Can Rapid Growth be “Sustainable”?

Rick Ridgeway Patagonia

Rick Ridgeway of Patagonia speaks to finalist teams at the 2018 Patagonia Case Competition at Berkeley Haas, April 2018.

Written by Maxwell Kushner-Lenhoff, CRB Student Advisory Board, CRB Fellow & MBA ’18 Candidate

“What’s your advice for fast-growing companies looking to do so sustainably?” I asked climbing legend and Patagonia Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Rick Ridgeway, at Berkeley Haas last week.

His answer: “Don’t grow fast.”

That was a tough response for me to hear. As an aspiring business and sustainability leader, I have long been convinced that the rise of fast-growing, more sustainable companies like Tesla can make a positive impact on their industries and the world. My logic goes something like this: as long as companies consider their broader impacts and stakeholders as they grow, they can do so sustainably. Consider Tesla, which has set a mission of “accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” or Lyft, which recently invested to make all of its rides carbon neutral, or even Apple, which has made significant efforts to improve its environmental footprint in recent years.

However, Rick has a point: there is a lot of risk associated with growing too fast, especially when it comes at the cost of long-term value for shareholders and stakeholders alike. Importantly: many implications of our decisions cannot be properly accounted for until after we have already made them.

As a chemist, I know this all too well. During World War II, DDT was a lifesaver for troops on the front lines across the pacific, killing mosquitos and reducing death rates due to rampant malaria. Only later, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, did the world realize that DDT was also a persistent environmental pollutant. The chemical has been found in birds around the world even in recent times.

But the drive towards fast growth is not going away. Public markets demand rapid growth in revenues and profits alike, and companies will continue to provide it. The real question is: “How can we provide this growth more sustainably?”

For companies like Patagonia, the answer is to stay private. Patagonia’s unique ownership structure and its status as a Certified B Corporation allows it to focus on its double bottom line of expanding its apparel business while also “doing no unnecessary harm.”

But even companies without this option have ways to step up their “sustainable growth” game.

One solution is to put in place strong norms around sustainability disclosure and clear goals on how to improve your company’s environmental footprint over time. Consider Cisco, which has worked over time to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and drive product returns to enable a circular economy. This year, the company’s efforts earned it the top spot in Barron’s sustainability ranking.

Another approach is to orient your entire company towards a sustainability goal. Surprisingly, this approach is becoming more common. Having started with companies like Tesla, this paradigm shift has since spread to include even the most resource intensive extractive industries. Shell Oil has emerged as a leader in their field after putting out a report predicting that our world needs renewables growth of 50 times over the next four decades if we are going to reach the Paris 2 degrees Celsius warming target as a planet in its “Sky” Scenario. The Company is beginning to invest accordingly.

And all companies have the option of putting in place internal mechanisms that incentivize managers to consider the long-term implications of their actions. According to McKinsey, firms that do so “exhibited stronger fundamentals and performance than all others in the last 15 years.”

So, Rick, while I agree that “not growing fast” might be the ideal scenario. I would argue that “growing fast more sustainably” might be a promising alternative to help get us there.


About the Author

Max Kushner-Lenhoff

Maxwell Kushner-Lenhoff is a Fellow at the Center for Responsible Business and a full-time MBA student at Berkeley Haas. Prior to business school, he earned his BS/MS in inorganic chemistry at Yale focused on renewable fuels production. He then spent four years in the Office of the CEO at The Dow Chemical Company, where he worked on the company’s 2025 Sustainability Goals, among other projects. Max spent the summer as an R&D Finance Associate at Genentech.

 

Democratizing the Impact Investing Roadmap: How Individuals Can Progress the Movement Forward

Writing in the Street: "Passion Led Us Here"

By Samantha Penabad, CRB Student Advisory Board & MBA ’18 Candidate

On March 20, the The Global Impact Investing Network launched the Roadmap for the Future of Impact Investing, setting vision, a course, and a call to action for professionals in and adjacent to the impact industry.  Well-researched and synthesizing input from 70 thought leaders and 200 practitioners, the roadmap provides a thorough assessment of the role investment professionals, market-builders and banks can and should play to advance the field in the next ten years.

My five years in Washington D.C. taught me a lot about the importance of convening these types of institutional actors. But more recently, as I reflect on my time at Berkeley – the birthplace of many a social movement – I also realize the importance of marrying the institutional approach with grassroots focus.  As a student and entrepreneur, I’m interested in understanding how we can advance Impact Investing outside of formal institutions and structures.  Here are my top three actions to add to the roadmap, from a grassroots perspective:

(1) Empower individuals to ask for change themselves

(2) Listen and learn from your users

(3) Engage the masses by reshaping product offerings

 

Empower Individuals to Ask for Change Themselves

When it comes to responsible investing, public pension funds like CALPERs and the Government Pension Fund of Norway are most often in the spotlight. However, an additional $9 Trillion sits in private pensions in the US. That’s the money that everyday private sector employees have put aside through their company plans to save for retirement. Ask any ESG professional (and I’ve asked many!) and they will tell you – private companies are extremely behind in their uptake of responsible investment products. Not only does this leave $9 Trillion dollars on the table, but it also leaves employees forced to funnel their retirement savings into products that do not consider externalities.  If offered responsible investing options in their 401(k)s, many employees would take advantage of them. One report from Morgan Stanley indicates that up to 90% of millennials surveyed said they want more responsible investing options for their 401(k)s.

What does this mean for empowering individuals? As the GIIN roadmap rightly alludes, fiduciary duty policies must be clarified – in part, so that businesses feel comfortable adding ESG-aligned products to their product mix. Still, the roadmap doesn’t stop with policy. Individual employees have the power to demand change from the bottom up. In fact, companies aren’t likely to change  their investment options unless demand is expressed from within.

In ten years, impact investing will have progressed if employees are engaged and active in their discussions with management about the impact and responsibility of the investment options offered in their 401(k) benefits.  This is the vision of αlign, an organization I help lead.  αlign focuses on educating employees about responsible investment options, enabling them to organize and demand better options, and supporting them through their discussions with HR and Finance Committee teams. With this in mind, individuals can begin to integrate impact investing principles into even the basics of their financial life.

While it is important to improve the clarity of policies like ERISA, which governs fiduciary duty in private pensions, and expand institutional-quality investment products so that employees have a range of options, the power of everyday individuals can’t be overlooked in moving trillions ($9 Trillion to be exact!) into more impact-forward investment products.

 

Listen and Learn from Your Users

Attend any impact investing conference, and you’ll hear it – the “need to align on a common vocabulary.” It’s true – impact investing means many things to many people, and its important that the professionals get on the same page and have some set of standardized language.

But what’s being left out is the language of the everyday individual. Whether it’s an equity investment, a fixed-income instrument, or a yet-to-be-developed blended financing vehicle, our terminology to the market must match consumer’s vocabulary. We can do that by taking a lesson from Silicon Valley, and focus more on product-market fit, rather than just developing financial products in backrooms with actuaries and lawyers.

If you ask a millennial about how they think about their impact capital, they don’t make distinctions between traditional asset classes. Instead, they talk about the timing and the intent of their capital. Through dozens of conversations with young professionals about their money and their impact, these are the five thematic areas I see pop-up most:

  1. In-the-moment help: This capital is deployed in-the moment and is usually motivated by (1) A natural disaster (2) A friend or family member asking for support for a cause or (3) A provoked desire to help (maybe as a result of tweet or a new article) that sparks a one-time donation.
  2. Planned Philanthropy: Omidyar Network’s Rafa de la Guia recently described this as the “R&D of the social sector”. Different from in-the-moment help, planned philanthropy says less about one’s ability to empathize in the moment, and more about what drives a person’s purpose and passion.  This capital is usually deployed with research and focus.
  3. Sustainable Impact: For impact investing funds, much of the strategy of a fund focuses on risk/return, discussing where exactly on the continuum they hope to be. Yet, for the millennials I’ve spoken with, many see venture-capital type impact investing as simply a cool way to support social causes in a more sustainable way. It’s less about the size of the returns and the lock-up period, and more about the underlying model of sustainability that causes them to want to engage in impact investing – a hand-up, rather than a hand-out.
  4. Responsible Investing:  “I just don’t want my money in anything bad,” is how millennials put it when they talk about negative screens. In this thematic area, they expect institutional-investment quality products like ETFs, or bonds, but without anything that makes them feel “icky.”
  5. Conscious Consumerism: Not a financial investment, but still a use of capital, millennials also consider the types of products they buy as an important part of how they use their capital for impact.

These thematic areas are by no means perfect, and reflect mostly qualitative interviews from everyday individuals about how they see their capital and broader impact collide. For the purposes of the roadmap, it matters less what these thematic areas are, and more that we take the time to listen to how everyday people engage with and think about the impact of their capital.

In ten years, impact investing will have progressed if everyday people are thinking about the intent and timing of their capital, and using the language of impact investing as it is meaningful to them. Our goal should be to have individuals think about not only incorporating impact into each of their investments, but also diversifying type of capital they deploy. It’s not just about changing mindsets about the role of capital in society, but doing so on a continuum of philanthropic contributions, investments and purchase behavior.   

 

Engage the Masses by Reshaping Product Offerings

Early on, the Roadmap refers to the enormous opportunity of “retail investors [who] currently lack options to participate in the field, which represents massive untapped potential.”  As noted, emerging fintech companies such as OpenInvest and Swell have helped to open up these markets by providing low-cost, digitized platforms to retail investors at considerably lower minimums than their competitors.

But this revolution is about so much more than just lowering minimums. It’s about rethinking financial flows, and reshaping power dynamics across industries.

Neighborly lowers barriers to investing in real assets with impact, allowing everyday people to be owners of their community development.  CNote provides impact investing with quarterly liquidity and low minimums – challenging the notion of the need for long lockups for the sake of impact. Aspiration makes your standard bank account a vehicle for investment. GivingFund (the Donor Advised Fund I co-founded while at Haas) is making it easier for anyone to have their own personal foundation, and grow your endowment with impact investments until you’re ready to make donations.

In ten years, impact investing will have progressed if everyday individuals have multiple options for investment products and platforms that meet their needs. Having engaged first hand in the ecosystem of start-up founders focused on democratizing access to impact investing, I am constantly energized by the creativity of offerings and approaches being seeded across the marketplace.

The roadmap ahead that the GIIN has laid out is an ambitious one and will take collaboration and focus from actors across sectors. And while these established actors look to create structures, products, policies and best practices that guide the industry, I’m excited by the opportunity that grassroots individuals have to fill out the ecosystem and work together across stakeholders. As individuals, we have the power to use our voices to demand from our companies more responsible options. We can, and should, talk about impact investing in words that have meaning to us, so that institutions recognize our “user needs” and reflect these as the field develops. Finally, we have the incredible opportunity experiment with products and services that make impact investing attainable and relatable.  Together as institutions and individuals, and simultaneously from the top down and the bottom up, I look forward to the growth and development the next ten years of impact investing will bring.


About the author:

Samantha is an MBA student at the University of California, Haas School of Business and a member of the CRB’s Student Advisory Board. She is particularly interested in innovative funding models for social impact – understanding how institutions, businesses and individuals support sustainable social change through investment, purchase, and donation decisions.  Outside of Haas, Samantha is the co-founder of a Donor Advised Fund, GivingFund and leads αlign, an advocacy organization focused on responsible investing in 401(k)s.

The Rise of Blockchain Has Been Remarkable. Is There Also a Sustainability Story?

By David Sternlicht, Full-time MBA ’18 & CRB Student Advisory Board member

A few weeks ago, I attended the second edition of Blockchain Unlocked at UC Berkeley’s Law school. It’s a newly launched executive education program designed to advance technical understanding and practical knowledge of blockchain technology. For me, it was a treat to learn alongside a diverse group of senior-level attendees and from world-renowned blockchain experts—many of whom are home-grown talent from the UC Berkeley EECS program—about the most hyped and buzzworthy technology I’ve encountered as a young professional.

Blockchain Basics

For a few reasons, I’m not going to write a comprehensive recap of the event. This gathering was designed as a blockchain technology bootcamp; as a result, much of the content was related to blockchain fundamentals, which have been explained ad nauseum by people far more intelligent than I. If you’re somewhat of a novice, I’d recommend reading my classmate Ashley Lannquist’s series of articles (Part 1: blockchain and crypto intro, Part 2: the decentralized economy and blockchain-based apps, and Part 3: the new internet) to get up to speed on the basics.

Blockchain’s extensive possibilities are driven by its far-reaching potential applications both within and beyond the financial sector. I emphasize potential because outside of a few specific non-crypto examples (a handful of private, single-owner corporate blockchains from the likes of Walmart, Nestle, Maersk, Airbus, and a few others), industry-wide blockchain use cases are still largely abstract—an exercise in creative thinking. That’s why this conference was such an interesting place to learn. We had approximately 50 people interested in learning about blockchain and applying it to their work, which included agriculture, microlending, intellectual property, finance, media/entertainment, wine, and law. People came from all over the world for this conference: Indonesia, Australia, Romania, Germany, Finland, Italy, and even Redwood City. This is far from a typical coastal US technology phenomenon. People worldwide believe in the blockchain story, and they want to help make it work.

If this technology ends up rippling through society as pervasively as the optimists predict, its impacts will be endless and immeasurable. They range from nearly eliminating our need to blindly trust institutions like governments and major corporations to truly democratizing access to financial and capital markets, and according to a widely cited USV post, generally changing the way value is distributed on the internet. We can probably agree that most sustainability goals refer to enduring and broad-based social, economic, and planetary wellbeing. If that’s the case, then we should also agree about the possibilities for new data, transactional, and contractual protocols to impact societal wellbeing. Here, I’ll examine how this might happen and, on the other hand, why it might not.

How Might This Happen?

There are a few ways in which blockchain, in its early days, seems capable of enabling sustainable business solutions:

  • Supply chains: Not all companies are as trusted and transparent as Patagonia, which publishes information about its entire supply chain Fortunately for the rest, a fundamental characteristic of blockchain technology is that the data therein is public and immutable; consumers don’t need to trust the corporation whose data is being published if they trust the protocol. Full supply chain transparency in food and textiles in particular can be immensely impactful on a number of dimensions. Fully accountable corporations will go to greater lengths to ensure environmentally sustainable farming or harvesting practices, to eliminate slave labor in supply chains, and to condense the physical distances of supply chains. For many companies, a blockchain-enabled supply chain tracker is akin to migrating from telegrams to an iPhone X. For example, it can help reduce the requisite time to pinpoint the source of dangerous food contamination from weeks to minutes. And, in general, more expedient testing and recording can accelerate the supply chain cycle time—this is good for profits, and (in the case of food) good for consumers.
  • Government accountability: Smart contracts, which are essentially contracts whose components are automated through contingencies written into code, could increase trust in governments globally. Recently—though the story has been disputed—Sierra Leone held an election with up to 70% of votes being captured and stored on a blockchain. Another more specific use case relates to environmental cleanup; if a local government isn’t cleaning up a river, citizens could set up an “ether-on-a-stick” contract that would pay the government a tax revenue equivalent in crypto-tokens only if it adequately cleans up the river by a certain date. Stakeholders are able to vote on whether the task was completed, and if it’s not, they will get their money back. This construct completely reverses the status quo by empowering citizens to provide incentives to their governments. It feels like a far-off future, but this technology makes it possible.
  • Smart grids: The biggest threat to smarter electric grids is that they’re more connected, and more network exposure leads to more cyberattack exposure. At the recent BERC Energy Summit, more than one expert speaker voiced concerns over this exact topic. Blockchains aren’t unhackable, but they’re fundamentally more secure than centralized systems. There are protocols in development, such as Filament IOT, that enable cryptographic communication between devices, accelerating and securing the microtransactions that occur on smaller, smarter grids.
  • Tokenization: Fundamentally, as mentioned in the USV post, tokenization at the protocol layer encourages speculation and incentivizes early adoption. Governments could tokenize a number of processes to encourage participation in programs related to education, health/fitness, or waste reduction. Cities can drastically reduce their environmental footprints through tokenized nudges; relative to taxes, this provides some element of gamification as well as the possibility of asset appreciation. One could imagine that tokens whose value is tethered to the price of carbon might attract eager participation from those expecting rising carbon prices over time.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant if nobody can solve blockchain’s biggest sustainability shortcoming: its overall energy use. It’s well-documented that the mining of Bitcoin alone is a massive energy hog; a  recent estimate shows that global Bitcoin mining consumes more energy than countries like Greece and Algeria, and just less than Colombia and Switzerland. The country of Bitcoin would be the 45th biggest energy consumer on earth. From what I can tell, the blockchain ecosystem is keenly aware of this and is working to address it in several ways:

  • Type of consensus algorithm: Bitcoin’s energy use stems from the complexity of the algorithm required to verify transactions. In short, miners receive a reward for successfully solving a function that’s required to “approve” and post a block of transactions, and their likelihood of achieving this is directly proportional to their available computing power. In other words, more energy = more expected revenue. New frameworks (for expert readers: Microsoft Coco and Intel SGX) will eliminate the need for certain system-wide energy-intensive requirements (like byzantine fault tolerance) and, as a result, enable much more energy efficient consensus algorithms.
  • Lightning channels are another budding solution. They essentially amount to a channel between two parties on a blockchain, enabling a near limitless number of transactions that are later settled and verified through a single closing transaction that’s posted to the blockchain. This is a much more energy-lite process.

Why Wouldn’t It Work?

Betting on, or simply counting on, blockchain to make any sweeping business or societal change is not without risks. Fortunately, our speakers were forthright about why blockchain technology might not work:

  • Signaling: Even the people who know most about this technology still treat it like an experiment, and they remain paranoid about its risks. Specifically, they worry that a high-profile Bitcoin collapse might signal to the less informed masses that this technology isn’t worth its salt.
  • Integration: Given that most of the value in the blockchain economy comes at the protocol level, this is where most of the innovation efforts have focused. There aren’t enough parties immediately thinking about integration of these new protocols across multiple parties, functions, and industries. How expensive will these integrations be? Given the demand and price of blockchain developers, probably extremely expensive. One of our speakers cited an anonymous Bitcoin developer to illustrate this point: “there are maybe 1,000 developers in the world who can write secure cryptographic code.” I doubt these folks are cheap hires… so will the savings be proportional? This friction of coordination is the result of many blockchains requiring network effects to become valuable, and here’s the resulting paradox: if you can solve these coordination problems across parties, why do you even need a blockchain? It’s probably more expensive, more complicated, and much more energy intensive than a centralized solution.
  • Physical/Digital separability: As exciting as blockchain supply chains are, this use case is fraught with fraud potential. Imagine that a big fish importer successfully gets buy-in throughout its supply chain—fishermen, processers, distributors, and retailers—to implement a blockchain enabled by smart tags. Even if the digital system works wonderfully, what’s stopping a bad actor from switching cheaper and perhaps mercury-ridden fish from one crate to another? Unless an individual fish’s key, which provides access to its journey from sea to plate, is literally tattooed onto the fish itself (which is possible but remains a nascent technology), there’d be no way to fully trust this system.
  • Adversarial environment: Data breaches and data privacy have been a massive technology headache over the past several years. The stakes are much higher with blockchain hacks because it’s money, not data, on the line. One of our speakers referred to this as a “universal bug bounty.”
  • Bad UX: As a novice in both blockchain and UX design, it’s tough for me to credibly comment here, but there seems to be a near-unanimous negative sentiment towards UX design in blockchain-based decentralized apps to date. This is an area in which traditional Silicon Valley tech firms excel—both startups and fortune 500s. Distributed apps need to win in this area to begin displacing any legacy options that serve a similar functional purpose.

For these reasons and many others, some of the smartest investors and operators in this space are still more bullish about blockchain-based digital collectibles like Cryptokitties than they are about enterprise blockchain solutions. If this objectively useless one is the most successful deployment of blockchain, then it’s fair to say the technology won’t have any meaningful or measurable societal impact, no matter how cute (or ugly?) the kitties are. There are reasons for optimism that this technology will work, and that it will have sweeping positive impacts. For me, it’s just very cautious optimism.

We realize that this is just scratching the surface. If you are working on leveraging blockchain or any distributed ledger technology to promote sustainability in business, please reply here or email us at the CRB. We’d love to hear more!

The next Dean’s Speaker Series, taking place on Tuesday, April 10th, will also explore the societal impacts of blockchain technology. Dean Lyons will discuss the dynamic and disruptive evolution of blockchain technology with FTMBA ’10 alumnus, Ian Lee. Ian is an Executive-in-Residence at IDEO CoLab and Co-Founder of Digital Asset Investment Company (DAICO), where he focuses on blockchain and crypto asset investments. Learn more about the event and register here.


About the author:

David is passionate about leveraging new technologies to tackle big societal problems. After working for 5 years at Cambridge Associates in the Mission-Related Investing practice, he came to Haas to be closer to both the sustainability and entrepreneurial ecosystems. For the past two years he’s worked with established cleantech startups, on two startup ideas of his own, and with two VC firms while serving on the CRB’s Student Advisory Board. He’s eager to re-enter the workforce and help scale startups that will bring forth a more sustainable future.

 

The Future of Work: Leveraging Technology and Bolstering Public-Private Partnerships to Create a More Sustainable Labor Market

Future of Work Panel

By Antoine Orard, CRB Human Rights & Business Student Lead & Full-time MBA ’19 candidate

Thinking about the future of work can be quite frightening. A recent McKinsey report estimated that automation could displace about 800 million jobs by 2030 and at least 30% of the tasks performed today in 60% of all professions could be automated in the future. In light of these concerning figures, Microsoft, the Center for Responsible Business at Berkeley Haas, and the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley School of Law co-hosted their second annual conference on Business, Technology, and Human Rights on March 21st 2018. This year’s focus was on the future of work and the conversation brought a much-needed optimistic view on how stronger stakeholder interactions, including public-private partnerships, can yield a more sustainable labor market in the future.

The Revolution Ahead

Historically, revolutions around work have been triggered by technological progress, initially dismantling traditional jobs but over the long run, resulting in sustainable job creation. Indeed, it is often anticipated that technology will contribute to job destruction. For instance, the introduction of ATMs in the 1970s was supposed to put bank tellers out of work. However, while the teller’s job description was definitely reshuffled, ATMs prompted more branch openings and more employment thanks to more efficient operations. The tale of bank tellers is not unique and highlights how workers must be supported to deal with rapid changes in their professions. Nonetheless, it comes with hope for more sustainable employment and stronger human rights policies and regulations, such as child labor rights and property rights.

The revolution ahead of us is unprecedented and will require efforts from all stakeholders. By 2050, the world population is expected to reach 10 billion people, of whom 75% will dwell in urban areas with poor infrastructures. At the same time, the middle class is growing at a striking rate of 400,000 people per day. These demographic changes will stress natural resources and disrupt many industries such as consumer products and energy. Technology can address these massive challenges in ways that humans alone can’t.  Indeed, computers can now recognize patterns invisible to humans and robots can deal with harsh jobs that are unsafe for workers. In that sense, technology is an amazing opportunity for us to create a more sustainable, inclusive, and affordable living for all. Yet, technology alone is not a solution, but rather a means to achieve success that must be supported by the right ecosystem.

Will automation take our jobs?

Stakeholders Joining Forces to Define the Future of Work

Public-private partnerships appear to be an essential apparatus in designing the future of work. While this concept is not necessarily new, examples of public institutions joining forces with external parties to prepare for the future are increasingly common. For instance, a major US city and school recently co-developed a curriculum for workers in the gig economy to ensure people receive the right skillset to thrive in this new model. Another example is a leading tech company partnering with municipalities to strengthen job search tools for local applicants and reorient training investments for public institutions by analyzing in-depth market data. As jobs are becoming more knowledge-based, it is important for workers to acquire both the soft and hard skills required by growing industries such as technology and healthcare. At the same time, as workers move away from “traditional employment” and engage in these growing forms of work (freelancing, gigs, etc.), unemployment becomes only part of the challenge for companies and public institutions. Employees in the future will not only need job opportunities, but also access to benefits, no matter how they choose to work. In the US, some cities and states are tackling these issues but, so far, policies have tended to be of limited effectiveness. Better and stronger partnerships between the private and public sectors could ensure the development of smarter policies and outcomes.

I personally think it is an interesting time to enter the labor market. As an optimistic person, I see the current uncertainty about the future as a favorable circumstance to create better working conditions and unlock new opportunities. Indeed, we should embrace technology to better engage, train, and empower people, not constrain it in fear of sci-fi movies actually coming true. Only by putting the human at the center of change will we succeed in shaping a future that we all want to work in. As such, public and private stakeholders may find a mutual interest in working side-by-side to develop adapted policies and work practices. After all, the business case speaks for itself: engaged employees drive higher productivity and yield higher results.


About the author:

Antoine Orard Antoine is a first year MBA student involved in the Human Rights & Business initiative at the CRB. Prior to Berkeley, he was an innovation manager at Mazars where he focused on developing new services. He was also part of their human rights advisory practice in London, where he led research on human rights in global Fortune500 companies in partnership with Shift and acted as a consultant for the practice’s clients.