Takeaways
To prevent doomsday climate scenarios, we have to make sure that the ethos of sustainability is not doomed, or worse, already dead. The “S-word," sustainability, can be an ambiguous topic and challenging pursuit. Deconstructing the “S-word” into action-oriented goals, objectives, and results can drive greater awareness, understanding and adoption of the “S-word.” Each generation has their own unique “S-word” objectives, grounded and amplified by the current events and challenges they face in any given moment.
The planet, in this moment, is beckoning us to change, or be changed. The motivation for mass market adoption of sustainability is now more rooted in our collective psyche. The question now is whether the mass market “sustainability of everything,” can actually be sustainable. Have we shifted our thinking and catalyzed a collective shift in citizen action and consumer behavior?
To achieve ‘planet prosperity we must change our [human] nature to restore and better protect planetary nature which nourishes us. We need to instill more common sense for the common good and elevate our intelligence and wisdom to provide a preventive, predictive, proactive posture on how we address challenges with each other, the role of technology in society, and how we can serve as a trusted steward of the natural world.
The pursuit of ‘planet prosperity’ and a more sustainable future is not linear or prescribed. It is, and shall remain, a bit messy and convoluted as we work to dismantle old tired systems and introduce new ways to survive and thrive, in step with changes in natural systems. Sustainability is not and will not be perfect. But it certainly is not, dead. In fact, the "S-word" is alive with a fervor, redefining what’s possible as we pursue ‘planet prosperity’ and a brighter future, together.
Is the “S-word” Dead?
Like many sustainability strategists, practitioners, researchers, and educators, I think about sustainability a lot. In fact, probably too much. I imagine that people in other occupations spend a great deal of their time deep in thought about their interests as well. Deep immersion in sustainability has its intrigue, but it can also be fleeting and frustrating – and sometimes, downright frightening. To better predict and prevent doomsday climate scenarios from playing out, we have to make sure that the ethos of sustainability is not doomed, or worse, already dead.
The “S-word,” sustainability, has its share of what I would characterize as misguided misgivings. I deliberately say the “S-word,” because sustainability can be, if spoken about too broadly, ambiguous and confusing. This has been a detriment to moving [sustainable] action forward. Today, the “S-word” encapsulates a large spectrum of meaning and intent. A great deal of “S-word” focus is placed on evaluating climate risk, decarbonizing industrial sectors, gathering data to support corporate ESG reports and assurance, examining circularity within supply chains, and supporting ‘sustainable consumption’ including in fashion, food, and even finance.
The use of more descriptive words and phrases work both for and against the “S-word.” In some cases, more clear language servers to create action and drive accountability; in other cases, new words and phrases can subjugate the deeper intent of sustainability. The latter is an issue that I frequently think about. The expanse of “S-word” language is both helping and hindering the broader sustainability movement. If we are not careful, we may find ourselves fixing one element of sustainability, but at the expense of other and perhaps more critical factors that create impact on our health, safety, security, and the environment.
Many years ago, following the publication of my first book, “The Sustainability Generation: The Politics of Change and Why Personal Accountability is Essential NOW!,” I spent a fair amount of time speaking at trade conferences, colleges and universities, public events, and open book discussions. I enjoyed getting out, promoting the book, and opening up thoughtful conversations on the topic of sustainability. As an observation I found that the more I spoke before non-technical audiences that had less knowledge about sustainability, the more interesting and often nuanced the conversations would be.
This observation became more apparent when a few weeks into the “S-word” conference circuit I realized that I was speaking to the wrong audience. When you attend a conference and “press the flesh,” that is to say, shake hands with a bunch of “S-word” converts, you are among friends. At least mostly friendlies. I say mostly because as with any professional network, “S-word” folk are competitive. Yes, they like to share knowledge and are typically service oriented. But as human nature would have it, some “S-word” conference goers like to prove their smarts, often looking for those “gotcha moments” to correct someone, or let their peers know how well read, published, or credentialed they are.
Well, all that’s nice, but it doesn’t make the world any more sustainable, at least in my experience. Now, I’m not knocking the value of conferences or the seriousness and impact of “S-word” professionals. I’m simply making the point that if you are only out there speaking to those that are already true believers and practitioners, then your potential for impact is marginalized to that community of professionals. Attending conferences and meetings among like-minded and similarly experienced and trained professionals serves a valuable purpose. It is important for peers to get together to exchange knowledge, share best practices, and support each other within their chosen profession.
In recent years, I’ve sensed that “S-word” change agents have inadvertently done ourselves, the profession, and the intention behind the philosophical construct, a disservice. For sustainability to continue to advance, we also must be willing to listen, learn, and grow. We must also challenge our own mental models, be willing to engage with audiences we are not accustom or comfortable with, and help coach, train, and mentor those who are just learning about the ambiguous and multifaceted, “S-word.” We must be open to and willing to accept contrarian points of view. Ultimately, we must be open to evolving our entrenched positions on how the "S-word" should play out in business and society. We must be open to our own change. Too often, “S-word” conferences represent an echo chamber of similar points of view, experiences, and ideas. While this can and does contribute to a necessary convergence of ideas, the conversations and subsequent change can feel a bit incremental. Yet, the climate risks and planetary changes that a majority of respected scientists and experts are projecting signals to a swifter societal call to action than what comes out of “S-word” conferences.
Essentially, we can analyze and discuss all the data-driven highly detailed and glossy voluntary, prescribed, and regulatory-driven reports on ESG and sustainability all that we want, but that does not guarantee us a more sustainable future. Sustainability is as much, if not more, about what we conceive, design, and innovate – as it is to what we are trying to measure, modify, and fix.
We cannot mandate, dictate, delegate, or regulate our way to greater sustainability. Each of these tactics serve a role within the management of a sustainable marketplace, but they are only as useful as the market is willing to participate. The objective for a sustainable future runs deeper and wider than a ban on plastic shopping bags or coffee straws. Command and control, voluntary do-goodism, or incentive and market-based nudges are all tools for managing sustainability within existing fixed systems. This is important and necessary work.
However, for our capitalistic society to make significant progress, ultimately, we need to redefine the self-limiting systems that we’ve constructed and maintained. We must also reconcile our purpose and “nature of being,” with the laws of the natural world and those of the Universe. Most, if not all, of the systems that humanity has built were not designed with an ethos of sustainability, let alone financial equity, inclusivity, circularity or regenerative ecology and economics. In essence, we are spending our precious time and resources patching the outdated and inefficient systems we allow ourselves to remain beholden to as opposed to challenging the entrenched status-quo so that we can design a sustainable economy from the ground up. From where the “S-word” sits today, we have a long, long way to go.
A Nightmare on Sustainability Street
As a practitioner of sustainability, I am gratified to witness the mass market advance of ‘everything sustainable’ that is underway. Twenty-five years ago, there were only a handful of academic programs or professional credentials focused on fostering expertise in sustainability. Today there are hundreds of degree and credentialing offerings. A quarter century ago, “S-word” whisperers were trail blazing new terrain inside global corporations, working both behind the scenes and publicly to advance the “business case for sustainability,” particularly among executive leadership.
Today, corporate boards are proactively asking difficult business sustainability questions and calling for more action. Subsequently, corporate executive leaders have begun to reinforce a culture of sustainability. Today it is much more commonplace for corporate leaders to pull-in, rather than push-away, sustainability. Corporations are now much more fluid in how they bridge business strategy with the implementation of practical sustainability solutions that achieve business performance goals in step with stakeholder expectations and societal impact.
But for all the progress made within the global business community, there is something scary lurking around the sweet and friendly façade of sustainability street. A fixation on solving sustainability issues from within the business, or within the industrial sector is limiting deeper and more meaningful sustainability gains. Inherently it makes logical sense for a singular business (and industry sector) to account for and address their sustainability risks and concerns. This approach can, however, lead to myopic self-interest for individual companies, industrial actors and entire sectors.
The meteoric rise of voluntary environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures has reinforced a competitive external reporting culture among global corporations. Unfortunately, too many companies are caught-up in doing the corporate sustainability balancing act. In the corporate reputation “report-out or be reported on” contest culture surrounding ESG performance, companies tend to skew as protectionists first, and catalytic partners in solving cross-sector problems, second.
There are many exceptions to what I’m describing here (i.e., corporate disclosures for double materiality[i], Scope 2 and 3 emissions accounting, supply chain agreements, public-private partnerships, etc.). Suffice it to say that when it comes to the current situation with sustainability, most companies are, first and foremost, incentivized to help themselves. For many “S-word” practitioners, this is understood, but it also runs counter to the holistic and systems-level mindset that we intuitively know is needed to create sustainable change.
Corporate reputation rules the “S-word” roost for the moment. The ESG and corporate sustainability disclosure movement is, perhaps, a necessary evolution to get all companies speaking a similar “S-word” language, and accounting for their individual impact. But while we get our ducks in a row, the planet continues to roil its climate risks upon our doorsteps, much like Freddy Kreuger callously thrashing his metal glove in our face. We’ve created our own nightmare on sustainability street. The planet is beckoning us to change, or be changed.
The “S-word” has in recent years become part of our socio-cultural experience. The “S-word” has infiltrated our classrooms, our homes, our businesses, and our front porch conversations. The motivation for mass market adoption of sustainability is now more rooted in our collective psyche. The question now is whether the mass market “sustainability of everything,” can actually be sustainable. Have we shifted our thinking and catalyzed a collective shift in citizen action and consumer behavior? Our current perception of a mass market sustainability culture is not (yet) equating to a more sustainable planet as evidenced by continued the assault of climate risks and declines in biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Keeping “S-Word” Transitions from being Transgressions
Every industrial sector is currently pursuing a transition that is predicated on sustainable enterprise in some way, shape, or form. Several ‘meta-dimensions’ of sustainability including decarbonization, decentralization, digitization, deregulation and others that are working individually and together, as fierce forces driving an economy-wide transition toward sustainable production and consumption. The intent of industrial sector-based and economy-wide transition is certainly necessary and noble.
There is a famous Albert Einstein adage that states, “we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” In his book, “The Fifth Discipline,” systems scientist and MIT Sloan School of Management lecturer Peter Senge laid out eleven laws of systems thinking. The first of Peter Senge’s eleven laws of systems thinking puts another perspective on this, stating, “today's problems come from yesterday's solutions." To ensure that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past, we must envelope a preventive, predictive, and proactive posture toward ‘planet prosperity.’ This is to say that we must leverage our wisdom and work collaboratively with common sense for the common good.
The current enthusiasm for industrial sector-based and economy-wide sustainable transition can quickly turn into unsustainable transgressions if we don’t adequately listen, learn, and lead. To alleviate unsustainable transgressions we need to intentionally bring together and listen to a diversity of stakeholders with dignity, and in an inclusive way. We also need to learn from each other, and our past, in a way that doesn’t chastise or place blame, but rather, enable us to [re]discover ancient wisdom and grow as a humanity. Finally, we need to embrace an ethos of the “S-word” toward ‘planet prosperity’ and ensure that all people have equal opportunity to lead, with courage, conviction and resolve.
We Must Temper Our Desire to Control, which is Out of Control
The natural world will not change to serve humans. Rather, we need to change our [human] nature in how we interact with and respect the natural world. For much of our modern existence, humans have attempted to exercise control over nature. Our desire to control nature has been fueled by our need for survival and our fed by our desire for comfort. The planet, while teeming with life, can be an unforgiving place. To survive and thrive humans have had to both work with and around the natural world.
However, the scale of our cultivation and curation of resources has, as we know, created environmental damages and externalities that run counter to our need for survival and desire for comfort. Our more recent embrace of everything “S-word” has accelerated, in part, due to our growing recognition that our attempts to “nip and tuck” the earth into a place that serves us has come at an enormous expense to natural systems. What the planet once provided for free through ecosystem services (i.e., clean air, water, provisions of natural foods, climate regulation, etc.) we are now engineering “solutions” toward – not because the planet cannot provide these services, but because the planet’s capacity to provide these services has been significantly diminished by our hubris in attempting to control nature.
So we are now desperately trying to engineer ways to strip CO2 out of the atmosphere, prevent toxic algal blooms in freshwater reservoirs, predict and reduce the impact of wildfires, and prevent microplastics from entering our environment. The bill has come due for the price of our and prior generation’s comfort. We now must pay the price by living with a swiftly changing climate – therefore succumbing, likely, to greater human discomfort. Further, we have to pay the price, if we are to continue to survive and thrive, by investing in entirely new ways to attain comfort in a rapidly changing world. This requires us to evolve our thinking in how we work with nature, not against it, toward the pursuit of ‘planet prosperity.’
To achieve ‘planet prosperity we must change our nature to restore and better protect the nature which nourishes us. We need to instill more common sense for the common good and elevate our intelligence and wisdom that provides a preventive, predictive, proactive posture on how we address challenges with each other, the role of technology in society, and how we can be a trusted steward of the natural world.
Don’t Just Manage Change, Catalyze It!
Another one of Senge’s famed eleven laws states, “The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.” Humans are stubborn and we tend to trudge through difficult situations as opposed to accepting things as they are and seek to reevaluate our best options. Senge refers to this phenomenon and our behavioral psychology as “compensating feedback.” The more effort one exudes to improve or fix the system (I.e., sustainability within existing systems), the more effort seems to be required. For the “S-word” gurus out there, sound familiar?
For example, although energy efficiency has increased significantly over the past half century, energy demand has continued to also grow. Renewable energy now represents about one-third of the power generation creating electricity worldwide. That is an important accomplishment toward decarbonizing electricity production. Expand out of power generation however, and the world’s dependence upon fossil-based fuels holds steady at eighty percent. Further, in October 2024 the World Meteorological Organization reported[ii] that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has increased greater than 10% in two decades, stimulated primarily by human combustion of fossil fuels. The WMO report found that CO2 is accumulating faster than at any time in human history. The WMO finding is interestingly and eerily in step with Senge’s law. It appears, the harder we try to push solutions onto the existing system, the tougher the system is pushing back.
Positive change is afoot, however. Demand for oil is projected to decline sharply[iii] by the end of this decade, catalyzed by transportation and building electrification policies, strategies, and technologies. The energy sector, and the transition that is underway across all major industrial sectors and end-uses which it serves, illustrates both the need to manage and catalyze sustainable change. Society’s requirements for energy are so entrenched with the form-factor of how energy is produced and delivered that it is difficult to simply “turn the spigot off.” Due to society’s heavy reliance upon safe, reliable, secure, and now, sustainable energy, we need to be thoughtful and deliberate in how we turn one spigot off and turn a new transformer on.
Amidst our consternation and tension associated with the complicated energy, and broader industrial and societal transition that is underway, there are some unique ‘change catalysts’ that are set on reinventing the foundation by which humanity envelops sustainability in all that we are and do.
NEOM, Dubai/UAE, and Toyota Woven City represent three examples of how bold sustainable change catalysts are working at enormous scale and dizzying speed to break down silos, disrupt existing systems, and create an entirely new society by reinforcing their future foundation with sustainable infrastructure, tourism, and living in mind.
The City of Dubai within the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been an example of ‘sustainability in action’. Dubai, now popularized by modern architecture and luxury shopping, has been thoughtfully transitioning its economy for several years now. Although oil and gas exports continue to represent about 30% of Dubai’s gross domestic product (GDP), industries including tourism, trade, financial services, and real-estate have become prominent contributors to the city’s economy. To achieve its goals for growth, Dubai has had to envelop many facets of sustainable development into the build out of the city’s infrastructure. Dubai is pursuing carbon neutral growth by enveloping sustainability into its master planning across all major systems (i.e., energy, transportation, water, food, entertainment/recreation). For example, the Dubai Electric and Water Authority (DEWA), which produces the majority of the city’s electricity and drinking water, burns natural gas from Abu Dhabi and Qatar to generate electricity. DEWA captures waste heat from power generation to distill seawater, removing salt, so that it is potable. DEWA’s operations produce up to 10 gigawatts of electricity and distill half a billion gallons of seawater daily.[iv] DEWA has also invested more than $13 billion on the design and construction of the Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, a 5,000 megawatt (MW) solar park located in the desert outside of the city. The park can power as many as 1.3 million homes while reducing carbon emissions by 6.4 million tonnes annually.[v] For additional details, check out Sustainability in the UAE.
NEOM[vi] is one of the five Saudi Vision 2030 megaprojects that fall within what is called Red Sea Global[vii]. Red Sea Global aims to diversify the Saudi economy away from fossil fuels, including by expanding its tourism sector with a focus on sustainable innovation and development. It is estimated that as much as $20 billion will be allocated to complete the Red Sea Global project portfolio[viii] by 2030. Once completed, the project will fulfill a tourism-focused masterplan that reaches over 28[ix],000 square kilometers.
Toyota Woven City is another example of a large-scale development catalyzing human ingenuity toward greater prosperity. Described as a ‘living laboratory,’ the Toyota Woven City is exploring rapid adoption of green energy technologies and AI to initiate the construction of the city of the future. In Toyota Woven City, there is a focus on the future of mobility and “creating wellbeing for all.[x]” Toyota Woven City has, for example, created an initiative called the “Woven Test Course,” where people co-create new ideas to make a positive difference in the world. According to Toyota, the cost of Woven City is over $10 billion, which will include everything needed for a functional city including residences, stores, plazas, entertainment and other amenities.
Dubai, NEOM, and Toyota Woven City are real-world mega-development projects with mega-goals that are stretching our imaginations and the limits of our existing technology and know-how. These cities and regions have their fair share of opposition who do not see these developments as sustainable or as pillars of greater prosperity. This said, in a world that is too often caught up in over-analyzing and managing change, Dubai, NEOM, and Toyota Woven City represent bold visions that are catalyzing action toward proactively creating a future for their people and culture. Each development has a unique sustainability signature that is worthy of ongoing observation and learning.
The pursuit of ‘planet prosperity’ and a more sustainable future is not linear or prescribed. It is, and shall remain, a bit messy and convoluted as work to dismantle old tired systems and introduce new ways to survive and thrive, in step with ever-changing natural systems. Sustainability is not and will not be perfect. But it certainly is not, dead. In fact, the "S-word" is alive with a fervor, helping humanity redefine what’s possible as we pursue ‘planet prosperity’ together. Happy Halloween!
* * *
Sources:
[i] Source: Deloitte. “The Challenge of Double Materiality.” https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/hot-topics/topics/climate-and-sustainability/dcca/thought-leadership/the-challenge-of-double-materiality.html
[ii] Source: World Meteorological Organization (WMO). “Greenhouse gas concentrations surge again to new record in 2023.” October 28, 2024. https://wmo.int/media/news/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-again-new-record-2023
[iii] Source: International Energy Agency (IEA). “Growth in global oil demand is set to slow significantly by 2028.” June 14, 2023. https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-to-slow-significantly-by-2028
[iv] Source: National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/dubai-ecological-footprint-sustainable-urban-city
[v] Source: Page, Tom; and Max Burnell. CNN. April 25, 2019. “$13.6B record-breaking solar park rises from Dubai desert.” https://www.cnn.com/style/article/mbr-solar-park-dubai-desert-intl/index.html
[vi] Source: NEOM. https://www.neom.com/en-us
[vii] Source: Wikipedia. Red Sea Global. Accessed, October 28, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_Global#:~:text=6%20External%20links-,History,%2C%20Qiddiya%2C%20and%20Diriyah%20Company.
[viii] Source: Wikipedia. List of Saudi Vision 2030 Projects. Accessed, October 28, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saudi_Vision_2030_projects
[ix] Source: Orf, Darren. “Toyota Is Building a Strange’Living Laboratory’ That 360 People Will Call Home.” June 28, 2024. Popular Mechanics. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a61427742/woven-city-residents/
[x] Source: Toyota Woven City. https://www.woven-city.global/about/
Comments