Business being in “The Room” is now taken as fact when we discuss sustainability. But what does that mean? And should business really be in THE room? Which businesses should be in which rooms? And what should we expect from them – including their transparency?

We need to simultaneously leverage and change our current environmental, social, and economic systems to meaningfully realize sustainability. That means engaging with all sectors. But that engagement cannot risk allowing those within systems to block or stall change. Especially those individuals and organizations – business and political – who have contributed so dramatically to the climate and sustainability emergency.

Whether it’s oil and gas, fast fashion, or consumer goods, if you’re in the business of convening, make sure these sectors are in the conversation. In “a room” but not the only room. Not in every room. Not “The Room”.

Policymaking and civil society (for example, global NGOs and local community groups) need their own space to design regulation and society both with and without business. To make sure conflicts of interest are mitigated to the best extent possible. And that the fullest possible range of voices are heard in the most accessible way possible.

An exception could be made, however, where a business reaches a certain level of transparency. A vital step to rebuilding trust.

Transparency is the last hope for many businesses to regain trust.

Trust isn’t coming back for many businesses and sectors. But it could for some. And that might be enough to trigger part of the systemic change that the global sustainability context needs.

A year ago at HFS Research, I wrote about the oil and gas industry, where I still believe transparency is its last hope of regaining the trust it has haemorrhaged for 50+ years. Its role in causing the climate and broader sustainability emergency is epic. Its attempts to greenwash and cover up that role have been despairing. The industry’s lack of transparency and humility constrains collaboration beyond its walls, limiting its vital role in the systemic change our collective sustainability goals demand. That same sentiment stands for all businesses in all sectors. It holds especially true for the most powerful businesses that exist right at the center of their sectors, value chains, and the systems they create and control.

Transparency can absolutely include the amplification of what is going right. But transparency has to also include what hasn’t been figured out yet. And what is going wrong. This new level of transparency would allow ecosystems to coalesce around powerful firms at the center of their value chains. Coalitions that can show how the new sustainable system and new business models work. On all environmental, social, and economic fronts. And in doing to be the critical mass that leads to the positive tipping points that can pull policymaking, consumer behavior, and all sectors along into alignment with the trajectories of the Paris Agreement and UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Beyond oil and gas

No industry is perfect. We cannot fall into the trap of black and white judgements over companies and sectors. Dig under the surface of all the global value chains we’ve collectively built and there are plenty of abhorrent practices. There are so many consequences – both known and ignored, and unknown and allowed to exist in ignorance.

This conversation over “black and white” companies and industries manifests often in the divestment debate. A question of which is more impactful: a statement of divesting (often from fossil fuels or arms manufacturers) versus the value of continuing to maintain ties and influence with a company or sector. Take the example of university investments, which must consider whether to use the university platform to advocate for change through divestment, or whether to aim to influence positively through, say, accepting research funding for specifically “green” projects, or by maintaining its own presence in “the room”.

There’s often no right answer. Or at least, no answer without downsides whatever your end goal. No blanket policy that usefully covers anywhere near enough to be useful. A good illustration is the dilemma of divesting and losing influence only for a more malicious investor to scoop up what you’ve thrown away (and that’s assuming your investments in the first place made any material difference against the positive influence and ties you may have built). To be able to define certain parameters is helpful, of course. But the vast grey area needs care and attention. Which pulls us back to the various rooms where the climate and sustainability emergency must be solved in.

Designing “The Room”

In summary, engage everyone. But keep a distinct (context dependent, naturally) separation between the rooms for those with and without the transparency required to be a consistent part of the room with the ultimate authority on sustainability regulation and standard setting.

The link and back-and-forth between all rooms needs to still be clear, open, and ideally, transparent. But the systemic change that we need a critical mass to lead – by setting new standards, whether by example or by regulation – must be based around complete transparency of the good and bad.

Without that transparency, many businesses and sectors will never establish the trust to be the fullest part of the sustainability solution that we all need them to be.