Veeam highlights ESG progress in first global sustainability report
The report highlights the recycling of 1,203 laptops globally between 2023 and 2024, which prevented 3,402 pounds of e-waste as part of Veeam's ongoing hardware recycling programme.
The findings indicate that across the sector, 74% of global organisations fall short of best practices in areas such as e-waste recycling, operating at the two lowest levels of maturity.
Veeam's efforts in environmental responsibility extend to green construction, with eight company offices currently LEED-certified.
In 2023, the company established baseline measurements for Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions and reported a reduction in emissions in 2024.
Looking ahead, Veeam plans to calculate Scope 3 emissions and work with suppliers to track and reduce their broader environmental impact by 2026.
The ESG report also covers Veeam's commitment to AI ethics and data privacy, outlining the launch of a Generative AI Policy and an updated Code of Conduct, as well as implementing strict data protection measures.
Anand Eswaran, Chief Executive Officer of Veeam, said: "Today at VeeamON, we are proud to launch our inaugural ESG report, which is an important milestone in our commitment to making Veeam the best place to work, while positively impacting the world around us. At Veeam, we believe that our responsibility extends beyond compliance; it encompasses our commitment to the planet, our people, and the communities we serve. It's not just about saying what we'll do, it's about showing how we've made progress and setting out ambitious goals for the future."
"As we celebrate Earth Day, we are reminded of the vital role each of us plays in protecting our resources and environmental stewardship, ensuring a vibrant future for generations to come."
The social pillar of the report details Veeam's volunteer initiatives and employee engagement. In 2024, employees contributed 2,793 hours to community causes, including animal shelters, wildfire relief, and dementia care centres through the Veeam Cares programme and the Veeam It Forward Marathon.
According to company figures, 84% of employees rated Veeam as a "good place to work," and 96% of those participating in the 2024 Global Day of Learning described the programme as insightful.
Veeam also launched the EmpowerHer initiative, providing free certification training to 150 women, and formed partnerships with organisations such as Women in Tech and Out & Equal. The company offers benefits including parental leave, 401(k) matching, unlimited paid time off, and support for family planning and adoption.
The report's governance section outlines that Veeam's ESG strategy is overseen by its Compliance Department, which reports directly to the Board of Directors.
In 2024, Veeam achieved a 100% completion rate for its mandatory cybersecurity training and enhanced resilience through advanced phishing simulations. The company also secured certifications such as ISO 27701, ISO 27017, and HIPAA attestation, and expects to achieve further certifications in 2025.
Veeam emphasises its ethical approach to artificial intelligence and data privacy, including the recent launch of its Generative AI Policy and comprehensive data protection protocols.
To compile the ESG report, Veeam's global compliance team used both internal and external data and applied widely recognised industry methodologies. The reporting aligns with ESG frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
The company states that it actively seeks feedback from employees and stakeholders to continue refining its sustainability initiatives and to address emerging challenges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Taking New Zealand Biodiversity To The World
Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari and Ekos are making history by launching New Zealand biodiversity and conservation into the global marketplace. This is the first time a New Zealand conservation project is trading biodiversity credits on an international trading platform. This provides direct access to global audiences, connecting the world to the incredible biodiversity outcomes for which New Zealand is renowned. Ekos CEO Sean Weaver says this is a milestone moment, not only for Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari, but also for the future of conservation funding in New Zealand. "The need for conservation funding in New Zealand far outweighs the current resources available through traditional grants and philanthropic support. Biodiversity credits from the Ekos BioCredita programme offer a new pathway to integrate biodiversity conservation into the heart of the economy here and around the world,' he says. 'These biodiversity credits don't commodify nature. Instead, they represent the human resource and technology cost to look after it. Buyers are purchasing measured, reported and verified biodiversity conservation outputs in a performance-based system." Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari CEO Helen Hughes says being the first in New Zealand to connect international market platforms with the world-class biodiversity outcomes achieved by her team is in keeping with the innovative mindset that the sanctuary was founded on. 'The Sanctuary is the largest of its kind in the world, built just over 20 years ago with ambitious goals and innovative thinking. Today, our 1,000-year plan and our scale provide the opportunity to test new ways of doing things, including finding new revenue streams to enable the sanctuary to continue to deliver exceptional biodiversity outcomes,' she says. Weaver says that linking biodiversity credits to international companies is a positive step for New Zealand. 'Being able to trade on the international trading platform, ClimateTrade, opens the door to foreign exchange to help fund biodiversity conservation in a global biodiversity hotspot. This opportunity is made possible by our rigorous standard, third-party verification protocols, and blockchain registry system for biodiversity credit issuance and tracking.' 'This allows us to tap into a well-established global market where conservation-linked ESG targets and reporting are becoming standard practice. While biodiversity credits are still a relatively new concept here, the BioCredita programme enables New Zealand to align with international frameworks and attract investment from companies already familiar with these mechanisms', he says. Hughes adds that the goal is to connect with domestic and international markets that align with Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari's ethos and value environmental sustainability, social responsibility, productive partnerships and meaningful community engagement. Outcomes she says the sanctuary delivers on every day through its operations. 'By connecting to impact investors and values-based buyers—both here and abroad—we're not just funding conservation, we're shaping a future where nature and communities thrive together. This is not just a transaction; it's a shared commitment to delivering biodiversity outcomes at a global scale,' she says.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
'Go woke, go broke' is no longer true. Socially aware capitalism is the future of corporate responsibility
By Peter Underwood* of Ben and Jerry's ice cream is displayed on a shelf at a grocery store. Photo: AFP / Justin Sullivan Analysis: The phrase "go woke, go broke" is often used by critics of corporate social responsibility. It implies that companies face a binary choice: embrace progressive values or pursue profit. But this dichotomy between "wokeness" and capitalism is both simplistic and increasingly out of step with corporate reality. Many companies are learning to navigate a middle path. They are embedding social, environmental and ethical considerations into their business strategies - not in spite of profit, but because it contributes to long-term value creation. Understanding this shift - and the backlash to it - is fundamental to grasping modern corporate responsibility. Our research examines the growing tension between evolving "woke" agendas within firms and the enduring demands of shareholder value, known as "shareholder revanchism". We explore this dynamic using academic Archie Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility , where economic responsibility forms the foundation for higher legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations. Ultimately, we argue for a reassessment of the prevailing emphasis on shareholder profit and short-termism. Directors should adopt a more balanced approach when pursuing profit and discharging their duties. The idea that directors must choose between shareholders and stakeholders - between profit and progressive causes - has deep roots in law and economics. For decades, shareholder primacy prevailed in global business. This principle was famously reinforced in court decisions such as the 1919 Dodge v Ford case in the United States. Henry Ford was found to have a duty to operate his company in the interests of shareholders. It was later popularised by Milton Friedman , who declared that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits". A stark example of this tension came with the ousting of Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of food giant Danone in 2021. Faber was accused by some shareholders of failing to "strike the right balance between shareholder value creation and sustainability". His critics felt he focused too much on people, the planet and social responsibility and not enough on profits. Yet corporate law has begun to evolve. In the United Kingdom, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 still requires directors to promote the success of the company "for the benefit of its members". But the legislation also requires directors to consider employees, suppliers, communities and environmental outcomes. This model - sometimes termed "enlightened shareholder value" - preserves profit as the goal, while recognising that broader factors shape how it is achieved. New Zealand's brief experiment with section 131 of the Companies Act 1993, which allowed directors to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, is another example. The amendment was introduced under Labour before being revoked by the National-led coalition. Canada has a similar provision. The phrase "woke capitalism" was popularised in a 2018 New York Times opinion piece about corporate activism. It originally described how firms were supporting progressive causes to attract younger, values-driven consumers - not out of altruism, but to strengthen brand appeal. In 2019, the US Business Roundtable - a group of 200 top chief executives - rejected shareholder primacy in favour of stakeholder governance. It pledged to run companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders. This followed a 2018 letter by Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock, calling on firms to pursue a broader purpose and serve all their stakeholders. Yet corporate activism carries risks. Nike's campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick boosted sales but sparked backlash over the American football player's support for Black Lives Matter. Bud Light's brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney triggered boycotts. Gillette's "toxic masculinity" campaign alienated many long-time customers. Jaguar's sales plunged after a rebrand was criticised as pandering. Even ice cream company Ben & Jerry's has clashed with parent company Unilever over the limits of its political expression. These examples show that progressive branding is not always rewarded - but nor is silence. Companies now risk criticism for failing to speak out on issues their stakeholders care about. It is clear consumers are increasingly attuned to corporate social responsibility. A central challenge in reconciling these tensions is the definition of profit itself. Traditional corporate law treats profit as the ultimate end of business activity. But scholars such as Edward Freeman argue that profit is a precondition for continuity - not an end in itself. As he puts it, profit to a company is like red blood cells to a human: essential for survival, but not the purpose of life. Under this view, profit becomes cyclical. It is a means of sustaining activity, not a fixed destination. This may seem open ended, but it avoids the fiction that companies ever reach a final "profit goal". Firms pursuing social impact are not abandoning capitalism; they are redefining it. In a polarised climate, "woke capitalism" remains a lightning rod. But the supposed conflict between ethics and economics is a false one. Courts, lawmakers and firms alike are recognising that social responsibility can support, rather than undermine, long-term value. Directors are no longer torn between duty and decency. They are navigating a broader understanding of corporate success - one in which "wokeness" and capitalism are not opposing forces, but interdependent elements of a sustainable business strategy. *Peter Underwood is a senior lecturer at University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
RNZ News
29-07-2025
- RNZ News
Cabinet Ministers defend hiking board fees for Crown bodies
Nicola Willis says the very best people need to be making governance decisions. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Cabinet ministers are defending a move to hike board fees for Crown bodies by up to 80 percent, insisting those in the roles are overseeing billions of dollars - not just "beer and skittles." Labour says the decision proves the government is out-of-touch with the cost-of-living crisis and has accused it of trying to sneak the news by the public. A Cabinet document, quietly uploaded online on Monday, shows ministers agreed to lift the maximum annual fee for chairs of governance boards from $90,000 to about $162,000. The "Cabinet Fees Framework" is not binding but provides guidance to ministers when deciding compensation for those on a range of bodies, such as royal commissions and ministerial inquiries. Speaking on Tuesday, Luxon said public sector fees had become completely "out of whack" with private sector rates and needed a reset. "We need to make that a little bit more competitive, so that we can actually attract good talent," he said. Luxon said paying more to ensure "really good governance teams" could save billions in the long run. Finance Minister Nicola Willis echoed the point, stressing that New Zealanders deserved value for money. "This isn't beer and skittles. This is billions of dollars of public money. We need the very best people making governance decisions about it." Public Service Minister Judith Collins told reporters that the updated fees still fell short of private sector rates - around 80 percent of the going rate. "A lot of people who are experienced directors don't want to do these jobs in the public sector because they know they're going to lose money," she said. Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Collins said she did not think the public would be worried by the news. "One of the problems is that we've had an underperforming public service that's taken a hell of a lot of taxpayers' money, and so it is very important that we have the right people in charge of that." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision revealed the government's "twisted priorities" at a time when households were doing it tough. "They're saying that board members can get up to 80 percent increases in their pay, whilst nurses and teachers are being told to settle for 1 pecent or less," he said. "They've said everyone needs to tighten their belts - apparently except for the people who they hand-picked to put on public sector boards." Hipkins rejected the idea that higher fees were necessary to attract quality candidates, calling it "absolute nonsense." Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii He said many public appointees had altruistic motivations and were already sitting on "very well paid directorships" in the private sector as well. "They're not doing it for the money," Hipkins said. Hipkins accused the government of trying to "slip this [announcement] out quietly" without scrutiny. But Luxon denied any secrecy: "It's normal practice... how it's been communicated."
