In Reflets Magazine #150, Cédric Baecher (E00), Hubert Joseph-Antoine and Patrice Geoffron analyse the controversies which can surround sustainable change in companies, and how to overcome them. Here is a free online translation of the article… Subscribe to get the next issues (in French)!

Sustainable transformation is controversial by nature.

Our world has now entered a process of violent change, set to last and characterised by the juxtaposition of numerous systems under pressure. While global GDP has increased a hundredfold¹ in just over two centuries (to reach a current level of $101 trillion according to the World Bank), a wave of environmental, socioeconomic and geopolitical crises is forcing a radical change of model at an unprecedented pace.

Given the scale of the challenges we face (such as reducing GHG emissions by 2030 in the same proportion as accomplished in the last 30 years), an absence of tension and conflict would be surprising to say the least. We must continue to manage existing groups of assets (obsolete infrastructures, poorly insulated buildings, petrol vehicles and ageing industrial sites, etc.), while inventing new solutions (technological, economic and political) often accompanied by undesirable effects which are difficult to shoulder (distortions of competition, deadweight, etc.).

In a context of profound turmoil, we must work together to find compromises, agree on the most suitable arbitrations and move forward along a razor’s edge between the collective will to ensure transition and our individual ability to accept all the consequences, and without possessing all the levers, as (among other hurdles) oil prices are set more in Ryad and Moscow than in Paris or Berlin.

Regardless of the scale (national, regional, public or private organisation), the loss of meaning to the global narrative is accompanied by conflicts of ‘logic’ (economic, social and environmental), as the tense debate during the MEDEF conference between the CEO of TotalEnergies and climatologist Jean Jouzel recently demonstrated. The corporate world is also the stage for controversy, with discussions between colleagues behind the closed doors of executive committees responsible for investment decisions or commercial positioning which may totally, partially, directly or indirectly contradict their CSR commitments. These ‘tension areas’ disrupt the decision-making process and can lead to conflict in the distribution of means and resources, with serious consequences for cohesion and competitiveness.

The delicate fostering of talking spaces

There is a cruel lack of talking spaces as well as mechanisms encouraging ‘enlightened’ consultation in the context of such situations. Yet several examples show that it is possible to achieve consensus, such as by renewing and/or developing existing intermediation practices. Let’s look at three real examples.

Firstly, the Citizen Convention on Climate (initiated by the French President further to the ‘Great Debate’ and the Yellow Vest movement) enabled a representative panel of citizens to work ‘closely’ and at length, demonstrating both a high level of commitment and concrete results. Despite initial differences (disparate levels of knowledge, incompatible viewpoints or internal tensions, etc.) almost all the measures proposed were overwhelmingly voted in by the Convention members, illustrating a collective journey and a real ability to overcome initial wariness, misunderstanding and zeal to nurture mutual trust, balance and the emergence of consensus. This was the fruit of considerable efforts in terms of mediation, a mutual definition of the ‘rules of play’ (attentiveness, relations with experts and conflict management) and the creation of a common base for the objective understanding of the issues at stake (facts, scientific data and shared in-house expertise).

Secondly, some organisations have created their own interaction spaces, to engage in dialogue and forge long-term trust. We can quote Paris Dauphine University (which set up an environmental council to examine the impacts of decarbonisation on its operating procedures); companies such as Veolia Eau Île-de-France (piloting of an in-house climate convention, bringing together executives and workers to discuss energy and environmental transition issues), or Transdev (setting-up of engagement committees to explore the integration of environmental criteria in investment and international growth decisions).

Transdev is a particularly interesting case. In the framework of sustainable change, the decision to place the environment/climate department within the strategy department reduced the risks of conflict between two distinct entities which may otherwise have generated tensions during key arbitrations. Economic and environmental logics are thus integrated coherently prior to strategic considerations and decisions (the ‘social’ aspect of the company’s CSR is overseen by the Human Resources department). The engagement committee represents a clear framework enabling constructive in-house discussions while ironing out the inevitable divergent views, fears and ‘preconceptions’ among various decision-makers (according to their roles and responsibilities). The idea is thus to assess and objectify all the impacts linked to new projects, to discuss specific cases (related directly to the company’s activities) and demystify the issues.

The third example is the Inclusive Mobility Laboratory (Laboratoire de la Mobilité Inclusive (LMI)), a think tank founded in 2013 bringing together companies, public institutions and community players to work on access to mobility for all. Through its transversal and inter-disciplinary approach, the LMI strives to create favourable conditions for open and objective dialogue between stakeholders whose interests may seem diametrically opposed. This process is all the more inspiring given that its aim is neither to deny contradictions, nor prevent their expression, but to seek convergence points serving the common good, and thus collectively foster ‘non-controversial’ public debate.

Boosting collective understanding of issues

All organisations, including companies, have a key role to play in developing the collective understanding of sustainable change. In the transport sector, recent initiatives such as the Mobility Sphere (Transdev) or the Freedom of Mobility Forum in a decarbonised world (Stellantis) demonstrate the willingness of many executives to become actively involved in public debate, specifically to contribute to dialogue, including directly with public opinion.

In the face of the controversy ‘continuum’ between the private and professional spheres, it appears vital to involve all employee profiles (in terms of age and skills) in these discussion initiatives. In order to achieve real results, they must be built on four intrinsic cornerstones: 1) Joint acceptance of values and the collective ‘project’; 2) A clear expression of contradictions and differing viewpoints (between players and between regions); 3) Illustration through concrete facts (independent expertise, verified data and substantiated trends, etc.), and 4) A commitment over the long term.

The development of training and the ongoing production of targeted knowledge are key to fostering talking spaces. Transdev thus initiated a partnership with the Shift Project to design an international version of the mobility fresk and thus facilitate discussions on sustainable mobility in the 20 countries it operates in. The LMI became involved in a long-term project (‘Inclusion/Transition’), aimed at exploring the inherent contradictions of sustainable change and taking stakeholders’ differing viewpoints as its starting point (in particular through a highly-detailed and widely disseminated field study).

In conclusion, it is also through dialogue that we will gain clearer understanding of the ‘assurance’ value of sustainable change, which will enable us to deal better with shocks and enhance the competitiveness and resilience of our companies and societies in a chaotic world enduring multiple crises. Let us accept the inherently controversial nature of this assertion and constantly encourage discussion, focusing not only on the cost of actions, but also and above all on their real and local co-benefits.

¹ See the studies by the British economist and historian Angus Maddison (1926-2010).

Translation of an article published in Reflets Magazine #150. Read a preview (in French). Get the next issues (in French).

Image :  © AdobeStock