Can Systems Thinking
Actually Solve Sustainability
Challenges? Part 1, the
Diagnosis
By: SUNMIN KIM | Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development
This is the first part in a two-part series on the role of systems thinking in
business solutions for sustainable development. Here is part 2.
For most of us, it is rare to go through a single day without hearing the
words “sustainability” or “green” applied to anything from Apple
products toZinfandels. The widespread use and the trendiness of these
terms by businesses have evolved them into almost catch-all phrases that
seem applicable to any sector. Nevertheless, the underlying ideas and
needs are common. We need to consider and act beyond our time, our
borders and our own needs.
As Tom Gladwin, Max McGraw Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at
the University of Michigan, has repeated stated, the critical state of our
environmental, economic and social system is further reinforced by
increasingcomplexity, velocity and uncertainty. However, despite the
popularity and trendiness of sustainability, we have hardly managed to
make the progress required for global sustainable development. So how
do we capture these inter-connected, complex sustainability challenges
in a practical, and solution-based approach?
Systems thinking is a trans-disciplinary “framework for seeing
interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change
rather than static snapshots” (Peter Senge). Therefore, a systems thinker
frames a problem in terms of a pattern of behavior over time, instead of
focusing on particular events. Instead of microscopic, they strive for
macroscopic, seeing beyond the details to the context of relationships in
which they are embedded. Today, it is used
by academics and practitioners alike to address sustainability challenges.
However, like with any new problem-solving approaches, the systems
approach has its criticisms. There is an assumption that systems thinking
is toofundamentalist, “epitomizing an essentially technocratic view of
business problems.” Its dependency on models and lack of actual
solutions threatens its legitimacy in corporate boardrooms and
management education. But, as the engineer in me strives to approach
problems by 1) diagnosing the problem in order to figure out how to fix it
and 2) implementing solutions with known outcomes, I believe systems
thinking is necessary for sustainability challenges.
In this first of a two-part series, I show how systems thinking can be used
in diagnosing the challenges of global sustainable development. Next, I
will discuss ways in which systems thinking can be used for various types
of organizations in the private sector, and its role in the Rio+20
dialogues.
The Diagnosis
Note: Click the image above for a zoomed in version! If you’d like to brave the
live visualization (browser must be up-to-date with Java and Flash), try it here.
Consumption is well-known to be a critical hindrance to sustainable
development. Therefore, we* identified key variables that drive
consumption and brainstormed the links among them. For example, if
consumerism grows, it causes business activity to grow also. The above
causal map was the result. Even though at the first glance, it may seem
overwhelmingly confusing, this exercise teaches us some key behaviors
of the system.
If we rank variables in order of the number of causal links, we see
thateconomic development and business activity are the two
biggest drivers of consumption, which is no surprise. More
importantly, most of the causal links are in the same direction, meaning
that they either grow when other variables grow, and decline when other
variables decline. At the same time, resource scarcity has the strongest
“opposite direction” causal change, implying that in the current system,
it is most effective in slowing down economic growth. This begs the
question: must we consume resources to the point where it becomes
scarce for the sake of economic and business growth?
Another point of concern is the fact that the state of the
environment is easily degraded but doesn’t cause change in
many other variables.Biodiversity and waste (solid waste
accumulation, greenhouse gas emissions) result negatively from many
variables, but does not affect changes in as many others.
When we follow a path of a variable, we also see causal loops present in
the system. Causal loops are an important learning tool in systems
thinking and shows how some variables can continuously reinforce, or
balance each other in a loop. For instance, if technology efficiency
increases, resource use decreases. Unhindered by resource availability,
business activity grows and more investments are made in technology
efficiency – thus putting these variables in a reinforcing loop. This seems
like a good thing, since, after all, efficiency is often tooted as the “lowhanging fruit” of sustainability strategy. However, the increase in
overall resource use due to higher business activity can
overcome the initial decrease gained from efficiency (this is also
known as the Jevon’s Paradox. See more concrete examples here).
“Society is always taken by surprise at any new example of common
sense.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson
So now what? We saw very broadly that in our current system, 1)
economic growth is heavily dependent on our natural resources, 2) the
state of our environment (as long as resources are not scarce yet) doesn’t
slow down economic growth, and 3) technology efficiency, which
businesses are so dependent on today, can actually lead to an increase in
resource use. But now with a better understanding of how this system
behaves, we know how and where to implement solutions that can have a
ripple effect for a systemic change.
Can Systems Thinking
Actually Solve Sustainability
Challenges? Part 2, the
What solution?
The Rio+20 Global Compact Corporate Sustainability Forum, which
ended on the 18th of June, provided us with a myriad of sessions that
showcased the private sector’s best sustainability solutions. In search for
the solution that I had promised after Part 1, The Diagnosis, I attended
many of them and also interviewed leaders of corporations, NGOs and
the UN – all in hopes of finding the solution. Ironically, I have realized
that it is, in the end, this lone, linear search for a solution that keeps us
from making the systemic changes that are required for global
sustainability challenges.
Adapted from Innovations for Healthy Value Chains, by the Sustainable Food Laboratory.
Systems thinking challenges the inherent process in which we search for
a solution. Instead of reacting to problems that are considered outside of,
or exogenous of our thinking and actions, it teaches us to adopt an
endogenous world view, in which we think of how our own actions
actually contribute to the very problems we are facing.
Therefore, I believe that partnerships between multiple stakeholders that
challenge each other can start leading the way for a truly transformative
agenda for sustainability. This has important implications for both
businesses and the Rio+20 stakeholder engagement process.
Businesses, let’s be honest.
“How does your sustainability strategy contribute to the problems that
you are trying to fix?” is not a question typically asked to a CEO or
sustainability executive.
From consumer-facing brand innovation to different valuation metrics at
the investor-company interface, businesses here are inventing and
implementing incredibly effective and innovative tools to tackle their
sustainability challenges. However, no matter how effective their strategy
is, they are still faced with the shortsighted limitations of what they
believe is the best approach in identifying problems, implementing
solutions and measuring success.
How can businesses recognize these limits? A well-established domain in
psychology is emotional intelligence, which calls for the need of others
for self-awareness. Just like our own human intelligence is dependent on
those around us, other organizations are vital for businesses in the face
of these global sustainability challenges.
Aside from the clear benefits of simply more minds and more hands for
problem-solving, this allows for shifts in framing of the conversation and
greater accountability. Different players have different needs – what is a
solution for one, creates problems for others.
In a way, too many partnerships make too much sense today.
Partnerships naturally arise from common needs and goals. These are of
course very effective in delivering solutions. But what about those that
challenge each other? I admit it’s hard to imagine productive
partnerships without a clear common need and goal. But with agreement
that natural resources are common, zero-sum goods, and more
opportunities for multi-stakeholder dialogues, maybe non-traditional
partnerships will begin to make sense too.
As an example, the 2030 Water Resources Group enables a global publicprivate-expert network to help governments manage the food-energywater nexus and deliver water for economic growth. In this case,
governments acting as custodian of the common goods enables longterm thinking and integrated strategies.
What about Rio+20?
The Corporate Sustainability Forum is now over and, as part of the UN
process, Global Compact put together a document of recommendations
for Sustainable Development Goals. This, in conjunction with the major
groups approach, is one of the channels that the UN has provided for
different major players to engage in the actual summit.
However, these formalized, prescribed channels for contribution are not
enough. The presence of the private sector is still heavily criticized and
the UN’s efforts to engage major groups have raised more negative rather
positive sentiments.
Major groups’ conversations have been geared towards championing
their own efforts, creating silos that lead to inaction and fragmentation.
They must recognize their own myopia in what they believe are the most
important issues of sustainable development and the complexity in other
groups’ needs and solutions.
For the first time, we have arguably the world’s most influential,
intelligent and effective people from government, civil society and
businesses, all gathered in one city. This is an incredible opportunity to
create new partnerships that may not have been possible elsewhere.
A collection of leaders, called Friends of Rio+20 released a message on
the 20th of June, calling for partnerships and collaborations to “cut across
traditional boundaries of interest, expertise and nationality” (A Message
from the Friends of Rio+20). Even though frustrations are building and
hope in the UN process is fading, I believe the real value in this event is
the opportunities for new collaboration and partnerships. The message
from leaders is clear; let’s hope the dialogue doesn’t get lost.
So, can systems thinking actually solve sustainability challenges? Yes,
but the journey is not straightforward. As the late Elinor Ostrom, the
Nobel prize winner in economics, said: “This is not a KISS (keep it
simple, stupid) approach. If we keep it too simple, we lose an
understanding of what’s going on out there” (Politics Daily).
—