Beyond the Pyramid: Rethinking Sustainability
Over the past few years, I have increasingly seen sustainability professionals use a model based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, typically with the subtitle: “This is how we do ESG, where do you want to be?”
At first glance, this model appears straightforward. Organisations rank themselves against the likes of Patagonia at the top of the pyramid (or Shein near the bottom), often settling for a compliance-driven tier somewhere in the lower-middle.
The problem with this approach is that sustainability is a complex, multi-faceted endeavour. Numerous stakeholder perspectives must be considered when navigating often choppy and uncertain waters. An office-based business with a minimal environmental footprint, for instance, may find that a ‘compliance-first’ approach is sufficient for environmental matters. However, applying the same mindset to equity, diversity, and inclusion could be highly demotivating, ultimately threatening its ability to attract and retain top talent.
Sustainability isn’t simple, so why do we try to convince people that it is?
I’m not suggesting that sustainability cannot be simplified. It absolutely can be, but only after an organisation has done the necessary groundwork. What I take issue with is the notion that it can be neatly mapped onto a binary, one-directional model. Instead, I advocate for an integrative approach, one that recognises each organisation’s unique journey of awareness, self-reflection, and due diligence in identifying where its ESG impacts, risks, and opportunities are concentrated. A truly effective strategy should be cohesive and adaptable, not rigidly linear.
The challenge with a pyramid model is that it oversimplifies a highly nuanced area, particularly if an organisation’s leadership has not invested in a meaningful materiality assessment.
A few years ago, I heard Steve Chalke, Founder of Oasis Church Waterloo and the Oasis academies network, speak about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. He explained that even Abraham Maslow himself recognised the limitations of a rigid hierarchy and, later in life, lamented that his model had been been so abused. That sermon sparked a great deal of introspection. Too often, we view sustainability (and, indeed, personal growth) as a fixed pyramid, when in reality, these different needs, desires, and priorities function more like dynamic, flexible bubbles that shift in importance as individuals and businesses evolve.
My earlier take on Maslow, © Tim Dee-McCullough
A single life event might ‘pop’ a bubble, creating an immediate crisis in that area, while a series of smaller pressures can gradually weaken it, until a tipping point is reached. The same holds true for sustainability. Without a resilient strategy in place, a single regulatory investigation, stakeholder concern, investor comment, or critical email could transform sustainability from a “nice to have” into an urgent crisis requiring immediate action.
A more holistic alternative to the pyramid model is the framework of Doughnut Economics, developed by Kate Raworth. This approach recognises that businesses and economies operate within both social and environmental constraints. The inner ring of the doughnut represents the social foundation, ensuring that no one falls short on essentials like healthcare, education, and income, while the outer ring represents the ecological ceiling, ensuring that we do not overshoot planetary boundaries. Sustainability strategies should balance these elements, ensuring that organisations operate within a safe and just space for humanity rather than pursuing linear progress that fails to consider these interconnected pressures.
The classic image of the Doughnut © Doughnut Economics Action Lab
As I reflect on the evolution of the sustainability sector, I can’t help but notice the flood of self-proclaimed “specialists” and “experts” who have invested little to no time in truly understanding the space. Some have done no more work in this area than I have in grasping the intricacies of corporation tax, which, for the record, is precisely zero since my ACCA advanced tax exams some 23 years ago! A former colleague once claimed they could research any ESG topic for a couple of hours and confidently present themselves as an expert. That notion stands in stark contrast to Malcolm Gladwell’s principle in Outliers, which argues that mastery requires around 10,000 hours of deliberate practice; although AI is certainly changing this.
I would be curious to see whether these firms genuinely walk the path they advocate for their clients. The saying “show me your friends, and I’ll show you your future” comes to mind. Are these consultants truly helping their clients engage with diverse perspectives, or are they simply taking their money to reinforce the status quo? Many of these firms make millions from such engagements, yet their work does little to prosper people or the planet. Recent changes to the B Corp risk standards prevent businesses from becoming B Corps where they provide services to the fossil fuel sector as they are otherwise seen as facilitating the environmental and climatic abuses of that sector. B Lab is certainly to be applauded for strengthening the B Corp mark.
There has to be a better way of serving businesses in the sustainability space. I am determined to demonstrate what that looks like - watch this space.