The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis or its editors.
The sustainability movement is at an inflection point where the old way of operating is no longer viable. The signs can be seen in the findings of the Trellis State of the Profession Report, our own research and news headlines.
Sustainability professionals urgently need to shape sustainability. The stakes are existential for the profession and the world. Collectively, we need to understand that the project is not simply climate change, social justice or better governance. The project is to redefine the role of business in society. What should Sustainability 2.0 look like? We invite you to take our brief survey and share your perspectives.
Currently, five major models compete for prominence. None are satisfactory.
The accounting model
This model’s theory of change: you manage what you measure (and report). This brings an accounting mindset to the practice of sustainability. The formula: data + disclosure/transparency = accountability for better environmental, social and governance performance.
This model’s collection of reporting standards, regulations and ratings helped bring sustainability into the mainstream. However, good accounting is necessary but not sufficient. Financial accounting does not drive profit and loss or make business cases. Public accounting does not deliver positive impact. What’s more, when faced with opposition and attacks, accounting tends to negotiate settlements that water down rules and requirements. As a movement, a healthy investment in accounting makes sense. However, over-investment has crowded out other vital features of sustainability. Accounting should be a means, not an end.
The rollback model
The sustainability movement and the rollback model are familiar adversaries. This model argues that the business of business is business and leaves the sole responsibility for sustainability outcomes to government.
However, a new, craven vision of the rollback model has usurped its much politer cousin.
This model is undoing the sustainability apparatus to enable overt corruption tied to monopolistic dominance. Champions of this model use tropes about the “climate hoax,” but their real, between-the-lines-message: get yours while the getting is still good. They see that the old, carbon economy has only a few squeezes left, and they intend to get the remaining juice for themselves at any cost.
The power politics model
The power politics model counters the rollback model. Countries compete to gain control over the critical minerals, rare earths, related technology and related supply chains that will enable the green transition. The prize is nothing less than dominance of the global economy and security landscape for generations. China and Europe increasingly compete while the U.S. and Russia seek to dominate the rollback game. Petrostates of the Middle East ping-pong between rollback and sustainability power politics, while the Global South tries to hedge bets on which vision to support. As nations form green industrial policies, Big Finance and Big Tech (which relies on the same materials) want in on the action.
Driven by massive public investment and legislation, the sustainability power politics model holds the potential for massive, beneficial change and it encourages world leaders to prioritize a variety of environmental concerns. However, this model may generate development and distress in equal measure. Take the case of water. The sustainability movement calls for global, collective action and responsibility. In contrast, power politics asks, How can my country control fresh water to gain dominance over yours? Its other weakness: If a topic such as human rights does not fit into the existing logic of power politics, it will remain neglected.
The anti-corporate sustainability model
This progressive model views the largely voluntary accounting model for sustainability as an abject failure. Its champions encourage a raft of alternative ideas. Many call for the regulatory state to return with a heavy hand. Others experiment with egalitarian economic concepts. Advocates of this model reject the idea of partnering with business. Business needs to be told what to do, not asked.
Anti-corporate activists demand massive, system-wide, near-revolutionary change. They’re not wrong that drastic changes are needed, but the idea that such new ideas could be invented and adopted at scale in a timely enough fashion to slow down the worst effects of climate change (among other crises) is unlikely at best.
The personal advancement model
Some leaders are far less ideologically driven and simply see the du jour nature of ESG as a means to advance themselves and their careers. In most cases, this means not rocking the boat, or going along to get along.
There are other models, but from our observations these five are dominant. And they interact with the archetypes we identified in our Trellis report, Setting Sustainability Strategy in 2025.
A new model for Sustainability 2.0
If these models are our only viable alternatives, then we’re in more trouble than we thought. Practitioners need to join the debate and form a new, better vision for sustainability. In the ensuing weeks, we will do our part to engage the Trellis network to frame an impactful, practical and actionable vision for Sustainability 2.0. We invite Trellis readers to start by responding to this brief survey. We will engage a variety of sustainability leaders for their views on how to update the first, core principles of sustainability to support this new model, and we will use this space to engage your opinions and perspectives. To start, we offer the following criteria.
Inspire with purpose. We must be honest that the movement does a poor job offering appealing visions of the future. Such outlooks exist; they just get drowned out by scolds, doom merchants and reporting frameworks.
Structure compelling incentives. System-wide, scalable change needs compelling incentives based on both carrots and sticks. Incentives that come from the sustainability accounting model are indirect and rely on the court of public opinion to leverage transparency. Sustainability incentives need a refresh.
Build sustainability around business strategy and operations. For 30 years executives have asked, “What does this look like for each business unit and job function?” with few good answers. Sustainability 2.0 must provide a pathway for true business integration and alignment.
Find a way to provide a soft landing for the “losers.” Sustainability opponents continue to wield considerable power and control. The past two years have shown they will not give up their status willingly. A just transition will have to work on what economists call “compensating variation,” in which the beneficiaries of a new system compensate the losers. Otherwise, a peaceful transition will be much more challenging.
Take tangible steps forward without gatekeeper approval. There’s no time to waste. A new model must be based on immediate action. If it relies on legislation, regulations, treaties or laws to get started, it will already be too late.
The era of Sustainability 2.0 is already upon us. It’s up to us to decide whether we shape it, or are shaped by it.
Take our survey: Help shape the principles of Sustainability 2.0.
