Last week, the Trump administration offered up its revision to former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the keystone of U.S. climate policy.

Companies involved in natural resource extraction and refinement are uniquely positioned to both benefit and suffer from society’s response to climate change.

Recently, a disquieting pattern has emerged. Moderate national leaders — on both the center-left and center-right — in some of the world’s richest and most advanced countries are finding it far easier to talk about climate change than to actually fight it.

Peeling back corporate declarations about 100 percent renewable energy is kind of like shucking a late-season ear of Jersey corn: removing the top layer of husk is pretty easy, but you never know what exactly you'll find as you pick away at the cob silk.

Emerging Asian economies are fast expanding, and an associated phenomenon has been that of rapid urbanization.

I was in the Ford boardroom in Dearborn, Michigan, as the 2000 Firestone tire recall exploded. Indeed, I had been quoted the previous day in the Wall Street Journal arguing that it was time for the giant auto company to "overreact" in the same way that Johnson & Johnson did during the Tylenol scare.

If your colleague or child does well and you give her or him positive feedback, that’s good.

As climate change risk rises, economies are adapting to curb its harmful effects. What cities are doing to mitigate these risks is coming into focus.

I recently teamed up on a panel with Kim Stackhouse-Lawson (director, sustainability, JBS USA; and chair of the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef) and Carlos Saviani (VP, markets and food, World Wildlife Fund) to assist in establishing a sustainability initiative in the food supply chain facilitated by the Context Network.

The past year has seen a significant uptick in concern by activists, companies and others about the impacts of plastic pollution on people and the environment.