We Can Not Reach Our Goals
And our language must change dramatically.
As of yesterday, I am the proud owner of a UN SDG lapel pin and it’s changed me.
Why on earth should I take pride in owning a thing which I don’t need and which took resources to make, and wrap, and ship?
Well, I guess I take pride because of all those things. Yes, I believe passionately in the UN SDG ideals and am proud to tell people that I do. The pin helps. The pin also reminds me of the innate silliness and contradictions in everything we do: is the pin (and its plastic wrapping) even compatible with the aims of Responsible Consumption? The pin is a paradox.
It’s changed me because (in just 24 hours) wearing the pin provokes conversation - which is a core part of our strategy to communicate and evangelise. And in those conversations, direct one to ones with clients and coworkers, I’ve immediately found myself correcting my language from being absolute and clear to being nuanced and more vague.
So much so, that I think we need to immediately rewrite our UN SDG lexicon. And I mean now. Right now.
The “final straw” trigger which made me see things differently was the UN message printed on the pin packaging which said “…ensuring that no one is left behind”.
Step back….my reaction comes in the context of the actions and attitudes of the UK Government at the current time. No matter how hard we work to make a difference in our own capacity as individuals in a business context, the direction and mood and actions of the UK government and councils does make a massive difference to how we operate. And the UK Government, in recent days, has shifted, decisively, from being ambivalent to hostile on matters such as “no one is left behind” and a range of climate issues. The UK Government’s values simply do not align with the values of either the UN SDGs or the UN Global Compact which they signed up to.
There is more context. (I hate having context - it’s become very negative recently. I wish we could just ignore reality sometimes.) And it’s this: on 27 July 2023 as the world lamented the hottest July ever in recorded history, the UN Secretary-General said “the era of global warming has ended” and “the era of global boiling has arrived”, accompanied by the now-predictable, almost laughable call, for everyone to "step up their ambition”.
“Global Boiling”. Really? Yes.
So, in the context where the job we have to do became palpably more pressing and more important (people dying of heat and being displaced in front of our eyes) and at the same time the primary mover (Government) is deprioritising it, the language of “ensuring no one is left behind” has clearly become unrealistic. It is unachievable. A fantasy.
As with so much else that simply is not going to happen. It’s clear.
The “goals” are markers, like waypoints on a map. They are not goals we are going to achieve. They are ideals and mini-fantasies in their own right. We are clearly not going to end poverty or hunger by 2030. We are not going to reverse climate change. We won’t achieve equality.
But it’s the journey that matters. We must steer towards the marker, even though we won’t reach it. Let’s get nearer to it, as fast we can. And it matters so so much that we retain enthusiasm for the journey. We will not end poverty - but we will try. We will not end hunger - but we will try. We will not protect life below water - but we will try.
Yvon Chouinard and Vincent Stanley put it well in “The Responsible Company” when they said “sustainability” is a word “we’ve chosen to use as little as possible” as “no human economic activity is yet sustainable”.
I agreed with them when I first read their book, but I didn’t totally internalise it. But today, I’ve become an absolutist on the subject.
Today, I think we need to totally ditch the language of proud capitalist absolutism and definiteness, and use instead the language of humble endeavour and striving.
And so now, I’m following these absolute rules whenever I talk to clients:
Never ever say “sustainable”. Don’t. Say “more sustainable” or (preferably) “less harmful”.
Never say “inclusive” or “low carbon”. Say “more inclusive” or “less exclusive” or “lower carbon”.
Never say “green” or “eco-friendly” or “environmental”. Just don’t.
Never say you are going to ensure no one is left behind (or eradicate child labour or, or, or). Instead, say you will work so that fewer people are left behind / exploited.
If you read almost ANY company website on ESG and CSR and UN SDG matters, you will find this rule is not applied. And it’s the marketing people (like me) who are making the mistake, so I’m inviting us all to look at our ways.
The Lloyds Bank website is a good example. It says (in the headlines area) “we’re building an inclusive society” and transitioning to a “low carbon economy”, explicitly using definite language that says an “inclusive society” and a “low carbon economy” are real things.
They are not real things and never will be. And when you dive into the detail of Lloyds website, you see a very pleasant and realistic, down-to-earth truthful and honest approach - “a more sustainable and inclusive future” “supporting the transition to a low carbon economy”.
The difference is plain. It’s the nature of headline to be less nuanced, obviously. But not at the expense of truth. We need to rewrite our headlines to be realistic, not fanciful. (A quite simple Chat GPT prompt would do it, to be honest.)
I will update you on how the new rule goes down. Wish me luck. And please keep the faith - all we can do, is our best.