Evidence suggests that today’s graduates are more purpose-driven than ever- and sustainability is growing in popularity as a career choice with growing numbers of students selecting courses with sustainability content. According to research by the Global Tolerance agency endorsed by Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge, 62% of millennials (those born between 1981-1996) want their career to have a positive impact on the world. Increasingly, young people are attracted by career paths offering a match with their own values.

Meanwhile, employers have signalled their desire to build their own capacity. The Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Skills for a Sustainable Economy Campaign has shone a stark light on the UK sustainability skills deficit and called for collaborative action to address it. Only 13% of firms surveyed are fully confident they have the skills to compete in an increasingly complex world. Over half have difficulty recruiting professionals with the right skills to build organisational resilience and take advantage of opportunities in a sustainable economy.

Yet despite this apparent recruitment match made in heaven, competition for entry-level sustainability roles remains fierce. My experience has been that many talented young people with relevant qualifications can find it hard to get a foothold in their chosen career.

This is a dangerous paradox. If we lose talented young graduates from our profession, they may not return. IEMA’s research has shown we have a yawning skills gap- it would be lunacy to lose those very individuals who do have the right qualities, qualifications and potential to work effectively in an increasingly complex world. If we don’t bring young people into the profession, we forfeit access to new ideas, new knowledge and minds unencumbered with institutional baggage.

So what is the missing link? Why do some talented young people find it hard to secure an entry-level sustainability role?

A combination of factors is at play here. For starters, there is a relatively small number of vacancies arising each year in organisational sustainability teams- and many are never advertised on the open market. The field of sustainability is so broad that students consistently fear their degree is too general or too specialist for any given role, and popular job sites such as environmentjob and the Guardian can attract 200 applications per vacancy. These odds can be disheartening at best and soul-destroying at worst when you’ve just been rejected for the 20th time. Whilst excellent graduate schemes focussed on sustainability and social impact careers do exist (Corporate Citizenship, Green Alliance, Worthwhile, EDF) such opportunities are harder to find.

Set against these challenges, traditional graduate schemes offering full training packages and attractive salaries can convince some students to apply for roles outside their preferred field to gain security, experience and pay off debts. The harder it is to find a job in sustainability, the more likely students are to look elsewhere.

Can we identify the root of the paradox? There does seem to be a perceived gap between the level of experience ideally required by employers and that which new graduates are able to offer. This is not unique to our sector- it is the familiar post-Uni catch 22 of no experience=no job, but no job=no experience. However, I believe it is particularly pertinent here because commercial understanding and organisational context is so important to a sustainability professional seeking to effect change. It is not uncommon, therefore, for firms to fill sustainability vacancies internally, drawing on experienced staff members from other departments. Furthermore, the infrastructure is less well developed in sustainability, as a relatively new, hugely broad and constantly evolving field, to support new graduates in making this leap. One careers advisor suggested to me that students saddled with debts are less able to stump up cash for further qualifications or to subsidise volunteering to gain experience. There is a pressing need for more access routes and support.

This is, without doubt a systemic issue- requiring close partnership working between businesses, NGOs, education providers and government- something recommended in IEMA’s Skills for a Sustainable Economy campaign. However, there are definite steps employers and individuals can take to reach, attract and support talented young people seeking work in sustainability:

1. Volunteer as a guest speaker on relevant courses, student conferences and societies such as Engineers Without Borders, allowing you to speak directly to engaged and proactive students. Make the point that many roles have a sustainability element- graduates need not restrict their search to the sustainability team.
   
2. Offer one of your own organisational sustainability challenges as a research project and learning opportunity for students- online, as an open innovation challenge, or as part of an established programme such as Forum for the Future’s Masters in Leadership for Sustainable Development.
3. Start at secondary school level- book a stand at Your Green Future, an interactive green careers event which brings together schools and businesses in order to explore the growing job opportunities in a low carbon, resilient economy and champion STEM careers. Take the opportunity to convey what qualifications and experience you look for before students make crucial decisions.
4. Offer high quality, paid sustainability Internships.  Change Agents UK has a large network of aspiring sustainability professionals and Student Hubs, for whom I am a trustee, runs a popular scheme for students keen to work in not-for-profits or social enterprise. Both organisations carry out recruitment, training and matching for you- and Student Hubs has recently published guidance on creating meaningful internships in the social impact sector.
   
5. Share the Wealth! Consider which departments your team works closely with. How are strategy, quality, communications and finance roles advertised, for example? Does it mention working with the sustainability team? Talk to your colleagues and see if it could be added to the job description. This may help attract high-quality candidates looking for roles with purpose, and having sustainability literate professionals in key roles across departments can only be a good thing!
   
6. If you work for a large organisation, offer to give a talk or run a sustainability module as part of the graduate scheme. It is very likely that there are young people on the programme with an interest in sustainable development- and you may gain new champions for your cause.
   
7. Become a mentor for an aspiring young sustainability professional with an organisation like Change Agents (Sustainability Careers) or On Purpose (Social Enterprise Leadership)- potentially hugely rewarding for both mentor and mentee. 
   
8. Prioritise on the job training and development. Recruit a graduate with potential and give every possible opportunity to shadow you and colleagues, attend conferences, developing commercial and technical knowledge. A solution for the paradox we identified earlier might be a targeted ‘on the job training’ scheme for sustainability- one University careers advisor pointed to the Heritage Lottery Fund Skills for the Future scheme, which was hugely successful in bridging a similar gap in the arts.
   

This is by no means a bleak picture. We know that young people want to work in our field. In the last decade I have recruited, worked alongside and advised graduates from very diverse courses offering an excellent range of skills, combined with astonishing energy and creativity. We have an opportunity to beef up access routes, particularly in terms of paid, high-quality sustainability internships offered- ensuring that every young person keen to play a role in a more sustainable future is able to do so.

This is a summary of the webinar given by Jenny Ekelund as part of IEMA’s Skills for a Sustainable Economy series. It’s a subject close to the author's heart. If you have ideas to add, fancy discussing or would like to see a copy of the original slides, please contact jnekelund@oakgroveassociates.co.uk.  If you're a student thinking about applying for a sustainability role or a career changer about to take the plunge, Shannon Houde from Walk of Life Consulting gives some excellent insight on her blog and in this interview with M&S's Mike Barry on the qualities he looks for in a future sustainability leader.

Open Vodafone’s 2014 sustainability report and you’ll find two distinct sections. One is arguably more exciting than the other: Transformational Solutions and Operating Responsibly. As the titles suggest, the former focusses on Vodafone’s initiatives to make a positive difference to the world through deploying its technology, in seven areas from smart working to agriculture, ‘unleashing the power of Vodafone to contribute to sustainable living for all.’ Vodafone’s mobile money transfer product, M-Pesa was launched in 2007 and supports millions of low-income customers without access to banking services.  The company sees much opportunity to play a role in women’s economic empowerment and low-carbon solutions such as smart metering and M2M technology.  By contrast, the Operating Responsibly section is focussed on preserving Vodafone’s licence to operate, majoring on the issues you’d expect such as mobile masts and health, and minimising the company’s environmental footprint.

Unilever takes a similar approach. The company’s Sustainable Living Plan sets out goals under three overarching themes; pledging to help more than a billion people improve their health and hygiene by 2020 whilst enhancing livelihoods and halving the company’s environmental footprint. The Plan focusses on how Unilever can use their scale and reach to effect systemic change, and the level of ambition is high. The company states:

“We have set a bold ambition to achieve change within our own company – through our brands, innovation, sourcing and operations. But we are only one company among many and the change needed to tackle the world’s major social, environmental and economic issues is big - and urgent. What’s really needed are changes to the broader systems of which we are a part – whether that is in food, energy or health. We have decided to deepen our efforts in three areas where we have the scale, influence and resources to create ‘transformational change’. By that we mean fundamental change to whole systems, not simply incremental improvements.”

For companies where sustainability has become a central strategic driver, there has been a palpable shift away from incremental improvements in favour of audacious goals.  IKEA’s Steve Howard is a strong proponent of this view, claiming ‘the only target worth setting is 100% change.’ The Guardian’s Jo Confino reinforces this: “The truth is that resource efficiency is only going to get us so far, and it's hardly the stuff of excitement that is going to get people leaping out of bed in the morning.”

This is not to say that companies should not use resources wisely, set targets for cutting carbon emissions and water usage, source responsibly, everything that falls within their traditional boundaries. Many of these initiatives save money and reduce exposure to risk. These activities make sense from an efficiency standpoint and from a purely ethical point of view- but they are quite simply the very minimum society and a prudent shareholder should expect.

Increasingly, the more progressive companies recognise that by harnessing commercial nous and capacity for innovation to tackle social and environmental challenges, they can open up new revenue streams and help to trigger systemic change, thus safeguarding their organisation’s long-term prospects. Unilever is amongst the private sector leaders which has also recognised the need to work more collaboratively with governments, NGOs and other players within its own sector to speed up progress- ‘by working together, we believe that fundamental change is possible in the near term.’  Regular readers will not be at all surprised to hear how much I am in favour of this partnership approach when executed well, for reasons I explain Here and Here. It’s also something the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda looks set to endorse.

This shift from corporate responsibility to a more deliberate social innovation strategy is also visible in the rise of corporate venture capital (CVC) investing, in which large companies take an equity stake in a business to which it also provides expertise and guidance. Crucially, CVC investors increasingly look for a positive social and/or environmental impact as well as a strategic match with their core business and a sound financial return. The Volans report ‘Investing in Breakthrough’ provides an interesting study of this trend, featuring case studies from Intel, GE, Patagonia and Pearson and highlighting the potential of corporate venture capital as a driver in the social economy.

I am encouraged by Vodafone and Unilever’s attempts to use their considerable resources for good. The execution may not be perfect- but their programmes share a willingness to go beyond operating responsibly, to think creatively about the transformational change they can effect using their organisation’s unique access to technology, skills, scale and influence. It is something Walmart CEO Doug McMillan and SVP Sustainability Kathleen McLaughlin call long-term capitalism. In a recent essay for McKinsey they observe:

“If in the past 20 years the discussion has been about the need for business to serve stakeholders beyond just the customer and the shareholder, the next 20 years will be about the need for companies to improve the networks and systems they depend on. Leading businesses are actively using their scale and their particular assets to accelerate progress on tough social and environmental issues”

Are there any downsides? There are vocal detractors, such as George Monbiot who forcefully question the right, and desirability of corporations to assume the role of societal do-gooders- attempting to tackle social ills that, in his view, should remain the domain of government and NGOs. Perhaps, also, you might reasonably argue that this focus on transformational solutions encourages a bias towards product and service innovation, feeding an obsession with growth at all costs when we are in need of innovative ideas to cement responsible operations, rein in consumption and bring resource use safely within planetary boundaries. This may be true, but handled right, and with sensitive leadership, I think the transformational trend could have many other benefits.

Harnessing the power, ingenuity and influence of the private sector for good has enormous potential. Not least- people will get this. Employees will feel galvanised by it in a way that they quite frankly don’t by a plea to put their recycling in the right box. Do it right, resource it well, and this is as exciting for employee engagement for sustainability as it is for the potential impact it could have on the wider world. This new appetite to tackle systemic change opens up all sorts of possibilities for cross-functional, cross-organisational and cross-sectoral project teams. It has always nagged at me that perhaps we have been trying to engage people on the wrong things- because tinkering is dull. It is still hugely important to manage operational impacts- but they should not spearhead our employee engagement efforts. Where the exciting stuff happens- the new business models, ideas, services, circular economy thinking- that’s where people will want to get involved- and where they will be able to use their existing skills most effectively.

There is an excellent organisation called the League of Intrapreneurs dedicated to supporting employees in large organisations to innovate for good, 'transforming business from the inside out'. If companies do more to legitimise this sort of intrapreneurial spirit, to encourage work on ‘transformational solutions’ such as those attempted by Vodafone and Unilever,  I think we would find employees coming to work with a renewed sense of purpose.

And how powerful would that be?

by Jenny Ekelund

Much of Oak Grove’s philosophy is based around the idea that if a business is going to create a new product, service or way of doing things- it should be doing so responsibly and preferably responding to a genuine need rather than engineering wants. More innovation projects, especially those looking at entirely new business models or revenue streams, should focus on creating a positive social and/or environmental impact as well as a healthy financial return. It’s a concept the burgeoning social enterprise sector has embraced- but it’s arguably far easier to start with a blank sheet of paper, with the start-up’s freedom to create a viable business model suited to your sense of purpose. In mainstream business the pockets of social and environmentally driven innovation are harder to find. 

Let’s not be too downcast- we know it can be done. B&Q is developing power tool rental and repair options- a circular economy holy grail switch from product to service. Interface's commitment to closed loop, modular carpets was famously triggered by Chairman Ray Anderson's 'spear in the chest epiphany.' There are plenty of nascent examples of ‘green’ product innovation, particularly in the automobile sector where the penny has well and truly dropped that electric cars are the future. (See my blog on BMW’s i3). 

Despite all this, the responsible innovation tide has not turned yet for most businesses. So what’s stopping us? Justin Adams, The Nature Conservancy’s new Managing Director for Global Lands in the UK and former BP renewables executive has some interesting insight from his time at the oil giant:

“I…learned how hard it is for any organization to innovate away from its core competence. There were all sorts of forces that constantly brought BP back to its core purpose of extracting fossil energy as efficiently and responsibly as it can. Large corporations want to work more responsibly but can’t get there on their own—that’s why our work with corporations is so important. Part of protecting the lands and waters on which all life depends is determining how to make that mission an integral part of economic development”

Although Justin doesn't elaborate on what these forces might be that so efficiently prevented BP from innovating 'away from its core competence', one can well imagine they ranged from investor interests, urging more immediate returns, to cultural factors and a strong temptation to stick with a tried and tested profit generator that doesn't require major restructuring or risk-taking. History has a few lessons to share from companies who clung grimly to their original business model despite warning signs that the market was beginning to shift under their feet- and paid the ultimate price. (See the follow-up blog from Jesper Ekelund elaborating on this here)  

I have to agree with Justin on the huge potential of partnerships to tip the balance. It is, perhaps, unrealistic to expect businesses founded on a particular model to make fundamental shifts towards more environmentally and socially regenerative methods of income generation in isolation. The status quo is often too strong a straitjacket. This is where the power of partnerships comes in. Not just partnerships between businesses and NGOs, but collaboration at every level, incorporating insights and challenges from customers and stakeholders, competitors and sceptics. 'Critical Friends' with the ability to ask the obvious, sometimes uncomfortable questions and suggest left field solutions. Such an approach doesn't neutralise those cultural and institutional forces every large organisation will inevitably face, but it might just help you pull in the right direction.

After all, if you wanted to rewire your house to make it safe- you’d probably ask an electrician. As a business, if you want to rewire your business model to fit within planetary boundaries- you surely need input from organisations whose mission, expertise or interests are geared to this purpose. 

by Jenny Ekelund

The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) launched a major initiative in September 2014 shining a light on the green skills deficit. The Skills for a Sustainable Economy campaign, of which Oak Grove is a founding supporter, highlights IEMA research showing that only 13% of organisations are confident they possess the necessary skills to compete in a sustainable economy. As such, they are ill-equipped to weather what the Institute calls 'the perfect storm' and make a successful transition to 'the system which provides the only viable future for business.'  

This is, of course, hugely relevant for education providers and young people too. How do we ensure we provide appropriate career pathways and training opportunities for new entrants to the workforce? IPPR research published in the summer highlighted a grave mismatch between what young people are training for and the types of jobs available- with 868,000 16 to 24-year-olds out of work. Somehow, we must connect the dots.

Earlier this month, IEMA published a position statement calling for collaborative action between business, government and the education sector to address this critical issue. The document calls for sustainability skills to be 'mainstreamed'- and for the incoming government in 2015 to develop a sustainability skills strategy as a matter of urgency. Vocational skills essential for the new green economy must be consciously developed alongside strategic and organisational capabilities essential to sustainability literacy. Crucially, this applies to the existing workforce just as much as it does to the next generation- we cannot afford to wait.

The IEMA campaign is geared primarily towards addressing the skills gap faced by industry- but highlights that this cannot be done without collaborative systemic change and substantial partnership work. The report emphasises the importance of systems thinking in transitioning to a sustainable economy- and this for me was one of the most significant points. Systems thinking, the ability to consider how processes interact within a whole, in this context implies 'appreciating that our current economy cannot work in the long-term and reframing the systems within it to deliver one that is capable of equitable growth within the natural limits of the environment.'  This concept is poorly understood in modern industry and teaching of it in schools, universities and further education establishments is rare. IEMA makes a particular plea for business schools and MBAs to ensure that systems thinking is a core part of their teaching and that it is consciously linked to sustainability challenges and opportunities faced by business. 

This campaign is ambitious and timely. It has the potential to galvanise the change that is needed. The recognition that technical 'green' skills and leadership competencies must be upgraded alongside an increased ability to think systemically is vital if we are to transition to a sustainable economy. Equally crucial is the call for government, business and education providers to work together on this- an investment in skills that will benefit us all.

by Jenny Ekelund 

Whether you work in sustainability or simply take an interest, it can be hard to envisage what a more sustainable world might actually look like. We know what we want to avoid, but looking decades into the future and imagining an alternate reality can be a challenge for even the most imaginative amongst us. It can be even harder to describe what technologies, actions and events might get us to this point.

Jonathon Porritt's latest book 'The World we Made' takes on this challenge. The seasoned environmentalist and founder of Forum for the Future writes from the perspective of Alex McKay, a teacher in 2050 looking back on recent decades and reflecting on the changes he has seen. With the help of a research team of students, he describes the social, technological, ecological and financial events and trends that shape the years 2020-50. The world in 2050 is by no means one without problems, but it is by and large more stable and more content. 

Porritt uses an entertaining mix of sketches, photos and mocked up covers of magazines from the future to paint his picture. The result is an accessible 'future-history' book (if that wasn't already a word, I've just invented it.) 

Alex McKay's reality is quite different from our own, and it is far from being a utopia. There is still a gap between the rich and the poor, for example, but it is not as yawning as it once was. Empathy is far more central to society and competition co-exists with collaboration. As I suspect Porritt intends, you are left feeling heartened and excited by some developments (Malaria is beaten! Coral reefs recover! 90% renewable power!) and decidedly uncomfortable, nay freaked out by others. He describes how governments still haven't really got a handle on regulating biotech, and the threat of cyber-terrorism looms large. Personal genome sequencing is the norm leading to huge advances in preventative healthcare, but ethical concerns relating to brain enhancing 'implants' divide opinion. Personal 'home' robots, with processing power far superior to our own brains look after the elderly and provide companionship. The debate rages over what constitutes a human. 

There are deft, heart-warming little touches too- we learn that Detroit, once an industrial powerhouse and centre of the US car industry, sank first to industrial wasteland, then emerged gradually as a shining example of urban farming used as a case study worldwide. In fact, it seems we're now so good at urban food-growing- using everything from traditional allotments to vertical farms, that 40% of our food comes from our cities.

There is an attempt to describe how the international community finally got its act together on reducing carbon emissions, and you may not be surprised to learn that China leads, followed somewhat tardily by the US. I won't spoil the rest for you- but suffice to say coal is consigned to the history books and wind, solar and in the interim, natural gas play a huge part.

Alex McKay's research students are part of the generation still clearing up after their grandparents' excesses, but it is their parents who first begin to put civil pressure on governments. The book describes pivotal, and peaceful popular uprisings calling for a fairer and more sustainable world- the 'Enough!' demonstrations of 2018 and the intergenerational justice movement led by school children in the late 2020s. These events, Alex recalls, were pivotal moments. I read this section as the People's Climate March set off in New York and around the world. As the Guardian's Jo Confino observed, this was the first time socialists have marched alongside big business heads, alongside NGOs and ordinary citizens. It made me think that Alex McKay's experience of popular movements creating real change may not be so far off.

I suspect that some readers may be disappointed not to find more detail on technological solutions, but I don't think that's the purpose of this book. In any case, if you are hungry for more, there is a helpful bibliography at the back pointing to further resources. For me, it served as an accessible and thought-provoking window on a possible future- you may not find all the scenarios plausible, but it's a great way to prompt your own thinking and kick-start your imagination. 

Overall, the tone is upbeat- and goodness knows we need more of that- 'a world that works for the majority of people, if we play our cards right.' I'd love to see this book used in schools as in inspiring textbook. And I can certainly see 'The World We Made' making excellent fodder for vision and future planning workshops- whatever sector you work in. 

by Jenny Ekelund

It is no longer news when charities and business choose to work together on sustainability. Twenty years ago, an initiative such as 'Refrigerants, Naturally', drawing together Greenpeace, Unilever and McDonalds would have been unthinkable. Nowadays, it is rare to find a charity that has not, at some point, worked with a corporate partner on a shared programme- whether on a simple cause-related marketing campaign (more akin to philanthropy) or on a complex, balanced partnership involving skills exchange, perhaps, or the joint development of socially responsible technologies or training. 

There will always be those who feel the private and voluntary sectors should keep firmly to their own territories, allowing NGOs to carry out their mission freely without compromising their reputation and safeguarding their essential ability to criticise without restraint. It is very healthy that these critics exist- ensuring NGOs enter into partnerships having asked the right questions and feeling entirely able to end the relationship should they no longer feel it is consistent with their mission. Equally, corporate partners must feel confident that their initiatives will stand up, internally and externally, to accusations of greenwash and tokenism. It is imperative that both parties can demonstrate the partnership has impact.

The ambitious post-2015 Millennium Development Goals agenda promises to raise the stakes yet again for multi-stakeholder partnerships. As collaboration between sectors becomes more the norm than the exception, as I believe it must if we are to accelerate the transition to a sustainable society- quality is absolutely key. There are some fantastic resources available to those seeking to set up and run partnerships for sustainability- detailing the nuts and bolts of how best to organise budgets, ensure a healthy balance of power and evaluate impact, for example. The Partnering Initiative is a great place to start- collecting together a vast pool of knowledge from those who have worked in the field for decades and offering case studies, training and support.

Whilst the potential rewards may be great, cross-sectoral partnerships are, by their nature, challenging, time intensive and frequently frustrating. There are many ingredients for a successful partnership, but reflecting on my own experience, I believe it helps to keep the following three things in mind:

Remember that people and relationships matter hugely
Of course, working relationships take time to develop, and cross-sectoral working is not usually comfortable. However, if your partnership team is obviously floundering, be prepared to do something about it. Whether it be investment in training to develop partnering competencies, or a rethink of team responsibilities, ensuring an effective working dynamic is critical. After all, confident partnership managers with the right skills will leave the partnership in the best possible shape to handover when they move on (which they probably will.)

Write a clear Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the start but be prepared to amend it
You won't be able to foresee all the ways in which the partnership might develop, but starting out with a clear set of common objectives (obvious though it may seem) is vital. Build in the option to make additions to the MoU in the future, should an interesting opportunity arise- and where possible, keep the document as simple as possible. 

Where possible, move towards longer-term partnership agreements
Of course, all partnerships are different and programme durations should be designed to best serve each initiative's aims and objectives. However, there is often a tension between the NGO for whom long-term funding security is important and the company for whom the ability to switch budgets and priorities is equally important. Somewhere in between may help build momentum and commitment on both sides. Starting with a one year pilot and pledging to develop a three year programme, for example, will save administration costs, allow longer-term planning, promote learning and reflection and cement relationships. It is rare that great things can be achieved during the course of a one year partnership on annual renewal, and the burden of yearly renegotiation can kill enthusiasm and innovation on both sides.

by Jenny Ekelund