Lotus Strike for Climate Change

On Friday 20th September, Lotus joined an estimated 300,000 Australians across the country to strike for climate change. As an organisation who cares deeply about our environment and its future, at 10am, we diverted the phones, prepared our picket signs and headed across the Harbour Bridge to join the strike in The Domaine.

 

Our signs ‘the seas are rising and so are we’ and ‘flowers not fossil fuels’ were among thousands of other witty slogans, created by passionate individuals who want their voices heard. Walking over the Harbour Bridge, looking out across the beautiful harbour conjured up mixed emotions. Feelings of love and admiration for our beautiful country were met with fear, if action isn’t taken soon, the country and our lifestyles as we know it will be changed forever.

 

Upon reaching The Domaine, we could feel a real sense of community. Surrounded by people from all walks of life, it was inspiring to see everyone come together for such an important cause. The rally was led by two incredible 16-year old’s whose sincere passion really solidified the importance of standing up to our world leaders.

 

It was uplifting to hear 2,500 Australian businesses took part in the strikes, with many signing the ‘Not Business as Usual’ pledge, supporting worker participation in the strike. Whilst the Lotus team do our best in the office and our personal lives to ‘live green’, we understand putting pressure on our government is integral if, as a nation, we are going to see real change. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University has studied non-violent, civil resistance movements throughout history with the conclusion that, when 3.5% of the population actively participates in protests, serious political change is likely to ensue.

 

We are hopeful the climate strike will be a turning point in the way our global leaders approach the impending threat of climate change. As a company, and as individuals, we will continue to do all we can to fight for our beautiful earth.

You may also like...

March 5, 2026
A conversation with Hayley Martin, Executive Search Practice Lead at Lotus People As Lotus People formally launches its Executive Search practice, we sat down with Hayley Martin to talk about what separates a great senior hire from a costly one, what mid-market businesses consistently get wrong, and why she chose to build this here . 
March 5, 2026
A natural next step for Lotus People - Lotus Executive Search , an organic evolution of work we've been doing for years, now delivered with the rigour, discretion, and partnership it deserves.  Leading this practice is Hayley Martin who brings over 20 years of executive search experience, including deep expertise in the not-for-profit sector, membership organisations, and corporate leadership appointments
By Michelle Barrett February 25, 2026
In the ever-evolving world of talent acquisition, reference checks remain a standard practice. However, I've recently asked my network a question: Is bringing two candidates to the reference check stage a fair and ethical practice? The overwhelming consensus from HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers is a resounding no . While companies might justify this approach to ensure they make the best hiring decision, the practice has significant drawbacks. The Candidate’s Perspective: False Hope and Strained Relationships For candidates, reference checks often represent the final hurdle before an offer. Being asked to provide references is a hopeful moment—only to discover later that they were simply a “backup” candidate. This leads to: False hope : The process feels misleading if references are strong, but the candidate still doesn’t secure the role due to a small deciding factor. Professional risk : Candidates hesitate to repeatedly ask the same referees for endorsements, fearing it may strain professional relationships or cast doubt on their credibility. Frustration and wasted time : Candidates invest considerable effort in securing references, only to walk away empty-handed. The Referee’s Burden: A Drain on Time and Goodwill Reference checks aren’t just a candidate inconvenience; they also affect referees—often senior professionals taking time out of their busy schedules. Many commenters noted: Referees have limited patience: If a former manager is repeatedly asked for references for the same person without a job offer, they may be reluctant to vouch for them in the future. - A one-sided burden : The hiring company benefits from this additional insight, but referees get little in return other than expecting a favour. The Hiring Manager’s Responsibility: Why This Practice Undermines Decision-Making Some employers argue that reference checks help finalise a tough decision between two equally qualified candidates. However, many experts push back against this rationale: Hiring decisions should be based on direct assessment, not external opinion : As one commenter put it, “You should never put the decision of who best to hire in the hands of someone you don’t know and doesn’t work for your business.” Reference checks are not selection tools : Traditionally, references are a due diligence step , not a deciding factor between multiple candidates. It’s an outdated practice : With many companies now limiting references to basic employment verification, the value of this process is already diminished. So, What’s the Alternative? If reference checks shouldn’t be used to choose between candidates, how should they be utilised?
More Posts