Questions on ESG Leadership

The following were some of the questions submitted during the upGrad session.  I thought it would be helpful to gather them, and answer them. 

In your experience, how does ESG market leadership contribute to achieving market dominance?

We have to consider that with the tightening of legislation pertaining to climate change, we will see a greater emphasis on the compliance carbon credits.  There are not enough compliance credits.  The foundation of market leadership is for companies to take stakes in viable carbon sink projects so that they have access to carbon credits.  If they have the carbon credits, and competitors do not, they can sell the excess at a premium.  This is a direct source of revenue at the expense of competitors. 

Can you provide examples of companies that have successfully leveraged ESG practices to gain a competitive edge?

Tesla is a good example.  In 2022, Tesla’s revenue from automotive sales was US$67.2 billion, while its revenue from the sale of regulatory credits to other automakers was US$1.8 billion.  How much does it cost to create those carbon credits, versus the cost of producing one car?  The carbon credits are created incidentally, meaning we can argue that almost all of that US$1.8 billion revenue is profit.  The same cannot be said for the US$67.2 billion from automotive sales.  Tesla has secured an ESG leadership position and made billions over the years by taking advantage of the system. 

Tesla positions itself as a leader in the electric vehicle market and the carbon credit market.  Tesla claims its solar panel installation business and its EV business generate carbon offset credits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  These credits are sold to other firms, primarily automakers, which struggle to meet emissions standards set by regulatory bodies like the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  Strategically, what does this mean?  It means Tesla is actively taking money from its competitors to fund itself, depriving these competitors the funds to develop products, services and marketing campaigns to compete.  That is the sort of market leadership we are looking at.  It is a brilliant strategic position where they have strengthened themselves at the expense of competitors. 

How does ESG market leadership impact market access for businesses?

As we near 2030, countries will continue to enact legislation to help them meet their climate pledges.  This directly translates into an increase in carbon taxes, and incentives for abatement and reduction of carbon footprints.  Companies that fail to take advantage of this will be at an inherent disadvantage because this translates into a material impact on revenue and market access. 

We must also consider the optics of a company that is viewed as primarily culpable for an increased carbon footprint.  Eventually, we will see more adverse weather conditions.  Rising sea levels will mean movement of people, loss of access to amnesties, and loss of homes.  As these events put pressure on society, it is only logical that the public need someone to blame.  Governments are in the business of winning elections.  Who wants to be the first executive leadership sacrificed, while revenue tanks? 

Are there specific market segments or industries where ESG practices have a more significant influence on market entry or expansion?

There are four main industries that will be immediately most impacted by rising carbon taxes: maritime transportation, airlines, mining and the oil and gas industries.  They are statistically the largest polluters, with the biggest carbon footprints.  As we pivot towards a compliance regime for the cap-and-trade, these industries are expected to bear the brunt of newer carbon taxes, across multiple jurisdictions. 

From a personal perspective, how can individuals incorporate ESG market leadership principles into their own professional journey?

The executive leader is a strategic leader first, and an operational leader second.  We hire management for the latter.  We need visionaries for the former.  Part of the strategic landscape is to understand where legislation and other revenue pressures are moving, and pre-empt them by advancing initiatives that address the underlying contentions.  For major corporations, it is the carbon footprint, because international pressure will ramp up.  Companies need to look into methods to abate the carbon footprint, or invest in carbon sinks. 

An executive leader is thus exercising the visionary leadership needed to navigate this impending challenge.  The same principles we apply to do this are the same principles we apply in other aspects of our lives: reading the situation, identifying challenges, and addressing the underlying contentions. 

What are some practical steps one can take to align personal values with corporate ESG initiatives?

Revenue and growth aside, it is in our interest to protect the environment and create a sustainable growth model.  No company grew by killing its market.  In this case, rising global temperatures is an existential threat to our civilisation.  We need to remember that, instead of focusing on immediate shareholder value, because the wider society is a greater stakeholder here. 

How do companies integrate ESG market leadership into their overall corporate strategy?

Any corporate strategy is about one thing: winning.  And the market is essentially a zero-sum game.  To win, someone else must lose.  There are three basic kinds of market leaders: lowest overall cost, greatest innovation, and greatest customer intimacy.  Regardless of the type of market leadership, we need sustained market growth.  That means the continued existence of some semblance of society is necessary.  Climate change is a threat to that.  As long as we can remember that at an executive level, any and all corporate strategy will seek to address that. 

Are there any challenges or roadblocks they commonly encounter during the implementation process?

The greatest roadblock to implementing any form of ESG policy is this unfortunate myopia that bedevils many leaders.  They see their immediate success, and forget the process that brought it was years in the making.  What got us here is not what will bring us to the next peak.  Too many companies prioritise short-term growth over long-term success.  Any other form of challenge, whether it be legislation, tax exposure, political exposure and environmental challenges are second to this because this myopia is inclement to formulating a proper response to these challenges.  This is akin to people painting the deck of the boat instead of fixing the leak while a storm threatens from across the horizon. 

Can you share any insights on how ESG market leadership affects investor perception and decision-making?

In the US, the concept of ESG has been politicised.  Fortunately, I believe the rest of the world is saner, and understand that climate change is not something to be taken lightly.  There is a growing movement of activist investors all over the world, putting pressure on many companies, from oil majors to mining concerns.  No company wants that sort of scrutiny because it does eventually affect market exposure and share price. 

How do investors evaluate companies’ ESG practices and incorporate them into their investment strategies?

Generally, there is a requirement for companies to report their carbon footprint as part of the assessment of their carbon tax exposure.  This can be found in their audited reports, in the amount of carbon credits they purchase, the provision set aside to purchase carbon credits, and their declared projects.  All this is made available to investors, and evaluated. 

In terms of sustainability reporting and disclosure, what are some best practices that companies should follow to effectively communicate their ESG market leadership to stakeholders and the wider market?

Firstly, this should be part of the mission statement.  Secondly, this should be made an intrinsic part of the branding.  These statements should be found in the annual report and other forms of documentation, as part of the company disclosure.  Finally, it is important that the company is seen to be an active participant in ESG initiatives that involve the community.  It is not enough to be heard; we must be seen to embrace ESG. 

Are there any emerging trends or developments in the field of ESG market leadership that attendees should be aware of?

The primary emerging trend is the pivot towards the compliance market, at the expense of the voluntary market.  Voluntary credits, and companies such as Verra, have had to deal with controversies that affect the credibility of voluntary credits. 

The second emerging trend is the increased carbon tax that will be implemented all over the world.  As regulations tighten, and the regulatory framework coalesces into a binding international framework, the price of carbon credits will rise exponentially. 

There is also the issue of carbon capture.  The cost of the technology will eventually drop as adoption spreads, but the cost of keeping all that carbon captured will not likely drop significantly.  This means, in the long term, carbon sequestration is more economically viable.  Carbon capture is the use of mechanical or chemical processes to trap carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  Carbon sequestration is the utilisation of natural processes. 

How do these trends impact businesses and their competitiveness?

These trends directly impact businesses because the cost of abatement, or paying the carbon tax will directly raise the cost of doing business, and impact revenue in the short term.  In the long term, should these measures fail, we will be dealing with the loss of productivity due to climate change itself, which has an actual human cost.  Either scenario is an environment of rising costs and uncertain revenue. 

What are some potential risks or pitfalls companies should be mindful of when pursuing ESG market leadership?

The greatest pitfall is the fact that many businesses are simply throwing money into any project that has the “ESG” label, without understanding what these projects actual do to help them, and assess their efficacy.  In the short term, it is a cost and a loss.  In the longer term, it affects the credibility of ESG projects as a whole, and creates resistance in the organisation, among stakeholders, against taking real action. 

How can they mitigate these risks and ensure long-term sustainability?

Firstly, there must be an actual ESG strategy that involves consultation with experts, who understand the carbon tax framework, the direction of regulation and legislation; and whether abatement or the cap-and-trade is the preferred option.  There are a lot of conversations to be had before that ESG policy becomes part of corporate culture. 

Secondly, for most businesses, the cheaper option is carbon sequestration through carbon sinks, and the focus on the compliance market.  Taking the wrong direction, and throwing millions in the wrong direction is not only a waste of funds and resources, but also sets the company back when we are racing to meet national climate pledges for 2030 and 2050.  Those that lag behind will bear the brunt of the carbon tax. 

How can organisations foster a culture of ESG market leadership among employees and stakeholders?

The first is education.  There is a lot of talk, but little understanding on what ESG actually is, and what is at stake.  Without this understanding, we cannot expect corporate leadership take the lead in driving an ESG policy. 

The second is the translation of that statement of intent into an actual strategy in order to secure carbon credits, and secure a lead in tackling climate change, while lowering the carbon footprint.  Being a first mover has monetary risk.  Being a late mover has all the risks of a first mover, in addition to regulatory risk and political exposure.  From a branding perspective, no one wants to be seen as the villain, especially in an age of activist investors and consumers. 

Are there any specific initiatives or programmes that can help drive this cultural shift?

Because I believe in this, I actually founded a company solely for the purposes of creating carbon sinks to sequester carbon.  In the process, we create investment-grade blue carbon credits, to be traded on a compliance exchange.  The intent is to drive the creation of a secondary market, with carbon credits as financial instruments.  Normalising carbon credits as another type of commodity and class of financial instruments will create the value needed to pivot the market, and fund further ESG initiatives.  That company is Red Sycamore. 

From a global perspective, how does ESG market leadership vary across different regions and markets?

It does not only vary across regions, but also according to industry.  Different industries have different types of credits, most for the voluntary market.  Even compliance credits cannot be traded across exchanges, because we do not yet have a truly global clearing house.  The national emphasis on ESG partially explains the vast discrepancy in prices and quality of these credits.

ESG & Leadership

The following was the material I wrote in preparation for my Masterclass with upGrad, on the 06^th July 2023. 

We are living in the age of climate change.  In business, the primary risk exposure for the intermediate to long-term is carbon taxes and carbon credits.  There is a lot of talk and speculation on carbon credits, but a lack of hard information.  Governments all over the world are implementing carbon taxes and pivoting towards carbon neutrality.  This is not a cost, but an opportunity. 

Leadership is not merely the art of commanding.  Leadership is the exercise of influence to effect preferred outcomes.  Corporate leadership without ESG leadership is inadequate corporate leadership.  Consider Tesla, for example.  They are the largest automobile manufacturer by market capitalisation, but they make money from their ESG initiatives, not just selling cars.  This is by design, and they are not an outlier. 

Businesses need to embrace the carbon market, because every industry has some exposure to it.  It requires strategic planning to be ahead of the curve and implement policies and actions to mitigate risk exposure, while growing revenue in this area. 

The Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw, was allegedly quoted in 1942 as saying, “England and America are two countries separated by the same language.”  I believe that before we talk about something, we need to define what we are addressing, because we often have this situation where people have entire conversations, using the same terms but meaning different things. 

ESG abbreviates “Environmental, Social, and Governance”.  ESG investing and initiatives refer to a set of standards and values for a company to screen potential investments.  In our current context, it has increasingly been used to refer to our carbon footprint and exposure to carbon tax.  The environmental criteria address how a company safeguards the environment.  It includes corporate policies addressing climate change.  That is what we are focusing on because to talk about ESG investments and policies would take more than an hour. 

Carbon credits, technically known as carbon offsets, are essentially permits to pollute.  Carbon credits allow the owner to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gases, including carbon credits, for a specific period.  One credit permits the emission of one tonne of carbon dioxide or the equivalent greenhouse gases.  The term is “Co₂e”.  This is one half of the cap-and-trade regime.  The other half is, of course, the reduction of emissions. 

Climate change is a reality.  We strongly believe that it is the collective interest of humanity to address it, in order to maintain the quality of life, protect the most vulnerable among us, and secure our future.  We believe it is in the interest of companies to aggressively pursue any and all viable efforts to minimise our global carbon footprint, within our companies, and across our collective value chains.  Addressing climate change is expensive.  Not addressing climate change is unfathomably more expensive. 

Deloitte Touché Tohmatsu Ltd., commonly referred to as Deloitte, the British multinational professional services network, estimates that unchecked climate change could cost the global economy US$178 trillion over the next 50 years.  It is difficult to sell anything when the customer base is degraded. 

ESG leadership refers to leadership in managing risks and opportunities related to ESG criteria.  This is not just about creating a policy framework to manage ESG, but to secure a strategic position by recognising the risks, identifying the opportunities, and taking action before the rest of the market.  If you are following what others are doing because they are doing it, that is not leadership.  That is following the trend.  That is not inherently wrong, but it could be dangerous if there is a lack of understanding of the subject matter. 

Consider Tesla.  In 2022, Tesla’s revenue from automotive sales was US$67.2 billion, while its revenue from the sale of regulatory credits to other automakers was US$1.8 billion.  How much does it cost to create those carbon credits, versus the cost of producing one car?  The carbon credits are created incidentally, meaning we can argue that almost all of that US$1.8 billion revenue is profit.  The same cannot be said for the US$67.2 billion from automotive sales.  Tesla has secured an ESG leadership position and made billions over the years by taking advantage of the system. 

Tesla positions itself as a leader in the electric vehicle market and the carbon credit market.  Tesla claims its solar panel installation business and its EV business generate carbon offset credits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  These credits are sold to other firms, primarily automakers, which struggle to meet emissions standards set by regulatory bodies like the California Air Resources Board (CARB).  Strategically, what does this mean?  It means Tesla is actively taking money from its competitors to fund itself, depriving these competitors the funds to develop products, services and marketing campaigns to compete.  That is the sort of market leadership we are looking at.  It is a brilliant strategic position where they have strengthened themselves at the expense of competitors. 

In Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, Chapter 11 talks about the nine types of ground.  There are many different quotes, depending on the translation, and text, but one of my preferred goes something like this: “Know your enemies, know yourself; your victory is certain.  Know heaven, know earth; your victory is complete.”  It is always important to understand the lay of the land, especially political and regulatory exposure for international business. 

Firstly, there are two main categories of carbon markets: voluntary and compliance.  Within these categories, there are various types of carbon credits: 

1.      Renewable energy credits (from replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy plants);

2.      Energy efficiency credits (from implementing energy efficiency measures);

3.      Afforestation and reforestation credits (green carbon);

4.      Methane capture credits (typically from farming and mining);

5.      Agricultural and soil management credits (such as from crop rotation); and

6.      Industrial process credits (such as using carbon capture and storage). 

Most of the time, when we see any discussion on carbon trading, such as with Verra and Gold, it is invariably about the voluntary market.  The voluntary market is not the future.  The future is the compliance market.  When the cap-and-trade system was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, what they were doing was essentially introducing a new commodity market. 

As we gradually pivot towards the compliance regime, carbon taxes exposure increases because nations need to meet their 2030 and 2050 pledges.  Many of them are far behind.  The UK is one of them.  The US is another.  Others, such as Israel and Malaysia have stated they are unable to meet their pledges.  What does that mean?  That means somebody else must pay for that.  That “somebody” is you and I. 

It is expected, as per previous discussions, that four industries will be among the first to pay a higher carbon tax because they have the highest carbon footprint.  They are maritime transportation, airlines, mining, and oil and gas.  From there, it will be expanded to manufacturing, logistics and construction.  Regardless of the rollout, everyone has to pay, and the cost will go up. 

The carbon markets play an extremely important role to complement efforts to transition to a low carbon economy or achieve net neutrality of carbon emissions.  Any pivot towards reducing net emissions is expensive.  This is particularly so for companies that are in sectors of the economy where carbon footprint is difficult to mitigate, where technology has not become commercially viable, or where the nature of the industry is simply inimical to reducing net emissions.  In these cases, purchasing carbon credits is the only viable option.  We are harnessing market forces to facilitate further investment in viable solutions at other points of the economy.  The intent is to reduce overall cost by taking advantage of economies of scale in sectors where the technology is economically viable and can be deployed widely. 

There is a danger, through the voluntary market, that carbon credits have been used by some to forestall active efforts to address climate change or subvert the entire intent of the system.  , because these purchases fund the deployment of climate solutions in other sectors.  Taking stock of the industry since the setting up of the UNFCC, there is greater emphasis on green carbon credits in the voluntary market, particularly from forests.  As demand for carbon credits continues to grow, people with access to land are encouraged by financial as well as environmental concerns to plant paulownia and other plans in order to earn from more than just harvesting timber.  The issue is the impact on diversity by simply planting paulownia trees.  Another contention is that the voluntary market lacks the rigorous verification and validation to prevent what is essentially greenwashing.  On one hand, it is a step towards reforestation.  On the other hand, the lack of oversight means the system is subverted. 

The voluntary market has a perception problem with the market integrity.  On the 18^th January 2023, the Guardian published an article accusing Verra of grossly overstating the emissions reductions associated with its “avoided deforestation” credits. Investigative journalists at SourceMaterial partnered with the Guardian and claimed that only 6% of Verra’s avoided deforestation credits represented real emissions reductions.  This led to the invalidation of around US$1 billion worth of carbon credits, and the CEO of Verra stepping down. 

On the 21^st March 2023, reports came out that Verra suspended the issuance of credits from an award-winning project in Kenya, after serious questions were raised about its validation and methodology.  Survival International released a report on the 16^th March 2023 saying that the offset, called the Northern Kenya Grassland Carbon Project, could not accurately count its carbon savings.  The Northern Rangelands Trust, the Kenya-based conservation group that managed the offset, criticised the Survival International report.  The project claimed to increase carbon storage in the soil of northern Kenya’s savannah grasslands by managing the grazing patterns of livestock herds.  At COP27, it was awarded the Triple Gold distinction by the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance.  Survival International’s investigation found that third-party validators hired to assess the project had raised more than 100 “findings” before Verra ultimately decided to verify the carbon credits it generated.  The voluntary market is losing its credibility, as more such cases of greenwashing and malfeasance come to light. 

Maj. Gen. Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz was a Prussian general and military theorist.  He wrote that war is politics by other means.  Business is war.  It is about seizing market share, and whether we admit it or not, this is a zero-sum game.  For you to gain market share, someone must lose it.  You can either fight for what there is, or you can find a new market and seize that strategic advantage. 

ESG leadership is about finding the blue ocean.  Kim Chan and Renée Mauborgne from INSEAD wrote a book about the Blue Ocean Strategy, which is an apt name for our topic.  The Blue Ocean strategy is about creating and capturing uncontested market space, rendering competition irrelevant.  That is what Tesla did with their carbon credit sales.  In contrast, a Red Ocean are all the industries in existence today, the known market space.  The sharks are feeding, and the ocean is red.  There is a cycle of increased competition for diminishing returns.  How many companies treat ESG initiatives as part of their branding strategy, for market optics, instead of viewing it as inherent to the core strategy of the company to seize market share, by utilising the “ground” of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”?  How much money is wasted with no significant impact on the bottom line? 

That opportunity is found in carbon sinks.  As we move towards 2030 pledge deadlines, carbon credits will increase in price.  At every COP, regulatory pressure increases, and there is renewed emphasis on addressing the carbon footprint.  We cannot all be Tesla and start building EVs and solar arrays.  The obvious solution is moving up the value chain.  Instead of merely looking at initiatives that create carbon credits as a consequence of business activities, it makes financial sense to actually invest in a carbon sink as a means to transfer risk. 

There are two kinds of voluntary carbon credits: green carbon and blue carbon.  Green carbon is from planting trees such as paulownia.  It takes five years or more to get your carbon credits.  Blue carbon is from sources such as mangrove and seagrass.  I believe that the future is found in blue carbon, specifically seagrass.  0.2% of ocean floor is covered by seagrass, but 10% of the ocean’s carbon is absorbed by seagrass.  One hectare of seagrass can store twice the carbon of a terrestrial forest.  Seagrass sequesters carbon 35 times faster than a terrestrial forest. 

Why does this matter?  Consider this: last quarter of 2022, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the largest of the six compliance markets, traded carbon credits at around US$70.  Today, they are trading at almost US$100.  By the end of next year, we are likely looking at anything from US$120 to US$140 per carbon credit.  Those are conservative numbers.  There are not enough such carbon credits on the market.  Once it becomes increasingly compulsory, how much do you think you have to pay? 

The solution is to invest in projects that can ensure their access to carbon credits, while increasing market supply.  This is also an opportunity for these investors to support objectives beyond mere abatement.  We are talking about amounts in the low millions of dollars, in an environment where many tax jurisdictions have massive tax incentives for ESG projects.  It works, you get carbon credits.  It fails, you write it off as an ESG investment for a tax break and exit. 

What began with the voluntary market must now pivot to a compliance market.  As long as this remains in the voluntary market, there is a danger of greenwashing and subversion of the system.  The compliance market is the foundation of decarbonisation efforts, and the reduction of our collective carbon footprint.  The voluntary carbon markets are unlikely to expand quickly enough to incentivise the level of reduction necessary to keep us on track to net-zero emissions by 2050.  The value of voluntary carbons is too low to be a financial instrument, let alone support a secondary market. 

This is first step in market leadership in the ESG sphere.  What we are doing is moving up the value chain, to secure a resource we know will grow in value due to the current political and economic conditions.  But big corporations are already doing that, and it is not enough. 

Unlike the voluntary market, the compliance market is regulated by mandatory international, national or regional carbon management regimes.  The voluntary market functions independently of these compliance markets, by enabling companies or individuals to purchase carbon credits to meet their own emissions goals.  Compliance credits may be purchased voluntarily by non-regulated entities, but voluntary credits are not allowed to fulfil compliance market requirements because they are created under a less stringent verification and validation process. 

It is obvious we need to raise the overall quality of carbon credits.  This means pivoting away from the voluntary market towards the compliance market.  The lack of quality credit supply is actively hindering further development of comprehensive efforts to support large-scale decarbonisation.  Within the voluntary market itself, there is a scarcity of Carbon Dioxide Removal credits, the so-called removal credits.  There is an excess of junk-quality carbon credits that need to be bought in massive quantities to meet the carbon tax of individual organisations.  This negatively impacts capital investment into carbon credits, since the view is that credits have little to no value. 

The system was always conceived to eventually have credits that are financial instruments in their own right.  The next stage of the evolution of carbon credits is investment-grade carbon credits.  Now, we have options, we have futures, we have an entire secondary market.  The next evolution of a compliance exchange is more like something we now see in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. 

This session has given you an example of how Tesla secured market leadership at the expense of their rivals.  This session has have put forth a cogent contention that securing market leadership requires an investment in some form of carbon sink project.  This session has put forth the argument that the next stage in the development curve is an investment-grade carbon credit that will be traded on a compliance exchange.  The question then, is what can a business do in the intermediate term?

Some Corporate-Speak for Beginners

One of problems we face in large organisations or companies, is that sometimes, we need to deal with bad leaders, incompetent management, or annoying colleagues.  There is an art to telling someone to fuck off in way that looks professional and detached.  Corporate-speak is an eloquence all of its own.  The conversations we have in our head, and the words that come out of our mouths need to be different, although they mean the same thing.

 

Do not say, “That is your fucking problem, not mine.”

Say, “I understand this falls under your job responsibility.”

 

Do not say, “You are a fucking liar.”

Say, “I recall that quite differently.”

 

Do not say, “I told you so, fuckwit.”

Say, “As per my prediction, this outcome does not surprise me.”

 

Do not say, “God!  You are so fucking stupid.”

Say, “Let me explain this more simply.”

 

Do not say, “Who asked your dumbass what you think?”

Say, “Can you clarify your authority on this project?”

 

Do not say, “Well, fuck around and find out.”

Say, “Do whatever you feel necessary, and I will address it accordingly.”

 

Do not say, “Bitch, do you think I have nothing else better to do?”

Say, “These tasks are an expansion of my role here.  Is there a plan to review my compensation for this?”

 

Do not say, “That is a terrible fucking idea!”

Say, “Are we confident this is our decision, or are we exploring alternatives?”

 

Do not say, “I personally do not give a fuck.  That is your problem.”

Say, “I will follow your decision on the matter.  I am agnostic on the options.”

 

Do not say, “Screw that shit up and find out!”

Say, “Please test that assumption, and take note of the outcome.”

 

Do not say, “You are not my boss.  Shut the fuck up, and mind your own business.”

Say, “While I appreciate the input, I am only taking direction from [Name] on this project.”

 

Do not say, “Fuck you!”

Say, “Noted.  I believe we are done here.”

 

Do not say, “I do not give a fuck what you think, and I am not interested in your opinion.”

Say, “Your opinion is noted, and I will give it the attention it deserves.”

 

Do not say, “Get the fuck off back, and let me do my work.”

Say, “"I am confident in my ability here.  I will update you if I have any further questions.”

 

Do not say, “How is that my fucking problem?”

Say, “I will direct you to person best suited to address the issue.”

 

Do not say, “We are wasting our time, wanking each other’s dicks because no one has a fucking clue what to do.”

Say, “This meeting is becoming unproductive.  We should consider consulting other stakeholders.”

 

Do not say, “You are so fucking annoying!”

Say, “Unfortunately, I find some of your actions distracting.”

 

Do not say, “Do you think I am a fucking liar, like you?”

Say, “I encourage you to reconsider your attempts to challenge the information I am giving you.”

 

Do not say, “I fucking told you so, dumbass.”

Say, “The outcome is consistent with my prediction.”

 

Do not say, “Who the fuck died and made you boss?”

Say, “While I recognise the importance of your perspective, I also recognise that you do not have the authority to dictate a decision.”

 

Do not say, “Mind your own fucking business?”

Say, “While I appreciate your concern, I am confident I can address this independently.”

 

Do not say, “Get a fucking life, asshole!”

Say, “I encourage you to focus on your own priorities and personal interests.”

 

Do not say, “Watch what you say, before I tear you a new asshole.”

Say, “I would appreciate it if you choose your words carefully.”

 

Do not say, “You are a fucking narcissist!”

Say, “It seems you have a strong inclination to prioritise your own needs over others.”

 

Do not say, “What makes you think you are so fucking important?”

Say, “I understand you have a strong belief in your significance in this matter.  However, we need to consider other stakeholders.”

 

Do not say, “I really, really do not like you?”

Say, “It is clear we do not have a personal affinity for each other.  However, it is important for us to maintain a professional relationship.”

 

Do not say, “That is not my fucking job.”

Say, “I do not have the capacity to take this on at the moment.  I am happy to support where it makes sense.”

 

Do not say, “Just because you were lazy, does not make it my fucking problem to meet your deadline.”

Say, “I am happy to prioritise this in the coming days when I am available.”

 

Do not say, “Why the fuck do you keep promising unrealistic timelines?”

Say, “Kindly clarify your thinking on these timelines.”

 

Do not say, “If you want it done your way, then fucking do it yourself!”

Do not say, “It is clear you have a very specific idea of how you want this executed.  You take the lead on this matter, and I will be glad to support when necessary.”

 

Do not say, “I am not interested in getting involved in your dumbass idea.”

Say, “Please go ahead, and I will gladly support you as necessary.”

 

Do not say, “Stop bothering me about this, you impatient prick.  I have no reply yet.”

Say, “I have no new information to offer. but as soon as I do, I will be sure to loop you in.”

 

Do not say, “How many fucking times do I need to tell you how to do this?”

Say, “There seems to be a disconnect here because I have already provided this information.”

 

Do not say, “I am not doing your job, you incompetent fuck.”

Say, “"I am not able to offer you additional support at the moment.”

 

Do not say, “Stop wasting my time with stupid meetings, you incompetent fuck.”

Say, “In order to be respectful of everyone’s time, I suggest we regroup when additional information is available.”

 

Do not say, “I am not paid enough for this shit.”

Say, “There is a gross discrepancy in my remuneration against the work, as compared to the market.  When do we plan to re-evaluate this?”

 

Do not say, “If you had told me sooner, this shit might not have happened.”

Say, “Had we communicated on these issues earlier, I might have been able to mitigate this.”

 

Do not say, “That is not my fucking problem.”

Say, “You should direct your queries to those better suited to answer them, since this falls within their job responsibilities.”

 

Do not say, “Stop stealing credit for my work.”

Say, “While I am excited that my ideas are exposed to a wider audience, how you intend to credit me?”

 

Do not say, “You fucked up royally.”

Say, “Thank you for providing us with an education on this matter.”

 

Do not say, “I have no fucking idea what you are talking about.  How is that relevant to this subject, you fucking imbecile?”

Say, “I appreciate the input.”

 

Do not say, “That is the stupidest idea in the history of stupid ideas.  I am not going to do that, you fuckwit.”

Say, “Thank you for your input.  I will take that into consideration.”

 

Do not say, “Why the fuck do I need that information?  That is not what I asked for, you fucking imbecile.”

Say, “Noted with thanks.”

 

Do not say, “I have no interest in what you have to say.  You are wasted sperm.”

Say, “Noted with thanks.”

 

Do not say, “Where was this information when I needed it last week?  Were you fucking drunk when you created this?”

Say, “Noted with thanks.”

 

Do not say, “None of this information dump is useful.  Where the fuck is the actual information I need, you half-arsed donkey-fucker!”

Say, “Much appreciated.”