|
 The
global financial crisis demonstrated all too clearly that a focus on
growth and making money has great risks, and not only in the short
term. The continuing focus on growth as the primary economic driver, based on the
measurement of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while not taking into
account connected social and environmental impacts, is probably be a
concept that has passed its use-by date. But what could replace it?
Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) makes it look like we are dealing with the
impacts of business operations on finances, the environment and society – but
this seems to be rapidly becoming a tick the box activity. Recent research (see Herman Trend Report) suggested
that people in the USA are now less likely to be environmentally aware
in their daily habits than in the past, a shift put down to needing to
focus on short-term financial survival rather than long-term
sustainability – which is understandable, but I wonder why
the two are mutually exclusive?
What is clear
is that maintaining growth as the primary driver of economic activity is
not sustainable over the long term. This is not a new message: the
book Limits to Growth had the
same message, and it was published in 1972. Since then, there have been
many books and articles demonstrating why unfettered growth is not
sustainable.
We know this.
The data is pretty irrefutable and there is much effort being
expended on thinking about a sustainable future (see Pashmina Paradigm Shift Analyzer and
Vision 2050). So why have we
reverted to growth as the economic driver after the global financial
crisis? Even though it’s being called ‘the new normal’, it’s the same
paradigm, tweaked at the edges. Some companies (see z-punkt) are now offering
services to help companies focus on sustainability as a growth
strategy, and this would seem to be a more holistic approach to take to
strategy. Other companies are making an effort to be sustainable in the
complete sense of the word – not just financial sustainability.
A recent Seth
Godin blog suggested that “the perception of risk is skewed when bad
outcomes are vivid, personal and immediate’, which supports the green
fatigue effect identified earlier. He went on to say that the media
‘take concepts that were previously abstract and relentlessly make them
vivid, personal and immediate. It amplifies the risks around us’. Or at
least our perceptions on those risks.
Our obvious
task then continues to be to make a sustainable future ‘vivid, personal and
immediate’. Many people have been trying to do that for some time, with limited success.
If the implications of our actions now for future generations and the planet are clear, why doesn't
behaviour change on a large scale? While individuals may change their behaviour,
our larger systems do not.
People change
systems though, so what is the trigger or tipping point that will start to
generate systemic change? How do we need to frame the message about the
lack of sustainability in our current lifestyles, and its future, long
term impact so that it is vivid, personal and immediate? Of course,
the issue is much bigger than I have the space for here, and needs to take into account other factors related
to our thinking styles, stages of consciousness development and the nature of the broader civilisational challenge
that faces us all. Richard Slaughter has called his latest book The Biggest Wake-Up Call in History
and that’s probably a good description of what is needed at the moment.
 
Some
References
The
Pashmina Paradigm Shift Analyzer
Vision
2050, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
z-punkt Sustainability as a Growth Strategy
Herman
Trend Alert: People Experiencing Green Fatigue
Seth
Godin’s Blog, Misjudging Risk and Bad Decisions
The
Biggest Wake-Up Call in History
|
