对许多人来说，美国最高法院2015年做出的全国范围内同性婚姻合法化的决定，是女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和跨性别人士（LGBT）走向权利平等的最新里程碑，是数十年斗争的巅峰时刻。近年来政治动荡、贸易战不断，再加上大流行病，全球的焦点已经偏离LGBT群体的平等权利。即便如此，LGBT群体的平权活动还是取得了许多重大胜利，尤其在亚洲。其中最显著的便是台湾同性婚姻合法化。此外，包括中国和印度在内的法院重大裁决，虽然是渐进过程，也推动着LGBT群体获得平等权利的进程。
考虑到这一背景，我 们最近进行的主题为””骄傲与偏见”的调查（本调查和研究报告为年度项目，本年为第五年）探讨了LGBT群体的权利，主要集中于亚洲。尽管现在西方仍存在歧视，但相较于几年前，更接近于完全平等。另一方面，亚洲仍要经历漫长过程，才能成为这场持续的LGBT群体权利的全球斗争的下一个战场，真正有所进展。随着亚洲城市年轻人的态度迅速改变，亚洲大陆有望接过接力棒。
For many, the United States Supreme Court decision in 2015 to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide was a recent high-water mark for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, an inspiring moment that served as the culmination of decades of struggle. Although the past few years of turbulent political shifts, trade wars and a major pandemic have seen the global spotlight shift away from LGBT rights, they have not been without significant victories, especially in Asia. Taiwan’s recent adoption of same-sex marriage is the most prominent, but other, more incremental advancements—including significant court rulings in China and India—have also pushed the envelope forward.
With this context in mind, our most recent study under the Pride and Prejudice banner—the fifth in an annual series of surveys and research reports exploring LGBT rights—focuses on Asia. Although the West still contains pockets of discrimination, it is far closer to full equality than it was even a few years ago. Asia, on the other hand, still has a long journey ahead, making the region the true next chapter of progress in this ongoing global fight. With attitudes among young, urban-dwelling Asians changing rapidly, the continent will hopefully pick up the baton.
In keeping with the Pride and Prejudice approach of years past, our research, sponsored by Manulife, Barclays and Nomura, focuses roughly equally on the business community and society at large. In particular, this year it compares corporate attitudes to those of rank-and-file staff with regard to LGBT rights; just as the wider social compass may lag behind—or diverge entirely—from the attitudes and opinions of individuals, so too do companies often default to a conservative “groupthink” mentality that obscures potentially rapid change in attitudes among individual workers. These attitudes are captured via a survey, fielded in August and September 2020, of 359 full-time employees at companies across seven economies: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. Our sample is 44% director-level and above, including 16% C-suite executives. It is 77% male and 8% members of the LGBT community. See the report appendix for full survey results, including demographic data.
Download the report in English | 简体中文 | 繁體中文（香港） | 繁體中文（台灣） | 日本語
2016年，经济学人集团发起了“骄傲与偏 见:商业和经济中男同性恋、女同性恋、 双性恋和跨性别者(LGBT)的多元化和 包容性问题”计划的第一阶段。作为计划的一部分，经济学人智库(The Economist Intelligence Unit/The EIU)开展了一项研究，基于广泛的全球调查和深入的案头研究探讨LGBT人群在工作场所的地位。现在， 在计划开展的第二年，这项研究涵盖了最能 为工作场所的LGBT人群推动积极变革的群 体:公司领导、年轻人和女性。
为了找出这些变革的动力，我们首先要了解企业中存在的偏见程度。尽管有一些正面的发现，例如支持一般意义上的LGBT权利的高管人员所占比例很高，但对LGBT的敌意仍然非常普遍;每十位高管中就有一位意识到办公场所存在对LGBT人群的某种歧视。LGBT 群体通常会在工作中隐藏自己的身份，这种低调致使人们认为这并不是一个需要系统化解决的问题，专门制定计划来不断推进问题解决的动力少之又少。
打破这种恶性循环最有效的方法之一就 是让公司领导人宣布成为LGBT人群的盟 友，LGBT领导人甚至可以公开“出柜”。在去年的调查中，有63%的受访者认为管理层 (高层和高级管理人员)最能影响LGBT文化 在工作场所的进步。然而很少有高管认为他 们公司的高层人员特别热衷于为LGBT权利发 声。帮助领导者参与并培养更具包容性的领 导文化往往需要大量的时间和精力。
但是，年轻一代的员工开始发声，准备好在 整个企业环境中(包括在高层)掀起全面变革。外部研究表明，在世界的大部分地区， 千禧一代比年长者更有可能支持LGBT权利。 调查的受访者感觉到，这种态度上的转变如同接力棒在代与代之间的传递。然而在这方 面，年轻员工可能会感到与领导者脱节:在 我们的调查中，许多年轻职员说不出具体是谁在引导工作场所中对LGBT群体包容性的态度，而更多的高层人员至少可以说出一种类型的员工。
从几代人和多个企业层级来看，女性对LGBT 工作场所包容性的支持高于男性。这种现象 源自各种因素，包括女性与LGBT人群共同的 受歧视历史以及将男同性恋者与女性气质联 系在一起的根深蒂固的刻板印象。这两个群 体类似的斗争可以警醒彼此，一个群体的进步往往会推动整体的进步。
为了揭示当前职场中对LGBT人群的看 法和态度，经济学人智库(The Economist Intelligence Unit/EIU)于2015年10月到11月 期间针对全球1,021名意见领袖在网上进行 了“骄傲与偏见”基准调查。从他们的观点 中，我们深刻了解到了在为LGBT群体权利谋求更多平等权利时需解决的问题。
大体上，那些调查对象看上去并没有表现出 对LGBT人群的歧视态度。在很多时候，基 于性取向和性别认同(SOGI)多样性的进步根本还没有成为热门话题。这要是由于LGBT 一直被视为“隐性”的少数群体。过去有研 究表明，很多LGBT人士在某种程度上都会在工作中隐瞒自己的性取向，在美国这一比例高达53%。根深蒂固的规范阻止员工谈论这个话题，迫使他们不得不隐瞒身份;而这方面的空白反过来又塑造了规范，迫使更多的人隐藏自己的秘密。在北美和西欧以外的宽容度不太明显的社会中，未出柜员工的比 例很可能要比这高得多。
但是与在许多其他场所中一样，在办公室 里，熟悉程度会提升接纳度。公司中存在 LGBT益倡导者，或者知道自己的同事、老 板和下属中有LGBT人士，可以改变人们的观念。然而，一个主要的挑战是，如何将包 容性与公司的财务业绩联系起来。很少有受 访者注意到这之间的联系。
不过值得庆幸的是，企业在社会中的作用更 为明确。许多受访者希望看到他们的公司在促进LGBT权利时采取直言不讳的态度，并在一定程度上由高层人员领导，虽然这些意见因年龄和性别而异。
After decades of propelling global economic growth through the international flow of goods, services, people and ideas, globalisation is in crisis. Already under pressure from geopolitical tensions and the rise of populist politics, the covid-19 pandemic has caused even the most free-marketoriented economies to question their reliance on global supply chains and trumpet the value of self-sufficiency.
The Covid-19 pandemic is the most significant global disruption since World War II and the first truly global public health crisis in the modern era. Entire industries have ground to a halt; international travel has receded to its lowest level in 75 years; nearly all of the world’s leading economies are in recession; and at the time of publication, more than one million people have died from the virus and its complications. As the pandemic forces profound change in all aspects of society, technology is playing a starring role in enabling organisations to respond to disruption. Technological laggards have been exposed, and the most resilient organisations are those that had already embraced automation, cloud computing and collaboration platforms.
On the surface, digital transformations during the pandemic have resembled the advances of recent decades, characterised by a shift to new but proven and commercially available technologies. Many of these transformations seem predictable—or at the very least, intuitive. However, deeper analysis reveals that underlying innovation processes are changing, which has significant implications for the post-pandemic era. The public health crisis has motivated organisations to accelerate plans for technology deployment, governments to waive regulatory requirements, and consumers to accept new products and services.
This research is the product of interviews with over 30 industry experts regarding changes to innovation processes at their organisations; a scan of over 2,000 articles in technology media to identify leading, sector-specific innovations; and an assessment of innovation disruption, using a framework based on Everett Rogers’s theory of the diffusion of innovations.
The research programme focused on the underlying processes of innovation, as well as the environmental factors that facilitate innovation. As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to cause global disruption, an urgent motivation has emerged to address the current challenges and plan for a new world. This presents a valuable opportunity to observe how innovation processes are changing.
Overall Insights
Simple solutions are almost always preferred unless transformational plans are already under way. Observable success still matters, although it is increasingly industry-agnostic. Trials and product rollouts are being condensed—perhaps permanently.Healthcare
Disrupted access to physical health records has accelerated the digitisation of health data in hospitals and reduced organisational inertia in integrating complex systems. The rapid uptake of telehealth and remote care management has reduced the burden on on-site facilities. Remote care proliferation is accelerating artificial intelligence (AI) research. An emerging culture of collaboration and open data during the pandemic—and wider application of AI—has revolutionised research.Media
Media production has shifted to the cloud, and there has been an uptick in experimentation with emergent technology as news broadcasting and entertainment decentralise. While automation has increasingly been deployed to respond to the need for real-time information on the pandemic, there is a consensus that many existing news industry tasks cannot be automated.Education
Simple technologies, such as public broadcasting, have been adopted to address the gaps in access to digital infrastructure. The pandemic has helped to drive a change in attitudes in favour of using more, technology, but education remains a laggard relative to other industries.Transport
The urgency of the pandemic is providing use cases for autonomous vehicles that would not otherwise exist. The need to minimise contact has pushed the minority of digital holdouts to abandon outdated documentation practices in favour of modern platforms backed by cloud, automation and co-ordination technologies.Government Administration
Automation is being used to deal with the additional workload arising from the pandemic, but it is not taking over existing tasks. The pandemic is changing minds and culture in government, leading senior officials to embrace new technology and innovation to a greater extent.
In the summer of 2019 The Economist Intelligence Unit asked global institutional investors and asset owners which sectors in China they found most attractive. Technology was cited by 58%,1 making it the top answer above financial or healthcare services. Although trade tensions had started ramping up at that time, a majority of survey respondents still expected to boost exposure to China’s economy. Since then, US-China trade tensions have tightened into talk of “decoupling”, threatening to tear apart a relationship that has buoyed international stock markets for years. While the political effect is polarising and immediate implications for firms involved in global trade can be destabilising, the disputes bring a different balance of risk and reward from an investment perspective.
Made in China 2025
The story of China’s economic transformation into “the world’s factory” isn’t new or even finished yet. But the current chapter is about moving up the value chain. The “Made in China 2025” initiative identifies ten priority sectors with a range of plans and policies aimed at generating “innovation-driven development” and Chinese self-sufficiency in a variety of industries,2 such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), biotech and semiconductors. Containing few hard targets, an overarching goal appears to be displacement of foreign technology in favour of Chinese versions—up to a 70% share for China’s domestic market.
“[China’s] strategy is not entirely different from that of South Korea or Japan earlier,” says Marcin Piatkowski, senior economist at the World Bank in Beijing. “But the process could be more transparent, especially in terms of who gets financial support. There are many sources of funds to support companies, but it’s sometimes difficult to know where it is all going. More than half of China’s research and development (R&D) spend is at the regional level.”
Calling “Made in China 2025” a blueprint for advancement or protectionism is a political decision; on a practical side, it’s likely to mean a shifting of corporate profits from west to east. BCG, a management consultancy, has developed several scenarios to measure impact. It reports: “Our model indicates that [supplier substitution] will deepen the revenue loss coming from the Chinese market to US semiconductor companies by an incremental 30% to 40%.” If US companies in that supply chain lose Chinese buyers it would hurt their profits considerably, but it could prove a boon to non-US firms.
“The example of the semiconductor industry shows the challenges China faces,” says Andrew Gilholm, principal and director of analysis at Control Risks, a consulting firm. “Even though it has made rapid progress—the pace of development is extraordinary—there is still a significant gap from here to where they want to be, where they don’t need imports. So while they are trying to bridge that gap, they can’t afford to scare off foreign investors or provoke export controls from the US because they are still vulnerable.”
China’s advantage?
With a massive domestic market, many Chinese companies have not had to look abroad for growth. The digital economy is a good example of where Chinese tech companies have rapidly leapfrogged foreign counterparts as they innovate in the local market. With the development of “super apps” and whole ecosystems of commerce contained in one platform, companies like Alibaba have flourished. It now has a 56% share of the Chinese e-commerce market— greater than Amazon’s share of the US market—and was easily able to fend off a local challenge from US rival eBay.3 So absolute was eBay’s defeat in China that typing the phrase “eBay in China” into Google’s search engine auto-completes with “failure”.
That dynamic has given rise to a global anxiety which has led China to tone down its “Made in China 2025” rhetoric but not its plans, according to Mr Gilholm. “They are doubling down on their industry level plans but pursuing them in a way that is less threatening,” he says. “However the sense of urgency to develop domestic capabilities has only increased, even more so in the past year with the sanctions and actions against Huawei, WeChat [from Tencent] and TikTok [from Bytedance]. It is full steam ahead, but repackaged.”
“Chinese companies have been able to build capacity and muscle owing to the size of the domestic market and the fact that they have been somewhat insulated from competitive pressures,” says Mr Piatkowski. “There are a couple of areas in which China is a global leader that might be less affected by geopolitical changes: the digital economy, logistics and medical equipment.”
For more on how China’s domestic healthcare sector is growing and creating investment opportunity, see The Economist Intelligence Unit article: “Healthy China 2030” policy could be a blueprint for investment opportunity.
Pursuing growth despite uncertainty
Chinese tech companies, of course, see a chance to benefit from decoupling. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s announcement of a “dual circulation” policy—making domestic consumption China’s economic growth engine and securing supply chains in critical industries—has raised domestic hope of government support, particularly for tech companies.4
That skewing of the playing field is putting off some foreign companies, but not all. China was the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Asia in 2019, with companies such as BASF, Volkswagen and Daimler (Germany), Exxon Mobil and Tesla (USA), and Toyota (Japan) remaining major investors.5 In mid-2020, about 15% of US companies operating in China told the US- China Business Council in a survey that they were moving at least part of their operations out of China, and 24% said they had reduced or stopped planned investments in the country (up from 19% in 2019). However, it also found that compared with 2019 more US companies now consider China a top strategic priority (16%) and top-five priority (83%).6 By August 2020 FDI into China had already climbed to US$89bn—a 2.6% year-on-year increase—and although trade clashes show no signs of dampening, August alone saw FDI jump by 18.7%7. So actions still speak louder than words; and labour costs—more so than trade or tech tensions—still appear to be the driver of any supply chain migration.
China’s growth potential is unparalleled and its economy remains one of the few that The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts to show any GDP growth at all in 2020. Many Western firms, such as Schneider Electric, a European electronic components and systems manufacturer, have set up in China not just to supply global markets but to serve the local market under a “China for China” strategy. Unwinding such investments is much easier said than done.
Still, decoupling pressures may drive US firms to make political decisions rather than business ones. The US-China Business Council survey found 86% of US companies with business in China have been impacted by US- China trade tensions.8
The environment for foreign tech companies varies considerably by sector, according to Mr Gilholm. “For example, with semiconductors and other advanced parts like memory, companies like Intel and Toshiba are still operating in China,” he says. “There hasn’t been much of an exodus but it’s not paranoid to say that dominant foreign companies will only stay that way for as long as it takes China to catch up. China has been such a big part of companies’ global growth strategies it would take a lot for them to abandon the market, but they are hedging their bets and taming expectations.”
Chance for a reset?
Ahead of the US presidential election, the question is whether a change of administration would radically change this environment.
The Economist Intelligence Unit says China and the US have been on a collision course for the better part of a decade and there is little prospect of improved relations even if Joe Biden wins. However, the US handling of the conflict would look different. Under Mr Trump, foreign policy has been isolationist, withdrawing from multilateral bodies to remove any restraints on US power.9
“The election result won’t change plans,” Mr Gilholm says. “[Joe] Biden isn’t calling for going back to the pre-Trump status quo and the fundamentals that have been driving this for years, even before Trump, haven’t changed. But do expect a change in style. [US secretary of state] Mike Pompeo is using strong language, describing China as an existential threat, an enemy. That would go, as well as the use of executive orders, [if Mr Biden becomes president].”
Whether or not the US steps up pressure on China it’s still likely to pursue a self-sufficiency agenda, according to BCG models. Under the status quo, US firms in the semiconductor supply chain, for example, might see as much as a 30% drop in revenue in a case where Chinese buyers seek to diversify supply but not eliminate US sources. Under a model where China has to replace US suppliers, the drop could be 40%. Beneficiaries, in that case, would be companies in China, South Korea, Japan and Europe.10
The extent to which the US and China push decoupling will determine how technology develops around the world. Countries may be forced to choose which to work with exclusively, especially for critical infrastructure. Already pressure from the US has resulted in the UK government banning its mobile carriers from buying new Huawei 5G equipment after December 31st 2020 and forcing them to remove all Huawei 5G kit from their networks by 2027.11
Chinese tech companies may find it more difficult to work in the West, but they can still pursue global ambitions by offering financial or technical support to countries covered by China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts that: “China and the US will increasingly exert their leverage over third parties to the extent that a neutral stance becomes economically prohibitive. A gradual bifurcation in the global economy would be a slow-moving trend initially, but its longer-term impact would be significant...trading blocs that are torn between the US and China would face significant political tensions.”12
Decoupling is not yet a foregone conclusion. FDI into China is still flowing and if the country does reduce dependence on foreign high- tech, as advocated by the “Made in China 2025” strategy, that still offers opportunity to international investors, especially the 58%13 who already marked Chinese tech as a top sector of interest a year ago.
The report was written by Monica Woodley and edited by Jason Wincuinas.
1. “The China position: Gauging institutional investor confidence”, The Economist Intelligence Unit, November 2019. https://eiuperspectives.economist. com/financial-services/china-position-gauging-institutional-investor-confidence 2. Elsa B Kania, “Made in China 2025, Explained”, The Diplomat, February 1st 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/made-in-china-2025-explained/ 3. “How competitive is China’s tech scene?”, FT, August 4, 2020 https://www.ft.com/content/7d862fb6-6c3a-45ad-a057-58c2122167b5 4. https://www.ft.com/content/943ea0db-d4e6-414c-b953-6081058d5f2f 5. "2020 World Investment Report”, UNCTAD, 2020 6. “Member Survey”, US-China Business Council, 2020. https://www.uschina.org/sites/default/files/uscbc_member_survey_2020.pdf 7. “China’s inbound foreign investment surges 18.7 per cent in August, as bank loans grow more than expected”, SCMP, September 11, 2020 https:// www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3101217/chinas-inbound-foreig... 8. "Member Survey”, US-China Business Council, 2020. https://www.uschina.org/sites/default/files/uscbc_member_survey_2020.pdf 9. “US-China relations under a Biden presidency”, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020. https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report. aspx?campaignid=uschinarelations 10. Antonio Varas, Raj Varadarajan, “How Restrictions to Trade with China Could End US Leadership in Semiconductors”, BCG, March 2020. https:// www.bcg.com/publications/2020/restricting-trade-with-china-could-end-uni... 11. Leo Kelion, “Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027”, BBC, July 14th 2020. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53403793 12. The US-China trade war splits the global trade system, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020. https://gfs.eiu.com/Article. aspx?articleType=gr&articleId=3406 13. “The China position: Gauging institutional investor confidence”, The Economist Intelligence Unit, November 2019. https://eiuperspectives.economist. com/financial-services/china-position-gauging-institutional-investor-confidence
Yet the enthusiasm in Asia for trade does not appear to have waned. This broad societal consensus behind international trade has enabled Asian countries to continue broadening and deepening existing trading relationships, for example, by quickly hammering out a deal for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in early 2018 following the US’s withdrawal from its predecessor in 2017.
Asia, then, finds itself in the unique position of helping lead and sustain the global economy’s commitment to free and fair trade. It is in this context that the need for sustainability in trade is ever more crucial.
The Hinrich Foundation Sustainable Trade Index was created for the purpose of stimulating meaningful discussion of the full range of considerations that policymakers, business executives, and civil society leaders must take into account when managing and advancing international trade.
The index was commissioned by the Hinrich Foundation, a non-profit organisation focused on promoting sustainable trade. This, the second edition of the study, seeks to measure the capacity of 20 economies—19 in Asia along with the US—to participate in the international trading system in a manner that supports the long-term domestic and global goals of economic growth, environmental protection, and strengthened social capital. The index’s key findings include:
Countries in Asia, especially the richer ones, have broadly regressed in terms of trade sustainability. Hong Kong is developed Asia’s bright spot, recording a slight increase in its score and topping the 2018 index. Several middle-income countries perform admirably, led by Sri Lanka. For the economic pillar, countries generally performed well in terms of growing their labour forces as well as their per-head GDPs. For the social pillar, sharp drops for some countries in certain social pillar indicators contribute to an overall decline. For the environmental pillar, with deteriorating environmental sustainability in many rich countries, China, Laos and Pakistan are the only countries to record increases in scores. Sustainability is an ever more important determinant of FDI and vendor selection in choosing supply-chain partners. Companies are improving the sustainability of their supply chains by restructuring and broadening relationships with competitors and vendors.Fast-moving consumer goods—at least some of them—have become emblematic for 2020.
If there was ever any doubt about the importance of resilient supply chains in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector, one need only recall the expanse of empty shelves that had once held toilet paper or pasta at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In March, in the UK alone, there was “more than £1bn worth of food stocked in people’s houses than there was three weeks ago,” according to Helen Dickinson, chief executive officer of the British Retail Consortium.
It is well established that the modern CFO has a more strategic role to play in a business, but a clear action plan to achieve this is lacking. A key element of this is helping the business to deal with change. Some changes are planned: launching a new product or service, setting up operations in a new region or acquiring a competitor. Others may be unexpected: a major disruption to supply-chain operations, the emergence of new regulation and legal reporting requirements or the unpredictable impacts of global economic uncertainty.
Either way, when asked about the biggest challenges they face in executing their day-to-day activities, change is a recurring theme, according to a new survey of 800 CFOs and senior finance executives, conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. Managing unexpected changes to financial forecasts and adapting finance processes to rapidly evolving business models are top of mind.
Managing unexpected changes to financial forecasts and adapting finance processes to rapidly evolving business models are top challenges finance executives face in executing their day to-day activities.
Finance executives are also concerned with identifying how to align strategic, financial and operational plans towards common objectives and meaningfully analysing data across business units and regions. “All functions are working to meet these challenges and, as a finance head, we have to have visibility across all functions, how they are progressing [towards meeting goals] and ensuring that their direction is in line with overall strategic goals,” says Lalit Malik, CFO of Dabur, an Indian consumer goods manufacturer. It is incumbent upon CFOs therefore to be prepared not only to help their own function navigate uncharted territory, but the rest of the business too. That means breaking down the silos that commonly exist in organisations, in order to collaborate closely across functions, sharing information and data in the pursuit of common objectives.
All functions are working to meet these challenges and, as a finance head, we have to have visibility across all functions, how they are progressing [towards meeting goals] and ensuring that their direction is in line with overall strategic goals - Lalit Malik, CFO of Dabur, an Indian consumer goods manufacturer.
The clear custodian of collaboration
There are a number of reasons why the role of leading cross-company collaboration around steering should fall to the CFO and their team. First, through the activities of budgeting, the finance function is the custodian of the clear, quantitative expression of management expectations and determines how resources such as cash and people will be allocated in order to achieve them. In our survey, 90% of respondents say that finance should facilitate collaborative enterprise planning to ensure that operational plans are aligned with financial and strategic plans.
Second, through performance management, the finance function is the gatekeeper for critical data that illustrate how well—or otherwise—the company is rising to the challenge of change. That includes data relating to sales, supply chain and delivery, which need to be reported back to the business in ways that help drive improved decisionmaking. Our survey reveals that companies in which finance executives feel empowered to drive strategic decisions across business functions are more likely to report a higher financial performance in fiscal year 2016/17 and 2017/18 and anticipate higher growth rates for 2019/20.
Download Complete Executive Summary PDF
As businesses generate and manage vast amounts of data, companies have more opportunities to gather data, incorporate insights into business strategy and continuously expand access to data across the organisation. Doing so effectively—leveraging data for strategic objectives—is often easier said than done, however. This report, Transforming data into action: the business outlook for data governance, explores the business contributions of data governance at organisations globally and across industries, the challenges faced in creating useful data governance policies and the opportunities to improve such programmes. Learn more by downloading our whitepaper below.
At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the images of empty supermarket shelves highlighted the limitations of just-in-time supply chains, but how did retailers really fare in the face of the crisis? Even before the arrival of the virus supply chains had been in transition, impacted by a range of factors such as changing consumer preferences, evolving trade conditions or increased pressure around sustainability ‒ requirements which have forced retailers to rethink their procurement strategy. However, general preparedness seems to be lacking.
It is well established that the modern CFO has a more strategic role to play in a business, but a clear action plan to achieve this is lacking. A key element of this is helping the business to deal with change. Some changes are planned: launching a new product or service, setting up operations in a new region or acquiring a competitor. Others may be unexpected: a major disruption to supply-chain operations, the emergence of new regulation and legal reporting requirements or the unpredictable impacts of global economic uncertainty.
Either way, when asked about the biggest challenges they face in executing their day-to-day activities, change is a recurring theme, according to a new survey of 800 CFOs and senior finance executives, conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. Managing unexpected changes to financial forecasts and adapting finance processes to rapidly evolving business models are top of mind.
Managing unexpected changes to financial forecasts and adapting finance processes to rapidly evolving business models are top challenges finance executives face in executing their day to-day activities.
Finance executives are also concerned with identifying how to align strategic, financial and operational plans towards common objectives and meaningfully analysing data across business units and regions. “All functions are working to meet these challenges and, as a finance head, we have to have visibility across all functions, how they are progressing [towards meeting goals] and ensuring that their direction is in line with overall strategic goals,” says Lalit Malik, CFO of Dabur, an Indian consumer goods manufacturer. It is incumbent upon CFOs therefore to be prepared not only to help their own function navigate uncharted territory, but the rest of the business too. That means breaking down the silos that commonly exist in organisations, in order to collaborate closely across functions, sharing information and data in the pursuit of common objectives.
All functions are working to meet these challenges and, as a finance head, we have to have visibility across all functions, how they are progressing [towards meeting goals] and ensuring that their direction is in line with overall strategic goals - Lalit Malik, CFO of Dabur, an Indian consumer goods manufacturer.
The clear custodian of collaboration
There are a number of reasons why the role of leading cross-company collaboration around steering should fall to the CFO and their team. First, through the activities of budgeting, the finance function is the custodian of the clear, quantitative expression of management expectations and determines how resources such as cash and people will be allocated in order to achieve them. In our survey, 90% of respondents say that finance should facilitate collaborative enterprise planning to ensure that operational plans are aligned with financial and strategic plans.
Second, through performance management, the finance function is the gatekeeper for critical data that illustrate how well—or otherwise—the company is rising to the challenge of change. That includes data relating to sales, supply chain and delivery, which need to be reported back to the business in ways that help drive improved decisionmaking. Our survey reveals that companies in which finance executives feel empowered to drive strategic decisions across business functions are more likely to report a higher financial performance in fiscal year 2016/17 and 2017/18 and anticipate higher growth rates for 2019/20.
Download Complete Executive Summary PDF
As businesses generate and manage vast amounts of data, companies have more opportunities to gather data, incorporate insights into business strategy and continuously expand access to data across the organisation. Doing so effectively—leveraging data for strategic objectives—is often easier said than done, however. This report, Transforming data into action: the business outlook for data governance, explores the business contributions of data governance at organisations globally and across industries, the challenges faced in creating useful data governance policies and the opportunities to improve such programmes. Learn more by downloading our whitepaper below.
Supply chains in the lifestyle sector (which includes clothing, footwear, textiles, luxury and toys) were already under pressure prior to the 2019 coronavirus pandemic. Environmental sustainability, labour standards and technology adoption were among the internal challenges facing companies, but external headwinds were also complicating factors. Globalisation has been under threat, facing challenges in the form of the US-China trade war, Brexit, rising economic nationalism, and the crisis of the multilateral trade regime and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) itself.
It is well established that the modern CFO has a more strategic role to play in a business, but a clear action plan to achieve this is lacking. A key element of this is helping the business to deal with change. Some changes are planned: launching a new product or service, setting up operations in a new region or acquiring a competitor. Others may be unexpected: a major disruption to supply-chain operations, the emergence of new regulation and legal reporting requirements or the unpredictable impacts of global economic uncertainty.
Either way, when asked about the biggest challenges they face in executing their day-to-day activities, change is a recurring theme, according to a new survey of 800 CFOs and senior finance executives, conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. Managing unexpected changes to financial forecasts and adapting finance processes to rapidly evolving business models are top of mind.
Managing unexpected changes to financial forecasts and adapting finance processes to rapidly evolving business models are top challenges finance executives face in executing their day to-day activities.
Finance executives are also concerned with identifying how to align strategic, financial and operational plans towards common objectives and meaningfully analysing data across business units and regions. “All functions are working to meet these challenges and, as a finance head, we have to have visibility across all functions, how they are progressing [towards meeting goals] and ensuring that their direction is in line with overall strategic goals,” says Lalit Malik, CFO of Dabur, an Indian consumer goods manufacturer. It is incumbent upon CFOs therefore to be prepared not only to help their own function navigate uncharted territory, but the rest of the business too. That means breaking down the silos that commonly exist in organisations, in order to collaborate closely across functions, sharing information and data in the pursuit of common objectives.
All functions are working to meet these challenges and, as a finance head, we have to have visibility across all functions, how they are progressing [towards meeting goals] and ensuring that their direction is in line with overall strategic goals - Lalit Malik, CFO of Dabur, an Indian consumer goods manufacturer.
The clear custodian of collaboration
There are a number of reasons why the role of leading cross-company collaboration around steering should fall to the CFO and their team. First, through the activities of budgeting, the finance function is the custodian of the clear, quantitative expression of management expectations and determines how resources such as cash and people will be allocated in order to achieve them. In our survey, 90% of respondents say that finance should facilitate collaborative enterprise planning to ensure that operational plans are aligned with financial and strategic plans.
Second, through performance management, the finance function is the gatekeeper for critical data that illustrate how well—or otherwise—the company is rising to the challenge of change. That includes data relating to sales, supply chain and delivery, which need to be reported back to the business in ways that help drive improved decisionmaking. Our survey reveals that companies in which finance executives feel empowered to drive strategic decisions across business functions are more likely to report a higher financial performance in fiscal year 2016/17 and 2017/18 and anticipate higher growth rates for 2019/20.
Download Complete Executive Summary PDF
As businesses generate and manage vast amounts of data, companies have more opportunities to gather data, incorporate insights into business strategy and continuously expand access to data across the organisation. Doing so effectively—leveraging data for strategic objectives—is often easier said than done, however. This report, Transforming data into action: the business outlook for data governance, explores the business contributions of data governance at organisations globally and across industries, the challenges faced in creating useful data governance policies and the opportunities to improve such programmes. Learn more by downloading our whitepaper below.
For many, the United States Supreme Court decision in 2015 to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide was a recent high-water mark for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, an inspiring moment that served as the culmination of decades of struggle. Although the past few years of turbulent political shifts, trade wars and a major pandemic have seen the global spotlight shift away from LGBT rights, they have not been without significant victories, especially in Asia. Taiwan’s recent adoption of same-sex marriage is the most prominent, but other, more incremental advancements—including significant court rulings in China and India—have also pushed the envelope forward.
With this context in mind, our most recent study under the Pride and Prejudice banner—the fifth in an annual series of surveys and research reports exploring LGBT rights—focuses on Asia. Although the West still contains pockets of discrimination, it is far closer to full equality than it was even a few years ago. Asia, on the other hand, still has a long journey ahead, making the region the true next chapter of progress in this ongoing global fight. With attitudes among young, urban-dwelling Asians changing rapidly, the continent will hopefully pick up the baton.
In keeping with the Pride and Prejudice approach of years past, our research, sponsored by Manulife, Barclays and Nomura, focuses roughly equally on the business community and society at large. In particular, this year it compares corporate attitudes to those of rank-and-file staff with regard to LGBT rights; just as the wider social compass may lag behind—or diverge entirely—from the attitudes and opinions of individuals, so too do companies often default to a conservative “groupthink” mentality that obscures potentially rapid change in attitudes among individual workers. These attitudes are captured via a survey, fielded in August and September 2020, of 359 full-time employees at companies across seven economies: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. Our sample is 44% director-level and above, including 16% C-suite executives. It is 77% male and 8% members of the LGBT community. See the report appendix for full survey results, including demographic data.
Download the report in English | 简体中文 | 繁體中文（香港） | 繁體中文（台灣） | 日本語
The report, based on a global survey of over 1,000 executives, posits a framework toward achieving positive change for LGBT employees via three key workplace groups: leadership, young people and women.
Read the report | More about Pride and Prejudice | Watch video 阅读报告：简体中文 | 繁體中文
This report, the third in an annual series of Economist Intelligence Unit studies addressing the business and economic case for global LGBT diversity and inclusion (D&I), assesses the future prospects for corporate advocacy in the LGBT space, given the perils that face proponents of the liberal, open-minded worldview that underpins LGBT equality. Based on a survey of over 1,000 business leaders worldwide, it finds that although some companies still prioritise LGBT advocacy, the recent rapid social progress in LGBT acceptance that is both cause and effect of this advocacy should not be taken for granted. The key findings are:
Nearly half of respondents believe companies will become more prominent as agents of progress for LGBT rights in future; however, only a third say their own companies will devote more resources to LGBT advocacy, compared with today Although companies with established public positions on LGBT rights are not likely to reverse course, companies that remain “in the shadows” on this issue are likely to stay there Future expectations for various types of advocacy activities are concentrated in North America and Europe, while other regions, where LGBT rights are less entrenched, lag Companies that engage in pro-LGBT advocacy perform better on various measures of business competitiveness compared with their peers, based on self-reported factors Though LGBT issues continue to play a role in political outcomes around the world, few believe the public will demand more progress on this issue versus other rights debates like gender and race and ethnicityRead the report | Watch highlight video | More about Pride and Prejudice
For many, the United States Supreme Court decision in 2015 to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide was a recent high-water mark for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, an inspiring moment that served as the culmination of decades of struggle. Although the past few years of turbulent political shifts, trade wars and a major pandemic have seen the global spotlight shift away from LGBT rights, they have not been without significant victories, especially in Asia.
Pride and Prejudice is a global, 24-hour event spanning three cities around the world. It will catalyse fresh debate on the economic and human costs of discrimination against the LGBT community. The event will challenge policymakers and industry leaders to rethink the future of the LGBT movement and its impact on business.
Download report | More about Pride and Prejudice
阅读报告：简体中文 | 繁體中文
Watch Michael Gold, wirter of Pride and prejudice: The future of advocacy sharing insights about companies' role in LGBT advocacy at The Economist's annual Pride and Prejudice event.
Amid the rise in right-wing populist movements across the Western world, one perennial whipping boy has been relatively absent: the LGBT community. While liberals fret over trade wars, warn of environmental disaster and lament the degradation of human rights in multiple contexts, the outlook for LGBT rights has not darkened as significantly as many feared it would. Setbacks do and will still occur; the transgender community remains particularly vulnerable. Much of the world has yet to reach the West’s level of acceptance. But in many places, being openly LGBT is still easier than it once was.
In The Economist Intelligence Unit’s recent report, Pride and Prejudice: Agents of change, to be launched on March 23, 2017, at The Economist's Pride and Prejudice event, we explore the advancement in LGBT diversity and inclusion via three key groups: influential advocates in leadership positions, young people and women. Their central role in the debate applies as much to the workplace as it does to society overall. By focusing on the specific groups best positioned to effect positive change for LGBT people, resources can be more efficiently deployed and the discussion sharpened to reach the eyes and ears of these cohorts.
Why these three? The EIU’s previous work on this topic hinted at the role these employees play: for example, 63% of respondents in last year’s survey cited management (C-suite and senior managers) as those who can most influence LGBT workplace advancement. Women and young people were more likely to agree than their male and older counterparts that the business world has a fundamental imperative to drive change around LGBT diversity and inclusion. These findings served as the framework for this year’s survey, which delved deeper into the attitudes and opinions of these groups and explored the underlying reasons for them.
Those at the top of the ladder occupy perhaps the most complex position in the discussion. When asked which cohort guides company thinking around LGBT diversity and inclusion in the workplace, our survey respondents ranked C-suite/leadership a close second, after young people. Far fewer respondents—only about one in six—believe they are most eager to support said diversity. Yet among C-suite or board members themselves, one in three believes that broader company leadership is more eager than others to support LGBT diversity and inclusion in the workplace. This suggests there’s a disconcerting disconnect between the top and bottom of the corporate pyramid on this issue.
This matters because young people and women—two groups which, according to our survey at least, are more likely to occupy the lower rungs—want to see their values reflected in the workplace and their voices heard by those in power. Increasingly, those values incorporate support for all forms of diversity, including that surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. Young people, influenced by global pop culture and connected to each other via social media, are more receptive to difference than their elders; women, themselves an oppressed minority, share a natural affinity with LGBT people. Their struggle can inform the march of progress for others facing discrimination, and can open doors of tolerance in the workplace and beyond.
LGBT people may still be waiting for the tide of economic and cultural nationalism sweeping the Western world to engulf them too. On a global scale, much still needs to be done to match even the West’s fragile gains. For those working to effect change, both in the corporate world and society as a whole, the road ahead is challenging, but it is hardly insurmountable.
Pride and Prejudice is The Economist's flagship conference on LGBT rights. Now in its second year, Pride and Prejudice began in 2016 and will continue in 2017 as a global LGBT conference and initiative that will catalyse fresh debate on the economic and human costs of discrimination against the LGBT community.
Visit the Pride and Prejudice website for more information and join the discussion at #EconPride.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.
This report explores how CEOs in the Asia Pacific region are guiding their businesses through the ongoing covid-19 crisis and the steps they are taking to prepare for an uncertain future.
What is driving the strong demand for financing sustainability in Asia Pacific? How can companies increase supply and start to see the benefits of sustainable finance in the next three years? We interviewed Richard Brandweiner, CEO of Pendal Australia, and Sophia Cheng, CIO of Cathay Financial Holdings and chair of Asia Investor Group on Climate Change, to find out.
To learn more: Download report | View infographic
Financing sustainability: How do investors and issuers in APAC's sustainable finance market view the present market opportunities and constraints?
To learn more:
Download report | Watch video
Awareness that sustainability means more than reducing carbon emissions is mounting in Asia-Pacific. Evidence to the fact shows in the response of the region’s sustainable finance market to the global pandemic.
In late 2019, the market was bullish. Asia’s sustainability-related assets under management looked set to grow appreciably, and most investors saw those holdings performing better than traditional equivalents.1
Then covid-19 struck.
The crisis might have been expected to stop the market’s growth in its tracks. Volumes have indeed decreased this year, but a shifting of issuances toward sustainability areas in dire need of attention—pandemic relief and recovery—points to a market capable of adapting quickly to unexpected shocks.
To assess covid-19’s impact on sustainable finance in Asia-Pacific, we consulted representatives from key stakeholders —an issuer, an industry association and a large investor. Their consensus for longer term development is positive, but they underscore the need to address two current inhibitors in the market: a continuing shortage of supply from issuers, and insufficient clarity around definitions and reporting.
Moving beyond green
Prior to 2020, green bonds accounted for the lion’s share of sustainable financing issuances in Asia-Pacific. By mid-2020 that picture had changed considerably, mirroring a trend visible in Europe and other markets—a stark decline in green bond issuance combined with accelerated growth in social bonds.2 Matthew Kuchtyak, assistant vice president, ESG & Sustainable Finance at Moody’s Investors Service, attributes the decline in green bonds largely to reduced Chinese issuance. The pandemic-driven growth of social bonds, meanwhile, boosted that category’s share of green, social and sustainability (GSS) bond issues from 7% in the full year of 2019 to 31% in the first half of 2020, according to Moody’s data.3
1 These were among the findings of a report written by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Financing sustainability: Asia Pacific embraces the ESG challenge, published in February 2020. 2 Green bonds are used to finance or refinance projects or assets having environmental objectives, in areas such as clean energy and low-emission transport. Social bonds fund projects having social objectives, related for example to health, education or employment. Sustainability bonds target projects that combine social and environmental objectives. See Financing sustainability, page 8, for descriptions of the different types of sustainable finance instruments. 3 Data provided to The EIU by Moody’s Investors Service on September 18th 2020. Financing sustainability: How do investors and issuers in APAC's sustainable finance market view the present market opportunities and constraints?
To learn more:
Download report | Watch video
Financing sustainability: Asia Pacific embraces the ESG challenge is an Economist Intelligence Unit report, sponsored by Westpac. It explores the drivers of sustainable finance growth in Asia Pacific as well as the factors constraining it. The analysis is based on two parallel surveys—one of investors and one of issuers—conducted in September and October 2019.
If the countries of Asia Pacific are to limit the negative environmental effects of continued economic growth, and companies in the region are to mitigate their potential climate risks and make a positive business contribution through improving the environment and meeting the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), large volumes of investment in sustainable projects and businesses need to be mobilised. A viable sustainable finance market is taking shape in the region to channel commercial investor funds, and both investors and issuers say they are achieving a financial benefit from their investment and financing activities. The market is still in the early stages of development, however, and must expand and mature to meet investor needs.
The chief constraint on sustainable finance growth in the region has been the limited supply of bankable sustainable projects. Our research suggests supply is increasing, but with investor demand continuing to grow apace, the gap will remain an obstacle in the short- to medium-term. Among the organisations in our issuer survey, only 7% have used sustainable finance instruments to fund projects. However, nearly nine in ten (87%) said they intend to do so in the next year, which should begin to bridge the gap between supply and demand.
Based on issuers’ stated intentions, investors will have a range of instruments to choose from, including green loans and bonds and sustainability loans and bonds. Large numbers of investors indicate that they intend to deploy a greater proportion of capital to these over the next three years.
Awareness that sustainability means more than reducing carbon emissions is mounting in Asia-Pacific. Evidence to the fact shows in the response of the region’s sustainable finance market to the global pandemic.
In late 2019, the market was bullish. Asia’s sustainability-related assets under management looked set to grow appreciably, and most investors saw those holdings performing better than traditional equivalents.1
Then covid-19 struck.
The crisis might have been expected to stop the market’s growth in its tracks. Volumes have indeed decreased this year, but a shifting of issuances toward sustainability areas in dire need of attention—pandemic relief and recovery—points to a market capable of adapting quickly to unexpected shocks.
To assess covid-19’s impact on sustainable finance in Asia-Pacific, we consulted representatives from key stakeholders —an issuer, an industry association and a large investor. Their consensus for longer term development is positive, but they underscore the need to address two current inhibitors in the market: a continuing shortage of supply from issuers, and insufficient clarity around definitions and reporting.
Moving beyond green
Prior to 2020, green bonds accounted for the lion’s share of sustainable financing issuances in Asia-Pacific. By mid-2020 that picture had changed considerably, mirroring a trend visible in Europe and other markets—a stark decline in green bond issuance combined with accelerated growth in social bonds.2 Matthew Kuchtyak, assistant vice president, ESG & Sustainable Finance at Moody’s Investors Service, attributes the decline in green bonds largely to reduced Chinese issuance. The pandemic-driven growth of social bonds, meanwhile, boosted that category’s share of green, social and sustainability (GSS) bond issues from 7% in the full year of 2019 to 31% in the first half of 2020, according to Moody’s data.3
1 These were among the findings of a report written by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Financing sustainability: Asia Pacific embraces the ESG challenge, published in February 2020. 2 Green bonds are used to finance or refinance projects or assets having environmental objectives, in areas such as clean energy and low-emission transport. Social bonds fund projects having social objectives, related for example to health, education or employment. Sustainability bonds target projects that combine social and environmental objectives. See Financing sustainability, page 8, for descriptions of the different types of sustainable finance instruments. 3 Data provided to The EIU by Moody’s Investors Service on September 18th 2020.
Key findings of the report "The family office boom: Contrasts between East and West"
This report examines the different approaches of family offices in the East (the Asia region generally) and West (Europe and North America) and explores the role culture, family and wealth generation play in terms of their structure and management.
