I have just returned from Berlin where I attended a 'Future Shapers' workshop, run by Forum for the Future as part of a three year EU funded project, EUInnovatE.  I met a fascinating array of innovators, entrepreneurs and sustainability thinkers from all over Europe and the diverse perspectives made for a great workshop.

The exam question of the three year project is how we catalyse citizen driven innovation to create a more sustainable Europe. To start the process off, Forum ran this immersive futures workshop looking at four distinct plausible scenarios for 2050 (but at the edge of our imagination, as a good scenario should be!) which had all found ways of of achieving the goal of using 75% less resource than we do today. The scenarios sat in four quadrants, defined by the extent of their collective vs. individualistic culture on one hand and the extent to which we shape technology or vice versa on the other. They were all thought provoking, disturbing in parts but also exciting and inspirational in others.

It is early days in this three year project, but here are some of the key things I took out of the day:

• Technology enables anyone to influence our sustainable future - from eBay to Landshare, there is evidence that a good idea coupled with determination and the power of technology allows citizens to drive sustainable change.
  
• Empathy is an increasingly important concept in our quest to change behaviour - we have talked about Roman Krznaric's thinking on empathy in this blog before (here and here) and it was amazing how many times the concept  came up during the day, including as the title of one of the scenarios ('Empathetic Communities')
• Sharing economy - not a new phenomenon any more, but our discussions confirmed just how big and important a trend it is for sustainability
• Big data and the internet of things will be key to enabling large scale citizen driven change - in my opinion, we can't let privacy protection lobbies (who undoubtedly also do good work) stop us from collecting data at all. Ultimately, it will enable innovation for a more sustainable future.
• Initiatives around food (waste) came up during discussions time and again- it is clear that this is an area where citizen led innovation is already thriving.
  
• Finally, and potentially driven by who was attending, there was a distinct lack of discussion of energy issues, which somewhat surprised me.  Great community energy initiatives notwithstanding, perhaps this is a reflection of where we feel citizens can have the most influence - government and large energy companies will still have to do their bit! 

All in all it was a great day and I look forward to continuing to support the project. I will continue to update on the outputs and findings of the project through this blog so do check back regularly.

by Jesper Ekelund

With the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings approaching, I was reminded of the famous Kohima memorial inscription. Commemorating the thousands of Indian, African and Commonwealth soldiers who fought in the Burma campaign, it reads:

“When you go home, tell them of us and say: ‘For your tomorrow, we gave our today’” 

In the context of climate change and, in particular, international governments’ inability to respond decisively- it strikes me that a more appropriate and rather less heroic epitaph for our generation may be “For our today, we gave your tomorrow.’ For whatever reason, our society seems less able, or less willing, to act in the best interests of its descendants.

The topic of intergenerational justice and environmental protection is not a new concept. The Stuttgart based think-tank Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations seeks to ensure that “today’s youth and future generations…have at least the same opportunities to meet their own needs as the generation governing today.” An echo of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, it is familiar to everyone working in the field. So what are we missing? Where is the willingness to make changes for the sake of our great-great-grandchildren?

My hunch is that we lack the imagination, or the advanced empathy skills to feel sufficiently responsible for future generations. We are too far removed temporally and emotionally, and we lack the urgency, courage and immediate mortal danger felt by soldiers fighting in the world wars. This may be why the case for sustainability has taken several decades to gain traction. The philosopher Roman Krznaric outlines some creative strategies for closing the empathy gap across generations, including the establishment of experiential 'climate futures museums.' In the meantime, perhaps we need to emphasise the opportunity to improve well-being and prosperity for today’s global citizens. By maximising environmental, financial and social justice in our own lifetimes, we may leave better systems in place for future generations. 

By Jenny Ekelund

Those who work in sustainability and related fields are prone to fret about language. A lot. In many ways they are right to do so. It is certainly true that the variety of terms in use to describe conducting business responsibly can be baffling to the uninitiated. “What does Sustainability really mean?” we ask ourselves. What does it mean to the (wo)man in the street? What is the difference between corporate responsibility and sustainable development? Is natural capital the same as biodiversity? If I say “responsible business” in my report will shareholders understand? 

The sustainability comms specialist Sustainly recently analysed the terms used by the top 100 companies in their Social Media Sustainability Index. They found 36 used “sustainability”, 16 used “corporate responsibility”, and 8 used “citizenship”. Other terms included “sustainable development” and the now decidedly less fashionable “CSR.”  Sustainly, who emphasise the “storytelling of sustainability” quite sensibly question how effective communications to the public can be if “the very advocates of good business can’t work out a common term for the values they want to uphold.”

Whilst I agree that it might be more convenient if every organisation used the same, neat all-encapsulating term, I don’t think it’s realistic, nor may it be desirable for three main reasons. Let me explain. 

Firstly, we need to accept that the field of sustainability is still young (relatively-speaking) and developing fast. Social media is changing perceptions and accelerating discussions. Isn’t it only natural that the language should evolve alongside the ideas? There is nothing wrong with that, and the range of terms used by the organisations in Sustainly’s survey is evidence that society is trying on the available words for size. Perhaps in five years time 90% of companies will revert to using “Sustainability” – or perhaps it will be an entirely new term yet to be coined. My point is- does it matter, since the language is necessarily a dynamic system? Shouldn’t we embrace it as part of the debate?

Secondly, I feel that the diversity of terms available allows organisations to pick the word that best describes their approach- and in so doing, they tell the reader something about them. This is no bad thing- after all, homogeneity is rather dull and undoubtedly the best sustainability programmes are customised to the organisation rather than copied from a textbook. Assuming one common term works across all organisations assumes they are speaking to an identical set of stakeholders- which is of course not true. Since arguably the company is best placed to decide what resonates with their customers, shareholders and interested parties, isn’t it positive that they can pick how to frame their sustainability efforts? Of course, you might say that the diversity of terms make comparison difficult, but since the majority of benchmarking is carried out by experts very capable of comparing one firm’s ‘responsible business’ efforts with another firm’s  ‘social & environmental capital’ programme I hardly think it’s worth sweating over.

Lastly, in response to the argument that all this is confusing to Joe Public- I would argue that semantics mean very little.  To the public, actions on social and environmental causes are far more meaningful than words. Whilst reporting has its place,  I have seen many hours sweated over a report (to the practitioner’s frustration) at the expense of the real stuff- and lets be honest, how many of your friends and family debate corporate sustainability reports over breakfast, or have the time or inclination to search for the information online?  In fact, I would go further and say that it is crucial for companies communicating with the public on specific sustainability programmes to tailor their message and use language that is relevant to that audience- whether it fits with the latest “buzzword” or not. The recipients of a youth community football programme do not need to know that this is considered part of the supporting organisation’s CR efforts- they simply want to know how to sign up. 

If the good work is being done, and the benefit is felt by society at large- do semantics really matter all that much? 

by Jenny Ekelund