Resources
- We’re both winning and losing at the same time. And that’s been clear for a while.
… - To truly win, at the scale and speed needed, we need to both build a coalition for true systems change. This needs to include the real cost of externalities (e.g., the environmental cost of food), disasters (e.g., a quarter trillion in cost for just the LA fires), and the actual value of things that are currently undervalued. (Such as the natural ecosystem services and conditions needed for life!)
… - But the context for sustainability has changed, as affordability and the economy take center stage.
… - To create systemic change, we need to build a broad coalition, and making sustainability pay off really helps with that.
… - In a political context, powerful actors will fight things they see as hurting them, which means showing them they can gain from sustainability really reduces opposition.
… - Individuals also prioritize the economy and their jobs over sustainability, so demonstrating that you can be better off and more sustainable helps reduce their opposition too.
And people don’t like feeling like companies are imposing their values, which means doing something that creates business benefit is much less likely to generate a bad reaction.
… - One key observation is that people prioritize other things more than sustainability, and therefore don’t want to compromise or sacrifice for it. This is especially true when times are turbulent.
- This is true for companies too, which overall prioritize profits and growth over sustainability. And execs who know investing in sustainability makes them more likely to get fired if their company underperforms financially.
(Note that the reverse is also true. CEOs who invest in sustainability and their companies also perform well financially are less likely to get fired.)
… - Companies are less likely to do something if they can “free ride,” telling themselves someone else (government, NGOs, purpose-driven companies) will take action, so they don’t have to.
Unless there are private, direct benefits to them, not just to the world. (For example, saving natural capital is good. But projects that produce public benefit but not private benefit are less attractive to companies.)
… - This means you have to connect sustainability to what matters, which includes all 3 of the simultaneous races in business and to things like affordability for individuals.
… - And you have to surface the submerged cost of inaction, which is hidden, and the submerged value of sustainability.
… - You also have to watch out for companies’ short-term focus. This is a general problem, and especially for sustainability.
… - The ROI case isn’t the only one that matters—the scientific and moral cases matter too. But the ROI case is essential. And when unsustainable choices use financial numbers and sustainable ones don’t, sustainability is deemphasized. But providing explicit monetary information strengthens both sustainability and economics.
… - Unfortunately, the economic case is neglected in high-profile meetings and in reporting. And a lot of people are exposed to sustainability this way. (Consulting firms and others do talk about the business case. But so do opponents – see below – which makes this a hotly contested area.)
… - Sustainability has won the overall moral argument (though “who pays?” and “don’t impose your values” are still areas of argument).
But that still leaves the top arguments against doing more: upfront investment and/or financial effect on the company (e.g., ROI, fiduciary duty).
Bonus: You have to run 3 simultaneous races
Want more details and examples? Order The Value of Values and Connect on LinkedIn.
