The war in Europe, the latest IPCC report, summer fires, floods and heat records, and the recent global pandemic have clearly shown that life on the planet consists of fragile relationships. Our relationships with ourselves, each other, and the earth have significantly changed. This insight also opens up the possibility, or rather the necessity, to transition in ways that have not been possible before. Any potential resistance has become more porous and easier to penetrate. It is now possible to convey arguments about the necessity of transition and transformation.
In the last decades, science, particularly in sustainability and transformation research, has increased our understanding of the role of crises in transition and transformation. This research can help us understand and guide the business sector’s role in the transition towards a more just and sustainable world. The significant challenge now is to transform this opportunity into action. There is a consensus among many major players in finance and business that substantial changes are necessary and that we need to change our narratives about the future. A recent global survey about people’s attitudes toward climate change shows broad support for extensive changes. However, we need to be more united on the paths forward and strategies for transition, leading to confusion about which actions make a difference in what should be done now and by whom. Transformation and sustainability are increasingly being used justifiably about the transitions needed, which have also started in many industries and sectors. It may sound like we agree, but we must understand that transformation means very different things in these contexts.
Transformation is increasingly being used justifiably about the necessary transitions that have also started in many industries and societal sectors. For instance, many companies have expressed a need to transition amid the crisis. Clarity is, therefore, of utmost importance to avoid incorrect conclusions in areas such as capacity development, resource allocation, and cross-sector coordination initiatives. Precise semantics is particularly urgent in matters concerning life and death, where reaching consensus and efficiency in collaboration is crucial. In medicine, law, and the military, stringency and semantic clarity in language are essential. However, in light of the challenges that societies, businesses, and the planet currently face, the content of concepts such as transformation must be clearly defined and given a pedagogical framing to ensure precision in moving from words to actions.
There is a risk that the concept is watered down and used synonymously with change. In sustainability research, transformation represents a specific type of change that is clearly distinguished from other types of change, such as adaptation. Adaptation involves dealing with problems, changes, and crises while continuing on the same path. On the other hand, transformation consists of changing direction and altering the systems that created the problems in the first place. Transformation entails significant changes across various parts of society at different levels, from behaviour, laws, and regulations to deeper values and cultures. It often also includes changes in power relations (who decides what and how), that is, how authority, power, and resources are structured and flow within a given social system, and in resource flows (who gets what and how), that is, the methods and processes that reflect and reproduce those structures, roles, and routines (who does what and how).
Research has also enhanced the understanding of the abilities and capacities, both individual and societal, necessary to achieve transformation. Generally, the research speaks of three different phases:
– the ability to prepare for change,
– navigate the transition,
– cross the thresholds for change to ensure that new ideas take hold, stabilise, and build resilience to secure and internalise the new.
Conditions change with each new phase’s entry, and different capabilities are required for each specific phase. Capacity is not merely about quickly creating new systems and behaviours but also about equally swiftly learning from outdated values, hindering laws and regulations, and detrimental behaviours.
Crises can be opportunities, but only if they are navigated wisely. Research shows that a crisis can create a unique opportunity for transformation, and sometimes we speak of ”formative moments.” However, while positive societal changes can arise from crises, the outcomes are not always better. Research indicates the importance of having alternative ideas available and ready when the crisis hits. A critical question, however, is whose ideas are being asked for. The problem is not a lack of alternative ideas but that there are structures that prevent certain ideas from emerging while allowing others to flourish.
One must reach individuals’ values, beliefs, and worldviews to create the necessary motivation and engagement for a radical change. That is, to connect deeply with individuals. When this also occurs collectively (when the group pressure for belonging occurs), when group members affirm and reinforce each other’s perspectives and experiences, then energy and engagement can be unleashed so that both individually and as a group, there is shared responsibility for embracing challenging and demanding change, how to move and transform values, beliefs and worldviews, therefore, becomes crucial if you are serious about sustainable development and transformation.
Leading transformation and transition is a challenge. We need to understand better how transformation occurs. Replacing the collective narrative with a new story that better serves the whole involves reevaluating one’s worldview, where leadership means establishing and maintaining a container of psychological safety in which norms, values, and beliefs are scrutinised, revised, and reconfigured to the new. This involves leading a collective process, an authentic dialogue where ”everyone’s voice can be heard without silencing others”. Therefore, addressing injustices and including marginalised groups is essential to avoid transformations being dominated and ”hijacked” by individual interests and values. This means respecting and working with diverse values that will inevitably conflict. This requires processes that presuppose respect among people, listening without judgment, where everyone refrains from reactive comments and where all strive to speak candidly.
From this worldview, a shared endeavour is born—a vision worth investing in, where roles and routines, structures and processes, and how authority, power, and resources flow and are distributed most effectively are considered. As leaders, we need to train ourselves to create psychological safety so that we, individually and collectively, can feel respected for each person’s perspective and circumstances. We can discover hidden connections and patterns that have yet to become visible and work together to uncover how many different parts could interact in a vibrant whole.
Our Nordic term for business is ”Näringsliv,” which could be translated into English as ”Nurture Life. ” This implies that activities in the business sector should have the purpose of ”protecting and nurturing life” within the sector in which they operate. In the long run, this also concerns the issue of life and death for the organisation itself. To quote David R. Brower: ”There is no business on a dead planet.”
Both political leaders and researchers have stated that the pandemic showed us that far-reaching economic and social changes can create a more just and sustainable world. A little more manly, we must now shoulder the leadership responsibility and show the way beyond sustainability. That is to say, firmly live up to, not least in the business world, honouring the essence of what the name suggests: to nurture life.
Per Olsson, Associate Professor
SRC Stockholm University
Göran Gennvi, Senior Advisor
Nature Academy Learning Lab