| “Are we getting close to the tipping point, when a critical mass of companies embraces sustainability?”
I frequently hear that hopeful question. I used to optimistically estimate that we were three to five years away from that magic tipping point. I underestimated the power of those with vested interests in the status quo. But we are getting closer, despite the current global economic recession. |
 |
 |
“The Sustainability Imperative” article in the May 2010 issue of the Harvard Business Review supports this assertion. This slide summarizes the author’s views about why sustainability is a legitimate megatrend and business imperative. |
 |
The authors go on to describe 6 drivers of the sustainability megatrend which make it imperative that companies include sustainability factors in their risk scenarios. |
I humbly add 7 more characteristics of this sustainability wave which reinforce its permanence.
The first two reasons are sobering: for the first time in history, we face permanent threshold management for climate change and energy availability. The third, personal factor is driven by frequent projections of what the world might look like in 20, 50, 100 years – academic horizons for some of us, but not for our families. That realization energizes people to convince those in charge to be more proactive. As citizens wake up, mainstream institutions pay attention to the possible threat to their reputations, legitimacy, and intangible value if they stay on the sidelines. The last innovation factor enables action on the first two factors and shows the doability of a rapid transformation to a clean energy society. So, are we getting closer to the tipping point? Yes, because of the wonderfully diverse mix of drivers and reasons listed above. They make the sustainability imperative unstoppable this time. It just a question of how soon it will happen, not if it will.
Note: The above three slides will be added to the next version of my Master Slide Set.
What changes have you noticed? I welcome your feedback and comments. Just click on the Reply/Comment button below!
Until next time,
Bob
Jennings, “threshold management” implies that there is an ecological tipping point beyond which nature cannot recover—beyond which it cannot be resilient. We may have already over-fished or over-deforested to the point that nature cannot regenerate those vital resources. The level of pollution in our water, air, and soil is reaching dangerous concentrations in many locations, and its spreading. Nature can’t keep up with absorbing our pollutants fast enough to avoid their buildup. We have pumped so many greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere that we are teetering on the edge of runaway climate change. That’s why 350.org uses 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as its threshold rallying cry. Beyond that concentration, climate scientists say the probability is too high that we cannot prevent rampant climate change destruction. We are already at 387 ppm, and counting. So we are into an era of having to manage our thresholds of carbon dioxide, pollution and waste, fishing, deforestation, etc.—forever. Otherwise, concentrations will continue to climb and the human race will be history.
Regards,
Bob Willard
Dear Bob,
What do you mean by permanent threshold management?
I like the topic of sustainability and would like some insight as to what your phrase means
Thanks
Jennings
Good point, Jabeen. Wouldn’t that be a terrific reason to drop #2? However, as developing economies explode and population continues to grow, I am uneasy that the temptation to access riskier transportation fuel sources in deep-well off-shore sites and the oil sands will sustain the permanency of the energy crisis.
Thanks, Bob
Is it too much of a stretch to say that Reason #7 has the potential to negate Reason #2? In other words, the “permanent” Energy Crisis has to do primarily with conventional sources of energy, especially fossil fuels. After maximizing efficiency improvements, renewable energy sources and regenerative technologies become sufficiently advanced and enjoy widespread deployment, we may no longer have an energy crisis, at least theoretically.
Thanks for your comments, Kathrin. Jim Harris’s column in the National Post is doing a good job of showing the relevance of sustainability strategies to the business challenges. He is knowledgeable, articulate, and insightful. We need more reporters and columnists like him and Tyler Hamilton. An additional challenge for the mainstream media is the downsizing of investigative journalists as a by-product of media consolidations. It takes effort, research, and expertise to responsibly connect events and root causes. When disasters hit—Hurricane Katrina, mud slides in Haiti, the BP oil spill in the Gulf, birds dying in tailing ponds in the oil sands—the coverage is getting better on connecting the dots, but maybe we have to rely on alternative media for the in-depth coverage they deserve. By osmosis, some alternative media stories get picked up in mainstream press, especially if there is a good picture or human story connected to it. “If it bleeds, it leads” and we have no shortage of bleeding edge environmental and social stories these days.
I agree with Bob. The mainstream media has come a long way. They still have a long way to go but we’re moving in the right direction. When I first started out in this field ten years ago, the only CSR/sustainability coverage in any of Canada’s major newspapers was the negative commentary by Terrance Corcoran in the Post. While with Canadian Business for Social Responsibility I tried repeatedly to engage and educate the media but to no avail. The feeling was that there was no real angle or hook they could get out of CSR/sustainability and that there wasn’t any urgency.
These days the Globe seems to be featuring regular articles on CSR/sustainability so I do see an evolution.
I think the real issue is that as a sociey we are over reliant on the media to provide us with what we think is accurate and complete information when in fact most journalists have but a superficial knowledge of what they’re writing about and with the exception of a few truly excellent ones, they just don’t ask the right questions.
Josh, you’re right about the need for more dedicated environmental reporters. The issues are perhaps far too complex to comprehend and therefore of less interest or too daunting. Or perhaps, the media still don’t recognize the urgency.
Good point, Josh. As a Toronto Star reader, my opinion may be skewed by Tyler’s excellent articles and blog. The Harvard Business Review has had some excellent sustainability-related articles in the last year and the Economist has weighed in. So we are making progress up the slippery slope of broader media coverage. The BP disaster has also stirred the pot, with stories on the economic, environmental, and social repercussions of irresponsible corporate actions. The beat goes on …
Great post, Bob. I’m not sure I totally agree with #6 – “Mainstream media is on board”. As a PR professional in Canada with clients in the energy and enviroment sector I’m constantly frustrated by the paucity of media outlets that assign someone to cover the environment and sustainbility in any meaningful way. Most energy reporters (Tyler Hamilton excluded) still focus on oil and gas. Dedicated environment reporters? You can count ‘em on one hand. And then, of course, there are the climate change deniers at the National Post. I hope the mainstream media will soon get on board, but I’m not sure this is yet the case.