Last Thursday I attended a very interesting debate hosted by The Guardian and GSK on ‘what motivates the private sector to do social good?’  The panel consisted of a great mix of speakers with the CEO of Business in the Community Stephen Howard, COO of CPD Frances Way, President of R&D at GSK Patrick Vallance, Co-Founder and MD of JustGiving Anne-Marie Huby and the Co-Founder of BuffaloGrid Daniel Becerra. The audience was also a great mix of small and large companies as well as many, diverse NGOs.
 
It was timed to coincide with the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and on top of the panel debate, each of the five tables in the audience were assigned a fictional company and asked to identify how we would convince our boards that we should actively work to support SDG 10 – reducing inequality within and among countries.
 
There will be a write up in the Business section of The Guardian on the 13th of October so look out for a full synopsis then, but a few points that really resonated with me during the debate are summarised below:

• Quarterly pressures: there was a lot of debate around how ‘doing good’ sits with the quarterly financial targets and pressures of publically listed companies, with people in the room suggesting that even Paul Polman at Unilever can’t get a away with too many poor quarters in the short term.  How do we get investors to start taking a longer term view? Frances Way suggested that we need to engage the asset owners more, rather than the asset managers – if you are a pension fund the value of that fund in 30 years’ time is crucial.
• All business models should be inherently good to thrive in the long run: Stephen Howard argued that businesses exist first and foremost to solve a problem. They need profit the same way humans need oxygen – it is critical but not the purpose of their existence.
• Changing customer behaviour: Howard also argued that the real difference companies can make is to change how their customers behave through their products and services – something I wrote about last year.
• Regulation is good, but only if implemented well and with the right parameters (with the Social Value Act held up as good example of a missed opportunity). There was broad agreement that good regulation will help those at the forefront of innovation, something Gavin Warner of Unilever confirmed earlier this year at the Re-Thinking Progress conference.
• NGOs are great at spotting opportunities and innovation but not always at doing ‘scale’. Anne-Marie Huby made a strong case for corporate-NGO partnerships with this really insightful statement.
• Choice editing: there was a question from a Sainsbury’s employee in the audience about whether they should be doing more choice editing as they already do with bananas for example (they only sell fair-trade).  There was broad agreement that retailers should be doing this as customers often want to do right but simply don’t have the time to read every label.
• You can communicate to half a billion of the poorest people in the world by text message. Daniel Becerra highlighted that of the 1.2bn poorest people in the world who have no access to electricity, 600m have a mobile phone.  This is potentially a very powerful tool to get mass health and other important messages out quickly and widely.
• Flat organisation structures drive innovation: Becerra also highlighted that the flat organisational structure and empowerment of staff at BuffaloGrid has been a catalyst for creativity and innovation, a belief I have long held.

​by Jesper Ekelund​

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

I have just completed an excellent eight-week MOOC (Mass Open Online Course) on ‘Planetary Boundaries & Human Opportunities’ delivered by Prof. Johan Rockström (Executive Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre) and his colleagues on the UN backed Sustainable Development Solutions Network education platform.  I would highly recommend it and do look out for re-runs of the course that have been promised.

The original Planetary Boundaries framework was published in Nature in in 2009 and an update of the research, Planetary Boundaries 2.0, has just been published in Science.  Despite dozens of peer reviewed critiques that have strengthened the evidence in the updated version, none of the boundaries have been dropped nor have any been added, highlighting the robustness of the framework.  The boundaries are now more granular though, and allow them to be applied more easily at a regional level.

In summary, it proposes nine key planetary boundaries that we need to remain within to avoid abrupt and potentially irreversible tipping points in the earth system (see below).  Climate Change and Biosphere Integrity are the two principal boundaries, whilst the seven others are all still critical with potential knock-on effects on many other boundaries if they are transgressed.  They are: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Atmospheric Aerosol Loading (soot, diesel particulates, steam etc.), Ocean Acidification, Biochemical Flows of Nitrogen and Phosphorous, Freshwater Use, Land-System Change (deforestation, agricultural use, etc) and Novel Entities (pollution by toxic synthetic substances, release of radioactive materials or nanomaterials etc.). We have already transgressed four of the nine boundaries (see diagram) highlighting the critical importance of accelerating sustainability efforts globally.

The course unsurprisingly focussed on the remarkable resilience of the earth system but spends significant time highlighting the concept of planetary and local scale tipping points. Tipping points are where systems (in this case- Earth Systems) reach critical points where they suddenly and rapidly transform into new systems and stable states; critically it is often very difficult to revert to the original state. Examples of this in nature that we have already witnessed include dead zones in coral reefs or eutrophication of fresh water lakes.  It forms the crux of the argument for staying within planetary boundaries.

To me, what is most powerful about the Planetary Boundaries framework is that it approaches the issue from such a neutral point of view – it is not trying to argue right or wrong but merely to indicate where the boundaries of human development lie. It will then be up to all of us to work out how we organise ourselves to remain within these boundaries.

It starts with a simple question: 'what is the optimal state of the earth to support human development and thriving?' The unequivocal evidence is that the Holocene of the last 10,000 years represents this.  Until the Holocene we did not have the conditions to develop modern agriculture which ultimately underpins human prosperity today, and it is no surprise that we have seen such phenomenal progress in the last 10,000 years. If we accept this, then surely our goal as humans in the Anthropocene is to do everything we can to stay within this state? Carl Folke, Science Director at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, summarises it perfectly: 

“Thinking green is not a moral perspective but a question of survival and wellbeing. There is no business to be done on a dead planet”

So what does it all mean for businesses, NGOs and Governments? I would argue that the implications are profound and we will be exploring in the coming months how we can integrate planetary boundary thinking in all of our work with clients. It has implications from how and where we innovate to how we report on sustainability performance.

As a final thought, and with Paris 2015 looming large, I would propose that the Planetary Boundaries need to feature much more heavily in negotiations and the setting of the Sustainable Development Goals.  Rockström highlights that most of the social goals are quantified with clear deadlines whilst the environmental goals are mainly statements of intent without hard targets or dates – the Planetary Boundaries framework wouldn't be a bad place to go for some of these…

by Jesper 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