Moving beyond talking

Cynics may dismiss the annual WEF gathering in Davos as a talk-fest for billionaires, from which little impact will flow. This is somewhat understandable: it is an exclusive gathering of world leaders, and it’s natural to hold elites accountable for the ills of our time. Furthermore, it is indeed unlikely that they will be able to solve the world’s hardest problems in one fell swoop. Such criticism may even serve a purpose. High expectations, high visibility and open criticism will create pressure to deliver. But the stereotype is also incomplete and doesn’t really help move us forward on a set of complex and pressing issues, like climate change and species depletion. What then is the value of Davos, and how can it evolve from the relatively easy domain of convening and talking to the much harder one of material collective action?

Those holding power in the world’s most powerful institutions must be part of the solution, and Davos is a unique and precious opportunity for them to convene. When there they must focus on the right problems, and they do in fact spend most of the week discussing climate change, inequality, species depletion, plastics pollution, new models for capitalism and other major challenges affecting our society and planet. Furthermore, the event is not just for government and business leaders – there is a significant and growing representation of activists and other members of civil society. This year, for example, Greta Thunberg will be addressing the forum, and Micah White, co-founder of Occupy Wall Street, will participate. 

Moreover, we shouldn’t dismiss meeting and talking, which are of substantial value in themselves. In the absence of a global government, it is absolutely necessary that problems are defined, accepted and discussed, and that assumptions are agreed upon among stakeholders. It’s even more valuable if, as a result, goals are established and potential solutions discussed. The just announced call for leaders to commit their organizations to net zero green house gas emissions by 2050 is a major step forward in this respect. Donella Meadows famously proposed that mindsets and goals were two of the top intervention levers for shaping systems, from a list of 12. Davos currently creates substantial value in this respect, not only in its highly visible plenary sessions but also in the less publicized studies and reports which are commissioned, presented and discussed in the official and unofficial programs. 

Nevertheless, it is also true there are inconvenient gaps between talk, action and impact. To paraphrase Patriarch Bartholomew in one of the opening sessions: we have addressed the head (understanding), and the heart (caring about the problem) and it is now time for the hands (taking action). It’s not surprising that our hardest common problems are not solvable in a single meeting, but it is important to acknowledge and address these gaps, however challenging this might be. 

We can think about a hierarchy of solution elements with increasing cumulative effectiveness: 

·       On the bottom tier we have the mere convening of relevant communities. This in itself doesn’t identify problems or solutions or drive action, but it does create the future basis for doing so. 

·       Next up are the qualitative identification of problems, followed by their quantitative specification. 

·       More valuable still is understanding the casual structure of these problems. 

·       On top of these basics, common goals create pressure towards solutions. 

·       Specific solutions and plans take us even closer to potential impact, and experimentation is the entry door to actual impact.  

·       But ultimately, system governance – how we create alignment and accountability for action – is necessary to unlock material impact. 

Our biggest challenges are hard precisely because they present intractable governance challenges. Take climate change for example. Developing and developed countries have very different interests and priorities. Those who take action will not be the only ones receiving benefit. Delayed impact means that the next generation will pay or benefit from this generations actions. Action will involve tough trade-offs between current and future costs and benefits. And the short term sacrifices required are likely to be politically unattractive to weakened governments in an age of social fragmentation and polarization. It’s hard to imagine a tougher governance challenge.

This I where I believe that institutions like WEF perhaps need more focus and innovation. The pivotal question becomes, what is the best governance structure for solving each challenge and how can it be realized? In other words, what appear to be a set of technical problems are in fact social science problems – precisely the sort of science which for which research funding is being reduced around the world. 

I am sure we will see more emphasis on governance in Davos, both this week and beyond.  One way to do so would be to start all discussions from a commonly accepted view of the problem and the best known solutions and focus time and effort entirely on the governance question. Furthermore, the research and action agendas should also be more focused on governance innovation and implementation respectively. WEF’s unique contribution should be less about about problem definition and solution development (which will natural occur in many places), and more about how we can design and implement governance systems to drive action and impact. WEF’s founding 50 years ago occurred at a time of crisis, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods currency system. Now its mettle will again be tested against this new challenge.