Keeping On Keeping On! (Part II)

A style in Wensleydale. It allows some to progress

A stile in Wensleydale. It allows some to progress
A stile in Wensleydale. Some can find their way through

Keeping on Keeping On!

The title of Part I purposefully had a question mark in the title. Today’s sustainability efforts are delivering progressive incremental improvement across a range of issues and impacts. Companies can tout their progress, customers feel reassured, and governments can point to the market working. Yet doggedly keeping on the current path is not the way forward.

I start Part II then with an exclamation mark in the title. Because what’s needed now, to keep on keeping on, is a more mindful way. The future of sustainability and a career in sustainability depends upon a different course or courses.

Mid-Single Digit Growth. Really?

People I speak with, especially those with 20-30 years of career ahead of them can’t imagine how companies can continue to grow at ‘mid-single digits’ throughout their career and for the period during which they will draw their pension. The only question seems to be how to change? Clearly we need to move beyond incremental value chain innovations still rooted within the current business model. We need to challenge growth, and the business model itself. Which is tough, and getting tougher as chill winds blow through the sustainability world.

Five or so years ago the mantra was “growth and margins allow us to do sustainability”. There was a subtle shift a few years ago, as questions about the compatibility of growth and sustainability increased. The talk shifted to the triangle of growth, margins and sustainability. Implying that there was a balance in place. Except that there wasn’t.

We are currently witnessing an explicit swing back to growth and margins. Sustainability is being marginalised as the realisation sinks in that it actually costs money. But as I said in Part I, the issues haven’t gone away. The pendulum will swing back. And when it does a realisation will sink in about the whole concept of growth.

Degrowth: First they ignore you…

It is pretty clear that the current incumbents in executive suites won’t question the business model built around continual growth. They are too vested in their positions, with the privilege and remuneration packages that depend upon it. It is also hard to see the next layer down ready to lead the disruption needed. They have worked for 20+ years and are close to the prize. It is their turn for power and privilege. So who will lead the change?

To quote Milton Friedman: “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”

For some, building resilience in the face of ‘collapse’ has become a serious line of enquiry and development. That seems to me to be a little too fatalistic. But it does provide the necessary jolt to the thinking. For many the more realistic alternative is degrowth, to be followed by post-growth.

Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you…

Degrowth starts from a familiar analytical place – planetary boundaries, inequalities, basic human rights and needs, but adds in the absurdities of endless growth and the inappropriateness of GDP. The degrowth movement is building the logic and the evidence (both the what and the how) that can guide its move from concept to actionable steps, here, here and here.

This is now starting to feed varying degrees of denialism. Commentators, authors and opinion leaders are feeling the need to either laugh at or attack the concept. In a few cases they are proposing solutions that look and feel the same and achieve the same ends, but in their own words. This is all good; part of the scrutiny and socialising that is needed – the process that Milton Friedman spoke about.

If this still seems like an intellectual debate not relevant for individual companies, then there are a few people (here and here) providing insights, examples and ways forward for what it means for business and finance.

There is no doubt though that this will be disruptive for business to varying degrees. I prefer to think of the following triage.

  1. There will be companies that are in industries that have products that are needed: food, healthcare, housing, public transport. The challenge for these companies is not just to improve performance and reduce impact, but improve quality and reduce over-production. Some business model redesign will be required.
  2. Industries with products and services that are not needed. For example its pretty clear that fossil fuels have no future. Add to this your favourite examples such as private jets, space tourism etc etc. The list is potentially long. The challenge for these companies is to phase down production or pivot to a different product.
  3. Industries where demand will look very different, particularly where we need to rebalance the provision of private and community services. For example a shift from private cars to public transport. Or a reimagining of advertising and marketing away from ‘selling more’ to ‘building awareness’ (solutions that are available, where to get help etc).

It is not the intent here to describe degrowth, (nor the post growth that will follow it), in detail, though it is worth saying that ‘the movement’ spans degrowth capitalism through to degrowth communism. It plays to the calls for a just transition and there is still work to ensure that the concept does not perpetuate the global power imbalances which have got us to where we are. Whilst all of that is worked through, I would suggest that there are three immediate starting points.

Laying the Groundwork

The first is for corporate sustainability staff to become educated on the ins and outs of degrowth, and what it could mean for them and the corporate world. I have been struck recently by how little time people in the corporate world have to keep up with new ideas, or sit and reflect upon trends. This has to be a key priority. Armed with this information, choose carefully which part of the degrowth triage you wish to work in.

The second point is to work on the intergenerational aspect to sustainability. We all know talented young people who have walked away from the corporate world as its growth obsession and consequent business model do not align with their values. There is even the evidence.

A colleague recently reminded me that this generational story has of course played out many times before. Maybe. Limits to Growth seemed far-fetched for many in 1972, and even in 2002. But it feels very real today with the consequences of 50+ years of exponential growth.

So we need to prepare the groundwork for the next generation to be able to successfully implement the longer-term transformation that’s needed. What those challenges and tasks are depends upon which part of the degrowth triage a business is sitting in. Sustainability will start to look very different and take different courses.

Ethics & Values

Whilst we prepare the ground for a different type of economy and society, there is a more immediate pivot needed. A different foundation for sustainability. Alison Taylor and Nigel Dudley have both eloquently made the case for a focus upon ethics and values.

It is surprising looking at corporate reports how some companies hardly talk about business ethics. Plenty do, claiming that they are a foundational principle, yet they are positioned almost as an after-thought at the end of the sustainability report. Ethics and values should be at the front, framing the sustainability agenda, and setting down a marker for where a company stands.

Rather than seeing human, animal, and nature rights as compliance issues, we need to see them as the foundations for the new role of sustainability teams to guide the innovation and strategy processes (see Part I).

…Then you win

I started this two part blog with a question mark. Keeping on keeping on as we are is clearly not sensible if we wish to avoid the collapse scenarios. But there is a way to keep on keeping on. And we need to do so mindfully.

The Planet will be Fine: A Booklist

1187 BC, Coffeeland, the Divide, The Value of Everything, The Nutmeg's Curse, The Dawn of Everything

1187 BC, Coffeeland, the Divide, The Value of Everything, The Nutmeg's Curse, The Dawn of Everything

Our incremental approach to sustainability is at odds with the scale of the challenge we face as society. My recent reading list has given some insights into how we got to where we are. And it provides a foundation for where we need to go next.

These books take in new insights, research and discoveries to question the existing historical narratives of development: from the start of agriculture, the enlightenment, ‘the age of discovery’ and globalisation.

The Dawn of Everything, The Nutmeg’s Curse and Coffeeland cover narratives of: how societies develop; our relationship to nature (from nature, with nature, in nature & as nature); and globalisation. 1187 BC pierces together the events that led to the collapse of various civilisations within decades of each other. The Value of Everything and The Divide, also offer historical insights around economics and the development of capitalism. Coffeeland in particular is a fascinating historical account of capitalism, and economic & social development. It is told through coffee and individuals in the trade in El Salvador.

Taken together these books offer insights and overlapping perspectives on how we have got to where we are: a place where a global minority come to dominate a global majority. They show the ebb and flow of history, and why nothing is fixed.

Reading these books provides some implicit insights into what comes next. Or perhaps what is needed next, if society is to develop in a manner that is both more equitable and in harmony with the planet.

The planet will be fine. Its society we need to save.

Climate Change: Charades, Taboos and Resets

Another Place. Antony Gormley

I had a liberating experience discussing climate change earlier this year. I am a trustee and volunteer at a charity that for years has been focussed on tackling the climate emergency. It is co-leading the campaign against the construction of a new coal mine in the north of England.

We had a session with our members and supporters to discuss what our next priorities should be to address the climate emergency. They said our priorities  should be on adaptation: making the town and its citizens resilient to climate change. The members also said we should be more honest in communicating what’s actually happening. And we should keep fighting against fossil fuel projects.

So this is the view from the ground. From a town that was the first in the UK to set up a citizens climate jury. It’s a view that is both liberating and realistic. It contrasts with the global discourse which is increasingly becoming an elaborate charade.

I don’t mean that with any disrespect to the many people, and many former colleagues who are tirelessly and optimistically working at the international level. This is not a criticism of what has been done. It’s just that a change in direction, emphasis and narrative on climate change are all sorely needed. The current strategies are not working fast enough. They may even be becoming counter-productive. So what’s to be done? Here are a few ideas for business.

Act on Forecasts not Dreams

It is time for the NGOs, think tanks, consultancies and business platforms to articulate a more honest narrative on climate. In the lead-up to COP26 in Glasgow, the talk was about ‘keeping 1.5° alive’. One year on, respected organisations are still putting out reports appealing for more urgency. And providing ever more unrealistic ‘this is what is needed’ insights, analyses and strategies. No-one I have spoken to this year believes in this anymore.

The taboo needs to be broken. Its time to focus more on the most likely climate outcome: 2.6°-3.2° of heating. Which is not to suggest taking our eye off the ball of preventing every fraction of a degree of future global heating.

Presumably somewhere in air-conditioned rooms, groups of people are now working on a new consensus, ambition and rallying cry. Its already too late to adopt a 2° threshold: that feels like going back to the future. The Race to Resilience is welcome, but feels like a coalition of coalitions. People on the ground want honesty, not cheerleading. Lets find a way to focus on outcomes, impacts, and actions that are commensurate with the scale of the challenge. Such as fossil fuel non-proliferation. 

Focus on Fossil Fuels and NDCs

“Net-zero” needs to be put back into its box. As I have written before, “The original intent of ‘Net Zero’ – to create corporate action to push for government action has been captured by corporate marketing departments. This is diverting attention from what is really needed.”

Which is that businesses should set targets for when they will be free of fossil fuels from their Scopes 1, 2 and 3. We need them to provide quarterly reporting on progress.

The other reason for dialling back on ‘not-zero’ is that it has had an unintended consequence. Governments don’t feel the need to play their part when the impression is that business will do the hard lifting. The spotlight needs to be put back on Governments to do what they have to.

Companies should reinforce not deflect from Government efforts. Corporate reporting on climate activities needs to explicitly demonstrate, country by country, how companies are contributing to individual government NDCs.

Degrowth

Reducing demand urgently needs to be put centre stage. Despite being highlighted by the IPCC, demand reduction does not feature in any of the recent reports and corporate narratives I have seen. Clearly its uncomfortable: it questions the basis of the mainstream economic model. Yet it is also a good time to do this as we struggle through late-stage capitalism. Its not more growth we need; its less, better directed growth.

So its timely that the idea of degrowth is making a return, this time with more academic rigour, and more diverse voices getting behind it. Degrowth is not about less of the same. It is about growing the things that are needed for societal wellbeing, equity and nature; accompanied by a shrinkage of the unnecessary activities in rich nations that are not delivering societal wellbeing.

There is much still to work out, not least the details of what and how. However, we only need to observe the per-capita consumption and emissions of the top 1% of society to get some clues where to start: private jets, SUVs, built-in obsolescence, and the creation of desire for the next new thing.

A Just Transition

At COP26 there was a new found enthusiasm by companies for ‘just transition’. They are now busy interpreting what it means for their own internal audiences and external positioning. Often simplified to mean ‘leave no-one behind’, it actually goes beyond a few add-ons to the content of climate roadmaps.

Embracing ‘just transition’ will be less about adjusting current business practices, and more about intentionally changing them. If companies are serious about a just transition this will involve placing a scrutiny on the economic model we are following. An economic model which is reliant upon extractive approaches to both the environment and labour. Degrowth provides a way to approach this by creating a planned, democratic and therefore, just and equitable approach to tackling climate change.

Avoiding Climate Tunnel Vision

Its surprising how climate change is now the primary lens through which many companies view the broad range of sustainability challenges they face. Its hard to understand if this laser focus on climate is just a question of the attention pendulum swinging too far one way, or is based upon a more sinister ‘intending the unintended consequences’.

Either way it is leading to (some) companies ignoring or conveniently shifting their gaze from potentially more significant issues such as biodiversity, living income and inequality.

I have written before about the ability of us all to address only a few big issues at once, as well as the interconnectedness and complexity of sustainability issues. Approaches to sustainability (and climate) need more nuance, balance and logic.