Corporate Sustainability: a Tale of Chasing Rainbows

My first encounter with the field of Sustainability was in 2010 while working in Unilever. I attended a global cascade presentation by then-new CEO Paul Polman, who introduced the whole company to the Unilever Sustainable Business Plan (USLP). It was an epic moment—a bold strategy aiming to decouple growth from environmental impact and redefine the role of businesses in society. Watching that presentation, I remember thinking, “Wow, this could be as transformative as the digital revolution.”

Fourteen years have passed since that presentation, and what I see is fundamentally different from the digital revolution. Rather than becoming embedded in the organisations, Corporate Sustainability strategies and targets are currently being revisited across industries—or, worse, falling into the practice of “hush-washing,” with companies opting to un-report their impacts to avoid commitments.

This new trend is by no means a reflection of the integration of sustainability practices in the business-as-usual, nor a result of the achievement of the environmental and social challenges that motivated the existence of those strategies in the first place.

Quite the opposite. Almost every planetary health indicator has worsened dramatically over the last decade—from greenhouse gas emissions to biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and plastic pollution. While it's true that these indicators might be even worse without Corporate Sustainability efforts, consolation prizes won’t grant us extra lives in the “sustaining life on Earth” game we're all playing.

The gap between societal needs and shareholder desires has never been wider.

A striking example, that’s impossible for me not comment, is Unilever, the company where I was professionally raised and where I started my Sustainability journey. Their new ‘Growth Action Plan’ has sparked intense reflection over recent weeks motivated by a dilution of the sustainability ambitions of what was once the poster child of Corporate Sustainability.

I was particularly moved by Jonathan Porritt’s heartfelt article expressing disappointment with Unilever, a company he worked with closely, contributing actively to their Sustainability plans. For good or ill, Unilever is now revisiting those commitments in favour of “more focused and realistic targets,” letting down all those who, like me, hoped that vision would become a common standard for business.

Some might argue that feeling emotionally affected by an organisation’s strategic decisions is nonsense—it’s not personal, just business!

Yet, when it comes to Sustainability, by definition, it is always personal.

On the other hand, I came across dozens of articles from analysts defending Unilever’s new strategy as the best way to regain growth momentum, responding to shareholders (not stakeholders) demands. There’s no business case for pursuing sustainability targets if they risk competitiveness and dilute shareholder value. By prioritising profit, Unilever aligns itself with the corporate system demands, and the market has rewarded this alignment, with share prices experiencing double-digit growth since the announcement of the new strategy.

Shareholders happy, and business-as-usual alive and kicking, with minor adjustments.

Sustainability: everywhere and nowhere

In contrast to this wave of revised corporate sustainability strategies and anti-ESG movements— where Unilever is far from the only example—Sustainability is everywhere. A term that was barely known a decade ago now appears on every company’s website, organisational chart, annual report, and business school syllabus. My inbox overflows daily with #sustainability articles, new Sustainability organisations, consultancies, events, awards, you name it. Even the airports’ duty free area now has a permanent advert sign saying “Celebrate Sustainability”. What?!

So, how come a concept that was barely known a few years ago has managed to infiltrate every corner of the commercial world, capturing so much attention, and yet delivering such limited material impact?

Yes, there have been indeed concrete advances, such as the massive transition to renewable energy and increased supply chain transparency. But, applying the same criteria by which I was evaluated in my corporate roles – where “very good” is only good enough for a bonus if all targets are met – I could say to the corporate world (which contributes for around 50% of emissions, just to mention one planetary boundary): they are not delivering against the agreed targets.

Nevertheless, they are still getting their bonus.

The intention here, after my 8 years on this path of Sustainability studies and close work with leading corporate Sustainability companies, is to reflect on why, despite all the buzz around Sustainability, the only needle dramatically moving is the one pushing us beyond the Paris Agreement 1.5°C mark along most planetary boundaries.

Moreover, why in many cases, are we even going backwards when we need to run forward?

Dealing with a damn good system

My reflection is that we’ve been naïve.

By “we” I mean all of us coming from business backgrounds who believed it was possible to integrate sustainability into the business-as-usual, ignoring the ultimate goal and the rules of the game of the corporate system. This realisation became clear to me when, searching of new answers, I re-read Donella Meadows’ book, Thinking in Systems, which offers a holistic approach to understanding complex problems like climate change and social inequality.

One of the main characteristics of a system is its single-minded goal or purpose, identified by observing the system’s behaviour and outcomes over time. The rules of the game are those elements or norms that keep the system functioning.

In the case of the corporate system is crystal clear: the goal is growth (or maximising shareholder returns), the rules of the game is profitability. And like in every well-functioning system, such as the corporate system, all its elements, interactions, processes, priorities, resource allocations and adaptation efforts tend to align toward achieving its ultimate goal. 

So, what’s new here? Don’t I already know, after over twenty years in corporate roles, especially in leadership positions, that nearly every major corporate decision centres on profit and/or growth? Yes, of course.

What I didn’t fully grasp was just how fundamentally opposed sustainability efforts are to the corporate system’s goal — a stark contrast to the digital era, which fuelled productivity and efficiency, ultimately driving more profit and growth opportunities.

The fact that the corporate system is reluctant to commit and mobilise resources toward Sustainability targets — and probably always will with the system as it stands — it’s just a demonstration of how well this system works.

Sustainability strategies, by definition, are rooted in questioning business-as-usual models, highlighting negative externalities – like all forms of pollution – and therefore challenging the corporate system’s growth and profit maximisation. In this context, the most profitable and growth-oriented model is the “take-use-waste” linear business model, where accountability for the unintended social and environmental consequences – the external costs – is minimal.

Sustainability efforts will inherently conflict with the corporate system’s goal unless there are fundamental changes to the functioning of the system — such as new governance structures that incorporate nature and society into the decision making process — or external forces like legislation and civil movements that bind the internalisation of those external costs.

Until that happens, I don’t foresee meaningful changes coming from the system itself, because most sustainability actions that truly deliver material impact will, in the long term, always conflict with the perfected “cost-efficient” linear mode of take-use-waste. This explains the marginal advances we see, exemplified in the FMCG world by a minor packaging and formulation changes or the abundance of sustainability claims with little substantiation.

Greenwashing is the system’s plea for survival.

What I’m trying to say is that the lack of sustainability progress in the corporate world is a systems problem: nobody’s fault and everyone’s fault.

It’s nobody’s fault, because it’s not that the system lacks more competent CEOs, better Sustainability frameworks or more eco-friendly suppliers. The corporate system has proven to be so efficient that any attempt to disrupt the maximisation of profit or growth is swiftly expelled by the system itself and replaced by another element – be it an executive, a strategy, or an innovation – that aligns better with the system’s rules. A behaviour especially evident with publicly traded companies.

This is why there is so much frustration and disappointment among Sustainability professionals, whether working within or outside organisations. They constantly juggle the business demands for profit and growth with their commitment to reducing the company’s negative impacts. Instead of actively shaping the strategic agenda, they’ve been relegated to producing endless sustainability reports that are more about looking good than doing good.

And when they do get a chance to influence the business, they feel like being put on trial where they are accused of a crime and have to prove innocence. When often, the ‘crime’ is simply seeing what the rest of the business prefers not to see.

What I now realise is that finding that sweet spot where profit and sustainability meet, in the long term, is a mission impossible—especially when the most sustainable option will always be compared to an alternative from the perfected “cost-efficient” take-use-waste model.

Profit pressures will always eat sustainability for breakfast.

However, this lack of advancement on Sustainability targets is also everyone’s fault.

Without the people that participate in the system — executives, suppliers, customers, consumers, and policymakers — there would be no system. By accepting these rules of the game or failing to disrupt them, we all end up contributing to the perpetuation of a system that isn’t fit for the purpose of safeguarding the conditions that support life on Earth.

A new tale of two choices

In hindsight, I believe our naïve optimism has distracted us from asking the right questions, leading us to propose the wrong solutions. It’s not about introducing more purposeful leaders, crafting better sustainability strategies, or swapping out one single ingredient in a resource-intensive formulation. And it’s certainly not about creating more Sustainability awards or peppering more Sustainability words into the business bingo.

For the corporate world to drastically reduce its negative externalities, we need incentives that disrupt the current system and force businesses to revisit their business-as-usual take-use-waste linear models in order to stay in the game. To ideally, create a new game.

Anything less is a distraction that might have been excused five years ago as “a good start,” but not today, when we are on the brink of an environmental — and consequential social — crisis, where we have seen only the tip of the melting iceberg.

So, how do we change such a powerful, entrenched system that we all, in some way or another, rely on?

Systems change often begins in the most unimaginable ways, usually from just a crack in the system. And although the corporate system is resilient, it is full of cracks.

While recent actions to reduce sustainability ambitions may seem like wise market moves—confirmed by some share price increases—the corporate system, like all systems on this planet, ultimately depends on a higher, all-mighty system: the natural world, with its limited resources and clear boundaries. And that system is already showing signs of what’s to come—rising cocoa prices anyone?—and it will inevitably disrupt every resource-intensive supply chain on the planet.

We can no longer pretend that we can eat the planet and keep the planet.

This article is not just an intellectual analysis of a well-known system and its struggles. It’s an invitation to anyone—inside or outside of the Sustainability field—who, like me, believes there must be a more virtuous way for businesses to contribute to society and is tired of watching empty corporate sustainability strategies, commitments, and marginal actions that at the end are just another cog in the wheel.

By being part of this corporate system — as employees, consultants, or consumers/users—we have a choice: to entertain the system or to disrupt it.

We entertain the system when we continue to believe that the corporate system itself will find the solutions for the societal problems it has helped to create.

We entertain the system when we keep spending energy (human and fossil-fuelled) on solutions that aren’t real solutions— like introducing recyclable/recycled packaging. Despite acknowledging the challenges of incorporating these materials into a perfected “cost-efficient” linear supply chain, this remains the least effective form of circularity.

We disrupt the system by refusing to conform, by interrogating the system’s behaviour, and by experimenting with ideas that challenge the system’s premises—like new circular and regenerative business models, alternative governance structures, new legislations—or even by developing alternative systems to replace the current one.

We also disrupt the system by asking the right questions. Questions that may have no answers today, but that keep the debate alive, seeking out the cracks that will light the path to a new system.

So, my final questions to Sustainability professionals, eco-conscious individuals, or anyone who cares enough to see even just a glimpse or what I see: 

Are you merely entertaining the system, or are you disrupting it? 

Will you settle for minor shifts, or will you push for deeper changes that this unprecedented moment demands?