Has Corporate Sustainability Lost its Why, and its Way?
- Mark Coleman
- Sep 10
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 11
Corporate sustainability has lost its “Why,” and its way. Sustainability (from a broader societal perspective) has also lost its Why, and its way. For those of us that have been sustainability practitioners for most of our professional careers, it is frustrating and disappointing to witness what feels to be diminishing interest and attention in the “S-word,” sustainability. Worse yet, the current U.S. domestic environment has politicized sustainability, mocking and belittling the integrity, values, and principled intentions of those of us that have worked so hard to bring it into the forefront of modern enterprise. Make no mistake, the value of sustainability will never be realized so long as its virtues are undermined, distorted, and worse, weaponized by demagogue politicians.
Sustainability’s Defining Moment: In Search for a New Prosperity
For those sustainability professionals in the trenches, we must take full stock of this moment and use it as an opportunity to further learn, grow, and lead – not only as individuals, but as a profession, and for the betterment of a struggling economy and society. Whenever prosperity feels out of touch from the majority of a populous, anything that lacks laser focus and foundational purpose will be up for grabs and easily manipulated. This is exactly the fate of the S-word, at this moment of social history.
A pendulum of extremism has been swinging more swiftly between the far left and far right in recent years. The S-word has tried, unsuccessfully, to ride the polarizing and erratic political waves. In fact, even some S-word solutions such as electrification, decarbonization, and net-zero have been construed as a form of extremism, further ratcheting up the rhetoric from polarizing points of view.
Meanwhile, the core values and mounting needs of the broader populous have been largely dismissed or ignored. Citizens and consumers are fed up with polarizing politics and extremist agendas. They are proactively redefining prosperity in the 21st Century and are seeking common sense, pragmatic solutions that enhance their quality of life, today. Sustainability is not (yet) lost in translation. But S-word practitioners and corporate strategists need to firmly reestablish their sustainability “Why” in context with the ever-changing pragmatic consumer mindset if they are to reestablish trust and consumer confidence.
There is hope for sustainability, and corporate sustainability in particular, to help consumers and citizens pursue and attain principled and sustainable prosperity. But first, it is necessary to squelch the social and political extremism that has clouded the purposeful pursuit of principled prosperity. There is a ‘zone of pragmatism’ that exists, where principled leaders and leadership can find common ground for the common good, and make decisions that are good for prosperity and the planet. Sustainability practitioners must reconnect the corporate purpose (Why) with these dynamic and changing times and within the zone of pragmatism, so that business and enterprise can remain a force for good.
For example, political pushes for wide-scale electrification, decarbonization, environmental justice, social equity, diversity and inclusion have fallen flat. In recent months the vernacular used to describe these, and other grand sustainability challenges is being deliberately erased. To remain out of the crosshairs, many business, university, government, and other institutional “leaders” have moderated the tone and tenor of how they communicate their principles and demonstrate sustainable value. So, it seems that all the market “leaders” that adopted DEI, ESG, sustainability, and energy transition as their native tongue have forgotten how to speak and now need a translator. Yes, principled leadership is waning, but the issue is even more despondent.
An enterprise’s ability to rapidly assess risk and adapt to changing political and market conditions is an earmark of competent leadership. Thus, one cannot blame those enterprises that have chosen to temper their tone as the pendulum of extremism swings in a direction that is the opposite of where they thought that they were heading. For they are without compass and simply trying to navigate a volatile and uncertain geopolitical and economic landscape. Most people in business understand that businesses prefer to operate with a degree of certainty (i.e., market, political, political, supply chain, consumer, etc.).
Paradoxically, business operates in a most uncertain world. To remain competitive, enterprise leaders need to be hyper-aware of unfolding market conditions. In the face of an uncertain and risky world, leaders need to implement adaptive strategies and systems so that their enterprise can be ready, responsive, and resilient to respond to any dynamic influence or shift. In recent years global enterprise coalesced around geopolitical, market development, and technological agendas. These forces remain resolute.
However, given the dynamic nature of the economy and shifts in geopolitical alliances and ideology, these forces are unstable and fluid. Resultingly, emphasis on corporate pursuits for sustainability feel as if they are declining. Yet, during these tumultuous times, the S-word, in all its ideological manifestations, are needed more than ever, and as John Elkington once postulated in an HBR article, at necessary scale and pace to curtail humans from overshooting planetary limits. In review and reflection of the past decade it is abundantly clear that the S-word has lost touch with, if it ever even had, its “Why.” For those of us that have dedicated professional careers and personal lives to renditions of sustainability that connect with our personal Why, this may feel assaulting and incomprehensible. But we need to consider that perhaps the proverbial blinders have been up, particularly as the corporate sustainability movement has evolved (from big vision to internal corporate justification, to market-based competition, to external reporting and demonstration of impact and value creation).
In the past 5 to 10 years the “What” and “How” of the S-word has been the most prominent feature of corporate speak, political commentary, and stakeholder engagement. Decarbonization (what) through electrification (how) is a prime example of how sustainable enterprise has lost its “why” and its way. Most of the corporate sustainability posts on LinkedIn, as example, tend to fixate on “how” and “what” as opposed to Why. This is logical in my mind because for the past three decades most corporate sustainability practitioners were trained to always “prove the business case” for sustainability and show return on investment (ROI). This is important, but it has become so mechanical and transactional that most enterprises have misplaced their responsibility to always reinforce their purpose for pursuing and integrating sustainability in the first place. To be clear, what I’m framing is deeper than “getting the message right” through corporate communications. What I’m speaking about here is the emotive, felt identity and experience of how a corporation, and its leadership, assume the role as a trusted, dignified, and principled global actor in our modern society.
As sustainability practitioners and leaders, we must take a hard look at where we are and be honest with ourselves. Because our personal “Why” feels meaningful, just, and necessary does not mean that other people will connect with our sense of Why in the same way. Have we done an adequate job then, in characterizing and communicating our Why? When we think about the collective and market-defining and shaping “Why” of corporate sustainability, is it grounded, focused, and evoking the emotive power needed for societal change? Or is the corporate sustainability “Why” something that is just a proxy for being seen as sustainable, and relegated to the quarterly earnings game?
Consumers want sustainability without compromise, that is, without added cost, political baggage, or trade-offs in product/service quality or reliability. As I tell my students, “Give them (consumers) sustainability without compromise, and you’ve unlocked the potential for integrating sustainability within the enterprise and seamlessly into their lives.”
In recent years, the S-word has become all-consuming, particularly for corporations, that have, in the wake of converging business priorities, taken on a broader, yet less focused charter for sustainability. As the social, economic, and environmental charter of governments and investors expanded, so too did the sustainability charter for many businesses. A ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ was a common refrain among stakeholders, many of which seemed to be rowing in the same direction toward distant lands with names like decarbonization, electrification, energy transition, and net-zero. But then, the weather turned, and a storm began churning the S-word sea. The rowing of the boats slowed and then stopped. The collective fortitude that once seemed unstoppable began to falter. The political, economic, and market tides all shifted, and the once certain and calm seas gave way to a tsunami of fear, uncertainty, and confusion. Disoriented and shaken, most practitioners within the sustainability profession are currently treading water, clinging to life rafts, or making brave attempts to pick an island, any island, and attempt to swim ashore.
Transitioning and transforming product lines, supply chains, and entire sectors takes time. It also takes unwavering courage and commitment. Sustainability, at its core, requires a long-view (and commitment), and a holistic systems-level perspective that brings together a diversity of ideas and resources. In my experience, most practitioners of the sustainability profession inherently connect their personal Why with their purposeful work in sustainability. We sense and feel the need to do things better and to pursue a better quality of life with vigor and resolve. We must respect the fact that not everyone sees the illuminated path to sustainability the same way. It is not that people don’t care, or that they lack understanding. Rather, it is that the enterprise “Why” has either not been sufficiently communicated, or that it is not powerful enough (i.e., it is lacking clarity, focus, and connection). I believe that the latter is the most plausible explanation on why many enterprise leaders are either treading water, clinging to life rafts, or continuing to row with any oars in this current environment.
Instituting massive industrial and societal change (i.e., full-scale electrification of the transportation sector, decarbonization of the energy sector, attaining zero-waste across the consumer sector) as a fundamental corporate “Why” is unwieldy pursuit. These are prophetic Whys, but no one corporation can achieve them alone. When the charter for change becomes too massive, it can feel unhinged, devoid of concrete conviction. Thus consumers, lawmakers, investors, employees and executives alike feel disconnected from the enterprise. Worse, stakeholders hold the enterprise to an incredibly high, perhaps impossible standard, to attain the ambitious yet disconnected goal. This phenomenon creates a negative feedback loop, where the enterprise loses touch with its purpose and identity, resulting in reputational damage and market decline. Justifiably, the S-word is viewed, by many, as too abstract.
Today, the S-word simply lacks large the necessary scale, societal awareness, understanding, and more importantly, concrete value in terms of what it can and will deliver. In uncertain markets and environments, principled leaders, and subsequently principled enterprise, create certainty and their future. In these challenging times it is essential for businesses to calibrate and integrate their sustainability Why squarely with the principles, purpose, and identity of the enterprise. This needs to be a clear, well-defined and understood, and achievable vision grounded in principles that make sense to the enterprise and for those whom the enterprise serves. This is not to say that consideration for long-term sustainability and market-shaping initiatives should be tabled. In fact, quite the contrary. Massive change requires all market participants to be rowing together. When big societal shifts occur, business needs to realign their “Why” with the shifting priorities of stakeholders and consumers.
Sustainability [Leadership] Starts with Why
I’ll leave you with an anecdote on something that I have found works. We don’t need more sustainability “yes” people. Rather, we need contrarian critical thinkers and pragmatists that can anchor their “Why” with that of an enterprise in a way that drives sustainable innovation and change. I believe that the education and training of the next generation of principled leaders is the most compelling investment we can make toward a more sustainable future.
Since 2018 I have had the privilege of teaching Sustainable Enterprise and Strategic Management of the Natural Environment to undergraduate and graduate students at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management. This fall semester there are 60 students enrolled in the Sustainable Enterprise class I’m teaching, the largest cohort of undergraduate students since I began teaching the class seven years ago. This alone, give me hope.
Each semester I use a simple but effective assignment to get to know the students. With all credit due to Simon Sinek, I leverage the deep insight from his well know book and philosophy, “Start with Why” to get the students thinking about their innate purpose, and how it connects with their personal views on sustainability. I have found the exercise to be invaluable. For this assignment, I task the students to watch Simon Sinek’s original Ted Talk where he describes the Golden Circle with Why at the center, followed by How and What. I ask the students to apply Sinek’s framework to their life, and to go deeper on their interest in sustainable enterprise.
As a prelude to the assignment, I also ask the students to think about one or two sustainability challenges or opportunities that they see impacting their personal life and the world today. I challenge them to explore the “S-word,” sustainability in a way that aligns with their Why. I explain to the students that the “S-word” can be abstract and has unfortunately become politicized and weaponized in our current culture. Thus, it is important to demystify, deconstruct, and examine the purpose, or “Why” that the S-word is seeking to accomplish. By having a clear value proposition and stronger Why, the S-word has a greater likelihood of being accepted.
Intentionally, I keep the assignment simple. After the students have watched Sinek’s Ted Talk I ask them to submit a couple of paragraphs, examining their personal “Why.” What I typically receive from student submissions is a full page and often a couple of pages of thoughtful introspection, self-examination, and insightful purpose. Selfishly, the assignment allows me to learn something unique about each student. After seven years of issuing this assignment, I’ve found that many students (undergraduate juniors and seniors) have never been given permission to articulate their Why. Their responses reveal both innocence and wisdom that is often found in younger and less confounded minds. Transparency and purity shine through each student response, often illuminating ideals for justice, peace, living in harmony with nature, and the desire to create a better world. Even if not clearly articulated, the underlying strong sense of values and principles is felt in most of the student Whys. Why is this?
In reviewing more than 250 Why statements over the past seven years I have observed that most of the students have processed and internalized their life and the external world in ways which prior generations did not or could not. Within each of the students’ Why statements I have noticed a humanistic yearning for greater and deeper connection – with nature, and among people.
This current generation of undergraduate students have, in their relatively short life span, experienced a lot. The students have witnessed and continue to live through a litany of converging social, economic, and environmental issues: Covid-19, cities that have burned to the ground by raging wildfires, communities that have been decimated by hurricanes and other natural disasters, persistent social unrest, increased geopolitical conflict and war, inhumane treatment of immigrants, pervasive racism, a high inflationary environment, a highly divisive political environment and divided nation, to name a few. And, behind all these significant issues is a generation that was proverbially born with an iPhone in hand and a social handle in place.
Thus, their exposure to the threats and realities of our complicated world has been more intense than prior generations. It should come no surprise that this assignment typically unveils their angst, fear, and frustration with the world. But it also clarifies their ambition, hope, and resolve. By giving them permission to deliberate on their Why and self-evaluate their motivation, the students reconnect with their true selves. I have found that many students have never been asked to complete this type of exercise or explored their “Why” in this way before.
I found this year’s “Why” exercise particularly interesting and informative. Students expressed an innate sense of introspection and wisdom in exploring their “Why” in the context of sustainability and sustainable enterprise. As once student noted in their Why response, “…Caring is the easiest thing a human can do, and if our generation starts to, we can help maximize sustainability in our society.”
Several of the 60 students touched on the role of technology in society and outright questioned the moral and ethical dilemmas enveloped with the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). It is clear to me the students questioning AI are also conflicted, as they expressed the need to lean into new technologies to be competitive and to stand out among their peers for job opportunities.
What always catches me off guard is the compelling and emotional personal narrative that characterizes some students’ Why statements. For example, this year a handful of students shared stories of personal loss tied to specific wildfire events in California or hurricanes that caused unprecedented flooding in North Carolina. One student disclosed that they had lost a friend in the Palisades fire. Another lost a family home to storm surge from a hurricane. In most cases, students’ Why statements reveal strong emotion drawn from aspiration and inspiration. For example, there were students who reflected upon their immersive time, growing up with or near nature, and have deep felt purpose for preserving wild places and for wildlife conservation. Another student’s “Why” expressed a desire to, “…inspire connection and create communities that value accountability – to be a part of something bigger – where innovation, creativity, sustainability, and human connection come together within the community…”
Additional common Why themes include:
An innate desire to make people’s lives better.
Growing and living in harmony with nature, not against it.
Aspirations to be a part of positive change.
A desire to dismantle ineffective, inefficient, and unsustainable entrenched systems that are in place.
Clear and resolution purpose for protecting family and community.
Some students also offered specificity to their Why, highlighting how their academic or career pathway would enable a better and brighter future.
Students shared the following:
To use marketing not just as a tool to sell, but as a tool to educate, empower, and inspire.
To make the music industry more human, more sustainable and more forward-thinking.
To design and build a fashion brand that designs and offers high-quality, ethically made, and environmentally responsible clothing at affordable prices.
To use architecture as a tool to push back on climate change and create places that last – that are functional, beautiful, sustainable – and foster community.
To create a world where people and animals can coexist without harm.
To help people get results and live better lives through personal fitness.
Planet Pragmatism: The New Path to Prosperity
This past July I published my 4th book, “Planet Pragmatism: The New Path to Prosperity.” The book provides thoughtful perspective, logic, and a framework for pursuing principled prosperity through what I term, planet pragmatism. Business and society have always been ever-changing. Yet, something is fundamentally different about the moment we are living in. Years of being bombarded with polarizing politics and extremist agendas have brought public trust to their lowest levels.
Distrust has bred cynicism, fueled hatred, and created a deep divisiveness that needs to be addressed and healed. The populous feels disconnected, disenfranchised, fearful, and angry. Sustainability can thrive during times of change, but it cannot coexist with chaos.
Our populous is proactively pursuing a new path to prosperity, one which is defined by firm principles for planet pragmatism. Our future progress and prosperity will be greater than the limiting factors of partisanship and profit. Common sense for the common good is not just a catch phrase. It can be a credo by which we center ourselves within the “zone of pragmatism” by reinstitute integrity, trust, accountability, human dignity, and principled leadership as the ground rules for civil and productive discourse.
* * *
Comments