The evolving world of sustainability strategies

This month a multi-national company and an influential public body asked me to review their forthcoming sustainability strategies. They are both at the leading-edge of the sustainability debate, so it was interesting to compare their thinking and to reflect on how strategies are evolving. It struck me that both organisations have realised that significant change is essential but is made increasingly more complex by environmental and political uncertainty. Given this recognition, I was surprised about what was missing: neither organisation felt like they have truly grasped the scale of new thinking required. 

The similarities 

Recognition that things aren’t going to return to normal 

Both strategies contained a stark acceptance that ‘business as usual’ is no longer an option. They painted a picture where a multitude of trends are starting to converge, potentially presenting a bleak future within which to operate. This acceptance has meant that a ‘nice to have’ sustainability strategy has moved into the core of decision-making. 

Uncertainty 

There was a lack of confidence in both strategies about what the future will look like. AI was presented as a double-edged sword with both positive and negative implications. The global political position was recognised as being more precarious than it has been for decades, with new conflicting power blocks emerging and uncertain elections ahead. It was understood that climate change would have deep-seated implications on food security, supply chains, conflict and immigration. Both organisations presented their strategies against this unclear backdrop. 

Authenticity 

There was an acceptance that long-term targets with limited evidence of immediate change would no longer be sufficient. Both strategies were keen to highlight short-term tangible activities demonstrating a commitment to change. 

Focus 

It was refreshing to see that both strategies had identified the areas where they could make the most significant impact even if those areas were particularly challenging. This reflects a move away from ‘green froth’ towards tackling fundamental issues. It is likely that this shift is being accelerated by regulatory bodies increased scrutiny on greenwashing. 

The rules need to change 

Both strategies included recognition that the rules of the game need to change to allow for a just and successful transition. The strategies hinted that there needs to be more transparent and collaborative conversations with policymakers. There was also recognition that strategies would occasionally need to have a more robust stance, when policies diverged from what is required. 

Five missing elements 

Resilience 

Both strategies assumed there will be steady linear change and didn’t include a resilience model if there was a sudden shock to the system. This is high-risk, as the likelihood of unprecedented shocks is growing. Organisations should be exploring the increasingly sophisticated thinking around resilience and incorporate these principles into their strategies. 

What will stop 

There is always a temptation to shine a light on all the good things that you are seeking to achieve and to ignore those things that don’t necessarily align with the strategy - particularly if they are profitable. Neither strategy highlighted what activities would have to cease because they didn’t align with science-based targets.   

Activists 

I suspect as the inevitability of climate change become more apparent, the activist community will become more sophisticated and vocal. Organisations should be ready for this and ensure their strategy addresses topics that will be the next wave of concern. I would have expected to see more from both organisations on their use of investments, their lobbying commitments (particularly with trade bodies), supply chain equality and social justice. 

The power of the local 

It is inevitable that large organisations will focus on the international and national, but innovation and resilience could emerge at a local level with people getting together to find their own solutions to seemingly intractable problems. It would have been interesting to see how the large organisations proposed to identify winning localised ideas and take them to scale. 

Radical Collaboration 

Neither strategy truly accepted that the scale and speed of change requires a willingness to collaborate across sectors and potentially with competitors. This form of collaboration is complex and requires strategic commitment and thought that was not apparent in either strategy.  

Reflecting on the missing elements, I wonder whether more fundamental systemic change is needed particularly in the corporate sector. Is the incessant focus on short term financial reporting and high churn of leadership preventing even the most progressive companies from taking a truly long-term view? Are there other barriers preventing them from taking the radical steps required? 

I would be interested to know if these thoughts align with what you are seeing. To continue the conversation please contact trewin@sizzle.org.uk.