One of the hardest things about being a chief sustainability officer (CSO) is becoming a lightning rod for criticism. When a company is accused of greenwashing or linked to environmental destruction, it’s typically the CSO who must answer the tough questions.
On the latest episode of On the Frontlines, Luanna Sieh, group chief sustainability officer at Malaysia’s CIMB Group, one of Southeast Asia’s largest banks, says being targeted by environmental campaign groups has been a bruising experience.
During her time in the role, Sieh has had to navigate some uncomfortable moments in the spotlight, from activist actions at CIMB’s Cooler Earth Summit over coal financing, to criticism over links to deforestation. Yet she argues that scrutiny from civil society has value. “When non-governmental organisations (NGOs) name and shame, it’s not pleasant,” she says, “but it elevates the issue for robust internal discussion.”
Sieh’s path into sustainability has been unconventional. After a career in banking strategy and transformation, she volunteered to take on a sustainability project that no one else wanted. Like many who entered the profession early on, she battled imposter syndrome. “Even now I still feel that,” she said. “You can’t know everything.”
As other CSOs have noted in the On the frontlines series, the role is complex and ever-changing. Sustainability teams are being asked to prove their value in a world distracted by geopolitical crises, energy security concerns and artificial intelligence (AI). “A lot of the conversation in the last two years has been, ‘Show me the money,’” said Sieh. “Where does the return on sustainability come from?”
In this episode, Sieh shares how she built credibility in her field, what she’s learned from dealing with activists, why she feels criticism of sustainability finance is often misguided, and why aspiring sustainability professionals need more than a passing interest in the sector to get a foot on the ladder.
Luanne Sieh told the Eco-Business Podcast that greenwashing in finance is not as prevalent as critics of the industry say it is.
Tune in as we discuss:
- Learning on the job: how Sieh moved into the role of chief sustainability officer at CIMB
- Embedding sustainability culture at a time of ESG pushback
- Dealing with activists
- “Show me the money”: How investors are influenced by sustainability
- Sustainable finance and greenwashing
- How to survive in sustainability
The edited transcript:
An interesting thing about your career is that you spent much of it in banking and consulting before moving into sustainability. Can you tell us a bit about that journey? Did you suffer from imposter syndrome, and how did you get up to speed with relatively little sustainability expertise to begin with?
I’ve always worked in strategy and transformation in banking, and sustainability happened to be one of the projects I took on. My job was often to pick up projects that nobody else owned. This came up and I put my hand up because I thought it was really interesting and meaningful, and amazingly, they gave me the job.
And imposter syndrome? Absolutely. Back then, definitely. But even now, I still feel it sometimes because things are moving so fast. As a bank, we’re across multiple sectors and countries, dealing with issues ranging from climate and human rights to financial inclusion. There are just so many moving parts.
I think it takes some maturity to realise that you can’t know everything. People will read articles and ask you about things you haven’t had time to read. If all you did was read, you’d never have time to do anything else. So it’s really about prioritising, because there is such a huge volume of information, research and frameworks, especially in banking.
One way I accelerated my learning was simply by talking to as many people as possible. There isn’t one place where all the information exists, and often the fastest way to learn is through conversations.
At the beginning, though, I was very honest with my company. I said, “Look, I don’t know much about this. Can you get me some training?” They ended up sponsoring a master’s degree through Harvard Extension School, which gave me the fundamentals. There’s a lot of information out there, but having formal education really helps. It gives you grounding in core concepts like systems thinking, which is difficult to learn purely on the job.
It’s interesting that the bank afforded you the time to do a full degree. Not every company gives employees that opportunity…
To be honest, they didn’t really give me extra time. I did it while working. The classes were at 5 a.m. or sometimes even 3 a.m. my time, so it didn’t actually take time away from work. I know I’m a bit crazy, so…
That gives us some insight into your work ethic! A common complaint in the industry is that many sustainability professionals are expected to “double hat” and take on sustainability alongside another role. You’re fortunate in that sustainability is now your sole responsibility. Do you speak to others in the sector who are frustrated by the double-hatting challenge?
Actually, I started out that way myself. When I first took on sustainability, I was still doing my transformation role as well, and I did both for about a year.
As sustainability became a much bigger agenda and the workload expanded, it eventually became a dedicated role. One thing we’re fortunate to have in Malaysia is guidance from Bank Negara Malaysia, our central bank, which recommends that banks appoint a dedicated senior person to oversee sustainability. It’s guidance rather than a requirement, but because of that, I’m fortunate that I’m not currently expected to take on another portfolio.
Tell us about the challenge of embedding a sustainability culture across the bank. What was that like in the early days and what is it like now, particularly at a time when sustainability appears to be under pressure in parts of the finance sector?
A lot of people ask me about the perceived pullback in sustainable finance. There is some truth to that perception, particularly when you look at large North American banks leaving the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).
But if you look at what many of those banks have actually said, most continue to pursue their net-zero targets despite leaving the alliance. We’ve monitored this closely because it’s something my board asks about regularly. Of the banks that left the NZBA, only one or two have meaningfully scaled back their targets. One scrapped them entirely and another reduced its ambition somewhat. But broadly speaking, based on what we see and what investors tell us, there isn’t really a widespread retreat from sustainability in finance.
Where we do see waning enthusiasm is among some real-economy companies, particularly smaller businesses. Those that never really saw the business case and were only participating because they were being asked to are becoming less enthusiastic.
We had the advantage of starting early. In Malaysia, and really across much of Asean outside Singapore, sustainability functions were still rare when we began this journey in 2018 and 2019.
One thing that’s been encouraging is seeing sustainability become embedded throughout the organisation. For example, our head of commercial banking once asked whether our Chinese New Year red packets were printed on sustainable paper and whether we should continue giving them out. Another time, one of the tea ladies at headquarters warned me not to waste coffee because of our commitment to reducing food waste. Seeing that awareness cascade throughout the organisation is actually very rewarding.
Last year, we became more systematic about measuring culture. We launched a Sustainability Knowledge, Aptitude and Perceptions Survey, which benchmarked us against other organisations. It assessed three dimensions: the head, the heart and the hands.
The “head” measures whether employees understand sustainability. The “heart” measures whether they believe it matters and feel personally connected to it. The “hands” measure whether they feel motivated and empowered to act.
The results helped us identify areas where intervention was needed. Some groups, for example, had strong knowledge but weaker personal engagement. We’re now running targeted programmes to address those gaps.
Ultimately, culture change comes down to a few key factors. First is leadership. It doesn’t matter what products we launch or what I say. What matters is what the board, CEO and business leaders talk about. If they discuss sustainability consistently, people pay attention.
Second is the signal from regulators and investors. Both continue to reinforce the importance of sustainability.
Third is civil society. NGO campaigns and public criticism are never pleasant, but they do draw attention to issues. Whether the criticism is fair or not, it elevates the conversation internally and creates space for more robust discussion.
You’ve said before that one of the hardest parts of your job is dealing with activists and NGOs. CIMB has been at the centre of campaigns over coal financing, including the “Hotter Earth Summit” protest, as well as criticism related to financing companies linked to deforestation. How have you dealt with that pressure? As a chief sustainability officer, you’re something of a lightning rod for criticism.
It’s definitely not easy. Suddenly, you’re under a lot of pressure.
One of the biggest challenges is that banks are heavily constrained by client confidentiality. Under banking secrecy laws, we often can’t even confirm whether a company is a client. That means our ability to respond publicly is very limited.
All we can really say is, “These are our policies.” We can’t discuss specific cases or explain what actions may have been taken with a particular client. If I were an NGO reading that response, I probably wouldn’t find it fully satisfying either, but unfortunately our hands are tied.
The important thing is what you do with the information. NGOs often highlight risks and developments in sectors where we may not have complete visibility, particularly in rural areas or on-the-ground operations. That information can be extremely useful because it allows us to engage clients and investigate issues more deeply.
Asean banks generally regard CIMB as having one of the stronger records on coal phase-out commitments. Did pressure from civil society help drive that progress?
In the case of coal, we were the first emerging-market bank to announce a coal phase-out by 2040.
I wouldn’t say civil society pressure directly caused that decision because the proposal had already gone to the board and was close to being announced before the campaign emerged. It wasn’t a case of us doing nothing and then suddenly reacting.
However, civil society has certainly played an important role in other areas. For example, we’re assessed by Forests & Finance, which evaluates banks’ commodity-sector policies. In palm oil, which is one of our largest exposures, we’re ranked among the strongest performers.
What was helpful wasn’t public criticism itself, but the framework they developed. It clearly defined what good practice looks like, and we used that as a guide when strengthening our policies. Civil society contributes in many ways, and not all of them involve public campaigns.
How have these encounters with civil society shaped the way you approach your role?
One lesson is learning how to take criticism and turn it into something constructive.
When concerns are raised, we bring them to the board and use them to inform internal discussions, especially around policy decisions. That can be very useful.
We’ve also learned that different organisations engage in different ways. Some genuinely want to collaborate and solve problems. They’ll provide information, context and practical recommendations. Others are focused primarily on public pressure, and naming and shaming.
Over time, we’ve learned where meaningful engagement is possible and where it is less productive.
What’s the biggest challenge you’re facing in your role right now, and what do you hope to achieve by the end of the year?
If you’d asked me at the beginning of the year, I would have given a very different answer.
The challenge today is that many of the tailwinds supporting sustainability have weakened. People are distracted by other priorities. First it was the energy crisis, and now it’s AI.
Increasingly, the question is: “Show me the money.” What is the return on sustainability? What value does a sustainability team create? That’s something many chief sustainability officers are being asked to demonstrate.
One area we’re exploring is how strong sustainability performance influences investor behaviour. For example, CIMB was ranked the top financial institution in the World Benchmarking Alliance’s financial services benchmark. That’s great recognition, but the question from management is understandably: “How does that translate into business value?”
The same challenge exists in sustainable finance. Renewable energy, green buildings and electric vehicles are already established opportunities. Those markets are progressing well.
The harder challenge is helping mainstream corporate clients adopt more sustainable business practices. That requires training hundreds of relationship managers and bankers to have meaningful conversations with thousands of clients. Sustainability, climate and nature-related issues aren’t always easy topics to discuss, so building confidence across the organisation is a major focus.
At the same time, I think we need to be careful not to reduce everything to immediate financial returns. Many sustainability benefits only materialise over longer time horizons. Because of the way capital markets work, benefits that emerge in ten or twenty years are heavily discounted today.
The same applies to risk management. How do you quantify the value of losses that never happened because you were better prepared? The business case matters, but we shouldn’t allow it to become the only lens through which sustainability is evaluated.
Sustainable finance continues to attract criticism, particularly around greenwashing. Some argue that labelling investments as sustainable doesn’t necessarily create meaningful environmental or social outcomes. How do you respond to that criticism?
I have to admit, I’m frowning a bit because I don’t really understand the argument that sustainable finance has no impact.
A significant amount of our financing supports affordable housing, underserved communities, small rural businesses and green buildings. It’s difficult to argue that those activities don’t create real-world benefits.
Part of the confusion comes from the fact that “sustainable finance” covers different things. Some products focus on responsible investing, which means excluding the worst-performing companies or sectors. Others focus directly on generating environmental or social outcomes.
People sometimes look at responsible investment products and ask, “Where’s the impact?” That’s because those products weren’t always designed to immediate direct impact.
Greenwashing has occurred, and some cases have been highly publicised. But finance is also heavily regulated. There are lending principles, taxonomies, verification requirements and numerous disclosure standards. In practice, there is less room for greenwashing than many people assume.
Taxonomies and labels can help, but sometimes I wonder whether we’ve become overly focused on labelling. If a building is genuinely green, I would finance it whether the loan is formally labelled “green” or not. The label itself is often just a signal.
In fact, many banks are now financing transition activities without necessarily applying a sustainability label because they’re concerned about reputational risks if the financing is misunderstood.
Personally, I don’t think greenwashing is as prevalent in financial services as some people suggest, although I may be biased. When I look at other sectors, I sometimes see products marketed with green imagery and environmental claims that aren’t backed up by anything meaningful. That’s much harder to get away with in banking because of the level of scrutiny and regulation.
A final question on careers. We recently reported on concerns among young people that sustainability jobs are becoming harder to find, particularly given AI and weaker corporate commitments. How easy is it for young people to get onto the first rung of the sustainability career ladder today?
I’m probably going to say something unpopular.
We have many graduates approaching us looking for sustainability jobs, and we do have openings. But often, when we probe a little deeper, we find that their interest in sustainability is fairly superficial.
They may genuinely want to contribute, but the depth of engagement isn’t always there. For us, especially when hiring graduates, genuine curiosity and commitment matter enormously because this field changes so quickly. If you’re not interested enough to keep learning, you’ll quickly fall behind.
I would also say that every career contains both exciting and tedious work. When people hear me speak at conferences, they see the highlights reel. They’re hearing three minutes that summarise three years of work.
What makes sustainability different is the potential for impact. But even impact comes in different forms.
Some people tell me, “I’m writing policies all day. I don’t see any impact.” But policy work can influence entire systems. Government policy or international standards may take years to develop, but their impact can be enormous.
If what you’re looking for is immediate visible impact every day, then perhaps a policy-oriented sustainability role isn’t the right fit. Direct community work may provide more immediate feedback, but the scale of impact is different.
