SmoCo isolated as business swings to climate change action

Via Deloitte:

A new global report from Deloitte shows that 81 percent of Australia’s business leaders believe that climate change will have a negative impact on their business operations (compared with a global average of 48 percent).

The report, The Fourth Industrial Revolution: At the intersection of readiness and responsibility, surveyed more than 2,000 C-suite executives across 19 countries, including 151 in Australia, to understand how businesses are preparing for the massive impact of the fourth industrial revolution*, also known as Industry 4.0, and the role of technology in disrupting business models and processes. It explores how leaders are re-evaluating their approaches to four key areas seen as critical to succeeding in the fourth industrial revolution: strategy, societal impact, talent, and technology.

The report suggests that as we enter a new decade, capitalism is being redefined, with evidence business leaders and organisations around the world are starting to prioritise their responsibilities to society alongside profitability.

“Business is increasingly recognising its role in proactively contributing to society and acting to make a difference to local communities,” noted Robert Hillard, Deloitte Australia’s Chief Strategy & Innovation Officer. “Australian businesses appear to be more socially-minded than their global counterparts, with 41 percent saying they want to use new technologies to increase their company’s positive impact on society, versus a global average of 23 percent. In terms of the top five greatest outcomes they hope to achieve with their investments, this is second only to driving greater revenue (62 percent).

“We’re entering a new era where shifting community attitudes have made it an imperative for businesses to place societal responsibility at the heart of their strategies. Business readiness now demands leaders understand this expanded responsibility and deliver solutions not just for corporate growth, but also to benefit their local communities.

“We’re also seeing business leaders increase their focus and attention on climate and environmental sustainability. Our research indicates that industry leaders acknowledge the business imperative of climate change and the associated risks to their business.

“Climate-related disasters will have a significant economic impact and businesses need to demonstrate to investors that they are taking appropriate steps to mitigate their exposure. We anticipate that climate risk stress testing will become a key imperative for Australian businesses in 2020.”

Stakeholder pressure driving climate focus

Business’ desire to help address the issues of climate change and environmental sustainability have risen dramatically in importance over the past two years. In this year’s survey, 57 percent of Australian executives believe their generation is responsible for encouraging sustainability (compared to a global average of 38 percent) and 83 percent of Australian business leaders (the highest percentage of all 19 countries surveyed) cite tackling climate change as their generation’s responsibility to solve. Two years ago, just 7 percent of Australian executives (10 percent globally) believed their companies could influence environmental sustainability to a significant degree.

This growing attention to social purpose may largely be attributed to increased pressure from internal and external stakeholders, such as employees, investors and regulators. The top two reasons Australian executives claim they focus on societal issues are “external stakeholders’ priority” (48 percent) and “employee pressure” (25 percent).

Richard Deutsch, Deloitte Australia CEO, commented on the need to consider the timing of the survey: “It’s important to note the timing of this global survey, which took place before the devastating Australian bushfire crisis commenced late last year. We can assume that Australian executives would feel even more strongly about businesses helping to address climate change and encouraging sustainability for the long term. There’s no doubt that our immediate focus must be on supporting local communities and those in need on the ground. Regeneration and rebuild will take years and I have no doubt Australian business will play a critical role in making this happen.”

Technology investment priorities

On par with the global average of 68 percent, 65 percent of Australian business leaders see Artificial Intelligence (AI) as the Industry 4.0 technology expected to have the most profound impact, followed by nano-tech (61 percent). They are far less bullish on the value of the top globally rated technology, the Internet of Things (seen as having the most profound impact by just 32 percent of Australians, versus 72 percent globally).

Australians are also more likely to take an integrated approach to implementing new technologies, with 88 percent of Australian executives saying this was an investment priority, compared to 47 percent globally. It is also notable that just 8 percent of Australian businesses said they would invest in new technology to protect themselves from disruption, versus 56 percent globally.

Investing in future skills development

Business is recognising how radically Industry 4.0 technologies will change the workplace: almost all Australian executives surveyed (89 percent) indicate training and developing their workforces is a priority, and 99 percent say they are committed to a culture of lifelong learning. But they appear to still be in the dark about where best to focus their training efforts. Just three percent strongly believe their organisation currently has the Industry 4.0 skills needed in the future (compared to 20 percent globally); and only 13 percent have an understanding of exactly which skills will be required to thrive, versus a global average of 59 percent.

“As we noted in our major report on the future of work last year, The path to prosperity: Why the future of work is human, the nature of work is changing to become more skills-based,” commented Robert Hillard. “These new Industry 4.0 technologies will automate and augment many tasks, and while it will be important for companies to invest in ensuring their workforce is tech-savvy, it’s going to be equally important to ensure high levels of competency in the uniquely human skills like creativity, customer service, care for others, and collaboration – those skills that are hardest of all for technology to replace.

“Technology is changing the workplace so quickly that many of the jobs of the future haven’t been invented yet. People need the chance to play with and explore new technology and work out new ways to use it. Problem-solving is also a very human skill.”

If you think SmoCo is about to change his spots and join the push then think again. Watch yesterday’s cold fury on Today:

That’s one seriously disassociated individual not for changing. It’s not OK for anyone to lose a job but their life can be forfeit. I epecially like the line about not doing anything that might lift energy prices. Dear god, what a lie.

This issue would burn him alive, except that Labor has dropped its climate change policy under the Albotross!

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. buttzilla thirteen

    “…community attitudes have made it an imperative for businesses to place societal engineering at the heart of their strategies. Business readiness now demands leaders understand this expanded indoctrination and deliver nothing, just for corporate growth, to profit from their local communities.”

    there fixed.

  2. Sun Cable is probably a scam to import thousands of electricians and give permanent residency to all of them, so they move to Sydney and push up the price of land.

  3. reusachtigeMEMBER

    I really hope businesses are doing the right thing and only getting aboard the climate change hype if there’s profits to be made.

    • Oh, there’ll be plenty of profits to be made – most of them at the taxpayer’s/ consumer’s expense. The trick is for companies to figure out where to position themselves in order to maximise handouts from the gubbermint.

      I was at a presentation the other day for a QLD-based renewables company who were looking for further equity funding. The CEO basically told the audience they’d be silly not to grab themselves a slice of taxpayer generosity via grants and subsidies for renewables projects. He called it ‘free money’.

      I was very nearly tempted!

        • Serious question: why would you need to subsidize an industry that is indispensable? I wasn’t aware that there was any alternative to either petroleum or diesel for the average motor vehicle? Please name competitors to the aforementioned fuels and please provide evidence of subsidies. You know what is subsidized? Electric vehicles. Tesla simply wouldn’t exist without Barack Obama shoveling billions of tax credits in the direction of that company.

          Certainly there might be subsidies in certain countries where drilling oil might be hopelessly uneconomic but to say that the fossil fuel industry globally is subsidized is absurd beyond belief. You’re as dumb as fracking dogsh*t if you believe that.

        • You haven’t read what I said and you haven’t answered my question. At the very least build a case using basic economics for why subsidies exist globally. Instead you post Wiki-as-truth, a post anyone in the world could have written.

          Some poor countries have subsidies for fuel as part of a socialist agenda – handouts to the population etc. but there is no need for subsidies anywhere else. Why would Russia, for example, subsidize oil production? it defies logic and someone has to pay for it.

  4. “The country has been burning. We now have floods, we now have horrific dust storms. Homes have been lost, we’ve lost lives. The country is grieving.”

    Sounds like Australia is among the worst places for living – maybe that’s why our housing is so expensive

    • John Howards Bowling Coach

      The problem is that modern health science has been too successful and too easily transplanted into the wider world. We’re surviving diseases and growing old at too high a rate, it was evidently never meant to be like that, otherwise birthrates would have been capped through some other natural means.

      • The population was always going to rise to meet resource availability. Just like every other animal on the planet. We’ve just done it earlier with medicine.

        Humans are so smart and adaptable we overcome everything and can exploit and live anywhere. Unlike any other animal.

        We are however, not smart enough to understand not controlling our population will destroy us. Soon.

        • John Howards Bowling Coach

          I feel that Human’s are materially different from most other species though as we adapt the environment to ourselves (albeit I guess the Australian Aboriginal was a little different hence being nomads). The speed at which in the last 100 years of so we’ve exploded our own numbers while at the same time crushed our supporting environment is quite astounding and likely the reason that we’ve been able to refuse to accept that ever greater numbers are unsustainable.

        • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

          If You educate and empower women the birth rate drops to below replacement levels.
          It’s Happened in every Westernised, consumerist, democratic country.

  5. “Climate change is not the biggest threat to the world’s environment – we are. The world’s rivers and seas aren’t choked with floating piles of rubbish, toxic chemicals and plastic waste because of climate change. They’re that way because we have 7.7 billion people crammed onto a planet that’s dying under the pressure of our greedy, selfish abuse”….

    CC is now becoming an easy diversion to pretty much continue as we are while ignoring the real problem.

    The left have lost their minds, their morals, their dignity. The left are a dishonest disgrace.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      Look over there! Distraction!

      Making an annual donation to a charity dedicated to the schooling of girls in Africa and South Asia makes a real difference.

      And, you could also write a letter to your local member of parliament and state senators asking them what action they are proposing to take on climate change.

    • Totally agree. Its global over population that is the root cause of it all including Australia which is trying to capture that overflow and swamp this ecologically fragile land with millions of people mainly from the third world primarily greed being the main motivator. Anyway I believe mother nature will one day evoke revenge. See what happens now with SARS 2.0 taking off in Asia …..

      • It’s not both.

        If population was low, there’d be habitable areas available.

        If we control CC (and we won’t), the next catastrophe is just around the corner…Bee extinction? Pesticide resistance? Fish stock depletion? Rainforest collapse?

        Population is multiples of the problem CC is.

        • HadronCollisionMEMBER

          Look at England in the 1800s, low population shocking pollution – coal, tanneries. Look at our rivers, Parramatta, Yarra – heavy metals in the sediment.
          You seem to imply if we had a low(er) population we could go on with plastics, the coal emissions etc. Sure, we’re still poisoning the environment AND ourselves.

          So, it is both

          Sustainable population needed AND cleaner/more sustainable living.

          Which goes to your point about pesticides/etc.

          In a low population scenario people could still be using Lorsban for termites and be wiping out bees ants etc.

          So, it is both

          I am not saying forcing from overpopulation is not the most pressing issue.

          But if you take the view that turning around population growth is going to take a Handmaid’s tale like scenario or pandemic (and in that scenario I am not convinced we wouldn’t just repopulate in a BAU scenario), we need to look at the other variables

    • John Howards Bowling Coach

      Rich4 I was thinking about that issue watching the Netflix Doco on Bill Gates. All that energy focussed on stopping babies dying in the 3rd world is in fact the actual problem. I would love a 1/2 day with Bill to talk through how to get people to stop having babies.

      • Remember Bob Geldof feeding Africans? He worked out it did more harm than good.

        Though the real problem is bringing migrants to the west, and nations developing and consuming more. That’s where resource use is increasing.

        That’s why elites want it. Resource use equals wealth for elites.

        Australia’s biggest environmental issue, tenfold, is immigration.

          • Wherever large scale environmental damage is independent of immigration. So basically anything that involves exports.
            Land clearing, mining pollution, fugitive emissions from gas, fracking, etc.

        • Australia’s biggest environmental issue, tenfold, is immigration.

          Bzzzt, no.

          * We emit 1.5% of global GHG emissions in this country (internal emissions)
          * We export ~3.5% (external emissions)
          * By 2030, our internal + external could be as high as 13%

          I think that’s a slightly bigger problem.

        • John Howards Bowling Coach

          It is hard to be the problem and the solution. Family planning has a lot of resistance in the world largely due to religions, but those extra babies are still surviving now due the westerner poisonous (as the Chinese mostly say while promoting their witch doctors). Perhaps having and supporting kids needs to be more expensive to discourage it?

          • There are 60m unwanted births a year. Global population increases by 90m a year.

            There’s 2/3 of the solution right there.

            What’s the UN doing? Nothing.

          • The problem isn’t population growth in Africa. All that causes is more people using the same limited resources.

            The major problem is immigration into the West, and developing nations.

          • John Howards Bowling Coach

            You are preaching to the converted. I would happily advocate zero migration intake to Australia. If those in less comfortable nations want a better life they should learn from the folly of western development and take a better path while lifting themselves. Unlike the Chinese who still live in a 3rd world nation BUT at the same time create double the pollution output of the USA.

          • It is hard to be the problem and the solution.

            There is a vast gulf of difference between preventing children from being born, and keeping them alive once they are.

            Perhaps having and supporting kids needs to be more expensive to discourage it?

            Birth rates have peaked globally and are declining. In most, if not all, wealthy countries they are well under replacement rates.

            The fundamental problem is the only way to address climate change in a meaningful timeframe (decades) through population involves either hundreds of millions of people in the west dying, or – maybe – several billions in the rest of the world.

          • John Howards Bowling Coach

            DrSmithy is the path to enlightenment found through the knowledge of always being right?

          • What’s the UN doing? Nothing.

            In reality, the need for family planning is well understood as a critical component of foreign aid by basically everyone, for multiple reasons, not just environmental.

            But as increasingly conservative Governments come into power in developed countries, this is happening:


          • Drsmithy

            Foreign aid should be entirely reliant on negative population growth.

            The world is doing next to nothing about it.

            The western media, politicians, and elites are all lying cheating self interested $%%&*.

            The path forward is to destroy the least honest. The one’s leading the dummies to a path that achieves next to nothing. That’s Labor and Greens.

            We need new parties to oppose LNP if we want to do anything about fixing Australia.

          • Foreign aid should be entirely reliant on negative population growth.

            This is like saying welfare should be entirely reliant on skilling up to get a new job.

          • No. That metaphor doesn’t fit.

            If you need aid, you have too many people. Make moves to fix it and we’ll give you aid. Don’t and we won’t.

            Why should we be interested in funding a never ending problem, let alone a growing problem?

          • No. That metaphor doesn’t fit.

            Yes it does.

            You want the assistance (family planning/welfare) necessary to achieve the result (negative population growth/new skills) to be dependent on having already achieved the result (negative population growth/new skills).

            If you need aid, you have too many people. Make moves to fix it and we’ll give you aid. Don’t and we won’t.

            The only way to instantly achieve negative population growth is to kill people (or stop keeping them alive, which is largely a meaningless distinction).

            Why should we be interested in funding a never ending problem, let alone a growing problem?

            It’s not a growing problem. Global birth rates have peaked. As I have pointed out numerous times before, outside of authoritarian, violent and genocidal actions, population by its nature is a very slow ship to turn. However, it *is* turning. There are no (moral and ethical) quick solutions in this area.

          • “You want the assistance (family planning/welfare) necessary to achieve the result (negative population growth/new skills) to be dependent on having already achieved the result (negative population growth/new skills)”

            Here we go again. The straw splitting king strikes.

            Fix population growth or lose funding. Where’s the program from the funding? Show me.

          • You’ve been played, Smithy. Denial 101: How to Divert Discussion on Climate into a Population Discussion


          • You’ve been played, Smithy. Denial 101: How to Divert Discussion on Climate into a Population Discussion

            Nah. Richie’s been posting the same stupid sh!t under several different accounts here since day 1. He’s as predictable as clockwork (which is why I usually don’t bother). For example, in HadronCollision’s subthread above and the one below it where I highlight things that are disconnected from immigration, he’ll shift the goal posts to talking about population growth elsewhere driving the demand that causes these things. Or the demands that high population countries must IMMEDIATELY reduce population despite the impossibility of doing this in any moral or ethical fashion. Or the insistence that nobody except him has thought about reducing births in the undeveloped world despite family planning being a cornerstone of foreign aid policy for basically as long as foreign aid (as we would call it today) has existed.

            What can I say ? It’s a boring day watching compulsory training videos. 🙂

            (Though yes, I agree that it’s a textbook diversion tactic away from addressing glaring consumption and waste issues.)

  6. Arthur Schopenhauer

    “ almost all Australian executives surveyed (89 percent) indicate training and developing their workforces is a priority, and 99 percent say they are committed to a culture of lifelong learning. But they appear to still be in the dark about where best to focus their training efforts.“

    Hilarious. Still in the dark = clueless.

  7. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    “Yes, we should pay attention to the “leaders” that gave us an entire CBD as a construction site, congested everything (thinks lifts in the CBD), no wage growth and who fly just to have 2 stupid meetings…. “

  8. Morrison will only change when the coal lobby tells him to do so. Until then, the place can become a natural disaster theme park.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      I have found the blanket coverage of these nobodies family affairs so bewildering!
      Who actually gives a Fk about them?
      Why are the supposed progressives at the ABC deciding to give so much airtime to stories about the fking Royals!
      What am I missing?,….Its all no different than a story on the boring as shyte lives of the Kardishians to Me.
      Why Why Why is this the lead “News” story everywhere!?

      • John Howards Bowling Coach

        That one is easy to explain aside from the general overdone interest in the Royal Family as our ‘betters’ an angle the elites love as it keeps on reinforcing that the large populace should know their place and that they are not elite. Anyway aside from that the current story is Prince Harry taking a swipe at the media and there is nothing the media like more than talking about the media.

    • The LNP’s biggest asset at the moment is Labor. A strong opposition would have fronted News Corp with Morrison put to the sword over any number of issues. Truely pathetic.

  9. John Howards Bowling Coach

    Although it is not an actual solution we can see the answer to dealing with Australian Business and their desire to grow the population for material gain, through a more wise nation such as Switzerland. The Swiss are no moral or ethical guide as they are poor on both counts. BUT they are in no way looking to grow their population as a path to increasing their wealth. They are wealthy in part because they don’t have the burden of infrastructure growth in their already developed nation. But the other reason is they are outward facing and they are asset acquirers. They don’t encourage or really accept foreign investment, they are out there buying assets like the Norwegians and Singaporeans, they collect rent instead of paying it. They have however fallen into the trap of overpriced real estate, no one seems to be perfect. But most are better than us Aussies.

    If you do want to migrate to become Swiss, good luck, it’s close to impossible for most on this planet.

    • There is only one way to fix this.

      Destroy the Labor party. Only then will we get a new party to oppose LNP’s immigration.

      • Destroy the Labor party

        A cynical person would say that it’s almost as if you’re working for the conservatives.

        • Nope. I despise them almost as much as I despise Labor. Though if I weighed it on who is rogering their constituents more? Labor’s a clear winner.

          Enough people love where we’re heading to keep LNP MPs in a job. Meanwhile Labor (ex) voters are shafted.

          Labor has to be the party to go.

          • Labor has to be the party to go.

            There is someone called “Richard” on another site, maybe whirlpool –can’t remember– who also said this, he also hated the Greens, “Greens have to go!” etc. People eventually exposed him as a mole for the LNP or Minerals Council, can’t remember.

            Probably not you though.

          • No. Different person. There are other people smart enough to know how bad Labor and Greens are you know.

            I’ve been here from the start. Read my other comments. Do I sound like an LNP supporter?

        • Saw your comment above to smithy.

          Mate, smithy and I have discussed this nearing a decade.

          How about you get a subscription so there’s some consistency in your name?

    • John Howards Bowling Coach

      Very good point. Deloitte are one of the most complicit organisations on the planet, taking a bet both ways on everything and reaming the societies of most nations as advisers to business and the government, ensuring that they create nothing but a loophole for themselves on all the policy consulting work they touch. All the lobbyists, advisers, and consultants running the world can get %^&$ed, they are the problem, no wonder so many ex MPs find their next paycheck is from the consultant industry.

  10. John Howards Bowling Coach

    Watching that clip from the Today Show again, you can’t help but noticed a few things. The end of the interview just reinforced how thick skinned and stridently glued to his backward religious beliefs Scotty from Marketing truly is. To even be able to keep up that smug smirk and thank them for biting deeply into his credibility shows that he was only ever going to be a Pollie or a Preacher, there is no other vocations to truly use that type of detachment from the world around yourself. But I also think Channel 9 have done a good thing in this era of The Drum on the ABC having weak wallflowers and lobbyists on the box nightly pushing their line of vested interests, by putting 2 reasonably experienced and capable journalists into the morning slot where the pollies usually get a free ride from the likes of Koschie pretending that he is some type of business leader. At least Karl and Ally gave it to that slippery smirker, and asked him a few uncomfortable points clearly outside the talking points the PMs team would have approved. More power to them, we need more of that.