a poster judge both years. She praised Reddy’s ability to summarize her work clearly and thoroughly.

Reddy examined palm oil extraction in Indonesia and shrimp farming in Thailand, two major economic drivers for the region that also contribute to environmental degradation and labor exploitation. Through her case studies, Reddy identified three solutions for improving the outlook for mangrove forests: Inclusion of mangrove forests into Marine Protected areas, engagement of local and indigenous communities in government efforts, and creation of public-private partnerships.

“Adithi looked at the human element, highlighting the unjust labor practices that power these industries,” said Cohen. “She linked all of this to the choices we make everyday in our local grocery stores, empowering all of us! Adithi’s work was very comprehensive and showed just how complex these environmental challenges are and provided potential pathways for solutions.”

One point seperates first and second place

Amogh Rao, Nayan Bala and Alisa Pokazanyeva presented their poster, Determining the Accuracy of SWOT Water Elevation Data at Mono Lake, California. E3P Chair Drew Coleman advised their research, which made use of data collected by NASA’s Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite. SWOT is the first global survey of Earth’s’ surface water and is taking measurements across the globe.

The team traveled to Mono Lake to carry out ground-truthing of data collected by the satellite. They found some discrepancies between their data and data collected by the satellites. The team suggested SWOT could perform multiple flyovers and average the data to get more accurate measurements.

Three posters tie for third place

The competition was close! The three third place teams received just two points fewer than our first place winner.

Margot Francini, Christian Chung and Chloe Lind’s project, Advancing the Aqueous Film Forming Foam Deployment Pathway: Recommendations for Responsible use and Management in North Carolina, was advised by Greer Arthur . Arthur is the research director of the North Carolina Collaboratory .

The team carried out literature reviews, legislative reviews and interviews on AFFFs, a firefighting foam that contains PFAS. The team underscored the need for government agencies to identify PFAS as hazardous. They also identified synthetic fluorine-free foam as a potential alternative to AFFFs.

UNC Institute for the Environment Highlands Field Site Director Rada Petric advised Caroline Tintinger and Nikita McClure’s project, Survey of Disjunct Red Spruce Stands in the Rich Mountain and Alarka Laurel, NC.

Through vegetation surveys, the team assessed biodiversity and stand dynamics. They also looked at seedling and sapling health and their access to resources, like sunlight. The team found that the two red spruce populations they assessed are currently stable, but this work will provide an invaluable baseline measurement for future studies examining the impact of climate change.

Senior Gu Wei Tian (Leon) Xie  worked with UNC Ackerman Center for Excellence in Sustainability Director Jeff Mittelstadt on his project, titled, From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy: Navigating the Workforce Transition in the U.S. Energy Sector.  

Xie used available data to examine how well worker requirements transfer between fossil fuel jobs and renewable energy jobs. Through this, Xie created a network plot, illustrating the alignment of some fossil fuel and renewable energy jobs. The work suggests that implementing new policies and helping workers develop new skills could lead to a fair and successful worker transition.

Thank you to the UNC Office of Undergraduate Research for providing an opportunity for students to share their research every year. It would be impossible for Sustainable Carolina to present these awards if not for OUR’s careful planning of the Celebration of Undergraduate Research.

The IFRS Foundation is a not-for-profit, public interest organisation established to develop high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally accepted accounting and sustainability disclosure standards.

Our Standards are developed by our two standard-setting boards, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). 

About the IFRS Foundation

Ifrs foundation governance, stay updated.

IFRS Accounting Standards are developed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The IASB is an independent standard-setting body within the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS Accounting Standards are, in effect, a global accounting language—companies in more than 140 jurisdictions are required to use them when reporting on their financial health. The IASB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Accounting

Standards and frameworks, using the standards, project work, products and services.

IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards are developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The ISSB is an independent standard-setting body within the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS Sustainability Standards are developed to enhance investor-company dialogue so that investors receive decision-useful, globally comparable sustainability-related disclosures that meet their information needs. The ISSB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Sustainability

Education, membership and licensing, ifrs sustainability disclosure taxonomy 2024.

You need to Sign in to use this feature

The IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Taxonomy 2024 reflects the disclosure requirements of the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards as issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

The IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Taxonomy 2024 reflects disclosure requirements arising from:

IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information , issued in June 2023; and 

IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures , issued in June 2023.

The IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Taxonomy 2024 was published on 30 April 2024.

Taxonomy package: IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Taxonomy 2024

IFRS Taxonomy Illustrated in PDF

Below you will find information related to the annual IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Taxonomy including entry points. Access additional information such as the Taxonomy guides .

Entry points—to access the whole or different subsets of the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Taxonomy

Your privacy.

IFRS Foundation cookies

We use cookies on ifrs.org to ensure the best user experience possible. For example, cookies allow us to manage registrations, meaning you can watch meetings and submit comment letters. Cookies that tell us how often certain content is accessed help us create better, more informative content for users.

We do not use cookies for advertising, and do not pass any individual data to third parties.

Some cookies are essential to the functioning of the site. Other cookies are optional. If you accept all cookies now you can always revisit your choice on our  privacy policy  page.

Cookie preferences

Essential cookies, always active.

Essential cookies are required for the website to function, and therefore cannot be switched off. They include managing registrations.

Analytics cookies

We use analytics cookies to generate aggregated information about the usage of our website. This helps guide our content strategy to provide better, more informative content for our users. It also helps us ensure that the website is functioning correctly and that it is available as widely as possible. None of this information can be tracked to individual users.

Preference cookies

Preference cookies allow us to offer additional functionality to improve the user experience on the site. Examples include choosing to stay logged in for longer than one session, or following specific content.

Share this page

Texas enters peak season for power output and emissions

• Medium Text

POWERING UP

Peak period.

Sign up here.

Reporting by Gavin Maguire; Editing by Jamie Freed

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Gavin Maguire is the Global Energy Transition Columnist. He was previously Asia Commodities and Energy editor.

World Chevron

Pictures of the week

Our top photography from around the world this week.

British police arrested 45 people on Thursday after a violent protest in London against the transfer of asylum seekers staying in a hotel to a barge off southern England.

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us

There will be no more self-soothing after this..

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts , the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States , the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.

However the court disposes of Trump v. U.S. , the result will almost certainly be precisely what the former president craves: more delays, more hearings, more appeals—more of everything but justice . This was not a legitimate claim from the start, but a wild attempt by Trump’s attorneys to use his former role as chief executive of the United States to shield himself from the consequences of trying to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. After so much speculation that these reasonable, rational jurists would surely dispose of this ridiculous case quickly and easily, Thursday delivered a morass of bad-faith hand-wringing on the right about the apparently unbearable possibility that a president might no longer be allowed to wield his powers of office in pursuit of illegal ends. Just as bad, we heard a constant minimization of Jan. 6, for the second week in a row , as if the insurrection were ancient history, and history that has since been dramatically overblown, presumably for Democrats’ partisan aims.

We got an early taste of this minimization in Trump v. Anderson , the Colorado case about removing Trump from the ballot. The court didn’t have the stomach to discuss the violence at the Capitol in its sharply divided decision, which found for Trump ; indeed, the majority barely mentioned the events of Jan. 6 at all when rejecting Colorado’s effort to bar from the ballot an insurrectionist who tried to steal our democracy. But we let that one be, because we figured special counsel Jack Smith would ride to the rescue. Smith has indicted Trump on election subversion charges related to Jan. 6, and the biggest obstacle standing between the special counsel and a trial has been the former president’s outlandish claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges as a result of his having been president at the time. Specifically, Trump alleges that his crusade to overturn the election constituted “official acts” that are immune from criminal liability under a heretofore unknown constitutional principle that the chief executive is quite literally above the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in February that the president does not have blanket or absolute immunity for all actions taken in office, including “official” acts performed under the guise of executing the law (for example, Trump’s attempt to weaponize the DOJ against election results under the pretense of investigating fraud). The D.C. Circuit’s emphatic, cross-ideological decision should have been summarily affirmed by SCOTUS within days. Instead, the justices set it for arguments two months down the road—a bad omen, to put it mildly . Even then, many court watchers held out hope that Thursday morning’s oral arguments were to be the moment for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to finally indicate their readiness to take on Trump, Trumpism, illiberalism, and slouching fascism.

It was not to be. Justice Samuel Alito best captured the spirit of arguments when he asked gravely “what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society” (good start!), then answered his own question: total immunity for criminal presidents (oh, dear). Indeed, anything but immunity would, he suggested, encourage presidents to commit more crimes to stay in office: “Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Never mind that the president in question did not leave office peacefully and is not sitting quietly in retirement but is instead running for presidential office once again. No, if we want criminal presidents to leave office when they lose, we have to let them commit crimes scot-free. If ever a better articulation of the legal principle “Don’t make me hit you again” has been proffered at an oral argument, it’s hard to imagine it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke to this absurdity when she responded in what could only be heard as a cri de coeur: “Stable democratic society needs good faith of public officials,” she said. “That good faith assumes that they will follow the law.” The justice noted that despite all the protections in place, a democracy can sometimes “potentially fail.” She concluded: “In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”

But it was probably too late to make this plea, because by that point we had heard both Alito and Gorsuch opine that presidents must be protected at all costs from the whims of overzealous deep state prosecutors brandishing “vague” criminal statutes. We heard Kavanaugh opine mindlessly on the independent counsel statute and how mean it is to presidents, reading extensively from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a case arguing that independent counsels are unconstitutional. (Yes, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr , the independent counsel.) If you’re clocking a trend here, it’s gender. Just as was the case in Anderson , it’s the women justices doing the second-shift work here: both probing the thorny constitutional and criminal questions and signaling a refusal to tank democracy over abstractions and deflections. As was the case in the EMTALA arguments, it’s the women who understand what it looks like to cheat death.

Is the president, Sotomayor asked, immune from prosecution if he orders the military to assassinate a political rival? Yes, said John Sauer, who represented Trump—though it “depends on the circumstances.” Could the president, Justice Elena Kagan asked, order the military to stage a coup? Yes, Sauer said again, depending on the circumstances. To which Kagan tartly replied that Sauer’s insistence on specifying the “circumstances” boiled down to “Under my test, it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” (Cue polite laughter in the chamber.)

This shameless, maximalist approach should have drawn anger from the conservative justices—indignation, at least, that Sauer took them for such easy marks. But it turns out that he calibrated his terrible arguments just right. The cynicism on display was truly breathtaking: Alito winkingly implied to Michael Dreeben, representing Smith, that we all know that Justice Department lawyers are political hacks, right? Roberts mocked Dreeben for saying “There’s no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith.”

The conservative justices are so in love with their own voices and so convinced of their own rectitude that they monologued about how improper it was for Dreeben to keep talking about the facts of this case, as opposed to the “abstract” principles at play. “I’m talking about the future!” Kavanaugh declared at one point to Dreeben, pitching himself not as Trump’s human shield but as a principled defender of the treasured constitutional right of all presidents to do crime. (We’re sure whatever rule he cooks up will apply equally to Democratic presidents, right?) Kavanaugh eventually landed on the proposition that prosecutors may charge presidents only under criminal statutes that explicitly state they can be applied to the president. Which, as Sotomayor pointed out, would mean no charges everywhere, because just a tiny handful of statutes are stamped with the label “CAN BE APPLIED TO PRESIDENT.”

The words bold and fearless action were repeated on a loop today, as a kind of mantra of how effective presidents must be free to act quickly and decisively to save democracy from the many unanticipated threats it faces. And yet the court—which has been asked to take bold and fearless action to deter the person who called Georgia’s secretary of state to demand that he alter the vote count, and threatened to fire DOJ officials who would not help steal an election—is backing away from its own duty. The prospect of a criminal trial for a criminal president shocked and appalled five men: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch suggested that Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional; meanwhile, Roberts sounded eager at times to handle the case just a hair more gracefully: by cutting out its heart by preventing the jury from hearing about “official acts” (which lie at the center of the alleged conspiracy). Justice Amy Coney Barrett was far more measured, teasing out a compromise with Dreeben that would compel the trial court to tell the jury it could not impose criminal liability for these “official” acts, only “private ones.” Remember, drawing that line would require months of hearings and appeals, pushing any trial into 2025 or beyond. The president who tried to steal the most recent election is running in the next one, which is happening in mere months.

The liberal justices tried their best to make the case that justice required denying Trump’s sweeping immunity claim, permitting the trial to move forward, and sorting out lingering constitutional issues afterward, as virtually all other criminal defendants must do. They got little traction. Everyone on that bench was well aware that the entire nation was listening to arguments; that the whole nation wants to understand whether Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election was an existential threat to democracy or a lark. Five justices sent the message, loud and clear, that they are far more worried about Trump’s prosecution at the hands of the deep-state DOJ than about his alleged crimes, which were barely mentioned. This trial will almost certainly face yet more delays. These delays might mean that its subject could win back the presidency in the meantime and render the trial moot. But the court has now signaled that nothing he did was all that serious and that the danger he may pose is not worth reining in. The real threats they see are the ones Trump himself shouts from the rooftops: witch hunts and partisan Biden prosecutors. These men have picked their team. The rest hardly matters.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

By Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Boston University.

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the district attorney has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to state and local races.

Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and that only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. He may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive state investigators, too. State investigators could find these inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.

However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan district attorney’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.

Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case , in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”

As a reality check: It is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed , “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed , “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.

The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.

In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the Manhattan district attorney is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal.

First, I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime. Whether state prosecutors have avoided doing so as a matter of law, norms or lack of expertise, this novel attempt is a sign of overreach.

Second, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The district attorney responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, the prosecutors could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute (a plea deal and a single jury instruction do not count).

Third, no New York precedent has allowed an interpretation of defrauding the general public. Legal experts have noted that such a broad “election interference” theory is unprecedented, and a conviction based on it may not survive a state appeal.

Mr. Trump’s legal team also undercut itself for its decisions in the past year: His lawyers essentially put all of their eggs in the meritless basket of seeking to move the trial to federal court, instead of seeking a federal injunction to stop the trial entirely. If they had raised the issues of selective or vindictive prosecution and a mix of jurisdictional, pre-emption and constitutional claims, they could have delayed the trial past Election Day, even if they lost at each federal stage.

Another reason a federal crime has wound up in state court is that President Biden’s Justice Department bent over backward not to reopen this valid case or appoint a special counsel. Mr. Trump has tried to blame Mr. Biden for this prosecution as the real “election interference.” The Biden administration’s extra restraint belies this allegation and deserves more credit.

Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law. This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America — and promote bipartisan reforms of our partisan prosecutorial system.

Nevertheless, prosecutors should have some latitude to develop their case during trial, and maybe they will be more careful and precise about the underlying crime, fraud and the jurisdictional questions. Mr. Trump has received sufficient notice of the charges, and he can raise his arguments on appeal. One important principle of “ our Federalism ,” in the Supreme Court’s terms, is abstention , that federal courts should generally allow state trials to proceed first and wait to hear challenges later.

This case is still an embarrassment, in terms of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selectivity. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all.

Jed Handelsman Shugerman (@jedshug) is a law professor at Boston University.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .