Search

This paper advocates for implementing "green demolition" through selective deconstruction in Israel's urban renewal projects, highlighting environmental, social, and economic benefits. While Israel has embraced green building standards for new construction, the demolition phase remains largely overlooked in regulatory frameworks. Despite thousands of apartments being demolished annually, generating approximately 1.5 tons of waste per 10 square meters, pre-demolition deconstruction receives minimal incentives. Selective deconstruction—the controlled dismantling of buildings to enable reuse and recycling—could divert an estimated 700,000 tons of waste from landfills annually. The Just A Second Association proposes a three-pronged approach: engaging developers, working with regulators to create incentives, and raising public awareness. Key challenges include the need for regulatory changes, economic incentives, cost-benefit analysis, infrastructure development, and increased awareness. International examples from Germany, the Netherlands, the United States, and the European Union demonstrate successful implementation through various policy mechanisms. The paper concludes that integrating selective deconstruction into Israel's construction industry requires mandatory legislation, economic incentives, and public-private partnerships. To read the full article, visit our Hebrew main blog

This position paper explores how the convergence of two major revolutions—the Impact Revolution and the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Revolution—is transforming the landscape of business competition. Using the collaboration between BMW and Toyota as a case study, the paper shows how global challenges are prompting companies to adopt coopetition—a strategic approach that integrates competition and cooperation. The Impact Revolution redefines the purpose of business to include not only financial profit but also social and environmental value, aligned with the UN's Agenda 2030. Meanwhile, AI enables smarter, faster, and more inclusive collaboration—by democratizing knowledge, optimizing global partnerships, and accelerating progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these revolutions foster a new business paradigm, where competitive advantage lies in the ability to build high-impact strategic alliances. Despite challenges such as trust and value-sharing, coopetition—supported by AI—is emerging as a powerful tool for sustainable and systemic change. To read the full article, visit our Hebrew main blog

This position paper examines corporate responsibility and leadership in the post-ESG era,  the evolving debate surrounding ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) considerations and their impact on business practices, with reference to Robert G. Eccles' framework as discussed in the Harvard Business Review . We argue that companies should adopt a practical, balanced approach to ESG, recognizing the tension between single materiality (financial risks) and double materiality (corporate actions and social impact). A "one-size-fits-all" approach is inadequate; companies must prioritize clear, measurable goals and transparent reporting. By integrating both financial and social considerations, companies can enhance long-term competitive advantage. However, it is essential to assess ESG costs and benefits to align with broader strategic objectives. If the benefits outweigh the costs, companies gain a sustainable edge; if not, the competitive advantage is lost. Applying Robert G. Eccles' framework in Israel could help local companies navigate ESG challenges and capitalize on sustainability. These strategies should be tailored to each company’s competitive context, balancing social responsibility with financial performance. In the long term, businesses that effectively integrate ESG are likely see enhanced shareholder value, reinforcing the importance of sustainability in corporate strategy. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog

This blog examines the ESG-based sustainable investment movement through a sociological and historical lens, based on an academic article published in the journal Regulation & Governance . Based on a four-year global study including 100 in-depth interviews with investment managers, analysts, activists, and corporate executives, we characterize ESG as a cross-sectoral movement that has gained prominence since 2015, especially following the Paris Agreement. We argue that ESG investing as a mechanism for global governance represents a myth—a set of unrealistic beliefs that profit-oriented investment can significantly change corporate behavior. This myth rests on three flawed assumptions: that environmental and social risks create financial risk; that ESG risks can be accurately quantified; and that corporations will meaningfully respond to shareholder ESG policies. Despite these limitations, the ESG movement has achieved substantial institutional traction, normalizing sustainability reporting and creating normative pressure within financial circles. The paper concludes that state intervention is essential for the ESG myth to become reality. Without regulatory mechanisms such as carbon taxation, green investment incentives, and expanded fiduciary duties for investment firms, the transformative potential of ESG investing will remain largely unrealized. *Rami Kaplan, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel **David L. Levy, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Kaplan, R., & Levy, D. L. (2025). The rise of investor-driven climate governance: From myth to institution? Regulation & Governance . https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70000

Sustainability and resilience are prominent themes in social, economic, and political discourse, yet their relationship and practical implications often remain misunderstood. Sustainability broadly signifies achieving human prosperity within stable and supportive environmental conditions, whereas resilience emphasizes the capacity to endure, adapt, and maintain a desirable status quo amidst disruptions. Although these terms frequently appear interchangeable, substantial differences arise when assessing their implications for organizational strategies. Organizations frequently hesitate to fully embrace sustainability due to its inherent threat to established business models, operational competencies, and traditional investment practices. Companies often perceive the sustainability transition as disruptive to their proven economic viability and market resilience pathways. Conversely, organizations deeply committed to sustainability may encounter challenges sustaining market competitiveness, indicating that a balance between resilience and sustainability is crucial yet inherently complex. This Blog post, Based on Prof. Dror Etzion's research , introduces a configurational approach, outlining three distinct strategic pathways organizations may adopt to concurrently pursue sustainability and resilience: the Absorbtive, Transformative, and Adaptive pathways. Practical guidelines from this configurational perspective encourage managers and sustainability practitioners to evaluate their organization's initial sustainability position critically, challenge existing assumptions regarding resilience and sustainability alignment, strategically select the appropriate pathway, and cultivate an organizational culture conducive to ongoing learning and iterative improvement. The configurational approach proposed by this research highlights the complexity of aligning resilience and sustainability. It underlines that successful strategic alignment requires tailoring approaches to each organization's unique characteristics and conditions. Organizations can progressively achieve a resilient and sustainably viable state in the long term by appropriately selecting and committing to a strategic pathway. *Dror Etzion is a Grossman School of Business professor at the University of Vermont, United States.

This position paper examines the inherent tensions between ESG reporting requirements and traditional securities law disclosure frameworks, prompted by the SEC's voluntary suspension of its Climate Disclosure Rules in April 2024. The authors distinguish between the two reporting paradigms by contrasting "material information" (central to securities law and directly affecting investment decisions) with "important information" (the focus of ESG reporting, which may be socially significant but not financially material). They argue that securities laws were designed specifically to protect investors through disclosure of information material to investment decisions, not to advance broader social objectives. The paper identifies four fundamental incompatibilities between ESG and securities reporting: traditional securities frameworks already require disclosure of financially material climate risks; ESG-specific requirements impose significant costs with questionable investor benefits; applying uniform ESG requirements across different industries creates structural inconsistencies; and regulatory authorities may exceed their statutory mandates when expanding securities law beyond its traditional scope. Rather than forcing ESG concerns into securities law, the authors propose leveraging dedicated legal frameworks – environmental regulations for environmental concerns, labor laws for social issues, and corporate governance provisions for governance matters. This approach would focus on substantive compliance rather than mere reporting. As the ESG landscape evolves, the position paper advocates for maintaining the distinct purposes of different reporting regimes instead of expanding securities law materiality beyond its foundational principles. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog

This article examines the evolving role of sustainability management in corporate strategy and operations. Based on presentations delivered at the "Sustainability Management - From Theory to Practice" conference organized by the Arison Center for ESG in collaboration with PwC Israel, the authors analyze how sustainability and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors have transcended mere regulatory compliance to become fundamental components of business strategy with direct implications for corporate success in competitive markets. The research demonstrates that recent regulatory shifts and heightened investor expectations have compelled organizations to adopt proactive sustainability management approaches that extend beyond basic reporting requirements. Drawing on PwC survey findings, the authors illustrate the transformative impact of these changes across three critical domains: organizational structures, investor preferences, and consumer behavior. The evidence suggests that investors increasingly favor companies implementing proactive climate policies, creating significant market incentives for sustainability integration. This preference trend, combined with increasingly stringent regulatory demands, necessitates the strategic positioning of Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) as pivotal strategic actors within corporate leadership structures. Yair Avidan, Chairman of the Advisory Committee and Head of the Fellows Forum, Arison Center for ESG, Reichman University. Eran Raz, Partner and Head of ESG and Climate, PwC Israel.

Global supply chains are becoming increasingly fragile due to climate change, with extreme weather events disrupting key trade routes. One of the most prominent examples is the Panama Canal , where prolonged droughts and declining water levels have severely impacted global shipping. This article explores how climate-related disruptions affect economies worldwide, increasing costs, delaying deliveries, and challenging corporate risk management. It highlights the importance of integrating ESG principles  into business strategies, ensuring companies are better prepared for future supply chain shocks. As climate risks continue to intensify, companies and policymakers must rethink their approaches to supply chain resilience, water management, and sustainable logistics , emphasizing proactive solutions to mitigate future disruptions. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog

The nature, essence and style of public discourse on corporate responsibility are critical for its acceptance and integration by corporations and investors. The dynamics of the field – are they strictly professional or with political elements? Are they artificially added elements or inseparably substantive? Are they integral to the corporation's performance or merely part of its public image? These questions bear notable influence on corporations and institutional investors decision-making. Analysis of Israeli discourse in context of the wider international discourse on the matter yields a clear conclusion, showing corporate governance in Israel is notably under-developed in substance and underestimated in importance. ESG practices (Environmental, Social & Governance, to be called "Corporate Governance" hereinafter) remain largely insignificant, rooted in corporations desire to improve their PR standing in what is often labelled as "Greenwashing". In light of this, we propose the following five recommendations to improve public discourse on the subject: (1) Increasing Transparency and Dialogue (2) Highlighting the relevance and value of corporate governance to the public (3) Promoting public knowledge and awareness on the matter (4) Improving the professional KPI's (5) Training of students, professionals and field experts These recommendations can significantly contribute to improving professional discourse in the field, strengthening the power of regulators and public institutions, reinforcing regulatory processes, and introducing binding ethical norms in this area. In this way, we can create a better, more advanced, and more equitable society, bridging the gap between the business world and the public – for the benefit of our future and for the generations to come. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog

This position paper presents new research from the Arison ESG Center examining how psychological processes drive the adoption of sustainable consumption. Through extensive experimentation, Dr. Tevet and colleagues investigate the "spillover effect," where positive experiences with green products catalyze broader environmental behavior change. The research identifies a critical pathway: when consumers voluntarily choose green products and have positive experiences, they develop a stronger environmental self-identity. This enhanced identity leads them to recommend sustainable products to others, creating a ripple effect in their social networks. Importantly, this positive cycle only occurs when consumers perceive their choice as autonomous rather than mandated. Results from multiple experiments confirm that green product usage, when freely chosen, leads to more positive consumption experiences compared to conventional products. These positive experiences strengthen consumers' environmental self-identification and significantly increase their willingness to advocate for sustainable consumption. For marketers, the findings suggest focusing on creating positive experiences rather than relying on external incentives. Key recommendations include improving green product visibility, leveraging authentic user reviews, and using gentle nudges to reinforce environmental identity. The research emphasizes addressing common barriers such as price perceptions and product quality concerns. This study demonstrates that promoting sustainable consumption can be achieved through psychological engagement rather than mandatory measures. By understanding and leveraging these psychological mechanisms, small individual choices can transform into widespread market changes through social influence and behavioral reinforcement. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog .

This position paper examines the origins of sustainable competitive advantage, evaluating the theoretical relationship between companies accounting for ESG considerations to their long- term competitive advantage. In this paper, we make the claim that ESG considerations must be assessed through cost-benefit analyses, as opposed to the approach arguing the more ESG considerations are taken into account then necessarily the companies performance must improve. Only if ESG considerations are deemed to improve the cost-benefit relationship, will it contribute to the company's long-term competitive advantage. By extension, the inverse also holds true, if the ESG considerations prove costlier than the benefits they provide then no competitive advantage is secured. Consequently, ESG considerations must be evaluated differently across different industries and companies and in careful synchronization with the company's unique strategic and competitive objectives. In the long term, it is to be expected that shareholders will positively appreciate companies that effectively integrate ESG considerations into their corporate decision-making, bolstering further the value of ESG considerations. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog

The Arison ESG Center at Reichman University convened on the 24th of December 2024, holding a conference called "ESG Reporting – Regulation & Strategy". The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) in commerce in Israel. The conference was based on the position paper written by CPAs Shlomi Shuv & Shoshi Cohen and focused on two main issues: (1) the appropriate framework for ESG reporting in Israel and accompanying regulatory challenges and (2) the question of how best to integrate ESG management into corporate DNA in Israel. To read the full post, visit our Hebrew main blog