Why we should welcome the sustainability backlash
My favourite columnist is Bartleby. His musings on the anomalies and absurdities of white-collar work are the first thing I turn to when The Economist hits the doormat. So, I’ll admit his recent evisceration of my research focus — making the case for sustainable business — was hard to swallow. But the backlash against sustainability he points to cannot be dismissed. In fact, those of us working in the field should welcome it.
The word “sustainability”, Bartleby notes, “coat[s] consultants’ websites, blanket[s] candidates’ cvs and spray[s] from managers’ mouths” ( guilty). And he argues that the lack of a precise definition “opens the door to grandstanding and greenwashing.” Again it’s hard to disagree in a world where missiles are marketed as “environmentally-friendly” and many ESG equity funds (FT) are not aligned with the Paris climate targets.
The backlash against such behaviour has been linked to the pressure higher food and energy prices have placed on companies to (re)focus simply on keeping costs down. ( For now, let’s ignore the fact that sustainable business practices can actually lower costs — from reducing employee attrition to lowering supply chain risks). However, the Ukraine war has simply exposed an issue with much deeper roots.
The tyranny of transparency
As companies rush to burnish their sustainability credentials, they open themselves up to greater scrutiny. Many have been found wanting. Our recent study finds wide “consensus gaps” between rhetoric and results. For example, 69% of executives we surveyed say they track and monitor progress against measurable goals — but just 34% of employees say such goals are realistic. Just 40% of consumers trust the companies they buy from/use to “walk the talk” on sustainability.
These gaps have provoked an “inevitable reaction”, Gillian Tett argues, (FT); “after a heady boom, a backlash has set in, as some of the problems around the current ESG fashion emerge.” But how might this reaction pan out?
In one scenario we admit that business and sustainability are awkward bedfellows. They have captured and corrupted each other, and we should return the Milton Friedman profit maximization model. In another, we label the naysayers as “dinosaurs” or “greedy capitalists”, ignore the challenge and plough on, righteous halo gleaming.
Kernels of truth underpin each position. Has sustainability fallen victim to credibility-shredding hype? Undoubtedly (it’s particularly telling that some of the vanguard now shy away from using it). But can we afford for business to drag its feet on issues such as carbon emissions? The evidence strongly suggests we’re already moving too slowly.
So, at the risk of sounding like a self-serving fence-sitter, I would advocate for a middle way to win back trust while maintaining momentum. This means dialing up on results, and down on rhetoric. It means clearly distinguishing the champions from the charlatans.
A positive reset
The essence and ambitions of business sustainability are encapsulated by “net positive” — the term used by Paul Polman and Andrew Winston in their recent (excellent) book. It resonates because it is realistic yet hopeful. Can “necessary evils” like packaging and workplace stress be completely eliminated? Probably not. But companies can make products more durable and incentivize suppliers to improve circularity. Likewise, they can make the workplace more inclusive and offer greater working day flexibility.
Net positive also speaks to the choices companies need to make. Different groups have different, sometimes competing, demands. As Polman and Winston note: “Creating positive returns for stakeholders does not mean satisfying all of them at the same time…You can’t prioritize everyone at once.” Equally, it calls for companies to take ownership of their total impact. Making green products does not give an organization licence to treat its employees like dirt.
Importantly, net positive is a term that can (and should) stimulate debate: What metrics sit on either side of the equation? How can we measure waste and employee engagement with the same yardstick? What positive surplus are we aiming for?
Indeed, these questions point to a parallel benefit: net positive demands data. As such, it opens the door to more robust, more objective measurement of sustainability performance.
The backlash should therefore be welcomed as a market correction; an opportunity to reset productively and positively. In the face of greater scrutiny, we should now reclaim a term which, Bartleby says, has become “anodyne to the point of being useless.” Holding companies to higher “net positive” standards can help to rebuild trust and ensure that the term “sustainability” continues to actually means something.
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
