Early and Later Changes Rubrics

Harmful

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, policymaker discussions and agendas are dominated by lobbyists and special interests seeking to maintain the status quo. There is still very little influence from broad networks of stakeholders seeking progressive change – the needed mechanisms are simply not there. As a result, policy reforms are either non-existent or weak, and may contain problematic loopholes that dramatically reduce policy effectiveness.

Unconducive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, there is some evidence of modest mindset shift among policymakers towards more inclusive policymaking, and there are early signs of stakeholders' recommendations finding their way into policymaker discussions and agendas. However, generally only the less impactful recommendations are being incorporated into new or reformed policies, not the more foundational changes.

In addition, the following are likely:

• Participation mechanisms for involving stakeholders in policymaker discussions are generally weak in their inclusivity and/or scope.
• Weak stakeholder participation has resulted in low levels of buy-in from policymakers and other stakeholders.

Partly conducive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, a variety of stakeholders are being included in policymakers’ discussions and have had some success in influencing important reforms that address climate and/or equity; however, some important changes are not being incorporated.

Partial incorporation of stakeholder expertise has enhanced the conceptualisation of reforms, most of which include substantial incentives, disincentives and proportionate sanctions to compel change. However, some sanctions may not be substantial enough to motivate change and policies are likely lacking in reparations/remedies for people and communities that have suffered harm.

In addition, both of the following are evident:

• Participation mechanisms are in place to enable broad networks of stakeholders to participate in policymakers’ discussions and agendas, although there are likely significant opportunities for more inclusive participation mechanisms and/or scope.
• Limited stakeholder participation in policymaking is starting to build some degree of buy-in, but there is a need for support from a much broader range of policymakers and stakeholders.

Conducive & Supportive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, broad networks of stakeholders are a regular part of policymakers’ discussions and have had considerable success in influencing important reforms that address climate and/or equity.

The incorporation of stakeholder expertise contributes to generally well-conceptualised reforms that include substantial incentives, disincentives and proportionate sanctions to compel change but may be somewhat lacking in reparations/remedies for people and communities that have suffered harm.

In addition, both of the following are evident:

• Participation includes the voices of many who have historically been marginalised in influencing policy, although there may be opportunities for more inclusive participation mechanisms and/or scope.
• Increasingly broad participation in policymaking is helping to build reasonably strong buy-in, with reformed policies supported by a broad range of policymakers and stakeholders.

Harmful

The financial actors that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives have not sufficiently changed their financial and monetary policies and practices to create any pressure for businesses and policymakers to adopt practices and policies that are climate-positive, and that lead to demonstrable improvements in equitable outcomes for historically marginalised group. The vast majority of the financial support provided by those institutions still go to businesses that engage in harmful climate-negative practices and/or that continue to perpetuate or aggravate social inequities and marginalisation.

Unconducive

The financial actors that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are starting to mobilise, but so far have taken only a few concrete steps with the potential to create pressure for businesses and policymakers to adopt practices and policies that are climate-positive, and that lead to demonstrable improvements in equitable outcomes for historically marginalised group. the perpetuation of inequities. So far, the pressure is still much too low to incentivise businesses and policymakers to adopt practices and policies that are climate-positive, and socially equitable.

Some or all of the following are likely to be evident:

• Some bond holders (not the major players) may be challenging their holdings of fossil fuel debt, but few are beginning to divest from them and reinvest in climate-positive investments.
• There may have been some limited movement from institutional investors toward moving their investments into climate-positive and equitable holdings, and away from high carbon debt holdings, as well as from investments in or from organisations with a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities; and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequities.
• Central banks are considering how to better reflect climate and social risks into their monetary policy toolkits as well as in their prudential and supervisory frameworks, but may not yet have made meaningful changes.

Partly conducive

The financial actors that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, in alignment with monetary policy and taxation incentives, have created some financial pressure for businesses and policymakers to adopt practices and policies that are climate-positive and equitable. Monetary policy is reasonably well aligned with the financial sector to demonstrable improvements in equitable outcomes for historically marginalised group. Even though support to climate-negative practices has been noticeably reduced, it is not yet low enough to influence businesses that engage in climate-negative practices and/or that contribute to the perpetuation of inequities and marginalisation to make significant changes.

All or most of the following are evident:

• Some bond holders (perhaps not the major players) are challenging their holdings of fossil fuel debt and some are beginning to divest from them and reinvest in climate-positive investments.
• Some institutional investors (as yet, few or no major players) are well advanced in moving their investments into climate-positive and equitable holdings, and away from high carbon debt holdings, as well as from investments in or from organisations with a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities; and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequities.
• Central banks may be starting to better reflect climate and social risks into their monetary policy toolkits as well as in their prudential and supervisory frameworks.

Conducive & Supportive

The financial actors that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, in alignment with monetary policy and taxation incentives, have created substantial financial pressure for businesses and policymakers to adopt practices and policies that are climate-positive and socially equitable. Monetary policy is well aligned with the financial sector to demonstrable improvements in equitable outcomes for historically marginalised group. Support for climate-negative practices is now low enough to influence businesses that engage in climate-negative practices and/or that contribute to the perpetuation of inequities and marginalisation to make significant changes.

All or most of the following are evident:

• Many leading bond holders are challenging their holdings of fossil fuel debt and a good number is beginning to divest from them and reinvest in climate-positive investments.
• Several major institutional investors are well advanced in moving their investments into climate-positive and equitable holdings, and away from high carbon debt holdings, as well as from investments in or from organisations with a record of exploiting workers, producers and/or communities; and/or whose policies and practices perpetuate inequities.
• Central banks are increasingly reflecting climate and social risks into their monetary policy toolkits as well as in their prudential and supervisory frameworks.

Harmful

The vast majority of the major businesses in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, through their actions (or inaction), effectively prioritise maximising short-term profit for shareholders, often at the expense of the environment and other stakeholders.

In their quest to avoid additional costs, these businesses generally try to avoid adopting climate-positive practices or practices that would enhance equity for workers, producers and communities. Businesses have sought to avoid inclusive stakeholder engagement and may have actively supported policies that restrict civil society activity.

Most major businesses in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are ignoring, navigating around or actively or covertly lobbying against any new requirements; many try to conceal harmful practices and avoid being held to account.

Unconducive

Only a few of the businesses trying to lead the change in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives have adopted climate-positive practices that enhance equity. Most businesses try to avoid doing so and do not have meaningful or inclusive consultation processes to engage affected stakeholders.

Stakeholder pressure and evidence has not been enough to persuade influential businesses to recognise that there is a compelling business case for changing their practices. Only a few less influential businesses in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are trying to shift toward more climate-positive and equitable practices.

Most major businesses in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are ignoring, navigating around or lobbying against any new requirements; some of them actively conceal harmful practices and successfully avoid being held to account.

Partly conducive

Several of the businesses leading the change (although not yet enough in size, importance and quantity to be a critical mass) in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives have made some progress in their adoption of climate-positive and equitable practices. Several of those frontrunners have adopted meaningful and inclusive consultation processes for such initiatives. Some of them are recognised as role models by major businesses and other key players within the focus sector(s) and/or area(s) of this cluster of initiatives.

Only a few other influential businesses have been persuaded by increasing stakeholder pressure and evidence to recognise that there is a compelling business case for changing their practices. Some major businesses in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are now actively shifting toward more climate-positive and equitable practices.

However, several (including some quite influential) businesses may still attempt to ignore or navigate around the new requirements. More needs to be done by actors in the system to compel those businesses to finally start to change.

Conducive & Supportive

There is a [close to] a critical mass of the businesses leading the change in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives who are reasonably well advanced in their adoption of practices and advocacy for policies that are climate-positive, enhance equity, and are developed through inclusive processes. These frontrunners are recognised as role models by major businesses and other key players within the focus sector(s) and/or area(s) of this cluster of initiatives.

Several other influential businesses have been persuaded by increasing stakeholder pressure and evidence and now recognise that there is a compelling business case for changing their practices. Most major businesses in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are now actively shifting toward more climate-positive and equitable practices.

Although some less influential businesses may still attempt to ignore or navigate around the new requirements, they are experiencing consequences for non-compliance, which is progressively compelling them to finally start to change.

Harmful

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, powerful forces in government and business are actively restricting the ability of civic movements and groups to engage and effectively silencing them, e.g., by imposing new restrictions, deploying divide-and-conquer tactics, perhaps even endangering their safety. 

As a result, decisions and actions that affect workers, producers and communities are taken with complete disregard for those affected and often exacerbate the status quo, e.g., continued exploitation of workers, producers and their communities and/or harming natural environments for the purpose of short-term profit maximisation. 

Unconducive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, Civil Society Organisations, movements and networks representing the workers, producers and/or communities lack power and influence over decisions that affect them. This may be due in part to laws and policies that restrict the ability of civil society groups and/or independent media to fully express their views and that policymakers and businesses are reluctant to reform. As a result, there has been little success so far in gaining support from policymakers and businesses to create mechanisms for people’s participation in policy discussions and other decisions that affect them, particularly for the more independent civil society groups that have been less willing to accommodate or be co-opted by other actors.

Some well-intentioned efforts may have been made to understand the needs and aspirations of workers, producers and/or communities. However, policymakers, trade negotiators, businesses, industry and/or finance actors are marginally or not at all incorporating the expertise and insights from workers, producers and communities in determining, enacting and/or monitoring changes in policies and practices.

Partly conducive

Civil Society Organisations, movements and networks representing the workers, producers and communities that are stakeholders in this cluster of initiatives are to some extent able to operate freely, develop a sustainable support base (i.e., through their own members) and develop the capacity to engage as full and equal partners with government and business. They have gained initial support from policymakers and businesses and have started influencing the creation of mechanisms to ensure people’s participation in policy discussions that affect them, although these still need to be more inclusive.

As a result, clear progress is evident in workers, producers and/or communities in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) are increasingly being heard by decision makers, particularly those groups who have had little voice historically. Policymakers, trade negotiators, businesses, industry and/or finance actors have recognised the importance of and are occasionally incorporating expertise and insights from these workers, producers and/or communities to determine, enact and/or monitor policy reforms, but there is substantial room for improvement.

Conducive & Supportive

Civil Society Organisations, movements and networks representing the workers, producers and/or communities that are stakeholders in this cluster of initiatives are mostly able to operate freely, develop a sustainable support base (i.e., through their own members) and develop the capacity to engage as partners with government and business. Supported by policymakers and businesses, they have been able to influence the creation of reasonably inclusive mechanisms that help ensure people’s participation in policy discussions that affect them.

As a result, the workers, producers and/or communities in the relevant sector(s) and region(s) that have historically had less power or voice are generally being heard. There are strong signs that some of their expertise is genuinely valued and (to some extent) used to influence the decisions and policies that affect them. Policymakers, trade negotiators, businesses, industry and/or finance actors are often incorporating expertise and insights from those most affected by social inequality or impacts on their natural environment, particularly those who have historically experienced the most marginalisation.

Harmful

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, CSOs and cross-sectoral movements are not yet well organised or sufficiently influential in exposing harmful practices or holding others to account. Even when policies are in place that require business practices that are climate-positive and contribute to equity, many businesses are able to conceal harmful practices and avoid being held to account.

Businesses, industry and other organisations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo (i.e., allowing practices that are climate-negative or that are inequitable or marginalising) are powerful influencers of policy, are usually successful in counter-lobbying to block, dilute or backslide progressive policy reforms. 

Unconducive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, CSOs and/or cross-sectoral movements have had some success in exposing problematic practices and holding others to account, but much more is still needed. To date they have had mixed but overall weak results in exposing, anticipating and thwarting counter-lobbying, corruption and other attempts to backslide progressive policy reforms. 

Businesses, industry and other organisations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo are still actively engaging in counter-lobbying and manage to block, dilute or backslide many progressive policy reforms. 

Partly conducive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, CSOs and/or cross sectoral movements have had reasonably good success in exposing harmful practices and helping hold others to account. They may have had mixed results (most positive) in exposing, anticipating and thwarting counter-lobbying, corruption and other attempts to backslide progressive policy reforms. 

Those efforts have succeeded in diminishing the power and influence of counter-lobbyists and other saboteurs seeking to maintain the status quo. Nonetheless, they are still able to win a few substantial concessions in their efforts to block, dilute or backslide progressive reforms, such as loopholes that dilute the policy intent. 

Conducive & Supportive

In the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives, CSOs and/or cross sectoral movements have had good success so far in exposing harmful practices and helping hold others to account; and in exposing, anticipating and helping thwart counter-lobbying, corruption and other attempts to block or backslide progressive policy reforms. 

As a result, counter-lobbyists and other saboteurs seeking to block, derail or backslide the change/reform are able to get some concessions but nothing that seriously dilutes the policy intent. 

Harmful

The groups historically holding power in the financial sector, business and industry are preventing the establishment of multi-stakeholder movements representing workers, producers and communities in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives. 

Any existing Civil Society Organisations representing workers, producers and communities are very weak, disorganised, subject to restrictions and/or heavily controlled/ influenced by the groups that have historically held disproportionate power. 

As a result, policymakers, the financial sector, business and industry are not held to account for their harmful policies and practices and are able to maintain or exacerbate the status quo.

Unconducive

There are few weak multi-stakeholder movements representing (not always genuinely) only a few groups of workers, producers and communities in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives. A few Civil Society Organisations (perhaps not the most relevant ones) may be talking about aligning or collaborating towards common purposes, but nothing concrete has been done so far. 

These cross-sectoral movements have so far been unable to build awareness and support for change with their key audiences (e.g., the public, business and industry, policymakers and/or the finance sector). Limited and largely unsuccessful efforts have been made to use evidence to hold others to account for their harmful practices (e.g., counter-lobbying, counter-publicity and other attempts to block or backslide change). As a result, there is no real pressure for policymakers, the financial sector, business and industry to do the right thing with respect to climate and equity.
 

Partly conducive

Relatively strong multi-stakeholder movements in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are creating some pressure and political support for policymakers, the financial sector, business and industry to do the right thing with respect to climate and equity. These movements include at least some representation (although it may be insufficiently diverse) from those who have historically held less power, including workers, producers and communities and those advocating for protecting, restoring and regenerating the natural environment for current and future generations. 

Some of the most relevant Civil Society Organisations and other stakeholder groups are making some progress in identifying together what change is needed and how to advocate for it. There is evidence that this process will create coalitions or alliances with relatively strong organisational and network capacity to be able to do so effectively.

These cross-sectoral movements are making reasonable progress in using their networks and media to build awareness and support for change with their key audiences (e.g., the public, business and industry, policymakers and/or the finance sector). Even though they are achieving some success in holding others to account, there is still much to do in terms of identifying and exposing harmful practices (e.g., counter-lobbying, counter-publicity and other attempts to block or backslide change), building political influence and alliances, and using evidence to motivate accountability.
 

Conducive & Supportive

Strong multi-stakeholder movements in the sector(s) and region(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives are creating high pressure and political support for policymakers, the financial sector, business and industry to do the right thing with respect to climate, equity and inclusion. These movements include reasonably strong and diverse representation from those who have historically held less power, including workers, producers and communities and those advocating for protecting, restoring and regenerating the natural environment for current and future generations. 

A clear majority of the most relevant Civil Society Organisations and other stakeholder groups have discussed and are mostly aligned on what change is needed and how to advocate for it with business and government. 

These cross-sectoral movements are using their networks and media to build awareness and support for change with their key audiences (e.g., the public, business and industry, policymakers and/or the finance sector). They are using evidence to hold others to account, mostly successfully, by identifying and exposing harmful practices including counter-lobbying, counter-publicity and other attempts to block or backslide change. 

Harmful

Methodologies used for measuring risk, value and performance in the region(s) and sector(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives exclude or seriously underweight impacts on climate and equity. Businesses can still appear strong on the most widely used metrics of risk, value and performance despite using climate-negative practices, or employing practices that exacerbate inequities.

One or both of the following are likely to be evident:

• There is active exclusion of diverse stakeholder voices and perspectives from decision making on metrics.
• As yet, there are few signs of interest in the adoption of alternative methodologies that would help focus the system on what matters.

Unconducive

Methodologies that effectively measure risk, value and performance relating to climate and social equity have been adopted or are being seriously considered by a few in industry, finance and government. However, they do not yet have enough credibility to be adopted by the major players in the region(s) and sector(s) that are the focus of this cluster of initiatives. Outdated metrics are still being quite widely used instead of these new measures.

Some or all of the following are likely to be evident:

• There is quite limited agreement in industry, finance and government that the right risk frameworks and metrics need to be in place and acted on to focus the system on what really matters about risk, value and performance.
• Assessments of risk, value and performance have been developed through a process with little inclusion and are rarely subject to feedback from affected communities.
• Assessments of risk, value and performance may be based on data that are not entirely accurate and/or not yet readily available.
• These assessments are being tracked and required by only a few industry regulators, policymakers and watchdogs; those who fail to comply frequently escape being penalised.

Partly conducive

Methodologies that effectively measure risk, value and performance relating to climate and social equity have been adopted by several business, including a few influential players in industry, finance and government. They are gaining credibility but are not yet considered standard practice across the focus areas of this cluster of initiatives. Outdated metrics are being still used by some, sometimes instead of the new measures.

All or most of the following are evident:

• There is a growing agreement in industry, finance and government that the right risk frameworks and metrics need to be in place and acted on to focus the system on what really matters about risk, value and performance.
• Assessments of risk, value and performance have been developed through a process that ensured reasonable inclusion and require some feedback from affected communities.
• Assessments of risk, value and performance are based on data that are reasonably accurate but may not yet be readily available.
• These assessments are starting to be tracked and required by industry regulators, policymakers and watchdogs; although those who fail to comply may escape being penalised.

Conducive & Supportive

Methodologies that effectively measure risk, value and performance relating to climate, and social equity have been adopted by a critical mass, including several influential players, in industry, finance and government across the focus areas of this cluster of initiatives, and are increasingly considered standard practice. Although outdated metrics are being still used by some, this is alongside rather than instead of the better measures.

All or most of the following are evident:

• There is a good agreement in industry, finance and government that the right risk frameworks and metrics need to be in place and acted on to focus the system on what really matters about risk, value and performance.
• Assessments of risk, value and performance have been developed through a mostly meaningful and inclusive process and are, most of the time, subject to feedback from affected communities.
• Assessments of risk, value and performance are based on data that are accurate and becoming more readily available.
• These assessments are increasingly being tracked and required by industry regulators, policymakers and watchdogs; those who fail to comply are penalised.

Harmful

In the area of influence of this [cluster of] initiative(s), outdated narratives are prevalent among key decision makers and stakeholders, for example, framing economic development and protecting the environment as a trade-off, stoking fears of job losses from the drive toward environmental sustainability. The dominant narratives discredit and downplay the severity of climate breakdown and environmental degradation; and they exaggerate the economic and political risks of taking action for a green, fair and inclusive transition while ignoring the costs of inaction. Decision makers and other key stakeholders are generally aware of ‘code red for humanity’ messaging but either dismiss it or act as if it is not urgent, and/or can see no politically or economically viable way to address it cost-effectively, resulting in organisational and systems inertia.

Depending on the context and the focus of the change effort, the dominant mindsets and narratives are likely to reflect some or most of the following:

• There is widespread scepticism and complacency, in industry as well as in the media, about the urgency, the inevitability, and the opportunities arising from a transformation to an economy that operates within planetary boundaries and meets the needs of all. Most players continue with business as usual because change seems costly and risky, and they see no real consequences for organisations that ignore the needs of people and nature. Similarly, policymakers generally believe that their political survival is best assured by maintaining the status quo and protecting the industry from disruptive change and possible job losses.

• There is a high level of resistance among businesses and investors to the idea that a green, fair and inclusive transition is a pathway to job creation and industry success. Environmental regulations, worker protections and union concerns are seen as constraints to be navigated or circumvented; the rules themselves are seen as the responsibility of the relevant jurisdictions rather than of business and financial leaders. If change is required, representation from workers, producers, smaller suppliers, residents and communities, especially marginalised groups, is widely considered by decision makers to be unnecessary and cumbersome.
• Public and professional dialogue in the media and in the sector/ industry perpetuates the view that the fiduciary duty of businesses and investors is maximising short-term profit and shareholder value. Businesses and investors routinely ignore costs to people and nature; they think governments and/or environmental groups should pick up that bill, and do not factor these costs into business models. They continue to invest in carbon-intensive and other ‘old economy’ ventures, including those that exploit workers, ignoring the fact that these investments are risky in the long term and therefore fiscally irresponsible. Changes to the rules are seen as a risk to stock markets and industry and therefore also to jobs and retirement incomes. This public and professional dialogue is dominated by those who have historically held the most power.

Unconducive

In the area of influence of this [cluster of] initiative(s), solutions-driven, evidence-based and imaginative narratives have only gained traction among the most progressive decision makers and stakeholders and are starting to drive their sense of responsibility, motivation and agency to deliver on a green, fair and inclusive transition. The vast majority either dismiss the ‘code red for humanity’ messaging as alarmist or act as if it is not urgent. Instead, they focus mostly on the costs and political risks of taking action while ignoring the costs of inaction and have adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude, contributing to the ongoing organisational and systems inertia seen across the sector.

Depending on the context and the focus of the change effort, the dominant mindsets and narratives are likely to reflect some or most of the following:

• There is a little understanding, in industry as well as in the media, of the urgency, the inevitability, and the opportunities arising from an irreversible transformation to an economy that operates within planetary boundaries and meets the needs of all. There is little acceptance that organisations that ignore the needs of people and nature will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage and therefore be poor investments, especially if they don’t manage the transition in an inclusive and equitable way. Similarly, just a few policymakers understand that their political survival and longevity is contingent on timely and appropriate action; the vast majority feel it is safer to maintain the status quo or make only minor rule changes.
• Only a few of the most progressive players now understand that a green, fair and inclusive transition is a pathway to job creation and industry success and therefore needs to be human-centred and rights-based rather than purely technocratic. Even though a few of these players appreciate the need for representation from those most affected by the transition, their efforts to include them tend to be somewhat tokenistic.

• Public and professional dialogue in the media and in the sector/ industry still predominantly sees the fiduciary duty of businesses and investors as maximising short-term profit and shareholder value. Costs to people and nature are typically excluded from business models; and carbon-intensive and other ‘old economy’ investments, including those that exploit workers, are still presented as viable. Pressures to transition to a green, fair and inclusive economy are framed as risky in terms of job losses and other economic implications. However, the need for longer-term thinking that is response to union concerns and looming changes in environmental regulations and worker protections is starting to be understood among small pockets of players who are still gradually building their influence, although representation from marginalised groups is still thin. 

Partly conducive

In the area of influence of this [cluster of] initiative(s), increasingly clear and compelling narratives are starting to drive a substantial number of decision makers’ sense of responsibility, motivation and agency to deliver – but not yet hold each other accountable for – a green, fair and inclusive transition. Several of these narratives (i) are solutions-driven and evidence-based, and are starting to consider a wider range of interests, including a few who have historically held less power (many are not yet included); and (ii) include ideas for possible pathways forward that (iii) not always centre the people most affected. However, much of the sector is still in ‘wait and see’ mode, downplaying the urgency of the issue and taking only slow action, if any.

Depending on the context and the focus of the change effort, the dominant mindsets and narratives are likely to reflect some or most of the following:

• There is a growing shared understanding, in industry as well as in the media, of the urgency, the inevitability, and the opportunities arising from an irreversible transformation to an economy that operates within planetary boundaries and meets the needs of all. There is limited but growing acceptance that organisations that ignore the needs of people and nature will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage and therefore be poor investments, especially if they don’t manage the transition in an inclusive and equitable way. Similarly, understanding is still developing among policymakers that their political survival and longevity is contingent on timely and appropriate action.

• A substantial number of the most important players now understands that a green, fair and inclusive transition is a pathway to job creation and industry success and therefore needs to be human-centred and rights-based rather than purely technocratic. Some of these players also appreciate the need for strong representation from those most affected by the transition, so that the livelihoods and wellbeing of workers, producers, smaller suppliers, residents and communities , especially marginalised groups, are protected and enhanced as much as possible. However, understanding is still developing about what this might look like in practice.

• Public and professional dialogue in the media and in the sector/ industry is mostly characterised by a shared understanding that the fiduciary duty of businesses and investors is to assess and manage financial success and shareholder/investor value with a long-term view that is inclusive of equity and environmental considerations. For example, business models must factor in costs to people and nature; carbon-intensive and other ‘old economy’ investments, including those that exploit workers, are risky and need to be avoided. This public and professional dialogue includes some representation from diverse voices (but with several interests not included). Dissenting voices still include some relatively powerful players.

Conducive & Supportive

In the area of influence of this [cluster of] initiative(s), clear and compelling narratives effectively drive a clear majority of key decision makers’ sense of responsibility, motivation and agency to deliver – and hold each other accountable for – a green, fair and inclusive transition. Most of the dominant narratives (i) are solutions-driven, evidence-based, imaginative, and collaboratively driven by reasonably wide range of interests including many who have historically held less power (some are not yet included); and (ii) help illuminate possible pathways forward that (iii) centre the people most affected.  

Depending on the context and the focus of the change effort, the dominant mindsets and narratives are likely to reflect some or most of the following:

• There is a reasonably strong shared understanding, in industry as well as in the media, of the urgency, the inevitability, and the opportunities arising from an irreversible transformation to an economy that operates within planetary boundaries and meets the needs of all. It is mostly accepted that organisations that ignore the needs of people and nature will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage and therefore be poor investments, especially if they don’t manage the transition in an inclusive and equitable way. Similarly, most policymakers understand that their political survival and longevity is contingent on timely and appropriate action.
• It is clearly understood by a clear majority of the most important players that a green, fair and inclusive transition is a pathway to job creation and industry success and therefore needs to be human-centred and rights-based rather than purely technocratic. It is understood that essential to a successful transition is strong representation from those most affected, so that the livelihoods and wellbeing of workers, producers, smaller suppliers, residents and communities, especially marginalised groups, are protected and enhanced as much as possible.

• Public and professional dialogue in the media and in the sector/ industry clearly reflects a reasonably strong shared understanding that the fiduciary duty of businesses and investors is to assess and manage financial success and shareholder/investor value with a long-term view that is inclusive of equity and environmental considerations. For example, business models must factor in costs to people and nature; carbon-intensive and other ‘old economy’ investments, including those that exploit workers, are risky and need to be avoided. This public and professional dialogue include substantial representation from diverse voices and from all important political persuasions (possibly excluding some extremes).