Directions 2015: The Rise of Science by MSL Global

THE RISE OF SCIENCE How does it mix with sustainability, business strategy and consumer emotion?

DIRECTIONS 15

THE RISE OF SCIENCE

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

CONTENTS

SCIENCE AND DOUGHNUTS IN THE LABORATORY

DIMENSION 1: SCIENCE-BASED GOALS DAVID CROFT A MEASURED APPROACH MATTHEW SWIBEL IT’S NOT JUST SCIENCE ON OUR RADAR MARK W. McELROY SCIENCE + ETHICS = CONTEXT JOHN KORNERUP BANG APPLYING SCIENCE

2 4

6 8 10 12 14

Science has always been a part of sustainability solutions. Yet in recent years it’s been lurking in the background of the corporate sustainability debate, biding its time, waiting for its moment to shine. It seems as though that time has arrived.

DIMENSION 2: SCIENCE-BASED FRAMEWORKS GUIDO SCHMIDT-TRAUB ORCHESTRATED ACTION KATE RAWORTH CAN DOUGHNUTS SAVE US? DR. JAKE REYNOLDS REWIRING THE ECONOMY PETER BAKKER THEORY INTO PRACTICE DR. GEOFF KENDALL BACK TO THE FUTURE CHRISTOPHER DAVIS KATE LEVINE

BEAUTY IS ACADEMIC

DIMENSION 3: 36 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ANDY HOWARD DISSECTING DATA 38 ANNIE LANCASTER THE RE40 ENLIGHTENMENT

CREATING SOLUTIONS?

30 34

DIRECTIONS 2015 TEAM NIGEL SALTER Founder & CEO

Is science really going to unlock the big sustainability challenges as it gets blended into the hard realities of business and marketing? Are science-based targets the driver of change?

18 20

Companies from a wide range of sectors, from beauty to construction, are giving a greater prominence to science in their approaches to sustainability. It’s now being mixed with mainstream business thinking, with sustainability theory, target setting and strategy, and with brands and their relationship to consumers and investors. But can this heady mixture be made to work?

JIM PEACOCK Director, Consultancy & Communications NINA PICKUP Creative Director ANNIE LANCASTER Senior Consultant KRISTINA JOSS Senior Sustainability Consultant CAROLINE CARSON Sustainability Consultant

OLIVIA STANDISH Researcher & Project Lead AMY KELLY Studio Manager RICHARD WILSON Design Director AMBER HADLEY Designer GARY McCALL Print Manager LOUISE MOYNA Production Team Lead

How necessary and powerful are academic frameworks connecting the science behind sustainability to business strategies? And will consumers or investors ever really be won over by scientific truths? This 15th edition of Directions will look at three dimensions contributing to the rise of science in corporate sustainability: science-based targets, scientific frameworks, and stakeholder engagement with science. We’ll hear views for and against from academics giving businesses the tools for science’s adoption, and business leaders applying these tools to their thinking and activities. Is science going to save us all from ourselves (and from our constant theorising about sustainability)? Well, take a look inside. At the very least we think it’s hard to argue against the signs that science is growing its influence and looks set to transform the way we think about corporate sustainability.

MARK LEVER Senior Artworker

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

NIGEL SALTER Founder & CEO Salterbaxter

SCIENCE AND DOUGHNUTS – IS THIS SUSTAINABILITY’S NEXT WAVE? Science was at the heart of sustainability from the start. But now there’s a renewed interest in how it can direct thinking and lead to better, more focused action. That’s good, says Nigel Salter, but many challenges lie ahead.

Science is, of course, not a new aspect of sustainability thinking. It was where it all started – long before the business strategists, the management consultants and the communications agencies got in on the act. But we have seen a significant refocusing on science recently and it now seems to be moving back to centre stage, claiming what many would say is its rightful place at the very heart of sustainability. The interesting challenge will be to see if it can really blend with business strategy, with marketing, with branding and with business performance and start to bring about real change in tackling our pressing environmental, economic and social issues. To play a meaningful and lasting role it is going to have to force change in these areas and bring something useful to an already crowded party. The signs are that it is already making a significant splash. SCIENCE MAKING A SPLASH Science-based targets have become something of a holy grail over the past year or so. Most businesses serious about sustainability now see them as a prerequisite to tackling and reporting on their sustainability challenges – an accepted science, you might say. But do they work? How can they be calculated? What are the implications of using a real science-based approach? And are these targets really practical or workable enough for business to put them to effective use? There are, as you can see, still as many questions as answers. But our experience is that they are central to the discussions in major corporations right now, and as you’ll read in the following pages, companies in diverse sectors are grappling with them and already applying some of the thinking. That’s supported by some new and developing science-based frameworks for sustainability, that provide important ways of looking at the sustainability challenges we face.

One Planet Thinking and Planetary Boundaries have given us a very useful way to look at environmental threats. They map the environmental limits we must live within if we want to preserve an environment that can be shared safely by the nine billion people who will live here by the middle of the century. Then we have the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, with their 169 targets, which, rather remarkably, have been agreed by 193 countries after a huge and unprecedented stakeholder consultation programme. They now stand as a very practical guide for businesses as they move forward on their individual sustainability journeys. And we now have the Future-Fit Benchmark, which really does look like a workable framework allowing companies to measure their performance in practical ways and to begin the challenging but essential task of fundamentally rethinking their business models. These all look like solid progress and clear evidence that scientific insight is gaining a necessary influence and providing some fascinating new models and ideas for business to work with. BUT IT’S NOT NECESSARILY ALL GOOD There are some risks and some possible unintended consequences that need to be thought about too. As we hear in the pages that follow, in some cases scientific targets – if adhered to too rigidly or applied too bluntly – could end up providing the wrong answers, justifying a reduction in carbon-cutting activity by some companies, for example. Then there’s the ever-present danger that business could merely turn science into another PR exercise and use it to screen a lack of real progress – a more rational and seemingly more credible form of greenwashing, if you like. Similarly, as some of our writers warn, there’s a danger of turning science-based approaches into a self-serving industry, another time and resource consuming exercise that holds companies back from acting on the things that will really make a difference.

And, finally, what about the social side of sustainability? The science has done a very good job in certain aspects of environmental performance – notably in understanding climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. Where social issues and the need to build a more just and equitable global economy are concerned, science has, so far, barely scratched the surface. THE DOUGHNUTS This is where the doughnuts come in. As we hear on page 20, Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Model presents a picture of where we must get to in the 21st century: living safely below the planetary boundaries but lifting people above the inner ring of social resources to ensure they can live in dignity and with fair access to opportunity. The doughnut gives us a clear picture of how and why we need to get that balance right. But on the final frontier, perhaps, lies a very practical question – can science help to sell stuff? By which I mean, can science be used effectively to sell the sustainability story to consumers? Can it provide a new imperative to change behaviours and alter purchasing patterns? As we know from the GM foods debate, consumers have very firm views about issues and those views last even when scientific arguments, seemingly full of logic and reason, are presented to counter them. There’s also a danger that attempts to ‘educate’ consumers using science and the power of logic can end up backfiring because they can too easily seem patronising. This is the true test – and at present, science isn’t winning. So welcome to the new era of science-led sustainability thinking! Interesting times lie ahead. Let’s hope the mixture of science, sustainability, business strategy, brands and emotions doesn’t get too explosive. If handled right, it could be a far more creative force.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

IN THE LABORATORY

John Kor ner up Bang John Kornerup Bang is Hea d of Positioning and Strategic Risk Managemen t, Group Sustainability at A.P. Møller – Maersk Gro up. He is Lead Advisor on Climate Change for the Maersk Group.

Here are some of the experts who have contributed to this year’s publication:

David Croft David Croft is Sustainable Development Director for Diageo. Previously with Waitrose, Kraft Foods, Cadbury, and the Co-operative Group, David’s roles included leading technical, marketing and sustainability functions in quality, safety, brand marketing, sustainability, and sustainable agriculture.

Peter Bakker CEO of the World Peter Bakker is the President and lopment. Deve ble Business Council for Sustaina Global Citizen on Clint the of ient recip Mr. Bakker is the ership Lead bility Award (2009); the SAM Sustaina Against dor assa Amb an been has and Award (2010); e 2011. sinc e ramm Prog Hunger for the UN World Food ds. erlan Neth Child War of rman Chai He is also the

Andy Howard s Research, Andy Howard is the founder of Dida on long-term sed focu firm arch rese an independent led the GS SUSTAIN equity investing. Andy previously in London, research team at Goldman Sachs McKinsey, advised financial institutions with ess. Witn al Glob NGO the and worked with

Christopher Davis rate Social the Director of Corpo Christopher Davis is dy Shop Bo e Th for ns aig Camp Responsibility and 2004 to work ned the business in International. He joi d in 2010 was an , ick dd Ro ita er An with company found aders Award Le s es Nations Busin awarded the United rk. wo in recognition for his

Dr. Geoff Kendall Dr Geoff Kendall is CE O of the non-profit Fut ure-Fit Foundation, which is lea ding the creation of the Future-Fit Business Ben chmark.

Kate Levine Kate Levine is the Directo r of Commitment and Corporate Communicatio ns for The Body Shop International. Kate’s bac kground is in corporate communications, having worked for many years in consultancies, most rec ently as a Partner at Pagefield in London.

Mark W. McElroy, Ph.D and Executive Mark W. McElroy, Ph.D. is the founder ble Organizations aina Sust for er Cent the at tor Direc ext-Based and the original developer of the Cont under of Thomas co-fo also is He od. meth bility aina Sust ital Scorecard, iCap Mult the of & McElroy LLC, creators g for Sustainability agin Man in MBA the in hes teac and Vermont. programme at Marlboro College in

Dr. Jake Rey nolds Dr. Jake Reynolds is Director , Sustainable Economy at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Jake leads the organisation’s efforts with business, governmen t and finance leaders to build a sustainable econom y.

Guido Schmidt-Traub cutive Director of the UN Guido Schmidt-Traub is Exe tions Network (SDSN). Solu t men Sustainable Develop eneral Ban Ki-moon, Launched by UN Secretary-G and technical expertise c ntifi the SDSN mobilises scie , and the private sector from academia, civil society elopment. dev able in support of sustain

Matthew Swibel Matthew Swibel is Lockheed Martin’s Director of Corporate Sustainability, leading the sustainability program, reporting and stakeholder engagement. During his tenure Lockheed Martin has been named a sector leader in environmental, social and governance performance. Previously, Matt was an award-winning business journalist, primarily with Forbes.

Kate Raworth Kate Raworth is a Senior Associate of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, focused on exploring the economic mindset needed to address the 21st century’s social and ecological challenges. She is the creator of the doughnut of planetar y and social boundaries. 5

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

In recent years we’ve seen a surge in the number of companies using scientific evidence in setting their sustainability targets across a range of environmental issues, from water to energy use.

DIMENSION 1:

The following section explores some of the different ways leading businesses are incorporating science into their target setting (carbon and beyond). It highlights the positive impacts, as well as the limitations, of setting science-based goals.

THINGS TO NOTE: • The initial drive for science-based targets came out of businesses setting carbon targets in line with requirements to keep global temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius. •T he adoption of science-based carbon targets has been accelerated by several partnerships, including a joint initiative by CDP, the UN Global Compact, the World Resources Institute, and WWF – called Science Based Targets (SBT) – that aims to increase corporate ambition on climate action by changing the conversation around decarbonisation.

SCIENCE-BASED GOALS 6

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

Science-based targets have a vital role to play in creating much better sustainability metrics, but they have their limitations too. The key is to measure the things that really add value and to use the right language, argues Diageo’s David Croft.

Caroline Carson: Diageo has announced 20 new sustainability and responsibility targets to be achieved by 2020. Can you tell us more about the strategy? David Croft: The strategy is around how Diageo progresses in 2020 and beyond. We are looking at three key areas – alcohol in society, the communities where we operate, and the environment. The targets aim to act upon our most material issues. Our strategy has to focus on alcohol – perhaps not usually a frontline sustainability topic, but our approach is very holistic. We take a ‘grain to glass’ approach: thinking through the impact of our supply networks on their communities. In terms of implementation, there is a much greater focus on impact. We’re looking at what we do and what effect it is having on us and on wider policy goals – the Sustainable Development Goals, for example.

THE ISSUES WE’RE TRYING TO TACKLE NEED A HUGE COALITION OF THE WILLING. 8

CAROLINE CARSON Sustainability Consultant Salterbaxter

A MEASURED APPROACH

DAVID CROFT Sustainable Development Director Diageo

Business cannot operate in isolation. The issues we’re trying to tackle need a huge coalition of the willing. As a leading organisation in our sector, we can help support and strengthen that coalition. CC: Do you think the evolution of science-based targets has helped? DC: Science-based activity has created metrics that weren’t there before. On the environmental side it works fairly well, but some of the broader issues we face are still hard to quantify. We need pragmatism as well as metrics. Without it you spend a lot of time and resource measuring impacts that don’t necessarily add value. CC: Were you able to incorporate these metrics in deciding your strategy and targets? DC: Being able to measure has certainly played a role in setting targets, but it was not the only lens. For me, it starts with deciding the most material issues we face. If we can’t measure everything to the level we’d like – as with socioeconomic metrics – we try to create frameworks to help that happen. Science-based activity around the environment has been very helpful, particularly during our recent significant growth. It helps us measure how well we are achieving our targets in a wider context. Although the science-based activity is still developing, it generates confidence that our approach is really relevant to the risks the world faces. Historically, not having science-based targets meant organisations could remain isolated – and that’s not the strongest way forward. CC: Are there other material issues to which you apply a science or context based approach other than carbon? DC: We would certainly consider it. The environmental data is years ahead of the social data. I think the social side will catch up, but it remains challenging to get hold of the detailed data on health or on livelihoods needed for a truly science-based approach.

CC: Alcohol in society is one of your key sustainability focus areas. Does science play a role here too? DC: Absolutely. We are committed to delivering the Beer, Wine and Spirits Producers’ Commitments1. Last year we had about 330 individual projects to manage across a range of areas. But the really key question is: which, or which facets, of these programmes are most effective? Bizarrely, the sustainability movement has been slow to apply impact measurements around socio-economic issues. Yet that’s exactly what we’d do with any other business issue. It doesn’t make sense but, previously, the data just hasn’t been available. CC: Diageo is on the advisory board for the Science Based Targets (SBT) Initiative. How did this come about? DC: We’ve been involved from the start because we wanted to put this data-driven approach alongside the pragmatic and materiality approaches already there. SBT provides suggestions and guidance. Along with others on the advisory board, we bring an ability to translate the ‘white coat theory’ into practical approaches for business.

WE NEED TO TRANSLATE THE ‘WHITE COAT THEORY’ INTO PRACTICAL APPROACHES BUSINESS CAN WORK WITH. Because there’s a danger. If detail gets too convoluted, it can switch an audience off. So part of our role is thinking about how guidance might be couched in future to create and enable the desired impact. CC: Do you have any advice for other organisations looking to adopt a more science-based approach?

DC: My start point is – let’s not create an industry around science-based targets. We need to be pragmatic or we’ll spend a lot of time and resource that could dilute the actual activity itself. SBT is hugely valuable in helping us focus on the right areas. It also enables that coalition of the willing to move consistently in a shared direction, with the right degree of scale to tackle these really big issues. CC: What communication challenges have you encountered? DC: Well it can be a double-edged sword. But I think the data helps you track progress and communicate better. Another danger is the language. It is not always accessible and it’s important to use language that connects with different audiences – not everybody is a scientist.

IN MANY AREAS OF SOCIETY, THERE IS A MISTRUST OF SCIENCE. CC: Is this something that can be resolved through dialogue or communications? DC: I think it’s about dialogue, and making certain that a broad stakeholder group feeds into how targets are developed and communicated. It irritates me when a business says ‘the science tells me A+B = C’ with a perfectly logical rationale that may be completely devoid of any emotion. When consumers don’t agree with that logic, the response is often: ‘We’ll just have to educate consumers’. That feels terribly patronising. There are wider contexts that motivate people and change. If education was all that is needed, everybody would have been using low-energy light bulbs way before policy required it. And that wasn’t the case, was it?

1 Leading producers of alcoholic beverages have made a collective commitment to reduce harmful drinking across five key areas – underage drinking, marketing codes of practice, consumer information and responsible product innovation, drinking and driving, and enlisting retailer support in reducing harmful drinking. (http://www.producerscommitments.org/)

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

MATTHEW SWIBEL Director of Corporate Sustainability Lockheed Martin

KRISTINA JOSS Senior Sustainability Consultant Salterbaxter

For Matthew Swibel, science offers a starting point but not always a destination. Turning data into knowledge requires judgements, too. At their best, scientific approaches help focus the conversation and provide the raw material for finding effective solutions.

Kristina Joss: Your sustainability report is entitled ‘Science of Citizenship’. How do you connect the science of your business to the value you create for society? Matthew Swibel: Sustainability is often best understood by recognising systemic impacts. A systems view creates opportunities to use science to address complex challenges and gather credible data to get to the heart of the problem. Being a scientifically driven business, we can take a systemic view.

KJ: How is Lockheed Martin integrating science into sustainability? MS: Whether you’re talking about advanced weather satellites or the science behind flow batteries, there’s a very close link between science and our products. We also take a scientific approach to organising ourselves, for instance using data to analyse where our weaknesses are in achieving high productivity or developing work accident risk indicators. Most recently, we used the Centre of Sustainable Organisations ‘contextbased’ carbon metric for our emissions targets. However, we used the methodology as a compass rather than as a source for new thinking. KJ: Does this help you set goals and measure progress? MS: I think it helps translate the goal and understand the relative weight of the target. Before, all we could say was: “we are going to reduce absolute carbon energy by a given percentage using a 2010 baseline”. Now we can credibly say how close we got to the threshold. So if business conditions mean we don’t meet our target, we are smarter about knowing how close we can go to the threshold and not feel discouraged with our performance. KJ: How do you see the carbon goal-setting process evolving? MS: There’s still potential for different carbon metrics to be harmonised. We’d welcome that. Our voluntary reduction targets extend to 2020, so we will probably continue to refer to goal-setting frameworks in formulating our next longer-term goals. And, as we become highly energy efficient, we’ll want to demonstrate we’re making long-term progress not just year on year.

KJ: How are you using science to enhance the sustainability of your products/services? MS: One example is how we are trying to make solar energy more economical through developing low-battery energy storage. This will enable utilities to add renewable energy to the mix without disrupting the grid at high cost to customers. Mining companies have used our seismic sensors for several years. Now oil and gas companies are applying the science behind these to make fracking safer. KJ: Do your engineers and scientists make the connection between sustainability and science? MS: I think that they are driven to innovate with purpose and that’s often closely linked to scientific discovery. That’s a strong thread running through our space programmes. Whether the innovations are about finding life on Mars or preventing wind farms jamming radars, there’s a higher purpose to those two very different challenges. I think that’s what employees latch on to. KJ: What are the challenges when you talk about science and sustainability to stakeholders? MS: We’re trying to show the interconnection between both corporate and wider citizenship and, within that, the relevance of science, in terms of discovery and finding solutions. Sustainability is too often linked to the heart. Now we can say: “let’s put our minds to work and not get stymied by emotions”. But when you welcome science into the process you also have to shed long-held biases. For example, a strictly scientific approach to managing our carbon would show we needn’t cut carbon again in our business operations – and could actually increase emissions and still be contributing our ‘fair share’! So outcomes need to be thought about too – and that’s sometimes a complex conversation.

KJ: Your report says you monitor frameworks such as science-based targets. What other frameworks do you rate highly? MS: We use the World Resources Institute (WRI)/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, and we also consult ISO 14064-3 for greenhouse gases. Then we use a scientific approach to mitigate cyber threats. Our process is now reflected in the new National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) framework, which has been endorsed by US Administration as the cyber security framework that large companies should follow for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure. KJ: Some feel science-based frameworks are prescriptive and stifle their sustainability approaches. Do you agree? MS: For someone like me who views frameworks more as a starting than a finishing point, the challenge is that they could limit how firms respond to the outcomes. Maybe there’s also a fear that it’s a precursor to some kind of auditable standard, which will not necessarily drive change but just increase costs. And maybe there’s a worry it will remove some of the entrepreneurialism that has propelled sustainability efforts to date. KJ: What would be your advice to other businesses looking to adopt a more scientific approach? MS: First, make sure your objectives are well stated – you can get quickly derailed if you start with the wrong objectives. Second: use science to start the conversation, rather than seeing it as a destination. It shouldn’t be the only light on your radar.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

MARK W. McELROY, Ph.D Founder & Executive Director Center for Sustainable Organizations

SCIENCE ETHICS CONTEXT

Science-Based Goals/Metrics These are grounded in scientific or factual knowledge of the world’s vital resources and how human activities can and/or should affect them. But they do not fully reflect a fair and proportionate share of the burdens to abide by them.

Science-based metrics, while very useful, do not paint the full picture of how sustainable individual organisations are. Context-based metrics do. It’s helpful to know the difference, as Mark W. McElroy explains.

As the importance of sustainability measurement and reporting grows, it’s helpful to clarify the distinction between so-called science and context-based metrics. These terms are not synonymous, although they do overlap. More importantly, science-based thinking is by no means adequate for setting goals or measuring performance in an individual organisation’s sustainability – necessary, perhaps, but still inadequate.

THRESHOLDS AND ALLOCATIONS To really understand that distinction you need to start by understanding the difference between thresholds and allocations. A threshold is a limit in the carrying capacity of a resource, which can either be an upper limit or a lower limit. So a threshold of water in a watershed, for example, is an upper limit that should not be crossed. By contrast, a liveable wage threshold is a lower limit that should at least be met. Both thresholds must be respected if society’s impacts on water and wages are to be sustainable.

Allocations, by contrast, are fair, just and proportionate shares of the burdens required to abide by thresholds and which are assigned to individual actors, such as companies. Once limits in the availability of water resources in a watershed have been determined, for example, allocations can then be made to individual users. In the case of water, this will typically involve allocations to multiple parties, the sum of which should not exceed the available upper limit (or threshold) of supplies. Ethics-Based Goals/Metrics These are grounded in moral or ethical rather than scientific knowledge of vital natural resources and how human activities can and/or should affect them. But, again, they do not fully reflect fair or organisation-specific allocations of the burdens to abide by them.

Where liveable wages are concerned, allocations are typically made to a single party (i.e. to an employer relative to its own workforce). So some thresholds are shared while others are exclusive. Once defined, allocations can be regarded as goals or targets, since they tell us what an organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impacts on vital forms of capital must be to be sustainable. SCIENCE AND FAIRNESS This explains why science-based goals and metrics are by themselves insufficient for setting targets or assessing performance in individual organisations. In order to be useful, thresholds must be fairly apportioned to individual actors.

Context-Based Goals/Metrics These are science- and moralitybased goals or metrics that fully reflect fair and organisationspecific allocations of the burdens to maintain or produce vital resources at levels required to ensure stakeholder wellbeing. Context-based environmental metrics developed by the Center for Sustainable Organizations and the MultiCapital Scorecard developed by Thomas & McElroy make it possible to set goals and measure performance in fair and organisation-specific ways. Companies using such tools include Biogen Idec, Ben & Jerryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, New Chapter, Agri-Mark, EMC, Autodesk, BT and Lockheed Martin.

ETHICS-BASED METRICS Some sustainability standards are not science-based at all and are perhaps better described as purely normative or ethics-based. They express duties or obligations organisations have to act with like fairness, justice, integrity and respect. Respecting racial and gender equality come rushing to mind here. Such purely normative thresholds, however, are no less germane to sustainability performance and must be taken into account. Context-based metrics, as indicated, always bring allocations to the table and are otherwise science- and/or ethics-based. Only context-based measures, therefore, make it possible to set goals for, and assess performance against, organisation-specific sustainability standards of performance. Neither science- nor ethics-based measures do this on their own. Of course, there are other metrics that are not science-, ethics- or contextbased at all and which focus instead on, say, the beneficial effects or good deeds of a firm, such as levels of employment or philanthropic contributions. These should not be confused with measures of sustainability performance.

And all of that must be done in a way that adjusts for changes in an organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size over time or other changes that occur and have an impact on the world. This is systems thinking at its best and nothing less will do. This is what the allocation side of context-based thinking is designed to do. It adjusts for changes in the facts and acknowledges differences in accountability, even if we are, simultaneously, still striving to abide by science-based thresholds at the macro level. Context-based goals and metrics do that well; science-based measures alone do not.

Acknowledgement: An earlier version of this article first appeared on the Sustainable Brands website on 25 May 2015 (www.sustainablebrands.com), and has been reprinted and updated here with permission.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

JOHN KORNERUP BANG Head of Positioning & Risk Management Group Sustainability, Maersk Group

SCIENCE, AND THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONS The fact that science is rapidly moving centre stage in the context of sustainable development is a trend that cannot be ignored. Overall, it is a very good thing. However, before applying science in business target setting, we must be mindful of the role companies can best play in the pursuit of sustainable development.

To unlock growth, mitigate risks, and raise sustainability performance levels, companies are well advised to be mindful of science when developing their business strategies. However, John Kornerup Bang is sceptical of the value of scientific goal setting when it’s decoupled from your business reality.

The fact is, the real challenge for sustainable development is generally not the lack of knowledge, nor is it the availability of possible solutions. Both are there and have been for a long time. The real problems are twofold: • the application of solutions at a scale that is consistent with the size of the problems; and • the political will and space to really accelerate these solutions. Companies have a very important role to play in both of these challenges.

APPLY NG SC ENCE THE QUEST FOR BUSINESS RELEVANCE

THE ENGINE FOR SCALE The engine for scale is business’s key contribution to this space, and the mechanism for that is profit. It’s about maximising the positive impact of your business within the framework of that profit generating motor. In order to unlock that potential, it’s crucial that your work and your objectives are set in the context of your business strategy, your core competencies, and other considerations such as your brand, how can you communicate to markets, your access to capital, and your appetite for risk. In that way your sustainability work becomes a relevant factor in your business strategy and as the business grows and prospers so does your positive impact on society.

AS THE BUSINESS GROWS AND PROSPERS SO DOES YOUR POSITIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY. When it comes to science-based targets related to climate change, there is the assumption that you have to work back from the global carbon budget. But taking shipping as an example; calculating back from a global carbon budget, assuming a share for the entire transport sector and then for maritime shipping down to the single company, can distract focus from the business’s strategic context. Additionally, the exercise assumes that it is possible to predict where disruptive innovation – that could shift service delivery between sectors – will come from. Hence, an over-reliance on sciencebased targets, at best, may just not be relevant for developing your strategy. But at worst it could actually induce you to put cost into something that doesn’t drive business performance at the same time – a straightjacket that could hold some potential back. In other words, targets that are not based on that business reality run the risk of being simply empty numbers.

TARGETS THAT ARE NOT BASED ON THAT BUSINESS REALITY RUN THE RISK OF BEING SIMPLY EMPTY NUMBERS. From a strategic, risk-management perspective, the knowledge that frameworks such as the Planetary Boundaries model offer is useful for companies. It is important to know where the natural systems are approaching boundaries because those boundaries can hit you from a supply, as well as from a regulatory point of view. Also, the information from these frameworks or models can highlight areas in which your business can offer solutions, enabling opportunities for tailored, targeted innovation in your most significant areas. However, when such a framework is used to drive target setting for your company, you can become decoupled from your business reality. When that happens, I am sceptical about how it adds value. LOOKING BEYOND CARBON Currently, the science-based targets agenda is primarily focused on greenhouse gas emissions, and can therefore oversimplify or narrow the debate. Carbon reduction is definitely a very significant factor when it comes to shipping. But there’s no doubt that shipping offers solutions when it comes to the remaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is important to bear in mind that our fundamental challenge is to reduce CO2 but enhance growth and development at the same time. By just focusing on the reductive part, you could lose emphasis on the growth and the development agenda.

ACCELERATING POLITICAL SOLUTIONS It is so easy to expect politicians to come up with solutions, but when companies facilitate job creation from scaling solutions to sustainable development, and consequently generate profit and tax revenues, it works as a foundation politicians can use to push the framework conditions further in the direction of sustainable development. So, with the right approach, businesses can open up policy space. Collaboration across businesses, sectors, and regulatory bodies is important, because achieving that scale and profitability of solutions is hard to do alone. The key is a close dialogue between business and governments. One of the merits of the SDG framework is that it is very mindful of that. The whole area of science has a really strong role to play, and I welcome the fact that it is becoming central to the discussion again. But we need to ensure we find the right application for science as part of the holistic picture. An over-focus on science-based targets can distract from the real progress that can be made. Target setting has to be integrated with where we are heading as a business and where our capabilities are. When that is done, that is also where businesses have the biggest contribution to sustainable development.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

As we have seen from the previous segment, science-based goals alone won’t save the planet. So, if taking science to the heart of business and applying scientific solutions is the key to sustainable business, how do we get there?

This section explores the development of leading frameworks by academics and how they are helping businesses relate to the science behind environmental and social issues.

THINGS TO NOTE: • Based on social studies and scientific research like Limits to Growth, these frameworks give businesses scientifically validated vision, models and metrics to help guide their strategy. • And there are a number out there: from Planetary Boundaries and One Planet Thinking to The Doughnut model and the Sustainable Development Goals.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

GUIDO SCHMIDT-TRAUB Executive Director UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network @gschmidttraub

ORCHESTRATED ACTION There may be a lot of them and some may seem a bit lofty, but the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their 169 targets are no pipe dream, and are using science to set targets that nations and business can use as a guiding star. They are a remarkable action plan for business, says Guido Schmidt-Traub. In September 2015 the largest ever gathering of heads of state adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets that will apply to all countries. They are the outcome of an unprecedented global consultation process involving governments, civil society, and business.

These SDGs establish quantitative objectives through to 2030 to end extreme poverty, generate sustainable economic growth, ensure good health, promote quality education, ensure access to basic infrastructure, protect the environment, curb human-induced climate change, and promote gender equality and social inclusion. It would be easy to fault the SDGs for being too many in number – what company would set 169 targets? Easy, too, to say they are, at times, too ambitious or lofty.

But the world is complex, and it’s remarkable that 193 governments have agreed on a set of time-bound objectives of this kind. The world needs shared goals. We face major challenges that can only be addressed through enhanced cooperation across countries and key players. So, it would be a grave mistake for companies to dismiss the Goals as a UN pipe dream. Used correctly, they can become a powerful tool for companies to become more successful. COORDINATED PROBLEM SOLVING At the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) we have been studying some of the main challenges the goals address in great detail. While solutions are available to address each of these challenges, we’ve found that we need much more coordinated problem solving to deploy solutions at scale. Think of the world as a large orchestra where governments, businesses, and civil society organisations play different instruments. Since there is no global conductor this orchestra lacks direction and focus. The SDGs can become a common song sheet. They are legally non-binding and therefore do not constitute rules, but as a widely shared set of objectives they can be communicated easily and provide shared focus, so that our orchestra becomes more harmonious.

PROOF POSITIVE The power of global goals has already been demonstrated by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These have supported an unprecedented mobilisation of business and civil society, particularly in the fight against child mortality and infectious diseases. The SDGs can serve the same role and be useful for businesses in three main ways. First, they provide a framework for developing immediate and long-term business strategies to support major transformations needed towards low-carbon energy, sustainable use of water and materials, sustainable agriculture, healthcare and education for all, and cities that are productive, resilient, and liveable. Each of these transformations will require new technologies and new business models. Yet, the transformations are also highly complex and require long-term objectives with clear and predictable policy frameworks that make sure business has a level playing field. Widely shared SDGs will force the same discussions about energy policies, healthcare strategies, the use of modern technology in education, innovation for low-carbon transport, water-efficient agriculture and the circular economy, in country after country. Countries will explore how the goals can be achieved over the long term and how business can be empowered to provide the necessary financing, the technologies, and the service delivery. Take the work of the Deep Decarbonization Pathway Project promoted by SDSN and The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), for example. The project has mobilised teams from 16 of the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries to develop longterm national pathways to ensure that global temperatures do not rise beyond the internationally agreed limit of 2°C.

THINK OF THE WORLD AS A LARGE ORCHESTRA WHERE GOVERNMENTS, BUSINESSES, AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS PLAY DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS. THE SDGs CAN BECOME A COMMON SONG SHEET.

Second, the SDGs provide a framework for engaging governments and other stakeholders. They also provide a universally agreed framework for that dialogue, helping all stakeholders focus on the same sets of issues. For example, several mining companies are successfully using the MDGs as a framework for stakeholder engagement. Pharmaceutical companies have used them to improve their relationship with civil society and governments on critical issues, such as access to essential medicine. The SDGs are broader and more universal, so virtually every company will find them useful as a basis for stakeholder engagement.

For the first time in many countries these pathways spell out how energy systems can be redesigned using technologies that are available today. They are now being discussed in countries around the world and provide a framework for long-term business models in such areas as energy efficiency, low-carbon transport and renewable energy. This is not theory. It is real business that the Presidents of the US and China have just committed their countries to.

Third, the SDGs offer companies both an accountability framework and a powerful communication tool. As the recently released SDG Compass – developed by the UN Global Compact, GRI, and WBCSD – demonstrates, the SDGs can support business reporting and accountability. Companies can use them to train their staff on how their products and services contribute towards wider social objectives.

Based on this work, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the International Energy Agency, and the SDSN have launched the Low-Carbon Technology Partnership initiative, which explores how businesses can promote the low-carbon technologies needed to stay within 2°C.

Yet, success is far from guaranteed and will not happen without decisive leadership.

These technologies provide another long-term business opportunity. The SDGs will support similar discussions in many other areas and provide fertile ground for innovative companies to take a lead.

If successful, the SDGs will make a major contribution towards sustainable development.

Business must get involved now to overcome passivity, short-termism, and – even – outright cynicism. At the SDSN we are working to make the SDGs a success, and we invite companies to join us in that effort.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

OLIVIA STANDISH Researcher Salterbaxter

KATE RAWORTH Senior Associate Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership

DN OUG

SAVEU

NH UTS

S? CA

Q Our aim in the 21st century must be to live between social and planetary boundaries, something we are currently failing to do. The Doughnut model is a powerful tool for helping non-scientists understand the science of earth systems and of social needs. Here Kate Raworth explains how her concept can help companies think differently about growth and play their part in moving humanity into this safe and just space.

Olivia Standish: Can you give us a brief overview of the Doughnut concept, and what led your thinking in this direction? Kate Raworth: Human wellbeing has two fundamental aspects. Firstly, we all need resources to lead a life of dignity and opportunity – the resources to meet our human rights to health, water, food, energy, income and education; to be resilient, have a voice, have jobs, and to have these things with social equity and gender equality. But secondly, we must also protect and steward the planetary life-support systems on which we fundamentally depend – ample fresh water, a safe climate, a protective ozone layer, fertile soil, and healthy oceans. These two are both aspects of our wellbeing – we can’t trade them off against each other. The Doughnut image aims to capture that in a simple, easy-to-communicate way. On the outside of the Doughnut is an ‘environmental ceiling’ consisting of the planetary boundaries – nine critical Earth systems which keep the planet in a stable state. We need to ensure that we don’t put so much pressure on any one of those systems that we push the planet out of the safe space that it has been in for the past 10,000 years. When I first saw the planetary boundaries diagram I had this great rush of adrenaline, because at last I was seeing natural scientists drawing boundaries around the space the economy could occupy. It’s a hugely important rebalancing of our economic thinking, setting it in the much bigger context of the life systems on which we depend. But you need to supplement it with a ‘social foundation’, because just as beyond the environmental ceiling lies unacceptable environmental degradation, so too, below the social foundation is a space of unacceptable human deprivation.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

HUMANITY’S FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE IS TO MOVE INTO THE SPACE BETWEEN THE SOCIAL FOUNDATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CEILING.

resilience

th e

jobs

voice T

energy AN

I U ST AIN ABL E ECONO M

atmosp heri load c aero ing so l

And we invite them to look at their business and ask: ‘how does our core practice put pressure on the social and planetary boundaries? Which ones do we affect most and what business risks are we creating as a result? How can we move away from the planetary boundaries or lift people above the social foundation?’ Following the CISL programme several businesses have approached me. Sainsbury’s, for example, asked me to work with them in using the Doughnut to reflect on the progress they have made to date and the progress still needed. They also invited me to present it to their meat, fish and poultry suppliers, to communicate that they were stepping up action in this area, and thinking on a much broader scale about the impacts of their business.

E CD

ution poll

ion let ep d e on oz

social equity

la nd

education gender equality

l ica em ch

biodiversity loss

income

and ogen nitr rus cycles ho osp ph

water

ocea na cid i fi ca tio n

e us

KR: There is certainly a growing number of companies that are trying to figure out how to become one. I am senior associate at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, and we use the Doughnut in our executive programmes, working with major companies from across many sectors. It’s a starting place for looking at the sustainability challenge they face in the 21st century.

ty ni

OS: Are there any Doughnut brands out there at the moment?

food health

To do that, we have to ask ourselves what kind of economy and what kind of businesses will help take us there. For companies the priority is to ensure that your business is a ‘Doughnut Brand’.

just space for nd hu a m fe IAL FOUNDATIO a C a O S N s

So humanity’s fundamental challenge in the 21st century is to move into the space that lies between the social foundation and the environmental ceiling – an environmentally safe space, and a socially just one. It would be an extraordinary achievement if we could be the turn-around generation that starts moving us there.

fre sh wa te r

ONMENTAL CE ILIN ENVIR G

ge an ch

Already we have transgressed the boundaries on both sides. Many millions of people live in appalling deprivation. One person in three lives on less than $2 a day, one in ten is undernourished and one in five has no access to electricity. And we have already transgressed four of the nine planetary boundaries – for climate change, land use change, nitrogen and phosphorus flows, and biodiversity loss.

climate change

Then we ran a workshop with the Sainsbury’s in-house team, exploring the impacts of meat production, taking both sides of the Doughnut into account – land use, impacts on climate change, water impact, nitrogen impact, the impact it had on employees, and the wages and incomes paid to suppliers. OS: What is the relationship between the Doughnut model and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? KR: The SDGs strongly reflect many of the dimensions of the Doughnut. I was delighted to learn from insiders to the process that the Doughnut diagram was literally on the table as the SDGs text was being negotiated.

But the Doughnut concept was itself shaped by earlier discussions of those goals: I sourced the social foundation from the social priorities that the world’s governments brought to the 2012 Rio+20 conference. The SDGs are very important. I think it is vital that the global community gets together every now and then, and says ‘where are we going as humanity?’

IT IS VITAL THAT THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY GETS TOGETHER EVERY NOW AND THEN, AND SAYS ‘WHERE ARE WE GOING AS HUMANITY?’ They provide a powerful guide to global social and environmental priorities. But I don’t think businesses should follow them slavishly. You need to have a vision that is aligned with them, rather than relying exclusively on their targets and indicators. OS: What would be your advice to businesses thinking of using the SDGs or other more human-focused frameworks? KR: If you’re really going to be a Doughnut brand you need to go beyond having a sustainability strategy. These ideas need to be part of the corporate mission, part of the vision of what the company is. I really like the work of Marjorie Kelly and her book, Owning Our Future, which talks about companies having a ‘living purpose’. The Doughnut is a great starting point to help a company identify its living purpose and to find ways to earn a financial return in the process. OS: Do you think that a scientific approach is important to support that? KR: Yes I do. Understanding how our planet works and the life-support systems on which we depend is fundamental in designing businesses that can thrive.

Of course many companies still struggle with the eternal tension between creating shareholder value and hitting sustainability and social targets. That’s why I think the ultimate act of sustainability this century is going to be the transformation of corporate governance. I hope we’ll see more companies saying: ‘if we are going to be truly socially and environmentally sustainable, we need to change the way we are incorporated. If we are forever bound by the belief that we need to maximise shareholder return we are never going to tackle the real priorities’. OS: How do you see businesses leading in this area? KR: The 20th century was a century of monetary metrics; it was the century in which GDP was invented and in which accounting and shareholder value really moved centre stage. I think the 21st century will see us move beyond monetary metrics to material or ‘biophysical’ metrics, and those metrics are fast improving. Fifteen years ago, if you asked somebody what their carbon footprint was they would have thought it absolutely bizarre. But now everyone understands that concept – it’s become part of how we understand the world. Using an environmental profit and loss account is a good example of leadership in attempting to make this calculation. We will see companies looking not just at their carbon footprint, but their nitrogen, water and land footprints, and then aiming not just to reduce their footprint but to become net positive. The cradle-to-cradle and the circular economy movements are leading in this area. A good example is Desso Carpets. On its website, it reports its biophysical metrics right up front next to the profits – because taking these new metrics seriously is clearly at the heart of what the company considers itself to be. I hope to see a lot more companies following that example.

OS: Coming back to Planetary Boundaries and the Doughnut model, how do you see them evolving? KR: Planetary boundaries are a very powerful tool for bringing an understanding of Earth-systems science to non-scientists. It’s not perfect or set in stone, but we urgently need this science. Over the past five or six years we’ve seen it used widely outside the scientific community. It has been very powerful for the UN, NGOs, business and across society, enabling people to understand and talk about the Earth system as a fundamental part of our wellbeing.

IT’S NOT PERFECT OR SET IN STONE, BUT WE URGENTLY NEED THIS SCIENCE. The 21st century part is figuring out how to use resources efficiently and equitably so that we can meet the human rights of more than nine billion people. OS: How can businesses best communicate the link between environmental degradation and economic development to consumers and other stakeholders? KR: It’s all about the language. If we pitch it as a tension between economic development and environmental degradation, it creates a false competition – one that just feels impossible to win. So to me it comes back to ‘is your brand a Doughnut brand?’ If you’re part of that, you’re part of the 21st century transformation that we need. And if you’re not part of that, there’s only one question: what’s stopping you?

DIRECTIONS 2015â&#x20AC;&#x192; SALTERBAXTER

DR. JAKE REYNOLDS Director, Sustainable Economy Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership

Incremental change is no longer enough: organisations need to incorporate climate science and the context in which they operate into their sustainability strategies. Achieving sustainable development means fundamentally rethinking our approach to managing the economy, says Jake Reynolds of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL).

Based on 25 years of working with business leaders, we have reached a clear conclusion and it’s this: we need a fundamental rewiring of our economy to tilt the operating conditions for companies in favour of sustainable development. That means actively encouraging business models that create prosperity without eroding the natural and social capital on which we rely.

WE NEED A FUNDAMENTAL REWIRING OF OUR ECONOMY TO TILT THE OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR COMPANIES IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Rewiring the Economy – our recently launched ten-year, ten-point plan – is aimed at laying down these new economic foundations. The plan pinpoints ten tasks, which – if addressed collaboratively by governments, business and finance institutions – would match up economic progress with the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs).

BOLD AMBITIONS

REPORTING SHORTFALLS

One of the ten tasks in the framework is all about the need for businesses to set truly bold ambitions.

There has been a radical improvement in sustainability reporting over the past decade, with more information and metrics available than ever before. While that’s undoubtedly a positive development, it’s clear not all reports get to the heart of the company’s core business.

The economy is clearly not set up to deal with the significant impacts we have seen since ‘the great acceleration’ began in the 1950s. Business-asusual operation is contributing to environmental degradation rather than offering solutions. In the absence of public policy action, many companies are responding with well-intentioned sustainability strategies. Thousands are reporting sustainability performance or investing in CSR. But the economy remains largely unchanged by these initiatives – they are too small and incremental to alter conventional economic behaviour.

BUSINESS-AS-USUAL OPERATION IS CONTRIBUTING TO ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION RATHER THAN OFFERING SOLUTIONS. Tackling this problem head on, Rewiring the Economy encourages the key players – governments, business and financial institutions – to work together to create conditions where sustainable business models thrive because they are commercially successful. Such conditions would see poor performers lose market share and ultimately disappear, replaced by firms that generate social and environmental value as a function of their core business.

The audience is becoming less tolerant of such anomalies. Indeed – as both oil and gas companies and banks have learned – some industries are being characterised as having no social purpose. There are, of course, a number of businesses leading the way in measurement and disclosure. Kering, owner of Puma, has its Environmental Profit and Loss approach, and Kingfisher and BT have ‘net positive’ and ‘net good’ strategies. But even they face a significant challenge. What does a company do once it has set a goal of becoming net positive? How does a business deal with a ‘debt to nature’ of hundreds of millions of dollars per annum? How to respond is a big question, full of value judgements as well as scienceproofed targets and metrics. For example, if a company wishes to claim it is a good climate-change performer, it might choose one of three very different options. It could take the position that it will emit less CO2 than last year – the incremental position. It could show that it has calculated what its fair share of global emissions is and will stay within budget – the science-based approach. Or it could demonstrate that it has a plan for ensuring that its whole industry, and the economy in general, is working to ensure the planet stays within two degrees of global warming – the science + system approach. The stance taken will depend on the extent to which the company regards itself as a leader, the nature of its dialogue with civil society and the risks it sees of not tackling pressing issues.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

CISL’s ten tasks for business, finance, and government to lay the foundations for a sustainable economy.

RE-ENGINEERING BUSINESS PRIORITIES Business can and must play a central role in this process of economic rewiring. Take the work being done through the Cambridge Natural Capital Leaders Platform, for example. This brings together companies who are placing a value on their impacts and dependency on natural capital, and who can, therefore, make better decisions, identify new opportunities and contribute solutions to natural capital loss and ecosystem degradation. CISL’s new project, Action Linking Growth with Nature (ALIGN), is taking this work further by convening companies actually investing in natural capital and asking: can we produce private returns alongside things of real public value such as improved livelihoods, conservation and resource protection?

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT ON SUSTAINABILITY IS GROWING.

MAKING THE CASE We urge companies to help build the momentum for sustainability among the public through consistent brand and marketing messages. But it’s vital that these communications are authentic and are not perceived as greenwash. It’s precisely this sort of approach that has allowed Marks & Spencer’s widely publicised Plan A to make a positive connection with customers. The UN’s launch of its Sustainable Development Goals, and the COP21 climate change talks in Paris in December provide opportunities for companies to make the case more strongly than ever. Many will be showing the public, and governments, how they are meeting the challenge of converting the science of sustainability into world-class business strategies that will make a meaningful difference. COLLABORATION Why are we so confident about that? Well, there is no doubt that private sector engagement on sustainability is growing, including among the investors and financial intermediaries that shape the flow of capital into the economy. A new class of collaboration is foreseeable that will help meet emissions targets quicker; one that will extend over time to other critical issues like global health, resource use and ecosystem quality based on increasingly robust science and standards.

SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODELS WILL BE BUOYED BY A TIDE OF ECONOMIC LOGIC RATHER THAN AGAINST IT. could be severe, but it will serve to stimulate already fast-growing, lowcarbon innovation – exactly the kind of ‘tilt’ we are seeking to, as we say, ‘rewire the economy’. We foresee other opportunities for ‘rewiring’, not least in the area of tax reform where burdens still fall on ‘goods’ like labour, rather than ‘bads’ like pollution and over-consumption. Innovation policy and economic metrics are other examples of where we see rewiring opportunities. If we get this right then sustainable business models will be buoyed by a tide of economic logic rather than against it; it will be possible to take a science-based approach to target setting without fear of being undercut by competitors who have no such intent. In short, with those foundations in place, business will be enabled to get on with the task of building a sustainable economy.

In tandem we foresee governments beginning to call into question the vast sums of money spent on subsidising fossil energy – estimated by the IEA to be $548bn in 20141 (four times those to renewable energy) and over $5tn p.a. by the IMF2 (more than global government health spending). In seeking alternatives to this inefficient use of resources the net effect on carbon-intensive assets

1 http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/ 2 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

DIRECTIONS 2015â&#x20AC;&#x192; SALTERBAXTER

PETER BAKKER President and CEO World Business Council for Sustainable Development

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has developed a number of sustainability frameworks for businesses which are rooted in scientific consensus. Peter Bakker details how these science-based frameworks and scientific approaches are challenging business as usual, and helping business to lay the foundations for a more sustainable world.

The need for a sustainable world is more urgent than ever. As we count down towards the end of this critical year, it would be easy to lose hope. The climate has changed, land is degraded worldwide and biodiversity loss shows no signs of slowing. There is still war, growing inequality, youth unemployment and hunger.

WHAT FILLS ME WITH OPTIMISM IS SEEING HOW BUSINESS IS NOW ADDRESSING THE GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES THAT GOVERNMENTS CANNOT RESOLVE ALONE. But there is also opportunity. What fills me with optimism is seeing how business is now addressing the global sustainability challenges that governments cannot resolve alone. Forward-thinking companies know their success depends on developing sustainably. The WBCSD have long championed the integration of sustainability into core business strategy. With real integration, sustainability will become an integral part of a company’s decision-making and performance management systems. The integration of financial, environmental and social capital elements into corporate governance, valuation and reporting will incentivise sustainable corporate behaviour. And, by enhancing the overlap between public and private interests, businesses can help lay the foundations for a truly sustainable world. Here are some of the WBCSD’s key frameworks helping businesses to achieve this:

PUTTING VISION 2050 INTO ACTION In 2010 the WBCSD published Vision 2050 – a wide-reaching report on the priorities that must be addressed by 2050 in order for nine billion people to live well and within the boundaries of the planet. It was the result of an intensive 18-month study of environmental, demographic and development trends, and was completed in partnership with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the World Resources Institute and our member companies. Significantly, for the first time, insiders from global business publicly stated that business-as-usual was no longer an option and outlined pathways for transformational change. Vision 2050’s long-term perspective needed a pragmatic roadmap and that led to Action2020. This action plan identified the targets that must be achieved by 2020 to stay on track for 2050. These goals form the core of our work programme which seeks to accomplish a science-based societal target by 2020 for six key areas: • social impact • sustainable lifestyles • climate change • ecosystems and landscape management • water • safe and sustainable materials. Across these areas, our members develop and deploy business solutions whose impact can be measured. There are sector and value-chain projects too, ranging from sustainable cities to forests and biomaterial solutions.

REDEFINING VALUE A defining part of the WBCSD’s work is building frameworks that help sustainable companies become recognised and rewarded for their integrated performance, and showing others how they can gain this competitive edge. Our Redefining Value Programme aims to achieve this vision by improving the effectiveness of non-financial reporting so that it progressively reflects the true value of a company by disclosing true profits and true costs. Additionally, in 2016, two consortia managed by the WBCSD and the International Union for Conservation of Nature will deliver the Natural Capital Protocol, a harmonised measurement and valuation framework for natural capital. We are also developing a Social Capital Protocol to measure and manage social impact. HELPING BUSINESSES TO REALISE THE SDGs We are developing the SDG Compass for Business in partnership with the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The SDG Compass will help businesses understand the methodologies and tools available to match up their strategy with the SDGs. We now need business to get engaged and bring forward its positive influence on society through innovation, investment and labour. The SDGs constitute the framework conditions for successful businesses of the future.

We’re taking steps towards meeting human needs within planetary boundaries, but there’s much more to do. At the WBCSD, we are pioneering collaborative solutions to drive sustainability deeper and further.

DIRECTIONS 2015â&#x20AC;&#x192; SALTERBAXTER

DR. GEOFF KENDALL CEO Future-Fit Foundation

BACK

Sc Science

Current ways of measuring sustainability either exaggerate achievement or utterly fail to capture real progress. We need a new kind of metric that connects businesses with the scientific context surrounding their actions, and gives them a clear and compelling destination, says Geoff Kendall of the Future-Fit Foundation.

Su Sustainability

Fu Future-Fit

THE Almost 50 years ago we put a man on the moon. But here are a few questions for you about that extraordinary achievement: What was the first, necessary precondition for making it happen? Was it our ability to develop sophisticated technologies? Was it our willingness to embrace a seemingly impossible vision? Was it our commitment to invest whatever it took to get the job done? All these factors were, of course, critical.

Business

But the first and most important precondition was that the destination was clear and compelling â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we knew exactly what to aim for, and we all wanted to go.

FUTURE WE’VE HAD NO CLARITY WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT HAS OFTEN BEEN CALLED THIS GENERATION’S MOON-SHOT: THE TRANSITION TO A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY. Unfortunately, we’ve had no such clarity when it comes to what has often been called this generation’s ‘moon-shot’: the transition to a sustainable economy. It is now widely accepted that we need to rapidly and radically change the way we do business if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, resource scarcity, environmental degradation and population growth. And we need every business to play its part in this transition, because our economy as a whole can only become sustainable if every company operating within it is sustainable too.

CURRENT LIMITATIONS

But what, exactly, does it mean for a company to ‘be sustainable’? And how can we measure – and thus manage – progress toward this destination? Until now there has been no clear answer to either question. You may be thinking: ‘but there are no end of ratings, rankings and indices that claim to measure corporate sustainability performance – surely they’re telling companies what to aim for?’ The answer, in a word, is no. Current metrics measure relative improvements in today’s best practice. They do not track absolute progress toward tomorrow’s required practice. That matters because there are two problems with rewarding incremental progress.

That’s not exactly going to keep the company’s CEO and investors awake at night, pondering how to decarbonize their business model. Current metrics lull decision makers into believing that doing better than last year, or better than ‘the next guy’, is enough. The second problem is that by not putting today’s actions in a future context, we’re failing to acknowledge those companies that are really stepping up to do what’s necessary.

A handful of forward-thinking CEOs have committed to deliver net positive benefits to society, in areas as diverse as reforestation, carbon capture, and poverty alleviation. That’s what true sustainability leadership looks like. But metrics that dwell on the status quo often don’t even register such bold commitments, let alone capture their full potential.

First, it can make companies look far better than they actually are. For example, last year the Dow Jones Sustainability Index announced that an oil company was 85% sustainable.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

A NEW KIND OF METRIC So we need a new kind of metric, one that tells companies where they need to be – based on best-available environmental, social and systems science – and which encourages and rewards progress towards that point. That, in a nutshell, is the motivation behind the Future-Fit Business Benchmark, a new open-source tool grounded in a simple definition: a Future-Fit company is one that in no way undermines the possibility that humans and other life will flourish on Earth forever.1 This is far from utopian. Future-Fitness is not about demanding that every company tackles societal problems, eschews growth, or renounces profit. Rather, it is about defining the minimum that any company must do to avoid degrading the social fabric and natural processes we all depend upon. The Benchmark centres around 21 Future-Fit goals: performance thresholds spanning the full range of environmental and social issues that may be affected – positive or negatively – by a company’s operations, its supply chain, and the products it sells. These goals collectively define the line in the sand that all companies should aim for. And we’re close to completing work on a complementary set of FutureFit key performance indicators (KPIs), to help companies measure where their biggest gaps are, and where to prioritise accordingly.

Over the past year we’ve worked with a range of companies – from social enterprises to global brands – to explore what the Future-Fit goals mean to them. No two businesses are the same, so it’s unsurprising that discussions have varied wildly. For example, one goal – all employees are paid at least a living wage – was quickly dismissed – not as unimportant, but as unproblematic – by a wealth management fund. But it proved a major sticking point for a company that depends upon cheap labour in developing nations. Another goal – Products emit no greenhouse gases when used as intended – was understandably a source of concern for one car manufacturer, the bulk of whose products are still powered by fossil fuels. However, another car company – Tesla – has already reached this goal, as all of its cars are powered by electricity.

In every such discussion, reactions to Future-Fit goals tend to fall into one of three categories. There are goals that seem ‘easy’, because the company’s business model has very little impact in that area. There are goals for which the path to success is clear – it’s just a matter of time and money. And then there are goals that appear impossible. This last category is the most interesting. When someone says that a particular goal can’t be reached, what they really mean is that it can’t be reached within the confines of their current business model. Which of course begs the question: how would the business model have to change? Now that is a conversation worth having. Going to the moon was a choice; transitioning to a sustainable economy is not. The Future-Fit Business Benchmark offers companies something they’ve been lacking: a clear destination to aim for. But to reach it will require a willingness to explore and embrace completely new ways of doing business. Incremental improvement is not enough. After all, we didn’t reach the moon by shuffling up the nearest mountain.

Business

Sustainability 02

Sc Science

THE FUTURE-FIT BUSINESS BENCHMARK OFFERS COMPANIES SOMETHING THEY’VE BEEN LACKING: A CLEAR DESTINATION TO AIM FOR.

CONVERSATIONS WORTH HAVING

Fu Future-Fit

1 This is based on John Ehrenfeld’s definition of a sustainable society, more details of which can be found at johnehrenfeld.com

BUILDING SCIENCE-BASED CREATING THE FUTURE-FIT BUSINESS BENCHMARK INVOLVED THREE STEPS • Step one – began with identifying a set of system conditions that describe how a truly sustainable society must operate. Thankfully, more than 25 years of academic research have already been devoted to this task2. We translated the results of that effort into a set of Future-Fit business principles that can be applied at the level of an individual company. There are seven of these principles. Here’s an example: A Future-Fit business ensures no harmful substance escapes into the environment. • Step two – involved translating the principles into a clear set of environmental and social performance thresholds or goals. To develop these Future-Fit goals we cross-referenced all of a hypothetical company’s critical relationships – with its customers, communities, suppliers, employees, owners, and the environment – against each business principle, to identify the full range of actions that might cause breaches to occur. For example, by looking at the intersection of customers with the principle mentioned above, we deduced that a Future-Fit company’s products emit no harmful substances when used as intended.

2 You can find out more at thenaturalstep.org

FUTURE-FIT – IN THE FIELD Companies, sustainability professionals and consultants are now beginning to adopt and use Future-Fit concepts.

BENCHMARK • Step three – after a round of public consultation to challenge and refine our work, we’ve arrived at a set of 21 Future-Fit goals. Collectively, these goals draw the line in the sand the business world has been lacking. But to identify their biggest ‘performance gaps’ – and thus prioritize what matters most – companies also need to be able to tell how far away they are from reaching each goal. So we created a concise, credible and comparable set of KPIs that enable progress toward each goal to be measured – and thus managed. This work is due for completion in December 2015.

Step one: Identified a set of seven Future-Fit business principles that can be applied at the level of an individual.

Step two: Translated the principles into a clear set of environmental and social performance thresholds or goals.

Step three: Arrived at a set of 21 Future-Fit goals with KPIs.

The first company to commit to becoming Future-Fit is the social enterprise BR!GHT Products. Its Sun Bell product is claimed to be the world’s most elegant, durable and multi-functional solar lantern – and over a million people in the developing world are already benefiting from it. BR!GHT embraced Future-Fitness to ensure the positive social impact of its products is not compromised by any other aspect of its rapidly growing business. Large companies are understandably slower to declare ambitions that may mean disrupting established business models. But over the past year we’ve heard from a dozen or so sustainability professionals, working for global brands in sectors as diverse as fashion, cosmetics and mining, who are using the Benchmark to spark conversations within their organisations. And it’s not just companies who are paying attention. Future-Fit concepts and goals are cropping up in consultant offerings and supply chain tools. For instance, we are partnering with B Lab to ensure the next iteration of the methodology it uses to score prospective B-Corps matches up, where appropriate, with Future-Fit criteria. These early signs suggest that, when it comes to setting sciencebased business goals, the debate is shifting: from what and why, to how and when.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

CHRISTOPHER DAVIS Director of Corporate Social Responsibility and Campaigns The Body Shop International

KATE LEVINE Director of Commitment and Corporate Communications The Body Shop International

The Body Shop is known for being one of the first businesses to shape ethical consumerism, led from the heart. But as the sustainability debate has matured, there is a need to change tack: to embrace the latest scientific thinking and collaborate with academia to continue to drive the agenda. Christopher Davis and Kate Levine talk to Annie Lancaster about how scientific thinking is helping The Body Shop do just that. Annie Lancaster: As your sustainability strategy has developed, what role has science played in that development? Christopher Davis: Historically, the company has been led from its heart; building sustainability strategy around the philosophies of Anita [Roddick] that business can be a real driver for change, so I think it’s fair to say that science hasn’t been at the centre of our strategy in distant past. However, we are now embracing what we see as an exciting new development – science moving more to the fore.

AL: What is driving this change in approach? CD: Being led by your heart is a wonderful thing, but times are changing and for us it’s time for us to look at things a little bit differently too. The advances in science and academia are a massive factor. The way the academic community has begun to work with business, even in the past few years, has led to a transformation in our own perspective. Likewise, we’re witnessing scientists having an interest in what we’re doing, applying theory into practice. We are seeing a big shift, and a positive shift too.

AL: You recently reviewed Natural Capitalism and Planetary Boundaries as potential frameworks to support The Body Shop’s strategy. What was it about these approaches that appealed to you? CD: It was the fact that they were taking a different approach; a holistic perspective, looking at society and the ecosystem. Of course, the fact that these approaches are based wholly on credible scientific data had a really big influence on us.

ANNIE LANCASTER Senior Consultant Salterbaxter

Our challenge is taking that scientific study and applying it to business. That’s where the future lies: ensuring that theory and practice can be joined. And that’s where the scientific and business communities have got such a rich opportunity to collaborate much more effectively. AL: Do you see science playing a bigger role in corporate sustainability in the future? CD: Yes, absolutely. I have no doubt it’s going to be the thing that drives us. We have started to embrace the work of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership. We’ve been sending our team members on courses there to connect them to leading perspectives. It’s got us thinking differently on a strategic level. We’re also exploring a new partnership with a leading academic institution around scientific innovations and sustainable design. It is our intention to apply our learnings to the business on a practical, rather than a theoretical, level. Both are equally valuable, as we’re getting that independent perspective into our business, challenging our thoughts and our norms. It’s about the meeting of minds, isn’t it? It’s about both parties wanting to learn from one another: for businesses, the academic theory. For academics, the faster, more rapid application of thought.

IT’S UP TO ALL OF US TO EMBRACE, INTERPRET, AND APPLY THE SCIENCE THE BEST WE CAN.

AL: One of the challenges around science-based target setting is whether or not they stifle innovation. Kate Levine: There’s a parallel with the argument from years ago as to whether corporate sustainability should be regulation based or voluntary. A lot of people were saying that regulation would stifle innovation. But leaders see where they have to go for compliance and then look where they can innovate beyond that. I think this is exactly the same with science-based targets. AL: Can science play a significant role in helping businesses connect their business ambitions to the bigger challenges facing society? CD: Yes, certainly. What’s interesting about science is that it can be a meeting point for business, for government, for civil society; when fact-based knowledge is there at the centre. It’s up to all of us to embrace, interpret, and apply it the best we can. AL: Do you think consumers care about science when it comes to sustainability? CD: I think that one of our responsibilities as a company is to lead our consumers; to take decisions that have been influenced by and have embraced the latest scientific research. For example, recently we have been working with concepts like green chemistry in making our formulations more degradable. We are not doing it in response to specific customer demands; often there are actions we’ll take because they will have a more positive effect on the environment, but we also hope to lead the debate. AL: Which ties right back to the history of The Body Shop – taking that leadership role before it was demanded of you.

giving customers security in the knowledge that our actions are endorsed by independent third parties. But it might also give those, who didn’t think they were interested, that curiosity to know more. We can lead the way, but the key is to make sure that we take our customers with us.

SCIENCE CAN TURN PEOPLE OFF UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE IT INTERESTING. AL: What advice would you give other businesses that are looking to adopt a more scientific approach? KL: Science can turn people off unless you can make it interesting. It’s really important for the communications and the sustainability teams to work very closely together in order to create engaging messaging. Internal communications pieces are absolutely vital and also must be consistent with what we are saying externally. CD: Go back to school. Learn from super smart people who were studying the environment or social sciences. Go back and listen because this area of study is growing and advancing at a tremendous rate. Go back and challenge academics to address some of the challenges that we are facing within our business. In our experiences academia has been so open to us, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to take action. If we don’t work together the planet and society are facing potential disaster – there is a moral as well as a practical imperative to take action.

KL: We have a very close connection with our consumers – perhaps more so than other brands. The challenge is to use science for leadership purposes but also continue to connect with our customers. This is where communication is really important. Economists, academics and social sciences are very important in

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

DIMENSION 3:

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT There may be convincing arguments for adopting a science-based approach, and targets and frameworks in place to help you achieve it, but how can this be turned into compelling storytelling for either investors or end consumers?

The following section explores how organisations can communicate successfully around scientific sustainability concepts with different key stakeholders.

KEY QUESTIONS: • Whether it’s in raising investment or in increasing sales, does science have a role to play in bringing stakeholders along on the journey? • What can organisations do to successfully communicate the science behind their decision-making to consumers, and should they even try?

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

ANDY HOWARD Founder Didas Research

‘Scientific’ may be too strong a word, but some organisations are taking a more structured and data-driven approach to their sustainability communications with investors. Analysts are also becoming more systematic in their use of data to inform their investment decisions or ratings. But the bridge between environmental and social trends, business models, and investment analysis is still being built, says Andy Howard of Didas Research.

DISSECTLong-time environmental, social and governance (ESG) analysts were schooled in an era where if companies reported any CSR information, it was patchy and inconsistent. Content was more an adjunct to case studies and photographs of polar bears, icebergs and smiling children, rather than reflecting a company’s core business issues. The truth is, until seven or eight years ago, quantitative ESG analysis was a largely theoretical exercise predominantly untroubled by data.

That picture has changed significantly in recent years. Corporate sustainability reporting has ballooned in breadth and depth. Investor demand for objective environmental and social analysis has grown as the commitment to integrate it into mainstream reporting has spread. Younger generations of analysts trained in numerical analysis have entered the industry and technological advances have made extracting and using data easier. These changes are all structural and they will continue to increase demand for rigorous, objective and investmentrelevant ESG analysis.

But what is the real supply and demand picture here? Well, the numbers are pretty impressive.

The Governance & Accountability Institute finds that three-quarters of the S&P 500 published sustainability reports last year, up from just one-fifth in 2011. Globally, the number of sustainability reports tracked by the Global Reporting Initiative has grown eight-fold since the launch of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment a decade ago. The information they contain is also becoming more rigorous and objective. Data is replacing stories and case studies, with the GRI providing the reporting standards most follow. RISING DEMAND FOR DATA Rising demand prompts more analysts to use that data. Nine in ten of the top 50 global fund managers have signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, which commits them to integrating environmental, social and governance factors into investment decisions, processes and stewardship. Investors’ growing willingness to adopt long-term investment strategies also tends to raise the importance of environmental and social analysis. The decades long march towards shorter-term investing bottomed out in 2008. Since then, the average length of time investors hold onto stocks has doubled, to around 16 months currently.

DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD However, having more data is a doubleedged sword. Distilling performance into formulae and metrics may bring an objective lens to an otherwise woolly subject and be more scalable than relying on conversations with silver-tongued investor relations executives. But data-driven metrics are only as useful as the logic on which they are based. Data analysis is a tool and not, in itself, an answer. Unfortunately, there has been too little attention paid to the logic underpinning ESG analysis. A perception of ‘ESG performance’ persists. It is a convenient illusion that sidesteps the need to think about what it means, how it should be measured and the investment value of the results. While a few investors venture into the primary data that companies report, most rely on ESG ratings from firms like MSCI, Sustainalytics or EIRIS to provide bite-sized answers, which are then used to screen stocks for investment and engagement. That emphasis on single-number ratings is evident in Bloomberg’s statement that, of all the detailed raw data it collects and publishes through its terminals, the single most used ESG data point by far is its ‘ESG Disclosure’ rating – a score which provides, at best, a crude proxy for performance.

DATA-DRIVEN METRICS ARE ONLY AS USEFUL AS THE LOGIC ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED. DATA ANALYSIS IS A TOOL, NOT AN ANSWER.

ING DATA

All this would matter less if there was, at least, a consistent view of strong or weak ESG performances. There isn’t.

Our analysis of the ratings six large agencies give to the same 100 large global companies shows very little correlation between their conclusions. There’s just no apparent agreement between them on how to rate this group of companies.

The challenge is reflected in academia. We examined 20 of the most downloaded research articles looking at the relationship between ESG performance and profitability or stock returns. Unsurprisingly, most conclude that ESG measures can enhance performance. But, on a closer look, seemingly rigorous conclusions are, in effect, mostly exercises in correlating opaque ratings of unclear provenance with stock price data. These challenges will subside. As fund managers’ awareness of the importance of environmental and social change grows, scrutiny of the analytical process is becoming more intense. Most investors now understand how important it is for companies to be able to adapt to the changing expectations of workers, customers, communities or other stakeholders. So, it is likely that the discussion will shift from ‘does ESG affect financial performance?’ to ‘how do environmental and social trends affect financial performance?’ and ‘how should we measure performance?’

HOW SHOULD WE MEASURE PERFORMANCE?

The latter questions are a prompt re-examination of what ESG issues are, how business models are affected and how best to measure performance. The result will be a welcome broadening of the topic and more understanding of the relationship between social and environmental trends, industry impacts, business performance and profitability. A sharper light of investor scrutiny should drive rhetoric and irrelevance from the discussion, with interesting, but immaterial, topics hopefully consuming less attention.

On the other hand, definitions of sustainability are likely to broaden. If supply chain ethical standards are important, why shouldn’t information on supplier concentration and geographic distribution, or insight into supply chain strategies and information systems, demand similar scrutiny? More sophistication in ESG analysis will also push more of the information out of companies’ control. For instance, today’s technology makes it relatively easy to examine employees’ perceptions of companies, customers’ views of their products or the lawsuits, and product recalls or corruption probes they have faced without opening a CSR report. Frameworks like the one being developed by Future-Fit should find a willing audience amongst fund managers building ESG analytical tools. Our own research is grounded in bottom up, evidence-based analysis of trends in the stakeholders most important to each sector. This informs the performance areas we focus on and the data we use to gauge strengths or weaknesses. Other analysts are likely to develop similar products using different frameworks. The result will be a more rigorous and investment-focused ESG analysis, with less room for companies to hide behind sustainability reports that sit at a tangent to core business functions.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

ANNIE LANCASTER Senior Consultant Salterbaxter

THE RE-ENLIGHTENMENT Science and emotion are often believed to be entirely separate, non-complementary entities. Therefore a common fear expressed over the preceding pages is that without an emotional hook, communicating the science behind your strategies and activities can leave audiences cold. But is this the case? Annie Lancaster argues that, when it comes to science, consumers are now more receptive than ever before.

I THINK THAT OUR SOCIETY NEEDS MORE HEROES WHO ARE SCIENTISTS, RESEARCHERS AND ENGINEERS. Mark Zuckerberg Over the previous pages we have seen how science, the long-time partner of sustainability, is once again coming to the forefront of sustainable leadership. And yet, very few outside of the sustainability community would know that this change is taking place. The reason? Brands are wary of leading their communications with science for fear that it will be boring, or confusing, or both. For too long, science has had a bit of an image problem.

THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGING For decades science has been seen by many as boring and best kept behind closed doors, but the last few years have seen a change: science is now breaking out of the laboratory. We face many problems as a global society, problems so enormous, they seem impossible to solve: economic stagnation, environmental degradation, population explosion, climate change, the list goes on. It’s no coincidence that superhero films have seen such resurgence of late: the world is longing for a hero to swoop in and solve our challenges for us. But we are also witnessing scientific breakthroughs at an unprecedented rate: artificial intelligence, 3D printing, the discovery of the ‘God Particle’, and the possibility that the conditions for life exist on other planets. In the absence of The Avengers, we are increasingly aware that we need scientists today to solve the problems of tomorrow. Rather than fear or deride the men in white coats, we are starting to revere them. • Take the ‘Brian Cox effect’ here in the UK. The captivating physicist, now an A-List celebrity, is single-handedly credited with raising the university application rate for Physics by 52%.1 • American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson hosted one of the most watched events at this year’s South by Southwest festival, and is so popular online he has triggered his own meme. • The Facebook fan-page ‘I F*cking Love Science’, dedicated to popularising scientific breakthroughs, has just under 22 million fans. That’s more than Harry Styles, Leonardo DiCaprio, or the Rolling Stones.

The last time science was so much in the spotlight, combined so powerfully with art, culture and commerce, was during the Enlightenment in the 18th century. Then, as now, scientists were the heroes of the day, and audiences clamoured to be the first to experience technological breakthroughs as they happened.

The impact of this interpretation of the science has been terrifying. Two years ago, the US saw its worst whooping cough epidemic in 70 years. And this year has seen the worst measles epidemic in 20 years spiral out from Disneyland in California, fuelled by growing enclaves of unvaccinated children.

As with the previous enlightenment, spread across western Europe by a vast increase in literacy thanks to the invention of the printing press, the internet means we are now sitting at the starting line of a new communications revolution, bringing with it its own seismic shifts in attitudes and behaviours.

The scientific and medical communities have repeatedly released evidence that vaccines are safe. However, it is an unfortunate but sad truth that humans are often drawn to the flashy and ‘attention grabbing’ as opposed to ‘boring’, peer-reviewed research articles.

Right now, science is seriously cool. Rather than shunning science in favour of natural, organic concepts as they did in the 90s and early 2000s, consumers are instead seeing its relevance and appeal in their day-to-day lives. Scientists are the heroes of our age. WHEN SCIENCE GOES WRONG However, recent history is littered with examples of how the mixture of science and emotion can prove explosive. The anti-vaxxers movement, which blames vaccination for a range of health problems, is a perfect illustration of how sometimes ideas that originate in science can seep out into the broader culture and take on a life of their own. Members run the gamut from vague fear that vaccination is unnatural and thus inherently risky, through to those who fear the ingredients in vaccines are part of a government conspiracy to subdue its own citizens.

SOMETIMES IDEAS THAT ORIGINATE IN SCIENCE CAN SEEP OUT INTO THE BROADER CULTURE AND TAKE ON A LIFE OF THEIR OWN.

Another example, that perhaps hits closer to home for consumer brands, is the furore over formaldehyde in Johnson & Johnson baby products. Several years ago, The Environmental Working Group raised concerns about a formaldehydereleasing preservative in Johnson & Johnson’s baby shampoo and other products. Parents and special interest groups were unrelenting in their outrage towards a brand they trusted to care for their children. The company sprang into action, initially insisting that the products were safe, before promising to introduce reformulated products by the end of 2013. But why did Johnson & Johnson remove the preservative if it’s safe? That is exactly the question that consumers started asking. The company argues that their job is not to combat misconceptions in the public; it’s to sell products. They removed the formaldehyde because they were asked to. But in doing so, Johnson & Johnson are creating a precarious path for themselves, simultaneously insisting that the products are safe while they reformulate them. Safe or not, the company decided it was worth investing in a team of close to 200 scientists who worked for two years on removing an ingredient they insist posed no danger.

Or take the controversy that has surrounded aspartame since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974. The weight of scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe for human consumption – the FDA describes it as “one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved.”2 Nevertheless, repeated consumer scares have resulted in reputational damage, such that in some markets, like France, it is being phased out by the food and beverage industry in favour of natural sweeteners such as stevia. There are certain subjects, then, in which emotion can often trump logic, and what we put into our bodies – and particularly the bodies of our children – is one of them. These examples share the terrifying taint of poisoning, and ‘better safe than sorry’ starts to feel very reasonable where babies are concerned. What’s clear is that despite its current popularity, using science to counter emotionally-driven reactions is very, very hard to do, and usually falls well short of the mark. WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN? As the world’s problems continue to mount, consumers are increasingly looking for someone to provide solutions to challenges that feel too massive to overcome. For many, science and scientists are filling this gap. When it comes to ingredients, people will likely always look askance at scientificsounding formulas. But when it comes to tackling global crises, now could be science’s time to shine. Brands able to facilitate a better dialogue between scientists and the wider public will stand out as confidence-inspiring leaders. When it comes to sustainability, concerned audiences seek reassurance that someone, somewhere, knows what they are doing. In this crucial year in which businesses, governments, and scientists are coming together, those brands that can offer that assurance will be light years ahead.

1 According to the University of Manchester, School of Physics and Astronomy. 2 Henkel, John (1999). ‘Sugar Substitutes: Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite’. FDA Consumer Magazine 33 (6): January 2, 2007.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

We’ve heard from a number of experts who have shown that science can be a powerful force for sustainability. But alone it is not the answer. Across the range of perspectives and experiences we’ve seen, five key points stand out:

1. There’s definitely a role for science and data in sustainability target setting. But its uptake comes with a warning label: the science has to be shot through the lens of your business context. 2. Science-based goals are not a single solution to the challenges we face. For one thing, the focus on carbon and other environmental issues is leading some to call for a similar drive on the social sustainability side. For another, there are those that argue imposing targets from the outside-in can stifle innovation. 3. Academics and earth scientists are changing the ways in which solutions are created. We are seeing leading researchers and theorists develop frameworks rooted in science, which help businesses integrate their social and environmental performance into their overall approach. 4. We’ve seen proof of how these frameworks are making companies think and act differently. However, their true impact is yet to be seen.

5. To date, businesses have been cautious about engaging investors, customers and consumers with the science behind their sustainability decision-making. This is either because they feel their stakeholders will not be interested, or that they will misinterpret the science behind strategies and actions. However, if businesses don’t capitalise on science being cool, it could prove to be a missed opportunity. It’s clear that science is taking its place, once more, at the centre of the sustainability debate. The potent mix of science, business, and sustainability is creating impactful solutions; social and environmental scientists, academics and business leaders are facilitating this through collaboration. But it’s also clear that we’re not yet seeing the full impact that science can have. How will the formula for science and corporate sustainability evolve? The proof will be in private sector adoption and tangible results.

DIRECTIONS 2015 SALTERBAXTER

ABOUT US: We work where business strategy, sustainability and creative communications meet, creating strategies and stories for some of the world’s leading businesses and brands. Our aim is to help business perform better, communicate better and deliver better long-term outcomes. We call this ‘Ideas for Better Business’.

Our clients include: adidas Group Anglo American BP C&A Coca-Cola Enterprises Diageo Giorgio Armani H&M Hilton Worldwide L’Oréal LEGO Group

Maersk Group Premier League PVH Corp. Richemont Sky Sustainable Apparel Coalition The Body Shop International Thomson Reuters Trafigura Unilever Viacom

Contact us: Samuel Griffin-Flynn sgriffin-flynn@salterbaxter.com Tel +44(0)20 7229 5720 salterbaxter.com @salterbaxterMSL

Salterbaxter MSLGROUP The Dome, Level 4 Whiteleys Centre 151 Queensway London W2 4YN Tel +44 (0)20 7229 5720

ABOUT DIRECTIONS: Directions, now in its fifteenth year, is widely viewed as the leading annual publication on trends in sustainability and communications. Salterbaxter also produces supplements and events on key topics throughout the year.

2001 Trends in CSR reporting

2002 Trends in CSR reporting

2003 Trends in CSR reporting

2004 Trends in CSR reporting

2005 Best in show of this year’s crop

2006 Is CR in your blood?

2007 Cutting through the noise of the climate change debate

2008 Sustainability gets tough

2009 Mapping the landscape of European CR

2010 The Innovation Edition

2011 Opportunity in the new age of uncertainty

2012 Profits from purpose

2013 Authentic?

2014 Getting under the surface

2015 The rise of science

Designed by Salterbaxter MSLGROUP. Copyright © Salterbaxter MSLGROUP. Directions is a registered trademark of Salterbaxter MSLGROUP. Printed by CPI Colour. CPI Colour are ISO14001 certified, CarbonNeutral®, Alcohol Free and are FSC® and PEFC Chain of Custody certified. Printed on Satimat Green which contains 75% recycled material and is FSC certified and Arcoprint EW which is FSC Certified. Imagery retouching by Julian Hicks. www.retouchthis.co.uk