02 July 2014

Benefiting from green growth

This week sees the launch of a year-long initiative funded by the Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), titled Green Growth in Practice: Lessons from Country Experiences. Celine Herweijer, and Lit Ping Low are part of the team from PwC contributing to the initiative, and share their perspectives.

Governments, and indeed businesses, need growth. But the 20th century model of growth can often come at the expense of the environment. In the 21st century, the potential collisions of megatrends such as the onset of climate change, shifts in the global economic power, urbanization and demographic changes, means there’s an increasing recognition of the need to achieve sustained economic growth alongside broader environmental and social objectives. In other words, green growth is likely to be on the target list for most country leaders.

A new report this week – “Green Growth in Practice: Lessons from Country Experiences” –attempts to help policy makers, planners and practitioners toward this target. The report is sponsored by CDKN, ECF and GGGI, developed by over 75 international authors, and covers 60 international case studies and systematic best practices and benefits for green growth. It covers a diverse range of topics including planning, communications, policy design, public-private working, monitoring and evaluation  to name a few.

If there’s one thing the report reflects is that the pursuit of green growth isn’t a one-size fit all agenda. There is no uniform model of green growth. It is a local objective, tailored to local preferences and circumstances. The pathway to green growth will also vary. What is common is that those seeking green growth focus on leveraging the synergies between economic, environmental and social dimensions, while managing the trade-offs efficiently. For example in many developing countries the focus is how can you achieve rapid economic growth, how you address poverty alleviation, and the impacts of climate change. In many developed countries, and indeed emerging economies, the focus is around how to reinvigorate stalled economies or to find new engines or growth, low carbon sectors could be one such opportunity.

What is also common is the need to engage with the people, organizations and existing structures that could either drive or are affected by green growth.

In particular the private sector has a vital role to play, and a collaborative relationship between governments and private sector is more likely to result in outcomes that are more than the sum of what their separate efforts would yield.

Collaboration between the public and private sectors need not necessarily imply  transfers of money. For example it is increasingly recognized that barriers to innovation could include training, types of infrastructure and better links to the markets. So the conventional model of grant-giving may not apply in many cases. Non-financial, strategic support, on the other hand, can help unlock small bottlenecks today to enable innovation to move from lab to market. For example, the UK government supported the Business Innovation Facility program (BIF), which provides advice and technical assistance to support businesses in developing countries tackling environmental and social challenges.

The compendium of case studies such as BIF that comes with the launch of the “Green Growth in Practice”initiativehopes to inspire solutions for policymakers worrying about the green growth challenge. Understanding the relevant lessons from the initiative, that suits their local context, will help avoid potential pitfalls and possibly – quite possibly – make the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient economy a little easier.

Celine Herweijer is a partner in Sustainability and Climate Change, and a contributing author to a chapter in Green Growth on Assessing and Communicating the Benefits of Green Growth. Lit Ping Low, through CDKN, is  a contributing author to the chapter on Public-Private Collaboration. Find out more through CDKN's blog here.

27 June 2014

Environmental systemic risks and the insurance industry

PwC were commissioned by the WWF-RSA partnership to help them understand environmental systemic risk and the insurance industry. A two-year joint initiative culminated in a white paper on Environmental Systemic Risk published by WWF and RSA , and a roundtable discussion on the findings, hosted by PwC in London.  Jon Williams and Lit Ping Low, who led the study for PwC, report on the discussion.

Systemic risk refers to risks arising from interlinkages and interdependencies between places, activities and assets. The 2010 flooding in Thailand is a recent example of an environmental event which had systemic impacts; not only was there to death and destruction in Thailand, but economic losses for global companies whose supply chains were based in areas affected by the floods.

The study has come at a critical time since many industries are facing increasing regulation to manage systemic risk, while the recent IPCC reports show that the environment is undergoing unprecedented change.

Resource scarcity and climate change is rising up CEO’s agendas - PwC’s recent CEO survey  found that 46% of CEO’s put this is in the top 3 risks that will transform their business over the next 5 years. But there is also a big disconnect between the insurance industry and their customers. Only half of insurance CEOs compared to the CEOs of primary businesses such as energy, forestry, power and utility ranked resource scarcity and climate change a transformative trend.

The first challenge for the study was to define the concept of environmental systemic risks (ESR), whether and why it is an issue, what the impacts might be on insurers, as well as the barriers the industry faces in incorporating ESR management.

The white paper was intended to fuel a discussion and provoke reactions on this issue, rather than to serve as the definitive answer.

To this end, the roundtable attendees, who include representatives from insurers and reinsurers, NGOs, academics, and government departments, have been insightful and challenging at the same time.

This was to a large extent credited to our masterful chair Nick Robins, ‎Co-Director of the Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System at UNEP, who teased out of the participants not just the obvious, well documented issues but also explored in some depth why managing ESR is easier said than done.

Challenges faced by the insurance industry

Despite the widespread recognition that the insurance industry plays a vital role in transferring and managing society’s risks, the link between environmental events to the insurance industry isn’t one that is widely recognised. One participant shared a story on the challenge of communicating the relevance of climate change to the life and pensions sector. It isn’t until the realisation that the climate does influences areas as wide-ranging as food and health that the link becomes apparent. In many ways, large parts of the insurance community still have some way to go before ESR hits home.

Awareness is just the beginning. The next challenge discussed was around the quantification and research into the size and therefore price of environmental risk, not just in itself but its wider implications. Valuation can allow previously unvalued ecosystems to become ‘insurable’ and as one of our participants noted that ‘the better we can get a pricing risk, the better we can develop insurance products’. But this is not an easy process as all around the table recognised that the value of the environment and majority of ecosystems remains inadequately defined.

And even as risks can be quantified and priced, the highly competitive nature of the insurance industry means that future and emerging risks may not be factored in contracts to avoid losing clients, which is one of the challenges pointed out in the white paper. A positive indication around the table was that this needs to change: ‘just as insurers can be fiercely competitive over clients they now need to be fiercely collaborative in the face of this changing risk landscape’.

But the real dilemma that many in insurance industry face is the counteracting pressure to keep things as they are. For example, the systemic nature of certain types of risks require an industry-wide approach, but collaborative activities can be deemed suspicious by regulators, especially if it involves the possibility of higher insurance pricing to take into account new and emerging risks. Innovative solutions which are being considered needs to be weighed against the concern that this could be sensationalised by the media as trying to line their pockets with money from vulnerable customers.

The role of insurers on risk management can also be contentious. Participants agreed that insurers have a role to identify and analyse risks, create new insurance products to manage new or emerging risks, engage their customers to help mitigate their own environmental risks. Many insurers with intentions of moving into emerging markets, or operating in areas where there is still vast underinsurance, can therefore play a role in improving adaptation and resilience to climate change and other environmental risks. But to what extent does this translate into ‘insurance being a substitute for risk management’? What is the role of the government in this context?

Small but meaningful steps

These are all difficult questions. The event was a great first step in the journey of getting discussions about environmental systemic risk to happen at all levels in the insurance industry. Participants were keen as a group we take forward concrete actions. These included identifying key stakeholders that the insurance sectors need to engage with, including information providers, NGOs, customers, credit agencies and regulators. Another was engaging with these stakeholder in a structured way focusing on ESR, in a way that is collaborative but not anti-competitive.

Industry’s contribution to the debate was strong, and even more so in the commitment by many participants to take away action points to be implemented individually or jointly.

Understanding and managing ESR will require time, so sustaining this momentum will be crucial.

See the views of participants at the event  here.

08 May 2014

Doing business in a better way - net positive impact

Malcolm Preston, Global Sustainability leader, explores latest developments in 'net positive' impact management and why access to the right data will be crucial to its success.

I feel a real buzz of excitement in the air! Last week saw the launch of Net Positive: A new way of doing business.  I am delighted to see business coming together to define the 12 principles that drive a net positive approach. “Giving back more than you take” is a great way to do business and must be the way forward - I’ve never felt the “do less harm” approach was the right one. It’s good to see some great brand names (eg. BT, Capgemini, Coca-Cola Enterprises, The Crown Estate, IKEA Group, Kingfisher and SKF) agreeing that there is another way.  But it’s hardly rocket science - why should society accept businesses in their communities that are "net negative"?… the flipside to net positive. Only last autumn I was speaking at The Travel Convention, urging UK travel companies to be "net positive" in their destinations. Why would they (or should they) be given a licence to operate if they are not?

With such industry diversity and one common goal, there’s no one size fits all panacea and I’m sure that’s put-off many from trying, so it’s good to see a principles based route map. I sense that The Climate Group, WWF-UK and Forum for the Future have facilitated some great thinking here that presents an accessible alternative to more businesses.

This is a topic that is close to my heart. I talk a lot about a future with a focus on ‘good’ growth, and identifying and progressing the opportunities that offer real, responsible, inclusive and lasting growth. And, in our latest poll, when we asked “what’s the best way for business to make a profit?”, 58% agreed business should be net positive, giving back more than it takes.[i] Very few, only 8%, thought profit should come first. In fact, the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer highlights that 84% of citizens believe that business can pursue its self-interest while doing good work for society.  Not doing less harm - doing good work.


From my experience, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome to change strategy like this is data.  Quantification is second on the list of the 12 principles: “the positive impact is clearly demonstrable, if not measurable”. It might sound inconsequential, but the data a business records for financial performance or accounting or investor purposes is only a sub-sector of what’s required when it wants to demonstrate its impact, let alone that its impact is net positive. And just pause for a moment and think about the detailed financial and operational data that goes in to making any major supply chain, investment or capital decision. How often does that information answer the question - will the impact of the decision be "net positive"? I would suggest this rarely, if ever, happens around most Board rooms of the world.

We’ve seen something similar when we’ve talked to CEOs about measuring their total impact. They’re cognisant that there is a better way to do things but, they hesitate … the biggest barrier to adoption being a lack of available data (74%).[ii]


Looking through some of the objectives these companies have in place to drive their net-positive ambitions, they’re around carbon emissions, waste reduction, forestry management and lighting – not the usual fare for the balance sheet. Each requires data that’s recorded to start off with! And hopefully in a way that’s accessible, dependable, ideally automated etc. But it’s only a hurdle, not a brick wall! 

In PwC’s work on total impact, we’re starting to address some of these data issues. Quantification and going that step further to monetise impacts are important considerations and we’re developing the methodologies to get the data business needs. Firstly, we’ve developed a framework called Total Impact Measurement & Management (TIMM) – find out more at www.pwc.com/totalimpact. Designed as a decision making tool, TIMM can be used to help business work out if their activities (including their supply chain) have a positive or negative impact. By valuing social, environmental, tax and economic impacts, it enables business leaders to understand the total impacts of their strategies and investment choices, compare them, and manage the trade-offs. Secondly, we’ve recently acquired GeoTraceability, a company that specialises in large scale data collection and traceability programs adapted to small producers and smallholders in developing and emerging countries. This shows our further commitment to the data issue. 

We recognise that data holds the key to allowing business to deliver its vision to be net positive and, with our heritage in accountancy and audit, we have an appreciation for the quality of data that is required. Fit for purpose, fit for decision making, fit for the boardroom and fit for enabling a growing population to live well on a planet of finite resources.

[i] PwC On-Line Poll: What do you think makes good growth? 226 votes
[ii] PwC CEO Pulse Poll, What CEOs think about total impact, July 2013, 187 CEOs  

14 April 2014

PwC examine the implications of the IPCC report on climate change mitigation (WG3)

The IPCC Working Group 3 (WGIII) have released the third section of the Fifth Assessment Report on the mitigation of climate change.   As with the first two reports, the PwC Sustainability & Climate Change team considers the implications of the WGIII for government and business in the UK.

If the Working Group 2 report on climate change impacts describes a potential train wreck and Working Group 1 identifies the driver, theWorking Group 3 report on mitigation explains how to avoid the crash. But it also suggests that the brakes are not working.

Dr Celine Herweijer, Leo Johnson, Jonathan Grant, Sam Bickersteth, Lit Ping Low and Jim Stevenson examine the key findings and what it means for business, the climate negotiations, and our prospects for limiting global warming to 2C.

Download IPCC AR5 - Working Group 3 Summary and Analysis 1404

Urbanisation: The city of dreams or an urban nightmare?

Over the last few months, PwC have been working with clients to understand the big changes that are disrupting their organisations - and the economy as a whole. We've distilled what we've learned down into five global shifts - the megatrends which are already driving change, and will continue to do so over the coming decades. Leo Johnson, partner, PwC sustainability and climate change, and co-author of Turnaround Challenge discusses the megatrends in Urbanisation.

What is a city? A city is a collection of preferences. It’s the place where people have voted with their feet and the places that thrive, the places that people want to live in, want to work in will be the places that satisfy those two primordial human instincts to make stuff and to be with each other.

I believe we’re at a turning point when it comes to urbanisation.

Globally, we've got 200,000 people per day, that’s 1.5 million a week, coming from the countryside to the city in a pattern of distressed migration that is swamping the megacity. That's the equivalent of three cities the size of the UK's third largest city Manchester, packing up and moving every week. What are we going to do with that?

By 2030 there is going to be 4.9 billion people living in African and Asian slums alone. Less than three decades ago, 4.9 billion was the population of the whole world. If we carry on our current pathway from people that were 2% urban in 1800 to a group that is already 51%, but is going to be 70% by 2050, it’s like we as a species collectively woke up one morning and said, “Wow, let’s change habitat. Let’s try something different” and we haven’t got a clue how to make that habitat work for ourselves.

So, one of the defining challenges of the 21st century which is what are we going to do with these people? Where are the jobs going to be? How is it going to work? How are we going to avoid the megacities getting swamped?

People want place. They want a place that they’re emotionally attached to, a place that they live in and, at the same time they want the job opportunities.

I believe we’re going to see a shift in what a city looks like and it’s not going to be a place that’s built for cars and built for machines. It’s going to be a place that’s built for people and in that place we’re going to be doing what we as human beings know that we love to do which is we love to make things.

We are about to move from the model that competitive advantage is secured by having really good, really expensive machines and really cheap people pushing the buttons on them to a model where it’s really valuable, really creative people, and ubiquitously cheap machines that are capturing and harnessing the potential of those people. The companies that do that will thrive. The cities that do that will thrive.

For me urbanisation is the outcome. It’s the outcome of a whole set of megatrends interacting and it’s the dominant challenge of the 21st century.

View Leo's interview on urbanisation and megacities
Find out more about PwC's megatrend analysis here



11 April 2014

Behind the scenes of preparations for COP20 in Lima

Kinga Lodge from PwC's Climate & Development Knowledge Network team led a workshop this week in Peru to support negotiators preparing for this year's COP 20 in Lima.

The international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are an increasingly complicated and demanding process, particularly for delegations from developing countries where there may be more limited resources to draw on.
The Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) – an NGO alliance led by PwC, that supports developing countries planning and adapting to climate change – offers a programme to support negotiating teams participate effectively in the process.

During COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, Peru took on the role of President of the COP in 2014. It’s a vital year in the run up to the Climate Agreement that is expected to be delivered in Paris during 2015.
This week, we held a two-day workshop with around 45 people in Lima, supporting Peru’s preparations both as negotiators and as COP president as part of the team’s negotiations support programme for developing countries.  It was one of the COP delivery team’s key gatherings in their preparations for hosting the negotiations in November.

The workshop drew on CDKN’s wider work in supporting developing countries’ preparations for the COP process. It was designed to bring everybody within the Peruvian delivery team up to speed with the key negotiating tracks and themes, structures and relationships between different bodies of UNFCCC, and the context/ meaning of the past agreements.

The agenda was broad taking in the top topics of mitigation, adaptation, finance, REDD+.  There was also a lot of emphasis on the process of UNFCCC, inter-linkages between different themes, and the practicalities of how the Presidency addresses deadlocks.

One issue which was underlined over and over again was the responsibility for the Presidency to build consensus. With the deadline for a global climate deal just over 18 months away, Peru’s role as a facilitator of a future agreement will be vital, and members of the delivery team that were newer to the UNFCCC negotiating process had training to support them in how to find a balance between the interests and positions of the different parties.

Guest speakers from the UNFCCC, the US, Chile, Granada, Barbados and Brazil had an estimated 100 years collective experience of UNFCCC. They shared their experiences and stories of what happened at different COPs and how the respective hosts managed their Presidencies in Bali, Durban or Copenhagen. Locally here in Lima, a lot of effort is being invested by the COP delivery team, particularly on stakeholder engagement – both public and private sector. Local civil society organisations were involved in developing and taking part in the workshop, and are members of the delivery team.    

Peru workshop 006

Plaza de Armas in Lima, Peru

This was the third face-to-face workshop that CDKN have delivered, part of a broader range of negotiations support projects the team have delivered over the past two years with developing nations internationally. So far around 160 people have completed online training, and 80 attended face to face meetings. While that might not sound like much, the negotiating teams of developing nations can be small, sometimes as few as three–four  people, so the support programme can cover a lot of ground in getting the knowledge of developing nations’ representative up to speed on the basic process, positions and ways to contribute to a global negotiating process.

Supporting developing nations at the COPs, CDKN also provides independent legal advice, independent climate finance advice or tailored technical or legal advice to specific groups such as the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group or Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS).

Such support is vital to negotiators from developing countries, because it helps level the playing field in assisting developing countries to be able to negotiate more effectively by being more prepared and informed. Helping developing countries prepare and understand the process and how to contribute effectively means the voices of developing countries are heard.

Some people at the workshop this week have already coined the phrase the “Amazonian COP” for this year’s meeting. There is a general feeling of pride to be hosting negotiations and determination to be a successful Presidency of the COP, particularly given the clear understanding of its importance as a stepping stone pre Paris.  

Find out more about CDKN’s negotiations support programme here.


31 March 2014

Climate change risk - British public unprepared

As the IPCC report on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability is released, PwC commissioned a survey of public attitudes to climate change and Britain’s ability to cope with extreme weather, based on their experience with the recent floods and storms. 






















































































For more thoughts on climate change and recent UK flooding, contact Jon Williams.


Questions for the answers that IPCC Working Group II present

Celine Herweijer, partner, PwC sustainability and climate change, and a specialist in climate science and adaptation comments on the implications of the IPCC Working Group II report on climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation.

The latest IPCC report paints a picture of future impacts - from loss of health, life, land and GDP, to food security, conflict and migration - demonstrating the issues inherent in carbon emissions remaining unchecked.

Future homeowners, consumers, shareholders, employees, and politicians are all affected, not just the poorest and those beyond our borders. The impacts are not just one off events but have broad and systemic implications for economic development, equality and security.

Unlike the financial crisis, there is no climate bailout option. As the IPCC report on impacts shows, a world of 4C warming is not one of viable adaptation strategies.

To respond means nothing less than a energy and technology revolution. But this is also about opportunity, and the groundwork is there with renewable energy now a $1 trillion sector, the cost of solar panels decreasing by 80%, a green jobs market employing millions globally, and multi-national corporations emerging with commitments around zero deforestation supply chains, and zero emissions electricity.

2014 was always going to be a pivotal year for climate action - with the unequivocal need to up the ante in the global climate talks so that we have a realistic chance for Paris 2015 to deliver a global climate deal. The latest IPCC report reiterates the business case for bold action, both at home and internationally, at the climate talks and in parliaments and boardrooms. It will be interesting to test the pulse at the upcoming Secretary General's (SG's) New York Climate Leaders Summit this September. The SG has called on leaders to take a strong and positive public position on climate change before the Paris Summit, the IPCC report reiterates why, so what will they deliver is the key question now.

Read further comments from the PwC team here
For media enquiries, contact Rowena Mearley + 44 7841 563 180

30 March 2014

PwC preview the Intergovernental Panel on Climate Change - Working Group II report

PwC Sustainability & Climate Change team preview the IPCC Working Group II report on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. We focus on what could stand out from this report, what could have economic or business implications, and what it means for the UK. For reaction and comment tomorrow follow @pwcclimateready.

PwC Preview of IPCC Working Group II report

Climate risks are not as far out as some people think: Dr Celine Herweijer, Partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change (specialist in climate science and adaptation)
Future impacts are exacerbated by global links: Dr Celine Herweijer, Partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change (specialist in climate science and adaptation)
Developing countries: "The early drafts give little room for optimism": Sam Bickersteth, Director, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
The domino affect: PwC’s analysis of the knock on impacts from trade disruption to the rest of the UK economy: Lit Ping Low, climate economist, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
Business responses to climate risks:Larger UK-listed companies have sophisticated approach but what about the smaller ones? Jonathan Grant, director, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
Impact on Climate Policy and Climate Negotiations: Jonathan Grant, Director, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change
The Climate and the CEO - Business leader views of implications of climate change: Dr Celine Herweijer, partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change (specialist in climate science and adaptation)

For media enquiries, please contact Rowena Mearley +44 7841 563 180

18 March 2014

Working with stakeholders - engaging, not enraging!

This month we’ve seen performance drivers like profit and ROI hit the headlines. Malcolm Preston, PwC Global Sustainability leader, reflects on the pressure CEOs are under to do business in the right way.  He cites the results of our on-line vote, in which we asked you to step into the shoes of a CEO, to show decisions are not always clear cut and that it’s hard to keep everyone happy all of the time.

You would think it would be a CEO’s ruthless pursuit, all £ signs in his eyes, that’s hit the headlines.  But no … Tim Cook, CEO Apple, took a grilling at his latest shareholder meeting from a NCPPR representative looking for more transparency.  Apple is committed to source all its power from renewable energies, something the NCPPR didn’t see as the best ROI for its money. Tim’s response was to reinforce that his company does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive” and that “we want to leave the world better than we found it.” Allegedly he was heard to say, “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock.”

First Energy, one of the country’s biggest utility companies in the US, faced the opposite experience bowing to shareholder pressure to commit to working toward reducing its carbon emissions. First Energy now say “What we’re trying to ensure is that in the long run that profitability is sustainable. We do see tremendous risk if issues of climate change are not incorporated into corporate strategy.”

Sometimes it’s hard to please everyone all the time.  Back to Apple for a minute for a quote from Steve Jobs – once asked “what keeps you awake at night?”, he replied “shareholder meetings”.  They are a great opportunity for stakeholders to come together to have their say, to question and to challenge business strategy.  But how can you keep your stakeholders on your side… engaged, rather than enraged? Enthused rather than bemused?

In September, we launched TIMM, our total impact framework.  It’s all about putting a value on the social, economic, environmental and tax impacts of your business so that you can compare the total impact of your strategic and investment choices, and manage the trade-offs that result.  It gives business leaders the full picture (going beyond the usual financial analysis) to make more informed decisions, helping them to identify potential reputation and trust risks along the way.  If they want to, it’s information to share with their stakeholders to explore the available choices.

To show how it works, we asked you, to step into the shoes of a CEO and decide what to do.  We posed a decision any brewer might face – to grow crops locally to support expansion into Africa or to ship in crops from abroad. 

At this level, there’s never a clear cut decision. And there are numerous perspectives. Growing crops locally in a country with a water scarcity issue creates problems in itself, not only for crop vitality, but also for the local communities who see their own water sources depleted.  There are issues too from the loss of valuable ecosystems as land is cleared for agricultural purposes and less advanced waste management that might result in water pollution. Set-up costs are greater for the Brewer – investment is needed to develop the supply chain and the community, increased staff and offices. But, on the upside, local farmers benefit from access to a secure market, the economy receives support to develop a better business infrastructure, and livelihoods, health and education are all improved. Greenhouse Gas emissions are lower too and, from the brewer’s perspective, it’s a lot cheaper in the longer run to grow locally and committing to the local community enhances the brewer’s reputation and drives up demand and loyalty.

So how did everyone vote?  Interestingly, 76% voted for growing the crop locally.* It’s an interesting choice as there’s a clear trade-off between the environment and people’s wellbeing.  It’s a real dilemma.  So with no obvious answer and no clear win-win scenario, it’s about agreeing the optimal solution with the best stakeholder engagement which will help make implementation successful. It means there’s greater transparency and that stakeholders can be engaged, rather than enraged.

*Source: PwC Brewery Trade-off On-Line Vote March 2014 (708 votes)

For more information: visit www.pwc.com/totalimpact