Pushing the Limits Interview with Dr. Karl-Henrik Robèrt

“The good news is that individuals are actually brilliant systems thinkers...It would be extremely difficult for five of us to drive that same car, with one of us on the gas, one on the brake, and so on...So, our challenge is to have our groups think in systems like our individual brains do effortlessly. This is what The Natural Step Framework is designed to do.”

After Dr.Karl-Henrik Robèrt, a leading Swedish cancer researcher, noted the strong correlation between environmental issues and human health, he decided to go to the root of the problem. Choosing to focus on the systemic causes that connect health and environment, Dr.Robèrt founded the Natural Step to lay out the guiding principles for a sustainable society. He just might know how far we can push the limits, or even better, avoid them all together.

JG:
Do you believe we are reaching physical limits in our natural world, which will hamper our economy’s ability to grow? 

KR:
The life-supporting ecosystems on the planet are in systematic decline. At the same time, our demand for the services and resources of those ecosystems is systematically increasing (due to increases in population and per capita consumption). So, yes, since the carrying capacity is declining we have already trespassed the physical limits of growth. It’s as if we find ourselves in a funnel, with decreasing room to maneuver as time goes on. The collective challenge we face is to chart a course for the opening of the walls of the funnel—to step-by-step reduce and eventually eliminate our contributions to the unsustainable activities upon which we are currently so dependent economically. This is essentially a design challenge—it means redesigning products, services, processes, organizations, communities, business models and so on in such a way that they come into a respectful balance with nature.
   
The narrowing walls of the funnel described above imply increasing pressure on companies to pursue more sustainable practices or suffer the economic consequences.

JG:
Is capitalism in its current form sustainable?

KR:
If those two main systematic trends I mentioned above continue, then no, it will not be sustainable. For very large parts of the world, inhuman living conditions are already the norm due to our unsustainable societal course. [...] We need not agree on a timeline and scenario for social and ecological disaster in order to understand that time is running out if the trends continue. Rather than debating these details, we should rather focus on what can be agreed upon and has been agreed upon by many scientists around the world — scientifically rigorous principles for sustainability which define the basic constraints of our natural and social systems and which define the successful outcome to which we must direct ourselves today immediately.

A sustainable economy is one where:

1 Nature is not subject to systematically increasing concentrations of substances from the earth’s crust [like lead]

2 Nature is not subject to systematically increasing concentrations of substances produced by society [like toxic waste]

3 Nature is not subject to systematic degradation by physical means, [like clear cutting] and

4 People are not subject to conditions that undermine their ability to meet their human needs [like clean air].

These are the four socio-ecological principles for sustainability that have been agreed upon by an international network of scientists of which I am a part. In the business community, the principles are known as The Natural Step System Conditions, so named by the NGO that promotes a planning model based on them. They are being used by an increasing number of companies, municipalities, governments, citizens groups and NGOs to define, from a full systems perspective, the most basic requirements for a sustainable society and economy.

JG:
Is it possible to have economic growth without increasing the quantity of physical inputs into the economy?

KR:
Recent history has shown that it is possible to reduce the amount of physical input required to achieve economic growth. Today, we are considerably more ‘resource efficient’ in this sense, and many authors and practitioners have demonstrated the ample room for improvement we still have.
   
There are, however, two bigger questions. First, how are the benefits of increased efficiency invested? If the rewards of increased efficiency are used to fuel even higher levels of resource consumption, then we are no better off for the efficiency gains. In fact, we are worse off. Second, is efficiency enough? The answer to this second question is no. The four socio-ecological principles mentioned above tell us that we must also pursue various kinds of changes of materials, management routines, and even mindset. There are some substances, such as very persistent compounds foreign to nature, and some materials, such as those from poorly managed ecosystems, for which, no matter how efficient we are at using them, there is no future.
   
The reason is that our use of them will inherently violate the four socio-ecological principles of sustainability. Furthermore, when it comes to people on Earth, it is not sufficient to save resources by more subtle and sophisticated industrialized models - we must also humanize our industrial models by continuously asking what it is that people really want, and in what ways we affect all people on Earth through our decisions.
   
As to how this will happen: strategy. The various dematerialization and substitution measures that are considered as potential actions, investments and programs, must be screened against three important questions:

1 Is the measure moving us in the right direction with respect to the four principles of sustainability?

2 Is the measure a flexible platform, i.e. a stepping stone toward future improvements? No single action or investment is going to get us to sustainability, so we should avoid as much as possible those actions and investments that are dead ends—i.e. that tie up resources in half measures that cannot be improved upon as new technical and economically feasible solutions emerge.

3 Does the measure provide an adequate return on investment to seed future moves? Since no single measure is likely to get us all the way toward sustainability in one step, the smart early moves are the ones that generate a sound financial return on investment that can be invested in future, more expensive or challenging measures. While social and ecological sustainability are the ultimate goals, economic sustainability is not something we can sacrifice in the short term. It does nobody any good if an organization seeking to become more sustainable in social and ecological terms goes bankrupt. Economic sustainability, therefore, is a means to an end.

From a superficial point of view this reasoning sounds like constraints to our chances of success. However, when constraints are based on a basic understanding of the system we are active in, it works the other way around—they are a phenomenal source of creative innovation and design. Being a part of the problem rather than the solution is not only questionable from an ethical point of view. Not preparing for tomorrow is also a way of running systematically higher economic risks than competitors.

JG:
Do we need to be concerned about global food supplies?

KR:
As long as we continue to systematically undermine nature’s ability to run the cycles that produce net order and biodiversity, we need not make estimations or guesses of this kind. Increasing concentrations of substances from the earth’s crust and human-made substances in nature, combined with systematic physical degradation of nature and ecosystems, threaten the sustainability of the natural systems and the social fabric on which our global food system is reliant and therefore the ability of people to meet their basic needs, such as nutrition.

If a global food supply and distribution system can be developed that does not contribute to these fundamental problems, then it will be sustainable. We must understand the unsustainability of the system at its most fundamental level and direct our efforts there, rather than losing ourselves in debate about timelines and scenarios. The challenge, then, is the parameters within which we seek to develop the technologies and/or farming practices of the future.
   
China is, in fact, presented with a choice of great importance for the whole world. They could embark on a sustainable path that would build on the best practices gathered from the whole world, and become a role model for sustainable agriculture. A choice of that kind must build on strategies towards a conscious definition of sustainability, not on extrapolations of any of our current unsustainable trends.
   
Those companies that are economically dependent on activities that violate the principles of sustainability will, in the long-term, hit the walls of the funnel and suffer economically due to increasing resource costs, increasing regulation, waste disposal costs, consumer and public pressure, difficulties obtaining license to operate, etc. Individual companies can, as you suggest, pursue many actions and investments that are ‘low-hanging fruit’ and that take them in a more sustainable direction. However, like a chess player approaching the basic principles of checkmate, you have to do both—ensuring that your investments and moves are economic now (saving ‘pieces of the board’) while at the same time laying the ground for the coming moves towards complying with the principles of success (checkmate or sustainability).

JG:
What role does the re-distribution of wealth play in the sustainable economy?

KR:
It is socially unsustainable for the gap between rich and poor to systematically increase. When 80 per cent of the world’s resources are consumed by 20 per cent of its people, there is certainly a distribution challenge, and when that gap continues to grow, it is a sustainability challenge. The answer to your question depends on what you mean by ‘re-distribution of wealth.’ If it is a code word for taxing the rich to give to the poor, its attractiveness as a policy solution is fairly limited. If it, rather, implies the necessity of redesigning our systems of production and consumption to come into alignment with the principles of sustainability through cooperation on the global level, then it is more than just something that has a ‘role;’ it is fundamentally the task at hand.

JG:
Is it possible to convince the population at large to buy into a new economy that is more sustainable?

KR:
I believe that most people sense that we are in trouble, but that many are paralyzed by the debate and confusion about what the problems are and what can be done about it. It is amazing to see the creativity, energy, enthusiasm and goodwill that are unleashed when people feel hopeful and see a way to move forward. The good news is that individuals are actually brilliant systems thinkers. The individual’s brain is tailor-made to think in systems. A good example of this is how we manage to learn our first language, play music or win over computers in chess. Another simple example as is driving our automobiles in what is actually a highly complex traffic system.
 
How do we do it? By adhering to a few basic principles: drive on the right side of the road, stop at stop signs, etc, etc. Focusing on those few key basic principles, we are able to navigate an incredibly complex system almost effortlessly. In groups, unfortunately, we tend not to be good systems thinkers. It would be extremely difficult for five of us to drive that same car, with one of us on the gas, one on the brake, and so on. For groups or organizations to be successful in complex systems, the participants must have shared mental models of the overall system and how to define success in it, so that each member can utilize his or her specific competences and skills in line with that large picture. So, our challenge is to have our groups think in systems like our individual brains do effortlessly. This is what The Natural Step Framework is designed to do.
   
Again, my experience has been that a leadership that concentrates on disseminating such shared mental models of core values and principles of success, can allow virtually free creativity on the detail level. This has a tendency to unleash tremendous amounts of energy and creativity. Focusing on the basic principles of complex systems is not only a methodology for individual intellectual performance; it is a way of leadership. Clarity, a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve, and a framework to use in moving forward are tremendous sources of hope and inspiration. In my mind, this is where the solutions are going to come from – by people becoming engaged in the process, more so than by people being told what to do and what not to do.

Jordy Gold is a sustainability expert and columnist for Corporate Knights. You will find his work online at www.jordygold.com