Back to basics (11): Sustainability – the next Kondratiev supercycle?

The last edition of “back to basics” did focus on the ongoing discussion about managerial trends and was proposing that sustainability needs to get into the DNA of management practice, starting from the Board room and supported from bottom-up, which will of course only happen if management theory accepts sustainability as a principle that keeps the organization alive (license to operate) and embeds the opportunity to prosper (license to grow). It remains to be seen what the consequences will be for Weber-type demand and control hierarchy, for the ongoing increase of workload for less staff in efficiency driven management programs, the ongoing ‘parallel worlds’ corporate governance, strategy development and sustainability management, Taylor-style way segmentation of work packages and one-way communication to customers. The champions of the last decade, including Google, Starbucks, Yahoo, ebay, but also Gore, Timberland and others throw a lot of this over board, use seamless stakeholder engagement and web 2.0 technology to enable internal and external networking communities and shape their business models. The internet development marks the most important milestone of the 5th Kondratiev supercycle, and at the same time shapes the path into the 6th Kondraftiev cycle; maybe this next supercycle will carry the name “sustainability cycle”?

Here’s a quick Wikipedia explanation of the phenomenon of so-called Kondratiev cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave): “The Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev (1892-1938) was the first to bring these observations to international attention in his book "The Major Economic Cycles" (1925). (…) According to the innovation theory, these waves arise from the bunching of basic innovations that launch technological revolutions that in turn create leading industrial or commercial sectors. (…) Most cycle theorists agree on five waves so far since the industrial revolution, and the sixth one to come. These five cycles are:

1. The Industrial Revolution—1771,
2. The Age of Steam and Railways—1829,
3. The Age of Steel, Electricity and Heavy Engineering—1875,
4. The Age of Oil, the Automobile and Mass Production—1908,
5. The Age of Information and Telecommunications—1971.”

All new supercycles are normally aligned by recessions, a tendency currently eminent. It is clear that from a technology perspective this next supercycle will focus on technologies that aim to sustain human life on this planet; health care, biotechnology (biomimicry etc.), next generation renewable energy and also – although conflicting - gene technology are subcategories. Even visionary concepts for the next generation internet is taking biological processes as the basis for further adaptation.

For all of us working in organizations and dealing with management issues one of the most important questions will be: will biology and its inherent logic of adaptation and communication also bring about a new mangement style? Will the next Kondratiev cycle include innovation in technology AND management? Will we see a continuous flow of newcomer organizations becoming big in short time just simply because the earlier cycle champions became to slow to adapt because of their structure and size?

You may aks ‘what does all of that has to do with GRI and is G3 Guidelines?’ Well, first of all the existence of GRI itself is a logic answer of interested stakeholders – like many other GAN’s (Global Action Networks) - to the slow adaptability of world trade mechanisms, governments and companies with regard to the overall transparency needs of a fair and successful implementation of globalization. The idea is that world markets can simply function better (and will survive) if sustainability is accepted as the roadmap and the necessary transparency needed is available. This will increase the speed into the next Kondratiev supercycle.

GRI’s G3 Guidelines purposefully ask in great depth what management’s reaction to these new challenges is. Is sustainability part of Board room discussions and is the organization aware about its impacts on sustainability issues? Vice versa, how do sustainability problem areas already affect strategy and business models? (see GRI G3 chapter on ‘Strategy and Analysis’). G3’s Disclosure on Management Approach then asks how the results of this analysis are translated into the management system implementation. Last but not least G3’s indicators ask about the performance achieved and the targets and objectives aligned to them. In that sense using G3 and implementing a proper reporting process are a useful means to increase the above described adaptability into an age of high speed change.

GRI: A Global Action Network identity

Global Action Networks (GANs) are a new type of organization that have appeared as a phenomenon in response to major global sustainability issues that require international cooperation - and require cross sectoral or multi-stakeholder participation to tackle. This differs from past approaches where solutions may have been hammered out in governments and then handed down - we are seeing a more participatory and grass roots approach to finding solutions that are more accurate, timely, and credible due to the legitimacy of these GANs.

GRI's founders determined that a generally accepted framework for sustainability reporting was needed in order to create a globally coherent language and information set of sustainability performance data. This reporting framework would be used by all organizations to report, and would benefit internal stakeholders (management, employees, Boards or leadership) and external stakeholders (communities, NGOs, investors, media, etc.) all who would be empowered by access to this data. Additionally professional stakeholders would be involved in helping the users to actually implement this reporting framework (accountants, consultants, software providers, course providers, etc.)

Therefore it was a logical conclusion that the stakeholders that would use and benefit from the reporting framework would get together to build this reporting framework. This is where GRI draws its legitimacy from.

In this sense, GRI is a true GAN - and one of the first ones to appear. Some other GANs exist but tackle very different issues and topics. Check out the Forest Stewardship Council, Transparency International, Global Fund for AIDS, Global Water Partnership, etc.

I was invited by a group called GAN-net that is trying to help improve the effectiveness and impact of GANs to join a meeting in Stockholm, Sweden. At this meeting I have met about 20 other people that are in charge of communications in their own GAN, or are communications professionals that work with GANs to utilize various technologies that improve their ability to create participatory networks.

It's been a great two days where we have focussed on web 2.0 technology and how these new resources can be used to empower our networks. GRI counts its network at about 20,000 strong in over 60 countries and speaking about 30 languages. We run "formal" and "informal" engagements to build the reporting framework, govern the organization, and generally move the mission forward. We are looking for ways to run these engagements better, and to empower the network to engage with itself to exchange information and best practice - not driven by the secretariat. I have come away with lots of great ideas! If you have ideas about how to improve global action network - style communications, please do not hesitate to contact me!

More about GANs:
Traditional approaches to solving global issues are based on the premise that governments can create effective solutions through international agreements. However, this approach has proven incapable of addressing the scale of important issues in a sufficiently effective and timely manner. GANs have grown up in recent years to fill this gap, offering new strategies to build effective systems.

GANs are distinguished from traditional NGOs and intergovernmental and business organizations because they are formed by diverse stakeholders who are interested in a common issue, and who agree to work together to achieve extraordinary results. The critical contribution that they can provide global issues is their ability to create consensual knowledge and action among diverse stakeholders. GANs are defined by five key characteristics. GANs are:
-Global
-Focused on issues for the public good (not profit-seeking)
-Integrating systems-building agents that foster linkages among diverse organizations and projects that share common goals
-Boundary-crossing – North/South, rich/poor, policy makers, techno-scientists, funders, global institutions, professional disciplines, and cultures
-Inter-sectoral structures that promote fundamental changes by engaging business, government, and civil society (non-profit) organizations collaboratively

International womens day: meet Chahinaz

On International Womens Day and I find myself in Stockholm, Sweden at a very unique meeting of communications professionals all working in so-called Global Action Networks (GANs). Since the Global Reporting Initiative is considered a GAN I was lucky enough to be able to join this group of about 20 who have come together to share communications approaches, challenges, ideas, and solutions that we use in engaging with our networks (more on GANs tomorrow, visit again!).

Patrice Barrat of Bridge International Initiative shared with us today his Madmundo.tv approach to storytelling about globalization issues. The Madmundo technique is to start the story with one person's experience vis-a-vis a major globalization issue, and through the story the film crawls from the individual experience to tap into the major global forces at play that have affected this person's life. A fantastically illustrative approach. We were watching video segments from his current film about a young woman named Chahinaz who lives in Algeria and is determined to create equal rights for women.

What does this have to do with sustainability reporting? Two things:
- see earlier blog (Feb 19) on gender issues and reporting
- how can the GRI network start to use individual stories and video media to better communication about sustainability or how reporting has changed the situation of an organization, community or individual?

Enjoy meeting Chahinaz below!