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

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