̽��ϵ��

Here’s What a 15 Year Study Reveals About Global Giants’ Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The world’s largest companies face a constant tension: bold public promises to fight climate change versus the pressure to deliver short-term financial results. While corporate leaders often talk a big game about sustainability, new research reveals that behind the rhetoric, the realities are surprisingly split.

Gustavson’s Michael King and Ivey’s Paul Beamish tracked 157 multinational firms from 2005 to 2020 to see if climate governance tools actually worked. What they found was a tale of two paths. For companies already committed to cutting carbon, mechanisms like board oversight and third-party verification acted as accelerators, driving meaningful reductions. For others, these same tools were often symbolic - they signaled responsibility but didn’t achieve real change, and emissions quietly climbed.

Over the 15-year study, roughly 7 in 10 companies reduced scope 1 emissions which come directly from operations such as factory fuel use or company vehicles. Progress for scope 2 emissions, which come from purchased energy like electricity, heat, or steam, was even more significant. Even when total emissions didn’t fall, many firms became more energy efficient or reduced emissions per product.

The 2015 Paris Agreement helped accelerate emissions reductions among companies already taking action, particularly those with effective board oversight. Yet progress fell short overall, with only about 45 percent aligning with Paris targets.

Digging deeper, the study revealed that leadership structures made all the difference. When responsibility for emissions sat primarily with the CEO, companies were more likely to prioritize financial performance over real reductions. However, when climate action was owned by the board, governance tools supported genuine progress. In cases where leadership wasn't fully committed, these same tools often became a series of procedural checkboxes rather than a driver of actual change.

Pitting the Silence of a Website Against the Accountability of a Human Voice

A website can tell you exactly how many vegetables to eat or how many steps to take, but it cannot cheer for you when you succeed or listen when you fail. For families struggling to change their health habits, the biggest obstacle is often the silence of a digital interface.

That insight comes from Gustavson’s Sarah Zheng and co-authors at several Canadian institutions. They pitted two versions of a health program against each other to examine which approach was more likely to support BMI reduction and improved quality of life over a twelve-month period. One group of participants was given a self-paced, educational website. The second followed a blended model that combined digital resources with live, synchronous video sessions.

We’ve all been there: you plan to eat better on Monday, but by Wednesday that plan evaporates. Zheng’s team is examining this 'intention-behavior gap' to see if a human voice on the other end of a screen could stop those plans from inevitably falling apart. The trial is built around the idea that real-time interaction can close this gap. While results are not yet available, the study protocol highlights the potential of real-time interaction to help families close the gap between intentions and behavior. Providing immediate, personalized feedback is something that a static website simply cannot offer. While educational materials provide the how-to, the live sessions address the why and the when. By turning the screen into a meeting place, the blended model aims to replace login isolation with a space where families can show up together.

Who Controls Your Health Data

Picture your medical history scattered across hospital servers, lab systems and clinic databases. You never see where it goes, who accesses it or how it shapes decisions about your care.

Gustavson’s Jan Kietzmann and co-authors studied how new systems can give patients real authority over their information. They found that blockchain can securely store data, allow patients to decide who accesses it and create transparency across care teams. As a digital ledger that cannot be easily altered, it keeps information safe while still letting providers collaborate.

By putting patients in control, these systems build trust, improve care and keep people at the center of decisions about their health. Privacy is protected while collaboration and innovation are supported. Patients are no longer passive data points. They have a voice in their own treatment and a role in shaping the healthcare system.

The Paradox of the Fake

Imagine you are watching a commercial that looks completely real. The actor is flawless; the story is compelling, yet something feels slightly off. For marketers, this is a delicate moment. Admit the ad is AI-generated too early or too late and it can completely change how viewers respond.

Marketers are terrified that if they admit an ad is synthetic, AKA a deepfake, the audience will feel lied to. Gustavson’s Jan Kietzmann and co-authors studied this phenomenon and found a surprising truth: high-quality deepfake ads, when disclosed correctly, can influence purchase intention and engagement just as effectively as real-life content.

The catch is timing. Disclose the synthetic nature before the ad begins and the audience’s initial ick factor fades as they focus on the story, emotions and product. Reveal it afterward and even a perfect deepfake triggers a feeling of being misled, eroding trust and engagement. In the age of AI, it’s when the truth is revealed that determines whether curiosity turns into connection or doubt.

Looking Ahead

Whether it’s giving patients control over their health data, uncovering how families respond to digital interventions or examining how AI and digital tools influence what and whom we trust, Gustavson researchers are already looking into the next round of big questions. But we always want to hear from you: is there a business trend or societal shift you think we’re missing?