Simplicity without Reduction: Thinking Upstream Towards ... - CiteSeerX

Simplicity without Reduction: Thinking Upstream Towards the Sustainable Society By: Göran Broman, John Holmberg, Karl-Henrik Robèrt Göran Broman Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Karlskrona/Ronneby S-371 79 Karlskrona, SWEDEN Tel: +46 455-780 16 Fax: +46 455-780 27 Email: [email protected] John Holmberg Department of Physical Resource Theory Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University S-412 96 Göteborg, SWEDEN Email: [email protected] Karl-Henrik Robèrt The Natural Step Wallingatan 22 S-111 24 Stockholm, SWEDEN Email: [email protected]

Reference: Broman, G., J. Holmberg, and K.-H. Robèrt. 2000. “Simplicity Without Reduction Thinking Upstream Towards the Sustainable Society.” Interfaces: International Journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. 30(3).

1

Biographies Göran Broman is an assistant professor, head of the master’s program, and deputy head at the department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Sweden. He holds a M.Sc. and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. He has directed integration of sustainability aspects into engineering education and controlled development of educational material for business managers. He is a strategic adviser to the Natural-step foundation. Current research areas are structural mechanics and sustainable product development. John Holmberg is an assistant professor and deputy head at the department of Physical Resource Theory at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. He holds a M.Sc. in engineering physics and a Ph.D. in physical resource theory. He has directed scientific projects on principles and indicators for sustainability, sustainable use of energy and industrial ecology. He is scientific director for and strategic adviser to the Natural-step foundation. Current research areas are indicators for sustainability, industrial ecology, and sustainable product development.

Karl-Henrik Robèrt is one of Sweden's foremost cancer scientists. He holds a M.D. and a Ph.D. in internal medicine. In 1989 he initiated The Natural-step foundation. In 1995 he was appointed adjunct professor of resource theory at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. Dr Robèrt has written books and articles on the environment and sustainability, elaborating on the linkage between social, ecological and economical values. He is chairman of the Natural-step foundation. Current research area is sustainable product development.

2

Simplicity without Reduction: Thinking Upstream Towards the Sustainable Society

Abstract The natural-step framework is used by over 100 organizations, including many global corporations in Europe and the United States, to provide strategic direction for their sustainability initiatives. The framework is built on the concept of simplicity without reduction. Out of respect for complexity we designed it to provide a compass, a guide for strategic direction. The framework consists of a backcasting planning process for sustainable development based on four principles (system conditions) for sustainability. The framework does not prescribe detailed actions. Once an organization understands the framework it identifies and specifies the detailed means by which to achieve the strategy, because it knows its business best. The steps in the planning process are: understanding and discussing the system conditions for sustainability, describing and discussing how the company relates to the system conditions in today’s situation, creating a vision of how the company will fulfill its customers needs in the future while complying with the system conditions, and specifying a program of actions that will take the company from today’s situation to the future vision.

Keywords Sustainability, Systems perspective, Backcasting, Environmental management, Investment strategies.

3

Simplicity without Reduction: Thinking Upstream Towards the Sustainable Society

The Natural-step The natural-step (TNS) grew from the concerns of Karl-Henrik Robèrt, a medical doctor who wanted to comprehend in a structured way the mechanisms behind the destruction of our own habitat. He talked with scientists outside the medical field to get help in describing the overall mechanisms by which we induce all the complex negative effects in nature. In 1989 he initiated the Natural-step foundation in Sweden. Its main objective is to describe and communicate strategies for sustainable development based on principles for sustainability (TNS framework). This is done in a learning dialogue with scientists, policy makers in business and politics, and the public.

The Natural-step foundation employs 17 people in Sweden, working primarily with teaching the TNS framework to managers in companies and municipalities, and with various projects to promote positive examples. A network of scientists and other professionals are linked to the foundation and they participate in the further development of the TNS framework. This way of working is spreading with affiliates formed in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa and the United States. The foundation is independent of any religious or political parties.

Simplicity without reduction We developed the natural-step (TNS) framework and it continues to evolve by a method we use for scientific dialogue that we call "simplicity without reduction". Simplicity without reduction refers to the fact that understanding the principles that define a given system, its first-order principles, makes it easier to handle the complexity of the details within the system. The analysis begins at a level where complexity is naturally low, rather than at a level of detail where links to the principles of the system can be vague and difficult to discern. We use the simplicity-without-reduction method out of respect for complexity, in contrast to the common method of ignoring parts of reality to (seemingly) reduce complexity.

4

It is understandable that environmental, economical and other societal problems have often been tackled by studying a few details, while neglecting or making rough assumptions about other details at the same or close levels of detail. In complex systems it is impossible to keep every detail in mind at the same time. But to efficiently handle complex systems it is helpful to first look for the principles that define the system and then, if necessary, move to higher levels of detail without neglecting these firstorder principles. For example, cell respiration is a principle (condition) for survival of the animal cell. If respiration is stopped, the cell dies. Knowing this principle may be enough for some conclusions. If more detailed knowledge is found necessary for certain conclusions, the principle of respiration for survival is still valid and it offers a frame for the discussion of such details. The principle does in no way deny the enormous complexity of animal cell life. A parallel can also be drawn to commonly played games. In a game like football or chess the first-order principles are the rules of the game. Once people understand these, they can interpret details, understand strategies, and anticipate changes. The principles offer unifying ideas, shared by all, that when adhered to improve the teams’ or players’ effectiveness within the system.

Using a metaphor, we can refer to the first-order principles as "trunk and branches", and consequences and activities in the system as "leaves". The “leaves” can be various symptoms that are actually due to neglect of the first-order principles, or measures such as technical designs or changes in behavior as attempts to comply with the first-order principles. Once the "trunk and branches" are established, decision makers within various fields of expertise can undertake the measures required to meet the principles, "put on the leaves", without getting lost at much higher levels of detail than necessary for the decisions.

It is easier to create mutual understanding, creativity and initiative if you start with the "trunk and branches" for several reasons:

-

It is easier to think upstream in cause-effect chains and deal with causes of problems rather than symptoms. Complexity is kept low as far as possible without losing comprehension of the whole system.

5

-

Many strategic decisions in business and society can be based directly on first-order principles for a favorable outcome of the planning (backcasting, see below).

-

It is easier to make groups of people share first-order principles of a vision than to make them share detailed pictures of a vision. And a common mental model is important to make all members of a group pull in the same direction.

-

Professional people have detailed knowledge within their own fields, but often lack the overview necessary for an understanding of the whole system within which they are active. The “trunk and branches” offers a frame in which this knowledge can be structured and given an overall meaning, and through which the connection to other fields becomes clearer.

-

By stimulating professionals to interpret the information on the first-order principles into concrete measures, instead of telling them what to do on a detailed level, one creates engagement and mutual respect instead of opposition.

First-order principles give a frame for the goal (the wanted outcome) of a plan. To know the frame is a prerequisite for effective envisioning of the goal. Furthermore, the frame is a prerequisite to determine which sub-goals actually bring us closer to the goal - and, conversely, to determine which sub-goals are only providing short-term benefits without bringing us closer to the goal, or which may even hinder a further development towards the goal. To exclude mistakes of this kind is particularly important when sub-goals are expensive to reach. High investments tie us to a certain course, and will prove fatal to business in the long run if they obstruct a viable course in relation to the first-order principles. To elaborate first-order principles for “upstream thinking”, rather than ”quick fix solutions” downstream, is a sound way of avoiding serious economical problems in business, Senge [1994].

The simplicity-without-reduction method is relevant for any complex issue. Considering sustainability for our human society it led us to the TNS framework. In contrast to many other environmental planning methods at company level the TNS framework is based on principles (system conditions) for sustainability, which make a backcasting planning process possible. This process consists of four steps. The first step is to understand and discuss the system conditions for sustainability. The second step is to describe and discuss how the company relates to the system conditions in today’s situation. The third step is to create a vision of how the company fulfills its customers needs in the future while complying

6

with the system conditions. The fourth step is to specify a program of actions that will link the present situation, both technically and economically, with the future sustainable situation. It is important that the specific actions in the program are flexible platforms for further investments in the right direction. Just an improvement from today’s situation is not good enough if it turns out to be a dead end. For a further discussion of backcasting we refer to Holmberg and Robèrt [1997] and Holmberg [1998].

The System Conditions for Sustainability What are the overall and agreed upon principles that govern our planet as a system? Scientists agree on the natural laws. The conservation laws state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and an interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is that matter and energy tend to disperse spontaneously. Furthermore, resource quality can be characterized by concentration and structure of matter and energy, which in turn are the characteristics of life itself and what we regard valuable. Consequently, the second law of thermodynamics forces quality to decrease. There is also widespread acceptance that the planet is a closed system in terms of matter (with the exception of launched spacecraft going out and occasional meteors coming in).

To realize the significance of the above, let us for a moment pretend that the earth is closed also with respect to energy. What would it mean to live in a completely isolated system in which matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but their quality unalterable diminished? The answer is that it would be impossible, at least for the long term. The quality of the ecosphere (biosphere and atmosphere), including life itself, would inevitable deteriorate. And as the natural laws also implies that no process can have an efficiency of 100 per cent or more, humanity could do nothing about it. Restricted to using only resources from within the system, any action we took would instead speed up the deterioration process of the whole system. As a parallel, a battery cannot be recharged using only the resources within that battery. There must be a supply of high quality energy (in this case electrical energy) from outside the battery. Thus, to keep or improve the quality of the ecosphere we must have an external supply of high quality energy. Furthermore, something inside the system must be able to make use of that energy quality. As we all know, such a supply of energy and such functions to use it exist. High quality energy in the form of sunlight is continuously entering our system, and low quality energy in the form of heat radiation is continuously leaving our system and going into space. Thus, in

7

terms of energy the earth is (luckily) an open system. At equilibrium the incoming and outgoing amounts of energy is equal (energy cannot be consumed). It is the difference in quality of the incoming and outgoing energy flows that is used (consumed) in the processes that maintain the resource quality of the ecosphere. For the system to be sustainable, this restoration must at least balance the continuous degradation. Human beings cannot affect the sunlight, but we can affect the functions in the ecosphere, and this is what the system conditions are about.

The ecosphere can degrade through three mechanisms: increasing concentrations of substances from the earth’s crust, increasing concentrations of substances produced by society, and impoverishing physical manipulation or over-harvesting.

All ecological sustainability problems that we face today can be attributed to one or more of these three mechanisms. By putting a “not” in front of these mechanisms we get the system conditions for sustainability. Thus,

For society to be sustainable, the ecosphere must not be systematically subject to - increasing concentrations of substances from the earth’s crust. - increasing concentrations of substances produced by society. - impoverishing physical manipulation or over-harvesting.

“Systematically” can be interpreted in two ways: (i) the deviation from the natural state must not increase more and more due to the influences from society. (ii) the society must not be organized in such a way that it makes itself more and more dependant on activities that cause such (i) effects.

Together, these system conditions give a frame for ecological sustainability. Furthermore, the societal use of resources must be efficient and fair enough to meet basic human needs worldwide. Although not a physical condition, this is equally important and is therefore included in the set of conditions for sustainability. Thus we add to the above:

8

For society to be sustainable, resources must be used efficiently and fairly to meet basic human needs worldwide.

To avoid degrading the ecosphere through any of the three mechanisms, society must satisfy more human needs per resource throughput than it does today. Otherwise, it will be difficult (if not impossible) to avoid systematically increasing concentrations of natural and synthetic waste (system condition 1 and 2), and it will be difficult to live on the "interest" of the ecosphere (nature's production of resources and services) rather than living on its capital (system condition 3).

With these four conditions, the framework is general enough to be valid for all imaginable scenarios of a future sustainable society, in any culture of the world. At the same time, it is concrete enough to be useful for strategic planning in all kinds of activities, regardless of scale. We have discussed these system conditions further and compared them with principles suggested by others in previous publications, for example Robèrt [1994], Holmberg [1995], Holmberg et al. [1996], Holmberg and Robèrt [1997], Robèrt et al. [1997], and Robèrt [1999].

Drawing Conclusions from the System Conditions - Considering the implications for corporate decision processes.

(1) For society to be sustainable, the ecosphere must not be systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances from the earth’s crust.

This condition implies that the flows of substances from the lithosphere to the ecosphere must not be continuously larger than the flows back into the lithosphere. During (primarily) the industrial age the human society has produced, and is still producing, a net input of substances from the lithosphere to the ecosphere (for example fossil fuels and metals). These flows are often large compared to the natural flows from the lithosphere. Furthermore, for some substances (for example mercury and lead) the amounts presently accumulated in society may cause much greater concentrations in the ecosphere than exist today, if these amounts are allowed to disperse from society into the ecosphere.

9

The ecosphere has a limited capacity for assimilating the intentional and unintentional flows of these substances. Sedimentation and dilution operate slowly relative to today’s flows. For sustainability, the balance of these flows must be such that concentrations of substances from the lithosphere do not systematically increase in the whole ecosphere or in parts of it, such as the atmosphere or different ecosystems. This balance can be influenced primarily upstream by choices regarding the amounts of mining and the selection of mined minerals, and secondly by for example the societal competence in safeguarding the minerals. Recycling and other measures to minimize losses, and the quality of final deposits of waste minerals, affect the amounts that will reach the ecosphere. The concentrations of substances in the ecosphere that can be accepted without jeopardizing our health and economy in the long run depend on such properties as ecotoxicity, defined broadly to include effects on the geophysical systems, and bio-accumulation. (Ecotoxicity is the negative influence of a substance on ecosystems. The substance must not necessarily be directly toxic to humans. Bio-accumulation is a measure of the extent to which a substance is taken up by living organisms and concentrated in the food chain.) Depending on the characteristics of the substance and the recipients, the critical concentrations differ. In some recipients, increasing concentration of some substances can have positive effects before further increases in concentrations will be problematic. Due to the complexity and delay mechanisms in the ecosphere, it is often very difficult to foresee what concentrations will lead to unacceptable consequences. Therefore, what we must achieve at least is a stop to systematic increases of concentrations.

In practical terms in today's situation, this means decreased use of fossil fuels and mining, particularly of minerals that are scarce in nature and whose continued extraction consequently will lead to relatively rapid increases in concentrations. To guide their companies in a more sustainable direction with regard to this first system condition, the key question for business managers is; Does your organization systematically decrease its economical dependence on fossil fuels and mining to cover for losses of minerals, particularly of scarce elements that are currently accumulating in parts of the ecosphere or in the whole ecosphere?

10

(2) For society to be sustainable, the ecosphere must not be systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances produced by society.

This condition implies that the flows of societally produced molecules and nuclides to the ecosphere must not be so large that they can neither be degraded and integrated into the natural cycles within the ecosphere nor be deposited into the lithosphere. The balance of flows must be such that concentrations of substances produced by society do not systematically increase in the whole ecosphere or in parts of it, such as the atmosphere or different ecosystems. This balance can be influenced primarily upstream by choices regarding design (such as degradability) and production volumes, and secondly by for example the societal competence in safeguarding the substances. Recycling and other measures to minimize losses, and the quality of final deposits of waste substances, affect the amounts that will reach the ecosphere. Persistent substances foreign to nature require special attention since the use of such substances poses to significant risks for increased concentrations in the ecosphere. What concentrations that can be accepted without jeopardizing our health and economy in the long run depend on such properties as ecotoxicity and bio-accumulation. As with the previous system condition, the critical concentrations differ by substance and recipient, and it is often very difficult to foresee what concentration will lead to unacceptable consequences. Therefore, what must be achieved at least is a stop to systematic increases of concentrations.

In practical terms in today's situation, this means decreased turnover of such natural substances that are increasing in ecosystems today (for example nitrogen oxides) and a phase out of persistent substances foreign to nature (for example PCBs). To guide their companies in a more sustainable direction with regard to this second system condition, the key question for business managers is; Does your organization systematically decrease its economic dependence on persistent substances foreign to nature, and on dissipative use, or emissions, of such natural substances that are currently accumulating in parts of the ecosphere or in the whole ecosphere?

(3) For society to be sustainable, the ecosphere must not be systematically subject to impoverishing physical manipulation or over-harvesting.

11

This condition implies that the resource basis for productivity in the ecosphere, such as fertile areas, thickness and quality of soils, availability of fresh water, and biodiversity, is not systematically deteriorated by over-harvesting, mismanagement, displacement, or other forms of physical manipulation.

In practical terms in today's situation, this means changes in our practices within such areas as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and urban planning. To guide their companies in a more sustainable direction with regard to this third system condition, the key question for business managers is; Does your organization systematically decrease its economic dependence on activities that physically encroach on productive parts of the ecosphere?

(4) For society to be sustainable, resources must be used efficiently and fairly to meet basic human needs worldwide.

The production of services for the human sphere is covered by this fourth condition. It implies that if the societal ambition is to meet basic human needs everywhere today and in the future, while conforming to the first three system conditions as a prerequisite for being able to doing so in the long run, then the use of resources must be efficient in meeting human needs. If we are more efficient technically, organizationally, and socially, we can provide more services, with the possibility of meeting more human needs, for a given level of influence on nature.

In practical terms in today's situation, this means increased technical and organizational efficiency worldwide, including establishing a more resource-economical lifestyle in wealthier nations. To guide their companies in a more sustainable direction with regard to this fourth system condition, the key question for business managers is; Does your organization systematically decrease its economic dependence on using a large amount of resources compared to the human value they add?

12

Taken together, these system conditions define a frame for any sustainable society. System conditions 1 through 3 are based on a scientific analysis and are true-bottom-line system conditions in that they do not overlap, they all must be fulfilled, and their violations explain all relevant environmental problems that concern sustainability. Furthermore, if we violate them, we loose time needed to tackle other important questions in society.

System condition 4, to which actions such as recycling, reuse, reduction, and so forth, are related, is as important but takes on a special role. Many organizations are (without their knowledge) working with this system condition without connecting it to the other three. This means they neglect system conditions 1 through 3 although their fulfillment is the primary objective, seen from a sustainability perspective, of working with system condition 4. This condition does not deal so much with physics, but rather with people and societies. The overall goal of our society is of course to satisfy human needs. To be able to do so in the long run, fulfillment of all system conditions is necessary. Consequently, system condition 4 is relative to system conditions 1 through 3 and cannot be described in absolute terms. But if we are not good enough on system condition 4, we cannot meet the first three conditions either. It is therefore logical to include it with the other system conditions.

The Funnel Effect of Nonsustainable Activities Since today society is violating the system conditions, waste is steadily accumulating and resources are diminishing. We can visualize nonsustainable development as entering deeper and deeper into a funnel in which the space (options) for operating becomes increasingly narrow (Figure 1). The funnelwalls tapering inward are a metaphor for the decrease of resources and the decrease in capacities for selfrenewal in the ecosphere. The world’s population is rapidly approaching 6 billion people. According to conservative projections, global population will within 50 years rise to near 10 billion, on an earth that is not growing [UNDP 1997]. Thus, per capita, the tapering of the walls is even more pronounced.

This funnel will have a major impact on the future regulatory and general operating environment of the world’s business market. The individual company, municipality, or country wanting to make skillful investments must direct investments towards the opening of the funnel, rather than into the wall. This means that the smart manager must make his or her company less economically dependent on

13

contributing to society’s violation of the system conditions. The walls of the funnel will increasingly constrict economic activity through environmentally concerned customers, stricter legislation, higher costs and fees for resources and for pollution, and tougher competition from competitors who direct themselves skillfully towards the opening of the funnel guided by the system conditions. Forwardlooking corporations and other organizations therefore have started to search for, and implement, strategies and production methods that align with principles for sustainability.

The TNS framework as Compass The TNS framework serves as such a compass, a practical tool firms use to set strategic directions and analyze decision options. The TNS framework does not specify particular steps for firms. It is used for leading education and dialogue processes, for setting decision-making criteria, and for screening investment strategies. Decision makers faced with complex choices can more easily identify “true north” because the compass gives them a clear understanding of the constraining forces at work on companies (captured by the “funnel"). Furthermore, the TNS framework can guide and improve the company’s strategic use of more detail oriented tools such as the environmental management systems ISO 14000 or EMAS and various life cycle assessment methods.

The TNS framework is being used for strategic thinking in over 100 organizations, many of which are global corporations operating in Europe and North America. Below we describe two cases to exemplify how the framework has been used in practice to promote sustainable development and good business.

ICA/Electrolux (Robèrt [1994]) As the pressure from environmental organizations and concerned customers increased due to more and more frequent reports of ozone layer depletion, the Swedish food retailer chain ICA felt that they were running into the walls of the funnel due to their use of CFCs in their refrigerators. They planned to solve the problem by investing approximately 150 million USD in a new refrigeration technology produced by the Swedish white goods manufacturer Electrolux. This technology was based entirely on HCFCs, both for cooling agent and for the insulation material. This was a typical “quick fix solution” among the “leaves”. While HCFCs are certainly less damaging to the ozone layer they never the less,

14

like CFCs, require special attention according to system condition 2. Both substances are relatively persistent and foreign to nature and will thus accumulate in the ecosphere if they are used in large scale without rigorous control. To safeguard them through the entire life-cycle of all refrigerators would be difficult and costly.

A series of seminars on the TNS framework made both ICA and Electrolux change perspective from traditional forecasting and marginal improvement of today’s situation, to backcasting based on the system conditions. For ICA it led to an action program aiming at a phase out of all cooling agents based on persistent substances foreign to nature. Among other things they arranged an international conference and established a network within the food retailing sector to stay abreast of the latest technological advances. Electrolux decided to pass over the HCFCs technology, which they now saw as a dead end. Instead they went for R134a for the cooling agent and pentane in the insulation material. This solved the acute problem of Electrolux contributing to ozone layer depletion. However, R134a is also a relatively persistent substance foreign to nature (known to have influence on the greenhouse effect). Consequently it was not the final solution, but with the compass at hand Electrolux found this investment to be a good platform for the next step, which is isobutane mixtures for cooling agents and pentane in the insulation material. With the production volumes currently being projected there will be no build-up of isobutane or pentane in the ecosphere. The reason for not choosing isobutane mixtures directly was, among other things, that it is explosive and that the refrigeration technology was not safe for this agent at that time. Introducing such a potentially harmful product on the market could not only risk the entire company but could also give a severe backlash of the development of sustainable refrigeration technology. Again, with the compass at hand, Electrolux made the production technology for refrigerators linked with R134a as far as possible compatible with the future probable cooling agent. This is an example where the best was not allowed to become the enemy of the good, but where the good was an intelligent step towards the best. Electrolux became the first large white goods manufacturer to market entirely CFC-free refrigerators and in their 1994 environmental report they presented an ambitious vision, using one chapter for each system condition to describe business ideas and strategies.

15

IKEA (Johnson [1999]) The global home furnishing company IKEA, with annual revenues of approximately 7 billion USD, began working with the TNS framework in 1992. Most of its 40 000 employees worldwide have been trained in the basic concept. IKEA is now using the TNS framework as a guide for all their product development. Their campaign for compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), starting in Sweden in 1997, is a good example of one company changing practices for a whole market.

CFLs had been sold for several years at very high prices in Sweden, typically 15 USD for an 11 W CFL, corresponding to a 60 W incandescent lamp. The high price had been an obstacle for a breakthrough among private households. IKEA therefore decided to try to give a real boost to CFLs by cutting the price to one third of the previous. They also started a cooperation with the largest Swedish environmental organization, The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), around a public information campaign about energy (and cost) savings for the households. IKEA advertised in all major daily newspapers, offering households to collect one free of charge CFL from IKEA stores during a period of two weeks. Somewhere between 500 - 600,000 lamps were given away. The number of private households in Sweden is approximately 4 million.

Before launching the campaign IKEA made a thorough review, together with SSNC technical expertise, of their CFL supplier in China. They made clear that they wanted a good reliable CFL with maximum 3 milligrams of mercury per lamp, which can be compared to the requirements of the European Union environmental labeling system, which is 10 milligrams mercury per lamp. They also discussed possibilities for further reducing the mercury content and other potential environmental improvements with the supplier.

During the campaign IKEA informed customers about the environmental dangers with mercury and offered to take back, free of charge, all used light sources containing mercury. They contracted a major Swedish recycling company to take care of all such returned light sources. Through a German specialist company 98-99 per cent of the mercury in returned light sources is recovered. Together with SSNC IKEA made a thorough review also of that company.

16

As a result of the campaign the sales of CFLs in Sweden increased considerably. Competitors also had to decrease their prices and with increased production volumes CFL suppliers could reduce prizes further. CFL suppliers have also become aware of that a mercury free low energy light source would be a real hit on the market.

Replacing an incandescent lamp with a CFL gives savings in electricity consumption by roughly a factor five and an increase in product life by a factor 8 to 10, implying improvements on system condition 4. On the other hand, CFLs contain mercury, which requires attention on system condition 1. So, is a breakthrough for CFLs really desirable? IKEA’s thorough understanding of the TNS framework together with some facts helped them sort out the question.

Globally much electricity is produced from fossil fuel fired power plants. A decreased use of fossil fuels is an improvement (primarily) on system condition 1 for several reasons. (This is an example of how an improvement on system condition 4 imposes itself as an improvement on system condition 1 for an actual case.) One reason is in fact that fossil fuels (especially coal) contain mercury. Burning these fuels gives emissions of mercury into the ecosphere. Currently, this is the major way in which society produces mercury flows from the lithosphere to the ecosphere. Furthermore, mercury in CFLs is easier to recycle than mercury form fossil fuels emitted into the ecosphere. Thus, IKEA concluded that in today’s situation it would be favorable with a breakthrough for CFLs. Of course it would be even better with low energy light sources completely without mercury. To promote a breakthrough of CFLs having the lowest mercury content possible today, to assure that this mercury is recycled in controlled technical systems, and to push suppliers to make further reductions of mercury content in the future, seam to be good steps in the right direction.

For some more examples we refer to Robèrt [1994] and Nattrass and Altomare [1999]. For a description of the TNS corporate implementation process we refer to Nattrass and Altomare [1999].

Conclusions The TNS framework takes on the role of a compass pointing individuals and teams in the direction of sustainability. Experience shows that the resulting shared perspective, common language, and guiding

17

principles changes existing practices. Specific outcomes are improved communication, clear goals shared by all, development of new technologies, and improved strategic planning.

-

The TNS framework proceeds from the whole system of the earth, not just the technical cycles of our society. This makes it valid at the individual level, at the corporate level, or even at the national level. Seeing the whole system, one easier discovers both the obstacles and the possibilities. Otherwise it is all too easy to get lost among details. Combined with such an overview existing environmental management systems and life-cycle assessment methods are excellent tools. Without it, they can even be hazardous, for they may lull managers into a false sense of control.

-

The TNS framework can be used to guide investments and gain greater control over future development. The global society is living outside the frame of sustainability by violating the system conditions. If a company’s investments carry it into an even deeper economic dependence on society’s continued violation of the system conditions, the enterprise and its investors will sooner or later lose money. The framework also helps managers see short-term subgoals in relation to the overall goal, where the subgoals must not undermine future improvements. Sticking to this procedure saves them from making major investment errors, such as investing heavily in technology that may decrease an environmental impact today, but will be wholly irrelevant tomorrow. Linking subgoals to the overall goal also functions as a psychological shock absorber. It can be disturbing to see the gap between today's reality and the overall goal. Yet every journey begins with a single step. This strategy of gradual improvement ensures that the best does not become an enemy of the good.

-

First-order principles, upstream thinking, and alignment of short-term goals with long-term goals (backcasting) are important to managers. The TNS framework helps the CEO, otherwise often isolated from the environment division, to become personally engaged and a member of the environmental team, sharing the language of those working in the environmental division. This usually leads to improved long-term planning and increased participation in sustainable practices throughout the organization.

18

Figure 1. Since the global society is violating the four system conditions, waste is steadily accumulating in the same time as resources are diminishing. This means that the resource-potential for health and economy is systematically decreasing. At the same time, the Earth's population is rapidly increasing. Non-sustainable development could be visualized as entering deeper and deeper into a funnel, in which the space becomes narrower and narrower. To the individual company, municipality, or country - wanting to make skillful investments, the crucial thing must then be to direct its investments towards the opening of the funnel, rather than into the wall. In reality this means that the smart investors make themselves less and less economically dependent on contributing to the societies violation of the system conditions. It will be inevitable to suffer economically - and eventually to be wiped out from the market - if the economical course is not altered to meet the system conditions. The wall of the funnel will superimpose itself more and more into daily economic reality in the following way: more and more environmentally concerned customers, stricter and stricter legislation, higher and higher costs and fees for resources as well as pollution, and tougher and tougher competition from competitors who invest themselves skillfully towards the opening of the funnel by meeting the four system conditions.

19

References

Holmberg, J., 1995. “Socio-ecological principles and indicators for sustainability”, Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.

Holmberg, J.; Robèrt, K-H.; and Eriksson, K-E., 1996. “Socio-ecological principles for sustainability”, in Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics, eds R. Costanza, S. Olman, and J. Martinez-Alier, International Society of Ecological Economics, Island Press, Washington DC.

Holmberg, J.,1998. “Backcasting: A natural step in operationalising sustainable development”, Greener Management International. no. 23.

Holmberg, J. and Robèrt, K-H., 1997. “Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles – a framework for strategic planning”, working paper, Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Johnson, R., 1999. The IKEA Group. Director of environmental affairs 1989-1998. Personal communication.

Nattrass, B. and Altomare, M., 1999. “The natural-step for business: Wealth, ecology and the evolutionary corporation”, (Gabriola Island, Canada, BC and Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers).

Robèrt, K-H., 1994. “Den Naturliga Utmaningen”. Book (in Swedish). Ekerlids Publisher, Stockholm, Sweden.

Robèrt, K-H.; Daly, H.; Hawken, P.; and Holmberg, J., 1997. “A compass for sustainable development”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol 4, No 2 (june), pp. 79-92.

20

Robèrt, K-H., 1999. “Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a framework for sustainable development, and to each other?”, working paper, Journal of Cleaner Production.

Senge, P.M., 1994. “The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organizations”, (New York: Doubleday).

United Nations Development Program, 1997. “U.N. medium estimate of global population growth.” Population Division, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, United Nations

Secretariat,

New

York,

www.undp.org/popin/wdtrends/pop/fpop.htm.

21

NY

10017,

USA.

Source: