Structurally it is true that today’s market regulations, investment and productivity standards lead to a competitive advantage for those externalizing their social
and environmental costs. In Brussels I was part of the civil society community that
had to remind the corporate representatives on the discussion panels that writing
glossy reports and transferring the responsibility for change onto governments was
not going to lead to substantial legal changes unless they told their lobbyists to
support rather than block such a policy framework. Meanwhile, firms that put
sustainable solutions at the core of their business models were hardly ever represented. Since they face tough price and access competitions with firms that externalize a lot of the social and environmental costs, they often do not have profits to
spare for remunerating lobbyists.
Transformation research thus clearly differentiates between ‘incumbents,’ those
parties, firms or organizations prominently embedded in the working of the given
regime structure, and ‘pioneers’ whose solutions challenge this default and thus
have the irritating effect that can lead to transformative dynamics. Of course there
are also agents or subgroups within regime structurations that push for sustainability innovations on that level (e.g., the sustainably run units). Yet, their regime
level is more likely an internal one: if their innovations were politically supported
their motherships’ business models would be disrupted.
So this chapter shines a light on some pioneering initiatives that were radical
enough to put recoupling productive processes with human well-being and nature’s
laws at the core of their practice. Intending to check which development paradigms
galvanize enough energy and support for collective transformative strategies in line
with the wider SDG ambitions, I chose examples that fulfill the following criteria:
• Economic growth or growing profits may be an element in the business plan but
certainly not an overruling one. Instead, the optimal rate of economic growth
depends on the role it plays in fulfilling the overarching purpose of supporting
human well-being and respecting nature’s reproductive cycles. This subscribes
to the embedded-systems-view captured in Fig. 3.4 and implies that economic
processes are means to higher ends. If those can be met by a steady state or
shrunk economy or turnover that is fine, too.
• In order for the recoupling purpose to inform the incremental actions and
changes necessary to innovate their systems, each of the examples has developed a set of principles, symbols, indicators and measures to track changes.
These are not kept within separate sustainability departments but inform the core
decision-making bodies and strategies. They are communicated widely and
explicitly and underpin the narratives with which reliability of expectation and
foundations for cooperation are being built.
• Since single pioneering examples will not lead to transformations unless their
existence and support causes sufficient irritation to overarching regime structurations, I have chosen four examples with the characteristics of a movement.
The definition of values, purpose, goals, indicators, and measures within these
examples is done with a degree of transparency and openness that allows others
to learn, replicate and feed back. This can develop into a community of practice
120
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice
and environmental costs. In Brussels I was part of the civil society community that
had to remind the corporate representatives on the discussion panels that writing
glossy reports and transferring the responsibility for change onto governments was
not going to lead to substantial legal changes unless they told their lobbyists to
support rather than block such a policy framework. Meanwhile, firms that put
sustainable solutions at the core of their business models were hardly ever represented. Since they face tough price and access competitions with firms that externalize a lot of the social and environmental costs, they often do not have profits to
spare for remunerating lobbyists.
Transformation research thus clearly differentiates between ‘incumbents,’ those
parties, firms or organizations prominently embedded in the working of the given
regime structure, and ‘pioneers’ whose solutions challenge this default and thus
have the irritating effect that can lead to transformative dynamics. Of course there
are also agents or subgroups within regime structurations that push for sustainability innovations on that level (e.g., the sustainably run units). Yet, their regime
level is more likely an internal one: if their innovations were politically supported
their motherships’ business models would be disrupted.
So this chapter shines a light on some pioneering initiatives that were radical
enough to put recoupling productive processes with human well-being and nature’s
laws at the core of their practice. Intending to check which development paradigms
galvanize enough energy and support for collective transformative strategies in line
with the wider SDG ambitions, I chose examples that fulfill the following criteria:
• Economic growth or growing profits may be an element in the business plan but
certainly not an overruling one. Instead, the optimal rate of economic growth
depends on the role it plays in fulfilling the overarching purpose of supporting
human well-being and respecting nature’s reproductive cycles. This subscribes
to the embedded-systems-view captured in Fig. 3.4 and implies that economic
processes are means to higher ends. If those can be met by a steady state or
shrunk economy or turnover that is fine, too.
• In order for the recoupling purpose to inform the incremental actions and
changes necessary to innovate their systems, each of the examples has developed a set of principles, symbols, indicators and measures to track changes.
These are not kept within separate sustainability departments but inform the core
decision-making bodies and strategies. They are communicated widely and
explicitly and underpin the narratives with which reliability of expectation and
foundations for cooperation are being built.
• Since single pioneering examples will not lead to transformations unless their
existence and support causes sufficient irritation to overarching regime structurations, I have chosen four examples with the characteristics of a movement.
The definition of values, purpose, goals, indicators, and measures within these
examples is done with a degree of transparency and openness that allows others
to learn, replicate and feed back. This can develop into a community of practice
120
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice