Uplift your ESG and Sustainability efforts with expert advice and counsel.
External guidance and counsel is like a gift. It keeps on giving.
Every company should establish a process to annually uplift its ESG and Sustainability programmes with external guidance and review. The added value from an external advisor also helps harness the internal skills of those managing the programmes more effectively.
Learn more about uplifting your programmes by reading some of our client stories.
Materiality assessments done quickly and without the right people involved lead to inaction and confusion.
Most companies carry out a materiality assessment, but sometimes, this is viewed as the end of the initiative rather than the beginning.
Reviewing the methodology of the materiality assessment is crucial, as it drives the future development of initiatives and programmes.
Results
A revised materiality assessment that triggers specific actions in programme development.
A material assessment system that defines an annual review cycle and a structure for renewal.
Key increase in understanding of ESG and Sustainability risks by broadening the attendees.
Situation or challenge
Our client had completed a materiality assessment led by the compliance and legal departments. Once finalised, the assessment was distributed across the business, receiving mixed reviews. They sought to revisit the process, the attendees, and the structure of the materiality assessment. Additionally, they wanted to broaden the pool of experts, incorporate external perspectives, and reconsider additional risks.
Solution
Our solution was to apply our Speeki Uplift™ system to identify opportunities for reviewing and improving the materiality assessment process. Rather than reconducting the assessment itself, we focused on suggesting areas for enhancement and uplifting the quality of the assessment.
Results
The results clearly indicated that the company had significant work to do in integrating ESG risks into their existing materiality assessment process.
The major issue was a lack of definition and understanding of the ESG risk areas, coupled with an underappreciation of the impact that ESG risk failures could have on the business.
The aim of making the materiality assessment system more robust, relevant, understood, and efficient was successfully achieved.
