How can big business be greened, and lead in saving the world?

11 min readJan 12, 2024

As in, for real…

You may have heard and thought that it cannot be done. Due to systemic barriers and man-made concepts and rules. Those are not natural laws, they are changeable.

Big business can be greened (and we’re onto the how-to). Not only that, it’s a matter of fiduciary duty, personal risks and career prospects that we get on with it now, in radical terms.

Excerpt

A liveable future and wellbeing for all cannot be achieved without a swift radical systems change, with specific urgent milestones attained by 2030, before mass-extinction outcomes are locked-in (become unavoidable later this century).
Big Business CEOs and Board Members possess unique privileges and predispositions that enable them to play a leading and critical role in co-delivering this transformation. Even more so, without their active “Systemic Leadership”, attaining the necessary 2030 milestones may not be at all feasible.
Co-delivering a systems change and the 2030 milestones is in fact a matter of business imperative and fiduciary duty — as future conditions conducive to shareholder value retention fully depend on this swift transformation.
Once provided with relevant insights and information flows, Big Business CEOs and Board Members will recognise this business imperative and form a Cohort of First-Movers, to begin actively intervening in the system, towards the 2030 milestones, in multi-stakeholder alliances with other actors.
These relevant insights and information flows therefore play the role of building a bridge across paradigms — enabling the potential to transcend paradigms.

We invite you to read more below, and share your thoughts with us, so we can continue improving the theory of change.

Our intent

Our intent in publishing our theory of change is to invite fellow systems change-agents to critique it, and in doing so help us improve it. We also believe engaging with our theory of change may help one reflect on their own. May this exchange enrich us mutually, and help us deliver the desired outcomes faster.
(You may submit your critique via the contact form, by commenting under this post, or by messaging Alice if you’re already connected. We will be updating the theory regularly as our understanding continues to mature, and keep a log of revisions on the bottom).

Our starting point

A systemic understanding of real-world sustainability informs us that attaining a liveable future and wellbeing for all commands an immediate, radical systems change.
We define real-world sustainability as a state of the global community and economy thriving within the so-called 9 planetary boundaries — the ecological budgets or ceilings defined by the planet’s ability to renew ecosystem services we rely on — and while meeting all 12 social foundations — such as food security, social equity, gender equality or access to water, as defined in the doughnut by Kate Raworth.

Where we choose to intervene

We have set out to deliver and nurture a cohort of first-mover organisations, CEOs and Board Members who see it as a matter of business imperative to take on an with immediate, radical business transformation towards Business-as-the-World-Needs and active co-orchestration of a radical systems change, in multi-stakeholder alliances with other actors.
By taking on this Corporate Systemic Leadership responsibility, such a Cohort of First-Movers would work to achieve the twin milestones: most business globally being zero-harm business, and an interim transitional global system being in place before 2030.
Science and a systemic perspective inform us that these two milestones are necessary for us to delay and mitigate a scenario in middle class standards of living deteriorate and which meta-disruption sends many industries crumbling in the 2030s, and mass loss of human life and conditions completely inhospitable to business ensue from the late 2040s onwards. (To better understand this high probability scenario, see our free on-demand webinar: What Does Overshoot Really Mean for Business, and How Sustainable is Sustainable Enough)?

Why do we choose to intervene in this place?

Broadly accepted theories of change rely on timely regulatory and systemic policy action by governments (in response to public pressures or as a result of a democratic process). These do not seem to take into account:

The power dynamics among key stakeholder groups (mainly, that the political process in some parts of the world has been completely hijacked by corporate interests, and does not cater to the needs of the electorate, which may not change at all with new elections); nor
the 2030 deadline against which an interim system and zero-harm business must be achieved before mass-extinction outcomes are locked in — mainly how quickly a social tipping point resulting in the election of majority pro-systems change representations in both parliamentary chambers, where applicable, would have to be attained; nor
the necessity of attaining such a radical systems change globally — meaning that all countries around the world would have to elect or otherwise put in place pro-systems change governments at the same time, including those that are not well functioning democracies.

This is why we look for plausible pathways elsewhere.

Big business and business leaders are in a unique position to play a leading role in a co-orchestration of a systems change, via corporate systemic leadership. They have:

the privilege (financial security),
the means (budgets),
the platform and audience (public visibility, access to media and prestigious events, often large followings, and the ear of other key stakeholder groups, such as investors)
influence or power over other key stakeholder groups (especially governments, consumers / broad public, but also suppliers, intermediaries, innovators, and indirectly supranational bodies)
and the access to multiple potent levers (power over a system’s goals, power over a system’s rules, and so forth).

*Note the image of stakehodler power dynamics may be very different in different parts of the world.*

How do we choose to intervene?

Currently business leaders either do not see the necessity or the path to radical business transformation and a systems change (they are uninformed, misinformed, or disinformed). In other words, they continue to make strategic business decisions and attempt to fulfil their fiduciary duty on the basis of invalid inputs.
Many may not realise that Big Business already intervene in the macro system — albeit in the opposite direction of the desired and necessary systems change. And they are already good at it. These interventions are carried out believing them to be a matter of business imperative, shareholder value maximisation and hence fiduciary duty. (Or while pretending to still believe so.) This assumption may have held true in the past, but will not hold into the future.
We aim to deliver a course-correction, by creating a new information flow, a new feedback loop — providing business leaders with the relevant insights for their strategic decisions. These insights are the result of our state-of-the-art sense-making: combining alignment with science, ethics, a systemic perspective and strategic business acumen.

This so-called SWoN Approach allows us to

clearly see the imperatives dictated by the polycrisis,
to clearly translate them into strategic business imperatives and available courses of action, articulated using familiar business language, and to
illustrate how exactly the ethical and business imperatives are aligned.

In delivering this new information flow, we are also exposing the fallacy and inadequacy of existing paradigms of corporate sustainability and business strategy, and vocalising new, more relevant paradigms for these disciplines.

Therefore, our theory of change and interventions leverage existing preoccupation with shareholder value, business imperative and fiduciary duty, and existing capability and networks through which Big Business already intervenes in the macro system.

Having received these relevant information flows, business leaders ought to conclude that a radical business transformation and a swift co-orchestration of systems change are in the best interest of their shareholders, business continuity, personal career prospects, in addition to being being in the interest of all life. (See the free on-demand webinar: What Does Overshoot Really Mean for Business?)
Swift and effective systemic leadership action by a cohort of first mover businesses and business leaders, followed by peers, it seems to us, would also support and make more viable other theories of change and social causes — including the reaching of social tipping points, greater representation in leadership roles, and so forth.

The twin necessary 2030 milestones: most business being zero-harm business and an interim system in place.

How do we respond to some of the most common objections to the viability and radical business transformation, and Big Business being a key driver in co-orchestration of a systems change?

Yes, there are significant systemic barriers to business-as-usual transforming into Business-as-the-World-Needs. Hence the simultaneous co-orchestration of a systems change via Corporate Systemic Leadership — the possibility of which most existing research seems to make no consideration of.
Yes, one business or leader cannot achieve this alone. Hence the emphasis on mobilising a courageous, large-enough, impossible to ignore cohort of first-mover businesses and business leaders who will in turn illuminate the path for and mobilise a full critical mass.
And, alliances of first-mover business leaders cannot deliver an interim, transitory system nor a final system alone either — nor would that be desirable: we will need trans-sectoral, transdisciplinary, representative and inclusive, post-colonial task forces to achieve the same. Many of these other actors and stakeholders (NGOs, activists, citizen assemblies…) are ready and keen to act, yet alone lack the power to drive change, and some are not — they are under the heavy influence of corporate interests, which currently sway towards preservation of status quo.

Our Specific Interventions

The SWoN Training Series is one of our offerings working towards this theory of change — leveraging awareness, passion and resolve to act dormant in sustainability champions in in-house sustainability functions or sustainability consultancies, and mid- to senior-level business generalists who see the predicament and see a need for radical transformational action. Learn more

We are also working towards launching workshops for the C-Suite and Board members: where they can acquaint themselves with the business imperatives (as informed through SWoN), explore the systems change toolkit, their potential systemic leadership role, and co-ideate specific interventions that they can take on. Coming in 2024; subscribe to stay up to date.

We will additionally launch a standalone short online training intended for influencing and mobilising sustainability leaders (where the change agent themselves is not the most senior sustainability champion in an organisation or where they do not liaise with such a senior leader on the client side). Coming in early 2024.

Key Open Questions for our Theory of Change

How do we make sure that co-orchestration of a systems change driven by first-mover business and business leaders is carried out at a sufficient pace and scale — meaning globally, across most if not all countries?
How do we make sure that co-orchestration of a systems change driven by first-mover business and business leaders doesn’t lend itself to neo-coloniality, imposition of views, norms and culture, and does not diminish cultural and linguistic diversity but instead embraces and nourishes it?

How does ours differ the most from other theories of change?

For us, reaching a social tipping point for mindset or paradigm shift among the general population is not a precondition for (and hence barrier to) radical action

We argue that radical business transformation and systems change do not have to begin with a society-wide mindset change and paradigm shift — in fact, we don’t think there is sufficient time for this approach to yield a systems change. Nor sufficient will with those in position of visibility, power and influence.

Based on our observation and experience, changing one’s mindset and worldview is dependent on one’s personal inclination and commitment to achieving such a shift, through significant and consistent effort. While some business leaders may feel this inclination, we assume that most don’t. And hence we do not rely on achieving it.

At the same time, sufficient social pressure from the broader public would depend on:

a) many people suddenly finding the time and mindspace for reflection and active community/civic engagement
b) them achieving an ethical awakening,
c) them achieving it all over the whole world, simultaneously.

Again, we find these preconditions implausible in the near-term — meeting them would depend on very many people suddenly not being consumed with merely making ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck (that is if they have a paycheck, which many don’t). And we think that these preconditions being met would itself be an effect of a major change in the system — such as a 3- or 4-day workweek becoming the norm.

Attaining the necessary milestone of an interim system via a democratic process by 2030 is extremely ambitious, if at all realistic. Attaining the milestone of most business being zero harm business by 2030 is not viable — as the policy rollout would begin too late in the decade, and likely incorporate a implementation period of several years for business to adapt.

In contrast, we rely on leveraging existing mindset and preoccupation with shareholder value creation and protection, fiduciary duty, and personal careers to drive the change. In fact, today’s business leaders are leaders because they have proven the best of all in following these sets of incentives. And using the SWoN Approach, we can demonstrate that the ethical and business imperatives are aligned — that future profits can only be made through “saving the world”. (We concede that this argument would have been impossible to make years or decades ago — things have had to have gotten really bad for it to work).

We aim to use the SWoN Approach to articulate this business imperative in business language, and make “Horizon 3” thinking accessible to business leaders, who we assume relate to the world through thinking more than feeling — whether as a matter of how they are wired, or as a matter of conditioning. We aim to provide them with the right, relevant, SWoN-aligned inputs, so they can use their existing, highly developed business reasoning to conclude they MUST begin with radical business transformation and co-orchestration of systems change, because business continuity, shareholder value, non-breach of fiduciary duty (and hence very likely personal legal liability), their own personal further income and wealth, reputation and career, identity, etc, vitally depend on it — on this swift radical action. In addition to all life. (Some would liken this approach to aikido — channelling the opponent’s power in a different direction).

We are supportive of efforts towards synergistic theories of change — for example working towards a mindset change and paradigm shift in parallel, as such a shift will be inevitable for arriving at and thriving within a wholly new system.

What do you think?

What theory of change are you working towards?

And how does it intend to meet the necessary 2030 milestones?