It is the lot of every sustainability consultant worth their salt to spend time wondering if our work is propping up the system we say we want to change.
The bigger picture is of course pretty damning. Annual global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, as wildlife has declined by three-quarters since 1970. Of course there are success stories buried in the data, but collectively… not so much.
This leads to some dark nights of the soul, and reflection on where and how each of us can intervene in the system to greatest effect. For intervene in the current system we must. As a recent discussion paper from the esteemed Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) has forcefully reminded us:
“We believe that while our current models of capitalism have many flaws, we certainly do not have time to rebuild entire institutions and economic systems before the global ecosystem spirals into crisis. This means business and markets, broadly as they are constructed today, remain the most likely way we can deliver change rapidly and at scale…” – Survival of the Fittest: From ESG to Competitive Sustainability – A discussion paper by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
While our current models of capitalism have many flaws, we certainly do not have time to rebuild entire institutions and economic systems before the global ecosystem spirals into crisis
The implication is that we have no choice but to work within a theory of change that says investors and consumers will make informed decisions to vote with their wallets, and capital will flow towards ‘good companies’. What CISL has highlighted is the need for companies themselves to focus on shifting whole markets, advocating for a ‘race to the top’ and demanding much bolder long-term government commitments. In this way, companies will discover how to operate genuinely sustainably, and make that a powerful source of competitive advantage, out-competing the laggards.
Testing the theory at Anthropy
It is with this ambition for business in mind, that Michael Solomon of Responsible 100 and Mark Goyder of Tomorrow’s Company put together a panel of five responsible business frameworks at the second Anthropy conference in November 2023 at the Eden Project.
The basis and rationale for bringing everyone together was to explore the various tests of responsible business that these five organisations had discovered or created, and developed over many years, working at the coal face.
Speaking were Michael representing Responsible 100, Will Hutton from The Purposeful Company, Sarah Gillard of Blueprint for a Better Business, Rachael Saunders from the Institute of Business Ethics and I sat in for B Lab UK (the not-for-profit behind the B Corp movement).
The session was titled ‘Which companies people should buy from, work for and invest in?’ and we explored the ways in which these badges and frameworks worked with businesses and helped them dial up their positive impacts on people and planet, and dial down their negative impacts. The allotted 55 minutes flew by and unsurprisingly we hardly managed to scratch the surface.
From competition to cooperation
The question in the session title at Anthropy suggested a competition to ‘find a winner’ among the five frameworks. What emerged was a sense that there are strengths and weaknesses across all, and to answer the question would require a deeper investigation, and a revisiting of the premise that there could be a single best-in-class badge or framework.
Since then, the project has secured a sponsor to support this inquiry – the law firm RPC. This has enabled a wider group to form, including DEAL (Doughnut Economics Action Lab), Future-Fit Foundation, Good Business Charter, PAS 808 / ISO 37011, Business Declares and Planet Mark, each also represented by its first or second most senior executive. One or two others may yet join. Most of this wider group met on 1 May this year at RPC’s London offices. We plan to meet there again on the 28th of this month (October 2024), and will likely meet for a third and final time early next year.
The question… suggested a competition to ‘find a winner’ among the five frameworks. What emerged was a sense that there are strengths and weaknesses across all
At the 1 May meeting, Erinch Sahan from DEAL cautioned us about the realities of escaping business as usual. He articulated the idea that powerful and incumbent interests are in the habit of capturing and neutering disruptive and breakthrough innovations, which many badges and frameworks seek to be, and to catalyse in our clients.
Erinch has since summed up a number of the points he made at the meeting thus: “When a disruptive innovation meets business as usual, something gets co-opted. Certifications and initiatives focused on purpose-led business are certainly disruptive innovations. But in their desire to appeal to more mainstream businesses and investors, are they achieving deep-rooted transformation? Or are they undermining the more transformative efforts that go further to redesign the relationship between finance and business? There are reasons to be concerned.”
Certifications… focused on purpose-led business are certainly disruptive innovations. But in their desire to appeal to more mainstream businesses and investors, are they… undermining the more transformative efforts that go further to redesign the relationship between finance and business? There are reasons to be concerned
The day the UK responsible business movement grew up?
What was powerful about the 1 May meeting is the sense that the responsible business frameworks acknowledge the risk of co-option, that reflection is necessary, and that meaningful collaboration between them could be the missing ingredient in collectively shifting the dial.
The invitation to the 1 May meeting asked:
In these most challenging of times, what constitutes responsible business practice? If we claim that we can support businesses that strive to be more sustainable, or have a positive impact on people and planet, or pursue a purpose beyond profit, how can we ensure that the things we then change or do are fit-for-purpose, useful and adequate? How do we help businesses be good enough? Not simply ‘better than they are now’, or ‘less bad than their competitors’ – but to transform into businesses where, in the age of collapse, their actions are enough?
On 1 May, it felt like the frameworks were growing up, together, because all were motivated to put their differences and competitive tensions aside and attend the meeting, framed thus, in good faith.
It felt like growing up because they faced up to the inconvenient truth that, despite everyone’s best collective efforts, we are going to hell in a handbasket.
It felt like the movement is growing up because there was an understanding that if we are in fact diverting precious, finite resources, attention, effort and energy away from the necessary transformations, it is difficult to avoid concluding that not only are we not offering a solution, we are more than likely part of the problem.
It felt like growing up because they faced up to the inconvenient truth that, despite everyone’s best collective efforts, we are going to hell in a handbasket… it is difficult to avoid concluding that not only are we not offering a solution, we are more than likely part of the problem
Hoping for better
What keeps me going in my work as a consultant is the sense of what the social psychologist Joanna Macy calls ‘active hope’. That through envisioning the world we want, and taking steps towards it, we can feel positive in the face of so many apparent reasons to despair.
At my consulting firm Junxion we know we are working towards the big hairy audacious goal of an economy remade to serve the common good. And we have our own theory of change of how we can – with others – bring this about. Part of it is advocating for the B Corp movement, supporting that framework’s evolution (B Corp has a very different version of its standard coming out in 2026), and helping companies to develop sustainable business models.
What I am hoping for is that all these responsible business frameworks are exploring how they might need to evolve individually, and what their collective theory of change is. To create a shared understanding of how each contributes, and how together they may be more than the sum of their parts.
What I am hoping for is that all these responsible business frameworks are exploring how they might need to evolve individually, and what their collective theory of change is. To create a shared understanding of how each contributes, and how together they may be more than the sum of their parts.
Growing up is not easy, and can be harder in company, but it is essential. It will be exciting to see the appetite for more maturing, reflection and collective action later this month. As my clients and colleagues know I’m fond of saying: ‘More soon!’.
Adam Garfunkel is partner and chief impact officer of Junxion Strategy, a certified B Corp social impact consulting firm. Adam pioneered the use of sustainability reporting frameworks such as the GRI in the UK in the early 2000s, and is now a B Corp Ambassador as well as sitting on B Lab’s regional standards advisory group for the UK.
Create your own user feedback survey
|
|
