A week or so ago, the latest, sixth, IPCC report dropped.
My suggestion hence is simply read it.
Even if only the executive summary.
But just read it.
All I would like is to grab the opportunity to give a HUGE thank you to all the scientists involved.
Thank you dear IPCC scientists!
Thank you for all the work, the patience, and the glimmer of hope that despite it all remains a firm part of the reports.
Even this latest one.
Over the last couple of years a plethora of pledges has arisen in the sustainability/ESG space.
The weird thing: Pledges intend to drive change the wrong way around. Commit people (read: companies) publicly, then hope they will actually move in accordance to the pledge/commitment, and then only hold them to account if and when they do not delivery. If anyone remembers that is.
Do we need all these pledges? Do they really make a difference?
Data says: probably not ...
Shouldn't hence the Lemma simply be:
Actions before words.
Impact before messaging.
Walk before talk.
Science before marketing.
It's a funny state of things: One where investors complain that ESG data is not standardised; where at the same time companies – and notably their boards – complain that investors do not ask for data in a standardised way. And where the very same companies and boards nonetheless prioritise proprietary measurement systems over any other one for their own supply chains and products.
It's a paradox. One that is not efficient, effective, or conducive to impact.
A call to leave politics to the side, focus in impact, and standardise, standardise, standardise.
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.
Most boards are composed of former or present CEOs, CFO and other C-suite executives.
People, hence, with a long track record of ‘getting stuff’ done. A board’s role however is very different from that of an executive: digging deep by asking those overly simple questions that give interesting answers, digging deep into rationales, values, hopes, expectations, shut up doubts, and personal agendas. Which is what good coaches typically do. Are coaches the better board directors?
Regenerative' is really a re-packaging of traditional agro-ecological approaches, with an added notion of leaving the land better than it was found.
And yet - because lack of knowledge runs deep in companies, such lack is compensated by prescribing procedures rather than to focus on outcomes. It is a bit of a deja-vu indeed ...
Collaborations toward a common goal, across organisations, can be one of the most gratifying things we ever may get to experience. Funny enough: Neither collaboration nor team work is something outrageously difficult in principle. If the common and mutually beneficial goal is front and centre. But this is exactly where the hitch is. Some thoughts about the hurdles of genuine collaboration and team work.
Nearly a year ago I wrote about how the terminology we use abstracts from the fact that there are living and sentient human beings doing 'supply chain' work. Listening to a recent podcast it dawned on me that language can be just as useful to gloss over the seriousness and impact of scientific facts. And the resulting necessary actions. Climate Change vs Climate Emergency? Green energy vs renewable energy vs clean energy? Hence, some more thinking about the role of language.
Knowledge and data are two interesting entities: essential for decisions at any one time. And yet evolving with time. And with that, decisions taken some time ago, possibly decades earlier, may prove flawed – in hindsight.
But what if years down the road these insights are resurfaced and either proven to be partially or fully inaccurate? What if the nuggets are suddenly being used in a context that has shifted significantly since? What if our best intended and best-possible informed statements of the past are called out years, decades later?
A few thoughts on this dilemma.
Anger … a strong, passionate emotion. Sometimes conducive as it gives loads of strength to fight for what we see as a ‘better world and society’. But also sometimes a shot into our own foot.
In the sustainability world extemists views are common - on either side of the spectrum. Both sides advocating for fundamental change.
But as it the choice of words suggests: fundamental change is only possible if we change fundamentally. All of us.
Including the advocates and campaigners themselves.
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.
Reducing humanity’s footprint on this planet is a journey of decisions.
Some of them tough, some of them very clear. And some of them – let’s just say: with very limited available data.
The journey we’re on, is the proverbial Designer’s Paradox. More scientifically speaking of course, we are faced with the ever lasting conundrum of Regrettable Substitutions.
So: Is there a best possible AND least bad option (combined) at this very moment?
We all interact frequently with SMEs of different types, characters, and offers. Yet there are two types of such businesses. Those where 'the spark' is graspable: Their vision, raison d'etre, motivation, aspiration, commitment. And then those, who at best surf the waves of third party demands. Content to be 'victims' instead of taking the courage to forge their own irons. A never ending fascination.
Computer Science and Sustainability/ESG: these two areas of expertise combine increasingly well with every passing month and year. In fact, I am tempted to say that the two worlds of sustainability and digitalisation are surprisingly similar to one another. In a number of ways – not in all, of course! – they overlap more than they differ. And mutually benefit each other.
Both areas represent critical skill-sets for boards and senior executives in the current and upcoming decades. This is why I thought I’d take the time to reflect on the overlaps, the synergies, but no doubt also the differences.
The key words: systems thinking, automatisation, fraud prevention and authentication, business model distruption, usability, and the Just Transition.
Global Goals are called ‘global’ for a reason: they apply to everyone, everything. Every business, every government, every church, charity … In case there was any doubt about it: The Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Agreement are global goals. In fact, probably the Global Goals par excellence. Yet, while organisations of all different types and characteristics are making progress in translating those to their different contexts, environments, business models etc. the same does not hold true when it comes to individuals. Beyond a few platitudes. A few arbitrary and personal musings on the role of the individual in achieving the goals.
This year has been a tough year. The count of lost lives alone cannot be escaped.
For me: I was made redundant shortly before Christmas 2019 - consequence of restructuring - and had wanted to set up on my own. And then ... you know the story.
And yet: there is so much to be grateful for. Parents that are healthy. Mountains that were climbed. Access to natural spaces. The snowflakes in front of my window.
And learnings along the way.
One thing that particularly stands out to me, from all the experiences in the past months: There are two types of people in this world. Those that champion the achievements of others. Who want to see them succeed and create positive change in and for the world and our global society. And then some.
I'm grateful to have learned the difference.
To 2021. To 12 more months of opportunities, to learn, to become better versions of ourselves, and to create change. For us. But more importantly, for the generations yet to come.
‘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?
Over a decade ago, Simon Sinek pointedly demanded: Start with Why.
Targeted at a then rather uninspiring marketing and branding industry, 10 years on is still as valid as ever.
Just now, we need to ask businesses: Why are you bothering with investing millions, and thousands of hours into sustainability?
Often the answer will be: because we have to. An answer just as uninspiring as the sales slogans Sinek was bashing a decade ago.
Because when it comes to Sustainability: Know your genuine Why. Or don't bother.
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.
Research has known for a while that when someone in your presence is trying to think, much of what you are hearing and seeing is your effect on them. That is also the case for boards.
Because: under the right conditions and circumstances, people will – invariably – think for themselves. Just: is that desired?