Reflections and learnings regarding the current state of our planet.

?? "The everything feeling" and

? "Oceans of clouds in my chest"

are the two dominant feelings I felt during the first part of this year while focusing intensely on wrapping my head around the topic of sustainability through a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Circular Value Networks at EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.

What is sustainability even? In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Now, this is a starting point — but where to go from there?

Having finished my learning experience 3 weeks ago (or is it really just the start rather than "finishing something"?), I endeavour to summarize my key learnings — and I am hoping for a few of you to reach out to discuss, share more resources and / or challenge me. While reading, you will likely notice a few things:

(A) I am asking more questions than I am able to give answers at this stage — but this is just part of learning, right?

(B) An extensive part of this article includes technical and scientific details. This aims the non-scientists among us (or simply people like you and me) to get a better understanding of the numbers related to the topic.

(C) Still, many questions that I am asking don't necessarily get answered by the numbers, but I do strongly believe that they help make the point and enhance everybody's understanding.

Now, why "the everything feeling"? My learnings over the last 3 months have been covering many aspects from system thinking to circular economy, from environmental & social impact assessments to responsible & traceable value chains — largely creating a sense of the issue being too big to ever understand (not even wondering about the details). I went through many waves of appreciating one concept or framework which then got consequently challenged by the next one being introduced — is there even one good approach to choose?

And why "oceans of clouds in my chest"? Through the learning process, I started challenging myself, my lifestyle, and even the humanitarian work that I love and defines so much of who I am. An ocean of clouds in my chest best describes this sensation of not knowing where to start and where to go while simultaneously feeling an immense responsibility.

This article aims to capture the broad range of topics and the many questions on my mind / chest — let's see how you feel after reading it :)

?? A few challenging thoughts / key facts to start with.

?? I realized that the goal of society is not necessarily defined. Most people may define it as "economic growth", but should that really be the aim? Shouldn't the goal of society rather be sustainability = “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Gaya Herrington stated: "Growth can no longer be humanity's ultimate goal. For this century, we need a more ambitious and mature aim: To provide enough for each, in a way that can last". Still, there are so many ambivalent goals and motivations that our society seems to be largely divided on the bigger objective.

Personally, for a long time my motivation in life has been: "inspire others to become a better version of themselves". How meaningful is that? Is this something I should reconsider?

?? Surely you have heard of Maslow "pyramid of needs". Aside from the fact that Maslow actually never created a pyramid to represent the “hierarchy of needs" (yes — I went through a moment of shock there also) I came across a framework speaking much more to me: Max-Neef's matrix of fundamental human needs. Watch out for the 9 fundamental needs that we have as humans and all the many ways in which they can be satisfied.

1. Subsistence
2. Protection
3. Affection
4. Understanding
5. Participation
6. Idleness
7. Creation
8. Identify
9. Freedom

It is an interesting thought process to go through when asking: "Why is this product here in the first place? Can we satisfy this need through a different product or service?" Let's take the example of a car. Why is the car there in the first place? In most cases, because we want / need to move from A to B. Now, why do we want that? Maybe because we want to spend time with friends or family = need of affection. Or because we want to engage in community activities = need of participation. Or maybe it's because we want to get education and learning opportunities to expand our knowledge = need of understanding. And from there, we can think about how we can satisfy those needs through a different product. Moving by public transport maybe? Or joining online education courses? Of course, there is an infinitive number of answers....

However, I believe that asking the question in the first place opens new ways of thinking. Also, finding synergistic satisfiers that can satisfy multiple needs at the same time open a vast range of possibilities for better use of resources and ultimately, a more sustainable world. On a side note, watch out for destroyers or pseudo-satisfiers.

?? I highly recommend you watch the daisies in Daisyworld grow and blossom. A hypothetical model that teaches us how life forms can work together with their surroundings to keep things in balance: https://www.islandsoforder.com/daisyworld.html .

?? Working in the humanitarian sector, the below is an interesting and to be fair, not surprising thought. I just have never looked at it from this perspective.

Consider that: No developed countries exist in this world. Because the so-called developed countries are not sustainable. And the non-developed countries want to grow / develop.

?? The sustainability reporting landscape is and will become even more a jungle to navigate through from reporting frameworks such as ISO, Ecovadis, Fairtrade, GRI, etc. to regulation / legislation such as CBAM to ESG ratings (recommend listening to this podcast and other initiatives such as the B-Lab status. I haven't quite made up my mind yet to distinguish between "reporting simply for the sake of reporting" or actually having a "meaningful impact triggered by reporting". Thoughts and ideas are more than welcome!

?? According to the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2024, within a 10 year timeframe the 4th highest risks are related to our planet: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/ . Shouldn't this be reason enough for each and every single individual, every single company, and every single government to take the topic seriously?

?? The human ability to do has vastly outstripped the ability to understand.

The ”Imperative to Act”, signed in 2012 by all 18 recipients of the prestigious Blue Planet Prize conveys this stark message. Isn't that encouraging and scary at the same time?

I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment: I = P × A × T.

Thereby, three factors are considered when assessing the impact on the environment: Population (P) - upwards trend, Affluence (A) - upwards trend, and Technology (T) - downwards trend. The logic behind is that the more people there are, the more we pollute (P). The richer we are, the more we consume, hence the more we pollute (A). And lastly, the more polluting the technology, the more we pollute (T) - question to ask: How much energy is needed to produce 1 USD of GDP?

Globally, a trend of negative energy and less pollution can be observed. On the other hand, we are getting more people, and we get richer; hence produce more.

So, what if the systems that we create and consequently, operate and live in, become so largely complex or even a wicked problem, that we lose the ability to understand?

?? 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries have been transgressed.

Deep-diving a bit more into the scientific background on what I've been studying... bear with me if you have always thought (like me) — sustainability = climate change / crisis = CO2 emissions . If it was only that simple :)

Planetary Boundaries are a science-based framework assessing the state of the Earth system and the risk that human (anthropogenic) activity poses on destabilizing the system. The framework is based on nine processes that regulate the stability and resilience of the Earth System which is functioning through interactions between biosphere, anthroposphere, and geosphere processes. The boundaries are (1) Biosphere integrity; (2) Climate change (yes - it is here indeed. Only one out of nine though); (3) Novel entities; (4) Stratospheric ozone depletion; (5) Atmospheric aerosol loading; (6) Ocean acidification; (7) Biogeochemical flows; (8) Freshwater change; and (9) Land system change. Quantifying and understanding all boundaries do support an in-depth understanding of anthropogenic perturbation and which levels would scientifically likely allow the Earth system to keep supporting human life. Policy makers, scientists, and practitioners (and by extension every human being) can consequently take informed and science-based decisions to fight irreversible and / or large-scale changes to global environmental conditions and thereby, increase sustainability — were you able to follow until here?

Crucial to consider is that all nine processes are interrelated in a nonlinear way and to allow for humanity to keep developing and thriving the influence that one process has towards another needs to be understood. However, quantifying those interactions between boundaries remains a considerable challenge — could you imagine assessing every single part of our world?

While all nine Planetary Boundaries are critical and important, a special emphasis should be given to the boundaries that have reached a zone of high risk (high confidence in level of transgression) and are therefore significantly outside the safe operating space. Those boundaries are (1) Biosphere integrity; (2) Climate change; (3) Novel entities; and (7) Biogeochemical flows.

The above feels quite overwhelming and like a lot? — well, I do agree. To share with you a little taste of "the everything feeling" - there's a lot more to it. If we think about sustainability as a larger concept and look at it from an ESG perspective (one of the reporting mechanisms mentioned above), the planetary boundaries and the I = (PAT) formula only capture the E = Environment of ESG. The S = Social and G = Governance aspects are not even mentioned yet. Now, how does that feel? If you keep reading, be warned, the feeling may intensify.

?? For the first time I read the 2023 IPCC AR6 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report). Hence, more science following.

The 2023 IPCC AR6 highlights that human activity is with high confidence the main driver for the increase in global surface temperature of 1.09°C in 2011-2020 compared to the baseline temperature of 1850-1900 — anyone surprised here?

The warming of atmosphere, ocean, and land has caused unprecedented changes to the climate all around the world (occurrence of weather and climate extremes) substantially impacting human- and ecosystems. According to the report, increases in emissions of GHG are the unequivocal driver for this with the sectors of energy, industry, transport, and buildings being accountable for 79% of global GHG emissions in 2019. Thereby, communities / regions who have contributed the least to the climatic change have been and will continue to be disproportionally affected whereby areas with substantial human vulnerability (3.3 to 3.6 billion people) have a higher risk exposure to climatic hazards (both are interrelated). Consequently, support to those high vulnerability regions should be considered key in enhancing adaptation outcomes — now, can you imagine what this does to my humanitarian heart? And how I am starting to ask the question: "How can I help without doing harm? And all this while being part of / born in a community / region contributing the most to the climatic change?"

Simultaneously, the report suggests that the trend towards future climate-related changes can be limited [though not prevented] by deep, rapid, and sustained global greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The speed at which net zero CO2 emissions are reached (and the cumulative non-CO2 GHG emissions released until then) critically determines whether warming can remain below 1.5°C or 2°C — yes, I am booking more trains than flights from now on!

Progress has been made in planning and implementing adaptation measures (at least in 170 countries) observing a range of benefits in reducing climate related risks. Most adaptation responses are fragmented, incremental, sector-specific, and unequally distributed across regions while gaps, soft and hard adaptation limits as well as maladaptation have been identified. Critical to note is that the further global warming progresses, the more adaptation limits will be reached making adaptation measures less feasible and effective.

Mitigation measures are supported by NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement) which are amounting to global GHG emissions likely to reach the threshold of 1.5°C during the 21st century and challenge the aim to stay below 2°C. The report suggests that a major gap exists between the emissions (reduction) committed to in the NDCs and the modelled SSP (Shared Socioeconomic) pathways to stay below those warming levels. Modelled mitigation pathways that stay below 1.5°C require deeper GHG emission reductions before 2030. Without additional policy support, projections indicate a global warming of 3.2°C — isn't that shocking? What will happen if the required reduction is not reached?

While most of the climate related finances are targeting mitigation, a general lack of financial resources and investment has been identified as the key barrier to hinder progress both in adaptation and mitigation; this is particularly the case in developing countries (if we still consider this a valid definition). At the same time, sufficient capital is available globally to address this barrier with the challenge of successfully redirecting capital to climate action — yes, right. Sufficient capital is available globally. Does this lead us back to the challenge that we lack a clearly defined goal for society? Wouldn't financial flows go in the right direction if the societal goal was defined adequately?

Most current literature indicates that the cost of mitigation measures will be lower than the economic and social benefits achieved. Consequently, rapid, high up-front investments will increase co-benefits and reduce long-term costs and risks. Equally, synergies with SDGs have been proven to increase the pace, depth, and breadth of emission reductions and do outweigh possible trade-offs — why isn't this a no-brainer?

Compared to earlier climate-related recommendations, the 2023 IPCC AR6 suggests that global aggregated climatic risks and adverse climate impacts are higher than previously assessed due to newly discovered evidence and states with high confidence that the long-term impacts will be significantly higher than observed at present. Every incremental increase in global temperature will disproportionately escalate the related threats (more widespread and pronounced extremes) while even limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C will have a significant impact on people and ecosystems and that (temporarily) overreaching this threshold will lead to severe, possibly irreversible changes. Most remarkable to note is the evidence presented of the increasing complexity linked to climatic and non-climatic risk drivers interacting and consequently becoming more difficult to manage. The above leads to an increased urgency for action to enable climate resilient development and consequently, to secure liveable and sustainable climatic conditions.

?? What is happening to biodiversity, why, and what does it mean for us as humans.

As shown by the global LPI (Living Planet Index) the worlds biodiversity is in decline. A reduction of 69% comparing 2018 to 1970 has been observed across a monitored species population of 31,821, representing 5,230 species worldwide. The LPI uses the abundance of populations to understand early warning signs that can be identified through trends in relative abundance while ensuring statical accuracy by stressing the index through exclusion of certain species or populations.

Differences in abundance trends can be observed between different geographical regions (largest to smallest): Latin America and the Caribbean -94%; Africa -66%; Asia and the Pacific -55%; North America -20%; Europa and Central Asia -18%. With an average decline of 83%, the freshwater LPI has shown the greatest loss in biodiversity.

Two other indicators are used in relation to biodiversity: the RLI (Red List Index) and the Green Status Assessment. Thereby, the RLI quantifies the relative risk of a species becoming extinct. Cycads, with a RLI value of 0.56 in 2014 are the most threatened while corals are the declining the fastest from a RLI value of 0.99 in 1996 to a value of 0.81 in 2008 (RLI value of 1.0 = Least Concern. RLI value of 0 = Extinct). Combining both indicators allows to assess the conservation status of a specific species more accurately.

The main cause identified for the loss of biodiversity is human proximity. Human proximity is threatening biodiversity through agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Thereby, threats do have different levels of influence on different populations and species and geographical regions are facing varying threat levels and impact probabilities. Those of you who know me a little know how I am living through nature — how mountains are heaven for me and how I am gaining energy being "out-there". Obviously, this has nothing to do with agriculture or hunting, but still — am I harming the nature that I love? And how can I reduce that harm?

Being aware of biodiversity loss, the likelihood and impact of the six threats mentioned above, and understanding regions with high conservation priority allows humans to focus effort on hotspots and take tailored actions. The analysis of conversation priority and threat intensity has shown that for example the tropics are mainly negatively influenced by agriculture, hunting and trapping, and logging whereas Europe is influenced by high levels of pollution. Certain areas such as the Himalayas or the Atlantic Forest are “’high priority areas for risk mitigation’ for all taxonomic groups across all threat categories”.

What does it mean for humans? Addressing the biodiversity crisis will require rapid, fair-reaching, and unprecedented transformative change as failing to limit global warming to below 2°C will make it impossible to further reduce biodiversity decline. Failed efforts will lead to a detrimental influence of Nature’s Contribution to People and people’s quality of life.

You can find more details here in the Living Planet Report 2022 .

?? How has poverty changed over the last 200 years? Since 2000? What will likely happen by 2030?

Over the last 200 years, poverty has hugely declined. Yes, this is somehow good news for my humanitarian heart.

The international poverty line is currently defined at $2.15 per person per day in 2017 purchasing power parity. This can be seen in all data sets which unanimously show that rapid progress against poverty has been achieved. The trend is mainly based on economic growth in large parts of the world and data shows that a five-fold increase in world economy is still required (at a minimum) to substantially eliminate global poverty.

Since 2000, the share of population living in extreme poverty has further declined from 29.1% in 2000 to 8.4% in 2019. This equals around 650 million people (roughly one in twelve) living below the international poverty line in 2019. The global COVID-19 pandemic has reversed the positive trend of poverty reduction — I guess you are not surprised here. The global rate of extreme poverty rose in 2020 for the first time since 1998 to around 9%. This means a set-back in poverty reduction by about three years globally and eight to nine years for low-income countries. At the same time, social protection mechanisms have expanded globally since 2000 as many developing countries adopted policies that afford protection for multiple contingencies. Despite progress social protection mechanisms remain a challenge with only 47% of the world’s population having been effectively covered by one social protection mechanism by 2020 (showing a slight improvement from 45% in 2015) with large regional differences and across age groups.

The proportion of the world’s workers living with their families on less than $1.90 per person a day declined significantly over the past two decades, falling from 26.9 % in 2000 to 6.7% in 2019. However, due to the COVID-pandemic and rising inflation, the share increased to 7.2% in 2020 and 6.9% in 2021.

Government spending on essential services (education, health, and social protection) kept increasing since 2000 amounting to approx. 53% in 2021 (overall average of 62% for advanced economies and 44% for emerging market and developing economies) compared to 47% in 2015.

By 2030, according to the UN’s SDG1, if no change is made and current trends continue, around 575 million people (nearly 7% of the world’s population) will be living in extreme poverty (a fall of less than 30% since 2015) and only one third of countries will have halved their national poverty levels. Sub-Saharan Africa and conflict-torn areas will be the most challenging to eradicate extreme poverty.

Given historical trends, only one-third of countries will have halved their national poverty rates by 2030 from 2015.

?? Enough science!

How do you feel now? Do you share my sensation of "the everything feeling" and "oceans of clouds in your chest"? If you do, thank you for making me feel less alone in this sensation and join me to start thinking in the direction of "we all have an imperative to act".

Two less science / data driven parts of my studies have stuck with me ever since and while below may not necessarily be science-based, it is definitely an honest representation of my personal thoughts.

?? Project management versus cultural change.

In October 2005, in an auditorium filled to capacity in Bentonville, Arkansas, Lee Scott, Walmart’s president and CEO, made the first speech in the history of Wal-Mart to be broadcast to the company’s 1.6 million employees in all of its 6,000+ stores worldwide and shared with its 60,000+ suppliers. Scott announced that Walmart was launching a sweeping business sustainability strategy to dramatically reduce the company’s impact on the global environment and thus become “the most competitive and innovative company in the world.” He argued that, “Being a good steward of the environment and being profitable are not mutually exclusive. They are one and the same.”

Reading the related Walmart sustainability strategy (A) (I can highly recommend reading it), I came to reflect on how such change can be carried out at such incredible scale.

The only approach I see happening around me is a project management approach where a few people are put in charge of "sustainability". Those people (and I actually sometimes dream about being one of them) do have the massive responsibility to rally colleagues, suppliers, customers or other stakeholders around them and to address the many challenges mentioned before (and this article is far from being an inclusive list). Now, how much are those people set up for success? Aren't we all ultimately limited by budget or the willingness of stakeholder to engage with our nicely designed sustainability project? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that nothing is achieved through this approach - simply posing the question whether this is the best we can do. Is project managing sustainability the right approach?

Walmart, indeed, took quite a different approach. Think about this: how and at which speed would we move forward when including sustainability into everybody's (and yes, I mean everybody working in or for your company) job description. And what would happen if your yearly targets would include sustainability also? Wouldn't this lead to a cultural change which triggers all of us moving into the "right" direction?

By extension this is what Walmart did while keeping a set of people in charge for different key topics (I do also believe that this is still necessary). On a side note: I am not aiming to promote Walmart here in any way but reading about their integrated business approach to sustainability really spoke to me and I considered it worth sharing.

I leave this thought with you to reflect on and please (PLEASE !!) share your thoughts with me.

?? Write the winning story of your counterparty.

A full day of negotiations with Giuseppe Conti — this is how the last day of my studies looked like. And this is a topic I decided to dedicate (almost) the last chapter of my article to. What an incredible skill set!

First things first - why did I decide to talk about negotiations while this is an article about sustainability? Easy. Cultural and system change can only be achieved if we are good at influencing and persuading others and ultimately, negotiate for the better of this world.

Historically, negotiations may have been about winning or losing. While this has never been my personal approach anyway, I do appreciate that society seems to be moving more towards a win-win attitude. I also come to realize that in almost every situation this is an outcome that can be achieved as long as the negotiation parties combine dual vision and empathy. This involves understanding the perspectives and interests of both parties while also recognizing and validating their emotions and experiences which can be done through techniques and approaches such as:

• Active listening: understand not only the words being said but also the emotions and underlying motivations behind them.
• Putting yourself in the other parties' shoes: imagine yourself in the other person's situation. When negotiating, consider how the proposed terms or solutions might affect the other party personally or professionally.
• Framing solutions beneficially: instead of focusing solely on your own goals, consider how your proposals can also fulfil the needs and desires of the other party. Presenting solutions in a way that demonstrates mutual benefit fosters trust and cooperation.
• Building rapport and trust: Cultivate a rapport with the other party based on trust and understanding. Empathetic gestures, such as acknowledging their challenges or expressing appreciation for their perspective, can help establish a positive relationship conducive to productive negotiations.

There is lot of benefit in making sure that the other party is satisfied rather than squeezing the negotiation partner as much as possible.

Working in quite culturally diverse contexts, the above approaches have helped me personally to get to where I would like "us" to move to - in terms of, but not limited to sustainability. The concepts can be applied broadly while I would like to highlight here, that I keep reflecting on the fact how critical this understanding is for such a global issue as sustainability.

Want to learn more? Highly recommend you watching Negotiating for sustainability with Prof. Giuseppe Conti or any other video of Giuseppe.

?? A few questions to ask (or not ask) yourself.

?? Not: how can I reduce CO2 for producing a phone? Question should rather be what is the need that the phone is satisfying and how can it be satisfied?

?? Not: how can I produce "fake meat" with as little CO2 as possible. Question should rather be: Do we need fake cows? Or how can we fulfil the need of subsistence?

?? And lastly, what would you do if your group of friends would react the same way to you saying, "I just bought a new car" to "I just bought a new slave"? This is what system change means.

?? Additional resources I recommend you to look into.

?? Play the climate game by the Financial Times seeing whether you can reach net zero by 2050: https://ig.ft.com/climate-game/

?? SBTi: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/

?? Resource for climate solutions: https://drawdown.org/

?? Highly recommend this book: The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson (science-fiction nonfiction novel about climate change and humanity’s efforts to try and turn the tide before it’s too late).

?? A little give-away — short and sweet — my 5 key learnings if you managed to read all the way until here. THANK YOU!

1. One single solution will not solve the problem. A combination is needed.
2. Negotiations are critical in changing business approaches, changing mindsets und ultimately leading to cultural and system change. An approach that stuck with me is "write the winning story of your counterparty".
3. We cannot change the needs but the satisfiers we can. Always start with the need that you're trying to satisfy and thrive to use as many synergistic satisfiers as possible.
4. Keep considering Jevons paradox. It occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced. This applies (for example) for energy consumption which started with wood, added coal, added oil, added gas, nuclear, hydro-power, solar and wind, etc. We are not transitioning the energy we are simply adding. This is an issue of scale. Consequently, technology is not (necessarily) the answer.
5. You vote with your money. Keep that in mind whenever buying, investing, or doing business.

Start talking to me (and others). I am excited for any conversation triggered as a result of you reading my thoughts!

A big thank you to everyone who enabled or has been part of this learning experience - EPFL Executive Education - Sustainable Resilient Value Chains , Elaine Moran , Dimitris Kiritsis , Jamila Belabidi , Andrew Henderson , Jonathan Normand , Guido Palazzo , Sascha NICK , Carlos Alvarez Pereira , Dr Christian Borel , Alban Bitz , Anne VERNIQUET , Damien Friot , Samuel Vionnet , ?? Jason Roberts , Antonia Wanner , Arnd Weinlaeder , Giuseppe Conti , Fabian Arnold , Rebecca Bailey , Araceli Beltrán Rodríguez , Aurelien Blanc , Céline Bonnemaison , Laure Bressoud - Deslarzes , Cosimo Cavalluzzo , Natalia Chernodub , Eric Feddal , Mauro Ferrari , Valens Frangez , Jessica Friess , Zhanna Lazarenko , Juan Lopez-Villarejo , Jennifer Lorandos , Patrick Reinhard , Paolo Sévègnes , Nadine Stehli , Camille Weill , Mathieu Udriot , Cyril Testeniere , Aloisia Predota