ClimateVoices Featuring Kathrin Winkler

In this issue I’m pleased to be talking to an award-winning veteran sustainability executive (former CSO at EMC Corporation, now Dell EMC ), Kathrin Winkler . She now shares her expertise beyond the corporate walls, mentoring emerging leaders in the field. (She also chairs ClimateVoice ’s Advisory Board.) Earlier in the month we both participated in a panel discussion at (the 2023 Trellis Group conference) focusing on the disconnect between companies’ sustainability mojo and their lobbying efforts on climate.

Why are so many companies doing one thing on sustainability in their operations, and something completely different on climate policy advocacy?

I’m not sure most companies are doing something different with their climate policy advocacy so much as not doing anything at all. There seem to be three main forces that are causing them to keep mum.

First, and probably foremost, is immediacy. There are issues that leadership perceive as major threats or opportunities to the business in the very near term, and they are sucking all the air out of the room, resulting in the discounting of long term existential issues. It’s also sometimes the case that the companies are afraid of antagonizing policy-makers whose goodwill they’re relying on for some other law or regulation – taxes, privacy, employment law, etc.

More recently, and most salient, is the fear of financial retaliation fostered by the anti-ESG movement. Texas is banning government agencies from doing business with investors like BlackRock for backing off harmful investments in fossil fuels (which Texas calls a “boycott ”). A few years back, Delta saw their tax breaks in Georgia threatened over their gun policies. And of course, the most recent poster child is Disney with regard to Florida’s Don’t Say Gay bill. On that, it’s worth noting that Disney’s problem started because they did NOT speak out, and that their problem was one of timing – they missed the crest of the wave and got sucked under.

The third problem is lack of infrastructure. Most companies have not put in place processes to learn about policy that aligns with their goals and on which they could have an impact. They’ve not developed clear principles over what types of policies they endorse, nor the forums and mechanisms to evaluate risks and opportunities, assess their leverage, obtain authority to act, determine the best channel, and then act.

For sure, there are companies taking a stand, but not nearly enough. There is a huge gap in the causality map between individual company actions and staying below a 1.5°C target. Very few would argue that we can close it without appropriate policy to drive the magnitude of decarbonization we need.

But these obstacles are absolutely not insurmountable, as was amply displayed and explained by the panelists in our session.

Without exception, they spoke of the importance of partnerships with organizations that can highlight where their advocacy will matter, explain the policy implications, identify key players and provide access to them, and offer opportunities to participate in group action and communications. These are organizations like Ceres, Inc. , WWF , Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) , World Resources Institute , and more.

Internal partnerships are also critical. The Sustainability and Government Affairs teams need to come together as peers. For the sustainability folks, it’s not just about educating the public affairs people about climate change; it’s also about listening, learning, and understanding their roles to find common paths forward.

These leading companies have put the necessary infrastructure in place starting with clear principles that articulate what the company stands for. Salesforce, for example, has published their “Global Climate Policy Principles ,” which serves three purposes: internal alignment to minimize fighting over priorities every time an advocacy opportunity arises; clear communication to all stakeholders on what they stand for; and both a challenge to and starting point for other companies.

Lastly, these companies all have clear mechanisms for reviewing, discussing, and deciding what to do. And yes, leadership from the top matters. A lot.

What can employees at a company do to bring their policy efforts into alignment? From an insider perspective, what works?

Individuals who are not part of the sustainability or government affairs teams will definitely want to find – or create – a community of peers who can raise their voices together.

Together – and separately – they should do their homework: What policies are on the table? Where are the disconnects? The opportunities? What are peer companies doing? Who are the internal influencers? Has the company already said anything? To what trade associations does the company belong and what are those associations saying? In short, figure out what the ask is. It’s important, too, to understand and be able to articulate how and why it’s important to the company. Bringing in a speaker is one way they can galvanize the group and help it to focus on specific action.

Employees should leverage the communications channels in the company – between peers, through direct management, and to executives. I just spoke with someone who co-wrote a letter to the CEO and scored a meeting to discuss the importance of advocacy. In my own experience, I learned not to let intimidation stop me from walking up to an exec or board member in the hallway and starting a conversation.

Foremost, I will point them to ClimateVoice’s website , where employees can find policy guidebooks , specific campaigns to formulate the requests of companies, facts to support the importance of corporate advocacy, and more.

What could motivate companies to disavow the pro-fossil-fuel policy stances of their trade associations and how can they make clear that they support public policy that could drive rapid economy-wide decarbonization?

Companies are being scrutinized – by employees, investors, media outlets, non-profits, and even the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – for inconsistencies in their public statements. And from both sides of the aisle. Allowing a trade group to represent your company in a position that is counter to its commitment to climate action is a form of hypocrisy, and companies are increasingly being called out on it.

Many are surprised when confronted with the data on lobbying dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry and by trade groups to prevent action that the company needs to meet its climate – and increasingly its business – goals. Organizations like InfluenceMap , and public tools like ClimateVoice ’s past scorecards are raising awareness and challenging companies to raise their voices.

And there are multiple channels for doing so. The panelists in our session agreed it was an “all of the above” approach, picking the method that’s right for the audience and makes the most of where a company has leverage. These range from op-ed pieces to public policy briefs to (at least a few years ago) Super Bowl ads, to amicus briefs for issues before the judiciary, and to meetings on the Hill. Note that the latter need to take place across the aisle to change minds, but also on the same side so that like-minded policy-makers have evidence that business has their backs.

A company’s employees, customers, and other stakeholders will want to see that the company is taking a stand. Peers will know that the company has spoken and be encouraged to join the chorus. But the panel agreed that sometimes it has to be kept under wraps, especially when speaking to someone for whom it’s a politically sensitive issue; someone who is willing to discuss climate action only if they are not “outed” to their base. It’s a form of “green-hushing,” which is understandable, but is a shame because it fails to encourage others to speak out.

In addition to speaking out on their support for public policy, companies need to explicitly state their opposition to the associations’ stance. They must use whatever leverage they have, and work with like-minded peers – to make change from within. And eventually, if there is no progress, it will be time to withdraw with a clear public statement as to why.

It really is amazing that companies can make full-throated statements about the importance of acting on climate while recusing themselves from the discussion of policies needed to achieve their climate goals – let alone our planetary limits – except through the voices of industry representatives saying exactly the opposite. How is that OK?

Bonus question: In Big Tech, they call me a “shit stirrer” – and I loved that nickname. What’s your moniker?

Not that anyone’s been willing to repeat to my face. But I have noted how often people say to me, “Thank you for your candor” with expressions that decidedly do not portray gratitude. (On the other hand, I had a brief stint last year as “the oldest ball kid at the Indian Wells tennis tournament.”)

Keep up with?ClimateVoices?– now an online Q&A penned by leading climate thinkers and doers.?Follow ClimateVoice to be alerted when additional interviews are published monthly.

The opinions and views expressed in this interview are solely those of the individual(s) being interviewed. They may not reflect the views, policies, or positions of ClimateVoice, the employer(s) of the individual(s) being interviewed, nor of any other organizations with which the individual(s) being interviewed are affiliated. This interview is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as an endorsement or official statement on behalf of such employer(s) or organization(s).