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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
In July 2018 Australian Billionaire James Packer resigned from 24 boards in total where he held directorships. His spokesman in a statement announced that Packer was “suffering from mental health issues” and was seeking treatment for depression. Packer is not a lone case.
Climate Anxiety can be a trigger to mental health challenges - for fear of the future and well-being of loved ones. Creating boards that are able to open up about doubts, challenges and concerns is like adding a booster gear to their functioning, reaching deep into an individuals motivation and passion. It also could add a whole new dimensions to professional discussions and help to ask harder, but equally necessary questions to the executives running the day-to-day business.
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.
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.
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.
Digital tools and IT systems are a great enabler for more data, more stringent channels of how to communicate what the different players in the chain do, and how they do it, over large distances and across operations and organizations.Yet – digital tools are more human than we think they are … because they, in the end, are representatives of the values and the world view of those that have built them.
‘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?
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.
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.
COP28 yielded mixed results, featuring some historic 'firsts' such as a fossil fuel phase-out commitment, a $700 million loss and damage fund, the recognition of nuclear energy, and (this is huge!) a pointed spotlight on food systems' role in adaption.
Most of the old challenges though remain: It's all carrots and no sticks. Which shows in the continued absence of enforcement of Climate Targets or their stringency, and the eye-level conversation with Global South nations.
The Manifesto of a Hummingbird: . 13 + 1 ways to make a stance for responsible business and leadership.
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 ...
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.
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.
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?