Disclosure Isn’t Just About Saving the Planet, It’s a Business Necessity Now, Says CDP Chief
Sherry Madera, in Baku for COP29, says more companies are reporting on climate than ever, despite a pushback against ESG.
Sherry Madera, in Baku for COP29, says more companies are reporting on climate than ever, despite a pushback against ESG.
BAKU, Azerbaijan—With more than 23,000 companies representing some $6.4 trillion of purchasing power reporting their emissions through CDP, the not-for-profit charity formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project is one of the leading names within the corporate sustainability space.
The U.K.-based nonprofit, which has been operating since 2000, was set up to encourage companies to disclose their environmental impact, including their carbon footprint, water usage and effects on forests and nature.
But amid a recent backlash against environmental, social and corporate governance initiatives, and as clean-energy stocks have slumped this year, concerns are growing over how important climate and sustainability reporting has become to companies. Greenhushing, the idea of companies pursuing climate plans without announcing them, has become a common practice, mainly because they fear being called out for greenwashing.
But, according to CDP Chief Executive Sherry Madera, these doubts should be put aside. A growing requirement for mandatory reporting, improved data and companies’ willingness to engage with supply chains are all signs that corporate engagement with climate and sustainability is still top of mind.
WSJ Pro Sustainable Business spoke to Madera at COP29 in Baku to discuss corporate engagement with climate and the push for company disclosures. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
WSJ: How will the Trump victory affect company policy around disclosures?
Madera: Climate change doesn’t start and stop with elections—and neither does climate action. Leading companies aren’t waiting to be told what to do; they’re already disclosing climate data because they know transparency equals opportunity. With 86% of the S&P 500 now voluntarily disclosing, it’s clear: U.S. companies aspiring to be global leaders understand that climate action is no longer optional—it’s a necessity. Regardless of shifting political landscapes, the competitive advantage is undeniable: those who act now will secure access to capital, reduce risks and lead in efficiency. The future isn’t just about compliance; it’s about staying ahead in a global economy where sustainability defines success. Any administration that cares about the economy has to care about data, science and climate.
WSJ: How can you encourage the private sector to disclose more climate and supply-chain data?
Madera: CDP is 24 years old. So the idea of surfacing information for investors, customers, economists and government regulators to take action on climate is not new for us. But it’s really come into its own in the last few years when disclosures became mandatory in many places around the world or have been signposted to be mandatory in the next few years.
I think that there’s a real shift in thinking about just setting targets versus now implementation. If we find ways of making sure that the money flows to more sustainable investment options, I think that really underpins what we as economies are trying to do.
There’s a lot of talk about the pushback, but the data doesn’t show that for us. So year-on-year we’re growing at about 24% voluntary disclosures from companies worldwide and that includes countries that don’t have a mandatory disclosure plan in place, i.e. the U.S.
Businesses are willing [to disclose] not because they necessarily have the primary directive of saving the planet but they’re willing to share information and to disclose data because it’s a business necessity now.
WSJ: How do you see corporate disclosures evolving over the next few years?
Madera: I see more mandatory disclosure is coming into place around the world and I think that’s a great thing. CDP has been encouraging this for decades so that’s great with the qualifier that says actually harmonising what is being asked for from a mandatory perspective is advantageous.
The reality is if you look at principles, frameworks, standards and data, the data is quite consistent and it’s just about making sure you’re mapping it and tagging that data so it doesn’t need to be written multiple times. And that efficiency I think is going to be really important because essentially every dollar you spend on reporting is a dollar you can’t spend on action and that doesn’t seem right.
WSJ: Do you see the role of the chief sustainability officer evolving and becoming more aligned with the chief financial officer? Would that be a good thing?
Madera : I think it’s a good thing. The CFO needs to be convinced that there is value in investing in servicing this information, in disclosing and being transparent. So being closely linked to other elements of the business, particularly the CFO who really has a say on the money that’s being spent.
CDP works with over 300 of the world’s largest supply chain owners and they’re very keen on looking at their scope 3. Not because they just want to report on it, but because they want to actually dig into the data so that they can work with their supply chain to find out ways that they can lower their emissions.
A great example of this is Walmart. So the Walmart gigaton project is something that CDP was closely involved in setting up and they came in and then the project was to lower emissions by a gigaton in about 15 years and they came in and achieved that six years early and they did that because they looked at the data from their supply chain and they actively engaged with those members and supply chain in order to be able to help them change their energy mix, helping them to find renewables as an alternative.
WSJ: With fewer companies expected to attend COP this year, how will you encourage more of them to disclose?
Madera: I have the luxury of speaking to many international corporations as well as private companies and the main thing they say to me is they want clear policy because that allows them to have very clear steer on how it is that they can build their business to be a sustainable business.
What I would hope we can see more of particularly starting now and going all the way through to COP30 in Brazil, is that deeper engagement of companies that are working within these jurisdictions to be able to know really clearly what it is that they are going to be asked to contribute to those national goals and be an important part of them.
WSJ: Do governments influence company climate policy?
Madera: In 2024, I think over 70% of the world’s population has gone, or will go to the polls and obviously climate isn’t the only issue, but it is one of the issues in various places around the world.
Businesses do want clear signposting in terms of policies and in terms of government support or encouragement. More companies are continuing to disclose to ensure that they’re competitive.
But they’re also tending to be quieter about it than they were a couple of years ago. Before they were proudly screaming from the rooftops that they were transparent, and they were setting targets and they were making progress and these are their transition plans. What we’re finding is that they’re disclosing the data, but they’re doing so with less fanfare and less engagement with us to try and promote themselves.
So they’re keeping their heads below the parapets, it doesn’t mean that the data is not there and it’s not moving.
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
A 30-metre masterpiece unveiled in Monaco brings Lamborghini’s supercar drama to the high seas, powered by 7,600 horsepower and unmistakable Italian design.
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
There has rarely, if ever, been so much tech talent available in the job market. Yet many tech companies say good help is hard to find.
What gives?
U.S. colleges more than doubled the number of computer-science degrees awarded from 2013 to 2022, according to federal data. Then came round after round of layoffs at Google, Meta, Amazon, and others.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts businesses will employ 6% fewer computer programmers in 2034 than they did last year.
All of this should, in theory, mean there is an ample supply of eager, capable engineers ready for hire.
But in their feverish pursuit of artificial-intelligence supremacy, employers say there aren’t enough people with the most in-demand skills. The few perceived as AI savants can command multimillion-dollar pay packages. On a second tier of AI savvy, workers can rake in close to $1 million a year .
Landing a job is tough for most everyone else.
Frustrated job seekers contend businesses could expand the AI talent pipeline with a little imagination. The argument is companies should accept that relatively few people have AI-specific experience because the technology is so new. They ought to focus on identifying candidates with transferable skills and let those people learn on the job.
Often, though, companies seem to hold out for dream candidates with deep backgrounds in machine learning. Many AI-related roles go unfilled for weeks or months—or get taken off job boards only to be reposted soon after.
It is difficult to define what makes an AI all-star, but I’m sorry to report that it’s probably not whatever you’re doing.
Maybe you’re learning how to work more efficiently with the aid of ChatGPT and its robotic brethren. Perhaps you’re taking one of those innumerable AI certificate courses.
You might as well be playing pickup basketball at your local YMCA in hopes of being signed by the Los Angeles Lakers. The AI minds that companies truly covet are almost as rare as professional athletes.
“We’re talking about hundreds of people in the world, at the most,” says Cristóbal Valenzuela, chief executive of Runway, which makes AI image and video tools.
He describes it like this: Picture an AI model as a machine with 1,000 dials. The goal is to train the machine to detect patterns and predict outcomes. To do this, you have to feed it reams of data and know which dials to adjust—and by how much.
The universe of people with the right touch is confined to those with uncanny intuition, genius-level smarts or the foresight (possibly luck) to go into AI many years ago, before it was all the rage.
As a venture-backed startup with about 120 employees, Runway doesn’t necessarily vie with Silicon Valley giants for the AI job market’s version of LeBron James. But when I spoke with Valenzuela recently, his company was advertising base salaries of up to $440,000 for an engineering manager and $490,000 for a director of machine learning.
A job listing like one of these might attract 2,000 applicants in a week, Valenzuela says, and there is a decent chance he won’t pick any of them. A lot of people who claim to be AI literate merely produce “workslop”—generic, low-quality material. He spends a lot of time reading academic journals and browsing GitHub portfolios, and recruiting people whose work impresses him.
In addition to an uncommon skill set, companies trying to win in the hypercompetitive AI arena are scouting for commitment bordering on fanaticism .
Daniel Park is seeking three new members for his nine-person startup. He says he will wait a year or longer if that’s what it takes to fill roles with advertised base salaries of up to $500,000.
He’s looking for “prodigies” willing to work seven days a week. Much of the team lives together in a six-bedroom house in San Francisco.
If this sounds like a lonely existence, Park’s team members may be able to solve their own problem. His company, Pickle, aims to develop personalised AI companions akin to Tony Stark’s Jarvis in “Iron Man.”
James Strawn wasn’t an AI early adopter, and the father of two teenagers doesn’t want to sacrifice his personal life for a job. He is beginning to wonder whether there is still a place for people like him in the tech sector.
He was laid off over the summer after 25 years at Adobe , where he was a senior software quality-assurance engineer. Strawn, 55, started as a contractor and recalls his hiring as a leap of faith by the company.
He had been an artist and graphic designer. The managers who interviewed him figured he could use that background to help make Illustrator and other Adobe software more user-friendly.
Looking for work now, he doesn’t see the same willingness by companies to take a chance on someone whose résumé isn’t a perfect match to the job description. He’s had one interview since his layoff.
“I always thought my years of experience at a high-profile company would at least be enough to get me interviews where I could explain how I could contribute,” says Strawn, who is taking foundational AI courses. “It’s just not like that.”
The trouble for people starting out in AI—whether recent grads or job switchers like Strawn—is that companies see them as a dime a dozen.
“There’s this AI arms race, and the fact of the matter is entry-level people aren’t going to help you win it,” says Matt Massucci, CEO of the tech recruiting firm Hirewell. “There’s this concept of the 10x engineer—the one engineer who can do the work of 10. That’s what companies are really leaning into and paying for.”
He adds that companies can automate some low-level engineering tasks, which frees up more money to throw at high-end talent.
It’s a dynamic that creates a few handsomely paid haves and a lot more have-nots.
From mud baths to herbal massages, Fiji’s heat rituals turned one winter escape into a soul-deep reset.
In the remote waters of Indonesia’s Anambas Islands, Bawah Reserve is redefining what it means to blend barefoot luxury with environmental stewardship.