John—a wonderful reflection. Your humble guidance and insightful way-finding never fail to amaze me.
IMHO: We can work to change Science, Business, Markets, Politics, etc, but we (our species, our leadership, our influencers) must radically change our values as people, communities, states, countries, citizens, before any of the changes you suggest will take meaningful root.
That’s why in my own little theory of change, I chose to create and teach a course called “Systems Change for a Small Planet”, so perhaps a handful of future leaders, the kinds that will show up in places to influence the sectors you mention in your essay, might bring a changed mindset, consciousness and values to their efforts. As they say, there’s no better way to learn something new than to try to teach it. We have to fundamentally reorient our relationship to the earth and its extraordinary gifts—and this needs to be done physically and spiritually, not just intellectually. We must tend our gardens…..
This past year, I have been most inspired and influenced by Vanessa Andreotti. If you haven’t already her books Hospicing Modernity and Outgrowing Modernity, I strongly encourage you to do so. I recently took an online class with her about Meta-Relational AI, that might reshape a good deal of your current thinking and doing.
As well as John's article really resonating with me, so too did your comment. I will also put Vanessa Andreotti's books on my reading list. Thank you both for your insights.
John, thank you! This is an important reminder that moments of political and cultural disruption are ultimately leadership stress tests. For CEOs, board members, and public-sector leaders, the question isn’t how to react tactically, but whether their organizations are structurally capable of creating value under volatility. That means moving beyond ESG as risk management toward regenerative leadership — redesigning governance, incentives, and ownership so they serve the common good, build real resilience, and distribute agency closer to communities. If 2026 becomes a turning point, it will be because leaders chose systems change over signaling, and long-term stewardship over short-term advantage.
I really enjoyed this. The direction you're going with this lines up with a lot of what I've been thinking lately. First, the observation that ESG ratings most reward enterprise "preparation" while actual market returns reward "transformation" is powerful. We are measuring and valuing the wrong things, so of course we get sub-optimal outcomes.
Second, I agree there is much to explore in the realm of the social. The channels we use for communication and consensus-building matter greatly. And it is no longer sufficient for leaders to make their cases in the form of op-eds, position papers, or anything else where they are merely preaching to the choir because the choir participates in those channels. Where is the leadership from people in positions of power and authority in reaching out to make the case using the channels that people use most? A new approach is needed.
What resonated most was the missing link or lynchpin. Social science. I think this is where the Behavioural Insights Team’s research over the years has been invaluable. What I find most reassuring is the evidence provided by Reuters and others that many businesses continue to consider their social and environmental impacts in order to remain resilient for the future even if they are keeping this “under the radar”. The many organisations signed up to The Better Business Act, Good Business Charter, B Corp etc are further evidence of this. As I spend Twixtmas working my way through the new very rigorous B Corp standards so that we are ready to re certify and advise others on certification I am
Interested in how many of the large and extra extra large companies might silently drop the standard as they won’t be able to commit to responsible taxation, or better governance, or- make the leap into genuine purpose led business. Let’s see!
Thank you, Mr. Elkington for the exceptionally positive work you've been doing over the decades to help steer the world towards sustainability and balance. This essay consolidates the volume of inputs and complexity of the reality. It's a practical outline that helps catalyze public edication and civic engagement. It can be put to use right now in my neighborhood's interface with city and state coastal climate resilience planning.
Thank you, John. This is fantastic. Fully agree on the need for an updated theory of change. I feel that a failure of the last phase of sustainability has been its focus on corporate transformation rather than markets. It has been based on a sense that individual incumbent companies want to last forever and that therefore they have an interest in being the vehicles of systemic transformation. This is mistaken. Companies are a set of resources and capabilities pulled together to meet a need or want in a profitable way. This purpose is usually rooted in time and place. Their relevance inevitably fades. Operating timeframes and success metrics are short-term. Shareholdings might last 8 months or even 8 minutes. CEO tenure 5 years. They are not set up or incentivised to manage long-term change and it is wrong to expect them to. When they are no longer relevant they diminish and die, with capital and labour gradually reallocated. If we can build sustainable and competitive market structures with externalities priced and consumer interest designed in then the transition will be delivered through the cycles of business birth/growth and decline/death as better technologies, business models, products and services are created to meet needs. Rather than another era of sustainability compliance and incrementalism among outdated incumbents we need to bring forth a period of wild creative destruction in dynamic, well-designed marketplaces. That’s the process of transformation.
Governments have been trying to stop creative destruction. Providing flying buttresses to crumbling industries. I used to like the way that Japan’s MITI strategically ran some industries down (eg., shipbuilding) and ran other up (eg., biotech, supercomputing). All to say, Josh, that I agree with you!
John, This is a wonderfully engaging post that weaves together multiple threads into a compelling vision for the future. Thank you for sharing your insights on how you see things evolving. Wishing you all the best for a happy and successful New Year! - Karen
John—a wonderful reflection. Your humble guidance and insightful way-finding never fail to amaze me.
IMHO: We can work to change Science, Business, Markets, Politics, etc, but we (our species, our leadership, our influencers) must radically change our values as people, communities, states, countries, citizens, before any of the changes you suggest will take meaningful root.
That’s why in my own little theory of change, I chose to create and teach a course called “Systems Change for a Small Planet”, so perhaps a handful of future leaders, the kinds that will show up in places to influence the sectors you mention in your essay, might bring a changed mindset, consciousness and values to their efforts. As they say, there’s no better way to learn something new than to try to teach it. We have to fundamentally reorient our relationship to the earth and its extraordinary gifts—and this needs to be done physically and spiritually, not just intellectually. We must tend our gardens…..
This past year, I have been most inspired and influenced by Vanessa Andreotti. If you haven’t already her books Hospicing Modernity and Outgrowing Modernity, I strongly encourage you to do so. I recently took an online class with her about Meta-Relational AI, that might reshape a good deal of your current thinking and doing.
She's now on my reading list, Will! And I need to take your course...
As well as John's article really resonating with me, so too did your comment. I will also put Vanessa Andreotti's books on my reading list. Thank you both for your insights.
This is what I needed to read to give me hope for the future and survive this messy present. Thank you!
John, thank you! This is an important reminder that moments of political and cultural disruption are ultimately leadership stress tests. For CEOs, board members, and public-sector leaders, the question isn’t how to react tactically, but whether their organizations are structurally capable of creating value under volatility. That means moving beyond ESG as risk management toward regenerative leadership — redesigning governance, incentives, and ownership so they serve the common good, build real resilience, and distribute agency closer to communities. If 2026 becomes a turning point, it will be because leaders chose systems change over signaling, and long-term stewardship over short-term advantage.
I really enjoyed this. The direction you're going with this lines up with a lot of what I've been thinking lately. First, the observation that ESG ratings most reward enterprise "preparation" while actual market returns reward "transformation" is powerful. We are measuring and valuing the wrong things, so of course we get sub-optimal outcomes.
Second, I agree there is much to explore in the realm of the social. The channels we use for communication and consensus-building matter greatly. And it is no longer sufficient for leaders to make their cases in the form of op-eds, position papers, or anything else where they are merely preaching to the choir because the choir participates in those channels. Where is the leadership from people in positions of power and authority in reaching out to make the case using the channels that people use most? A new approach is needed.
What resonated most was the missing link or lynchpin. Social science. I think this is where the Behavioural Insights Team’s research over the years has been invaluable. What I find most reassuring is the evidence provided by Reuters and others that many businesses continue to consider their social and environmental impacts in order to remain resilient for the future even if they are keeping this “under the radar”. The many organisations signed up to The Better Business Act, Good Business Charter, B Corp etc are further evidence of this. As I spend Twixtmas working my way through the new very rigorous B Corp standards so that we are ready to re certify and advise others on certification I am
Interested in how many of the large and extra extra large companies might silently drop the standard as they won’t be able to commit to responsible taxation, or better governance, or- make the leap into genuine purpose led business. Let’s see!
Thank you, Mr. Elkington for the exceptionally positive work you've been doing over the decades to help steer the world towards sustainability and balance. This essay consolidates the volume of inputs and complexity of the reality. It's a practical outline that helps catalyze public edication and civic engagement. It can be put to use right now in my neighborhood's interface with city and state coastal climate resilience planning.
Thank you, John. This is fantastic. Fully agree on the need for an updated theory of change. I feel that a failure of the last phase of sustainability has been its focus on corporate transformation rather than markets. It has been based on a sense that individual incumbent companies want to last forever and that therefore they have an interest in being the vehicles of systemic transformation. This is mistaken. Companies are a set of resources and capabilities pulled together to meet a need or want in a profitable way. This purpose is usually rooted in time and place. Their relevance inevitably fades. Operating timeframes and success metrics are short-term. Shareholdings might last 8 months or even 8 minutes. CEO tenure 5 years. They are not set up or incentivised to manage long-term change and it is wrong to expect them to. When they are no longer relevant they diminish and die, with capital and labour gradually reallocated. If we can build sustainable and competitive market structures with externalities priced and consumer interest designed in then the transition will be delivered through the cycles of business birth/growth and decline/death as better technologies, business models, products and services are created to meet needs. Rather than another era of sustainability compliance and incrementalism among outdated incumbents we need to bring forth a period of wild creative destruction in dynamic, well-designed marketplaces. That’s the process of transformation.
Governments have been trying to stop creative destruction. Providing flying buttresses to crumbling industries. I used to like the way that Japan’s MITI strategically ran some industries down (eg., shipbuilding) and ran other up (eg., biotech, supercomputing). All to say, Josh, that I agree with you!
John, This is a wonderfully engaging post that weaves together multiple threads into a compelling vision for the future. Thank you for sharing your insights on how you see things evolving. Wishing you all the best for a happy and successful New Year! - Karen