At the Deep Sea Fish Market in Tanga, on Tanzania's northern coast, the morning auction is the heartbeat of a local economy. According to The Citizen, fishermen, traders and service providers who depend on that market are now voicing concern about declining fish supplies and falling business, which they attribute to climate change and other factors. The report, by Mbonea Herman, is a reminder of how many people sit behind a single market. A fish auction does not involve only the crews who go out to sea. It supports the traders who buy and resell the catch, the people who provide ice, transport and processing, and the households that rely on those incomes. When supply thins out, the effect spreads along the whole chain. The Citizen's account sits within a wider story on the Tanzanian coast. The same newspaper has recently reported on concerns about climate change threatening Zanzibar's marine resources, and it has covered the government's efforts to address a sharp decline in fish stocks in Lake Tanganyika. Taken together, these reports suggest that fisheries pressure is being felt in both marine and freshwater settings across the country. Climate change affects fisheries in several well-documented ways. Warmer water can shift where fish live and breed, changes in rainfall and ocean conditions can alter the supply of nutrients, and coastal habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs, which act as nurseries, can be damaged. The traders in Tanga cite climate change as one factor among others. Because the full reporting is behind a paywall, this article does not attempt to quantify the decline or rank the causes, and readers should consult The Citizen for the detail. What the story does show is the human side of a marine and climate issue. Small-scale fishing and fish trading are often a main source of income and food for coastal communities, and these households tend to have few alternatives when catches fall. That is why the topic connects so directly to the goal of conserving oceans and marine resources, to climate action, and to reducing poverty. The practical questions that follow are familiar ones for coastal economies: how stocks are monitored and managed, how fishing communities can be supported to adapt, and how alternative or supplementary livelihoods can be developed without undermining the marine environment. Answers will depend on local data and on decisions taken by government, communities and partners. For now, the testimony from Tanga adds a grounded, local voice to a global issue. When the people who work at the market say the fish are not coming in as before, it is a signal worth taking seriously. Why it matters Climate change is often discussed in global averages, but it is felt at specific places such as a fish market in Tanga. When traders and fishermen report shrinking supplies, they are describing the early evidence of how warming and marine pressure turn into lost income and food insecurity for coastal households.

Denmark may be about to restrict one of the most intensive forms of poultry farming. The Minister for Nature and Animal Welfare, Christian Rabjerg Madsen of the Social Democrats, has told TV 2 that he wants to work towards a national ban on so-called "turbo chickens", also known as "Frankenchickens", and a broad majority in the Danish parliament appears to support the idea, according to The Local Denmark. The debate follows a TV 2 investigation that used hidden cameras at a farm in northern Jutland. The footage showed chickens receiving only three hours of darkness a day, while Danish law requires a minimum of six. Chickens eat less in the dark, so shortening the dark period makes them eat more, fatten faster and reach a higher weight at slaughter. Experts quoted by TV 2 described the practice as unnatural and bad for animal welfare. The breed at the centre of the discussion is mostly the Ross 308. According to the report, these birds grow from about 50 grams to 2 kilograms in 33 days, and are often too heavy for their legs, so many cannot walk. Berlingske has reported that Denmark produces up to 70 million turbo chickens a year, which gives the question real weight for the country's food industry. The political picture has shifted. A similar proposal in 2024 failed for lack of a majority, and the Moderates voted against it at the time. They now support a ban, with their animal welfare spokesperson, Ellen Emilie, pointing to the party's wish for greener policies and the approval of its pig agreement. The Alternative, the Red-Green Alliance, the Green Left, the Social Liberals, Liberal Alliance and the Conservatives are also in favour, and the Denmark Democrats are described as positive about the idea. For anyone following sustainable food systems, the story is a reminder that environmental, social and governance questions meet on the farm. Choices about breed, feed conversion and living conditions shape animal welfare, but they also shape how efficiently a food system uses land, feed and energy, and how much trust consumers place in the labels on their food. Legislation on production standards is one of the ways governments set those boundaries, and Denmark's experience will be watched by other European countries that are weighing similar rules. It is worth being clear about what has and has not happened. This is a stated intention and a shift in parliamentary support, not yet a law, and the details of any ban, including the timeline and how fast-growing breeds would be defined, have still to be worked out. The figures on darkness hours and production come from TV 2 and Berlingske as reported by The Local, and the farm filmed is one example rather than a picture of the whole industry. Even so, the direction is notable. A proposal that fell short two years ago now has support across a wide part of the political spectrum, and the minister is publicly committed to pursuing it. Why it matters How a country raises its food is a sustainability decision, not only an animal welfare one. Denmark's move shows that production standards can change quickly once public evidence and political will line up, and it gives responsible consumption and production a concrete, measurable meaning: breeds and conditions that allow animals to live decently.

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a method for putting a monetary value on the social, environmental and economic change an activity creates, then comparing that value with what it cost. The result is usually a ratio, such as £2 of value for every £1 invested. This guide walks through the stages in order, shows a worked calculation with every figure visible, and explains what the number can and cannot tell you. Key takeaways SROI follows six stages: scope and stakeholders, impact map, evidence and valuation, impact adjustments, calculation, then reporting and verification. The ratio is the present value of outcomes divided by the value of inputs. Above 1, the value created exceeds the money put in. Deadweight, attribution and drop-off adjustments matter more than the headline ratio. Without them, results are overclaimed. Treat the ratio as one part of the story. Show the assumptions and test how sensitive the result is to them. What SROI measures The UK Cabinet Office guide describes SROI as a framework for measuring and accounting for broader value, bringing social, environmental and economic costs and benefits into one account. It focuses on change that matters to the people and organisations affected, and it uses money as a common unit so that very different outcomes can be added together. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence gives the same reading: SROI measures social, environmental and economic outcomes, values costs, benefits and disbenefits in money, and presents results as benefits gained per unit invested. A decision-maker comparing a recycling programme with a skills programme can then look at both on one scale. Social Value International is careful on one point. It presents SROI as a framework for measuring, managing and accounting for social value, not merely a way to produce a ratio. That distinction shapes everything below: the process of talking to stakeholders and understanding change is where most of the value of the exercise sits. Evaluative and forecast SROI The Cabinet Office guide separates two types. An evaluative SROI looks back, using outcomes that have already happened. A forecast SROI predicts the value you would create if the intended outcomes were achieved. Forecasts suit funding bids and project design. Evaluations suit reporting to funders, boards and regulators. Many organisations run a forecast first, then return to the same impact map after a year to test it against real data. The seven principles behind the method Social Value International’s guide sets out seven principles. They are involve stakeholders, understand change, value what matters, include only what is material, do not overclaim, be transparent and verify the result. The guide says social-value accounting can inform strategy, resource allocation, impact management and communication. In practice, the principles act as a checklist for every judgement you make in the analysis: Principle What it means when you are working Typical mistake Involve stakeholders Ask the people affected what changed for them Deciding outcomes in a meeting room Understand change Map how activities lead to outcomes, including negative ones Counting activities (workshops held) as results Value what matters Give weight to outcomes people care about, using financial proxies where fair Valuing only what has an easy price Include only what is material Leave out changes that would not alter a stakeholder’s decision Padding the map with minor outcomes Do not overclaim Deduct what would have happened anyway and what others contributed Claiming the full change as your own Be transparent Show sources, assumptions and proxies Publishing a ratio with no workings Verify the result Get an independent check Marking your own homework If you already work with materiality for sustainability reporting, the fourth principle will feel familiar. Our guide to double materiality assessment covers how that filter works in ESG reporting. The six stages of an SROI analysis The Cabinet Office guide organises the work into six stages. Each one produces something you can show to a reviewer. Stage 1: Set the scope and identify stakeholders Decide what activity you are analysing, over what period, for what audience and for what purpose. Then list the stakeholders. BetterEvaluation’s introductory guide defines them as people or organisations that experience change, positive or negative, because of the activity. That includes people who bear a cost or lose something, not only beneficiaries and funders. Not every group needs a full analysis. Keep those who experience significant change and explain why you left others out. Our stakeholder engagement plan guide helps you structure who to consult and how, and stakeholders and business sustainability gives the wider case. If the activity is a physical development, scoping also means knowing the costs and constraints of the site. A site feasibility assessment sets out how that early appraisal works for developers, and its figures become your inputs. Stage 2: Map inputs, outputs and outcomes Build an impact map, sometimes called a theory of change. Inputs are what you put in (money, staff time, donated space). Outputs are the direct, countable products (50 workshops, 300 households visited). Outcomes are the changes in people’s lives or in the environment that follow (lower food bills, better wellbeing, less waste to landfill). Keep outputs and outcomes apart. A common weakness in weak SROI reports is that outputs are valued as if they were outcomes. A workshop has no social value until something changes for someone. Stage 3: Evidence the outcomes and value them For each outcome, choose an indicator that stakeholders would recognise, collect data and assign a value. The Local Government Association’s guide says outcome evidence should use stakeholder-informed indicators, collected data and financial proxies to establish monetary values. A financial proxy is a stand-in price for something not traded in a market. The avoided cost of disposing of a tonne of waste is a fairly direct proxy. The value of improved confidence or reduced isolation is harder, so the proxy needs its source stated and ideally tested with stakeholders. Stage 4: Establish impact This is the stage that separates a credible analysis from a flattering one. The same LGA guide says you must estimate what would have happened anyway and what resulted from other factors, then deduct those amounts from the outcome value attributable to your investment. The usual terms are: Deadweight: the share of the outcome that would have happened without your activity. Attribution: the share that was caused by other organisations or programmes. Displacement: value created in one place by taking it from another. Drop-off: how much an outcome fades in each later year. Stage 5: Calculate the ratio The Cabinet Office guide describes calculation as adding the benefits, subtracting the negatives, comparing the result with the investment and testing the sensitivity of the findings. The next section shows this with numbers. Stage 6: Report, verify and embed Share the findings with the stakeholders who helped build them, have the work verified, and use the results in decisions: budgets, programme design, the next round of data collection. An SROI that sits in a drawer has cost money and returned nothing. How to calculate an SROI ratio: a worked example The LGA guide defines the ratio as the present value of outcomes divided by the value of inputs. A result below one means the investment exceeds the social return. Above one, the return exceeds the investment. The example below is a hypothetical illustration, built to show the arithmetic. It is not a real programme, and the proxies are invented for the exercise. The programme: a community food-waste project run for one year. It trains volunteers, runs household workshops and sets up a neighbourhood composting scheme. Total inputs: £100,000 (grant funding, staff and donated space). Step 1: Value the outcomes for year one Outcome Stakeholder Gross value Deadweight Attribution Net value Avoided waste disposal cost Local council £18,000 10% 0% £16,200 Lower food bills (250 households at £120) Households £30,000 30% 20% £16,800 Improved wellbeing (40 volunteers at £1,500) Volunteers £60,000 20% 0% £48,000 Total £108,000 £81,000 The net value is the gross value multiplied by (1 minus deadweight) and by (1 minus attribution). For households: £30,000 × 0.70 × 0.80 = £16,800. Step 2: Project the outcomes forward Suppose the outcomes last three years, halving each year (a 50% drop-off). Year one is £81,000, year two £40,500 and year three £20,250, a total of £141,750 before discounting. Step 3: Discount to present value Future value is worth less than money today, so you apply a discount rate. Here we use an illustrative 3.5%. Year Net value Discount factor Present value 1 £81,000 1 ÷ 1.035 £78,261 2 £40,500 1 ÷ 1.035² £37,807 3 £20,250 1 ÷ 1.035³ £18,264 Total £134,332 Step 4: Divide by inputs SROI ratio: £134,332 ÷ £100,000 = 1.34 : 1. The net present value is £34,332. In plain terms, each £1 invested generates an estimated £1.34 of value, on these assumptions. Step 5: Test sensitivity Now ask which assumption carries the result. Volunteer wellbeing is £48,000 of the £81,000 in year one, and it rests on a proxy that is easy to challenge. Halve that proxy to £750 per volunteer and the year-one net value falls to £57,000. With the same drop-off and discounting, the present value becomes about £94,530, and the ratio drops to 0.95 : 1. That swing is the finding. The programme is marginally positive or marginally negative depending on a single proxy. An honest report says so, and it might add stronger evidence on wellbeing before the figure is used to argue for funding. Reading the ratio with care BetterEvaluation advises that the ratio should be seen as one element in explaining and communicating progress, not the end goal. The same page identifies reliable research data and sound estimates of deadweight and attribution as key to credibility, while noting those estimates are difficult to make. A few rules keep you out of trouble: Never compare ratios across studies without checking the method. Different scopes, time horizons, proxies and discount rates produce ratios that are not like for like. Publish the workings. The transparency principle means a reader should be able to follow every number back to its source. Report the range. “Between 0.95 and 1.34” is more honest than a single figure, and more useful. Keep the qualitative story. The New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice describes SROI as a holistic approach that attends to benefits which are hard to quantify. Quotes and case notes belong beside the numbers. For how SROI sits alongside other ways of evidencing impact, see measuring ESG impact beyond the numbers. What an SROI template should include Social Value International publishes an SROI Value Map with guidance notes and formulas for present value, net present value, the SROI ratio and the discount rate. It also offers a non-SROI version for analyses that weight outcomes by relative importance instead of valuing them in money. Whether you use that file or build your own spreadsheet, the structure is the same. One row per outcome per stakeholder, with columns for: Stakeholder and number affected Input value and source Output description and quantity Outcome and indicator Financial proxy, with its source Deadweight, attribution, displacement and drop-off percentages Duration in years Discount rate and resulting present value A sensitivity tab where you change each assumption and watch the ratio The worked example above fits that layout. Replace the numbers with yours and keep a separate sheet listing every source. Examples of where SROI is used SROI is common wherever a funder or public body must justify spending on outcomes that do not appear on a balance sheet: community health programmes, employment and skills schemes, housing support, and environmental projects such as waste reduction and green-space improvement. A public body can use it to compare options, and a charity can use it to show what a grant achieved. The approach also links to finance models that pay for results. If you are interested in how outcomes become investable, read our pieces on social impact bonds and impact investing. Where Exereco can help SROI works best when it feeds a wider sustainability and ESG picture, rather than sitting alone. Exereco combines sustainability news and analysis focused on Europe and Africa with ESG reporting software, advisory and compliance support, training courses and networking events. If you are deciding who needs to see your impact results and how to present them, start with our guide to the key audiences of an ESG report, or explore the full offering at Exereco. Our team can talk through how impact evidence fits your reporting and which stakeholders to involve first. FAQ What is a social ROI? It is a measure of the social, environmental and economic value an activity creates compared with the resources invested, with outcomes expressed in money. The result is typically a ratio, such as £3 of value per £1 invested. It complements financial return rather than replacing it. How do you count SROI? Value each outcome for each stakeholder, deduct deadweight, attribution and other overlaps, project the outcomes over their lifespan, and discount them to present value. Then divide the total present value by the value of the inputs. Finish with a sensitivity test on your weakest assumptions. What is a good SROI ratio? There is no universal threshold. Above 1 means the estimated value exceeds the cost, but a ratio depends on scope, proxies and discount rate. Judge it by how well the assumptions are evidenced and how stable the result is under sensitivity testing, not by size alone. What is the difference between forecast and evaluative SROI? A forecast SROI predicts the value expected if intended outcomes are achieved, and is used when planning or bidding. An evaluative SROI looks back at outcomes that have already occurred. Many teams do the forecast first and update it with real data later. Is SROI the same as financial ROI? No. Financial ROI compares monetary gains with costs to the investor. SROI includes value to other stakeholders, such as participants, communities and public bodies, and includes environmental and social outcomes that markets do not price directly. Recommended Measuring ESG Impact: Beyond the Numbers Corporate Social Responsibilities Social Impact Bonds: Innovations in Funding Sustainable Solutions The Rise of Impact Investing: Aligning Profits with Purpose

Zimbabwe's Meteorological Services Department has issued a warning of thunderstorms, hailstorms, strong winds, very heavy rain and lightning this week, according to a report by NewZimbabwe published on 27 October 2026. The storms are expected from Tuesday to Thursday, which covers 27 to 29 October. The system is forecast to begin in the west of the country and move east. The areas expected to be affected first are Matabeleland North and South, Masvingo, the Midlands and parts of Mashonaland West. By Thursday, the storms are expected to reach eastern areas, mainly in the north. Cooler south-easterly airflows should reduce the chances of storms in the south. The department's deputy director, Isaac Masawana, linked the intensity of the expected weather to high temperatures, which add energy to the atmosphere. The explanation is a useful reminder of how heat and severe weather are connected. Warm air can hold more energy and moisture, and when that energy is released in a storm the result can be heavier rain, stronger winds and hail. The source article does not attribute this specific system to long-term climate change, and Exereco does not make that claim, but the mechanism it describes is the same one that climate scientists point to when they discuss why extreme weather events matter for countries on the front line of a warming world. The practical advice in the warning is direct. People are urged to shelter in strong buildings, because the winds could lift roofs and send debris such as asbestos and iron sheets flying through the air. Vehicles should be kept covered or sheltered from hail. Residents are also asked to follow official updates from the Meteorological Services Department and to check social media claims before acting on them, a sensible caution at a time when unverified forecasts and images can spread quickly. The details of that advice say something about who is most exposed. Roofs made of asbestos or iron sheets are common in many homes and public buildings, and they are precisely the structures that can fail in strong winds. Flying debris is a danger in its own right, and the mention of asbestos adds a health concern when sheets break apart. For households with limited means, a strong building to shelter in may not be easy to find, which is why early warnings carry so much weight. Early warning is one of the most cost-effective ways of limiting harm from severe weather. A forecast that reaches people in time allows families to secure property, move livestock, protect vehicles and avoid travel in dangerous conditions. Its value depends on reaching communities through channels they trust, which is why the department's call to rely on official updates matters. The report does not describe damage or casualties, as the storms had only just been forecast at the time of writing. The warning stands as a snapshot of how national weather services are being asked to communicate risk more often and more clearly, and of how ordinary households are being asked to prepare. As the three-day window runs through to Thursday, the guidance is simple: stay informed, stay sheltered and treat the warning seriously. Why it matters A storm warning is a small, practical piece of climate adaptation. When heat adds energy to the atmosphere, the safest response is a forecast that arrives in time and advice people can act on, from sheltering in strong buildings to keeping vehicles covered.

UK modern slavery reporting means publishing an annual statement under Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It applies if your organisation carries on business in the UK, supplies goods or services, and has an annual turnover of at least £36 million. The statement sets out what you did in the last financial year to stop slavery and human trafficking in your operations and supply chains. It must be approved by your board, signed by a director and published on your website. This guide covers the current rules, what a good statement contains, and the reforms now proposed. Key takeaways You must publish a statement every financial year if you carry on business in the UK and your turnover is at least £36 million. The board must approve it and a director (or a designated member of an LLP) must sign it. It goes on your UK website with a prominent homepage link. Government guidance sets out six areas to cover, and today the law does not force you to address them. Proposed reforms would make them mandatory and add financial penalties. A statement that shows real risk assessment, remediation and year-on-year progress is worth far more than a generic policy summary. What UK modern slavery reporting actually requires Section 54 is a transparency duty, not a duty to prove your supply chain is clean. The law asks you to say what you have done. If you have done nothing, you must say so. A statement must describe the steps taken during the financial year to manage modern slavery risks, or state that no steps were taken. The idea is that investors, customers, journalists and campaigners can read the statements, compare them and press for better. That is why the publication rules matter as much as the content. Who has to publish Three conditions apply together, according to the official GOV.UK guidance. Your organisation must: Be a body corporate or a partnership, wherever it is incorporated. Carry on a business, or part of a business, in the UK. Supply goods or services, with an annual turnover of at least £36 million. Two points catch organisations out. First, a non-UK company with a UK presence can be caught. Second, the turnover test looks at the whole organisation and its group, not only the UK arm. If you are near the threshold, check the official guidance before assuming you are exempt. Many organisations below the threshold publish a statement anyway, because large customers and public buyers ask for one in tender questionnaires. That is a commercial choice, not a legal duty. How often You prepare a statement for each financial year. LUPC advises publishing it within six months of the year end as best practice. Treat that as a working deadline: set the sign-off date in your board calendar at the start of the year, not after the accounts close. What your statement should cover The guidance identifies six areas a statement may include: Area What to explain Organisational structure and supply chains What you do, where, and how your supply chains are built Policies The policies on slavery, trafficking and responsible sourcing, and who owns them Risk assessment Where in your operations and supply chains the risk is highest, and why Due diligence and remediation The checks you run on suppliers and what you do when you find a problem Training Who was trained, on what, and how you know it worked Monitoring and evaluation The measures you use to judge whether your steps are effective These six areas come from the government’s practical guide, which also recommends showing progress year on year, disclosing the risks you have identified and reporting on remediation. Go beyond the minimum The weakest statements read like a copied policy. They say the company has zero tolerance and then describe nothing. A stronger statement: Names the sectors, products and countries where you see the highest exposure. Says what you found, including problems, and what you did about them. Compares this year with last year, with measures you can track. Explains how workers or affected people can raise concerns, and what happens next. Civil society guidance from CORE makes the same point: good practice includes disclosing identified instances of modern slavery, corrective action plans, grievance mechanisms and any remedy provided. An honest account of a found problem and its fix is more credible than a claim that nothing was ever wrong. Who signs it and where it goes The approval chain is strict. Under the GOV.UK guidance, the board or equivalent management body must approve the statement. A director, or equivalent, must sign it. For an LLP, a designated member signs. The explanatory notes to the Act explain why: senior sign-off is meant to ensure the statement has the backing of the people best placed to change things. For publication: Publish it on your UK website, with a prominent link on the homepage. If you have no website, give a copy in writing to anyone who asks, within 30 days. Upload it to the government’s registry. The modern slavery statement registry lists 34,339 registered organisations and 23,933 unique statements. At present, uploading is encouraged rather than compulsory. How to build a statement, step by step 1. Map your supply chain Start with direct suppliers, then work towards indirect ones. The official guide says organisations can map their supply chains, beginning with direct suppliers and seeking to understand indirect ones, to find high-risk areas. You will not see everything in the first year. Say what you could and could not see, and what you will do about the gaps. 2. Rank the risks Score risk by product, location, supplier type and the way workers are hired. Labour-intensive, outsourced and seasonal work, such as cleaning, construction, agriculture and logistics, usually sits higher than a desk-based service. Write down why each area ranks where it does. That reasoning is what a reader looks for. 3. Act on what you find The UN Guiding Principles on human rights due diligence, which the government guide draws on, follow a simple loop: assess impacts, act on findings, track responses and communicate how impacts are addressed. Your statement should show that loop working, with at least one concrete example of an action taken. 4. Train the right people Training should reach the people who make decisions that affect risk, such as buyers and recruiters, and groups who may be at risk. CORE suggests evaluating training through participant feedback. Report who was trained and what changed afterwards, not only that a module exists. 5. Measure and report Pick a small number of indicators you can repeat each year: share of high-risk suppliers audited, concerns raised and closed, training completion. Then report the same measures next year. Trends are what turn a statement into evidence of progress. Reporting in the UK, Australia and Canada If you operate in more than one of these countries, you may face three regimes. The UK, Australian and Canadian rules differ in requirements, definitions and scope. The UK government publishes an optional international reporting template designed to support one report across all three. The template splits content into two levels. Level 1 is information organisations should disclose. Level 2 is recommended information that demonstrates progress and leadership. Even if you only report in the UK, this split is a handy way to decide what is essential and what is a stretch goal. Organisations with European operations should also watch related supply-chain rules. Our guide to UK deforestation checks for business supply chains shows how due diligence duties are spreading across environmental and human rights topics, and our explainer on CSRD reporting covers the EU side. Enforcement today and reforms on the way The current enforcement route is narrow. If an organisation fails to comply, the Secretary of State may seek a court injunction requiring compliance, or specific performance in Scotland. In practice the main consequences have been reputational: investors, buyers and campaigners can see who has not published. That looks set to change. According to a People Management analysis from September 2026, the proposed Immigration and Asylum Bill would amend Section 54 in several ways: Reporting against the six prescribed topics would become mandatory, with an added assessment of effectiveness against performance indicators. The signatory would give an accuracy declaration, confirming the statement is accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief. The duty would extend to public authorities. The Secretary of State could require electronic submission to the government registry. Financial penalties would apply for non-compliance without reasonable excuse, capped at the higher of 1 per cent of turnover (or total budget for public authorities) or £1m. These are proposals, so check the progress of the Bill and any regulations on GOV.UK before you rely on the detail. The direction is clear, though: a statement that is thin today is a risk tomorrow. What to do now Compare your last statement against the six areas and list the gaps. Agree a board sign-off process that gives the signing director time to check the evidence. Map your international supply chains, noting where suppliers may face other mandatory due diligence rules. Set measures you can track from this year onwards. Where Exereco can help Many teams struggle less with the law than with gathering evidence from procurement, HR and operations into one consistent report. At Exereco we bring sustainability news, ESG advisory, training and reporting tools together for organisations in Europe and Africa. Our Human Rights Reporting course helps your team build the due diligence and disclosure skills a modern slavery statement relies on. If your reporting also covers wider ESG topics, our GRI Reporting course and Corporate Social Responsibilities training fit alongside it. You can also read how SDG 8 on decent work connects to labour rights in supply chains. FAQ Is a modern slavery statement mandatory in the UK? Yes, if you carry on business in the UK, supply goods or services and have a turnover of at least £36 million. You must publish one for each financial year. Organisations below the threshold are not legally required to, but many publish one voluntarily. Who has to sign the statement? The board or equivalent management body approves it, and a director or equivalent signs it. For an LLP, a designated member signs. Proposed reforms would add a personal accuracy declaration from the signatory. Where must the statement be published? On your UK website, with a prominent link on the homepage. If you have no website, you must give a copy in writing to anyone who requests it within 30 days. Uploading to the government registry is encouraged and may become a requirement. What happens if we do not publish? Currently the Secretary of State may seek a court injunction to require compliance, and reputational damage is the more common consequence. Proposed reforms would introduce financial penalties. Check GOV.UK for the current position before your next reporting cycle. How is it different from the Australian and Canadian rules? The three regimes differ in requirements, definitions and scope. The UK government’s optional international template is designed to let you produce one report covering all three, split into level 1 and level 2 disclosures. Recommended Human Rights Reporting UK to Make Deforestation Checks Mandatory for Business Supply Chains

Tanzania's capital is growing faster than its water supply. The Dodoma Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Authority, known as Duwasa, says the city is short of about 68 million litres a day. Demand is about 159.9 million litres a day, while production is about 91 million, roughly 57 percent of what is needed. Some residents continue to receive water on a rotational schedule. Duwasa points to population growth, expanding settlements, economic activity and the relocation of government functions to Dodoma. Before the relocation, production was 61.5 million litres a day against demand of 48 million, a comfortable margin. Demand has since outpaced every addition to supply, and it is projected to reach 180 million litres a day by 2030. The authority is working on projects worth about Sh51 billion to lift output from 91 million to at least 121 million litres a day. The largest is the Government City scheme, at Sh35 billion, which includes borehole drilling, tanks and more than 60 kilometres of pipes. It is about 40 percent complete and is expected to add more than 10 million litres a day. Nzuguni Phase II, at Sh4.7 billion, will improve supply in several neighbourhoods and is also about 40 percent complete, with better access expected in six to seven months. The Zuzu-Miganga scheme is expected to add 12 to 15 million litres a day. Beyond these, the government is working on the Farkwa Dam, which could supply at least 128 million litres a day once the necessary infrastructure is in place. A longer-term plan involves piping water from Lake Victoria via Singida. In the meantime Duwasa is drilling new boreholes as a short-term measure. The report also shows the everyday side of the shortage. Duwasa says 103 water meters were stolen in the past three months, causing disruption and extra cost, and it has asked residents to protect water infrastructure. Its customer service director reported 12,336 complaints over the July-to-June period, most of them resolved, of which 177 concerned residents with no water at all, mainly in the areas with the most severe shortages. For a fast-growing city the lesson is that water planning has to move at the speed of urban planning. Boreholes draw on groundwater that must be managed so it is not depleted, dams depend on rainfall that climate change is making less predictable, and pipelines are only as reliable as the people who maintain them and the communities who protect them. Reducing leakage and losses, metering fairly and protecting catchments are the quiet measures that stretch every litre produced. The health stakes are plain. Intermittent supply pushes households towards storage, unsafe sources and time-consuming collection, which falls hardest on women and children. Closing the gap is therefore a matter of public health and equality as well as infrastructure. Why it matters A capital that supplies only 57 percent of its water demand is a warning for every fast-growing African city. Infrastructure investment has to be matched by groundwater protection, loss reduction and climate-resilient sources, or new supply will simply be absorbed by new demand.

One of the core values at Salvo Grima Group is “Driving a Change”. We believe that businesses can achieve extraordinary things when they come together for a shared purpose. Through the Heartbeat Drive, we're turning that value into meaningful action. From a Simple Idea to a Growing Community At Salvo Grima Group, we have always believed that our responsibilities extend beyond our everyday business operations. As an international Group with a long-standing presence in Malta, we recognise the importance of giving back to the communities that have supported us throughout our journey. It was this belief that inspired us to establish the Heartbeat Drive, a corporate blood donation initiative designed not only to encourage blood donations but also to bring together like-minded companies that share our commitment to making a positive difference. Working closely with the National Blood Transfusion Service (NBTS), we set out to create a platform where businesses could come together, engage their employees and collectively contribute towards a life-saving cause. After all, a single blood donation can potentially help save up to three lives. When we consider the difference that one individual can make, imagine what we can achieve when entire organisations unite behind the same mission. For us, that is what makes the Heartbeat Drive so special. It is not simply about donating blood; it is about building a community of businesses that believe in the power of collective action. Building on Our First Year's Success When we launched the Heartbeat Drive in 2025, we were encouraged by the response from the companies and individuals who embraced the initiative. Our first edition brought together 55 blood donors through 6 companies, providing a strong foundation on which to build. For our second edition in 2026, we were determined to take things further. We are incredibly proud to have welcomed 87 donors this year, representing an increase of 58% compared to 2025. Beyond the numbers, what encourages us most is the growing willingness of companies and their employees to get involved as we managed to increase the initiative by 3 companies this year. We believe that creating opportunities for employees to contribute to meaningful causes is an important part of fostering a culture of social responsibility. Through the Heartbeat Drive, we aim to make blood donation more accessible, raise awareness of its importance and encourage individuals who might not otherwise have considered donating to take that first step. Seeing the initiative grow gives us confidence that, together with our partners, we can continue inspiring greater participation in the years ahead. The Power of Like-Minded Partnerships We firmly believe that corporate social responsibility should not be approached in isolation. While individual companies can undoubtedly make a difference, there is tremendous potential in combining our efforts, resources and networks to achieve a common objective. This year, we were proud to collaborate with AMSM, Hili Ventures, BNF Bank, M&Z Marketing plc, Vivian Corporation, A.M. Mangion and MMGH Ltd, who joined us as sponsors and co-organisers, together with Burmarrad Group as a participating company. We are immensely grateful for their commitment and willingness to contribute to the initiative. For us, these partnerships represent something much greater than sponsorship or participation. We may operate in different industries, serve different customers and pursue different commercial objectives, but through the Heartbeat Drive, we are united by one common purpose: helping save lives. Equally important has been our close collaboration with the National Blood Transfusion Service. We have tremendous admiration for the work the NBTS carries out every day to support patients across Malta. Their dedication is a reminder that the need for blood donations extends far beyond any single event. We are particularly grateful to Caroline Cassar from the NBTS, whose commitment, guidance and close collaboration over the past six months have been instrumental in coordinating this year's initiative. Only the Beginning As a Group operating across eight countries, we recognise that our role within society extends beyond generating economic value. We are already gathering resources in preparation for next year's event. Our ambition for the Heartbeat Drive 2027 is to make the initiative bigger, better and more impactful by welcoming even more companies and encouraging greater participation. We take particular pride in the collaborative nature of this initiative because it demonstrates how businesses can become a positive force within their communities. By working together, we can reach more people, encourage greater participation and create an impact that extends beyond what any one organisation could achieve independently. Ultimately, our vision is to see the Heartbeat Drive grow into an annual initiative that brings an ever-expanding community of businesses together for a truly meaningful cause. Because we believe that when businesses come together, we can achieve so much more than business. Together, we can help save lives. Different companies. One heartbeat. One mission. If you are interested in participating in The Heartbeat Drive 2027, kindly contact Michael Psaila Debono at mpdebono@salvogrima.com.mt

On Friday 23 October 2026, Switzerland announced that it would draw on its strategic diesel reserves. The Federal Office for National Economic Supply, known as FONES, said pipeline deliveries from neighbouring France had been delayed, which it attributed to heavy rainfall in the south of France and a short-term diesel shortage as a result. Under the release, up to 45,000 cubic metres may be withdrawn between 23 October and 22 November. That is just under four percent of the current stockpile. FONES says the withdrawals will offset the shortfall and keep diesel supply secure, so there is no cause for alarm. It is nonetheless a reminder of how much of a modern economy rests on a handful of supply lines. The context matters. The Local Switzerland reports that oil markets have been strained since the start of the Iran war, now in its eighth month, with transit through the Strait of Hormuz disrupted and diesel among the hardest hit fuels. Rhine water levels have stayed low for months, which has disrupted Swiss logistics and supply chains. On 15 October, delays and cancellations in international rail freight threatened a jet fuel shortage at Zurich Airport, and FONES opened kerosene stockpiles, with purchases approved until 1 November. Petrol and heating oil supplies are described as secure, although FONES says the situation remains tense and precarious for all petroleum products. Winter adds a second layer. Switzerland's Federal Electricity Commission, Elcom, has warned that the Iran war and the Hormuz blockade bring new risks for the 2026/27 winter, while noting that current market prices do not signal an immediate shortage and that Europe is better prepared than during the 2021 and 2022 energy crisis. The combination it treats as most dangerous is a prolonged Hormuz closure, poorly filled gas storage, a cold winter and weak renewable output. Last winter Switzerland imported about a fifth of its winter electricity consumption, partly because the Goesgen nuclear plant was offline and hydropower was weaker, and Elcom points out that about 60 percent of the roughly 12,000 transmission structures are between 50 and 80 years old. Reserves are a sensible buffer, and drawing on them is what they are for. But a reserve is a stopgap that is spent as it is used, and a buffer cannot be refilled quickly if the disruption lasts. The lasting answer to an exposed fuel supply is to need less of it: more domestic renewable generation, better storage, efficiency in buildings and transport, and a grid renewed fast enough to carry it. Each of those cuts emissions and cuts exposure to events far beyond Swiss borders. For companies and public bodies reporting on climate and energy, the episode is a practical test. Resilience plans that count only emergency stocks, and sustainability plans that ignore security of supply, both leave a gap. Reading them together, with scenarios for fuel shortages, cold snaps and low hydropower, is what turns a policy statement into preparedness. Why it matters Winter exposes the difference between a buffer and a strategy. Emergency reserves buy weeks; efficiency, domestic renewables, storage and a modern grid buy years, and they lower emissions at the same time. Energy resilience and climate action are the same plan seen from two angles.

A water risk assessment is a structured way of finding out where water could hurt your organisation, where your organisation could hurt shared water resources, and what you will do about it. In business and ESG work, it looks at two things together: the conditions in the river basin where you and your suppliers operate, and the way your own operations use and affect water. In UK building management, the same phrase usually means something narrower, a Legionella or water-hygiene check. This guide covers both meanings, but spends most time on the corporate one. Key takeaways A useful assessment combines basin conditions (the catchment you depend on) with operational conditions (how you use, treat and discharge water), because both drive risk exposure. Decide your geographic and value chain scope first. The tool comes second. Rank findings and focus on a manageable set of acute risks, then turn them into controls, targets and disclosure. Review the assessment when something material changes, such as a new site, a drought, a new supplier or a change in regulation, not only on a calendar. A Legionella risk assessment is a legal health and safety duty for premises in Great Britain. It is a different exercise from a corporate water risk assessment. What water risk means Water risk is the chance that water problems damage your organisation, or that your organisation contributes to water problems for others. The CEO Water Mandate, a UN-backed corporate initiative, groups business water risk into three types: Physical risk: problems with the quantity, quality or accessibility of water, such as drought, flooding or contaminated supply. Regulatory risk: changing or ineffective water policy, including abstraction limits, discharge standards and pricing. Reputational risk: how customers, communities, investors and other stakeholders perceive your handling of water. The same source also splits risk by origin: risks caused by your own operations, products and services, and risks caused by basin conditions where you or your suppliers sit. A factory with efficient processes in a stressed basin still has a basin risk. A factory in a wet region with leaky processes and poor effluent control has an operational one. Why it is rising up the agenda The scale is not small. The WWF Water Risk Filter guide reports that 17% of the global population and 10% of global GDP sit in regions of high water risk, projected to reach 51% and 46% by 2050 as climate and socio-economic conditions change. The same guide cites a CDP estimate that water-related risks represented a US$301 billion threat to the bottom line of global businesses in 2020. For a UK organisation, that exposure often sits abroad: in cotton, food, minerals or electronics suppliers located in basins you have never visited. That is why scope matters so much. Step by step: how to carry out a water risk assessment There is no single mandated method for corporate water risk. The steps below follow the logic of the CEO Water Mandate and WRI guidance, set out in a form a sustainability or facilities team can run in a few weeks for a first pass. 1. Set the scope The CEO Water Mandate notes that the proliferation of tools has caused user confusion, and that you should settle your geographic and value chain scope before running any assessment. Write down: which sites, countries and business units are in whether you include tier-one suppliers, or deeper tiers the purpose: internal risk management, investor disclosure, target setting, or all three 2. Map water dependencies and impacts Companies can assess water materiality by looking at dependencies and impacts across the value chain. A dependency is how exposed you are to water challenges, for instance a process that stops without a steady supply. An impact is your contribution to shared water challenges, such as abstraction from a stressed aquifer or discharges that degrade a river. A simple register works: one row per site or supplier group, with columns for water source, volume used, quality needs, discharge route and what happens if supply fails for a week. 3. Gather basin data Locate each site in its basin and check indicators such as scarcity, pollution, flood exposure and the state of local governance. The WWF Water Risk Filter is a free online tool built for this, and its guide explains how to use it. Use globally comparable data so that sites in different countries can be ranked on the same footing. The CEO Water Mandate advises that, to prioritise locations for targets, companies should map facilities against globally comparable information on shared water challenges. Then add local detail the global tools miss: abstraction licence conditions, drought plans from the local water company or regulator, and flood maps. 4. Include your supply chain This step is the one most often skipped. WRI reports that companies including supply chains in their assessments are seven times more likely to identify supply chain risks. Start with your highest-spend or highest-water-intensity categories, ask suppliers for site locations, and run those locations through the same basin screen. 5. Score and prioritise Combine likelihood and consequence for each risk, and record both exposure and your response. The CEO Water Mandate stresses that understanding exposure and the corporate response is essential to judge residual risk. A site in a high-stress basin with recycling, storage and a backup supply has a lower residual risk than the raw basin score suggests. If you end up with dozens of risks, do not try to manage all of them. Companies can identify a manageable subset, concentrating on the most acute risks or those to which the company is broadly exposed. The prioritisation logic is close to the one used in materiality work. If you already run a materiality exercise, our guides to double materiality assessment and drawing a materiality matrix show how to rank topics by financial and impact significance. Water can be plotted on the same matrix. 6. Decide on controls and targets Turn each priority risk into an action with an owner and a date. Typical responses include: efficiency, reuse and leak reduction at your own sites backup supply or storage at sites exposed to scarcity or disruption changes to effluent treatment supplier engagement and procurement requirements participation in catchment-level collective action WRI suggests that addressing value chain water risk requires moving beyond internal assessment to engage suppliers, amend procurement policies and collaborate on collective action. 7. Record and report When reporting water risks, advanced disclosers identify the geographic area, the risk category and driver, the potential consequences and the estimated timeframes. The consequences might be higher operating costs or closure of operations. A short table per priority risk is enough, as in the example below. Field Example entry Location Packaging supplier, tier one, one named site Risk category Physical (scarcity) Driver Basin conditions Consequence Production interruption, higher input cost Timeframe Medium term Response Dual sourcing, supplier water plan The table is an illustration of the format, not data from a real company. Tools and frameworks worth knowing You do not need all of these. Choose by purpose. Type of resource What it does Best used for Basin screening tools such as the WWF Water Risk Filter Scores locations on physical, regulatory and reputational indicators First-pass screening of many sites Resilience frameworks such as the UN Global Compact’s WRAF Step-wise approach with a scoring tool for corporates Deeper work on priority basins Value chain guidance from WRI Sets out how to treat water across scopes 1 to 3 Supplier and upstream risk Disclosure guidance from the CEO Water Mandate Shows what to include when reporting risks Preparing public disclosure Internal registers and site audits Capture actual volumes, quality and incidents Operational risk, controls The Water Resilience Assessment Framework offers a standard, step-wise approach to measuring resilience, including a Resilience Scoring Tool for corporates. Its 2024 guidance says a holistic approach, covering socio-economic, institutional and biophysical components, is particularly useful where catchment management is immature or ineffective. That makes it relevant for operations and suppliers in regions with weaker water governance, including many parts of Africa. Learning from large water users Companies with heavy water footprints publish how they think about basin-level risk. Our write-ups of Coca-Cola’s watershed approach and Meta’s water positivity claims show how a basin-focused view is turned into targets, and where the claims deserve scrutiny. Smaller organisations can borrow the method without the scale: know your basins, set targets by location, and report progress with evidence. Connecting water risk to ESG reporting Water findings feed directly into sustainability disclosure. A good assessment gives you the material topics, the metrics (withdrawal, consumption, discharge, share of sites in high-stress basins) and the narrative on risk and response. If you report against GRI, water sits in its own topic standard, and our GRI reporting course walks through how to structure disclosures from the data you have collected. WRI and partners are also developing standardised value-chain water guidance, intended to lower reporting barriers and streamline inputs for voluntary initiatives. Building your supplier data now puts you ahead of whatever format wins. How often to review it There is no universal interval for corporate water risk. The principle from drinking water practice is sound, though: periodically review and update the assessment, because changing conditions can introduce new hazards or change existing ones. Some regulated utilities do have fixed cycles. For US community water systems serving more than 3,300 people, the EPA says risk and resilience assessments must be reviewed at least every five years. That is a US rule for utilities, not a UK requirement for companies, but it is a reasonable outer limit to borrow. For a company, set an annual light-touch review and trigger a full update when: you open, close or acquire a site a key supplier changes location a drought, flood or pollution incident hits a priority basin abstraction, discharge or reporting rules change your own water use changes materially How this differs from a Legionella risk assessment In the UK, searching for a water risk assessment often returns Legionella results, and for good reason. They answer a different question. Corporate water risk assessment Legionella risk assessment Question How do water scarcity, quality, regulation and reputation affect us, and what do we affect? Could people be exposed to Legionella bacteria from our water systems? Scope Basins, sites, value chain A building’s water systems: tanks, pipework, cooling towers, showers Status Mostly voluntary, driven by risk management and disclosure A legal duty for employers and those in control of premises Who does it Sustainability, risk and procurement teams A competent person, often an external specialist Output Risk register, targets, disclosure Written assessment and control scheme The HSE’s approved code of practice, L8, is aimed at dutyholders and covers identifying and assessing sources of risk, preparing a control scheme and keeping records. If you manage commercial buildings, a practical Legionella risk assessment guide explains what the assessment covers and how to act on it. The two meet at the facilities level. A site that does well on Legionella control will have good records of its water systems, which makes the operational half of a corporate assessment much easier. But passing one does not satisfy the other. Where Exereco can help Water is one topic inside a wider ESG programme, and most teams struggle less with the theory than with joining up data, materiality, reporting and training. Exereco brings news and analysis, ESG reporting software, advisory support and training together, with a focus on European and African contexts. If you are building water into your reporting, start with the GRI reporting course, or see what else we offer on the Exereco homepage. FAQ What is a water risk assessment? It is a structured review of how water-related hazards could affect an organisation and how the organisation affects water resources. For businesses it covers physical, regulatory and reputational risk, drawing on both basin conditions and company operations. In UK property management, the phrase often refers to a Legionella assessment of a building’s water systems. Is a water risk assessment a legal requirement in the UK? A Legionella risk assessment is: employers and those in control of premises must identify and assess sources of risk, under the framework the HSE’s L8 code describes. A corporate water risk assessment of basins and supply chains is generally voluntary, though it may be needed to answer investor, customer or sustainability reporting requests. How long does a corporate water risk assessment take? A first screening of a handful of sites using a free basin tool can be done in a few weeks. Adding supplier locations, local data and a scored risk register takes longer, depending on how many sites and suppliers you include. Settle your scope first, since that is the biggest driver of effort. How often should it be reviewed? Review it whenever conditions change materially, and at least annually in a light-touch form. US rules for regulated utilities set a five-year cycle, which can serve as a long-stop. For Legionella, check the HSE guidance and ask your competent person to set the review interval for your premises. Which tool should I start with? Start with a basin screening tool to locate your sites and suppliers in their basins, then move to a resilience framework for the few locations that score worst. Which one fits depends on your scope and whether the output is for internal risk management or public disclosure. Recommended Navigating Risk Response Considerations Circular Water Management: A framework for the transition Risk Impact and Likelihood Circular Water Management 2: Closing the H20 loop

Egypt Forum 2026 ended on 24 October with a broad set of recommendations covering wages, housing, education, energy and the environment. Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly presented them at the closing session of the six-day event, which ran from 19 to 24 October under the theme "A Look at Today, A Vision for Tomorrow," according to Daily News Egypt. The headline social proposal concerns pay. The forum recommends raising the minimum wage from EGP 8,000 to EGP 15,000 by fiscal year 2029/30, and lifting average employee wages by at least 50 per cent over the same period. It pairs that with a plan to raise spending on citizen services from about EGP 2.3 trillion to about EGP 4.8 trillion from FY2029/30, without new tax burdens on citizens or the middle class, and with a target to bring the budget debt-to-GDP ratio down to about 69.5 per cent by the end of June 2030. On jobs and industry, the recommendations aim for 200,000 IT and telecom jobs by 2030 and industrial clusters in 1,000 villages under the Productive Village initiative. Housing is also covered, with about one million units over four years at an estimated EGP 1 trillion, delivered with the Tahya Misr Fund. In education, the plan expands Egyptian-Japanese schools from 103 to 500 within three years, phases out evening school shifts starting with primary schools in 2027, and develops 600 technical schools with private-sector partners. Energy is a central theme. The forum recommends reaching about 30 gigawatts of renewable capacity by the end of 2028. It also calls for a national programme through 2030 to raise domestic oil and gas output, targeting about 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day and roughly 700,000 barrels a day of crude and condensate, and for connecting 3.2 million more housing units to the gas network by June 2030. Factories, farm and irrigation equipment, government buildings, schools and universities would be converted to new and renewable energy, with costs repaid from savings on electricity bills rather than by beneficiaries. The environmental recommendations are short but notable. The forum asks for urgent amendments to Environmental Law No. 4 of 1994 to criminalise arbitrary and unregulated tree cutting and the removal of vegetation cover. It also calls for a national strategy running to 2050 to double vegetation cover across the governorates. In agriculture, the plan targets 12.5 million feddans of cultivated land by 2030 and raises the wheat procurement price from EGP 2,500 to EGP 2,650 per ardeb. These are recommendations and targets, and the article does not set out how each would be funded or legislated. Some of them also pull in different directions: expanding renewables sits alongside higher domestic oil and gas output, and the paper gives no timetable for the legal amendments. Even so, the package shows how the government frames growth, living standards and the environment as one agenda. For readers watching Egypt's economy, the details to follow are how the wage path is financed, how quickly renewable capacity is added, and whether the tree-protection amendments reach parliament. Why it matters A wage floor that nearly doubles over four years would change household budgets across the country, but its value depends on whether growth, jobs and prices move with it. Egypt Forum links pay to industry, skills and housing, which is the right way to judge whether decent work becomes a lived reality rather than a headline figure.

Most conversations about inclusion at work start with intention and end with a slogan. Far fewer start with a spreadsheet. That is what makes the equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) section of Kindred Agency's B Corp Impact Report 2025/26 worth reading closely. Kindred is a London purpose-led communications agency, and its report covers July 2025 to June 2026. It leaves some questions unanswered, but it puts real numbers on who works at the agency, how that has changed, and what the business plans to do next. For a private company with no shareholders to impress and no regulator forcing its hand on every metric, that is a deliberate act of disclosure. This deep dive sets aside the report's other chapters, including governance, community and environment, and concentrates on one theme: how Kindred measures and manages inclusion inside its own team. Every figure below comes from the report itself, which Kindred published as a PDF in 2026. Where the report is silent, this article says so rather than filling the gap. Why a B Corp report is a good place to look for EDI data Kindred recertified as a B Corp in July 2025. The report states a verified B Corp score of 101.4, up from 100.4 in 2022. The qualifying minimum is 80, and the median for non-certified businesses is 50.9. The score is broken down into governance at 17.2, people at 38.7, community at 21.2, environment at 6.6 and clients at 17.6. People is the largest block by some distance, and EDI sits inside it alongside pay, wellbeing, career development and engagement. The B Corp framework matters here because it forces a business to evidence its claims. A statement that an agency is inclusive does not score; a workforce breakdown, a policy, a programme and a result do. Kindred's own target is a 3% improvement in its overall score by the 2028 recertification, with environment named as the area where it intends to improve marks most. EDI is not the headline of that ambition, but the way the report handles it shows what a measured approach looks like inside a private company. The report also arrives with an unusual feature. Kindred published a separate EDI report in the first quarter of 2026, and the B Corp report draws its workforce numbers from it. In other words, the agency treats EDI data as something worth its own publication cycle, and then folds it into the wider impact story rather than leaving it in a drawer. The workforce, in the agency's own numbers The headline figures are compact enough to take in at a glance. By gender, the agency is 73% female and 27% male. By ethnicity, 65% of staff are white, 11% mixed, 12% Asian and 12% Black. Eight percent identify as LGBTQ+, which the report describes as slightly above the national average. Eleven percent have a physical or mental disability, and 35% have a mental health condition. On education, 73% are state-school educated and 12% grammar-school educated, and the report adds that the agency has fewer privately educated staff than ever. The report gives no headcount in this section, so the percentages cannot be translated into numbers of people, and it does not provide prior-year comparisons for every metric. Where it does, the movements are worth taking one at a time. Gender: a 73% female agency The gender split is the most lopsided figure in the report, and the report does not dress it up. The agency is 73% female and 27% male, and the report notes that the male share was 31% the year before. That means the share of men fell by four percentage points in a year. The report offers no explanation for the skew, and this article does not guess at one. What matters is how a business responds to it. An agency with a majority-female workforce has a direct interest in the policies that shape women's working lives, and the People chapter is full of them: a Pregnancy Loss Policy introduced and published publicly, an equal wellness fund for expectant parents, hybrid working built around three remote-first days and two office-first days, and a matched pension. None of these are presented in the report as gender measures, but taken together they describe a workplace designed for people with caring responsibilities and unpredictable lives. The fall in the male share is also a reminder that inclusion does not mean a single direction of travel. A diverse team is not one where every number moves the same way each year. The honest reading is that the agency's gender balance is lopsided, that it is moving slightly further from parity in one direction, and that the report offers no target to change it. A three-year EDI strategy, discussed below, is the natural place to decide whether that matters. Ethnicity and a six-year baseline The report calls the 2025/26 ethnic mix "our most diverse ethnic mix since we started tracking our data six years ago." That phrase carries two pieces of information. The first is that the mix is the most diverse the agency has recorded. The second, which is easier to miss, is that the agency has been tracking this data for six years. A single year's figure is a photograph; six years of figures are a trend line, and the ability to say "most diverse since we started" depends entirely on having kept the records. The report does not publish prior-year ethnicity percentages, so a reader cannot calculate how large the change is. That is a limitation, and it is worth naming. The agency's claim is directional rather than quantified, and a reader should take it as such. What can be said with confidence is the current picture: roughly two-thirds of the team is white, with Asian and Black colleagues each making up 12% and mixed-heritage colleagues 11%. The pipeline work in the community chapter points to how the agency tries to influence that mix. In 2024 Kindred launched an internship programme with Creative Access, a social enterprise that offers career-long access, opportunities, support and training to people from underrepresented backgrounds. The internship runs for six months and is paid at the London Living Wage, and a second intern joined last year. Kindred also gives talks to T-level students and teachers, and a T-level placement student joined the agency permanently as Finance and Admin Assistant in the summer of 2025. Several staff are members of Bloom, and one Account Executive joined the Bloom mentoring scheme. The report also lists the networks it plans to strengthen: the Creative Mentor Network, the UK Black Comms Network and the Taylor Bennett Foundation, alongside continued support for Bloom and People Like Us. These are modest, specific commitments, and that is their strength. They are things an agency can plausibly deliver, and the next report can be checked against them. Class and schooling: the quiet metric Of all the data points in the report, the education figure is the one that most rewards attention. The share of state-school educated staff rose from 62% to 73% in a year, an increase of eleven percentage points. Another 12% are grammar-school educated, and the report says the agency has fewer privately educated staff than ever. Social background is one of the less commonly reported dimensions of inclusion. It does not appear on most diversity dashboards, and it is harder to define and to ask about. Yet in creative and communications industries, where networks and unpaid early-career opportunities can decide who gets a foothold, school type is a meaningful signal. By tracking it, Kindred acknowledges that inclusion is not only about protected characteristics. The financial structure of the People chapter supports this reading. The report describes pay bands that are benchmarked annually, with all employee pay sitting within them, and pay reviews twice a year, in October and March. The bottom of every pay band rose this year, and entry-level pay was adjusted for the London Living Wage rise. Kindred is a certified London Living Wage Employer, and 55% of employees received a pay rise, up from 48% the year before. An interest-free hardship loan scheme and the option of having January pay brought forward on request offer further practical support. These measures bear directly on who can afford to take an entry-level job in an expensive city, which is the real mechanism through which class shapes who gets into the industry. Disability and mental health: 35% and the 88% The disability and mental health numbers are the most striking in the EDI section. Eleven percent of the team have a physical or mental disability, and 35% have a mental health condition. Of those with a condition, 88% feel comfortable talking about it at work. The second number deserves as much attention as the first. A high disclosure rate means little unless people feel safe making the disclosure, and the 88% figure suggests that, among those who have a condition, most do. The wider survey results, gathered in the first quarter of 2026, support the same picture: 88% of staff said Kindred takes mental health seriously, and 88% said they could talk to someone or ask for help. The infrastructure behind these numbers is described in some detail. Kindhead is the agency's mental health programme. It includes Mental Health Action Plans and a Breathing Space Policy that offers up to ten consecutive paid working days in a crisis. The annual Wellness Fund rose from £150 to £250 per person, and 10% of the team is now trained as mental health first aiders, with one more planned. Other practices are smaller but telling, including a weekly Wellbeing Hour and a Deep Work Wednesday with no meetings in the afternoon. Kindred plans to retain the Disability Confident Level 2 standard, but the report sets no target for the share of disabled staff. As with gender, the reader is left with a clear description of current practice and an open question about ambition. Pay gaps: reported, but not printed One of the most notable sentences in the EDI section is about transparency rather than outcomes. Kindred says it has submitted its gender and ethnicity pay gap data to the PRWeek annual report for the fifth year running, and that it was one of only 12 agencies to do so. The agency says it will resubmit next year and encourage others to do the same. That is a real commitment, because voluntary pay gap reporting exposes a business to scrutiny that it could otherwise avoid. It is also where the report is least informative. The numbers themselves are not printed in the document, so a reader of the B Corp report cannot see the size of either gap. The data was submitted to PRWeek, but the impact report does not reproduce it. The report demonstrates a habit of disclosure rather than an outcome. A reader who wants to know whether the gaps are narrowing will need to look beyond this document. Engagement as evidence The EDI numbers sit alongside engagement results that help show whether the policies are felt by staff. The January 2026 survey achieved 100% completion. In it, 96% of staff agreed that management shows appreciation for good work, up from 80%. Eighty-three percent said they feel they make a difference, up from 80%, and 96% said they are proud to tell others where they work, up from 95%. On transparency, 88% said management keeps them informed, up from 77%, and 88% said management is approachable. Survey data inside a company's own report should always be read with some caution, because the company chooses what to publish. A 100% completion rate means every employee's view is captured, which is a strength, but the report does not say whether responses were anonymous. The year-on-year movements are the more useful signal. Several of them are upward and some are large, such as the rise from 77% to 88% in staff who feel informed. They suggest that the broader culture, the one in which people are asked to disclose personal information, has been getting more open rather than less. Inclusion beyond the payroll: the client work The report's clients chapter shows how the agency applies the same values outwards. Two campaigns stand out. Social Work England's Change the Script, in its third phase, aimed to show the breadth of the social work profession. It generated 107 media pieces, including eight national hits, and agreement that social workers improve people's lives rose 33%. The second is Studio BlueGreen's Giant Armadillo, a Christmas number one bid fronted by Bob the Drag Queen to raise awareness of endangered species. A Manchester mural and partnerships with UK drag performers generated 2.4 million impressions. The agency's own assessment is candid: "Getting a Christmas number 1 wasn't the real marker of success though," it says, describing the goal as "using one underrepresented community to showcase another." These examples matter to the EDI story because they show an agency whose staff and whose client work are meant to be consistent with each other. A communications firm that talks about underrepresented communities on behalf of clients faces an obvious question about its own composition. The report does not claim that its workforce data resolves that question, but it does show the agency choosing to be measurable on both sides. What comes next The forward-looking commitments in the EDI section are specific and short. Kindred plans to retain Disability Confident Level 2, relaunch its Culture Club, which subsidises group visits to galleries, exhibitions and cinemas, and publish an inclusive language guide to help staff communicate with or about minority groups. Most importantly, it will develop a new three-year EDI strategy towards the end of this year. That strategy will set new objectives, review progress to date and identify where to increase effort. The strategy is the pivot point for everything above. Currently the report describes a pattern of tracking, publishing and programme-building. A three-year strategy is where tracking can turn into targets: whether to aim for a particular gender balance, how to set a goal for disability disclosure, what to do about ethnicity data that has so far been described in directional terms. If the agency publishes those objectives alongside the data, the 2026/27 report will be a far more demanding document, and that is the right direction for it to take. What the numbers do not say The limits are instructive. The report does not publish headcount, so percentages cannot be converted into people, and it does not print the pay gap figures it says it reports. It gives prior-year comparisons for gender and education but not for ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. And it is a self-published document: the B Corp score is independently verified, but the EDI narrative is Kindred's own. None of this undermines the report. It simply defines what kind of evidence it is. A fair summary is that Kindred has built a measurement habit, that several of the numbers are moving in encouraging directions, and that the next stage is converting measurement into commitments that can be held to account. That is a more modest claim than "we are inclusive", and a more credible one. Why it matters Most small businesses talk about inclusion. Few put numbers on the table. Kindred shares who works there, down to the share of staff with a mental health condition, and it has submitted its pay gap data for five years running. For a private company with no shareholder to answer to, that openness is a choice, and it is the kind of disclosure that makes B Corp claims credible. If inclusion cannot be measured, it cannot be managed, and it cannot be held to account.

Six energy companies have warned that higher network fees for battery storage, due from 2027, could discourage investment in Estonia. The warning, reported by ERR News on 24 October, comes as the country looks for ways to steady electricity prices and make room for more renewable power on the grid. The change stems from a restructuring of the fee system run by Elering, Estonia's transmission system operator. The new structure shifts the balance between capacity charges and electricity transmission charges. Battery owners are exempt from the transmission charges, but they still pay for their use of the grid. The article does not give specific fee amounts, and only one of the six firms, Enery, is named. Renewable energy companies argue that the restructuring would make storage considerably more expensive to run. Mihkel Annus, head of regulatory affairs at Enery Estonia, points to the neighbouring market as a comparison. Batteries, he says, are several times cheaper to use in Lithuania because of its fee structure. His concern is that capital will follow the lower costs. In his words, the investments the system needs "will naturally bypass Estonia." He also argues that batteries help bring down prices for consumers, which is why he sees the fee design as a matter for households as well as developers. Elering sees the question differently. Chief executive Kalle Kilk says the changes are not aimed at batteries in particular. According to the article, he describes a choice between asking other customers to cover grid costs and asking each user to pay for what it uses, and he calls the second route the fairer approach. He adds that the Competition Authority has approved the new structure. The government is now being drawn in. Energy and Environment Minister Erkki Keldo of the Reform Party says he understands the need for more battery parks, both to lower prices and to reduce price spikes. He also notes that Elering must recover its costs and keep investing in the grid. He says he will look for a balance that lets the operator collect its fees without making new battery parks uncompetitive. The debate shows a tension that many European grids now face. Storage is widely seen as the tool that lets wind and solar supply more of the system, softening the spikes that come when output drops or demand surges. Yet the networks that connect those batteries have real costs, and someone has to pay for them. Set the charge too high and projects may move to cheaper neighbours; set it too low and other customers may carry the burden. For Estonia, the stakes are practical. Battery parks can absorb surplus renewable power and release it when it is needed, which supports security of supply and can ease price swings. The question for regulators and the minister is whether a fee design that looks fair on paper also keeps the investment the system needs. Further decisions on the structure had not been announced at the time of reporting, and the fees take effect in 2027. Why it matters Wind and solar only deliver their full climate value when surplus power can be stored and used later. Network charges are therefore a climate decision as well as a financial one: set badly, they slow the flexibility that a renewables-heavy Baltic grid needs, and set well, they help storage grow without shifting costs unfairly to other customers.