As always, you're right on the money John (excuse the pun).
It really does feel as though we're on the brink - and we've chosen to be here.
Have we left it too late? Many people like Jem Bendell etc believe so and are working hard to adapt to climate collapse.
Out of curiosity, I 'googled': "do we have to wait for the economic system to break and witness social and environmental collapse, or do we still have enough people and time to do something about it?
I'm not sure if this is the right question, however the AI generated response was this:
"No, we don't have to wait for the economic system to break to do something about climate change and social and environmental collapse:
1. Take action on climate change
Some say that action on climate change should be the starting point, and that economic growth can be compatible with that objective.
2. Reform the financial system
Some say that the global financial system needs to be reformed to provide more funding for vulnerable countries and to restructure debt.
3. Create a popular movement
Some say that a popular movement based in academia and civil society can help guide humanity towards developing a new "foresight intelligence".
4. Support new initiatives
Some say that there is growing government support for moving beyond GDP and growth at all costs towards new wellbeing indicators and greater wealth distribution.
5. Recognize that a strong economy and a healthy environment are complementary
Some say that there is growing evidence that a strong economy and a healthy environment are not only complementary, but each depends on the other.
6. Some say that the biggest challenge in avoiding collapse is convincing people, especially politicians and economists, to alter their behavior. "
How many represent 'some' as in "some say" ?
It feels like a minority, but as always the likes of Musk, Trump, Zuckerberg, Farage et al have the loudest voices, so I'm not sure how many 'some' are. Perhaps there are enough?
My question is how do people like you, organisations like Volans, Donut Economics, Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), Global Commons Alliance, Planetary Healthcheck, B Lab, Social Enterprise, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Limits to Growth, and the many, many more individuals and organisations who are committed to shaping a better world better communicate and collaborate? Huge apologies for that ridiculously long sentence.
Every piece of data I encounter leaves me feeling more concerned, and less hopeful. I really want and need that to change.
It always gets darker before...it gets darker still? My sense, Donna, is that there is a very real limit to what we can achieve with individual businesses without changing the market dynamics that shape their priorities and behaviours. That's not a trivial task. But it is one I am committed to probing further : ) So thanks for the thoughts - they will go in the hopper!
Adding Social Value International, which stewards a methodology for systematically and directly asking all parties affected by enterprise activities how they have been affected for good or ill and how important that is to them, to your list.
When we talk about markets, we must include consumers in the equation. Not just focusing on companies but also integrating consumers as co-creators of the economy and the type of development we aim to build. One of the essential questions we need to live with, paraphrasing Otto Scharmer, is: How can we rebalance the economic playing field so that consumers can engage in collaborative, conscious consumption and become equal partners in creating well-being for all?
We need to place greater emphasis on consumers. We are the most powerful market incentive.
That's why I did a series of books, including the million-selling Green Consumer Guide, to take the arguments out to consumers, Federico. But, most of the time, consumers - that is all of us - don't want to think about this stuff. Consumers can force companies to act, but mobilising consumers can be tough - unless their very personal interests are threatened.
Thank you for your response and for the work you’ve done, among many others, to engage consumers through your books. I have red few of them and I am taking action and walking the talk, because this is also the point, our personal interests are threatened.
I believe we must also embrace the fact that this is a systemic and complex challenge, requiring action from multiple dimensions. It’s essential to overcome the pervasive sense of insignificance that many people feel about their role in these transformations and be unreasonable. We need to keep the flame of hope alive. Not just as wishful thinking, but as a bold, guiding force that transcends fear and simple optimism—a deep conviction that what we do matters, that every action counts, and that the future we’re co-creating hold profound meaning.
Thank you again for your work and for this exchange of ideas.
I’ve always valued your contributions to our field and appreciate your invitation to comment on your recent post on the failure of contemporary capitalism. So, with a great deal of humility I’m sharing my thoughts on a couple of the promising responses available to us.
- If you’re working at system scale then the machinery of government needs to be made to work in the public good once more. This creates the potential for reform. In Australia strategic philanthropy has funded and created an independent group of highly effective elected leaders, and this has influenced the national political agenda and debate. Corporates are not the only source of funding available to influence decision making processes.
- if you’re working outside the system, at fractal level, then place based collective efforts have the potential to create resilient communities capable of a diversified food system, to start with. Nature based solutions to climate risk are also best designed at local scale. This taps regenerative thinking that has taken hold and captured imagination lately. However funding is hard to come by for those attempting projects, at least in Australia.
I’m sure you’re familiar with both as theories of change for the necessary shift, and curious what other inputs have shaped your mindcraft on this matter. I’ll watch for your next postings with interest to follow your thinking.
Very helpful, Amanda. Many thanks! and the idea of governments working efficiently and effectively in service of the public good is certainly an attractive one...
I completely agree that we need to focus on markets and deep shifts in market logic. That is a collective action response to the predicaments we’re in - a mess of nested collective action problems. But who are the collective actors? Until 2016 we had a more or less cohesive ‘West’ , an alliance of democracies with more or less reliable institutions and leaders. Since Trump 1.0 that has changed. The combined effect of a) the downsides of 4 decades of neoliberalism, b) the 2008 Crash and subsequent austerity, c) social media, d) pandemic and e) post-2022 inflation has been overwhelming Western politics and societies. The result of deep inequalities, precarity for middle classes and aspirant working classes and Wild West social media has been a revival of fascist movements. And those now have a grip on the US federal government as well as on Russia and many parties in Europe. All that means we have no longer got a coherent ‘West’ to act on our collective action problems, and to face down the dictatorships in Russia and China. Indeed, the new US regime is basically aspiring to make America a super-rich version of Russia. The EU is dangerously destabilised by all these developments, and also is not a coherent actor. So what is left? We need some serious international, inter-regional and inter-sectoral alliances that have enough critical mass to shift the incentives and values in key markets. That requires companies committed to sustainability to recognise that they have to hang together - or all hang separately, as the old saying goes. And they need to give up any fantasies about ‘keeping out of politics’ - they’re in a political fight now for sustainable development, democracy and civic values in the West, and there is no escaping it. As for those companies now leaving GFANZ and ‘green-hushing’ - well, they have made their true values known. They are willing to bow to authoritarian pressure and compromise or give up their claimed values. The rest have to find safety in numbers, and to form a common front with political parties, NGOs and sub-national governments against what is on the rise - and let’s be in no doubt, it is C21st fascism.
And a happy 2025 to you, too, Ian - unlikely though that sometimes seems! The contours of tomorrow's capitalism are increasingly clear, though I think people like Musk will overreach themselves and even proto-fascists have to face up to reality eventually. But we certainly face interesting times.
This is certainly an "emperor has no clothes" moment for big business (largely a US phenomenon but your highlighting of Unilever and Volvo shows it extends to non-US companies as well). I get it that large / publicly-traded companies will naturally put profit maximisation at the top of their agendas. However, since at least the 90s (and most certainly since the dawn of the digital tech era), many companies have been pushing the narrative that they embody some type of higher, worthy purpose. Clearly this isn't the case. While their flip-flopping as of late is certainly politically expedient, what will the consequences be for their (already damaged) credibility? Where will they come out when the political winds blow in the opposite direction (because they always do, eventually)?
As for what to do about this, maybe it's time we all put more emphasis on the positive and spend our energies championing companies that make good-faith efforts to fulfil their promises regarding people and the planet.
As always, you're right on the money John (excuse the pun).
It really does feel as though we're on the brink - and we've chosen to be here.
Have we left it too late? Many people like Jem Bendell etc believe so and are working hard to adapt to climate collapse.
Out of curiosity, I 'googled': "do we have to wait for the economic system to break and witness social and environmental collapse, or do we still have enough people and time to do something about it?
I'm not sure if this is the right question, however the AI generated response was this:
"No, we don't have to wait for the economic system to break to do something about climate change and social and environmental collapse:
1. Take action on climate change
Some say that action on climate change should be the starting point, and that economic growth can be compatible with that objective.
2. Reform the financial system
Some say that the global financial system needs to be reformed to provide more funding for vulnerable countries and to restructure debt.
3. Create a popular movement
Some say that a popular movement based in academia and civil society can help guide humanity towards developing a new "foresight intelligence".
4. Support new initiatives
Some say that there is growing government support for moving beyond GDP and growth at all costs towards new wellbeing indicators and greater wealth distribution.
5. Recognize that a strong economy and a healthy environment are complementary
Some say that there is growing evidence that a strong economy and a healthy environment are not only complementary, but each depends on the other.
6. Some say that the biggest challenge in avoiding collapse is convincing people, especially politicians and economists, to alter their behavior. "
How many represent 'some' as in "some say" ?
It feels like a minority, but as always the likes of Musk, Trump, Zuckerberg, Farage et al have the loudest voices, so I'm not sure how many 'some' are. Perhaps there are enough?
My question is how do people like you, organisations like Volans, Donut Economics, Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), Global Commons Alliance, Planetary Healthcheck, B Lab, Social Enterprise, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Limits to Growth, and the many, many more individuals and organisations who are committed to shaping a better world better communicate and collaborate? Huge apologies for that ridiculously long sentence.
Every piece of data I encounter leaves me feeling more concerned, and less hopeful. I really want and need that to change.
It always gets darker before...it gets darker still? My sense, Donna, is that there is a very real limit to what we can achieve with individual businesses without changing the market dynamics that shape their priorities and behaviours. That's not a trivial task. But it is one I am committed to probing further : ) So thanks for the thoughts - they will go in the hopper!
Adding Social Value International, which stewards a methodology for systematically and directly asking all parties affected by enterprise activities how they have been affected for good or ill and how important that is to them, to your list.
When we talk about markets, we must include consumers in the equation. Not just focusing on companies but also integrating consumers as co-creators of the economy and the type of development we aim to build. One of the essential questions we need to live with, paraphrasing Otto Scharmer, is: How can we rebalance the economic playing field so that consumers can engage in collaborative, conscious consumption and become equal partners in creating well-being for all?
We need to place greater emphasis on consumers. We are the most powerful market incentive.
That's why I did a series of books, including the million-selling Green Consumer Guide, to take the arguments out to consumers, Federico. But, most of the time, consumers - that is all of us - don't want to think about this stuff. Consumers can force companies to act, but mobilising consumers can be tough - unless their very personal interests are threatened.
Thank you for your response and for the work you’ve done, among many others, to engage consumers through your books. I have red few of them and I am taking action and walking the talk, because this is also the point, our personal interests are threatened.
I believe we must also embrace the fact that this is a systemic and complex challenge, requiring action from multiple dimensions. It’s essential to overcome the pervasive sense of insignificance that many people feel about their role in these transformations and be unreasonable. We need to keep the flame of hope alive. Not just as wishful thinking, but as a bold, guiding force that transcends fear and simple optimism—a deep conviction that what we do matters, that every action counts, and that the future we’re co-creating hold profound meaning.
Thank you again for your work and for this exchange of ideas.
Hi John
I’ve always valued your contributions to our field and appreciate your invitation to comment on your recent post on the failure of contemporary capitalism. So, with a great deal of humility I’m sharing my thoughts on a couple of the promising responses available to us.
- If you’re working at system scale then the machinery of government needs to be made to work in the public good once more. This creates the potential for reform. In Australia strategic philanthropy has funded and created an independent group of highly effective elected leaders, and this has influenced the national political agenda and debate. Corporates are not the only source of funding available to influence decision making processes.
- if you’re working outside the system, at fractal level, then place based collective efforts have the potential to create resilient communities capable of a diversified food system, to start with. Nature based solutions to climate risk are also best designed at local scale. This taps regenerative thinking that has taken hold and captured imagination lately. However funding is hard to come by for those attempting projects, at least in Australia.
I’m sure you’re familiar with both as theories of change for the necessary shift, and curious what other inputs have shaped your mindcraft on this matter. I’ll watch for your next postings with interest to follow your thinking.
Best regards
Amanda
Very helpful, Amanda. Many thanks! and the idea of governments working efficiently and effectively in service of the public good is certainly an attractive one...
Thanks John, and Happy New Year.
I completely agree that we need to focus on markets and deep shifts in market logic. That is a collective action response to the predicaments we’re in - a mess of nested collective action problems. But who are the collective actors? Until 2016 we had a more or less cohesive ‘West’ , an alliance of democracies with more or less reliable institutions and leaders. Since Trump 1.0 that has changed. The combined effect of a) the downsides of 4 decades of neoliberalism, b) the 2008 Crash and subsequent austerity, c) social media, d) pandemic and e) post-2022 inflation has been overwhelming Western politics and societies. The result of deep inequalities, precarity for middle classes and aspirant working classes and Wild West social media has been a revival of fascist movements. And those now have a grip on the US federal government as well as on Russia and many parties in Europe. All that means we have no longer got a coherent ‘West’ to act on our collective action problems, and to face down the dictatorships in Russia and China. Indeed, the new US regime is basically aspiring to make America a super-rich version of Russia. The EU is dangerously destabilised by all these developments, and also is not a coherent actor. So what is left? We need some serious international, inter-regional and inter-sectoral alliances that have enough critical mass to shift the incentives and values in key markets. That requires companies committed to sustainability to recognise that they have to hang together - or all hang separately, as the old saying goes. And they need to give up any fantasies about ‘keeping out of politics’ - they’re in a political fight now for sustainable development, democracy and civic values in the West, and there is no escaping it. As for those companies now leaving GFANZ and ‘green-hushing’ - well, they have made their true values known. They are willing to bow to authoritarian pressure and compromise or give up their claimed values. The rest have to find safety in numbers, and to form a common front with political parties, NGOs and sub-national governments against what is on the rise - and let’s be in no doubt, it is C21st fascism.
And a happy 2025 to you, too, Ian - unlikely though that sometimes seems! The contours of tomorrow's capitalism are increasingly clear, though I think people like Musk will overreach themselves and even proto-fascists have to face up to reality eventually. But we certainly face interesting times.
Thank you John as always for your insights.
This is certainly an "emperor has no clothes" moment for big business (largely a US phenomenon but your highlighting of Unilever and Volvo shows it extends to non-US companies as well). I get it that large / publicly-traded companies will naturally put profit maximisation at the top of their agendas. However, since at least the 90s (and most certainly since the dawn of the digital tech era), many companies have been pushing the narrative that they embody some type of higher, worthy purpose. Clearly this isn't the case. While their flip-flopping as of late is certainly politically expedient, what will the consequences be for their (already damaged) credibility? Where will they come out when the political winds blow in the opposite direction (because they always do, eventually)?
As for what to do about this, maybe it's time we all put more emphasis on the positive and spend our energies championing companies that make good-faith efforts to fulfil their promises regarding people and the planet.
I agree with your positivity point, Trista, but we have to be careful of admiring the design of the deckchairs on the decks of The Titanic...