What happens when 'regenerative' becomes the new buzzword?

In the last edition of Regenerative Coaching and OD we explored responses within the regenerative community to act as gate-keepers or bridge-builders - to both protect the integrity of living systems thinking and practice, and to widen participation, and how to hold these in tension. After all, to behave as a living system requires self-regulation that is enabled by engaging both in supporting healthy, organic growth.

Yet alongside this polarity is another phenomenon, the rapid adoption of the word 'regenerative' by powerful interests that are many times the size and scale of the current regenerative community, and, I think it is fair to ask, may not be steeped in its provenance and values. A recent article from the World Economic Forum, 'Forget resilience, to truly thrive, businesses must set their sights on regeneration' written by a partner with global management consulting firm Kearney states:

Regeneration is a new, bolder way to think about business strategy. It’s a proactive approach to people, the planet and profits. Instead of holding steady, regenerative companies make courageous moves. They strive to reconnect with the social and environmental systems they’re a part of, instead of fighting against them.

Regenerative leaders prioritize reflection, self-awareness, constant evolution and making micro-changes to stay ahead of the curve. They are open to new ideas and change. Instead of setting five-year plans, they experiment, pivot and learn.

And, when our teams know that they’re not just surviving another quarter, they can reframe their expectations. We can help them thrive, not just survive.

Whilst superficially, there may be cause for celebration, we have to question, what is the intention here, and importantly, how is this message received and decoded by its intended audience? Who's support and advice will they reach out for? Is regeneration largely portrayed as an environmentally and socially informed approach to adaptation that extends the current business paradigm? What about the deep work of decolonisation and healing that is needed to hospice modernity and right-size ourselves in relation to all of Life? Yet do we also need to consider that for organisations to adopt regenerative principles, the message might inevitably need to appeal to immediate survival concerns in order to gain traction? I'm not suggesting any simple answers here, more like questions to be held in community, yet it feels important to discern the patterns being played out in this discourse.

Different theorists have described such tensions that occur at the cusps of epochal change, and I think that Bill Sharpe's 'Three Horizons' model is a helpful framing here, especially in describing the complexity of the bridging horizon 'H2' that is the intermediary between 'H1' (the dominant paradigm that is losing its fitness for purpose), and H3 (the emerging horizon of the future).

I won't attempt to do justice to Bill Sharpe's model here, but this short introduction by Kate Raworth, author of Doughnut Economic s and founder of Doughnut cities movement is a great starting point for anyone less familiar with it.

Three Horizons Framework - Introduction by Kate Raworth

In the framework, the H2 horizon of disruptive innovation is described as having a Janus face because of the ambiguity with which the application of transitional technologies, innovations and ideas may be either backwards looking (H2 minus), i.e. extending the life of H1 business as usual, or genuinely supportive of transition towards the emerging future of H3 (H2 plus).

So how the word 'regenerative' is being used in any given context deserves greater scrutiny. What is it really in service to? Who stands to benefit and how? With a growing interest in the potential of Re-Fi as an alternative financial system supporting regenerative enterprises, and movements like Nature of the Board to represent the rights of Nature in governance, it feels increasingly important to be able to have courageous and generative dialogues that can dig deeper into the Janus-like complexity, rather than be avoidant.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the demise of the word 'green'. From its rise in 1970's, it was associated with and environmentally informed green politics based on social justice and grass-roots democracy and post-patriarchal values; the movements and thought leaders that it drew from intersect with much of what has shaped the regenerative discourse today. And whilst being 'green' is still a recognised political position, it has suffered to the extent that it has been co-opted in some cases as a form of nationalism, to becoming over time a meaningless environmental buzz-word, and even giving rise to a new legal term of greenwashing.

Greenwashing: The term was actually coined back in 1986 in an essay by environmentalist and then student Jay Westerveld. While visiting a hotel in Fiji, Westerveld noticed that it asked guests to reuse towels for the planet’s sake—a request that would also conveniently save the hotel money. Meanwhile, the hotel, located near sensitive island ecosystems, was in the middle of an expansion.

So there are clearly challenges in applying shorthand to complex, multi-layered concepts such as regenerative, green, climate, freedom, equality etc. Whilst such words can act as a banner for Early Adopters to rally around, it risks becoming a convenient label for any number of different interests. The limitations and abuses of language keeps pushing us - either into greater fragmentation and cynicism, or potentially... something else, something more hopeful.

When we choose to apply a living systems perspective to the whole landscape of change, with all its horizons and elements - the ones we personally agree with or disagree with, where we find ourselves at home, or deeply uncomfortable, with transparency and honesty, we can learn to dialogue the changes. For example:

• How might practitioners and other actors dialogue and engage with H1, H2 and H3 as a highly complex, evolving living system?
• How might we dialogue and share learning across the whole landscape of change, rather than end up becoming siloed?
• What are key points of agreement around regenerative practice that can support alignment?
• How might the regenerative community act collectively to provide a viable alternative in terms of scope and scale vis a vis traditional consulting firms? And/or accompany them in supporting radical transformational journeys for themselves and their clients?
• How do we humbly go to the edges, the margins, the places where there are no ready answers, and listen deeply together?
• What else?
• And what else?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ways to stay in touch -

?? Please subscribe to my newsletter 'Regenerative Coaching and OD '

?? Consider joining Regenerative Confluence - if the content of this newsletter interests you and you'd like to be part of a learning community meeting for fortnightly conversations, you can also DM me if you would like to attend as a guest

?? Sign up for free healing circle sessions , held one a month, keeping us aligned to the heartbeat of healing, healing at the heart of regeneration:

?? Explore coaching and organisation development support for your own regenerative journey - feel free to book a discovery call