María Mendiluce believes that the uptake of clean energy is “unstoppable” at this juncture in history. The same could be said for her, a longtime climate and energy-transition advocate who is deeply invested in several organizations trying to speed up the net-zero economy. That includes the We Mean Business Coalition, where she is CEO, and the Women Leading on Climate network, an international coalition she co-founded and launched at Climate Week NYC in 2024. With more than 25 years of experience in sustainable development, energy and climate, Mendiluce was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people on climate in 2023. Mendiluce spoke to Corporate Knights senior editor Natalie Alcoba from Geneva.
This interview has been condensed and edited.
Alcoba: What is the Women Leading on Climate initiative?
María Mendiluce: In January last year when the COP presidency came with an all-male team, my team called me and said, “María, we need to do something about that. We need to show these people, and the world in general, that there are really good people working on climate, and they’re women.” I’ve realized that when a woman is leading–at the COP process, presidencies, in the UN, in business, in sustainability functions–action happens. So I sent an email to my network and I got a response immediately. That led me to connect with [former Canadian environment and climate change minister] Catherine McKenna, and she said, “María, why don’t we join forces?” Because she started this initiative Women Leading on Climate in Glasgow. It’s great because she brings the policymakers and I bring the business leaders. So we started to do a set of dialogues, in New York, then we met [at COP29 in November] in Baku. We were oversubscribed.
Women are ready.
The energy in the room was amazing. And we also had fun. It gives us a place to share with others and feel part of the same team. Men and women are worried about climate change: 46% of men, 49% of women. But when called to act, it’s women who answer. Women are 2.5 times more likely than men to respond to climate messaging and to do something.
What is it about women that makes them particularly effective in bridging this gap?
When they see the challenge, they understand, they move to action. They take it very personally. In the same way that they probably do it in their families, or wherever they operate, they take responsibility for the problem and the solution. They are very talented, as talented as men. The difference is, there is a problem in my house, I have to solve it.
How important is messaging in the climate fight?
It’s really shocking, because across the political spectrum, in the United States but also other geographies, nine in 10 consumers believe most industries are going to be affected by climate change. Seven in 10 consumers in the countries tested agreed that businesses face significant risk. I think three in four consumers think that companies committed to using more clean energy will perform better financially than all sectors except AI in the next 10 years. It is clear that consumers know that climate is a risk and that investing in clean energy is an opportunity. I find that what this message shows is that consumers don’t want companies to mess with political fights. They need to talk about materiality–which is material to their companies. It is a moral issue, but in their position as companies this is very much material–there is a risk, there is an opportunity. But language matters. If you talk climate, then they say climate is “woke.” But if you talk extreme events, droughts, heat waves, people across political spectrums agree it is an issue. If you talk about climate solutions, then it is woke. But if you talk about clean solutions–clean is good.
Are we failing at communicating this properly?
There is one thing that is the messaging; the other thing is the business realities. We see that the business community across the board is moving to clean energy because it makes business sense. It’s cheap. It’s available. It improves their energy security. They can have it on their rooftop sometimes, it’s less volatile. The other thing is there is a disinformation campaign across technologies, like EVs burn more than internal combustion engines. I mean, come on. It’s the opposite.
It doesn’t make sense, and yet somehow those messages are penetrating.
Yeah, because the fossil fuel industry is putting a lot of money into these counter-narratives, and it’s driving consumers crazy, and even business because they say, “Yeah, I’m not going to change to EVs, I can’t charge my car.” Come on. You can charge it anywhere, because there are plugs all over the world. Or, renewable energy is expensive. No. Or it’s not reliable. No, it’s working very well. There is a street narrative for people who don’t know anything, but also there is a business narrative that is contaminated with a disinformation campaign.
But businesses have a role to play in correcting that narrative?
The thing is there is a lot of noise in the system that gives them doubts. If you’re in a business and you hear the government is changing and might change these rules, you say, “Well, I’m not going to invest until I know what is going to happen.” That’s why the worst thing that can happen in a country is policy incertitude, and incoherence.
Are you trying to counteract some of that uncertainty with the We Mean Business coalition?
First, what we’re trying to achieve is that the countries need to present NDCs [nationally determined contributions, which amount to climate plans as part of the Paris Agreement]. They need to reduce energy consumption, the efficiency goal. And then they need to say how clean energy–renewable energy–is going to replace fossil fuels. Here the key is that renewables need to replace fossil fuels. It’s not like you will do those things at different speeds. They need to be synchronized.
How do you see the juncture we’re at in the climate fight?
I think we are in a moment where the uptake of clean energy is unstoppable because it makes economic sense. Especially in developed countries. In developing countries there are other things at play that may delay, depending on the economic situation, depending on many things. I think companies and governments are realizing that actually achieving their net-zero targets is difficult. So they have to find innovative approaches to get there. And there are different ways. There is a lot to be done in electrifying the energy uses and using renewables. And that’s the game that is happening now. In China and Europe, because we don’t produce that much fossil fuel, the transition is going to accelerate very fast. In the countries that have fossil fuels, they have every incentive to use them.
Like Canada.
Like Canada. The resource is there. So I think it’s much more difficult to accelerate the transition. But there are two things: on one hand you have the demand of energy; on the other hand, the supply. I think every country has an interest in moving the demand to clean energy because it is cheaper, it is available, it improves the security of the country. Countries that have fossil fuel assets, they need to understand that the demand is going to decrease. So they either start the transition now with their economic system, or they have stranded assets. I’m not worried about Canada, or the U.S., because they have a diversified economy, but it’s more worrying for small countries that have their economies that are really dependent on fossil fuels.
Do you think that message is being understood, that it doesn’t make business sense to invest in fossil fuels?
No, because there is a shortened benefit for the next 10 years, and the fossil fuel industry is trying to milk the cow. Which is a huge irresponsibility. Because the impact of their actions can be counted in people’s lives.
