Sustainability Strat., Innov. & Change – summary of the research
papers and lectures
Brenda Giethoorn
06-09-2021
WEEK 36
MODULE 1
Video lecture: Defining Sustainability
Brundtland Definition: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
It contains two key concepts:
- The concept of 'needs', in particular, the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding
priority should be given; and
- The idea of 'limitations' imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and future needs.
This definition is used a lot in business.
Strong sustainability: “same opportunities for future generations”
Weak sustainability: “same level of opportunities for future generations”
Critique of a Development Focused Approach:
+ particular focus to most vulnerable/without a voice
+ wide range of domains
+ links to extant thinking/ global resonance
− minimal frame shift
− human centric
Ecological impact formula →
The ecological footprint is the impact of a person
(or collective/ business) on the natural
environment, expressed as the amount of land
required to sustain their consumption of eco-
system services.
Lifecycle analyses (LCA) tries to establish the ecological
impact of a product for producing the raw materials all the way
to disposing the product after use →
There are three scope categories:
- Scope 1 activities are generated in the company its own
operations.
- Scope 2 emissions are those generated producing the
energy consumed by the company. They are admitted by
the utilities that are suppling the energy to the firm.
- Scope 3 is all the rest.
Traditionally only scope 1 activities would be monitored.
,Critique of an Impacts Focused Approach:
+ guided by natural boundaries
+ quantification and comparison possible
+ frame shift
− measurement challenges
− not all quantifiable
− social domains underrepresented
Triple Bottom Line model: To operationalize sustainability the idea is to strive for a balance between
all relevant dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. Increasingly performance measurement
and reporting practice adds: Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG).
Critique of a Dimensions Focused Approach:
+ pluralistic
+ generalizable and adaptable framework
+ integrative focus
− incremental changes
− implied compensation possibility misleading
− non-synergistic changes deemphasized
WEEK 37
MODULE 2
Video lecture: Sustainability: The Nature of the Problem
As Ehrenfeld points out, using systems thinking, there are a number of common traps we tend to fall
into, as we are trying to fall into, when we are trying to solve sustainability problems. Problems are:
- “Fixes-that-fail”, the problem reoccurs over time, as only the symptom is addressed but not the
root cause to the problem. Sustainable → less sustainable. Unfortunately, fixes-that-fail are often
not only ineffective, they’re frequently accompanied by side effects.
- “Shifting-the-burden”, Fixes-that-fail cannot only produce side-effects, they can also misleadingly
releave the urgency to find a fundamental solution. We can fall into a routine of treating symptoms
rather than finding the quire. We may stop looking for a fundamental solution. This trap is called
“shifting the burden”.
Technohubris is our tendency to believe technological progress will eventually resolve our problems.
, The Rebound Effect means that you might buy more when packages of services are advertised as
sustainable, but by increasing your investment, you are making it worse because your absolute plastic
use is not going down.
Ehrenfeld’s Critique can be critiqued. Because sometimes doing something is still better than doing
nothing. Sometimes we can’t wait to find the fundamental solution. Characteristics of the so-called
Wicked Problems are:
- Extremely difficult (impossible?) to define precisely;
- No definitive solution;
- Implemented solutions tend to have (large) consequences;
- Interconnected with other problems;
- Involving many stakeholders.
Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by design: A subversive strategy for transforming our
consumer culture. Taylor and Francis, pp. 10-21
When we focus sharply on the problems (plural) before us, we often fail to see much more fundamental
issues. I mentioned the reductionist habit of seeing only a bit of the whole story, but the problem
(singular) is even deeper. With the help of some (causal loop) diagrams from systems dynamics, the
way of portraying complicated situations developed by Jay Forrester and others at MIT in the 1970s, I
will show how our common ways of acting hide the underlying causes of unsustainability and hinder
our attempts to produce sustainability.
Whenever we encounter something that needs doing or
fulfilling (the “problem,” in this figure), we take an
action to solve it (the symptomatic “solution”). If the
problem is a hole (like a hungry stomach), we fill it. And
if it is a barrier standing in our way, we take it down. The
solution we apply causes an opposite effect (o). The
more we eat, the less hungry we feel. Of course, if we
overeat, then another problem may show up, but we will
come to that situation in a moment. And as the problem
lessens, so does the need for solution.
In Figure 2 I have added another loop to
indicate that often the solutions we choose
produce some sort of unwanted result or
unintended consequence. One common
outcome is that the original problem comes
back at some later time: “fixes-that-fail.”
Another is that some unintended consequence
shows up somewhere else. The unwanted
effects keep getting bigger the more we keep
trying to solve the primary problem, which
may also grow over time if our efforts fail to get at its roots. This kind of loop is called a reinforcing
loop, and we term the process positive feedback.
papers and lectures
Brenda Giethoorn
06-09-2021
WEEK 36
MODULE 1
Video lecture: Defining Sustainability
Brundtland Definition: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
It contains two key concepts:
- The concept of 'needs', in particular, the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding
priority should be given; and
- The idea of 'limitations' imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and future needs.
This definition is used a lot in business.
Strong sustainability: “same opportunities for future generations”
Weak sustainability: “same level of opportunities for future generations”
Critique of a Development Focused Approach:
+ particular focus to most vulnerable/without a voice
+ wide range of domains
+ links to extant thinking/ global resonance
− minimal frame shift
− human centric
Ecological impact formula →
The ecological footprint is the impact of a person
(or collective/ business) on the natural
environment, expressed as the amount of land
required to sustain their consumption of eco-
system services.
Lifecycle analyses (LCA) tries to establish the ecological
impact of a product for producing the raw materials all the way
to disposing the product after use →
There are three scope categories:
- Scope 1 activities are generated in the company its own
operations.
- Scope 2 emissions are those generated producing the
energy consumed by the company. They are admitted by
the utilities that are suppling the energy to the firm.
- Scope 3 is all the rest.
Traditionally only scope 1 activities would be monitored.
,Critique of an Impacts Focused Approach:
+ guided by natural boundaries
+ quantification and comparison possible
+ frame shift
− measurement challenges
− not all quantifiable
− social domains underrepresented
Triple Bottom Line model: To operationalize sustainability the idea is to strive for a balance between
all relevant dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. Increasingly performance measurement
and reporting practice adds: Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG).
Critique of a Dimensions Focused Approach:
+ pluralistic
+ generalizable and adaptable framework
+ integrative focus
− incremental changes
− implied compensation possibility misleading
− non-synergistic changes deemphasized
WEEK 37
MODULE 2
Video lecture: Sustainability: The Nature of the Problem
As Ehrenfeld points out, using systems thinking, there are a number of common traps we tend to fall
into, as we are trying to fall into, when we are trying to solve sustainability problems. Problems are:
- “Fixes-that-fail”, the problem reoccurs over time, as only the symptom is addressed but not the
root cause to the problem. Sustainable → less sustainable. Unfortunately, fixes-that-fail are often
not only ineffective, they’re frequently accompanied by side effects.
- “Shifting-the-burden”, Fixes-that-fail cannot only produce side-effects, they can also misleadingly
releave the urgency to find a fundamental solution. We can fall into a routine of treating symptoms
rather than finding the quire. We may stop looking for a fundamental solution. This trap is called
“shifting the burden”.
Technohubris is our tendency to believe technological progress will eventually resolve our problems.
, The Rebound Effect means that you might buy more when packages of services are advertised as
sustainable, but by increasing your investment, you are making it worse because your absolute plastic
use is not going down.
Ehrenfeld’s Critique can be critiqued. Because sometimes doing something is still better than doing
nothing. Sometimes we can’t wait to find the fundamental solution. Characteristics of the so-called
Wicked Problems are:
- Extremely difficult (impossible?) to define precisely;
- No definitive solution;
- Implemented solutions tend to have (large) consequences;
- Interconnected with other problems;
- Involving many stakeholders.
Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by design: A subversive strategy for transforming our
consumer culture. Taylor and Francis, pp. 10-21
When we focus sharply on the problems (plural) before us, we often fail to see much more fundamental
issues. I mentioned the reductionist habit of seeing only a bit of the whole story, but the problem
(singular) is even deeper. With the help of some (causal loop) diagrams from systems dynamics, the
way of portraying complicated situations developed by Jay Forrester and others at MIT in the 1970s, I
will show how our common ways of acting hide the underlying causes of unsustainability and hinder
our attempts to produce sustainability.
Whenever we encounter something that needs doing or
fulfilling (the “problem,” in this figure), we take an
action to solve it (the symptomatic “solution”). If the
problem is a hole (like a hungry stomach), we fill it. And
if it is a barrier standing in our way, we take it down. The
solution we apply causes an opposite effect (o). The
more we eat, the less hungry we feel. Of course, if we
overeat, then another problem may show up, but we will
come to that situation in a moment. And as the problem
lessens, so does the need for solution.
In Figure 2 I have added another loop to
indicate that often the solutions we choose
produce some sort of unwanted result or
unintended consequence. One common
outcome is that the original problem comes
back at some later time: “fixes-that-fail.”
Another is that some unintended consequence
shows up somewhere else. The unwanted
effects keep getting bigger the more we keep
trying to solve the primary problem, which
may also grow over time if our efforts fail to get at its roots. This kind of loop is called a reinforcing
loop, and we term the process positive feedback.
