The KISS Principle is a design principle that stems from the 1960.
It originated in engineering and its view point is that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.
But what about complex systems such as nature?
How simple can we go before oversimplification results in incomplete, or biased data? Before absence of consideration of relevant factors inherently lead to regrettable substitutions? And before we willingly accept that there will be collateral damages to a decision, without knowing (or wanting to know) of what nature and in what order of magnitude these may be?
One example that illustrates where this challenge may rear what is its ugly head: upcoming Swiss political referenda on agricultural practices.
Circular economy is the antonym of linear economy. Linear economy has been the dominant industrial model in our history and postulates production is followed by consumption that then ends up with the disposal of used products. As opposed to this, circular economy seeks to rebuild capital, whether this is financial, manufactured, human, social or natural and sees products having a longer or a never-ending life that are either re-used as new inputs to create new products or shared and co-owned by different consumers.
There are two approaches on how we can define of what is viable and desirable for our global economy.
In one, the 'soft attributes' and non-physical factors such as consumer desires, lifestyles or distribution of goods are a fixed attribute. In the other, quantifiable, physical attributes - amongst them natural resources - are fixed.
The challenge of boards in this time and age: Recognising that the first - the present - is failing. And outlining the path towards the second.
Pricing the ton of carbon is a key matter – more so as an increasing number of companies aim at publicly claiming carbon neutrality. Carbon hence has a price – and this raises the much discussed question: What is a fair (or better: ‘correct’) price for carbon?
In this post I present a glimpse of some of the challenges and realities related to the topic.
It leaves us with the question: What went wrong in the current system that fundamentally asks us to choose between having to monetarily price natural and societal resources, and a fair, equitable access to these resources specifically for hard hit communities?
The question alone should not be even asked.
And yet it seems that’s what we’re left with given the current time and age.
I've recently resurrected my knitting skills. I've learned since that the lack of skill and ability to make our own, leaves us with a complete wrong understanding of the efforts required when making clothing.
In the last post I explained what COP15 is: A conference with the main purpose to adopt the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. But: What exactly is the framework agreement? What does it cover and encompass? Does it offer similar KPIs such as the SDG indicators? Are there enforcement mechanisms? Assuming for a moment, that it will be adopted: what would, or could, that tangibly mean going forward? Here a try at answering these questions.
More and more people call themselves 'sustainability experts'. Just -we do not need more of them. Instead we need people who are extremely good at what they do, apply their skill in a context to create change and that nourishes them for years to come. That's the Sweet Spot.
How did you find your 'Sweet Spot'? And how did you transition?
Buying outdoor and sports material is not always an easy task – more so, if current equipment has has shared many an adventure.
The following key questions are therefore intended to support you – the sports and outdoor loving shopper – when looking around for a refresh or update of your kit.
‘System positive’. The latest term I came a cross in the finance world, and which intends to identify business that are particularly well set up to survive the tribulations to be expected in the decades to come. Immediately the cynic in me asks: Another addition to the sustainability bullshit bingo?
And yet: the 5 questions proposed for scrutinising companies are very sharp, very relevant and very insightful.
They only fall short of one: Will the company thrive within or even thanks to the Doughnut Boundaries?
Consistency is one of those traits that is coveted by business journals and business leadership as possibly the most important ingredient in leaders. For a simple reason: Consistency — whether good or bad, positive or negative — provides the business, its employees, and stakeholders with a known quantity.
But what is often forgotten: A leader is never, ever made over night. It is a life long process. And just like a relationship, the accumulation and significance of small little things that are done over and over again is more often than not underestimated.
t is fairly old news, but merits repeating nevertheless: our current economy, at the verge of collapse as it is, is egocentric, and at the same time understates costs while overstating benefits.
In other words, it promotes a type of behaviour that is degeneratively competitive: the ‘me’ wants, needs, more of whatever it may be, while anything and everything else is losing out. No matter how high the cost for the bigger picture – society and the planet, that is – may be.
Did you ever wonder, how the New Climate Changed reality could look and feel like at its worst?
Then, we may right now be getting a flavour of exactly that.
Ukraine's resource richness may be an important variable in a globalised world that will increasingly be struggling to access necessary resources in the decades to come. Because, after all, and as we learned when we played monopoly: Whomever controls the resources controls the game.
Science fiction literature and movies are obsessed with the story line, and the film industry has made billions of dollars from it: a time traveller goes backwards in time. Changes (‘corrects’) a small thing – and Voila! All will be good.
But precisely in the here and now Big and Bold things need happening - yet, doing small and important things remains relevant.
Not the least because few of us humans see themselves as capable of completing Big and Bold things.
So - maybe inspiration from science fiction is not all bad afterall ...
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 that you'll a surprising selection of comments, that display a lack of recognition.
If you’ve ever been part of a bigger discourse about how to scale out sustainability economically and globally, you’ll have been quick to notice that by and large you’ll be faced with representatives of four distinct camps of advocates:
The Grassrooters; the 'Setting the tone at the top' people; those in support of government regulation driven by civil society; and the 'Fiduciary Duty Advocates'.
But which camp owns the driving leadership role? Funnily enough, that role does get handed around as if it was a game of musical chairs ... or the proverbial hot potato.
The “new normal’ everyone talks about. What is it supposed to look like? As with many things: being clear about what you do NOT want is easy to describe.
Explain and outline what it is that you really (really!) want, is considerably harder.
Here a try – my try - at exactly that.
Can marketing be ethical? Far too many times I am asked this question or come across people who strongly believe that marketing simply cannot. Actually, still today, for many, marketing is evil. I think that this conviction is the result of two main factors.
The world ‘at the other end’ of the Corona tunnel could never be the same as before. It could be so much better than ever – with a real opportunity to put it on the rails that will make it the place we desire it to be.
Or: it could be same, but indeed worse place then ever. Where past misbehaviours is ignored at best, OK’ed at worse.
Do you know these feelings? Outrage at the lack of action of friends and colleagues in the face of climate science data; fatalism when thinking about the future the next generation (and the one after); optimism in those few moments when joining up with like-minded people that do what they can do change the course of current events around; and helplessnesses when despite all efforts the bigger is just frozen.
But we have a choice of which emotions to live in order to create change. Choose now!
ntil the late 80s, fashion retailers and brands would typically have two main collections a year: spring/summer and autumn/winter. Then, in the 90s things changed dramatically. Increased competition saw retailers incentivising customers to visit their stores more frequently.