Center for Sustainable Finance and Private Wealth (CSP) North America’s Post

💡 Interested in the latest developments in systemic impact investing and stories of success? Check out the upcoming research call with the Center for Sustainable Finance and Private Wealth (CSP) North America, and learn more about their transformative training programs. 📅 Tuesday, Sep 10 🕡 5:00 - 5:45 PM CEST #impactinvesting #systemsthinking #sustainablefinance

The hidden costs of business growth: · Diminishing visibility · Diminishing resilience · Diminishing accountability What did I miss? There is plenty of talk about the upsides of business growth, but it's time to balance that conversation to make decisions better suited to the challenges of the 21st century. If you agree, consider signing up for my free 6-day email course, Planetary Business. The 6 lessons cover: 1. How planetary boundaries affect problem-solving 2. Why you must understand The Rebound Effect 3. Why recycling is never enough, and what to do instead 4. How to scale impact without growth 5. Why bigger isn't always better (and small is less fragile) 6. Why paying Living Wages is good business 📌 Check it out: https://lnkd.in/etKdJJ7h

Last video of the week where I wrap up how small businesses (<250 employees) can avoid becoming a statistic. 75% will fail. Most won't reach their true potential. The good news is that there is a solution. It's practical, specific, and supported by decades of research by the industry's best thought leaders. Check out the series and start a conversation.

🌟 Why Purpose-Driven Companies Are the Best Investments 🌟 Warren Buffett once said, “Time is the friend of the wonderful business, the enemy of the mediocre.” This couldn’t be more relevant today, as the companies that lead their industries are often those with a clear purpose beyond profits. In our latest blog, Awet Ghirmay, Head of Investment Research at Minerva Money Management, explains why purpose-driven businesses are the best investments and how they outperform the rest. Curious why brands like Amazon thrive? Find out the secret here: https://lnkd.in/eXvCPegG #PurposeDriven #InvestmentStrategy #BusinessGrowth #LongTermSuccess #MinervaMoneyManagement

Bigger isn't always better. As size increases, you experience: · Diminishing visibility · Diminishing resilience · Diminishing accountability What did I miss? There is plenty of talk about the upsides of business growth, but it's time to balance that conversation to make decisions better suited to the challenges of the 21st century. If you agree, consider signing up for my free 6-day email course, Planetary Business. The 6 lessons cover: 1. How planetary boundaries affect problem-solving 2. Why you must understand The Rebound Effect 3. Why recycling is never enough, and what to do instead 4. How to scale impact without growth 5. Why bigger isn't always better (and small is less fragile) 6. Why paying Living Wages is good business 📌 Check it out: https://lnkd.in/etKdJJ7h

A generative provocation from Indy Johar that reminds me of the Values 20 policy brief (2021) I wrote in collaboration with Dr. Marco Tavanti, PhD, Pablo Villoch, Tatiana Vekovishcheva, Najla Al-Ariefy, Lina C., and Manuel Manga: "Weaknesses demonstrated in this example are present in policymaking across levels, issues, as, geographic locations and they can become even more damaging when key stakeholders do not have a “consensus on goals, as well as a clear understanding of how these relate to the core values of society and underlying theories of human behaviour”. In this case, the dominant ideology tends to filter out good policy recommendations that do not fit its meta-policy paradigm (Cohn 2004). This makes disciplinary-based, centralized, rational, expert-driven policy-making create solutions that are reactive, symptom-based, and limited by ideological blind spots. While this approach can improve policy effectiveness, it “simultaneously raises the risk of overall failure by increasing diagnosis, coordination and compliance costs” (Zahariadis 2012). (...) We suggest taking a closer look at fundamental ontological aspects of policy making as well as their practical implications to articulate actionable recommendations. Such recommendations can help break out of perpetuating approaches that fail to adequately address complex challenges and growing existential threats such as climate change and global pandemics. This is in alignment with the G20 call for “paving the way to rebuilding differently in the aftermath of the crisis” (Italian G20 Presidency 2021). To achieve this, we must reconsider some of our fundamental assumptions about policy. As John Ehrenfeld argues, we need to change “the belief structures about social systems from those based on disciplinary models to one that is more consistent with complexity. In healthy (and flourishing) systems the smaller, faster levels permit experimentation and invention, while the larger, slower levels serve as collective memories of success” (Ehrenfeld 2019). Redefining the nature and the role of policy according to this framework can catalyze the design and implementation of solutions that go beyond quick fixes and have the potential to mobilize and align key actors within the short time frame that we have. Addressing global existential threats also requires a shared understanding of the challenges we face. While the complexity of modern society calls for experimentation across all sectors, such actors must be allowed the agency to co-generate and co-implement adaptive strategies at their respective levels. However, these actors must also be aware of our global challenges and take responsibility for their role in sustaining or transforming institutional, cultural, psychological, technological, natural, and structural conditions that keep these challenges in place."

Rethinking Work: Breaking Free from Corporate Chains! Join us as we delve deep into a transformative discussion on questioning traditional economic systems and exploring new paradigms. Our speaker challenges the status quo, sharing insights on personal transitions and the importance of redefining value in modern society. Don't miss this eye-opening journey! #EconomicRevolution #QuestionTheStatusQuo #NewParadigms #ValueRedefined #TransformativeDiscussions #PersonalTransition #ModernSociety #FinancialAwakening #GlobalOutreach #ChangeMakers

Provocation: I am increasingly feeling convinced that the rise of the “evidence-based” fallacy in government has been as problematic as the growth of New Public Management approach. While originally intended to support logical decision-making, distributed governance, and data-driven futures, it has produced significant unintended consequences. This approach has narrowed our focus, forcing us to wait for validated, pre-existing solutions (where has this happened before, and what is the evidence of its impact?), rather than exploring broader evidence of demand, the necessity of new innovations, or the potential of a portfolio of learning options. Even the evidence of inaction’s impact is often overlooked. This fixation on narrow, proven paths has stifled our capacity to evolve, craft, and discover new possibilities, leaving us stuck in a loop of replication. I increasingly see this as a strategic misstep—driven by a culture of analysts and procurement specialist - as opposed to intrapreneurs .. This is a thought that's been running in the back of my head for a while. I welcome challenge and alternative perspectives and perhaps even alternative pathways that we need to take. Look forward for the discussion..

I would extend this argument to much of "managerial" decision-making practice and culture, and its legendary friction with "creative/innovation" (probably also "leadership") practices and culture.

Indy Johar my thoughts on this. I think 'evidence based' arose as a reaction to previous methods of policy making that were perhaps seen as based on a narrow set of perspectives (an old boys network) but the reaction landed on another narrow base of evidence. It's the usual pattern - we see an issue and we flip flop to an equally poor conclusion. We don't take the time to deeply investigate the source of the issue - and normally there are different groups of people arguing across the divide so at some point the change ceases to be about the original issue and becomes an argument between the false dichotomies created by the identities of those having the argument - it becomes "I'm right, you're wrong". Evidence is used all the time to make decisions. You could probably argue that every decision is evidence based. The question then becomes about the type of evidence, source of evidence, and the method by which sense has been made of the evidence. We must also look at who is involved in the decision/policy making - who is trusted, what/who is credible, what motivations are involved etc.