The Impact of Geopolitics on Climate Transition Plans
We were delighted by the broad and immediate willingness of all speakers to contribute to the third annual event of Chapter Zero Netherlands.
All of them generously volunteered their time to discuss, in breakout sessions with top-level board members, the practical impact of geopolitics on their companies’ climate transition plans.
Many thanks as well to Computershare for the event management, and to Van Lanschot Kempen for providing the venue, catering, and event support. Thanks also to Parisa Aminolahi for the photography.
Heleen de Coninck
IPCC
and the four key points of the keynote speech:
- The Value of the IPCC: The IPCC provides a scientific foundation for climate policy and, through rigorous processes, clearly outlines the consequences of climate change and what is needed to limit further damage.
- The Urgency of Action: What we already know is this: without an acceleration of transition policies—at a systems level—we will exceed 1.5°C, with disastrous consequences for ecosystems, vulnerable regions, and future generations.
- The Need for Broad Collaboration: Effective climate action requires a combination of leadership, capacity, behavioral change, public support, innovation, and appropriate policy—across all levels and sectors.
- The Role of Finance and Innovation: Concrete examples, such as Veon’s protein transition, demonstrate that change is possible when investors, companies, and governments are willing to take bold action.
Leverage Point Interventions for the Energy Transition
Included is a news article with links to resources discussing potential leverage point interventions for the energy transition in the Netherlands.
Climate Exam
Heleen serves on the examination board of the “Klimaatexamen” (Climate Exam), an initiative aimed at raising awareness and increasing knowledge on climate-related topics. She invites Chapter Zero Netherlands member companies to organize a climate exam together with her. For more information, visit www.klimaatexamen.nl or contact Heleen or Sylvia by email.
Sandra Phlippen
Which values matter to shareholders represented by supervisory board members, and how should yhey be weighed?
The role of supervisory board members should be to support the executive board in aligning their decisions and outcomes with the values that shareholders consider relevant.
- If the guiding principle is profit maximization, then that is the primary objective to be pursued.
- If the value framework is a broader welfare perspective—for example, profit maximization within the boundaries of the Paris Agreement’s CO₂ reduction goals—then a different set of expectations regarding shareholder value applies.
- If the guiding principle is profit maximization within the legal and policy frameworks of the jurisdictions in which the company operates, yet another set of objectives comes into play.
The following framework outlines the trade-offs between profit maximization and CO₂ reduction, using the banking sector as an illustrative example.
Lara Wolters
Political Context and Regulation
Lara Wolters expressed concern over the lack of progress on key legislative files, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which, despite five years of effort, has yet to deliver tangible results. She described a political landscape in which attitudes toward sustainability vary widely across ideological lines: for example, research shows that Hindus are more likely to embrace sustainability, while a significant portion of the Christian electorate tends to reject climate policy. Within EU institutions, the influence of Christian-democratic parties is substantial, contributing to a slowly shifting agenda in which sustainability is not always prioritized.
She also highlighted a broader lack of vision and leadership in the European legislative process. This is evident in the withdrawal of previously proposed legislation. While new initiatives are necessary, they can also create tensions among stakeholders in the sustainability domain. Reflections were also shared on the complexity of European regulation, including ongoing debates around simplified labeling and the role of U.S. companies in consultations on EU policy-making.
The Need for Systemic Change
The transition to a clean economy and the creation of future-proof jobs were described as urgent but delayed priorities. What seemed self-evident just a few years ago now requires renewed focus. The dominance of conservative voices in Brussels, combined with a growing undercurrent of discontent, poses a risky mix. There is a pressing need for clear political choices and direction—even if this means adopting strong, potentially polarizing positions.
Tim Bleeker
Under new European regulations, companies have a duty of best efforts to align their business model and strategy with the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. How far this effort must go cannot be defined in absolute terms—it depends on geographical, sectoral, and company-specific factors.
During the workshop, various dilemmas were discussed, and key insights emerged that help clarify the minimum threshold of this obligation. If a business model is inherently incompatible with the climate goals, the company is expected to adjust its products, services, or portfolio. The duty of best efforts also requires companies to invest in the best available technologies for sustainability improvements. Regarding the reduction of indirect emissions (Scope 3), companies must leverage their influence to encourage business partners to lower their emissions. It also became clear that this duty of best efforts is an independent obligation, which does not lapse if competitors fail to meet their own obligations.
All in all, while it is not always possible to determine precisely how much effort is sufficient, this open-ended standard does enable the identification of when objectives or activities fall short.
Dirk Schoenmaker
Dirk guided the participants in his breakout sessions through the transition from financial value to integrated value, with an emphasis on long-term value creation and the challenge of stranded assets. Attendees were encouraged to reflect on the choice between being busy with day-to-day tasks versus making space in their agendas to step back and develop a broader strategy for the future. Dirk’s message was clear: failing to act now could result in being too late to intervene effectively. The takeaway was straightforward—it’s better to proactively choose to move forward than to wait until a decision is forced upon your organization. Since predicting the exact tipping point is difficult, timely action is essential.
Shared Documents and Outputs:
During the event, a chart previously mentioned in the call was shared to support the topics discussed. The Transition Pathway from LSE was also used as a guiding framework.
You can find the AEX Futureproof Index Report here. The paper Valuing companies in transition written by Dirk is available here.
Frans Blom
Reflection on the Challenges of the 1.5-Degree Target
Frans Blom took us through the latest report from DenkWerken, emphasizing the urgent need to accelerate efforts. The necessary technologies are available, but the challenge lies in deploying them effectively and at scale, with sufficient capacity.
Current Resources and Competition with Other Priorities
- There is a need to reflect on the resources available in the Netherlands: money, people, and space.
- Competition for sustainability with other ambitions, such as housing construction and defense, is mentioned as a complicating factor.
- Annual healthcare costs are rising to €60 billion, with an additional €25 billion expected over the next 25 years. This results in a demand for 256,000 workers in the construction sector.
- Raising taxes is not seen as a solution, and the national budget remains about 10% the same as it was ten years ago.
Debt, Labor Productivity, and Reskilling
There is room for financial adjustment given the low national debt; resources are available. At the same time, the focus is on increasing labor productivity, which also requires redistribution of resources. Simply stopping policies that have counterproductive effects could have a positive impact—provided people are actively reskilled for jobs that contribute to a net-zero economy.
Read the report here.
