The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a network of 250 multinational companies collaborating to achieve Vision2050 ¬- a plan for a world where nine billion people can live well within the limits of the planet. WBCSD sets an ambitious agenda along three imperatives - climate, equity and nature action. The CEO of WBCSD, Peter Bakker, is known for his ambition to drive action at a fast rate. However, moving the agenda too fast risks losing some companies. This case evaluates how Bakker can drive change at the rate needed and his strategy to do so.

Companies are now aiming to decarbonize their supply chains by tackling scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions along the value chain). Scope 3 emissions are difficult for companies to manage because they reside outside the companies' direct control, and for this reason, they always require partnerships. However, partnerships are not easy, and it is difficult to determine exactly which partnership will best achieve the desired sustainability objectives. This case study focuses on the sustainability partnership portfolio of ZUCCA, a fictitious company in the food and agriculture sector that is looking to dramatically reduce its scope 3 emissions. ZUCCA's new chief sustainability officer (CSO) is considering the future of the company's sustainability partnerships portfolio and evaluating which partnership will best help the company dramatically reduce scope 3 emissions. The CSO considers partnering with three different NGOs: the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD); World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Coal plays a critical role as an energy pillar in many parts of the world. In three of the world's most populous countries - China, India and Indonesia - coal supplies more than 60% of electricity needs. However, coal is also one of the most polluting and greenhouse gas emission-intensive substances, holding the dubious title of the single largest contributor to global warming. Mining is one of the industries under scrutiny for its role in the coal supply chain. Amid growing negative public sentiment and investor pressure, the mining majors are pursuing different strategies regarding coal. Rio Tinto completely exited in 2018. Anglo American spun out its coal assets into a separate company, effectively putting the decision in shareholders' hands. Meanwhile, Glencore held on to coal, declaring "managed decline" the most responsible approach. The case's dilemma - "who has it right" - offers fertile ground for debate. Participants should analyze the pros and cons of the company's strategies from different angles and explore the repercussions on various stakeholders, on shareholders and on the environment. The potential learnings from this case and previews of the difficult trade-offs leaders face extend beyond mining to many industries in transition.

Conventional wisdom has held that business should keep a low profile on divisive political issues. Why risk drawing the ire of politicians, pundits, customers, shareholders or employees by wading into non-business concerns? And yet 72 per cent of Walmart customers now expect it to 'take a stand on important social issues' and 85 per cent agree that it should 'make it clear what values it stands for.' The paradigm is shifting, and in today's world, business leaders need to have expertise on both 'the gridiron' and 'the pitch'. The authors provide a 'playbook' for navigating this new territory, which includes empowering your team to communicate, adopting a readiness posture and playing the long game.

How a social or political issue is framed shapes the "nonmarket" context that surrounds it. Issue frames are not random; rather they are the product of strategic behavior by firms, government agencies, NGOs, and similar actors. Frames are not fixed and issues can be reframed over time. Framing is a powerful strategic tool that enables firms to shape the structure of the nonmarket environment to their advantage. This article identifies and illustrates five distinct pathways through which firms can shape different dimensions of the nonmarket environment.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Business strategy begins with operations, the competitive landscape and markets. But David Bach and David B. Allen of the IE Business School Center for Nonmarket Strategy argue that strategy should not end there. Rather, a robust nonmarket strategy that addresses government regulation, political and social movements, even activist opposition should figure strongly in any strategy. Nonmarket strategy starts with the premise that issues and actors "beyond the market" affect the bottom line. Which nonmarkets are most important? That depends on the key issues a company confronts. By identifying key issues, and then the actors who are shaping them, a company can begin to shape the nonmarket -- a crucial approach when the issue is core to the underlying market as well.