Sustainability transformation: between conservatives and tree-huggers

The IPCC report and the articles surrounding it evoke different reactions. Some people recognise the problem and see the urgency. They consciously choose sustainable or more environmentally friendly alternatives, opting for organic products or limiting their travel. Some even argue that it report is too conservative, that the probability distribution is wrong and that the urgency and risks are much greater than described. Another group of people may be shocked by the findings, but want to "keep it cosy and continue having cosy barbecues". They may be aware of the problem but go no further than that. Their goal for the coming year is double-digit growth once the economy picks up. The first group is often seen as tree-huggers and idealists. The second group is seen as conservatives and currently holds the majority. If we want to mobilise conservatives to take action to preserve the world and shape transformation, two things are needed:

There should be a framework that allows both sides to engage in discussion. It should not dictate what is "right" or "wrong", but rather foster understanding of each other's perspectives. This framework can shed light on why ideas such as "regenerative agriculture" are not yet seen as real solutions.
There has to be space between conservative boundaries and idealistic goals. Once ideas arise within that space, we can move into action mode to develop those ideas.

In the following paragraphs, we elaborate on these two steps.

A 'neutral' frame of mind: lifetime versus potential

The framework in which conservatives and "tree-huggers" can find common ground consists of zeitgeist (longevity) and potential. Their perspectives differ greatly along both axes.

Lifetime

The two opposing perspectives within the longevity dimension are Strategic Management Thinking and Generational Thinking. The fundamental difference lies in the time horizon within which results are to be achieved. Strategic Management Thinking focuses mainly on short-term results. €1000 tomorrow is more valuable in the spreadsheets than €1200 in 10 years. From this perspective, sustainability should be logical for an organisation, such as building a portfolio of ideas based on different market dynamics (sustainable forces). Generation Thinking on the other hand, recognises that more people will come after us than those who came before us and that we are just a moment in the development of humanity. Improving the lives of 1,200 people 10 years from now is more valuable than 1,000 tomorrow. The emphasis here is on maximising impact, whether achieved now or later. Both approaches are valid and logical, but lead to different results.

Potential

The other opposing perspectives, on the potential axis, are Boundary Thinking and Regeneration Thinking. These ways of thinking view potential differently. Boundary thinking focuses mainly on limiting damage. If we stay within the boundaries within which nature can recover (planetary boundaries), , then we are in a "safe" zone. This includes reducing CO2 emissions, ocean acidification, pollution, water use and much more. The Donut Economics model adds a social dimension and emphasises the need to contribute to well-being. Limits Thinking is like the circle into which a square business model must fit. Regeneration Thinking, on the other hand, does not assume boundaries, but focuses on designs based on natural principles. It recognises nature as the best producer and manager, capable of creating more than what is needed. Regeneration Thinking is currently observed in sectors closely linked to nature, such as agriculture, mariculture (mussels, oysters) and forestry. Both perspectives are valuable, with Limits Thinking focusing more on preserving the system through reduction (more conservative), while Regeneration Thinking seeks to redesign systems in inclusive ways (ecological and social). With this framework, we can better understand how someone looks at the problem from a particular perspective. It is notable that both Frontier Thinking and Strategic Management Thinking are selective; they give reasons not to do things. On the other hand, Regeneration Thinking and Generational Thinking work in opposite directions; they focus on creation and identify actions to be taken.

Both perspectives enable action

The "tree-hugger" mentality is focused on creation and possibilities, while conservative thinking is selective and restrictive. This means looking for overlap. The creative ideas of tree-huggers must stay within limits and align with current rhetoric within organisations. Moreover, challenges arising from constraints in organisations can be solved by using alternative ways of thinking. Therefore, we need to look for the space, "the zone", where our ways of thinking intersect. Why does this work? Every creative process consists of a combination of generative, creative thinking and restrictive, selective thinking. Without both, there can be too much or too little output. Of course, the basic rules for successful brainstorming still apply: no buts, suspend judgement, build on each other's ideas and generate volume first before selecting. Engage in conversations with both conservative thinkers and tree-huggers. Explore each other's perspectives and gather ideas within the thinking framework. Work together to bring ideas into the "zone" and translate them into concrete projects.

Would you like to discuss this further? Send us a message to exchange views.

Pieter van der Boog
pieter.vanderboog@elementalstrategy.com