Overcoming the challenges of sustainability’s dual identity

After nearly 40 years of debate, the scope and implementation of sustainability remain hotly contested. At the heart of the confusion lies sustainability’s dual identity. On one hand, sustainability reflects a commitment to improving environmental performance through regulations and business initiatives. On the other, it has deep roots in social movements advocating for institutions to act more virtuously, championing rights-based policies, affirmative action and the rectification of past injustices to ensure a more diverse and inclusive society. 

Both performance- and virtue-based sustainability rely on laws, judicial support and the commitment of leaders and citizens. While performance-based sustainability has established clear goals, metrics and messages that are widely understood and supported, virtue-based sustainability faces greater challenges in achieving the same level of clarity and public backing. Many current controversies of virtue-based sustainability remain tethered to America’s historical, unresolved problems of race, gender bias and economic development. Proposed solutions to address environmental justice, for example, crash land into broader structural obstacles and debates about civil rights, economic inequities and access to health care. 

Over the past decade, private enterprises have signed on to a variety of commitments without sufficient and rigorous examination of their practical implications — a herd mentality approach to DEI, guidance for board and executive level appointments, commitments to expanded transparency — that they now back away from in the face of a more challenging political and judicial environment. A critical differentiator in how private enterprises respond to sustainability is whether they view it as a sidecar in their investment and business decisions or if it exists within the core of business strategy and purpose. Much of the current corporate waffling (backing away from Net Zero commitments or curtailing DEI programs) reflects a lack of seriousness in the original corporate assessment of their sustainability options and whether to adopt a value-driven approach based on business fundamentals or a cafeteria plan that responded to the current political and stakeholder jet stream of expectations.

Where sustainability professionals can focus their attention 

At present, sustainability critics have political and judicial momentum. This is likely to continue until the public realizes that precious environmental and social protections are withdrawn. Sustainability professionals can counterbalance that trend by doing the following:

Ditch the corporate sidecar: Companies need to apply a more rigorous examination of sustainability and its relationship to core business strategy and purpose. Only then will sustainability goals and commitments be more thoroughly anchored to yield value by finding the deeply human needs that can be advanced by business instead of being buffeted by changing political and media short-term trends. Both CEOs and corporate boards need to take direct ownership of embedding sustainability into the governance process and developing a value proposition that aligns with the company’s purpose (or agency’s purpose when applied to a government entity).

Give virtuous corporate behavior measurable targets: Commitments to advance more virtuous corporate and public sector behavior need to embody diligent performance goals, metrics and systems to enable executives, employees and external stakeholders to verify measurable results. At present, many existing ESG and DEI programs are too rhetorical in nature, lack clarity of purpose and language and are less impactful as a result. This will require not only a new language for expressing virtuous behavior but deeper research and understanding for how it can reflect the public’s values and expectations for good behavior.

Marry the two identities of sustainability: Performance-based and virtue-driven sustainability should come together into a more disciplined, wholly integrated set of commitments that drive business value and societal benefits. Doing so will simplify the messaging and management of sustainability programs.

Maintaining the current and confusing twin towers of sustainability is a risk that benefits no one. Sustainability professionals can strive to focus on a simpler narrative, where value is the common thread. Using this approach, both performance and virtue drive measurable results that can be more clearly communicated to growing numbers of stakeholders.

The post Overcoming the challenges of sustainability’s dual identity appeared first on Trellis.