Sustainability discussions are always closed off to a few elite circles, but by democratising sustainability knowledge can we reach everyone out to sustainability.
About the author
Malcolm Wong Jun Xiang is an undergraduate student in Malaysia. All opinions written in this article are solely the writer’s.
Introduction
If you are residing within a hotel within the bustling highways of Kuala Lumpur; there happens to be a peak hour when e-hailers and private chauffeurs gather in one spot, that’s when you know for sure a conference is happening within their venue. They can be identified by their business attire carrying backpacks and blazer suits.
No, they are not here for vacation, contrary to the atmosphere of relaxation fueled by refreshments of bottomless latte and food catering of Malaysian cuisine may imply. All are here to talk business. At least, only a select few. The few selected speakers get seats on stage and microphones regularly.
Pay attention and you may listen to the key words by ESG, Sustainability, and maybe social obligations. In more recent summits held after July 2023, you may hear that “The era of global boiling has arrived,” says UN Chief Antonio Guterres. Anyone hearing the provocative statement may experience a brief state of shock, but urgency resides back to normal.
As soon as the conference ends or is in intermission, more often the networking happens, less so on the exchange and retainment of ideas. Big and ambitious ideas of sustainable practices and change management happen to be common values bringing everyone together and networking with other like-minders.
Exploration of Values brought them together, yet the values are not retained. Often people come out with fewer ideas than a longer list of contacts. That phenomenon is not unsurprising nor heartless by all present. These behaviors can only come from discussing climate change in a hall capable of hosting up to hundreds of people seated comfortably with air conditioning, all dressed in business attire.
I bring up Conway’s Law in this context: that events organized meant for the business community are the results of their own communication systems and networks. As conferences are primarily intended as platforms for industry engagement, these sustainability summits by design of the event itinerary become spaces of reflection of the professional community itself.
Climate Change is treated as a Business Opportunity, not as an ethical duty
Per my observations, most participants of climate/sustainability summits happen to be managers of the professional industry from financial services, training providers, or e-commerce. There is the occasional undergraduate or pre-U student privileged enough to obtain an invitation to chat with who could possibly be their potential employer.
No doubt the one drive our passionate attendees have in common regardless of who they are is to make deals of some sort in the brief void of space and time. Look around, your mind will rack up some faces worth talking to. They’re big players, well-connected people in the industry, and certainly worth having a chit-chat with, right? If anyone has any innovative ideas, no one would be a fool to share them with anyone, except for an elevator pitch.
Rarely I have seen or heard any discussions on ideas shared on the subject issue outside of the hall. All are looking for connections, not solutions. And here we have our premier flaw; climate change is viewed as a profitable opportunity, never as a duty to mitigate. Environmental ramifications are treated as side effects to be mitigated lest they threaten the long-term profitability of the business.
Do not assume that more conferences are held on climate agendas, which means that more actions will be taken. By its present design, only more deals will be made, and many more business cards passed around.
This problem is not just inherent in the private sector. When our Prime Minister and Minister of Economy announced ambitious plans such as the Energy Transition Plan barely gained any traction and the Budget 2024 tabling barely gained any momentum outside professional circles. Readers gloss it over as just another mundane news.
While the whole nation knows about the numerous political scandals the day it happened. Does the public care about gossip? Yes, they love outrageous news, but only because they are not in a position to be involved in productive discussions.
Big plans are too detached from the working layman because they are always excluded from debate. What happens if they try to enter a sustainability summit? Only a few people at the top speak, and the rest follow and agree. It is also not that likely that you will get meaningful conversations unless they are connected by career descriptions have known each other before, or are in a similar network of professionals. The flow of knowledge is closed off to a restricted circle.
Exclusion is a matter of priority, never an evil conscious effort. Corporate Boards want action fitting in with the latest trends of net zero carbon and renewable energy, without knowing how. That decision is left up to the upper or middle management, (sometimes the engineers) unfortunately, saddled with the burden of executing and guiding company policy on sustainability from scratch at the same time.
Look into any Publicly Listed Company’s annual report, and you are treated with figures, charts, and incentives listed – all racking up hundreds of pages – each to signal their determination and commitment to social responsibility in ESG to the Board of Directors and Shareholders. Facts and figures in minimalist colorful charts are showcased, accompanied by explanations tied into sustainability keywords.
Nothing wrong with these new trends, but let me pose a question: How many adopt ESG frameworks out of their sincerity to do good and give back, rather than out of a compliance necessity?
As a trend every firm is chasing, most sustainability incentives are structured around meeting ESG requirements (each differs depending on the frameworks and compliance) The SDGs are flocked around as a reference, but a lot have not worked beyond the concept framework to see how it matters, and if it really is beneficial for the community.
If the climate agenda is primarily shaped by professionals with metrics and reports, there will no doubt be demand for said ‘skills’, meaning a higher salary with greater benefits. With the utmost priority on meeting indicators, Malaysia could only produce experts to measure them, not actually develop the skills needed to innovate technological solutions to combat climate change.
What firms can’t do – or talk about
Present rhetoric on Mitigating Climate change has led us to believe that our key direction is to preserve current conditions, deemed optimal for operations: Consume less while producing more value, but less so on cleaning up the damage.
Climate change is neither our only threat, but just one of several manifestations. Business professionals are silent on Microplastic pollution as a potentially threatening major health crisis, and it does not go beyond simple discussions because researchers are not there to advise everyone.
Provided the treasury is filled with enough monetary resources, you can afford to hear from consultants behind closed doors, the rest of the community is blocked off from listening by financial barriers. And the firms with a larger valuation stand a greater chance of hearing.
It is absurd then to expect small entrepreneurs to worry about the carbon footprint of bread and butter, especially from the scarcity thereof. The people who stand the most to lose from agricultural loss, habitat loss, and deforestation will not wear blazers or dress shirts; rather everyday clothes of t-shirts, shorts, and dresses.
Changing the Flow of Discussion
Everyone stresses the need for a change in mindset to address in climate crisis, but change requires creating favorable conditions for new ideas to flourish without much obstruction and any avoidance of derailment to deviant malice.
Conferences are a great venue for voices to be heard, by the people in the foreground, running SMEs, agriculture associations, and students, and workers at the very foreground. If we were to generate fruitful discussions, we would have to change our event design.
Let us change our mindsets for a bit. What if we were to not just listen to a selected few from top echelons, but from everyone who has sufficient insights no matter their position? If we switch our notions that knowledge is more valuable than connections made. We may perhaps get people from all sides involved in discussions.
Instead of listening to a few keynote speakers, how about we listen to everyone in the room? In my experience, the events with smaller attendance and venue size often have the best interactions and participation rate in sharing and giving their thoughts, and often most do speak up and contribute regularly other than the assigned guides on a subject matter. What they, and all contribute are their experiences and lessons learned for all to share.
Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Zakri Abdul Hamid has noted in one of his commentaries for the New Straits Times: that several research and recommendations gather dust in libraries, even as they are publicly available online.
From the author’s experiences, the ones with the most insightful ideas came from professors with decades of research. They are the ones who do fieldwork and conduct experiments. They have first-hand experience with the consequences and know the science.
And it’s not just the professors either. Conversations must be held with all representatives of stakeholders, be it consumer associations, from the agriculture or construction industry. The engineers who are the forerunners of sustainable technology. All must be in the same room together given the opportunity to contribute their insights.
Should discussions occur in a mass setting where public opinion plays a role in the physical presence of other stakeholders involved, the inequality of wealth and position will be dissipated, and the chance to speak will be shared by everyone. This is the democratization of knowledge, where information and ideas flow both ways from multiple points and is heard by all.
In a room where few people speak and most people listen, there will always be more questions than answers. There have been eight people with microphones getting heard. It is time for hundreds more to solve problems with shared answers.
Climate Action is never firstly a professional business opportunity, it is first and foremost an ethical and moral duty. Values insert themselves into opportunities, never was it meant to be the opposite. Money accumulates within a minority. Knowledge spreads to the majority.
If we were to meet our zero carbon targets and cap the temperature increase at two degrees by 2030, it would mean democratizing knowledge on climate action and opening the flow of information to all corners of society as a social obligation. Everyone will come out with knowledge from beyond their field, as a collective effort to provide a sustainable society.
Writer: Malcolm Wong Jun Xiang
Designer(s): Abdul Mustakim, Hannah Jasri, Wong Yan Qi
