LinkedIn Dialog
HW Fisher Sustainability

Discussion: The Times They Aren't a-Changing sustainablebrands.com ... with comments by Joss Tantram

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

HW Fisher Sustainability ... 302 members

Joss Tantram
Partner - Corporate Sustainability at Terrafiniti LLP

The Times They Aren't a-Changing sustainablebrands.com

The lack of mainstream acceptance of sustainability is not down to the choice of words that sustainability practitioners use. The reasons are more fundamental and more concerning... Like (1) Comment (5) Share Unfollow Reply Privately4 days ago Comments Dr. Anton G. Camarota likes this 5 comments

This is an excellent article! I agree with your assertion that what is needed is a fundamental rethinking of business and economics. We as humans have reached the stage where the economic benefits of further growth in our economies is greatly offset by exponentially higher social and ecological costs, and the entire cost-benefit framework for thinking may itself be useless. At this point it is not a matter of choosing tools for sustainability, it is a matter of defining the human necessity for such a life strategy. For some more focused comments on why a sustainability message is so difficult, I recommend the film 'Blind Spot.' http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=31128

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 3 days ago

Dear Anton,

Thank you very much for your kind comment, it is much appreciated.

As you say, it is clear what is required – a re-engineering of systems of value and priority that innately recognise the dependency we have upon a functioning environment and ech other – and the means to translate that into value.

The challenge, of course is getting there and recognising that the old approach of “the truth with set you free” isn’t what seems to capture attention and drive change.

Thank you for the link to the Blind Spot – I will watch with interest.

On the same track, Margaret Heffernan’s Wilful Blindness is also a very good read: http://www.mheffernan.com/book-wb-summary.shtml

On the point you make about defining the human necessity for such a life strategy I completely agree. It seems clear that over the long term we will all prosper if we are on a meaningful path to a sustainable future and all suffer (given our interdependence) if we fail in such a progression.

The in-built “wilful blindness” of mainstream economic theory and capitalism as usual puts us on a path to suicide – which I explored here: http://www.terrafiniti.com/blog/suicide-by-planet/

Despite such dark possibilities, I remain optimistic about the possibilities for our species, though at time this optimism can be just as wilful as the blindness noted above!

Best regards,

Joss

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 3 days ago

I have been thinking about these issues for most of my career ... that is some 50 years. There are some patterns that keep repeating. One of these is that people who have power want to avoid accountability at all costs, and they want to control the messages and the conversation. They also want organizational performance that enhances their power and prestige.

I was a popular CFO when my work was contributing in this framework ... but I became unpopular when I wanted to apply the same metrics objectively to the performance of those with power.

I have concluded that the issue of sustainability will be popular as long as it does not have any real traction. People will happily talk about it, but nothing of substance will happen. My experience suggests that it will get traction as soon as there are meaningful metrics so that there can be initiatives that really do something and the impact can be seen in the numbers.

There are sustainability advocates that talk about sustainability being good for profit performance ... but this only works for a part of the global socio-economic ecosystem and leaves out pretty much all the bottom of the pyramid (say 3 billion people) who need to be raised out of poverty by massive investment in the enabling environment, investment that has huge impact but does not throw off profit in the short term.

I like the conversation about society and economics at the theoretical level ... but I do not expect such conversation to be an effective vehicle for change. In my view the rather mundane idea of meaningful metrics will be what enables change and good ideas to get traction.

Peter Burgess - TrueValueMetrics Multi Dimension Impact Accounting Delete 2 days ago

Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for your thoughts – it has prompted a longish response in two parts:

Part One:

I think you are right about the attraction to lack of traction. I was recently at a workshop for sustainability researchers and someone was trying to explain to me why the government keeps funding research that they already know the answer to. I was told “they keep hoping that our research will find some way of them carrying on unchanged but also (somehow) deliver a sustainable world”!

So, if there is a general expectation that sustainability is an acceptable concept as long as it doesn’t threaten the status quo then those of us seeking change have to figure out how to spend our lives constructively....

I believe that a mix of first principles based rhetorical persuasion, combined with ideas for “hacking” aspects of the current systems is a worthwhile contribution.

Metrics are an essential part of this, but metrics which are meaningful require an underlying system capable of appreciating them – in order for them to act as vehicles/ drivers of change.

An example would be carbon metrics – they are undoubtedly meaningful in the context of the carbon performance of a single institution and they are theoretically useful in aggregate in the context of a global goal for carbon emissions levels. However, they actually only get used to drive real change when they are appreciated by wider systems of value, risk and reward. For instance, investors only consider the carbon performance of companies in a marginal sense – far, far below the priority that they assign to leadership or cost of capital.

Metrics are meaningful when they function within a supportive operating context, and where such an operating context does not exist – we need to try to encourage its formation.

For instance, we have recently published ideas for two new sustainability metrics derived from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, they focus upon material efficiency (Entropic Overhead: http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/new_metrics/entropic-overhead-measuring-circular-economy) and Energetic Efficiency (Entropic Valuation: http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/energy-economics-if-thermodynamics-mattered).

The latter, Entropic Valuation – suggests comparing all solar derived energy (Solar PV, fossil fuels etc) according the rate at which they capture, store and render solar Kilojoules. When this comparison is made, it shows that solar PV and lithium-ion battery storage oil are around 100,000 more efficient than oil.

Physically and logically this is definitively “true”. Therefore the idea is potentially a very useful sustainability metric.

However, the design of the current economic and financial system has no means of valuing (and therefore prioritising) thermodynamic performance – there is a dissonance between the reality of economics and markets and the reality of physics.

End of part one.... Unlike Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 14 hours ago Peter Burgess, Dr. Anton G. Camarota like this

Dear Peter,

....Part two:

For metrics to be a meaningful way of achieving change a context is required, the “fertile ground” of a wider system capable of appreciating their meaning and value.

One of our ideas for delivering this is the idea that the general lack of fertile ground for sustainability arises from the inability of the market to value the future. Given this, metrics which speak to the creation of long term value/ outcomes will always be less valuable than ones which deliver in the short term, regardless of their longer implications.

We have suggested that such as challenge can be overcome (theoretically!) by the introduction of a common purpose to capitalism – shared strategic long term goals for an expanded, sustainable market.

I have discussed this idea as part of our Towards 9 Billion vision, recently published by Revolve Magazine: http://issuu.com/revolve-magazine/docs/re10_lowres_singles/10

We have also put the idea at the heart of a (provocative) thought experiment, an Initial Public Offering for the Earth: http://slidesha.re/1e6ypUN

At the heart of these ideas are that the following fundamental dimensions of value should also be foundations of meaningful sustainability metrics:

• • Thermodynamic optimisation – the use of energy and materials in cognisance with the physical characteristics and limits of the planet and an intention towards “entropic efficiency”.
• • Valuing abundance rather than scarcity – prioritising technologies and behaviours which deliver either natural natural (e.g. biologically based) or managed (e.g. through closed loop stewardship) abundance.
• • Natural vitality – valuing technologies and processes which make use of the planet’s natural rejuvenative and productive abilities, learning from and utilising natural production techniques as the basis for our technological and industrial models.
• • Balancing interdependence – recognising and balancing the social interdependencies at the heart of our way of life to maximise economic and human potential and remove imbalances and subsidies.

I believe sustainable change is definitely possible, and it will need rhetoric, action, metrics and meaning working together in concert!

Best regards,

Joss

Unlike Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 14 hours ago Peter Burgess, Dr. Anton G. Camarota like this