Citing a Harvard Business School study of 1,800 companies, Sir Ronald Cohen reveals the staggering scale of negative externalities. A third of these firms (600) cause environmental damage equivalent to a quarter or more of their profits, while 250 create more damage than they make in profit, highlighting the financial materiality of impact.

Related Insights

Just as the 1929 stock market crash revealed the need for standardized profit reporting (GAAP), today's social and environmental crises necessitate standardized impact reporting. This creates the transparency required for investors, consumers, and employees to make informed decisions and for markets to function efficiently.

While "growth" is viewed positively in economics, Raworth reframes it using a medical analogy. In any complex living system, from the human body to the planet, something that tries to grow forever is a cancer. This highlights the destructive nature of pursuing infinite economic expansion on a finite planet.

To counter political backlash against ESG, Mars' CEO reframes sustainability as a fundamental business imperative. For a food company reliant on agriculture, climate change directly threatens crop viability and affordability. This makes environmental action a matter of operational resilience and risk management, completely separate from political debate.

While a major contributor to emissions, the agricultural industry is also more vulnerable to climate change impacts than almost any other sector. This dual role as both primary cause and primary victim creates a powerful, intrinsic motivation to innovate and transition from a "climate sinner to saint," a dynamic not present in all industries.

A company's monopoly power can be measured not just by its pricing power, but by the 'noneconomic costs' it imposes on society. Dominant platforms can ignore negative externalities, like their product's impact on teen mental health, because their market position insulates them from accountability and user churn.

Sir Ronald Cohen critiques the philanthropic model, arguing that relying on donations keeps charitable organizations small, underfunded, and perpetually begging for capital. This prevents them from achieving the scale needed to solve massive problems, a flaw that impact investing aims to correct by creating self-sustaining models.

The current movement towards impact-focused business is not just a trend but a fundamental economic succession. Just as the tech revolution reshaped global industries, the impact revolution is now establishing a new paradigm where companies are valued on their ability to create both profit and positive contributions to society and the planet.

Impact data isn't just a niche metric for investors. Sir Ronald Cohen reframes it as a basic human right. He argues that every employee, consumer, and investor has a right to transparent, standardized information about the good and harm a company creates, moving the conversation from finance to ethics.

Once a minor logistical issue, water disposal now represents a significant portion of an oil well's operating expenses. The cost has become so material—up to $6 per barrel of oil equivalent—that it is now a strategic priority managed at the CFO level within major production companies, signaling its critical impact on profitability.

To ensure accountability for societal impact, Mars directly links 40% of its CEO's compensation to non-financial metrics, including sustainability goals. This structure challenges the conventional, finance-only incentive models prevalent in public companies and hardwires long-term purpose into executive performance.