This is especially true for companies with brick-and-mortar footprints.

What’s the first thing you think of when you see an empty mall, the JCPenney and Best Buy branding still visible on the exterior? What about an empty Pier 1 Imports that transforms into a Spirit Halloween every October?

An abandoned storefront, with its broken signage and grimy or boarded-up windows, does more to erode public goodwill than any charitable donation can repair. In the eyes of the community, these empty spaces symbolize failure, not just of a business, but of its commitment to the neighborhood it once served. No amount of behind-the-scenes philanthropy will change that perception.

The solution?

A radical rethinking of how companies engage with their physical spaces and the communities they inhabit. It is time to turn these liabilities into assets, not just for the companies, but for society as a whole.

From Empty Storefronts to Community Hubs

Imagine walking past a former big-box store, its parking lot now overgrown with weeds and its facade a canvas for graffiti. The windows are broken. Shopping carts, bent and broken, litter the landscape.

Now, picture that same building, instead transformed into a vibrant mixed-use development: affordable homes on the upper floors, a market, day care center, and gym on the ground level. You can see through some of the windows greenery thriving in vertical farming installations inside. Solar panels cover the roof and gardens surround the structure. The building hums with human activity — people coming and going, talking, laughing and living.

Instead of a glaring symbol of corporate abandonment, it becomes a beacon of hope and renewal.

Brick-and-mortar locations offer untapped potential for such transformations. Retailers, banks, and other companies often own sprawling properties that, once vacated, sit idle for years. These empty spaces do not just drain resources — companies still have to pay taxes, keep the water connected, and keep the power on, after all — they actively harm a brand’s reputation: remember the Pier 1 that turns into a Spirit Halloween?

By converting these spaces into sustainable, mixed-use developments, companies can directly address critical societal issues like the housing crisis while revitalizing communities. The benefits are numerous and substantial:

1. Community Revitalization: Vacant properties drag down property values and discourage investment. Transforming these spaces into functional, attractive developments breathes new life into neighborhoods, attracting residents and businesses alike.
2. Environmental Impact: Adaptive reuse is far more sustainable than demolition and new construction. By repurposing existing structures, companies can significantly reduce waste and lower their carbon footprint.
3. Brand Reputation and Revenue Generation: Nothing says “we care” like visible, meaningful action. These projects demonstrate a company’s commitment to the community in a way that is impossible to ignore.
4. Economic Opportunity: Mixed-use developments create jobs, from construction to ongoing operations. They also stimulate local economies by attracting foot traffic and supporting small businesses. And for the company, critics might argue that such projects are costly or impractical, but the reality is quite the opposite. Adaptive reuse is a cost-effective strategy, often more affordable than building from scratch and certainly a better option than hoping for the best and putting a blighted property on the market for sale or auction. By leveraging public-private partnerships, tax incentives, and grants for sustainable development, companies can offset initial costs and turn a profit.

Doing Good, Making Money

The idea that purpose and profit are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy. In fact, doing good can be a powerful driver of business success. Consumers increasingly want to support brands that align with their values. A company that invests in community-focused projects can strengthen its relationship with customers, leading to increased loyalty and advocacy.

Proactive community engagement reduces the risk of backlash or boycotts, which can arise when companies are perceived as neglectful or exploitative. By investing in communities, companies create conditions for sustainable growth. Thriving neighborhoods mean more customers, healthier economies, and stronger local partnerships.

Consider the trend of turning vacant shopping malls into mixed-use developments. Across the United States, developers are repurposing these once-bustling retail hubs into spaces that combine housing, office space, entertainment, and public amenities. Projects like these not only address pressing social needs but also generate new revenue streams for property owners.

Brands shouldn’t let developers be the only ones doing these kinds of conversions.

Time to Change the CSR Paradigm

The days of superficial CSR are over. Companies can no longer rely on checkbook philanthropy or flashy ad campaigns to convince the public they are doing good. Real impact requires bold, innovative thinking and a willingness to put skin in the game.

For businesses with brick-and-mortar locations, the path forward is clear. Every vacant storefront is an opportunity to rewrite the narrative, to transform a symbol of failure into one of possibility. By investing in sustainable, community-focused projects, companies can not only restore their reputations but also contribute to solving some of society’s most pressing challenges.

Cullen Burnell is Chief Integration & People Officer at Urbana Systems

The post Brick-and-Mortar CSR and Community Prosperity appeared first on Medika Life.

Around the nation, there is a partisan swirl around ESG. The concern of being targeted for boycotts or protests has made it more important for organizations to thoughtfully plan and implement a strategy that moves key priorities forward without creating unnecessary churn in public policy, news, and investment communities.

Setting the Baseline

With the substantial debate surrounding ESG priorities, it’s helpful to remind ourselves what ESG priorities actually are and what they seek to achieve. At its core, ESG is a relatively straightforward concept: ESG includes varied criteria companies use to evaluate performance beyond traditional financial metrics. For instance, environmental factors consider a company’s impact on nature, including its carbon footprint, resource usage, and pollution levels. Social factors assess a company’s relationships with its employees, communities, and broader society, covering labor practices, diversity and inclusion, and community engagement. Governance factors focus on a company’s internal governance structures, including its board composition, executive pay, and transparency.

Though it’s evolved into a political hot-button issue in recent years, ESG priorities, though perhaps itemized as separate workflows, have been a consideration in boardrooms and c-suites for decades. There’s nothing particularly new about the individual components, just how they’re grouped and classified.

The Evolution of ESG Priorities

Initially, ESG priorities were driven by compliance and risk management concerns. Companies focused on meeting regulatory requirements and mitigating potential risks, such as environmental fines or reputational damage. However, as the understanding of sustainability deepened and climate concerns became more acute and amplified, ESG priorities shifted toward mindful value creation. Companies started to see ESG as a set of rules to follow and as a way to create long-term value for their stakeholders and society at the same time — a win-win scenario.

Today, regardless of how public-facing their efforts are or aren’t, leading companies consider ESG a priority rather than a compliance checkbox. They recognize the potential for ESG initiatives to encourage innovation, enhance brand reputation, attract talent, and strengthen stakeholder relationships. Consequently, ESG priorities have expanded to include innovation for sustainability, supply chain resilience, human rights protection, and ethical leadership.

While adopting ESG principles gained momentum in the business world, it has not been without strife, especially against political turmoil. The intersection of ESG with politics sparked debates on various fronts, including the role of businesses in social and environmental issues, the impact of government policies on sustainability efforts, and the polarization of ESG discourse.

ESG Nomenclature

Alongside the evolution of ESG priorities, the terminology surrounding ESG has changed. Initially, terms like “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) and “sustainable development” were commonly used to describe efforts to address social and environmental issues. However, these terms often lacked specificity and failed to capture the holistic nature of ESG.

In recent years, the term “ESG” emerged as a more comprehensive framework for addressing sustainability issues within the business context. Unlike CSR, which often focuses on reputation, philanthropy, and corporate donations, ESG includes broader considerations, including governance practices, diversity of the workforce, and financial performance. This shift in terminology reflects a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between environmental, social, and governance factors and their impact on business outcomes.

Then, ESG became a flashpoint for controversy owing to varied factors, with the term becoming toxic for some organizations. There are many reasons why that toxicity grew pervasive:

1. Political Polarization

Political polarization has entered the discourse surrounding ESG in many parts of the world. Ideological differences often shape perceptions of sustainability initiatives, with some viewing them as essential steps toward addressing pressing global challenges. In contrast, others see them as burdensome regulations that stifle economic growth.

This polarization can manifest in various ways, from debates over climate change policy to disagreements on social justice issues. For example, in the United States, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the rollback of environmental regulations under past administrations fueled tensions between proponents and opponents of sustainability measures, putting corporations in an uncomfortable position straddling public policy on both sides.

2. Regulatory Uncertainty

Political turmoil can also contribute to regulatory uncertainty, complicating business ESG implementation. Shifts in government leadership or policy priorities may lead to changes in regulations and standards, creating challenges for companies trying to navigate complex and evolving compliance landscapes.

Even simple regional variances in regulatory frameworks can pose significant compliance risks and operational challenges for multinational corporations operating in multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, regulatory uncertainty may deter investment in sustainable initiatives as companies weigh long-term sustainability investments’ potential risks and rewards against short-term political uncertainties.

3. Stakeholder Activism

Political turmoil often fuels grassroots activism and social movements, influencing ESG agendas and priorities. Stakeholder activism, ranging from consumer boycotts to shareholder resolutions, has become a powerful force driving corporate action on sustainability issues.

However, the alignment of stakeholder activism with political ideologies can sometimes increase tension within ESG discourse. For example, debates over corporate social responsibility have, at times, become entangled with broader political debates over the role of government in addressing social and environmental issues.

The question then becomes whether businesses should take up leadership positions on these issues and if so, to what extent.

4. Globalization and Geopolitical Risks

In an interconnected world, geopolitical risks and global events can have profound practical implications for ESG priorities and practices. Trade tensions, geopolitical conflicts, and geopolitical instability can disrupt supply chains, exacerbate environmental degradation, and impact social stability, posing challenges for companies seeking to uphold ESG standards.

For example, geopolitical conflicts in regions rich in natural resources may raise concerns about ethical sourcing and human rights violations in supply chains. Similarly, trade disputes between significant economies can disrupt the flow of goods and services, affecting businesses’ ability to meet sustainability commitments and deliver on ESG goals.

5. Ethical Dilemmas

Political turmoil can also give rise to ethical dilemmas for businesses navigating ESG issues. Companies may face pressure to take a stance on politically sensitive issues, such as human rights abuses, corruption, or discrimination, especially in authoritarian regimes or conflict-affected regions.

Balancing business interests with ethical considerations can be challenging, particularly when governments impose conflicting demands or restrictions on companies operating within their jurisdictions. In such cases, companies may find torn between upholding their ESG principles and complying with local laws or regulations, raising questions about the limits of corporate responsibility in politically charged environments.

The Role of Stakeholder Engagement

One key driver behind the evolution of ESG priorities is increased stakeholder engagement. With growing pressure from investors, customers, employees, and communities to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, these stakeholders demand transparency, accountability, and tangible action on ESG issues, pushing companies to elevate their priorities beyond mere rhetoric.

Investors mainly play a crucial role in shaping ESG priorities. The rise of sustainable investing and impact investing has prompted companies to integrate ESG considerations into their financial decision-making processes. As a result, ESG performance has become a significant factor in investment decisions, influencing capital allocation and valuation.

Emerging Trends in ESG

As ESG continues to evolve, several emerging trends are shaping the future of sustainable business. One such trend is the emphasis on impact measurement and reporting. Companies are increasingly adopting standardized frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to assess and communicate their ESG performance. This trend enhances transparency and facilitates comparability and benchmarking across industries.

Another emerging trend is the integration of ESG considerations into corporate strategy and decision-making. Instead of treating ESG as a standalone function, companies embed sustainability principles into their core business operations, from product design to supply chain management. This integrated approach ensures that ESG considerations are aligned with overall business objectives and drive value creation across the organization.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the evolution of ESG priorities and metrics represents a positive step toward sustainable business, several challenges remain. One challenge is the lack of globally standardized metrics and reporting requirements, which can hinder comparability and credibility in ESG disclosure. Addressing this challenge requires collaboration among stakeholders to develop consistent and transparent reporting frameworks.

Another challenge is the need for greater accountability and oversight in ESG practices. As companies increasingly tout their sustainability commitments, there is a risk of greenwashing — the practice of making misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental benefits of products or practices. To combat greenwashing, regulators, investors, and civil society organizations must hold companies accountable for their ESG claims and ensure transparency in reporting.

Despite these and other challenges, the evolving landscape of ESG presents significant opportunities for businesses to drive positive change and create long-term value. By embracing sustainability as a strategic priority, companies can enhance their resilience, competitiveness, and relevance in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

What’s Next?

The evolution of ESG priorities and terminology reflects a broader shift toward sustainable business practices in the global landscape. As companies recognize the importance of addressing environmental, social, and governance factors, ESG is no longer viewed as a peripheral issue but a strategic imperative for long-term success. By aligning ESG priorities with meaningful outcomes and embracing transparency and accountability, businesses can contribute to a more sustainable — and potentially lucrative — future for all stakeholders.

However, the controversy surrounding ESG amid political turmoil underscores the complexity of sustainability challenges in a rapidly changing world. While ESG offers a framework for addressing environmental, social, and governance issues, it is only that — a framework. Its implementation is often intertwined with political dynamics that shape regulatory environments, stakeholder expectations, and business strategies, all of which can be open to interpretation on a national or regional level.

Yes, ESG is often a minefield for business leaders. Yet regulatory realities and the pressure from a public with increasing levels of climate anxiety require the conversation to take center stage — an uncomfortable position for C-Suite leaders to find themselves in.

Navigating these complexities calls upon companies to remain vigilant, adaptable, and conscientious in their approach to ESG. Businesses can navigate social turbulence by engaging with stakeholders, advocating for supportive policies, and upholding ethical standards while advancing meaningful progress toward sustainability goals. Ultimately, regardless of what the process is called, ESG remains a powerful tool for driving positive change in the face of political uncertainty, reinforcing the importance of sustainability as a shared global priority.

Finding a reasonable and impactful path forward is not easy, but not finding any path at all is no longer an option.

The post Whether You Like the Name or Not, ESG is Here to Stay appeared first on Medika Life.

A company’s ESG goals may align with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These 17 items serve as a guide “for peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” They include gender equality, affordable and clean energy, responsible consumption and production, and other goals.

Historically, the pharmaceutical industry has had a negative reputation among consumers. The opioid crisis and drug pricing scandals have damaged the industry’s standing. In a 2019 consumer sentiment poll, pharma ranked last, its worst finish in the poll’s history.

Some view the COVID-19 pandemic as a reputational turning point for pharma and an opportunity to solidify a more positive impact on society. Many pharmaceutical companies are furthering this goal by incorporating ESG into their operations. 

“ESG is another way to analyze companies beyond their profit and losses, and to see the broader impact companies are having on society and future generations” says Monique Adams, Director of Clinical Innovation at Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and Vice President at Women of Color in Pharma (WOCIP).

Adam’s words are affirmed by an April 2020 poll which found that 40% of Americans had a more positive view of the industry than before the pandemic began, up 7% from the month before. In fact, for the first time, pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Moderna was ranked among the top five companies with the best reputations in America in 2021. The shift is a direct result of the pandemic and pharma’s tireless work in producing vaccines and other medications that have saved millions of lives worldwide. 

How are pharmaceutical companies adopting ESG?

More often, pharmaceutical companies grasp the significance of ESG and are taking steps toward implementing the strategy into their long-term goals. Environmental sustainability, or the “E” in ESG, has become a major focus for companies.

“We’re making drugs that are intended to save people’s lives,” Adams says. “But any time you have large manufacturing plants and sites, that also can have a negative impact on the environment.”

Many environmental sustainability programs from pharmaceutical companies center on lowering greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewable energy sources. These companies are also working to improve the environmental footprint of their products and value chain. For example, Johnson & Johnson has committed to sourcing 100% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2025. 

The “social” pillar of ESG considers health equity, including more equitable and affordable access to the medications that pharmaceutical companies develop. And it examines a company’s workforce. Do employees reflect the communities they serve? Goals for this pillar often include hiring and promoting more women and people of color, particularly Black and Latino employees. 

In addition to her role as director of clinical innovation, Adams is also the Global Head of Janssen’s R&D DEI Advisory Board. The Board has more than thirty-five members representing every therapeutic area, business function, and region within the company. One of its efforts is attracting diverse talent to the organization. 

“The only way to truly change culture is through people,” Adams says. “We believe in order to advance health equity, you need diverse leaders at the table making decisions about which diseases we’re going to study, trial design, and trial sites.”

The board is currently partnering with talent acquisition to develop a workshop that provides leaders with tools and resources for effectively tracking diverse talent.

The final pillar in ESG is “governance,” which examines issues such as shareholder rights, board diversity, executive compensation, ethics, and fighting corruption. In its ESG report, AbbVie outlines how, among other governance policies, every employee must complete training on its Business Code of Conduct and acknowledge that they will follow it. 

Pharmaceutical companies have begun officially announcing their ESG goals and how they are progressing against them. These goals may be part of a year-end report or a separate announcement. Adams says publicly sharing this information “ensures that they’ll be more accountable in helping create a more sustainable society.”

The post How ESG is Changing the Pharmaceutical Industry appeared first on Medika Life.

As economists have been pointing out for decades, this nation spends way too much on healthcare; $3.7 trillion annually, in fact. And with our employer-centric system of health insurance, that cost burden falls heavily on America’s businesses. More than 50% of Americans are part of employee-sponsored health insurance plans; in 2019, the average cost of insurance per employee for family coverage was $20,576, with workers paying $6,013 on average toward the cost of their coverage. Taken together, employers paid nearly $880 billion in healthcare benefits for employees and their dependents, but this is only a slice of the pie. Illness-related productivity loss adds another $530 billion per year to employers’ bills, according to the Integrated Benefits Institute, a nonprofit health and productivity research organization.

The math is simple: more employees with chronic, non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as heart disease or diabetes, add up to more visits to doctors and more medications prescribed — and millions of us count on employer-provided health insurance to save the day. We use it to see our healthcare providers, who recommend treatment, and to access medicines that address our arterial plaque or elevated Type 2 diabetes A1C levels or other health risks at, payer-negotiated, discount prices.

Without some intervention, the combination of NCDs will morph into more serious medical conditions. Louis J. Aronne, MD, FACP, the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill-Cornell Medical College, renowned obesity medicine scientist, and New York Times best-selling author of The Skinny on Losing Weight Without Being Hungry, reflects: “We know that 11 cancers are related to obesity and 50 illnesses are a direct result of an increase in body fat, so this is an obvious target for chronic disease management.” Now, we are no longer talking about just needing another belt notch, but rather people struggling for life.

Spurred by an explosion of illnesses that result from weight gain, the sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition, healthcare costs continue to rise — enabled by a society that abandoned the cheapest and best primary prevention path of good diet and exercise for a path that took less effort: “Write a script and take a pill.”

Consumer Reports, that bastion of smart purchasing for cars and home appliances, writes in its 2019 national survey that “30% of Americans who currently take prescription medicine say their out-of-pocket cost for a drug they regularly take has increased in the past year,” and of those, 12% saw their drug’s prices increase by $100 or more. Those who saw spikes in their out-of-pocket costs “forgo other medical treatments or tests, cut back on groceries, or get a second job.” The falling dominos of chronic illness and employees doing nothing or taking medications instead of embracing healthier practices leads to more and deepening serious illness.

America may be the land of the free, but it is also becoming the home of the chronically ill.

Now, corporate leaders must look unflinchingly at the underlying causes of our healthcare costs and ask: “Why is our nation getting sicker — why are my insurance premiums increasing year-to-year?” We need an intervention.

Corporate strategies need to change and company executives committed to employee safety and well-being need to roll up their sleeves and become their businesses’ public health advocates.

The solution is not continuing to write checks for sick care; it is rallying to support workplace wellness.

Health innovator Jeff Ruby, who founded habit change provider Newtopia* to mobilize corporations to prevent, reverse and slow the progression of chronic disease within their employee communities, writes in Medika Life:

The health that corporate America pays for today is backward. The focus on footing the bill for sick care for employees (or members) — instead of offering primary lifestyle prevention to keep our people healthy — costs individuals, businesses, and society a fortune and is completely unsustainable. It’s the equivalent of working to restore loyalty to an unhappy customer instead of focusing on delivering a world-class experience from the first touchpoint and keeping customers happy and loyal along the entire customer lifecycle.

We are a nation that neglects the basics, even if they can save us time and money in the long-term. That’s a big error when it comes to people’s health. We seed illness at the earliest years by cutting back investments in healthy lunch and exercise and sports programs at the primary- and secondary-education level. This almost ensures employers inherit an unhealthy workforce expecting a “free doughnut,” whether it’s for attending a business meeting or getting a life-saving vaccination. Right now, our approach is to invest in managing sickness in America.

Controlling health insurance costs can no longer rest on the three-pronged, short-term strategy of shopping around for a new carrier every three to five years, slicing off drug benefits and shifting costs onto employees. Employers need to embrace behavioral and digital support programs that put the “health” back in their strategic health insurance planning to foster a healthier workforce and more productive workplace.

Spoiler alert!

After company-hired benefits consultants and pharmacy benefit managers drive down drug costs for noncommunicable illness treatments, company executives will still see their health insurance budget line still continue to climb. In ignoring the bigger opportunity to support employee health, they fund the status quo of illness. NCDs perpetuate and increase insurance costs, and will cause a cumulative loss of output of $47 trillion between 2011 and 2030. That’s a sinkhole companies can avoid. For companies subsidizing employee insurance, it’s time to shift from risk management and seek greater return on investment. Wellness is good business for companies. Those companies that contribute to their employees’ health demonstrate corporate social responsibility to their community.

It is essential that company executives stop focusing their resources largely on treating preventable health risks, and instead begin to think about enabling employees to avoid illness by encouraging healthy mindsets and behaviors and tapping into trained wellness coaches and digital-health applications. By investing in reaching meaningful targets (e.g., weight loss, fitness, better nutrition, workplace safety and mental health), business leaders will regain control over looming healthcare bills and actually improve employee well-being.

Face it: climbing health insurance premiums and drug formulary costs are symptoms of a bigger problem. Let’s target the real culprit by challenging the status quo of preventable disease. If we don’t, it will kill us.

[Special appreciation to Finn Partners colleagues Arielle Bernstein Pinsof, John Bianchi and Shira Friedman for their comments and recommendations.]

Disclosure: Newtopia Health is a client of my employer, Finn Partners. All content expressed here is my own. I also serve as a corporate strategic advisor to Newtopia Health and any and all funds received are donated to a not-for-profit charity to benefit rural renewal and are not in my control.

The post Looking for ROI? Employee Wellness Creates a Sustainable Business Model appeared first on Medika Life.