Sustainability practitioners tend grow a fairly thick skin over time with regards to how their work is valued. Chances are that if you move in a field of expertise that marginally relates to CSR (sustainability, social enterprises, charities etc.) you will have heard the following – or similar – statements over and time again:
- 'This will look good on your track record'.
- 'We don't know you yet, so in order to assess the quality of your deliverables, we give you the opportunity to do this for us. You might even get on our list of official collaborators.'
- 'I would like you to give me 3 suppliers that comply with these specific requirements. Sure you have a few off your sleeve you can help me out with?'
- 'You're a sustainability expert. But what do you do 'in real life', I mean what do you earn a living with?'
- 'Unfortunately, we have a policy in place whereby we do not pay contributors to our [arbitrary website, magazine etc.] - but we're happy to collaborate with you'.
It goes without saying that this is but a small selection of what sustainability professionals get to hear regularly.
In fact, when sustainability practitioners happen to come across each other, it could easily end up in a generalised grumble about the kind of attitude these statements imply, about how the companies (in the fashion, charitable, printing, design, extracting, energy …industry ) think they can get salaries at the sales prices of clothes (as for fashion: remember that 2010 Guardian article about Alexander McQueen?), and the related short-sightedness of CEOs and managers. But actually this misses the point.
It goes without saying that any of the above is unacceptable, not merely for ‘labour law’ purposes, which it of course is. And neither just for ethical reasons, which it of course also is, after all there is more often than not false pretence used to obtain work for free. All of this is important. Yet it is not the main issue.
a) have invested years (remember that funny 10’000 hours rule?) to accumulate their knowledge and skills. In my very specific case, it concretely breaks down to something like this: 5 years Computer Science, 4 years Design Thinking, 5 years CSR; and about as much in Sustainability in Fashion. 5 years is roughly the equivalent of 10’000 hours… plenty of time to become not only proficient, but very good at something.
b) keep on learning about new and better approaches to do ‘stuff’. And about people with specific expertise that will help at some point to ‘get stuff done’. Of course there is always more to be learned. Yet the point is: All of us know how, if not always where, to get the lacking puzzle piece …
c) deliver knowledge that line operations often doesn’t have or bother with.
d) bring knowledge into a company that helps them look beyond the business of the next 2 years, and at how they can and will remain profitable likely long beyond their current CEO.
e) know what your stakeholders (buyers, competitions etc.) do. Companies don’t have, or take, the time for this – usually. Your company may be the expert – for precisely your company. But what about the bigger picture? The broader horizon such as incoming European and overseas legislation? The activist NGOs of this world and what they’re up to? The insights from research journals?
The elephant in the room
I have alluded to it in the above point b), and I suspect this is why any of the rather questionable arguments mentioned in this article are ever made at all:
- Even (sustainability) experts keep learning.
- Experts are experts of a special field – not of your very specific company (because that would, or should, be you).
These 2 points summarise both, the experts’ very specific value – but also their very specific weakness as far as your company is concerned. This fact applies to those doing lean management and accounting as much as to those ‘doing’ sustainability.
In other words: the value that sustainability practitioners deliver is normally lasting beyond the tenure of the average CEO. Sustainability experts give a company the knowledge and contribution to innovate and change. The ‘fresh pair of eyes’ so to speak.
In this way, a company – assuming the expert delivers quality – becomes more competitive on the mid and long run – and doesn’t commit crucial mistakes on the short run. As it happens, and the way future scenarios invariably point, this also means that sustainability experts in this way do something for the ‘larger good’ – society at large, and the environment.
And this is why for some unfortunate reasons this trade of ‘do gooders’ encounters – accidentally as it were – a stream of preconceptions and misinformation that culminate in the type of statements listed in the introduction.
While preconception and misinformation are normal in any society, not challenging them and taking them for granted is counter productive for companies, economies and society at large: they ultimately lose access to expertise that is at this point of time not easy to get by in adequate quality, yet indispensable.
