Writing round in circles

This week I'm working on three articles simultaneously. One about the EU Taxonomy for green and sustainable finance. One about diversity and inclusion (D&I). And one about underwriting for modular building technology (extra points if you spot your article there!!) ... And weirdly, they all have the same problem. The context is different, but the issue is the same. But it's not that weird, because so many articles and topics have this same sticking point. The thing that prevents them from progressing and becoming better.

The problem is consistency. Or a lack of it. Whether it's sustainability, D&I or modular building standards, everyone is speaking a different language. Nearly everyone thinks that their definition is correct. And dismisses the definitions of others - or just presumes that they feel the same way - share the same biases - without checking. The result is this crazy web of standards that nobody can make sense of. Even scarier, we think we're talking about the same thing, but actually having completely different conversations with each other.

The terms lose their meaning, and become boring buzzwords. Meh. ESG starts to mean whatever you want it to. D&I loses any sort of rigour or authenticity. Then we all lose.

And we're all guilty of it. We all have pre-conceived ideas and biases. As a writer, I push mine onto everyone who reads my articles. And most of us presume that we're right without really double checking. So many of our work-place beliefs are based on our life experiences, what our boss thinks, or what our parents taught us - rather than any real academic research into competing viewpoints or empirical evidence.

So, I've been thinking about this a lot. It's pretty much the centre of my work. And I don't have any firm conclusions, except -ironically - that I will try to conclude less and listen more. Maybe we all should. Perhaps one of the best ways to make social and environmental progress is to pause and consider the viewpoints of others. Like we were taught as children. Maybe it is that simple. Reflection before action.

But not just any viewpoints. No. We need to listen to representative viewpoints, from the full range of different genders, backgrounds, ethnicities, geographies, salaries, sexual orientations, the lot! And you know ... Taking it further, maybe you don't need to work in finance to offer a valuable and valid perspective on sustainable finance, diversity and inclusion or modular underwriting. It's everyone's planet, isn't it? We all breathe the air, make up society and need a place to live. If wealth managers considered the views of people other than themselves or their direct clients, we might have a better chance of fixing the world. You don't need a CFA qualification to form an opinion about renewable energy or female-led companies. You know what, maybe if you take the years of financial office brainwashing away, we might have a more pure view of the right thing to do. You don't need money to have morals.

The different definitions of a homogenous group will not be enough to get us where we need to be. Which brings me back to my nearly-finished diversity and inclusion article... right back round in a big circle.

I swear, the more I write about different things, the more I write the same thing. I've written more than 500 articles now for nearly 50 clients. But I could summarise them into eight words:

We need to listen to each other more.