Violent conflict is a pervasive feature of human history with major consequences for individuals, communities, and economies. It disrupts labor markets, weakens institutions, and reshapes the conditions under which entrepreneurship emerges. While entrepreneurship can serve as a mechanism for coping and recovery, it is also constrained by heightened uncertainty and reduced opportunity structures. Using institutional and social cognitive theory, this study examines how violent conflict affects both the likelihood and type of entrepreneurship. Based on a large cross-country dataset combining Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data with Global Peace Index indicators, the findings show that violent conflict reduces overall entrepreneurial engagement while increasing the share of necessity-driven entrepreneurship relative to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. Socio-cognitive characteristics moderate these effects, influencing how individuals interpret and respond to conflict environments.

Despite more than fifty years of criticism, GDP remains the dominant indicator for assessing national and international economic performance. Its persistence is not only technical but institutional and political. GDP-based growth models incentivize environmental degradation, underestimate systemic risk, and contribute to social and geopolitical instability. The gap between what is known about GDP’s limitations and what is acted upon has become unsustainable.

A McCain Institute delegation of Africa and Middle East Global Leaders visited Kenya to study how institutions, civil society, and community organizations contribute to conflict resolution and democratic resilience. In Nairobi and Mombasa, participants engaged with UN offices, regional security forces, government bodies, and grassroots initiatives focused on governance, peacebuilding, youth innovation, and women’s economic empowerment. The program emphasized locally driven solutions, cross-sector collaboration, and the role of community leadership in sustaining long-term peace and social cohesion.

A workshop in Kaduna, organized by Mind Reformers Network with support from the Kofi Annan Foundation, trained over 50 young leaders in peacebuilding skills. Participants learned about addressing bias, leadership, responsible activism, community engagement, and using digital storytelling to promote peace. Speakers emphasized integrity, inclusion of youth and women, and practical conflict resolution. The event ended with action plans for participants to implement peace initiatives in their communities.

Social enterprises are growing as a response to declining traditional development funding and global economic shifts. They combine profit-making with social and environmental goals, aiming to build more inclusive and sustainable systems. Examples include businesses providing clean water, healthcare access, ethical manufacturing, and public service innovation. The model is expanding globally, with millions of enterprises generating large-scale employment and revenue while addressing social challenges. Governments and companies increasingly use social procurement and collaboration with these enterprises to improve resilience, services, and supply chain stability.

Social impact work in 2026 is increasingly shaped by funding cuts, political pressure, and skepticism toward ESG and DEI. Organizations are shifting from broad claims to concrete, locally visible results. Impact is being integrated into core business decisions such as risk, supply chains, and workforce strategy rather than treated as a separate agenda. Key challenges include burnout, communication risks, and the need for stronger collaboration to sustain progress.

Corporate social impact in 2026 faces tighter budgets, rising expectations, and higher scrutiny. The focus shifts to aligning CSR with core business goals, especially workforce development, risk, and long-term value. Companies are prioritizing measurable outcomes, local community needs, and employee involvement. Authenticity and consistency are critical, as stakeholders judge actions more than statements. Despite uncertainty, most firms expect CSR funding to remain stable or grow, reinforcing the need for long-term commitment and integration into business strategy.

The article argues that 2026 is a turning point where peacebuilding becomes a strategic global priority. Governments and institutions are shifting resources from conflict and defense toward climate resilience, youth development, and cooperation. Peace is framed as a practical system tied to stability, economic performance, and innovation rather than an ideal. Key trends include integrating peace into climate policy, AI governance, investment decisions, and education. The central message is that cooperation and inclusive systems are now seen as essential for long-term prosperity and security.

Digital technologies are increasingly used in UN peacebuilding to improve conflict analysis, communication, and inclusivity in mediation processes. They allow faster access to information, real-time monitoring, and remote engagement with conflict parties. They also expand participation in peace processes by including groups such as women, youth, and hard-to-reach communities, when access is available. However, they introduce risks including misinformation, cybersecurity threats, reduced trust, and unequal access to technology. The UN uses risk-management approaches to balance these benefits and challenges in mediation and peace operations.

European Parliament approved a negotiating position to simplify EU sustainability reporting and corporate due diligence rules. Only very large companies would be affected. Sustainability reporting would apply mainly to firms with over 1,750 employees and more than €450 million in annual turnover. Requirements would be reduced, with fewer details needed and sector-specific reporting made optional. Smaller companies would be shielded from additional data requests by larger partners. Due diligence obligations would be limited to corporations with over 5,000 employees and more than €1.5 billion turnover. These firms would follow a risk-based approach instead of systematically collecting data from smaller suppliers. They would no longer be required to create transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. Liability for breaches would remain at national level, with full compensation required for victims. A new EU digital portal would centralize templates, guidance, and information on reporting obligations. Negotiations with EU governments begin on 18 November, with the goal of final adoption by the end of 2025.

The article explains the European Parliament’s position on reforms to EU sustainability rules (CSRD and CSDDD). The Parliament supports simplifying and scaling back obligations, significantly raising thresholds so only very large companies are covered. For reporting (CSRD), requirements are reduced with fewer data points and stricter limits on value chain information requests. For due diligence (CSDDD), obligations apply only to the largest corporations and are based on a risk-focused approach rather than full supply chain mapping. Companies are expected to rely on already available information, with limited ability to request data from smaller partners. The mandatory climate transition plan is removed. Enforcement remains at national level, potentially creating differences between Member States. Overall, the reform prioritizes reducing compliance costs and improving competitiveness, with trilogue negotiations expected in 2026.

The article provides an ESG regulatory update covering EU, UK, and international developments. In the EU, the Parliament advances simplification of CSRD and CSDDD by raising thresholds and reducing reporting and due diligence obligations, alongside other measures such as CBAM simplification and new rules on textiles under extended producer responsibility. The Commission also proposes delays and simplifications in several sustainability frameworks, including deforestation rules and SFDR. In the UK, updates include expanded climate agreement eligibility, changes to packaging EPR rules, and new expectations for ESG reporting, including FCA and ESG ratings regulation. Internationally, developments include transition finance guidelines, COP30 negotiations, and legal uncertainty in US climate disclosure rules. Overall, the update highlights a global trend toward both sustainability regulation expansion and parallel simplification efforts, with increasing focus on reporting efficiency and regulatory coordination.

The article argues that despite the European Parliament scaling back CSRD and CSDDD obligations, sustainability expectations from investors, customers, and markets continue to increase. While fewer companies are now legally required to report due to higher thresholds and reduced due diligence duties, transparency remains strategically important. It highlights that supply chain risks, climate impacts, and human rights issues remain material regardless of regulation. Companies are encouraged to maintain or expand voluntary ESG reporting to preserve trust, access capital, and strengthen competitiveness. Sustainability data is presented as a strategic asset for risk management and business performance, not just compliance. The piece emphasizes the importance of robust Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities (IRO) assessments, alignment with global standards like ISSB and ESRS, and stronger data verification. It concludes that companies acting early on transparency and governance can turn regulatory simplification into a competitive advantage.

The article analyzes the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which introduces mandatory due diligence obligations on large companies from 2027. It requires firms to prevent, mitigate, and address human rights and environmental impacts across their entire global supply chains, including indirect partners outside the EU. The directive marks a shift toward a more interventionist EU approach, extending corporate responsibility beyond direct suppliers and across global value chains. It also has extraterritorial reach, requiring compliance even from non-EU actors within supply networks. The author highlights a broader regulatory shift in the EU toward stricter corporate accountability compared to more cautious national approaches, such as Italy’s gradual regulation of outsourcing. While the rules increase compliance obligations, they may also create competitive advantages for companies that adopt strong sustainability and governance standards early.

The article presents research by Dr Michael Mascolo on applying the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Positive Peace framework to business organisations. It argues that companies can achieve both profit and employee wellbeing by adopting nine interconnected principles, including inclusive leadership, equitable resources, transparency, investment in people, and low corruption. The model shows that these factors reinforce each other through system dynamics, where improvements in workplace culture and emotional intelligence lead to higher productivity, lower stress, and better financial outcomes. The concept reframes peace as effective conflict management rather than absence of conflict. Overall, the research claims that organisations integrating Positive Peace principles can achieve stronger financial performance while also improving employee satisfaction and long-term sustainability.

The paper analyzes how climate change intensifies fragility and conflict risks in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS), creating a cycle of instability that also disrupts business operations and supply chains. It argues that businesses can play a key role in building climate resilience and supporting peace by investing in sectors like energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and early warning systems. It presents examples where climate-related investments contributed to both economic development and conflict reduction, while also warning that weak governance, insecurity, and high financial risk limit investment in these regions. Poorly designed projects can also worsen tensions if they ignore local dynamics. The report recommends that companies integrate conflict sensitivity into investment decisions, build strong local partnerships, and treat resilience as a core business strategy. Governments and financial institutions should reduce investment risk through blended finance, guarantees, and stronger governance frameworks.

The article critiques the limitations of ESG and SDG frameworks in fragile and conflict-affected settings, arguing that they lack sufficient operational clarity and fail to capture local dimensions of insecurity and social impact. It proposes a human security business partnership model as an alternative approach that redefines the social dimension of ESG through concrete conditions such as safety, livelihoods, and dignity. The framework emphasizes continuous, participatory engagement between companies and local stakeholders to jointly identify risks, design interventions, and evaluate outcomes over time. Unlike traditional ESG systems that rely on standardized indicators and inside-out risk assessments, this approach integrates local realities and treats social impact as a dynamic and relational process. Evidence from case studies in Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo shows that structured partnerships can improve trust, enable economic integration, and generate tangible improvements in infrastructure and community well-being, even in fragile contexts.

The document outlines the UN Global Compact’s approach to business engagement in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, emphasizing responsible business practices as a mechanism for supporting peace, stability, and sustainable development. It highlights that companies operating in fragile contexts face elevated risks, and failure to apply responsible practices can intensify social tensions and instability. The initiative promotes alignment with the Ten Principles and encourages companies to integrate responsible business conduct into operations to mitigate risk and contribute to long-term societal stability and business resilience. It underscores the importance of collaboration with local stakeholders, arguing that peacebuilding efforts must be context-specific and grounded in local realities. The text also emphasizes the role of investors in driving responsible corporate behavior through engagement and structured dialogue, referencing guidance developed jointly with the Principles for Responsible Investment. It promotes collective action platforms such as Business for Peace and Global Compact Local Networks as mechanisms to facilitate partnerships and knowledge sharing at country level.

The document is a global regulatory update covering ESG and climate-related financial policy developments across major jurisdictions. It reports increasing regulatory fragmentation: the EU is simultaneously simplifying sustainability reporting rules (CSRD/ESRS/SFDR reforms) while reinforcing scenario analysis and ESG risk supervision; the UK is formalizing ESG ratings regulation under FCA oversight; and the US is rolling back federal climate-risk guidance for large banks while California continues developing mandatory corporate climate disclosure rules. Asia-Pacific regulators (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) are strengthening climate risk management frameworks and sustainable finance taxonomies, while Brazil introduces a national sustainable taxonomy aligned with international climate and biodiversity agreements. Overall, the trend shows divergence between regulatory tightening in some regions and simplification or rollback in others, creating compliance complexity for financial institutions and investors.

This monthly legal bulletin reviews major developments in sustainability regulation, litigation, and policy. It highlights outcomes from COP30 in Brazil, including new global climate governance mechanisms, increased adaptation finance targets, and updates on carbon markets and loss-and-damage funding. It also covers tightening and restructuring of ESG disclosure regimes across jurisdictions, including EU reforms to CSRD, CSDDD, and SFDR, alongside ongoing debates over the scope and timing of implementation. In the US, regulatory uncertainty continues around California climate disclosure laws and federal withdrawal from climate-risk frameworks, while litigation over state-level climate legislation intensifies. Financial sector regulation is evolving through new ISSB work on nature-related disclosures, updated ESG ratings standards in the EU and UK, and revisions to transition bond frameworks. The report also tracks enforcement and litigation trends in greenwashing, supply chain traceability rules, energy policy shifts, and emerging market measures such as SAF levies and carbon removal strategies.

The article examines how EU sustainability regulation and global ESG policy shifts are reshaping corporate strategy, supply chain finance, and legal exposure. It focuses on the European Union’s Green Deal framework, particularly the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), both of which are now facing significant political pressure and proposed scope reductions under the EU Omnibus simplification package. These reforms would sharply reduce the number of companies covered and narrow due diligence obligations across supply chains. The piece also highlights a broader political shift away from aggressive net-zero regulation, influenced by economic competitiveness concerns, changes in EU political leadership, and regulatory rollback trends in the United States. For corporates, this creates uncertainty around compliance obligations and strategic planning, especially in cross-border operations. Despite regulatory uncertainty, sustainable supply chain finance activity continues, though growth is slowing. Banks still support sustainability-linked trade finance, but deal structures are becoming more cautious due to legal risk, reputational concerns, and inconsistent ESG definitions. A key challenge is the lack of standardized ESG metrics, particularly for SMEs embedded in global supply chains, which face disproportionate reporting burdens and limited access to green finance tools. Overall, the article argues that while regulatory momentum is temporarily weakening, underlying market and financing trends toward decarbonisation remain intact, driven by investor pressure, operational risk management, and long-term supply chain resilience needs.

The article outlines key developments in EU sustainability regulation during November 2025, focusing on CBAM, EUDR, and the ESG Omnibus package. For CBAM, the European Commission introduced rules for verifier accreditation, establishing mandatory independent verification of emissions data starting in 2026, alongside new oversight mechanisms and pending emissions benchmarks. Companies are advised to prepare early by securing verifiers, strengthening internal data systems, and maintaining transitional reporting compliance. Regarding the EUDR, a critical European Parliament vote could delay implementation by one year, but uncertainty remains due to fragmented political support. Until any change is formally adopted, current deadlines still apply, requiring companies to continue building traceability systems. The ESG Omnibus is nearing final agreement, with trilogue negotiations expected to conclude in December and legal adoption shortly after. The reform signals a shift from broad compliance requirements toward a more risk-based framework, emphasizing targeted management of high-risk supply chain areas while maintaining reporting obligations under CSRD.

The European Parliament has voted to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by one year, pushing compliance obligations for large and medium companies to the end of 2026. The vote also requests an early 2026 review of the regulation, opening the door to further simplification before full enforcement begins. The decision aligns with the Council’s position, creating a shared political direction toward postponement and reduced regulatory scope. The EUDR aims to prevent EU-linked consumption from driving global deforestation by requiring companies to trace commodities such as soy, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, timber, beef, and rubber back to specific production plots and prove compliance with local laws. Concerns over the readiness of the EU’s digital compliance infrastructure contributed to the delay, alongside pressure to reduce administrative burdens on businesses. While some simplification measures had already been introduced, including reduced reporting obligations for downstream operators, the latest vote further extends timelines and increases regulatory uncertainty. Companies that have already invested in traceability systems argue that repeated changes disadvantage early movers and weaken predictability in supply chain planning.

The European Parliament has backed further weakening of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), reducing its scope and compliance requirements after months of pressure from companies and some foreign governments. The revised position raises applicability thresholds significantly, limiting the directive to firms with at least 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover, and removing obligations for companies to publish climate transition plans. The changes also expand exemptions from reporting duties, removing around 90% of companies previously covered. The directive, originally designed to enforce human rights and environmental standards across corporate supply chains, has become a major political point of contention within the EU. Supporters of the amendments argue that the changes reduce regulatory burden and improve EU competitiveness, while critics warn they weaken accountability for corporate environmental and social impacts. The Parliament’s position now moves into negotiations with EU governments for a final agreement expected by the end of 2025.

The European Parliament has voted to significantly weaken the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), reducing its scope and corporate accountability requirements across global supply chains. The revised position raises compliance thresholds to companies with more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover, excluding a large share of firms previously covered under the original framework. The directive, originally introduced to address human rights abuses, forced labour, deforestation, and environmental harm, will also lose its EU-wide civil liability regime and key climate-related obligations. As a result, enforcement would shift to fragmented national legal systems, reducing regulatory consistency across member states. The changes follow political pressure from centre-right and far-right groups, alongside lobbying from some foreign governments and fossil fuel companies. Supporters of strong due diligence rules argue that dilution of the law undermines protections against modern slavery and weakens supply chain accountability. Final negotiations between EU institutions are expected to conclude in late 2025.

The Reuters Impact Global Sustainability Report 2025 indicates that ESG strategies are increasingly central to corporate leadership agendas, with a growing divide between companies advancing sustainability efforts and those slowing down. The report is based on a Q3 2025 survey of executives and sustainability decision-makers. Around three-quarters of C-suite executives now view sustainability as highly important to leadership strategy, reflecting a continued upward trend despite external pressures that were expected to reduce commitment. This reinforces the idea that ESG is becoming structurally embedded in corporate decision-making rather than declining in relevance. Key drivers include climate-related risks, supply chain vulnerabilities, and resource constraints, cited by a majority of executives as primary reasons for prioritizing sustainability. Additional factors include customer expectations, regulatory developments, and brand considerations. ESG is therefore increasingly framed as a risk management and resilience function rather than purely an ethical initiative. The data also shows a widening performance gap: more companies are increasing sustainability targets than reducing them, and a significant share has not changed strategy, highlighting divergence in corporate ESG momentum.

European corporate earnings expectations have improved, with third-quarter profit growth now forecast at 6.2%, up from earlier estimates, reflecting stronger-than-expected resilience among companies. Despite this, revenue forecasts have weakened, continuing a pattern where earnings growth outpaces sales performance. Companies have managed recent trade and economic uncertainty through measures such as frontloading exports, adjusting supply chains, raising prices, and reducing costs. Earlier concerns about tariffs have eased following trade agreements that resulted in lower-than-expected rates, helping stabilize the outlook for European firms. However, structural challenges remain, including revenue contraction and widening performance divergence between European and US companies. US firms continue to show significantly stronger earnings growth, highlighting a growing transatlantic gap in corporate performance. Upcoming results from major industrial and insurance companies are expected to provide further insight into how European businesses are adapting to persistent macroeconomic pressures.

The Oxford-GlobeScan Global Corporate Affairs Survey 2025 examines the evolving priorities and risks faced by 245 senior corporate affairs professionals across 44 countries. The findings show that geopolitical instability remains the dominant concern, with 76% of respondents identifying it as a top risk, driven by ongoing conflicts, trade tensions, and rising political fragmentation. Macroeconomic instability and regulatory uncertainty follow closely, reflecting a volatile global operating environment. Despite these challenges, artificial intelligence and digital innovation are seen as the most important short-term opportunities for businesses, alongside sustainable growth strategies and economic development objectives. ESG priorities are shifting under political pressure, with climate change, diversity and inclusion, and governance remaining central but increasingly polarised across regions. Some companies are scaling back public commitments, while others are reinforcing them. The report also highlights a broader strategic shift within corporate affairs functions toward stakeholder engagement, trust-building, and reputation management. While AI adoption is increasing in operational roles, corporate affairs professionals continue to face difficulty in clearly demonstrating their business value. Overall, the function is becoming more central to navigating geopolitical risk, regulatory complexity, and stakeholder expectations in a fragmented global landscape.

The article examines the evolving role of the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) amid increasing political and regulatory pressure on ESG initiatives, particularly in the United States under the Trump administration. With major asset managers such as BlackRock and Vanguard stepping back from collective climate-related initiatives like Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, the PRI faces the challenge of maintaining cohesion among global investors with diverging regional priorities. New interim CEO Cambria Allen-Ratzlaff and outgoing CEO David Atkin emphasize the organization’s goal of adapting its services while balancing expectations from both U.S. and European signatories. They acknowledge criticism that ESG initiatives may have become overly complex or politically exposed and highlight ongoing adjustments, including simplification of reporting requirements and renewed focus on emerging markets. The discussion also touches on legal and political risks in the U.S., including antitrust concerns and state-level lawsuits questioning investor coordination on climate goals. Looking ahead to COP30 in Brazil, PRI leadership stresses the importance of institutional investor engagement with governments and the need to unlock greater private capital flows into developing economies for sustainable energy transition efforts.

The Global Risks Report 2025 outlines a world facing increasing fragmentation driven by interconnected geopolitical, environmental, societal, and technological threats. Based on insights from more than 900 experts through the Global Risks Perception Survey, the report highlights how risks are intensifying across short-, medium-, and long-term horizons, complicating decision-making for governments and organizations. Key concerns include rising geopolitical tensions, environmental degradation, and the spread of disinformation, all of which undermine global stability and cooperation. The report emphasizes that these overlapping crises are not isolated but mutually reinforcing, requiring coordinated international responses. It also points to widening structural divides, such as demographic imbalances and uneven economic development, which further strain resilience. Overall, the report stresses the urgency of strengthening global collaboration and proactive risk management to prevent long-term systemic breakdowns.

The OECD’s overview of development co-operation explains its role in setting international standards, monitoring implementation, and supporting countries in delivering effective development assistance. It highlights how the organization works with member states, partner countries, and multilateral institutions to improve the quality and impact of aid, particularly through data analysis, peer learning, and policy guidance. A central focus is tracking official development assistance (ODA) flows, which vary significantly across providers, and enabling comparisons to better understand global financing trends. The OECD also emphasizes the importance of civil society organizations in both shaping and implementing development initiatives, distinguishing between funds directed to and through these actors. Through tools, reports, and collaborative platforms, the OECD aims to strengthen evaluation systems, promote best practices, and enhance accountability. Overall, the initiative seeks to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and long-term impact of global development efforts.

The article presents research by Dr. Michael Mascolo exploring how the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Positive Peace framework can be applied to business organizations to improve both profitability and employee wellbeing. It argues that companies often operate under a traditional profit-first model that creates tension between financial goals and human needs, but that this conflict can be resolved through a systems-based approach. The proposed model adapts the eight pillars of Positive Peace into nine organizational principles, including inclusive leadership, equitable resource distribution, transparent communication, investment in people, and low corruption. These elements are described as interconnected, generating reinforcing cycles where improvements in workplace culture lead to higher trust, productivity, and ultimately stronger financial performance. A key factor is socio-emotional intelligence, which enables healthier conflict management and collaboration within organizations. The research reframes peace in business as the ability to manage conflict constructively rather than its absence. Overall, it concludes that aligning profit with human wellbeing produces more sustainable and effective organizations.

This systematic literature review examines the relationship between business activity, conflict, and peacebuilding by analyzing 215 academic publications across multiple disciplines including management, political science, economics, law, and ethics. The study addresses inconsistencies in how research defines and evaluates the role of companies in peace and conflict, particularly differences in analytical levels and conceptual frameworks that have led to conflicting conclusions. By organizing and synthesizing existing scholarship, the authors identify the various ways businesses can influence peacebuilding outcomes, either intentionally or unintentionally. The review emphasizes that firms are not neutral actors; their operations can generate both positive and negative effects on peace and conflict dynamics depending on context and behavior. It argues that businesses have the capacity to actively contribute to peace-positive outcomes but also risk exacerbating conflict if not managed responsibly. The study calls for clearer theoretical frameworks and encourages further research on how organizations can systematically integrate peacebuilding objectives into their activities.

This publication addresses the growing need to integrate peacebuilding approaches into humanitarian, development, and climate-related interventions in fragile and conflict-affected settings. It argues that rising global conflict, climate shocks, economic instability, and displacement are increasingly interconnected, disproportionately affecting over two billion people living in such environments. The report emphasizes that conflict is one of the main barriers to sustainable development, limiting the effectiveness of aid delivery, climate adaptation, and economic progress. It proposes that integrating peace into broader sectoral work goes beyond conflict sensitivity by actively promoting measurable positive peace outcomes that strengthen social cohesion and long-term stability. Key components include conflict analysis, locally led solutions, inclusive and gender-sensitive programming, dialogue-based trust building, capacity development with local partners, and collaborative learning across sectors. The publication highlights that peacebuilding must be embedded into operational frameworks rather than treated as a separate agenda. It concludes that coordinated, locally informed, and cross-sector approaches are essential to addressing structural drivers of instability and achieving sustainable development outcomes in fragile contexts.

This publication examines how mining companies operating in fragile and conflict-affected settings can build effective partnerships with local communities to reduce risks and generate shared benefits. It focuses on the extraction of critical minerals, which are increasingly in demand due to the global green transition, and highlights how this demand intensifies both opportunities and tensions in vulnerable regions. The report argues that without a conflict-sensitive approach, mining operations can worsen local grievances, disrupt social structures, and trigger violence, displacement, or legal disputes. Through structured community engagement, including dialogue, transparency, and participation in decision-making, companies can instead strengthen trust, improve social cohesion, and contribute to long-term stability. A case study of Base Titanium in Kenya illustrates how early investment in trust-building helped repair damaged community relations and create more stable operating conditions. The publication emphasizes the importance of conflict analysis and accountability mechanisms as tools to align corporate activity with local needs. It concludes that responsible partnerships between companies and communities are essential for balancing commercial objectives with sustainable development in high-risk environments.

This paper explores investment in renewable energy projects within fragile and conflict-affected settings, focusing on both the opportunities and structural barriers faced by investors. It highlights that these environments often have high unmet energy demand and significant potential for economic and social transformation through renewable infrastructure. Benefits include job creation, improved public revenue through taxation, strengthened local skills development, and reduced inequality. However, investors frequently perceive these markets as high-risk due to political instability, weak institutions, and limited local knowledge, which increases transaction costs and discourages large-scale engagement. The report introduces the concept of “peace positive investment” as a framework to better align financial returns with stability outcomes, reducing risk while contributing to long-term peacebuilding. Drawing on consultations with investors active in or considering entry into FCAS markets, it identifies practical challenges and proposes solutions to make such investments more viable and scalable. The study concludes that structured, peace-oriented investment approaches can simultaneously improve market confidence, enhance returns, and support sustainable development in fragile contexts.

This policy brief examines the role of the private sector in advancing the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda by integrating gender equality considerations into business practices and broader economic systems. It emphasizes that private sector engagement is essential for achieving meaningful progress in women’s participation in peacebuilding and economic development processes. The document highlights how increasing women’s inclusion in national economies can significantly contribute to global GDP growth while also strengthening social stability and resilience in conflict-affected contexts. It reviews existing policy frameworks and identifies ways companies can align with governments, civil society, and international organizations to support WPS objectives. The brief also outlines lessons learned and best practices for operationalizing gender-sensitive approaches within corporate strategies. Key recommendations focus on improving collaboration mechanisms, enhancing accountability, and ensuring that women’s contributions are systematically recognized and supported. The overall argument is that private sector participation is not only socially beneficial but also economically advantageous in advancing sustainable peace and development.

The European Parliament has approved a position supporting significant simplification of corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements for businesses operating in the EU. The changes aim to reduce administrative burdens by limiting mandatory sustainability reporting to large companies with more than 1,750 employees and annual turnover above €450 million. Due diligence obligations would apply only to very large corporations exceeding 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, with a stronger focus on risk-based monitoring rather than systematic data collection from smaller suppliers. The reforms also remove certain requirements, such as mandatory transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement, and shift liability for non-compliance to the national level. Additionally, businesses would have access to a new EU digital portal offering templates, guidelines, and centralized information on reporting obligations. The Parliament frames the reform as a measure to enhance competitiveness, reduce costs, and stimulate investment while maintaining core sustainability objectives. Negotiations with EU member states are scheduled to begin, with final legislation expected by the end of 2025.

The article analyzes the transition of the fashion industry toward sustainability, focusing on ESG integration, regulatory developments, and market pressures. It highlights findings from the Just Fashion Transition 2025 report, which shows moderate industry growth potential but persistent structural weaknesses such as low productivity and limited adoption of already mature clean technologies due to cost constraints. Despite increasing corporate attention to environmental, social, and governance factors, most companies still treat sustainability as a compliance requirement rather than a core strategic driver. It also examines the evolving EU and Italian regulatory landscape, including proposed Italian certification for fashion supply chains, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and updated ESG reporting and due diligence frameworks (CSRD and CSDDD), alongside the emerging Extended Producer Responsibility rules for textiles. These frameworks collectively push toward greater traceability, transparency, and accountability across the supply chain. The core argument is that law should not only impose obligations but function as an enabling infrastructure that supports innovation, strengthens governance, and enhances competitiveness. Sustainability is framed as a structural transformation tool for the industry rather than an external constraint.

The European Commission introduced ReMIS (Responsible Mineral Information System), a voluntary digital platform designed to increase transparency in mineral supply chains. It allows companies involved in the extraction and processing of minerals—including 3TG materials and other strategic metals—to register and share due diligence practices. The initiative complements, rather than replaces, existing legal obligations under EU Regulation 2017/821 on conflict minerals. ReMIS aims to improve traceability and corporate accountability by enabling firms to publish supply chain information and demonstrate compliance with responsible sourcing standards. The broader objective is to reduce the risk that mineral trade contributes to armed conflict, human rights abuses, or illegal exploitation in high-risk regions. The system is aligned with international frameworks such as OECD guidelines and UN principles on business and human rights. The platform is part of the EU strategy to secure sustainable access to raw materials while strengthening ethical governance in global supply chains through transparency and voluntary disclosure mechanisms.

The article examines the growing backlash against corporate purpose initiatives that go beyond profit maximization. In recent years, many companies have adopted purpose-driven strategies aimed at addressing social and environmental issues while strengthening stakeholder relationships. However, by 2025, these initiatives face increasing scrutiny from multiple fronts, including public criticism, customer boycotts, political disputes, and investor skepticism. The authors highlight that this backlash is creating a volatile environment for businesses attempting to balance commercial goals with broader societal commitments. As a result, companies are being forced to reassess how they define, communicate, and implement purpose within their strategies. The central tension lies between authentic integration of purpose into business models and the perception that such initiatives may be symbolic or politically risky. The article suggests that the effectiveness of purpose-driven strategies depends on credibility, consistency, and alignment with core operations rather than standalone social messaging.

The article reports on the European Union’s decision to scale back key sustainability disclosure regulations, including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The revised rules significantly reduce the number of companies required to report ESG data and remove certain obligations, such as mandatory climate transition plans. Investors express concern that reduced reporting requirements will weaken transparency and make it harder to assess which companies are genuinely transitioning toward low-carbon operations. Without consistent and comparable data, financial actors argue that risk evaluation, climate strategy assessment, and capital allocation become more difficult. Industry groups, however, welcome the changes as a reduction in regulatory burden and compliance complexity. The debate highlights a structural tension between simplification for businesses and the need for robust ESG data for markets and accountability. The overall impact is a shift toward less mandatory disclosure and greater reliance on investors to independently verify corporate sustainability claims.

The Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement to simplify corporate sustainability reporting (CSRD) and due diligence (CS3D) rules. The reform reduces reporting obligations, raises applicability thresholds, and limits the indirect compliance burden on smaller firms. For CSRD, reporting is restricted to larger companies exceeding 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover, while financial holding companies are excluded and some transitional reporting obligations are lifted. For CS3D, the agreement raises thresholds to 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover, reflecting a focus on the largest firms with the greatest supply chain influence. Key changes include removing mandatory climate transition plans, replacing detailed supply chain mapping with risk-based scoping, and eliminating the EU-wide civil liability regime. A cap on penalties is set at 3% of global turnover, and implementation timelines are extended. The reform is framed as a competitiveness-driven simplification effort aimed at reducing administrative burden while maintaining a basic due diligence framework for high-impact companies. Critics and supporters diverge on whether the changes improve efficiency or weaken sustainability accountability.

The article reviews 2025 cases of corporate greenwashing across multiple sectors, highlighting a growing pattern of misleading or exaggerated sustainability claims. It introduces “greenrinsing,” where companies publicly announce ambitious climate targets to attract investment but later weaken or abandon them. It also notes increasing reliance on carbon capture technologies and “clean gas” narratives by fossil fuel companies to justify continued expansion. Several high-profile brands are cited for misleading environmental claims. These include fashion, aviation, energy, and consumer goods companies accused of overstating recyclability, carbon neutrality, or eco-friendly attributes. Regulators in countries such as Australia, South Korea, and parts of Europe have intensified enforcement, issuing fines and banning deceptive advertisements. However, regulatory fragmentation remains, with some jurisdictions weakening rules while others strengthen them. The central theme is the widening gap between corporate sustainability communication and actual environmental performance, alongside increasing regulatory and legal scrutiny attempting to restore credibility in ESG claims.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has proposed new regulations to bring ESG ratings providers under formal supervision, aiming to improve transparency and reduce conflicts of interest in the sector. The rules would require firms to disclose potential conflicts, particularly where they both rate companies and provide advisory services on ESG performance. Providers would also need to publish methodologies, clarify assessment criteria, and improve complaint-handling processes. The ESG ratings market has expanded rapidly, but concerns persist about inconsistent methodologies and lack of transparency, leading to investor skepticism about the reliability of scores. Under the proposed framework, only FCA-authorized providers would be allowed to issue ESG ratings in the UK from 2028. Employees involved in rating generation would also face restrictions on trading related securities. The reform is part of a broader international trend, with the EU developing similar rules aligned with global standards. Market participants largely support greater oversight but caution against overreliance on ratings as a substitute for independent investment analysis.

The European Parliament voted to significantly reduce the scope of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The changes sharply cut the number of companies required to report ESG data and relax due diligence obligations across supply chains. The reforms also eliminate the requirement for companies to prepare climate transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. The new thresholds raise applicability to much larger firms, effectively excluding many mid-sized companies from mandatory sustainability reporting. Due diligence requirements are also narrowed, focusing mainly on direct business partners and reducing the volume of data that companies can request from smaller suppliers. Liability frameworks are shifted more toward national enforcement rather than EU-level mechanisms. The decision reflects a broader political push to simplify regulation and improve EU competitiveness, but it has triggered strong criticism from sustainable investment groups, which argue that the changes weaken transparency, reduce accountability, and undermine the EU’s sustainability agenda.