Our collective urgent need to reinvent ‘Sustainability' vocabulary

Learning from Ancient Greece and inventing a one-planet compatible post-COVID world

We won’t be able to build a “one-planet compatible” and “people well-being enabling” global economy if we don’t strictly divide Sustainability into 4 very different territories, with distinct strategies, clear performance thresholds (and “pass/fail” assessments, such as ‘stress tests’), and distinct wording. Blurring of issues, bundling of unrelated concepts, have lived for decades, and time has come to elevate our game.

The issue is, Sustainability has turned into a magic mantra triggering some feel-good factor. But what is meant by ‘Sustainability’ ? Is it to be well-behaved and…. ‘responsible’ ? Or is it to be a much-needed change (maker) for the World? Is it to treat people fairly and slightly better than regulations? Or is it to be frugal in everything one does, so that all can also enjoy their fair share? Is it all of this at the same time ? Or does one only of the above 'qualifies' ? And aren't there transformations which are more pressing than others ?

Is ‘Sustainability’ synonym of ‘slightly better than before’, or do we expect certain thresholds to be exceeded? Additionally, should every business and every activity be ‘sustained’ ? So many questions will remain unanswered as long as we won’t clarify our vocabulary, and set clear ambitions.

Again the problem is ‘Sustainability’ has made its way into this elite league of concepts such as 'Peace', 'Freedom', or even 'Love', with a permanent seat on 'the bright side of things'. It found its way everywhere, and is not a virtue to easily let go. Hard to resist to a ‘Sustainability’ job, a ‘Sustainability’ message, a ‘Sustainability Strategy”, and to place one's transformations under a Sustainability umbrella, as these have become the new ‘incarnated good’ ?

Let us realize how much we fool ourselves in our addiction to depicting too many things with a ‘Sustainability’ jargon. If we look at ‘Love’ for instance, ancient Civilizations have realized the same concept materializes in so many different ways, covering a vast array of options for People, Cities, Countries, Human groups, to display ‘Love’. Ancient Greeks got it right, coming-up with eight (!) different words, each covering a distinct notion of ‘Love’: Agapé (?γ?πη, agápê) unconditional, divine, caring love; éros (?ρω?, ér?s) : erotical or natural love, desire, lust ; Ludus (λυδ??, ludós) : mutual discovery, kidlike, light; Mania (μαν?α, manía): obsessive & possessive love; Philautia (φιλαυτ?α, philautía) : self-love; egocentricity; empathy for oneself ; Philia (φιλ?α, philía) : gentle love, friendship, benevolent love ; Pragma (πρ?γμα, pragma) : longlasting and mature love, serene; Storgê (στοργ?, storg?) : family love, motherly love; Xénia (ξεν?α, xenía) : friendship for the guest, the foreigner, hospitality.

Instead, on the ‘Sustainabilty’ front, either by oversight or by design, Articles, ‘Sustainability reports’, conferences, ESG ratings (Environment, Social, Governance), have mixed information as unrelated as gender diversity in the Board room, million USD given to a cause, energy savings in operations, or recycled packaging, together with some depiction of the Organisation’s positive impacts on World’s most pressing challenges. All of the 'all-things feel good' above being indifferently labelled “Sustainability’.

Are we serious?

For too long, time had come to raise the semantic bar. While COVID battle is being fought, let us use our time in confinement to fight the ‘battle of words’. ‘Sustainability’ should definitely mature, open its box, beef-up its game, talk numbers, or remain a XXth Century thing for ever. If problems are wrongly stated, the needed solutions won’t be found. We can’t let anything be claimed ‘sustainable’ for the sole sake of either an additional virtue bringing some form of ‘good’, or as it gently impacts one of its 4 different territories.

“Better than it could have been” is not… ‘Sustainability’.

During current 'Great Lockdown', voices -rightly so- plead for changes in our development model, and more of the good things, whether ‘green’, ‘just’, ‘inclusive’, climate-friendly’. With the billions of Stimuli about to be poured into our economies, let us ensure a strict lens is placed to clearly distinguish the positive, the needed, the superfluous, and the toxic. Need to be fast boosted these business models which are ‘part of the solution’, helping emerge a world economy compatible with a 10 Billion citizens world by 2050, a +1,5°C trajectory, safe jobs, social justice, and one-planet resources consumption.

To get there, fighting this ‘battle of words’ will be an important step. Why not leveraging half Humanity is today confined, with more time to reflect, to agree virtually on our common vocabulary ? Why not triggering such discussion here! I am definitely not as literate as Ancient Greeks, however allow me to suggest following semantics for each of 4 different universes below, each having an Environmental, Social, Economic facet to it:

1.      Corporate Responsibility (CR) : “We are a great company; We behave nicely with our stakeholders and promise to do so; We comply to laws & regulations; We lead ethical trainings and do not indulge into corrupt practices; We provide equal chances to everyone; We treat our employees fairly; We produce wealth and share it around with our stakeholders”, etc. Said differently: we are a well-behaved corporate citizen; For a person, it would be called ‘well mannered’, ‘well educated’, ‘polite’. Some argue regulations should catch-up, and translate such virtues into the ‘new normal’? In the meantime, true some organisations do good in inventing a gentler and softer economy. On another note, we also know that 'Corporate Responsible practices' may be displayed by business models and operations the World can't sustainably bear at scale.

2.      Corporate Philanthropy (CP): “We support human development issues with our best resources above and beyond our core business; We ‘give back’; We accept lower margin businesses when purpose-led; We demonstrate our heart and that of our employees; Our employees give their time and expertise”. Said differently: we are generous. As profit making had been considered negatively in some circles, such generous practices have been claimed externally, as another way to -if needed- prove businesses have a purpose and add value to the Society, and their employees have a heart. We can hope some normalization of philanthropy the way we know it, and hopefully Corporations won’t feel the need to advertise as much about they good deeds -as significant as they are today in these COVID times- under a 'Sustainability' headline. Same as in the personal sphere people don't claim their donations to NGOs over dinner nor write it on their foreheads.

3.      One-Planet-Compatible-Operations (OPCO): eg “We mostly run on renewable energy and resources, compatible with what Planet can provide and replenish in a year; We waste nothing, reuse everything; We have a sustained and secured access to critical resources and have future-proven our supply chain; We decarbonize ourselves fast, under a +1,5°C trajectory; Our manufacturing processes are that of a model green industry; Our impact on Biodiversity across our supply chain are minimal; Our employees enjoy a Safe work environment; We audit our suppliers; We embark them in the journey and have them decarbonize as we do” Said differently: we are frugal. We have resource efficient & productive operations, and preserve life across our end-to-end supply chain. More of our Company's operations is compatible with one-planet. Same applies to Social dimension, social justice, job creation. Here, it is really about inventing supply chains that can lastingly exist within the limits of our Planet boundaries. It is active innovation towards everything circular, more local, efficient, and giving room to every diversity.

4.      One-Planet-Prosperity Business Models (OPPBM): “We help our customers save resources, more than the ones we used to provide our services to them; We help the world decarbonize through our technologies and solutions, more than we emitted; Our value proposition is circular by design, ie everything’s shared, reusable, repairable. We help our Customers enjoy good food, safe homes, healing drugs, local leisure, etc; More of our Company is a better Planet, a better Climate, a better Social justice ”. Said differently: we are socially positive. We invent and propose solutions for a One-Planet prosperity, we are a useful component to the desired transition. Here, we are in the world of world-positive business models, start-ups on equipment sharing, organic & food from nearby, local services, circular models. More of such companies are needed.

The first issue we face is the 4 territories above are much too often mixed irrespectfully, with the risk the key tough questions are not addressed. However nice-mannered an Organisation can be, if its business models are not suited for our common future, they won’t take us there. Whilst OPCO and OPPBM transform the world the way we know it, our economies, our supply chains, our consumption and production practices, i.e. the "WHAT", instead CR and CP transform the "HOW".

The second issue is we often don't raise the bar high enough on any of the 4 pillars above, neither for Organisations nor Ourselves. True the 17 SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) are there, they additionally were assigned 169 targets, but these are for the world’s overall ‘sustainable development trajectory’, while we’d need to translate such goals into what they mean for a given Human citizen (ecological hectares, number of planet.equivalent quota, CO2 emissions entitlement, etc), for each € of Revenue in each sector, and for each $ of GDP. Unlike rare attempts such as Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) on CO2 strategy ‘pass or fail’ assessments, which successfully help screen organisations’ Climate commitments against a +1.5°C or +2°C trajectory, few similar initiatives exist, leaving immense room to active story-telling.

What can we do now ? We certainly can do few things:

a)     Immediately and drastically raise our semantical game and fight for the right words. Our kids (and us) deserve it. This can start today itself, in the way our communications are framed, in the way journalists decipher and comment, in the way we talk as Citizens, as Corporations, as Employees. Whether (CR-well behaved/CP-generous/OPCO-frugal/OPPBM-socially positive) acronyms remain… or not, we need to adopt a clear framework. While Finance and Accounting for decades have stopped mixing P&L with Balance Sheet, Cost saving with Cost avoidance, we in the Sustainability space are yet in semantics stone age. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) may share some of their experiences here;

b)     Move away from throwing excessive light on 'Sustainability' as a bolt-on virtue, and in Organisations' communications, either through:

• embedding all OPCO and OPPBM narratives and achievements as part of the business and operational sections of all Corporate Communications. Focusing demonstration on how the organisations reinvents its business models (OPPBM) and operating models (OPCO) for a one-planet prosperity;
• in a transition period, have a maximum of crisp communication assets, one each to describe what an organization does on each of these 4 dimensions (CR-well behaved/CP-generous/OPCO-frugal/OPPBM-socially positive), succinctly, with numbers, facts, and whether (with a crystal clear green/amber/red pass of fail codification) such numbers are compatible with what the world needs and can afford; 

c)     Only discuss measured Impacts, and strictly organized narratives, moving beyond ESG and blurring of issues. Investors don’t need 150 financial metrics to frame their minds, don’t 'average things out', nor select ‘best in class’. They look at few well crafted metrics such as EBIT, Cash, Past and Projected Revenues and Operating Profit, Talent bench strength, ROCE, WAC, and few more. ESG super data-intensive assessments and the multiplicity of ‘questionnaires’, are additional confirmations of how we collectively have to progress on non-financial performance assessments;

d)     Train everyone now in 2020 on our common and sustainable development stakes, transformation territories, and the fantastic innovation opportunities ahead of us (students, business executives, all employees, investors, suppliers, recruiters, etc). By enhancing our collective awareness, we'll help new skills to emerge, create in a more demanding environment when ‘talking sustainability’, and form cohort of well-equipped change agents;

e)     Place all critical business decisions (recruitments, investments, R&D, M&A, etc) with a clear and measurable OPCO and an OPPBM lens. No business decision should be taken without a rigorous business-case like assessment of its environmental and social impacts.

With the above in mind, blurring the above distinct domains disrespectfully under an all-encompassing ‘Sustainability’ vocable should be considered a practice of the past, providing a ‘false sense’ of reassurance, and hampering the real strategic discussions to take place in the Boardroom.

A way forward ?

Labelling everything “Sustainability” is not at par with our current collective challenges, nor with rightly rising stakeholders’ expectations (youngsters, investors, civil society, future generations). True when 1987 Gro Harlem Brundtland report was issued, or 1992 Rio Earth summit took place, the Corporate world felt the need to demonstrate they weren’t that bad. They were of course already providing a lot of great and useful value additions to the world, had a purpose, but the World saw their negative externalities more than their already existing ‘Raison d’être” (Mission statement/Purpose). Regulations came into force, new reportings were asked, showcasing that profit was made… responsibly. Still today, many Corporations, Public entities, Cities display much efforts to repeat how they do well while doing good.

True many of our Corporations, and us with them, do our genuine best. But do we need to still spell this out in such a bespoke language, with specific chapters in specific reports, and letting issues be blurred? We may soon see such practices from another time, sign of our collective youth in this systemic transformation, despite our good intent.

Looking ahead, let’s be science-based in everything, whether social sciences, environmental, or climate sciences, let us refuse to discuss anything without measured Impacts. Let us for everything know “how much” one can afford, how much the planet can bear, how much civil society gives and take in return, and let’s look at our operations and business models through this cold lens. More robust CO2 norms and standards are starting to emerge, with clarity between direct, indirect, induced, saved and avoided emissions, and it is now starting to be possible to compare, identify businesses having a positive impact on Climate, or see the remaining gaps. We work to introduce same rigor for resources and circular economy, and likewise start to quantify biodiversity impacts and life preservation. Progress are being made in these 2 areas, but still too confidential nor common acceptance yet. We need to likewise discuss job creation and quality of employment likewise more clearly, we need to talk about social impacts with plain rigor.

Let's not be afraid with the 'ambers' and the 'reds' which will inevitably emerge in such 'one-planet-compatibility' scorecards across sectors, in companies, as well as in our own households and personal lives, as such truth will be our only trigger for progress. Let us use this ‘Great Lockdown’ crisis to go deeper, seek hard facts. This is the time to elevate our game, and work to invent a much better compass for a much brighter future.

XXth century "Sustainability" is dead. Long live Sustainability 4.0!