The 2018 Waterloo Dialogues

For the past few years, I've engaged in an online dialogue with the University of Waterloo Master of Environment and Business students, at the invitation of their Director, Dr. Amelia Clarke. This always challenges me to distill my thinking on various sustainability topics into a few paragraphs. So in case it is interesting for others, I share the Q&A here, with the students' permission.

Do you oppose C.K. Prahalad's approach of the BOP (base/bottom of the pyramid) as an untapped market of buyers?

It's a good question. This is essentially the BOP critique that Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, made when I interviewed him a few years ago. But I also know Prof Stuart Hart, who co-developed BOP with C.K. and this narrow "selling to the poor" approach was never the intention. If you look at the BOP 2.0 Protocol, you will see a more finessed framing of the model, including the idea of "going indigenous", i.e. companies working with local producers, rather than replacing them.

BOP, or inclusive business models, are important and do bring real benefits to poor communities, which I have seen in my travels to many low income countries. But they must be linked to empowerment of local producers, supported by micro-finance, and must also address issues like pollution and squeezing out SMEs. Unilever and Nestle are good examples of a positive, empowering approach. I also like Hart's "sustainable value" framework, which means bringing together BOP, pollution prevention, clean tech and product stewardship.

Are the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) working as a way to mobilise significant collective action?

The SDGs have become the "main game in town", so it is impossible to ignore them. And we do see many companies starting to engage with them. The question is, are they an effective catalyst for transformative change? For now, I'm skeptical. I've written a blog The SDGs and Business: New Horizon or New Smokescreen?, which may be of interest. The essence is that there are risks:

• Risk 1 - Business ignores the SDGs. This is very real, since it is mostly big multinationals feel any pressure, or see benefits from aligning with global standards.
• Risk 2 - Business spins the SDGs. This is what I call "rainbow-washing", referring to using the 17 brightly coloured SDG icons for marketing or PR, and is already pervasive.
• Risk 3 – Business cherry-picks the SDGs. A recent SDG Barometer for Belgium is indicative of a wider trend: most companies pick a few SDGs and neglect the rest.

But there are also opportunities:

• Opportunity 1 – Business adopts the SDGs. Here, companies resist the temptation to cherry-pick and look at how all SDGs link to their business and each other.
• Opportunity 2 – Business innovates around the SDGs. This requires applying SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) to all the other SDGs.
• Opportunity 3 – Business transforms the SDGs. Here, companies embrace ambitious targets aligned to the SDGs, which require business and economic transformation.

What drove the Port of Antwerp adopt a holistic strategy and adopt all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?

The Port of Antwerp's holistic approach to the SDGs is really a story of sustainability leadership. Their CEO, Jacques Vandermeiren, was formerly Chairman of the board of the Belgian Business Network for Corporate Social Responsibility (which is today called The Shift). In fact, years before I became the Chair in Sustainable Transformation at Antwerp Management School, I was invited by Jacques to speak to their members about The Future of CSR (CSR 2.0 or Transformative CSR). So by this you can understand that he is came in as a CEO with a very high awareness of sustainability and a strong commitment to a transformational agenda. This is also why the Port of Antwerp is a partner of my Chair.

Two other factors are important. First, in the Port zone, there are 900 companies, including a massive chemical plant of BASF, which had already adopted a circular economy approach with its "verbund" sites (meaning connected) in 1965. Here, 50 operations are designed for the waste of one to be a feedstock for another. Their CEO, Wouter De Geest, is highly committed to developing "sustainable mindsets" and is a strong partner, not only for my Chair, but also for the Port of Antwerp. And second, in Europe sustainability is seen as a source of competitive advantage, so the Port of Antwerp keeps a strong eye on the Port of Rotterdam, which is also very progressive on sustainability. It's a virtuous circle, or what we sometimes call "a race to the top".

How should we think about contentious companies like Walmart, specifically the health and safety of overseas workers?

This is not a new criticism of Walmart - or indeed of many large multinationals, especially low-cost retailers. Inevitably, employees and suppliers are squeezed in order to keep prices low. The question is whether this is morally, if not legally, unacceptable. Most people working in CSR or sustainability would favour higher wages - for employees and suppliers - and indeed this is the essence of many fair-trade or sustainably certified products. But in practice, customers (more than 90% for most product categories) are willing to make the trade-off, i.e. cheaper products for lower labour standards.

On the other hand, Walmart and other multinationals create significant economic and social value through their business. They also have the possibility to take sustainable products to scale (as Walmart did with MSC certified fish, for example, or C&A has done with organic cotton). You may be surprised to know that Walmart is voted by sustainability experts around the world as one of the top 10 most sustainable companies, according the annual Globescan-SustainAbility survey. My view is that they have some way to go on the labour issues, but are nevertheless having significant positive impact on society.

What role are co-operatives best suited to play in sustainable transformation and why?

At one extreme, there are those that argue that "The Corporation" (see Joel Bakan's book and documentary) is pathological by design, nature and legal requirement. A less extreme view is that despite all our best intentions and efforts over the past 25 years of sustainability, corporations remain myopically driven by profitability (the financial bottom line), often to the detriment of of social and environmental impacts. For this reason, John Elkington, who coined the "triple bottom line" of sustainability recently issued a "management concept recall" on HBR.org.

Whichever view you take, both point to the need for a more purpose-driven model of business, where societal and ecological value is created, not traded off or destroyed in the pursuit of economic value. It happens that co-operatives have a social mission by design and are a tried and tested model (since the 1700s) of combining business approaches with a societal purpose and with stakeholder (especially employee) involvement and engagement. So I see a strong, natural alignment with sustainable development. It's not the only alternative to malevolent or misdirected corporate structures (there are also B-corps, social value corporations, 3LCs and social enterprises), but it's a good (and undervalued) one.

What do you think of the ticking social time bomb of Venezuela and South America?

I do not consider myself an expert on the region, although I have visited Latin America many times. Nor am I a political expert, so I won't comment on how or when the situation will change or end. What is clear is that all the other SDGs are threatened if SDG 16 is not achieved (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). I almost feel like it should have been positioned as SDG 1. When there is conflict, corruption or dictatorships, it is very hard to make progress. But still not impossible. I have seen this in Zimbabwe, where I was born, and in South Africa under apartheid. Also in Europe in the past few years with the so-called "migration crisis" as a result of conflict in Syria.

In these situations, I don't put too much faith in the UN. The Elders might be more effective. We have to rely on the building of social movements, joined by NGOs, religious organisations, business, academia and others. There are good examples of how business can be positive and proactive in these situations. Take a look, for example, at the work of Hamdi Ulukaya, founder of Chobani, and his TENT Foundation, which works to support refugees and integrate them back into the economy. For many companies, the issue of forced migration hasn't made it onto their corporate social responsibility agendas, but it needs to be there, as it links to so many of the SDGs, especially around inclusion, equity and decent work.

What is your 'mission' in terms of your career aspirations and/or life goals?

My vocational mission has evolved over time, but there has always been a strong sense of trying to bring together values and business. When I started out studying business (in Cape Town in 1988), I was very interested in philosophy and comparative religion and I began searching for a way to join the two. As a young 18 year-old, I captured my "life's quest" as "to aid business in realising its spirituality". When I was 33, it was "to catalyse meaning discovery in people and organisations". (These are quotes from my diary, which I have kept for more than 30 years).

This line of thinking led naturally to "green business", social responsibility, sustainability leadership and business ethics. Today, as my bio puts it, I see myself as "a professional idea-monger, storyteller and meme-weaver" with a mission "to bring about transformative thinking and action in business and society" and a belief that "we all need to be purpose-inspired to make a positive difference." In the opening chapter of my book, Sustainable Frontiers, I also describe my mission as helping people to let go of the past and reach out for a more sustainable future:

“Letting go an industrial system that has served us well, but is no longer fit for purpose; old styles of leadership and outdated models of business; high-impact lifestyles and selfish values; cherished ideologies that are causing destruction; and beliefs about ways to tackle problems that are failing to resolve crises ... If we are to reach sustainable frontiers, therefore, it must began with changing our collective minds - and only then will we change our collective behaviour.”