What is happening? Extinction Rebellion protests against ecological collapse, one small chocolate bar seems to result in a water scarcity footprint of 21 litres, and EU ministers are fudging the 2030 climate target lines…one can't help but wonder what is next. Can we rely on the current sustainability frameworks to gear our actions toward a more resource efficient and people-friendly planet?
Remember this: Elkington famously coined the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) in 1994. It was meant to create a system change by adding a social and environmental dimension to the way companies perform. Also known as People, Planet, Profit, or simply 3P. Some people even put it in their company name (did you spot it yet?).
But here it comes: John Elkington himself states in an HBR article that he wants to recall the Triple Bottom Line. He states that all the sustainability frameworks in the world are not going to save us as long as they are not accompanied by the radical intent to stay within our planetary boundaries. According to Elkington corporate leaders heavily prioritise their profit targets over the people and planet targets. The TBL concept ended up as a reporting tool rather than a means to genuinely manage the impact on our planet. In that sense the TBL concept has not produced the desired change in the single bottom line paradigm.
What about Circular Economy? True, it is currently the go-to for anything sustainable for policy makers and companies. As the Ellen MacArthur Foundation describes it: ‘an industrial economy that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design’. It is at the heart of value creation through activities such as remanufacturing. I always find it hugely impressive to watch an industry transform from a linear to a circular model and gladly support the process. For resource efficiency Circular Economy is key.
That should do it: Yes and no. As the name indicates, the circular economy focuses on product innovation and circular business strategies. Primarily benefiting both the environment and the businesses implementing a circular business model. However, the social aspect seems to be more fuzzy. For those intrigued by the difference between circular economy and sustainability (including TBL) check out this article from the Journal of Cleaner Production.
What about Brundtland? Believe it or not, there are 300 definitions of sustainability. Brundtland’s definition of ‘meeting present needs without compromising the needs of future generations’ remains a classic. One of the hardest things I encountered starting out as a sustainability consultant was that everybody seems to have a different understanding of what sustainability actually is. For one client it was about employability, for another about recycling critical raw materials, yet for another it was about access to healthy eating. All of these make sense, they are all part of the holistic approach.
Back to the protests, ecological disasters and fudging ministers: Environmental responsibility is increasingly demanded by the general public, (most) policymakers and a younger workforce. So where do we go from here? Based on my own experience I find the following approach very handy: One, create a clear vision and strategy based on the three pillars of People, Planet and Profit. Two, apply circular thinking in product design and business models, involving all stakeholders in the process. Three, walk the talk: ensure that all sustainability communications are supported by data (LCA analysis is extremely helpful here). Whatever framework, or solution, the drive for change is here.