SBA's Guide Aims to Help Businesses Plan and Recover From Disasters

Image Credit:
https://shorturl.at/cLrHz

Small and medium-sized businesses are focused on solving a problem for their customer by providing a service or product of the highest quality. While most businesses are focused on growing their sales, too many are not prepared for how an immediate disaster like a hurricane, earthquake, unseasonably cold weather or a pandemic can adversely impact their operations. A new document shows how these risks could disrupt business operations and planning for them will enable owners to rebound quicker and avoid a recurrence.

In announcing the launch of its Business Resilience Guide, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) says its publication serves as "a comprehensive resource for small business owners who may not be familiar with disaster preparation." The government agency whose mission is to help power the American dream of business ownership, adds that its "guide, which has six sections to plan and recover from disasters, includes best practices and template forms to help mitigate disasters for America's entrepreneurs and help them build back stronger."

The SBA's Guide correctly points out that "[w]hen disaster strikes, even the best run businesses can be impacted. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, about 25 percent of businesses do not reopen after disasters. Some businesses can cope with adversity better than others – they are less disrupted by an event, resume operations sooner, recover faster, and adjust for the future based on their experience. These businesses are described as resilient."

What is more, "For a small business, being resilient involves understanding risks, planning for them, identifying employee needs and responsibilities, and ensuring back-ups and redundancies are in place. This Guide can help small businesses determine how to anticipate the impacts of a disaster on operations so disruptions can be minimized."

SBA's publication leads business owners through creating a robust resilience plan, covering crucial areas such as:

• Understanding their current landscape: This involves documenting essential operations and identifying dependencies.
• Identifying key partnerships: It is crucial for seamless business continuity to recognize and nurture relationships with important vendors, suppliers, and collaborators.
• Safeguarding vital resources: The guide emphasizes the importance of data backup, cybersecurity measures, and infrastructure protection.
• Strengthening financial readiness: Strategies for managing cash flow, securing emergency funding, and minimizing financial losses.
• Embracing proactive mitigation: This section delves into strategies for minimizing the impact of potential disruptions through risk assessment and mitigation tactics.

The last section on embracing proactive mitigation also includes an overview of the SBA's post-disaster lending programs that can help business owners mitigate the effects should their business be impacted by a disaster. "SBA loans can assist with expenses related to the repair or replacement of property and can provide support for essential business operations in the aftermath of a declared disaster. These low-interest subsidized 30-year loans have 0 percent interest for the first year as well as deferred payments for the first year after the loans are disbursed."

The Guide also mentions how the SBA "offers a mitigation option as part of the post-disaster loan program that enables a property owner to increase their physical disaster loan by up to 20 percent of the verified loss (or a maximum of $500,000) to pay for interventions that will make a property more resilient in the future. Mitigation reduces a property's risk of damage from future events so people can return to their home or business more quickly after a disaster. The section on embracing proactive mitigation also includes multiple examples of hazard mitigation efforts at different price-points."

Do you find SBA's Guide useful to help your business plan and recover from disasters? What would you add?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

How Corporate Boards Can Confront Crisis and Embrace Opportunity

As we enter into 2024, the world is experiencing conflicts in a multitude of countries and these conflicts are having an adverse effect on global trade, which in turn, impacts global financial markets. As EY, a consultancy, says in its report on how boards of American companies can confront crisis and embrace opportunity, "Dynamic global crises continue to challenge companies, with the escalation of conflict in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, geopolitical complexities related to China, and an uneven global economy creating a sense of permanent crisis on a multitude of fronts." 

The multinational consultancy adds: "At the same time, exceptional growth opportunities seem at hand. Generative AI (GenAI) represents a groundbreaking leap in technology with the potential to increase productivity and transform work, business models and society. Further, the continuing energy transition demands a reframing of business strategy to mitigate risks and thrive in a low-carbon economic future."

Moreover, "In this context of crisis and opportunity, directors are deepening their engagement. They are guiding companies to build resilience by considering multiple alternative scenarios and carefully balancing discipline and transformation."

Below are the key findings of each chapter of the report with recommended actions for boards and questions a board should be asking (the recommended board actions and questions are copied verbatim):

CHAPTER 1: STAY AGILE AMID CONTINUED ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY

The report's first chapter focuses on how to stay agile amid continued economic uncertainty. The chapter's key point is boards should enhance oversight and flexibility as uncertain economic conditions persist. "Global economic activity remains subdued heading into 2024, with rising geopolitical tensions and tightening financial conditions as key risks. As the year begins, companies can expect slower business and consumer spending, along with softer labor market conditions and still-elevated costs." Furthermore, "Companies must navigate an ever‑shifting landscape of geopolitical and economic uncertainty. To do so, they will need to build resilience and agility in their operations."

What boards should do in 2024:

• Embrace agility and oversee flexible strategic planning that incorporates dynamic multi-scenario planning. Boards have an opportunity to guide management, pressure-test plans, and assess multiple options for achieving strategic goals in the current operating environment. Directors should ask what economic, financial and customer demand scenarios have been considered and what the potential impacts are on financial performance, growth and strategy.
• Confirm how the board will receive timely updates about macroeconomic developments that could impact the company. The board is a strategic resource to the management team in preparing for different economic scenarios and thus needs timely and relevant information from experts beyond the management team to do this effectively. This information should directly inform scenario planning.
• Help management focus on the long term. This will be important as the company considers how to adapt to potential economic deceleration and various challenging geopolitical developments. For example, the board can oversee how productivity, training and efficiency gains can offset higher labor costs. The board can also encourage capital strategies that position the company to thrive as broader technology and sustainability trends continue to reshape the business environment.

Questions for the board to consider in order to enhance oversight and flexibility as uncertain economic conditions persist:

• How is the company planning for a range of economic scenarios, including those in which geopolitical developments keep inflation elevated, and potentially rising, for longer?
• How often does the board ask leadership: "What if we’re wrong?" How is the company considering what it would do differently if a low-probability, high-impact scenario was to emerge?
• What is the company doing to stress-test its balance sheet and develop and test a crisis playbook that gives company leaders comfort in their ability to manage through even the worst‑case scenario?
• How is the company developing a resilient strategy around pricing, capacity management and location, and distribution that is nimble enough to navigate a world where demand will ebb and flow more significantly than in the past few decades? How is scenario planning supporting that strategy?
• How is the company evaluating costs, investments and decisions in the context of its long-term strategy, especially regarding technology, talent and the energy transition?

CHAPTER 2: BALANCE DISCIPLINE AND TRANSFORMATION IN CAPITAL STRATEGY

Focusing on how to balance discipline and transformation in capital strategy, chapter two of the report discusses how to adapt strategic priorities to a slower-growth environment. According to EY, "A mantra for many leadership teams this year will be financial discipline. Growth at any cost has given way to investments that must show a clear path to profitability or value creation. Still, companies cannot afford to retrench." In addition, "Companies cannot afford to let financial caution prohibit necessary investments for long-term growth, such as those related to technology and sustainability."

What boards should do in 2024:

• Encourage accelerated investment for long-term growth and competitiveness. Boards must keep the long term in view for management so that companies do not miss out on innovations or avoid tough decisions that will be necessary to stay competitive in a future that will look very different from the past.
• Enable management to maximize profitability and position for business model transformation. Challenge how management is identifying opportunities for cost management, tracking the progress on investment decisions and considering how markets could evolve and impact the use of capital in existing and potential businesses. Probe how internal rationalization, cost cutting and divestitures can fund future transformation.
• Promote enhanced communication with investors about the company's capital strategy. Capital allocation can be a key area of focus for activist investors, and a bear market leaves companies more exposed at a time when investors are less forgiving. In an environment of heightened shareholder activism, boards can help challenge whether companies are doing enough to communicate the company's strategy narrative proactively with shareholders.

Questions for the board to consider to facilitate the balancing of discipline and transformation in capital strategy:

• How is the company optimizing its capital management and reducing direct and indirect costs through an era of continual change? How is it considering internal cost cutting as potential funding for ambitious transformation?
• How is the company investing to mitigate risk and create long‑term growth opportunity despite multiple headwinds? Is it maintaining the right balance of innovation and capital strength?
• How is the board defining its role as stewards of investor capital? Does that role include positioning the business to thrive as the world evolves?
• How is the company's capital investment strategy changing in areas such as digital and technology, people and skills, innovation and research and development (R&D), and sustainability? How are board committees coordinating their oversight of these matters?
• What types of transactions (e.g., M&A, divestment, new joint ventures or strategic alliances) is the company considering to achieve its strategic goals? Are those options explored at the board level or is the board presented only with management's decision?
• How is the company's investor engagement program keeping key shareholders informed of the company’s long-term value creation strategies and the board’s related expertise? Do disclosures describing the board’s composition demonstrate that, individually and collectively, the board is fit for purpose?

CHAPTER 3: EMBRACING CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY AS STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES

The next chapter of the report addresses the importance of embracing cybersecurity and data privacy as strategic advantages. Emphasizing how companies should broaden cybersecurity and data privacy beyond compliance, the report points out that "While cybersecurity and data privacy are perennial concerns for boards, they include a complex set of always-evolving drivers, and background knowledge that can quickly stale. 2023 saw a variety of different changes in the cybersecurity landscape, such as the quick adoption of new technologies, new geopolitical influences, new regulatory requirements and increasing nation‑state bad actors." What is more, "A more complicated environment will likely cause many organizations to mature their cybersecurity oversight through 2024."

What boards should do in 2024:

• Reconsider whether cybersecurity oversight is structured the right way. The new SEC disclosure rules may be a good opportunity for the board to reconsider whether it is structured appropriately to oversee cybersecurity in the years ahead. To do so, it may consider adding (or removing) a focused committee, concentrating or distributing cyber expertise throughout the board, changing the cadence of cyber discussions, or otherwise altering the board agenda.
• Participate in complex cyber threat tabletop exercises. These can be done either separately or with management, and complex cyber exercises can be incorporated into the board calendar. These scenarios should be varied and dynamic. Although it may be unlikely that a specific scenario will be replayed in real life, the simulation can develop the board’s muscles for dealing with a challenging crisis; pressure-test existing playbooks, discussing policy such as whether the company will pay ransoms; and uncover opportunities to improve processes and procedures.
• Maintain a wide variety of voices in the boardroom. In addition to members of the cybersecurity team, directors may seek a variety of voices, ranging from operators and internal audit to HR and strategy, to understand the company's preparation that extends beyond threat and response to data privacy and ethical data usage. This can give insight into how the company’s cyber risk appetite is being applied and whether the cyber risk culture meets expectations. Further, complexity can be a barrier to effectively combating cyber threats. The board may ask management teams to consider how IT security systems can be simplified.

Questions for the board to consider to embrace cybersecurity and data privacy as strategic advantages:

• How has management adapted the cyber response playbook to the threat environment that continues to evolve?
• Have appropriate and meaningful cybersecurity and data privacy metrics been identified and provided to the board on a regular basis, and have dollar amounts been assigned to these risks?
• What is the state of the organization's cyber risk culture? How can the organization minimize employees' susceptibility to online manipulation and deceit?
• What information has management provided to help the board assess which critical business assets and partners, including third parties and suppliers, are most vulnerable to cyber attacks?
• How does management evaluate and categorize identified cyber and data privacy incidents and determine which ones to escalate to the board?
• How does the organization use data to build and maintain trust with stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers and investors?
• What controls are in place for ethical usage of technology to promote stakeholder trust and data privacy?
• Has the board participated with management in one of its cyber breach simulations in the last year? How rigorous was the testing?
• Has the company leveraged a third-party assessment to validate that the company's cyber risk management program is meeting its objectives? If so, is the board having direct dialogue with the third-party related to the scope of work and findings?

CHAPTER 4: GUIDE RESPONSIBLE AND TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

The fourth chapter of EY's report addresses the importance of guiding responsible and transformative innovation and technology by enabling the company to innovate in a way that is both revolutionary and ethical. "GenAI is only one of many emerging technologies that is already impacting business in expected and unexpected ways. Other technologies and innovations include the metaverse, Internet of Things, Web3, and quantum computing. These advancements will transform the work organizations do and the environment in which they operate." The report further asserts that "GenAI's appeal puts pressure on management to take advantage of its potential for strategic advantage before their competitors do, or risk falling behind."

What boards should do in 2024:

• Strengthen management accountability for responsible AI. Boards are in a strong position to make sure that management teams are creating responsible AI policies that effectively manage the risks and capitalize on the opportunities available for the enterprise while keeping the company's values and purpose as a north star. It is not enough to require that policies are in place. Boards should go further to push management to ensure that employees adhere to such policies, that there is a mechanism to determine if they are not and that managers are quickly fixing problems.
• Embrace a range of perspectives and experiences in the boardroom. Directors with a wide variety of professional and lived experience are increasingly important to help drive innovation and govern emerging technology. This diversity enables the board to better identify nontraditional threats and encourage management teams to responsibly leverage new technologies and innovations. Further, a variety of perspectives from within the boardroom fosters an environment that facilities robust discussion, allowing key assumptions and conclusions in strategy, operations and other areas to undergo thorough pressure testing.
• Gain visibility into external trends and internal capabilities. An intentional approach to understanding the trends likely to impact the company over the long term is critical for a "future‑back" approach to strategy. This strategy approach envisions possible future scenarios and then works backward to identify the strategic objectives in order to ensure the company is viable in that future. Further, working to understand the company's internal capabilities by going beyond C-suite presentations through hands-on experience and R&D visits can help the board better evaluate how management is placing bets across the enterprise.
• Build agility into the decision-making process. The pace of innovation is fast and may only get faster. A traditional board meeting cadence — four to six full board and committee meetings a year — may be insufficient to support the needs of the company. Boards should work with their management teams to consider a more flexible trigger-based approach to strategic planning that entails a more consistent evaluation of the future. At the same time, boards may gain value by looking inward to consider the current structure for overseeing innovation and emerging technology. Confirming that the board’s structure remains fit for purpose is critical to making sure the board does its best to support innovation and emerging technology.
• Investigate innovation in the boardroom. The board may start to consider the ways in which innovations such as GenAI can improve its own work. GenAI may be able to support boards by summarizing large and complex board materials, more efficiently schedule time for board and committee meetings, and provide background and learning curriculum for new and emerging boardroom topics.

Questions for the board to consider to enable the company to innovate in a way that is both revolutionary and ethical:

• What is the company's path to value with GenAI and other technologies? How are the risks identified and managed?
• What policies has the company implemented to confirm that GenAI is used responsibly? How does management know they are working?
• How is the company's innovation budget and program contributing to the creation of an informed strategic plan leveraging emerging technology?
• How is the board thinking about and redefining competitors or industry boundaries? Who might now be a competitor but wasn't previously?
• How are responses to changing stakeholder demands, expectations and operational disruptions leading management teams to innovate?
• How are investments in innovation tracked and reported to the board? Is the board engaged in innovation discussions as part of the strategy-setting process?
• How is the board building a foundational understanding of evolving technologies, including learning through hand-on demonstration and experience? How will companies create an ecosystem in which AI and data protection coexist and create synergies to generate a better value proposition for users and customers?

CHAPTER 5: ENABLE A PEOPLE-CENTRIC WORKFORCE STRATEGY

Chapter five of centers on enabling a people-centric workforce strategy by guiding talent engagement and cultivation amid a rebalancing of power and a reimagining of work. "The talent landscape is constantly being disrupted by a combination of cyclical and structural forces. This has led to a divergence in perspectives between employers and employees." I agree that "Employers may be underestimating the fluidity of the labor market." As the report explains: "While 57% of employers believe that a more challenging economic climate would reduce employees' likelihood of seeking new jobs, the survey found that a significant 34% of employees expressed their willingness to leave their current jobs within the next 12 months. This highlights the importance of talent availability, acquisition and retention. For directors who view talent as a top priority in 2024, 77% said these topics were most important."

What boards should do in 2024:

• Seek a deeper view into employee sentiment and perspectives by hearing from employees more directly. Boards should actively engage with the chief human resources officer (CHRO) and seek direct input through tools such as pulse surveys and interactions with front-line employees. This approach enables boards to hear employees' voices directly and fosters a culture of inclusivity and engagement.
• Guide management to put people first in workforce strategy and cultivate a culture of trust. This involves boards evaluating the leadership team and their incentives to energize and inspire employees, ultimately gaining their trust. Additionally, boards should oversee how management implements workforce re‑skilling and training initiatives to prepare the workforce for future challenges, while actively involving employees as partners in that transformative journey.
• Enhance stakeholder communications around compensation committees' oversight of human capital matters. With potential new SEC rules and heightened attention on high-profile strikes, stakeholders will scrutinize the board’s role in governing the talent agenda. Investors will seek to understand whether the compensation committee or full board has a meaningful impact on shaping a resilient talent strategy.

Questions for the board to consider to guide talent engagement and cultivation amid a rebalancing of power and a reimagining of work:

• How does the company's talent strategy advance its overall strategy? What changes have been made to other elements of the business to advance the talent strategy?
• How is the company identifying and addressing employees' chief areas of concern?
• How is the company's leadership team earning trust with employees? Do the company's employees feel connected, inspired and well-informed at work? Do they feel that leadership cares about them as people?
• How often is the board engaging directly with the CHRO or equivalent and what is the substance of those discussions? How is the board getting a direct line of sight into employee perspectives below the executive level?
• What human capital management metrics are the board or compensation committee reviewing? How do those metrics align with the long-term talent strategy, and what narrative is the company communicating to stakeholders about its talent agenda?
• How is the company providing support for career path and progression, including mentoring, learning and development programs, and updating organizational design to open opportunities for advancement? Are upskilling and retention central to the company’s talent strategy, including key areas such as technology and sustainability?
• How is the company making the use of AI compatible with talent development so that the company’s strategy can adapt quickly to the constantly changing business ecosystem?
• How is the company approaching in-office, fully remote or hybrid working models and maximizing the human experience of work in its talent strategy? How is the board getting insight into employee sentiment related to hybrid and remote working across different job functions, geography, age and gender?

CHAPTER 6: KEEP OTHER FOCUS AREAS ON THE BOARD AGENDA 

With the thesis of balancing top priorities with additional imperatives, being careful to not overwhelm the board agenda, the report's sixth chapter addresses the importance of keeping other focus areas on the board agenda. "The board's priorities for 2024 are not the only areas of risk and opportunity that boards will need to address this year. There are other business imperatives to consider in the year ahead" such as keeping pace with regulatory developments, guiding political considerations, overseeing supply chains as strategic assets, and addressing climate change and environmental stewardship.

Questions for the board to consider 2024:

• What systems and processes are in place to monitor international and domestic legislative and regulatory developments and keep the board informed as appropriate? How is management taking prudent action now to prepare for future regulation as appropriate?
• How is the company ensuring visibility across global supply chains and considering alternative suppliers to improve resilience to shortages or price volatility? Is it evaluating supplier relationships for potential geopolitical complications and exploring alternative networks tuned to the new geostrategic environment?
• Does the company view climate- and nature-related initiatives as a means of protecting and creating more value for the business?
• How is it exploring opportunities to transform its business portfolios while reducing emissions?
• How is the company engaging and supporting suppliers to influence emissions reduction through their supply chains? Has the company considered a strategic partnership or joint venture to help achieve its climate agenda?
• How well do management and the board understand how geopolitical developments affect current and future strategy? Is scenario planning used to explore multiple plausible futures and their potential business implications systematically?

GOING FORWARD IN 2024: ENHANCING THE BOARD'S STRATEGIC VALUE

EY concludes its report noting that "In 2024, boards will need to enhance their strategic value by enabling resilience through discipline and transformation. They must guide management to balance short-term demands and long-term growth and support the organization as it confronts crisis and embraces opportunity."

Moreover, "While cyclical changes such as inflation and consumer spending require attention and may present tactical opportunities, it is structural changes such as the GenAI revolution, geopolitical fragmentation and the energy transition that are significantly impacting strategy and raising the stakes for businesses and society. Effective boards will provide valuable insights, effective challenge and leadership to enable companies to make agile decisions aligned with their values in this turbulent environment."

In the report's introduction, EY notes that its "2024 board priorities relate to near-term issues (e.g., economic uncertainty and the cost of capital) as well as longer-term priorities (e.g., innovation and workforce development)." I agree that "A crucial role of the board this year will be guiding management in balancing what is urgent to address now with what is vital to invest in for the future." How is your business balancing the urgent matters that need address now with investing in vital initiatives for a sustainable future?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

AI Led the Global Conversation at CES 2024

Me, my mom, Lindy Rose, and my
colleague, Patricia Berdejo, attending
CES on Jan. 12, 2024

"AI, AI, AI," was the prominent theme at CES® 2024, which saw over 4,300 exhibitors including a record 1,400+ startups from around the globe in Eureka Park®. As in previous years, this year's CES, which took place from Jan. 9-12, 2024, showcased the innovative trends shaping tomorrow and solving the world's most pressing challenges. This post focuses on a few of observations of attending this year's event in Las Vegas, Nev.

As noted in a press release issued by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the organization that produces CES, artificial intelligence "led the global conversation at CES 2024. Companies highlighted the enormous potential of AI to improve our world with cutting-edge applications that will transform how we communicate, do business and take care of one another." Several AI-focused panel sessions took place during the four day event including on that explored the relationship between ethics and AI in academia, AI's impact on the creative process and content businesses, and how generative AI is leading the transformation of hardware and chips.

CTA's announcement also notes that "CES established access to technology as the eighth pillar of the Human Security for All (HS4A) global campaign, which focuses on the critical role technology plays to improve every aspect of the human experience." Tech is a catalyst for tomorrow, powering solutions to pressing global challenges." Attendees saw the release of a new report released Force for Good on tech's influence on human securities. "Aligned with CTA's CES 2024 Tech Trends to Watch, the report proved that universal connectivity and leveraging AI across human securities will improve our world," the Arlington, Va.-based organization said.

More companies are showing their commitment to sustainable solutions "through technologies, products, and services to reduce emissions and waste by streamlining electrification, developing renewable energy sources, and experimenting with new technologies such as battery recycling." As for Accessibility & Innovation for All, the CTA points out that "CES 2024 fostered a platform centered on universal design for the diverse tech industry to come together and converse on the next wave of innovation. CES featured sessions on diversity in the tech industry, a wave of new technologies that will improve lives and advances in accessible gaming. CTA also announced a new investment partnership in TFX Capital, which supports veteran entrepreneurs in tech."

As for digital health, the CTA explains that "Tools and technologies aimed at lowering costs, improving health equity and saving lives were highlighted. Innovations included digital therapeutics, mental wellness, sleep tech, women's health tech and telemedicine. At the CES Digital Health Summit, Mark Cuban and his Cost Plus Drug Company broke news about a new partnership, while capacity crowds joined the Digital Health mixer and programming with officials from the FDA and across the health policy space."

In what continues to be one of my favorite components of CES, Eureka Park grew this year with over 1,400 exhibiting startups including country and territory pavilions representing France, Hong Kong, Italy, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Ukraine. As highlighted in the previous post on this forum, I attended an event that preceded CES that featured several European startups. During CES, I had the opportunity to getting better acquainted with the founders at the exhibit booths in Eureka Park.

Among the other exhibitors from around the globe, I was impressed with Brickify, a Nigerian startup that is turning recycled plastic waste into water-, fire-, and heat-resistant paving bricks used to construct roads and low cost homes. Ghostpass is a company based in Korea that created a decentralized remote biometric authentication solution that monitors and controls large amounts of biometric information by storing it individually on users' smart devices rather than storing it in bulk in the cloud.

Midbar, which is another firm based in Korea, created an inflatable farm that enables food production anytime, anywhere. Without heavy and costly steel frames, the AirFarm is designed to be lightweight but sturdy. The AirFarm converts moisture from the air into water in real-time. It recirculates the moisture produced by crops back to the roots, making it the world's first farm that operates without water infrastructure.

Lastly, as mentioned by the CTA, while we are experiencing "a moment of global uncertainty and rapid technology advancement, government leaders shared an optimistic view of regulation to empower tech innovation, including in AI." At the Innovation Policy Summit, over "160 international, federal, state and local government officials and staff participated in the Leaders in Technology Program, which convened top innovators and policymakers to discuss the future of pressing tech policy issues, including privacy, health innovation, trade policy, competition, artificial intelligence and self-driving vehicles."

If you attended CES 2024, what were your key moments and takeaways?​

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

Forging a Resilient Digital Indonesia

"The government of Indonesia is keen to build a digital nation, in which digital technologies help improve the livelihoods of citizens and drive productivity in key sectors of the economy," according to a report by the GSMA. "This has been highlighted in several digitalization plans announced in recent years. The main elements of the plans align with the five components of a digital nation: infrastructure, innovation, data governance, security and people."

The UK-based organization adds that "Although steps have been taken towards a digital nation, there remains room for improvement and an opportunity to accelerate progress. This is particularly crucial in the context of 5G and other emerging technologies (such as AI and quantum computing) transforming Indonesian society and contributing to the government’s target for the country to become a top 10 global economy by 2030." The report encouragingly points out: "The industry (mobile operators and other ecosystem players) will invest nearly $18 billion between 2024 and 2030, mostly on 5G networks. 5G technology is projected to contribute $41 billion to Indonesia's GDP during that period."

Having advised government leaders in countries similar to Indonesia who are trying to build a digital nation, I appreciate the GSMA's assertion that "Realizing the government's vision of building a resilient digital nation and using digital technologies to drive economic growth relies on formulating and implementing policies to advance each of the five components of a digital nation." Accordingly, the report presents the following recommendations:

• Infrastructure: Implement spectrum pricing policies and other policy initiatives to ensure sustainable private sector investment in digital networks. Such policies will facilitate the continued expansion of the high-performance mobile networks and other digital infrastructure required to build a resilient digital nation.
• Innovation: Take a holistic approach to digital innovation across government, supported by agile policy approaches, such as regulatory sandboxes and policy labs, and make a concerted effort to increase research funding in Indonesia.
• Data governance: Continue on the path to the full enforcement of the personal data protection law, which was enacted in 2022, and consult widely with stakeholders across the public and private sectors on guidelines on the use of AI and other emerging technologies.
• Security: Develop a comprehensive cybersecurity law to streamline current fragmented laws, and adopt ecosystem-wide collaboration to strengthen cyber resilience, disrupt cybercrime and tackle other online threats.
• People: Accelerate efforts to bring more people online by closing the remaining coverage and usage gaps. Implement initiatives to build a digitally-ready workforce with the necessary knowledge and skills to utilize digital technologies across different sectors of the economy.

The report's authors adds: "The task of becoming a digital nation is multidimensional, involving many different actors from the public and private sectors and non-state institutions. Meanwhile, digital technologies continue to evolve rapidly, offering new opportunities but also challenges that need to be approached holistically. In this context, a whole-of-government approach (WGA) is essential to streamline efforts and realize efficiencies in formulating and implementing digital nation initiatives. This approach will bring together multiple stakeholders and diverse resources to provide a common solution to key issues."

In addition to Indonesia, other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have plans to building a resilient digital nation. The recommendations presented by this report can be a useful guide for how to successfully use digital technologies to drive economic growth.

Do you agree with the report's recommendations?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

Helping Policymakers and Stakeholders Understand Risk and Design Effective Policies for Urban Resilience

According to a report developed by Economist Impact and supported by the Tokio Marine Group, "The world is facing unprecedented challenges. Extreme weather events, from hurricanes and wildfires to flooding and heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and their effects more devastating." Furthermore, "Emerging risks like cyber-attacks loom larger as technology dependence deepens. Our cities are exposed to all of these risks and more. Lives and livelihoods depend on our ability to understand and mitigate the evolving threats to our urban centers."

The Resilient Cities Index highlights three phases to resilience. "Preparation and mitigation come first. Understanding the risks, how they are evolving and taking steps to minimize their impact is essential if cities are to avoid the worst. The second phase is response, necessitating swift reactions and timely assistance to save lives and diminish the impact when disasters occur. Last is recovery, emphasizing the need to learn from tragedies and rebuild stronger, better-equipped communities for future shocks and stresses."

Aiming to help policymakers and stakeholders understand risk and design effective policies for urban resilience, Economist Impact developed a benchmark of 25 cities. To gauge the resilience of these cities, the report's authors took measurements across four pillars: critical infrastructure, environment, socio-institutional and economic. This white paper combines index analysis with expert commentary to identify patterns, common strengths, deficits and best practices across index cities.

Key findings from the inaugural edition of the Resilient Cities Index include:

• Cities performed well in the critical infrastructure pillar of the index, but there are some weak points that require strategic focus. The cities with the highest scores were Dubai, Shanghai, New York and Singapore. These capital-rich market locations have greater opportunities to develop new infrastructure, compared with European cities constrained by decades- or centuries-old systems. Within this pillar, digital infrastructure and transportation were a drag on cities' resilience.
• Cities that use data and technology to create operational efficiencies and share information with their citizens—i.e., smart cities—are better at dealing with shocks. Patchy internet quality, which can impede access to digital services, pulled down the overall resilience score in the critical infrastructure pillar. Digital technologies and advanced data analytics can help to predict risks, optimize existing systems and keep the public informed. Greater digitalization comes with risks, especially to critical infrastructure, but most cities in the index have built safeguards against this.
• Most emerging economy cities lack adequate regulatory frameworks, strategies and incentives for futureproofing infrastructure. Only a few cities in the index achieved high scores for future-proofing, which involves ensuring infrastructure preparedness for shocks while managing current and future emissions. One way cities can future-proof is by incentivizing sustainable designs for buildings, such as installing green roofs, incorporating modularity and retrofitting for energy efficiency—a practice only found in high-income cities in the index.
• Efforts to achieve environmental resilience are led by innovative solutions. Cities are employing a variety of nature-based solutions to adapt to flooding and heat stress, from planting rooftop vegetation and mangrove forests (green infrastructure) to rehabilitating wetlands (blue infrastructure). Cities are also decarbonizing by adopting renewable energy and negative emission technologies, such as carbon capture, storage and removal. However, the scalability of these technologies is likely to be challenging for resource-constrained emerging market cities.
• Cities demonstrated poorer performance in the socio-institutional pillar, mostly due to income inequality and poor health and well-being metrics. Only nine cities have a single, comprehensive plan to support vulnerable groups. However, one bright spot is that cities are promoting a culture of readiness to act in the event of a disaster. The majority of cities scored highly on this or are working to improve their readiness.
• Cities had the lowest average scores in the economic pillar, dragging down some cities that performed well in other areas. The low penetration of financial safety nets hinders safeguards against threats and undermines a city's ability to recover from shocks. Another aspect of economic resilience is a city’s ability to incubate innovation, which can foster solutions to a range of problems, from congestion to water stress. Unfortunately, most cities scored poorly on the indicator for start-up ecosystems.

The report's conclusion points out that "A resilient city is not only prepared for shocks but has the ability to bounce back and thrive. Recognizing both existing and looming threats will help cities better understand their vulnerabilities and design targeted actions. However, building such cities requires stakeholders from government, businesses and communities, as well as individual city-dwellers, to engage in holistic resilience thinking at community and municipality levels."

Moreover, "While resilience needs to be tackled in myriad ways, a number of critical strategies have been identified in the course of this research and are summarized below."

• Empower the community to be active participants. This is contingent on the democratization of information. All city-dwellers should have equal access to government information, including what to do in an emergency. Some cities, like Singapore, do this very well, using digital channels to disseminate information to everyone simultaneously. Fostering a culture of readiness and the ability to manage hazards will require investment to train and educate people at governing and grassroots levels to be stewards of their city. Recognizing that information is key, municipalities could consider partnering with a digital platform to minimize misinformation and ensure the city moves in one direction, despite disruption.
• Social cohesion efforts need greater advancement across the board. Cities are nothing without the people who inhabit them. Greater attention to social cohesion will help to ensure cities are less fragmented, adaptive and better prepared for shocks. City governments should overlay resilience efforts with initiatives that aim to improve the lives of urban residents. This process should be driven by city leadership and engage civil society. The majority of cities in the index have some way to go to strengthen social cohesion through integration programs for society's most vulnerable.
• Early warning systems (EWS) are vital for safe cities but investment is needed to hit the 2027 target. National governments and municipality leaders will have to collaborate to ensure universal early warning systems coverage by 2027. There are two challenges that need to be met. First, capital is needed to bridge the investment gap for technologies with a greater push for the development and adoption of frontier and horizon tech–from drones to AI. Second, governments need to facilitate the necessary legislation to connect these EWS to emergency and response plans to ensure there are protocols and resources in place to deal with climate extremes and hazards. Community acceptance and responsiveness to early warnings are essential in the effectiveness of EWS. This can be achieved through systematic training and education and awareness programs.

What do you think of the report's findings and conclusions? Do you have additional recommendations on how policymakers and stakeholders understand risk and design effective policies for urban resilience?

​Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

How a Company Can Build Resiliency in Uncertain Times

"Amid compounding challenges across the Americas, it's becoming abundantly clear that an actively engaged board is paramount to success," EY notes in its report that presents priorities a company's board of directors should consider in 2023 to build resiliency. The multinational consultancy adds: "Companies are navigating an unprecedented mix of challenges, from the ongoing pandemic to escalating cybersecurity threats, climate change impacts, evolving regulatory pressures and more."

What is more, "By overseeing strategies to navigate this complex business environment and provide guidance on transformational investments, boards play a crucial role in helping management teams explore different options, challenge assumptions and thrive under uncertain conditions. This resiliency — the ability to anticipate, prepare for, respond and adapt to a changing environment — is necessary in an increasingly complex world."

Based on the survey results and EY's direct engagement with hundreds of key stakeholders (including boards, individual directors, C-suite executives and leading institutional investors), the report has identified the following five board priorities for 2023:

Priority 1: Navigating uniquely challenging economic conditions

• How is the company planning for a range of economic scenarios, including those in which inflation and wage growth stay elevated for longer?
• How often does the board ask leadership: "What if we're wrong? What happens if a low-probability, high-impact scenario emerges? What would we do differently if that is the case?"
• What is the company doing to stress-test its balance sheet and develop a crisis playbook that gives company leaders comfort in their ability to manage even the worst-case scenario?
• How is the company building a resilient and sustainable pricing strategy? How is scenario-planning supporting that strategy?
• How is the company evaluating labor costs and decisions in the context of the company's longer-term talent strategy?

Priority 2: Rethinking capital strategy

• How is the company investing to motivate risk and create opportunity despite multiple headwinds?
• How is the company's investment strategy changing in key areas such as digital and technology, people and skills, innovation and R&D, and sustainability? How are the board committees coordinating their oversight of these matters?
• How is the company considering a variety of transactions (e.g., M&A , divestment, new joint ventures or strategic alliances to achieve its strategic goals? Are those options explored at the board level, or is the board presented only with management's decision?
• What is the company's approach to capital allocation (i.e., is it data-driven, consistent and enterprise-wide)? Does it focus on qualitative and quantitative metrics?
• How is the company's investor engagement program keeping key shareholders informed of the company's long-term value creation strategies and the board's related expertise? Do disclosures describing the board's composition demonstrate that, individually and collectively, the board is fit for purpose?

Priority 3: Enabling innovation and technology transformation

• How is the company's innovation budget and program contributing to the creation of an informed strategic plan leveraging emerging technology?
• How is the board thinking about and redefining competitors or industry boundaries? Who might now be a competitor that wasn't previously?
• How are responses to changing stakeholder demands, expectations and operational disruptions leading management teams to innovate?
• How are investments in innovation tracked and reported to the board? Is the board engaged in innovation discussions as part of the strategy-setting process?
• How is the board building a foundational understanding of evolving technologies such as the metaverse, including learning through experience?

Priority 4: Championing a future-focused talent agenda

• How is the board gaining insight into employee engagement, performance, operating statistics such as retention and turnover, and experience across different segments (seniority level, geography, function or business, etc.)?
• How is the company providing support for career path and progression, including mentoring, learning and development programs, and updating organizational design to open opportunities for advancement? Are upskilling and retention central to the company's talent strategy, including around key are as such as technology and sustainability?
• How is the company ensuring pay equity? How is it also creating a human- centered rewards policy encompassing compensation, wellbeing, flexible benefits, time off and more?
• How is the company enabling productivity and culture alignment in a hybrid working environment?
• Has the company leveraged a third-party assessment to validate that the company's policies and practices foster diversity and inclusion, and how can they be more effective? How is the company's DEI commitment integrated into the ways it serves its customers, communities and the market?

Priority 5: Overseeing cybersecurity and data privacy

• Have appropriate and meaningful cyber metrics been identified and provided to the board on a regular basis and given a monetary value?
  
• What information has management provided to help the board assess which critical business assets and partners, including third parties and suppliers, are most vulnerable to cyber attacks?
• How does management evaluate and categorize identified cyber and data privacy incidents and determine which ones to escalate to the board?
• Has the board participated with management in one of its cyber breach simulations in the last year? How rigorous was the resting?
• Has the company leveraged a third-party assessment to validate that the company's cyber risk management program is meeting its objectives? If so, is the board having direct dialogue with the third party related to the scope of work and findings?

The report also presents the following other priorities on the board agenda:

• What systems and processes are in place to monitor international and domestic legislative and regulatory developments and keep the board informed as appropriate?
• How is the company ensuring visibility across global supply chains and considering alternative suppliers to improve resilience to shortages or price volatility? Is it evaluating supplier relationships for potential geopolitical complications and exploring alternative supplier networks attuned to the new geostrategic environment?
• Does the company view climate initiatives as a means of protecting and creating more value for the business? How is it exploring opportunities to transform its business portfolios while reducing emissions?
• How is company engaging and supporting suppliers to influence emissions reduction through their supply chains? Has the company considered a strategic partnership or joint venture to help achieve its climate agenda?
• How well do management and the board understand how geopolitical developments affect current and future strategy? Is scenario planning being used to systematically explore multiple plausible future and their potential business implications?

I concur with EY's concluding paragraph that "[i]n this new era of permanent uncertainty and volatility, success will be based on resiliency and sustainability, including the ability to sustain shocks, self-disrupt, and contribute to the solution of societal and environmental challenges. To meet the challenges ahead, boards will need to strengthen their effectiveness through continual assessment and improvement."

What are your recommendations for how a company can build resiliency in these uncertain times?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

Report Explores the Emergence of Smart Farming Solutions in LMICs and Identifies Opportunities to Scale These Solutions

From working a wide range of project such as growing matoke in Uganda, storing apples in Uzbekistan or exporting rice out of Cambodia, I appreciate how innovative technology solutions can help small farmers and businesses in the agriculture sector. Therefore, it was with great interest to read a report published by the GSMA, a UK-based organization that represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide, which presents findings from an assessment of smart farming solutions for smallholders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

With research performed by a team from the Digital Agri Hub, which strives to build a sustainable digital agriculture (D4Ag) landscape towards agriculture transformation LMICs, the assessment examined more than 70 smart farming solutions being implemented in LMICs around the world. The solutions cover three sub-use cases including smart crop management, smart livestock management, and mechanization.

Image of smart farming sub-use cases: GSMA

The Digital Agri Hub team focused their research on answering the following questions:

1. What are the leading smart farming solutions available in LMICs?
2. What smallholder challenges do these smart farming solutions address?
3. What are the enabling factors and challenges impacting the growth of technology-enabled smart farming solutions?
4. What use cases do the various smart farming solutions support and how do they contribute to climate and disaster resilience, inclusivity and increased productivity and well-being?
5. What operational and business models for smart farming are emerging and how can smart farming solutions achieve scale?
6. What technologies are supporting the implementation of smart farming solutions?
7. How are investors perceiving the smart farming opportunity?

In the data collected from researching the aforementioned questions, six key trends were identified:

1. Smart farming solutions have had a strong focus on high-end, capital-intensive crops like horticulture, aquaculture and livestock, in contrast to other digital agriculture solutions where there is a stronger focus on cash crops.
2. Smart farming services require a robust technical background and strong digital services know-how. As a result, there are fewer traditional digital agriculture service players (such as mobile operators, NGOs and governments) playing a leading role in the roll-out of smart farming solutions.
3. Although achieving scale has been elusive for most smart farming solution providers to date, aquaculture management service solution providers have enjoyed some early successes in expanding their user numbers and attracting funding from investors.
4. Smart farming solution providers focused on smallholder farmers are pivoting away from pitching the technology itself (smart sensors, smart greenhouses, smart irrigation systems, etc.) to pitching platforms and solutions that solve specific smallholder problems.
5. Smart farming solutions are often bundled with e-commerce platforms that connect farmers to input suppliers, traders and buyers to help them find markets for their increased yields.
6. Smart farming solutions have struggled to make inroads with female farmers given the nascent stage of most smart farming companies. In the early stages, D4Ag providers have focused on scale without necessarily taking a gender lens approach.

Researchers also identified six main business models being implemented by smart farming solution providers in LMICs: upfront purchase or asset transfer, pay-as-you-go (PAYG), smart farming-as-a-service/subscription, freemium or tiered, service bundling, and data or insights monetization. The report points out that "These are not mutually exclusive as D4Ag providers may rely on different models to target different customer segments. For example, a D4Ag provider may rely on upfront purchases for their business-to-business (B2B) channel but on pay-as-you-go (PAYG) for their business-to-consumer (B2C) channel."

What is more, "To date, the smart farming services that have had the most success achieving scale are those that rely on the PAYG or smart farming-as-a-service models. These business models lower the barrier to entry for smallholder farmers while creating an ongoing relationship that allows the D4Ag provider to maintain control of the farmer relationship and upsell new services over time."

I appreciate the report's assertion that "Given the nascent stage of the smart farming opportunity in LMICs, investors, donors and other industry stakeholders will need to take several steps before deciding to invest in a smart farming venture." Research from the Digital Agri Hub "has resulted in the following recommendations for ecosystem players seeking to invest in smart farming solutions in LMICs:"

1. Prioritize higher-margin value chains for market entry, such as fresh produce, aquaculture and livestock. These value chains give smallholder farmers slightly more room to invest in new technologies than cash crops, which tend to have very low margins and prices are beyond their control.
2. Consider the characteristics of a country before deciding on market entry. Pay particular attention to the regulatory environment, available network infrastructure, the competitive environment and the maturity of the targeted value chains.
3. Prioritize the right partnerships. Smart farming solutions tend to be more complex than other digital agriculture solutions and, therefore, often require the participation of other ecosystem players. Look to other D4Ag providers to enhance the service offering, to agribusinesses and cooperatives to help aggregate demand, to financial service providers (FSPs) to facilitate financing or identify new target segments (for the monetization of data), to mobile network operators (MNOs) for network access and client relationships and to asset or hardware manufacturers to help reduce the cost of the hardware by creating scale.
4. Take a long view. Patient capital from early investors will make it easier for D4Ag providers with smart farming solutions to attract additional investors and scale their business. D4Ag players will need to spend time educating investors about the potential of smart farming solutions.
5. Ensure farmers are involved in the design of smart farming solutions. Solutions must solve challenges that smallholder farmers face in their daily lives, not those that governments, investors or other stakeholders perceive they face.
6. Understand the total cost of the solution being offered and how that compares with a smallholder farmer’s ability to pay for the solution. This includes understanding the full cost of implementing the technology (e.g. setting up the sensors, installing gateways, etc.) as well as the ongoing support (e.g. access to the platform, data connectivity, etc.).
7. Offer more than just data. It is critical, particularly in the context of smallholder farming, that D4Ag solution providers offer more than just the data generated from their smart farming technology. They must translate that data into specific recommendations and, eventually, automated actions. They must also endeavor to offer holistic solutions that help farmers solve a multitude of challenges, not just one specific challenge.

The report correctly notes that "Smart farming solutions can power the transformation of the agriculture sector and assist in the professionalization of smallholder farming by automating decision-making at the farm level." Moreover, "They can help smallholder farmers in LMICs increase their productivity and disaster resilience by opening access to assets and mechanization, optimizing the use of inputs, labor and natural resources and reducing crop and animal losses and waste."

This assessment of the smart farming opportunity in LMICs is the first in a series of reports produced for the Digital Agri Hub that highlight innovations supporting climate and disaster resilience, inclusivity and increased productivity and well-being. I appreciate how the report explores the emergence of smart farming solutions in LMICs and identifies opportunities to scale these solutions. The report also serves as a valuable took in providing supply-side solution providers, such as agritech innovators and mobile operators, as well as the investors and donors that support them, with insights into the smart farming opportunity in LMICs.

What are your recommendations for improving smart farming solutions to help smallholder farmers access assets and mechanization, increase labor efficiency, improve productivity and resilience to climate change, promote the inclusion of groups typically left behind (including women and youth), increase incomes and facilitate smallholder access to credit and insurance products?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

Report Evaluates Gaps in Early Warning Systems for Climate-Related Hazards in the US

"As climate-related weather events become a greater risk across the globe and in the United States," a report produced by the GSM Association (GSMA) explains that "innovative and inclusive early warning systems (EWS) are critical to mitigate these risks and strengthen preparedness for climate disasters." Moreover, "The frequency and impact of climate-related events have escalated in the US in recent years, negatively impacting communities and resulting in loss of life, property and livelihoods."

Funded by the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, GSMA's report evaluates the gaps in EWS for climate-related hazards in the US, and identifies examples of mobile and digital interventions used at the community level in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that could help underserved and vulnerable groups become more resilient to climate-related disasters. The report also provides specific recommendations for closing identified gaps to strengthen EWS in the US.

The report's key findings include:

• Climate-related hazards are on the rise in the US
• Socially vulnerable groups are the most affected by climate-related risks and disasters
• Early warning systems at the community level are not as robust as national systems
• There are opportunities to improve how emergency warnings are issued and disseminated
• Innovative community-based EWS in low- and middle-income countries offer lessons for the US

The GSMA proposes the following recommendations to help develop inclusive climate resilience strategies:

Co-design EWS with communities to strengthen communication, dissemination and response capability. "The current approach in the US aims to do this, but is often poorly implemented. Bringing American community organizations and municipalities together to develop new and/or modified EWS delivery models for Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) message initiation, or transfer to another system, will help develop localized models and strengthen community trust."

Investigate opportunities to leverage multi-channel EWS communication to reach a wider group of users and improve users' responses to messages. "In the US, message recipients are more likely to act if they receive a warning multiple times from different platforms. Message solutions like CHANTER could be used in combination with existing systems to amplify messages and make them more relevant, resulting in more specific messages being delivered to recipients' phones. When local communities are stakeholders and involved in managing such solutions, messages sent through the community-based channel would most likely be considered trustworthy and, therefore, prioritized."

Strengthen multi-language EWS messaging. "Leverage low-cost systems to rebroadcast messages in multiple languages. Local governments may also use other systems to auto-translate messaging for minority languages in coordination with user representatives from these communities. There is also an opportunity to pilot AI-powered auto-translate systems, for example, talking books to reach users who are not literate."

Engage partners in educating customers about wireless emergency alert (WEA) and local opt-in alert and warning systems. "Local communities can partner with local wireless operators to provide information to consumers on the benefits of WEA and local opt-in systems. This could be implemented as a corporate social responsibility initiative, alongside civil society groups and county emergency offices, hosting targeted workshops and advocacy campaigns that highlight the importance of residents signing up for warning messages and gathering feedback from residents on their preferences and potential challenges related to receiving disaster warnings."

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information, there were 142 weather- and climate-related disasters costing at least $1 billion each have been recorded in the US in the past 10 years. The most common and costly events were hurricanes, cyclones, and wildfires. The estimated cumulative cost of these events between 2012 and 2022 was more than $1 trillion.

The GSMA importantly notes that "Planning for climate change requires that government institutions and local communities adapt and prepare systems and strategies to mitigate the risks of climate-related disasters and build their resilience and capacity to respond." This report presents some valuable insights into how to create innovative and inclusive climate resilience strategies by closing gaps to strengthen early warning systems in the US.

Do you agree with the report's recommendations?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

Exploring How Digital Technologies Are Used in Natural Resource Management

"In the coming years, as the environmental crisis becomes even more complex and far-reaching, digital technology will play an increasingly critical role in protecting livelihoods and the natural resources on which they depend," according to a report published by the GSMA. Through the GSMA CleanTech program, the UK-based organization conducted research to explore the "digital dividends" of various types of technology on natural resource management in low- and middle-income countries. Through desk research and stakeholder interviews, they captured and documented global trends and examples of best practice; identified the common incentives, bottlenecks and benefits natural resource management (NRM) stakeholders encounter when deploying digital technology; and highlighted opportunities for the GSMA and its members to enhance the reach, scope and effectiveness of NRM programs.

The report explains that "[n]atural resource management (NRM) refers to the sustainable use and management of the planet's natural resources, including forests, watersheds, oceans, air and a diversity of plant and animal species." Furthermore, "These and other resources work together to produce the benefits and services on which human existence depends, such as the provision of food, medicine and timber, the regulation of our climate, the improvement of our water and air quality, and protection from natural hazards."

Below are the report's key findings:

• Natural resources, livelihoods and poverty are interlinked. "The areas of the world that will be most affected by global changes in climate, biodiversity and ecosystem functions are home to many of the world's poorest communities. This, combined with limited access to and rights over natural resources, is a major contributing factor to poverty, particularly in rural areas. A lack of livelihood opportunities can put unsustainable pressure on local ecosystems by eroding community support for protected areas, instigating unsustainable changes in land use, or incentivizing participation in illegal logging and poaching activities. Conversely, sound NRM practices can have a positive impact on livelihood creation, reward communities for the ecosystem services they provide and drive sustainable agricultural, fishing and land use practices."
• You can't manage what you don't measure - and analyze. GSMA's "review of 131 NRM projects in LMICs shows that digital technologies are transforming the frequency, reliability and transparency of data collection activities, and improving organizational capacity for data visualization, analytics and evidence-based decision making. Nearly 100 of the NRM projects leverage data collected through satellites, drones or connected devices, and one in five uses artificial intelligence to discover, explore and derive insights from datasets. NRM organizations are highly motivated to work with mobile network operators (MNOs) and other technology organizations to find low-cost connectivity solutions that enable them to transmit data from remote or protected areas."
• Digital technologies can incentivize community participation in NRM activities and influence the way people perceive, think about and engage with nature. "There is growing recognition that poverty is more than a lack of material necessities and income; it also includes fewer rights and capabilities and less voice and influence over decision making. Although current approaches to NRM often fail to consider the needs and rights of local communities, digital technology—especially mobile—offers new ways to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders, leverage local knowledge and incentivize community participation in NRM activities."
• MNOs and other technology organizations have a critical role to play. "Although NRM organizations are increasingly tech savvy, many still lack the technical skills and expertise required to keep pace with technological innovations, and are typically overly cautious using donor funds to test 'experimental' digital solutions. The projects in our dataset indicate that when an NRM initiative receives support from an MNO or other technology organization, it is twice as likely to leverage emerging technologies like connected devices, blockchain or artificial intelligence."
• The GSMA and its members can support ambitious responses to climate challenges. "As the environmental crisis becomes even more complex and far-reaching," the GMSA expects "to see even greater integration between digital technology and NRM activities."

The GSMA importantly notes:

The use of digital technology in NRM, such as mobile devices, satellites, the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI), is still nascent, but has grown steadily over the last decade. There is increasing evidence that when developed and applied in a customizable and scalable way, digital solutions can significantly improve the efficiency, responsiveness and efficacy of NRM activities. However, current efforts are generally fragmented and poorly documented, making it difficult for stakeholders to learn from best practices, replicate success or identify opportunities for collaboration.

The report, however, points out that "In the coming years, as the environmental crisis becomes even more complex and far-reaching, digital technology will play an increasingly critical role in protecting livelihoods and the natural resources on which they depend." The UK-based organization says that its "analysis of existing projects and conversations with stakeholders suggests there are two impact areas where further support could help mature and mainstream digital innovation in this sector. First, further research and insights are required to reveal and promote examples of best practice, to help technology organizations develop sustainable business and partnership models, and to empower underserved populations to play a more active role in NRM. Second, there is potential for new cross-sector partnerships and dialogue within and across stakeholder groups to catalyze new action."

Lastly, GSMA's "research found that when developed and applied in a customizable and scalable way, digital solutions can enhance the quality and efficiency of data collection, empower local and global communities to be engaged in conservation efforts and aid real-time decision making. It is also clear from the three case studies presented in this report that digital technology can help scale nature-based solutions to climate action in ways that reduce biodiversity loss and optimize nature's contribution to resilient livelihoods."

Which digital technologies do you think will be utilized to facilitate the sustainable use and management of our planet's natural resources?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.

GSMA Report Explores How to Reach and Empower Women in Digital Solutions in the Agriculture Last Mile

"In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the digitization of agricultural value chains is enabling access to markets, assets and services for smallholder farmers," the GSMA says in a report that examines "the limited participation of women in digitized agricultural value chains by identifying the main barriers for women in D4Ag [digital agriculture] initiatives and shedding light on best practices to increase women's participation and empowerment in these value chains."

The report further notes that D4Ag "solutions, such as digital payments and digital procurement, create efficiencies for both agribusinesses and farmers in the last mile. Digital procurement solutions can generate a range of records, including farmers' production data that enable the creation of economic identities and help them access finance. Digital procurement solutions can also be bundled with digital advisory services that provide farmers with vital information on new farming techniques, weather forecasts and crop production."

"Yet," according to the GSMA, "women farmers are being left behind. Although they represent 43 percent of the agricultural labor force, women face social and structural barriers that typically relegate them to traditional, low-value and labor-intensive activities, such as plowing, sowing and harvesting." What is more, "Restrictive social norms, lack of access to resources and the mobile gender gap all make it more challenging for women to participate fully in agricultural value chains and embrace the digital agriculture solutions that can connect them to markets and services and strengthen their decision-making power."

The report identifies the following digital solutions in the agricultural last mile:

1. Digital profiles: Mobile for authentication and verification, and a tool to create economic identities/digital profiles
2. Track-and-trace systems, farm management systems: Product verification services, accountability tools
3. Information services: Agricultural extension, education, certification standards, skills development
4. Digital financial services: Mobile money-enabled transfers, payments and financial service
5. IoT applications for agriculture: Equipment logistics, crop, soil and weather monitoring, smart warehousing
6. Agribusiness analytics: Predictive analytics, precision agriculture

With respect the barriers facing women in digitized agricultural value chains, the report looks at the social norms, lack of access to resources, and mobile gender gap that contribute to these barriers. It also presents steps to increase women's participation in digitized value chains including defining a gender strategy to guide gender-inclusive interventions, creating a gender-inclusive environment through foundational interventions, and addressing women's barriers through gender-inclusive interventions.

The report produces the following conclusions:

• "Women's low participation in digitized agricultural value chains can only be addressed through approaches that purposely consider women as well as men."
• "The early impact of gender-inclusive last-mile digital solutions on women farmers' participation and decision-making power is promising." through the efforts of organizations creating digital agriculture solutions that has "increased yields and incomes, as well as increased decision-making power in the household."
• "A deeper understanding of women's agency and the social norms shaping their lives is needed to bridge the gap in commercial agriculture value chains."
• "Donors and impact investors are uniquely positioned to push gender inclusive interventions forward. They can inject capital in initiatives that purposely include and target women, and ultimately help to create a level playing field in which women smallholder farmers have equitable access to digital solutions."
• "Donors and investors should first apply a gender lens to their own investment strategies to identify and reward new D4Ag investees that already apply, and want to test, approaches that reach both women and men."
• "Donors and investors should also leverage their ongoing investments to encourage investees to adopt best practices, such as consistently collecting and using sex-disaggregated data, or involving women in human-centric design research to inform the design of solutions. Investors can also make investments that strengthen the resilience of women farmers to climate change since they are disproportionately affected as a result of lower input use or weaker safety nets."

Lastly, I support the report's assertion that "By incentivizing and rewarding D4Ag providers, donors and impact investors can guide them towards gender-inclusive approaches that aim to improve women's influence, leadership roles and decision-making power, and promote sensitive and equal gender norms at all levels. Without this, gender inequalities are not only likely to remain, but become exacerbated."

What are your recommendations for increasing women's participation in digitized value chains? Which digital solutions are you creating in the agricultural last mile?

Aaron Rose is a board member, corporate advisor, and co-founder of great companies. He also serves as the editor of GT Perspectives, an online forum focused on turning perspective into opportunity.