Why Specialism undermines progress: embracing complexity and cross-sectoral collaboration.

Economic, Environmental, Social, and Governance (EESG) principles have far exceeded the financial risk management tool they were intended for; as well as being increasingly important across public, private and civil society organisations as they not only seek to appeal to the ‘sustainability’ hungry consumer market but in real terms achieve long-term sustainability throughout supply chains, operations and outputs. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have provided a comprehensive roadmap for global sustainability, addressing issues such as poverty, inequality, and climate change all under girded by goal 17 – Partnership. However, achieving these ambitious goals requires a fundamental shift in the way we think about partnership and more explicitly, how we think and relate to the complex ecological, political, economic and social systems in which we are inextricably and globally interconnected.

Being comfortable with complexity and interconnected systems is essential if we are going to successfully achieve the SDGs. Sectors that fail to recognise their place within the cross-sectoral global ecosystem will increasingly be left behind as their sustainability and relevance is eroded. However, embracing complexity is far from easy in a world of growing political and economic nationalism, erosion of globalisation, and educational and corporate hyper-specialisation; all leading to a myopic tribe of isolated technocrats, technicians and teachers ill equipped to thrive in a kaleidoscopic future of sectoral fluidity.

We must fight the spirit of Henry Ford’s factory line with its standardisation, efficacy, productivity and vertical integration, and rekindle our true human super power as highly competent generalists, complexity thinkers and complexity doers working to innovate symbiosis between plant, people and profit in a multilectal community in what is more authentically human; as opposed to the inputs and outputs of the machine like transactions between ‘specialised’ sovereign individuals and organisations.

The Problem with Specialization:

Andy Haldane, when chief economist and executive director of monetary analysis and statistics at the Bank of England argued, that the global economy has become characterised by discontinuities, tipping points, multiple equilibria, radical uncertainties and the other characteristics of complex systems. Influenced by this observation The OECD’s New Approaches to Economic Challenges (NAEC) initiative has given signifcant focus since its inception towards complexity and interconnectedness. Whilst complexity and interconnectedness does not seek to overthrow expert knowledge, it does elevate the importance of being able to identify the influences, dependencies and conflicts between seemingly unconnected entities which if one is too focused, uninformed or siloed are easily missed, misinterpreted or dismissed.

The complexity within the EESG arena might be best illustrated by acknowledging a scenario in which two entities are aligned in a shared mission for ‘sustainability’ whilst for one their technological innovation is for the other a tipping point from which there is no return or redemption . The decarbonisation of flight is one such example in which Airbus are seeking to innovate their ZEROe concepts of hybrid-hydrogen aircraft. Whilst for others the only viable decarbonisation of flight is to stop flying altogether. Perhaps a more complex example is the conflict between the just and green transition, both central to EESG and SDG principles and yet conflict is unavoidable as the Green transition increases demands for metals and minerals such as cobalt, gold and lithium which drive the production of renewable technology; whilst the Just transition decries the perceived (and at time reality of), spiraling exploitation of artisanal miners required to extract the minerals and metals in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In turn, specialization is a double-edged sword in modern society, not least in the sustainability arena. On one hand, it can provide individuals and organizations with deep expertise in a specific area, enabling them to excel. However, on the other hand, specialization is prone to creating silos and reinforcing hierarchies that limit communication and collaboration between departments and teams, let alone across the wider sector and cross-sectoral. This can result in conflicting priorities, a narrow perspective and a lack of diversity in ideas and approaches, which in turn has been shown to stifle creativity and problem-solving abilities.

Within a recent study exploring the blockers to funding within the sustainable development sector we found that despite a shared desire to innovate; sectoral isolation in R&D and a lack of knowledge beyond the sector within which they operate led to a majority of teams choosing to fund ‘more familiar’ activities despite having lesser sustainability outcomes, and potentially lower financial returns also.

The lack of cross sector knowledge and collaboration is leading to ‘less effective’ strategies, products and funding.

Specialization may lead to a focus on short-term gains rather than long-term sustainability, as individuals, organizations and sectors prioritize their own goals over the broader societal and environmental impacts of their actions. In politics, A world I know well having advised policymakers and even stood for elected office, specialization and the fear of vulnerability in reaching beyond the realms of one’s own knowledge, often leads to a focus on short-term policy objectives while overlooking the long-term consequences of decisions. The reality is, many governments lack the necessary expertise and interconnected systems to address complex issues such as climate change and inequality, which require a multidisciplinary approach. This can result in policies that fail to address the root causes opting instead for actions intended to win elections.

The Education sector is blighted by a similar misguided narrow-mindedness; with traditional performance indicators of academic institutes orientating around publication frequency rather than the creation of intellectual property actionable by state and industry, the academic sector is remarkably successful in creating reading materials for other academics and yet less successful in driving forward industry shaping innovation. The result is some of the world’s greatest academic thinkers are disconnected from the industry they proport to specialise in; as well as academic institutes failing to be properly remunerated for the innovations they fail to appropriately commercialize.

Moreover, the overemphasis on specialization by the education system, state and industry which places a high value on narrow expertise and technical skills, often at the expense of broader knowledge and critical thinking, results in a workforce that may be ill-equipped to navigate the complex and interconnected challenges of the 21st century. A new approach to education and organizational culture is needed that emphasizes interdisciplinary thinking, collaboration, and a systems-based approach. This undoubtedly includes valuing diverse perspectives and encouraging individuals to become lifelong learners, capable of adapting to the ever-changing landscape of the modern world.

The Importance of Whole System and Complexity Thinking:

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) found that addressing climate change requires a holistic and systematic approach involving multiple stakeholders from different sectors, including governments, businesses, and civil society organizations. Without this kind of whole system thinking, organizations simply miss opportunities to identify complementary strengths and develop innovative solutions.

Whole system and complexity thinking involves recognizing the interconnectedness of various components within a system and understanding how they interact with each other. In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals this means for example, recognizing that Goal 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) does not flourish without Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) or Goal 1 (No Poverty) can only be achieved through Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) which in itself relies upon Goal 5 (Gender Equality). ?Equally in the context of Environmental, Social and Governance strategies one must recognise that environmental, social, and economic factors are interconnected and that progress in one area will have ripple effects on others.

The Business and Sustainable Development Commission found that achieving the SDGs could unlock up to $12 trillion in economic opportunities and create 380 million new jobs by 2030 (BSDC, 2017). However, this requires a whole-system approach that considers the social and environmental impact of business activities, as well as their economic outcomes. Therefore ESG must continue to move forward, beyond a risk matrix as it is primarily used in the financial industry and become a proactive business model indicator that drives interconnected thinking and action, in so doing unlocking the requisite investment whilst simultaneously mobilising a private sector hungry for finance towards authentic sustainable practice.

The Role of Collaboration and Innovation:

To achieve the Sustainable Develop Goals, collaboration and innovation are essential. This requires breaking down silos and engaging with stakeholders from diverse sectors and perspectives. Collaboration can help identify shared goals and complementary strengths, while innovation can help develop creative solutions that address complex challenges. The interconnectedness of technological systems has shown that whilst political currents in many countries become increasing insular, industry, academics and individual relationships continue to be truly global, therefore making both the challenges and solutions to the SDGs, truly global and with it, globally complex.

The Amsterdam Smart City is a notable example of what can be done.?Bringing together businesses, governments, academics and citizens the initiative works to develop innovative solutions to regional challenges. This is a growing approach to interconnect place building; by collaborating across sectors and using whole-system thinking, Amsterdam has generated a range of successful projects, including a smart grid that integrates renewable energy sources and a circular economy platform that supports sustainable resource use.

This approach is not only highly collaborative, innovative and positive for economic growth; it also works towards meaningful social concerns such as economic inclusion, localisation and human rights. It is true that some issues ought to be recognised, such as who manages such an ecosystem, government, industry or academia, and whose vested interests come to bear, and who funds the collaborative action. Equally important is to note that collaboration takes time and a shared willingness across contributing parities.

However, these are costs that are certainly worth paying when you consider the significant sustainability risk bearing down on our economies and societies if not properly addressed.

It is also worth noting that collaboration does not always need to happen is such formal structures as with the Amsterdam Smart City, collaboration can start at anytime and anywhere. Working across sectors to enable clarity within complexity can start as simply as convening a round table event with little agenda other than being willing to listen and learn.

Conclusion:

Achieving our sustainability goals requires a fundamental shift in the way we think about complex systems and interconnectivity. Whole system and complexity thinking can help identify shared goals across organisations and sectors, and even between countries. It helps identify potential risks, and unintended consequences, while collaboration and innovation enable us to develop creative solutions that address complex challenges.

Hyper specialisation without the guidance of highly competent complexity thinkers manifests as myopia undermining long-term environmental, social and economic sustainability, and often generates unintended and maybe even unrecognised consequences outside the limited field of vision. To achieve a sustainable future, states, organizations and academia must embrace whole-system thinking and collaboration, recognizing the interconnectedness of economic, social, and environmental factors. By so doing, we can create a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable world for future generations.

Recommendations for governments, industry, and education

Develop interagency collaboration: Encourage collaboration across agencies, including environmental protection agencies, economic development agencies, and social welfare agencies, to promote whole-system thinking and consider interconnectivity of policies. This can be held together with long-term (10 year+) permanent secretaries who remain focused on delivery regardless of political change.

Promote sustainable business practices: Governments should incentivise businesses to implement sustainable business practices, such as reducing waste and emissions, investing in renewable energy, and promoting diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, incentivisation for cross sector R&D and favourable policies could drive up productivity whilst maintaining cross sectoral working. Industry ought to also embrace voluntary discloser as an opportunity to become leaders in the ESG agenda. Seeing it as an investment in the future economy and therefore prudent business planning. ?

Support education and research: Education providers and corporates ought to collaborate in applied research opportunities and training on whole system and complexity thinking to build a pipeline of professionals with the skills and knowledge necessary to address complex challenges.

Develop global partnerships: International collaboration, partnerships and education is essential to address global sustainability challenges, such as climate change and resource depletion.