Positive Impact Blog

Thought provoking insights for change makers

Category Archives: Uncategorized


by Leave a comment

What is a business school for in 2027?

Prof. em. Thomas Dyllick/Prof. Katrin Muff

As the 2026/2027 academic year is beginning, it is worth asking a surprisingly basic question: What is a business school actually for? 

For a long time, the answer seemed obvious. Business schools provided access to management knowledge, developed professional skills, connected students to employers and offered a credential that opened doors. None of these functions has disappeared. But each of them is changing.

A student can now ask an AI system to explain a financial model, compare strategy frameworks, summarize a case, challenge a business plan or draft a market analysis within seconds. Employers are reconsidering how they organize entry-level work. Geopolitical tensions increasingly enter decisions that were once treated mainly as questions of cost and efficiency. Sustainability, thereby has moved from a specialist topic into strategy, finance, operations and regulation.

At the same time, expectations of business schools themselves are becoming broader. They are expected to prepare employable graduates, produce relevant research, work with companies, contribute to society, respond to technological change and demonstrate their own positive impact. This makes the question of purpose more important, not less.

When knowledge is no longer scarce

Business schools were built in a world in which access to good management knowledge was relatively scarce. Faculty selected, interpreted and transmitted it. Libraries contained information students could not easily obtain elsewhere. Cases brought distant companies into the classroom. A degree provided structured access to concepts, experts and professional networks. That scarcity is disappearing.

Artificial intelligence does not make knowledge irrelevant. It changes what is valuable about knowing. Business schools themselves have recognized the speed of this transition. In 2026, collaborations across the business education sector have increasingly examined how AI is affecting curriculum design, assessment, research, faculty development and institutional strategy. The obvious response is to teach students how to use AI. This is necessary, but not sufficient.

If AI can produce a reasonable first answer to many technical questions, knowing the answer is no longer the end of the learning process. Students need to know whether the answer makes sense. What assumptions sit underneath it? Which evidence should be trusted? What has been left out? Which trade-offs are hidden? And, ultimately, what should be done? The scarce resource is shifting from information to judgment.

Learning to make decisions when there is no clean answer

Management has never been only about applying frameworks correctly. Consider a company deciding where to locate a new production facility. Costs matter, but so do geopolitical exposure, emissions, access to critical resources, labor conditions, resilience, local communities and future regulation. An AI system can provide data and scenarios. It can help analyze alternatives. But it cannot take responsibility for the decision. 

This distinction should become central to management education. Future leaders will need to work with increasingly powerful analytical systems while remaining capable of questioning their outputs, understanding conflicting interests and making decisions under uncertainty. 

This changes what a good classroom looks like. There is still a place for lectures and conceptual knowledge. Students cannot challenge assumptions they do not understand. But knowledge needs to be put under pressure. Cases, simulations, field projects, debates, company challenges and work with communities create situations where information is incomplete and different stakeholders want different things. That is much closer to management itself.

Providing part of the learning that work used to offer

There is another change underway. Early career jobs have traditionally been an important part of management education, even if they happened after graduation. Junior employees learned by preparing analyses, observing more experienced colleagues, attending meetings, making smaller decisions and gradually taking on greater responsibility. 

AI is beginning to change some of these pathways. Employers are increasingly reconsidering how junior roles are structured and what capabilities graduates are expected to bring from the beginning. Analysis, adaptability, communication, judgment and problem-solving are all becoming more important earlier in a career.

The consequences are still uncertain. But if some traditional junior tasks become automated, business schools may have to provide more opportunities for students to practice responsibility before they enter the workplace. This gives experiential learning a different significance. A consulting project with a company, a negotiation with a real stakeholder, the management of an investment fund or a community project is no longer simply an engaging alternative to classroom learning. It can become part of the apprenticeship through which students learn how to work with real consequences. The classroom becomes a safe place to make difficult decisions before those decisions become expensive.

The institution matters more when the content matters less

If knowledge becomes easier to access digitally, one might assume that the institution becomes less important. In some respects, the opposite may happen. What may seem like a paradox: the institution matters more when the content matters less.

A business school is not simply a collection of courses. At its best, it is an unusual meeting place. Students meet people with different nationalities, professions and assumptions. Researchers interact with companies and policymakers. Executives return to the classroom. Entrepreneurs test ideas. NGOs and public institutions bring problems that do not fit neatly into a textbook. Alumni connect generations of students and practitioners.

This network cannot be reduced to downloadable content. It also gives business schools a potential role that extends beyond educating individual students: they can become places where different parts of society meet and work on problems together.

This matters in an increasingly fragmented business environment. Trade, technology, energy, climate policy and security are becoming more interconnected. Decisions that appear commercially rational from one perspective may create vulnerabilities or negative consequences from another.

Business schools cannot solve geopolitical fragmentation, climate change or inequality. And they should not pretend that they can. But they can create spaces where these issues are examined across disciplines and stakeholder groups, rather than being reduced to isolated business variables.

From preparing people for business to preparing business for society

This brings us to a more fundamental shift. Historically, much of management education has asked how students can become successful within existing organizations and markets. A business school in the 2026/2027 academic year also needs to ask a second question: How can organizations themselves contribute to a functioning society?

This is not a rejection of business performance. Companies need to be economically viable. It is an acknowledgement that businesses operate within social and ecological systems and increasingly influence them.

Across business education, societal impact has become much more central to accreditation, curriculum, research and institutional strategy. The difficult part is what comes next.

It is relatively easy to add a sustainability course, an AI elective or a social impact project. The harder task is preparing students to recognize societal consequences when they appear inside ordinary management decisions: investment, pricing, sourcing, product development, technology deployment, hiring or restructuring. Responsible leadership should therefore not become another specialization. It should influence how management itself is understood.

Students are asking for a different kind of school

Interestingly, students themselves appear to be pointing in this direction. In the 2026 Positive Impact Rating, the strongest global request from students was for more real-world, hands-on learning. They also asked for stronger partnerships with companies, NGOs, communities and public-sector organizations, deeper integration of social impact and purpose, and stronger student support. At the same time, they criticized passive, theory-heavy teaching and sustainability that remains cosmetic or disconnected from institutional practice.

These requests are revealing. Students are not simply asking business schools to provide more information about sustainability or business. Much of that information is already available. They are asking for opportunities to experience what responsible management looks like in practice.

This includes working with people outside the school, dealing with constraints, seeing conflicting interests, testing solutions and understanding that decisions have consequences beyond the organization making them. Perhaps this is where the future purpose of the business school becomes clearest.

Business schools as interactive platforms for addressing societal change

In the 2026/2027 academic year, a business school should still teach finance, strategy, marketing, operations, economics and organization. Technical competence remains essential. But transmitting management knowledge can no longer be its defining contribution. Its deeper role is to create the conditions under which knowledge becomes judgment, judgment becomes responsible action, and individual learning connects with organizational and societal change.

This means helping students understand technology without surrendering judgment to it. It means providing real situations in which they can practice decision making. It means connecting them with organizations and communities rather than keeping management inside the classroom. And it means treating the school itself as part of society rather than as an institution observing society from the outside.

The strongest business schools of the coming years may therefore not be those that teach the largest amount of new content. They may be those that become particularly good at bringing together knowledge, experience, different perspectives and real problems.

In a world in which answers are increasingly easy to generate, learning how to ask the right questions, decide what matters and act responsibly may become the most valuable education a business school can offer.

This article was created with the support of ChatGPT.


by

From Insight to Action: Implementing Student Expectations in Business Schools

Prof. em. Dr. Thomas Dyllick, The IBS/PIR, Lucerne

Over the past six years, the Positive Impact Rating (PIR) has generated a substantial body of insight about how students perceive the societal contribution of their business schools. The findings consistently highlight strengths, identify persistent gaps, and provide schools with an increasingly robust evidence base for improvement. This accumulated experience suggests that the central challenge has now shifted. The question is no longer whether business schools have sufficient evidence to understand student expectations, but how they can translate it into meaningful institutional change. The next stage is therefore one of implementation.

The experiences presented in the 2026 PIR Report demonstrate that closing the implementation gap requires more than isolated initiatives or additional sustainability activities. Instead, it requires institutions to develop mechanisms that systematically connect stakeholder feedback with governance, decision-making, resource allocation, organizational learning, and cultural development. Positive impact becomes sustainable when student feedback is no longer treated as an external evaluation but as an integral part of how the institution operates.

Embed Student Feedback in Governance

A first lesson concerns governance. Student feedback creates value only when it becomes part of the school’s regular decision-making processes. Collecting survey results is relatively straightforward; ensuring that these results influence institutional priorities is considerably more challenging. Effective implementation therefore depends on establishing governance routines that provide a clear pathway from insight to action. These routines include interpreting findings, identifying priorities, assigning responsibilities, allocating resources, communicating decisions, and reviewing progress over time. Rather than becoming another reporting exercise, student feedback becomes part of a continuous institutional learning cycle.

Transparency is an essential element of this process. Students need to understand not only that their perspectives have been collected but also how those perspectives have influenced subsequent decisions. This requires institutions to communicate openly what they have learned, which actions have been taken, which issues remain unresolved, and why certain priorities have been selected over others. Such transparency strengthens institutional credibility, reinforces trust in the feedback process, and transforms student engagement from consultation into dialogue.

Move from Student Voice to Student Agency

A second lesson concerns the role of students in institutional change. Traditional feedback systems often position students primarily as respondents whose involvement ends after completing a survey. The evidence presented here suggests a more ambitious understanding of stakeholder participation. Students create the greatest value when they contribute not only to identifying challenges but also to interpreting findings, designing responses, and supporting implementation. This represents a shift from student voice to student agency.

Meaningful participation requires formal structures rather than occasional consultation. Advisory bodies, representative mechanisms, collaborative design processes, and regular dialogue between students and institutional leadership ensure that stakeholder perspectives become part of governance. Such structures also provide continuity despite the inevitable turnover of student cohorts. Importantly, this does not imply transferring decision-making authority to students. Leadership accountability and faculty expertise remain essential. Rather, shared responsibility improves both the quality of institutional decisions and the legitimacy of the resulting changes. Student participation thus becomes an ongoing organizational capability rather than an isolated event.

Build Operating Systems Instead of Isolated Initiatives

The report also points to a broader organizational challenge: moving beyond individual initiatives toward institutional operating systems. Many business schools have developed sustainability courses, centers, projects, competitions, partnerships, or student-led activities. These initiatives often generate innovation and visibility, but they frequently remain disconnected from the institution’s core management processes. As a result, their long-term success often depends on committed individuals and may diminish when leadership or institutional priorities change.

Sustained implementation requires embedding positive impact into the everyday operating logic of the institution. Strategic objectives need to be translated into departmental responsibilities, measurable objectives, planning processes, review mechanisms, and resource allocation. Impact should become part of budgeting, strategic planning, performance discussions, and institutional reporting rather than remaining an additional program alongside existing structures. Such operating systems create continuity by making positive impact an expected component of routine institutional management rather than an exceptional initiative.

The same principle applies to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Across business schools, the SDGs have become a widely recognized reference framework. Yet their contribution varies considerably depending on how they are used. Referencing the SDGs in mission statements or labeling existing activities provides valuable direction but rarely changes institutional behavior. Their transformative potential emerges when they influence strategic priorities, governance structures, partnerships, performance indicators, and resource allocation. The question, therefore, is not whether institutions acknowledge the SDGs, but whether the SDGs influence institutional choices.

Measure Outcomes, Not Just Activities

Another important lesson concerns impact measurement. Business schools have made considerable progress in documenting their activities. They increasingly report courses, partnerships, events, student participation, research projects, outreach initiatives, and sustainability programs. These indicators provide valuable evidence of institutional engagement and commitment. However, they primarily measure inputs and activities rather than outcomes.

The next stage of institutional development requires moving beyond measuring what schools do toward understanding what changes because of these activities. This distinction is fundamental. Educational programs, partnerships, and projects create the conditions for positive impact, but they do not automatically demonstrate impact itself. A more mature measurement approach therefore examines changes in student competencies, behaviors, organizational practices, stakeholder relationships, institutional decisions, and contributions to addressing societal challenges. Such outcome-oriented assessment remains methodologically demanding, but distinguishing activities from outcomes represents an essential conceptual advance for business schools seeking to strengthen their societal contribution.

Make Culture a Transformation Capability

Finally, the report highlights the importance of organizational culture. Governance systems, operating procedures, and measurement frameworks are necessary, but they alone cannot sustain institutional transformation. Positive impact ultimately depends on shared beliefs, routines, relationships, and everyday behaviors. Culture determines whether institutional ambitions become embedded in daily practice or remain aspirational statements.

A deliberate approach to culture focuses less on institutional narratives and more on institutional practices. It asks how new students become familiar with the school’s impact ambitions, how leaders demonstrate these ambitions through their own behavior, how collaboration and dialogue are encouraged, how difficult trade-offs are addressed, and how institutional memory is preserved despite changes in leadership and student cohorts. Culture becomes a strategic capability when it consistently reinforces learning, responsibility, openness, and continuous improvement.

Toward Systemic Institutional Change

Taken together, these lessons suggest that implementation is fundamentally an organizational challenge rather than a technical one. The evidence generated through PIR already provides schools with valuable guidance on stakeholder expectations. The remaining task is to create institutional mechanisms that enable this evidence to shape everyday decisions. Governance routines translate feedback into priorities. Student participation strengthens institutional learning. Operating systems integrate impact into management processes. Outcome-oriented measurement strengthens accountability. Organizational culture sustains change over time.

Importantly, the evidence does not point to a single model that every business school should adopt. Institutional contexts, missions, resources, and stakeholder environments differ substantially. The objective is therefore not uniformity but institutional coherence. Each school must develop mechanisms that fit its own context while ensuring that student feedback consistently informs how the institution learns, makes decisions, allocates resources, and evaluates progress.

The broader implication is clear. Closing the implementation gap does not require fundamentally new concepts or additional frameworks. It requires embedding existing evidence within the institution’s everyday routines of governance, management, participation, measurement, and culture. Positive impact becomes durable when it is no longer added to the institution as a separate agenda but is woven into the way the institution itself functions. In this sense, student feedback is more than a source of evaluation. It becomes a mechanism for continuous organizational learning and a catalyst for the ongoing transformation of business schools toward greater societal impact.

Read the full Positive Impact Rating 2026 Report and explore further insights here: https://www.positiveimpactrating.org/the-rating/2026-report

This article was created with the support of ChatGPT

experiental


by

Experiential learning for sustainability

Prof. Dr. Thomas Dyllick

Sustainability challenges are complex, cross functional, and deeply tied to relevant decisions for organizations and communities. For business schools, this creates a clear gap: students can learn frameworks in class, but they also need structured opportunities to apply them under real constraints, with stakeholders, trade offs, data limitations, and accountability.

This is where experiential learning becomes a powerful lever for sustainability education. It turns sustainability from a topic into a practice, helping learners develop the skills, mindsets, and confidence to act.

1. Why experiential learning matters for sustainability

Experiential learning is commonly described as learning through experience and reflection, where students build knowledge by moving through cycles of action, sense making, and testing new approaches. The most widely used model by David Kolb describes four stages: concrete experience (doing), reflective observation (reflecting), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and active experimentation (acting).

For sustainability, this approach fits the nature of the challenge. Learners need to develop not only knowledge, but also competencies such as systems thinking, collaboration, and the ability to navigate ambiguity.

2. What counts as experiential learning in business education

In practice, experiential learning for sustainability can take many forms, as long as it includes three core ingredients:

• A real problem, with real constraints
• A structured learning process, including reflection and feedback
• A tangible output, such as a recommendation, prototype, report, or implemented change

This can include field projects with companies or public institutions, service learning with community partners, simulations, challenge based courses, living labs on campus, and student led initiatives.

Evidence from higher education research also suggests that experiential service learning can improve sustainability awareness and community engagement, compared with lecture only approaches.

3. Design principles that make it work

Not all “hands on” projects deliver the same learning value. The strongest sustainability oriented experiential learning designs tend to share a few principles:

• Reflection is not optional: students need guided reflection to convert experience into learning, and to connect action back to theory.
• The challenge is authentic: messy problems and incomplete data are part of the learning, not a flaw.
• Stakeholders are involved: external partners, communities, alumni, and practitioners increase realism and accountability.
• Outcomes are assessed: students are evaluated on both quality of thinking and quality of delivery.

4. What it looks like in practice

Across business schools, sustainability oriented experiential learning often clusters into a few repeatable formats.

Service learning and community immersion

A strong example is a compulsory service learning course that combines reflection and action. Goa Institute of Management in India describes GIVE GOA, built around a reflection module and a community based action component aligned with the SDGs.

Applied projects with SDG aligned outcomes

Some schools institutionalize applied projects as core curriculum. For example, GIBS Business School in South Africa describes an Applied Business Project where student groups choose an SDG and develop evidence-based, implementable solutions, including field visits and work with local organizations.

Partnered capstone work with external evaluation

EADA Business School in Barcelona highlights the expectation that final projects include a real life component, supported by practitioners, and strengthened through a partnership with Ashoka Spain so participants can develop work with an Ashoka fellow and be evaluated by multiple stakeholders.

Challenge based learning together with an industry partner

Monash University in Australia shows how “authentic problem based education” can be paired with sustainability reporting and impact narratives for partners, including projects such as a Textile Waste Day and reporting deliverables for an industry partner.

Whole program models built around real world practice

University of Vermont’s Sustainable Innovation MBA is described as grounded in real world application, systems thinking, and sustainability leadership, including a full time summer internship with partner organizations, plus student-led initiatives like managing an impact investment fund and participating in an impact investing competition.

Sasin Business School in Thailand describes a learning module designed to bridge values and sustainable business practices, combining online learning, residential weekends, and application to a case from an alumni owned business.

5. Measuring quality, not just activity

A common trap is to count the number of projects, partners, or events, without assessing learning quality or impact. A more robust view looks at:

• Learning outcomes: what sustainability competencies students develop
• Depth of engagement: duration, responsibility, and stakeholder involvement
• Reflection quality: how well students connect experience to concepts and values
• Real outcomes: changes implemented, partner value created, and student career readiness

This matters because stakeholders increasingly expect sustainability in business education to be embedded, credible, and connected to practice, not limited to isolated electives or statements.

6. Conclusion 

Experiential learning is one of the most practical ways for business schools to prepare future leaders for sustainability. When done well, it builds competence through action, reflection, and real accountability. The strongest approaches combine authentic challenges, stakeholder engagement, and clear learning outcomes, then measure what students actually experience.

If your school is strengthening experiential learning for sustainability, the Positive Impact Rating for Business Schools  can help you understand where you stand, learn from peer practices, and turn student and faculty insights into a specific agenda for improvement.

This blog was produced in interaction with ChatGPT.


by

ESG backlash and the changing sustainability agenda

Over the past decade, ESG (environmental, social, and governance) performance became synonymous with responsible, forward-looking business. Companies invested heavily in dedicated teams, reporting systems, and KPIs; investors integrated ESG data into financial analysis; consumers scrutinized supply chains; and policymakers created regulatory frameworks that placed sustainability at the center of economic strategy.

But as ESG moved into the mainstream, a counter-movement emerged. Today’s backlash – fueled by political polarization, misunderstanding, and regulatory fatigue – is reshaping how organizations communicate, prioritize, and operationalize sustainability. Some now argue ESG distracts from “real business,” while others insist it remains essential but requires reform. The result is strategic uncertainty.

Yet this moment is not about the end of ESG. Rather, it signals a shift toward a more mature phase of sustainability, where credibility, transparency, and measurable outcomes matter more than labels. Understanding the roots of resistance and adjusting corporate strategy is now critical for leaders.

1. The rise of ESG and the roots of resistance

ESG’s rapid ascent builds on decades of environmental and social progress. The environmental movement of the 1960s–80s raised public awareness of pollution and resource depletion; the Brundtland Report (1987) gave sustainable development a global policy foundation; and frameworks like the Millennium Development Goals and the 2015 Paris Agreement embedded sustainability in global economic planning. Between 2015 and 2020, ESG commitments surged, sustainable finance accelerated, and companies with strong ESG credentials enjoyed valuation premiums.

But this momentum also set the stage for backlash. In the United States, ESG became entangled in ideological battles. Critics framed it as political overreach, unnecessary DEI activism, or a threat to competitiveness. Several states introduced legislation restricting ESG-oriented investment, fueling the narrative that ESG is “anti-business.”

Europe’s backlash is more technocratic and political than ideological. Companies cite compliance overload, reporting complexity, cost pressure on SMEs, and concerns about competitiveness. Regulatory adjustments, such as phased CSRD (Corporate sustainability reporting directive) implementation and delayed deforestation rules, reflect these tensions.

2. Why ESG became a target

Several structural issues made ESG susceptible to criticism:

Overstretch and overpromising
ESG became a catch-all concept expected to serve as climate strategy, social policy, risk indicator, and investor communications tool. Its expanding scope blurred its meaning and fueled skepticism.

Overlapping standards
Companies navigated an ecosystem of overlapping standards—GRI, SASB, TCFD, ISSB, CSRD—creating duplication, inconsistency, and reporting fatigue. This burden fell hardest on smaller companies without large sustainability teams.

Greenwashing and greenhushing
High-profile accusations of greenwashing undermined trust. Fear of scrutiny pushed many companies into greenhushing: quietly continuing sustainability work while reducing public communication.

Politicization
In the US, sustainability, diversity, and governance became cultural identifiers. What began as risk management turned into an ideological battleground.

3. Diverging global pathways

While the backlash is most visible in the US, global ESG pathways are diverging:

United States: ESG under pressure
Political polarization shapes public debate. Some states restrict ESG integration in public investments, and fund managers rebrand ESG products. Yet private companies continue sustainability work behind the scenes, driven by risk management, customer expectations, and regulatory exposure.

Europe: Reduce and reform
Rather than rejecting ESG, Europe is reducing and reforming it. While existing legislation remains in place, new regulations are slowed and scaled down. While investments remain strong companies demand clearer guidance and less administrative burden. Europe is entering a phase of “doing less ESG and better” not abandoning it.

Asia and Emerging Markets: Acceleration
In contrast, momentum is accelerating in Asia and in emerging markets. Governments treat climate and nature risk as economic realities rather than political controversies. Supply-chain legislation from Europe forces sustainability requirements downstream, and emerging markets increasingly shape global standards through manufacturing, infrastructure, and resource industries.

4. The impact on business

The ESG backlash has concrete implications for companies:

Capital allocation is more demanding
Investors now expect verified emissions data, credible governance, and detailed transition plans. Narrative-driven sustainability is no longer enough.

Reputation is harder to manage
Companies face pressure from both anti-ESG critics and advocates demanding faster, deeper action.

Supply chain expectations are rising
Companies must demonstrate deforestation-free sourcing, human rights due diligence, Scope 3 emissions transparency, and circularity strategies—requiring new data and closer supplier engagement.

Talent and culture are affected
Younger employees value purposeful work. Reducing sustainability ambitions risks weakening morale and employer branding.

5. How leading companies are responding

Companies that remain ahead of the curve are shifting from ESG as a reporting function to ESG as a strategic capability:

  • Embedding sustainability into corporate strategy (operations, procurement, finance, R&D)
  • Prioritizing measurable impact over polished storytelling
  • Investing in high-quality data—real-time carbon management, audited LCAs, digital product passports
  • Pushing for simplification and alignment across regulatory frameworks
  • Moving away from the politically charged “ESG” label toward terms like positive impact, transition strategy or responsible business

6. What leaders can do now

Executives can navigate this new phase by:

  1. Reframing ESG in terms of risk, innovation, competitiveness, and resilience.
  2. Strengthening governance with clear roles, accountability, and board oversight.
  3. Investing in robust data systems for Scope 1-3 emissions, supplier visibility, and third-party verification.
  4. Preparing for increased scrutiny by aligning marketing and sustainability teams and ensuring all claims are evidence-based.
  5. Focusing on material issues such as climate, biodiversity, human rights, circularity, and governance.
  6. Collaborating across value chains, recognizing sustainability as a shared challenge.

Conclusion

Despite the political noise, the direction of travel is clear: climate risk is financial risk; biodiversity loss affects economic stability; resource constraints shape competitiveness; and regulation – whether streamlined or expanded – is here to stay. ESG is not disappearing, but it is evolving.

The organizations that succeed in this new landscape will be those that build credibility, demonstrate real impact, manage risks rigorously, and innovate within new constraints. ESG and sustainability may no longer dominate headlines, but they have become a core element of corporate strategy and a foundation of long-term business resilience.

This blog post was revised with the help of Chat GPT.


by

Beyond Green Promises: why listening to Business School’ stakeholders is the next step in Sustainability

Sustainability has become a defining issue for business and education. Companies and schools alike are quick to showcase commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, green operations, and responsible practices. Yet, today’s critical challenge is not about adding more promises. It is about creating systems of accountability that genuinely reflect the voices of those most affected.
Listening is no longer optional. Employees, students, customers, communities: all demand to be heard. And for business schools, which shape the leaders of tomorrow, this means embedding stakeholder feedback directly into strategy, teaching, and governance.

From awareness to accountability

For years, many institutions focused on net zero commitments or isolated sustainability projects. These were important first steps, but they are no longer enough. Stakeholders now expect:

  • Authenticity over greenwashing: measurable actions instead of symbolic initiatives.
  • Integration over isolation: sustainability woven into every decision, not just a single department.
  • Participation over hierarchy: transparent governance where students, staff, and faculty can co-create solutions.
  • Practical relevance over theory: practice-based learning that connects classrooms with real-world sustainability challenges.

In other words, progress depends not only on what schools do, but on how their communities experience it.

Why stakeholder voices matter

Stakeholder expectations are also becoming more sophisticated. Students call for systemic change in curricula, mental health support, and partnerships with ethical businesses. Communities demand engagement that goes beyond research papers and includes tangible collaboration. Faculty, too, want their institutions to model the values they teach.

When schools ignore these voices, they risk credibility gaps that undermine their mission. However, when they embrace them, they gain legitimacy, innovation, and long-term trust.

The Positive Impact Rating: turning voices into insights

This is precisely where the Positive Impact Rating (PIR) comes in. Now in its sixth year, PIR provides schools with a structured way to assess their societal impact, directly through the perceptions of their own stakeholders.

In 2025, over 17,000 students worldwide participated, offering clear calls to stop outdated practices and start embedding sustainability in meaningful ways. New in recent editions, PIR also integrates faculty perspectives, enabling a dual stakeholder comparison. This allows schools to see where perceptions align, where blind spots exist, and where dialogue can build coherence and trust.

Such insights are more than data points. They are practical tools that schools can use to adapt curricula, strengthen governance, and meet international standards such as  AACSB, EQUIS, and PRME.

A call to act

The journey toward sustainability is no longer about declarations. It is about measurable impact, visible accountability, and authentic inclusion of those who matter most.

Business schools ready to embrace this shift can now join PIR 2026. By registering, institutions will not only benchmark themselves globally but also gain actionable insights from the very people who experience their education.

Registration is open. Shape the next edition of the Positive Impact Rating and show your commitment to a future where business education drives real, positive change.

https://positiveimpactrating.org


by

Moving Business from Net Zero to Positive Impact

Business is playing a central role in causing many of the societal problems we are facing globally. As I will argue in this contribution, we will also need business to help solving the societal challenges. We need business because it has the know-how, the resources, and the reach to effectively address the challenges. I will show, what business needs to do to be successful. It will not be an easy task. There remains a lot to do for a new generation of leaders from business and from society who are prepared to approach this task collaboratively in a new and different way. You can also view this post in this TEDx talk.

Introduction

As a researcher and teacher in business sustainability, I became more and more concerned about the escalating problems our humanity is facing. We were living far beyond the planet’s means.[i] And governments were incapable to effectively deal with these problems. I was relieved and hopeful to see business get into the game and make sustainability increasingly their business. Why? Because they have the know-how, the resources, and the global reach needed to address these problems. But it has been troubling to see that there was a big disconnect between the approach to business sustainability taken and the scale of the problems we are facing. Something was badly out of sync.

As a response to these concerns, we developed a model of “True Business Sustainability” [ii] to adequately address the sustainability challenges of our times. In doing this, two fundamental problems became clear to us. Existing models of business sustainability, in theory and in practice, don’t address the problems our societies are facing, but the economic benefits for business in addressing societal issues. This so-called “business case” of sustainability is primarily good for business, but not for the world. The second problem we found, was that business sustainability is focused on minimizing the negative impacts of business activities, not on creating a positive impact in relevant areas for society and the planet. What is needed, however, is aiming to increase the societal goods, not only to decrease the bads done by business itself. In other words, reducing carbon emissions is good but capturing carbon from the air is much better and in reality, it is essential.

Watch a video about True Business Sustainability

The model of “true business sustainability” helps us to move business from net zero, where the negative impacts of business are driven towards zero, to positive impact, where business contributes to solving societal challenges. In this contribution I will put the model of true business sustainability into practice. My focus will be on five big questions and answers.

1. Societal Challenges as Opportunities

My first question: How can business make a positive contribution to society? And my answer is: by looking at societal challenges as opportunities. In support of this insight, let me cite Management Guru Peter Drucker who remarked a long time ago:[iii]

Positive contributions to societal challenges can be found in all areas of the economy. And they offer great opportunities. In the food sector, they lie in the development of healthy diets and lifestyles in highly developed countries and the creation of affordable food and access to clean water in developing countries. They lie in areas like developing a sustainable energy supply without having to accept irresponsible climate risks and in creative approaches to using construction waste to produce new construction materials.

2. Putting purpose into strategy

My second question is: Why are so many companies today committed to a wider societal purpose that goes beyond a purely economic purpose? My answer is: They do it because their stakeholders are demanding it.

Employees are expecting it from their employers. The social commitment of their employer is of great concern to the employees, often a matter close to their hearts. And on the market for talent, it needs a clear and convincing purpose to attract the highly sensitized millennials, which make up 35% of the market.[iv]  Consumers prefer companies that take a position on issues like sustainability, transparency, and human rights. And the millennials are leading again.[v] Investors have been rushing into social and sustainable investments because they want to combine social impact with economic goals. And financial institutions are happily offering products to support this trend.

A purpose is aimed at a positive societal goal, not at increasing profit. It defines the company’s reason to be and are not in contradiction to economic goals. They are rather their precondition. They secure support from society and guide the company’s development in the longer term.[vi] But a true purpose is certainly more than a lofty declaration on paper. It needs to be backed by credible action. It must reflect in the company’s products, its investments, and its incentive systems. Actions speak louder than words![vii]

A good example is outdoor clothing company Patagonia with its bold purpose “to be in business to save our home planet.” [viii] How do they act on it? Among other things they use 100% organic cotton. And while globally 15% of used clothing is recycled, 87% of their raw materials are made with recycled inputs. They also offer repair services and recycle products that are beyond repair.

3. Integrating sustainability into regular business

My third question is: What should companies do to create maximum impact? My answer is they should integrate sustainability into regular business.

Sustainability efforts of companies are mostly handled by specialized units for sustainability, social responsibility, or communication. Their function is often reduced to shielding the corporate core from disruptive influences. This is extremely limiting.

It should be easy to see that the necessary “clout” for mastering sustainability challenges can only be achieved if sustainability is integrated into regular business, so that all the strengths and competencies of the company are brought to bear on the issues. Only then we can succeed in creating an offensive dynamic that points the way forward instead of a defensive dynamic that neither gives pleasure nor corresponds to entrepreneurial thinking.

What needs to be integrated? Sustainability needs to be integrated into company processes, so that it will be taken care of automatically in the company’s decisions and actions. Product innovations need to focus on products with a net positive impact, not simply on making existing products a bit better. And it will need fully committed leaders, who can win the hearts and minds of the people, internally and externally.

4. Simultaneous orientation on several time horizons

My fourth question is: How do companies go about innovating their business? My answer is they must orient their business on several time horizons.[ix] In times of far-reaching and dynamic structural changes, companies will have to build the business of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in parallel to keeping-up today’s business as long as necessary.

Sustainability problems are dynamically evolving. Take the automotive industry which started out in a first phase with modest sustainability demands driven by the quest to make cars better. Issues were increasing fuel efficiency, reducing unhealthy exhaust, and recycling cars. In a second phase, the discussion centered around the more fundamental question “How long will oil reserves last?” Its focus was on the core of the car, its internal combustion engine. The race for alternative drive technologies and fuels has seen hybrid cars and electric cars come out as winners. And in a future third phase, driven by traffic jams, congested cities, and individualized demand,  we will see transform car companies into networked mobility providers offering rent, leasing, car sharing and ride sharing, in short: mobility-on-demand. In each phase the business models are dramatically different and need dynamically changing companies.

5. Collaborations

My fifths question is: Is it a good thing we see more and more collaborations between business and government? My last answer is that collaborations are necessary.[x]

Overcoming the societal problems of our time is beyond the reach of even large companies. Challenges such as the phasing out of plastic waste or the switch to renewable energies are simply too big and too complex. These challenges require collaborations across supply chains and sectors as well as the integration of private, public, and civil society actors.

We have seen many collaborative platforms being created in recent years. Platforms for sustainable forest management or fisheries, for palm oil, cocoa, or fashion. They demonstrate that global problems require collective solutions that bring all relevant stakeholder groups together at one table.

We will also need creative solutions to shape political change. Companies still view government relations mostly as a way to resist regulation or fight for preferential treatment. But some companies approach regulators openly and transparently to help them improve the collective rules and solve larger problems. Establishing circular economy models for products and packaging for example, need active support from companies. And it needs business also to support policies that accelerate investments in areas that improve the living conditions for everyone. Think of health care and education. This will not only make the world a better place, but it will also allow business to flourish in a healthy and stable environment.

Closing

In closing, let me summarize the five areas discussed in this contribution to move business from net zero to positive impact:

  1. Societal challenges as opportunities
  2. Putting purpose into strategy
  3. Integrating sustainability into regular business
  4. Simultaneous orientation on several time horizons
  5. Collaborations

My message has been, that we need business to help solving societal challenges. I have shown how business can do it. Clearly, there is lots to do for a new generation of leaders from business and from society.  For them, my five answers developed above should help to get off to a good start.

This contribution is based on the author’s TEDx HSG talk delivered on December 4, 2021, at University

[i] Nobel Prize Laureates and other experts (2021): Our planet, our future. An urgent call for action. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Statement: April 29, 2021.  https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/04/nobel-prize-laureates-and-other-experts-issue-urgent-call-for-action-after-our-planet-our-future-summit (accessed Dec 8, 2021); Union of Concerned Scientists (1992): 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity. Published Jul 16, 1992 (Updated Oct 29, 2002) https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/1992-world-scientists-warning-humanity (accessed: Dec. 8, 2021); World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity (2017): A Second Notice. BioScience, Volume 67, Issue 12, pages 1026–1028; https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229 (accessed: Dec. 8, 2021).

[ii] Thomas Dyllick & Katrin Muff (2016): Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a Typology from Business-as-usual to True Sustainability. In: Organization & Environment, Vol. 29, No. 2, 156-174. (2016 Organization & Environment Best Paper Award)

[iii] Cited in: Cooperrider, D. (2008). Social Innovation. BizEd, July/August, 32-38.

[iv] Dhingra, N.; Samo, A., Schaninger, B.; Schrimper, M. (2021): Help your employees find purpose – or watch them leave, McKinsey Quarterly, September, 93-100. Gast, A.; Illanes, P.; Probst, N.; Schaninger, B.; Simpson, B. (2020): Purpose: Shifting from why to how, McKinsey Quarterly, April.

[v] Edelmann (2018): Two thirds of consumers worldwide now buy on beliefs. October 2, 2018. https://www.edelman.com/news-awards/two-thirds-consumers-worldwide-now-buy-beliefs (accessed:  October 12, 2021)

[vi] Fink, Larry (2019):  Profit & Purpose. Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs, https://www.blackrock.com/americas-offshore/en/2019-larry-fink-ceo-letter (Accessed: 12.15.2020). Fink, Larry (2018): A Sense of Purpose. Larry Fink’s 2018 letter to CEOs, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2018-larry-fink-ceo-letter

(accessed: December 15.2020). Dyllick, T. & Muff, K. (2021): Anforderungen an eine echte Purpose – Orientierung von Unternehmen, in: Controlling, Vol. 33., Special Issue «Purpose und Controlling», Spring, 31-35. Grayson D./Coulter C./Lee M. (2018): All in. The future of business leadership, 1st ed., Milton Park.

Polman, P. & Winston, A. (2021). Net Positive. How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, pp. 74.

[vii] Samuelson, Judy (2021): The Six New Rules of Business: Creating Real Value in a Changing World. Berret-Koehler, Oakland.

[viii] Beer, Jeff (2018): Exclusive: “Patagonia is in business to save our home planet.” In an exclusive interview, founder Yvon Chouinard talks about how the new mission will reshape how the company does business. Fast Company, December 13.  https://www.fastcompany.com/90280950/exclusive-patagonia-is-in-business-to-save-our-home-planet (Accessed: Dec. 8, 2021)

[ix] Business & Sustainable Development Commission, Better Business Better World, January 2017 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2399BetterBusinessBetterWorld.pdf (accessed: December 10, 2021)


by 1 Comment

Try something different!

The impact of the change of being in our ability to change

When have you last tried something different? I had to think for a while until I recalled such a moment. For me, trying new foods is the easiest way of trying something different. Travelling to new places and discovering new cultures and places and people is my preferred way of trying something different. Trying a new sport requires courage for me to try and I love the feeling of excitement when I have overcome my resistance. Trying a new behavior is by far the hardest way of trying something new, by a long shot. It is also by far the most exciting way to challenge myself.

try smth new

Image source: https://aminoapps.com/c/books/page/blog/weekly-challenge-try-something-new/7viP_u3dXvQ7BJXVkbzVaBMkqe12Dz

What about you?

I was very touched by what Kathy Miller shared in her last blog and when she shared how this simple advice by a friend “try something different!” changed her approach to looking at change. And I have observed myself in the past month to see how often I might be willing to try something. What I noticed as I observed myself was that there were conditions that favored my ability to try a new behavior. And this led me to consider the impact of the state of being in our ability to change.

Some external conditions favor a state of excitement, of thrill, or of fear or anxiety. These carry the same underlying high energetic vibration and they generate states of being which lead to states of mind that then allow or prevent our ability to try something different. For me, such a high energetic vibration is really good when I want to try a new sport. And it hinders me when I try to adapt myself to a situation trying a new emotional attitude.

courage

Image source: https://www.humansynergistics.com/blog/constructive-culture-blog/details/constructive-culture/2017/07/18/organizational-courage-part-1-of-2-what-it-is

 

On the other hand, my travels to Cuba has exposed me to a country that resonates entirely differently. Its relaxed attitude, laid back music, warm temperatures and kind people grounded me in a very easy and relaxed energetic state. The calmness that comes from appreciation, satisfaction, joy and gratitude expresses itself in a much calmer low energic vibration. Such a vibration has served me well to try new ways of approaching relationship and served as a condition that allowed me to react with more kindness, openness and patience than I had known as my natural patterns. Quite obviously the state of being served as an enabler for change. I must say, however, that this relaxed state of being did not serve me when trying to motivate me to join a local public fitness class. I felt way too relaxed for such a try during vacation.

emotional

Image source: https://eocinstitute.org/meditation/meditation-and-emotions-the-power-of-silence-during-times-of-change/

 

In conclusion, there is not a preferable state of being, each such state simply either promotes or prevents an attempt to try something different and hence to change. High energic vibrations serve to push us beyond our boundaries which is useful in some situation. Low energetic vibrations, on the other hand, will pull us more inward to our source freeing other potentials that are useful in attempts of something different.

hi low energy

Image source: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-2/Energy-Transport-and-the-Amplitude-of-a-Wave

 

May I invite you to observe yourself for a week or two and to share what you notice about enabling or disabling conditions to try something different? I would love to hear from you!


by 4 Comments

Falling on my feet after leaving BSL

Exploring communication in times of uncertainty

It has been two months now, since I was told that my time at BSL is up and that my contribution to the school was no longer desired by the majority shareholder of the group to which the school belongs.

It has been a strange time, with good and bad moments. On one hand it, it has been painful and stressful. A journey that took me from shock that immobilized me, to agitation and concern for what might now happen with the school and the many people there I care so much about – my colleagues, the students, the faculty. On the other hand, it has also been wonderfully liberating. The glimpse at a new phase in my life for which I feel so ready. Possibly so because I had thought of leaving BSL before but have never dared to. I thought I would harm BSL too much by leaving. Now that the owner decided on a new strategic direction, discontinuing what I have invested in and developed – I am suddenly free!

How do you communicate in such a time authentically yet without creating confusion? This is my challenge right now and this is my first attempt at it. I sense that this ability to communicate in uncertain or changing times might be a useful skill for not just me. There are two areas of thoughts I would like to share: a) insights gained and b) emerging questions:

A) These are the insights where I have gained clarity in:

  • I would like to find a way to live more authentically what I “preach”. If I want to suggest changes to make the world a better place, this starts with me. For me, now, this means to slow down and to stop racing from project to project, becoming more careful and mindful in selecting and prioritizing, and connecting to a deeper sensing of how I can truly make the difference I seek.
  • I would like to review my research questions and my teaching and to adapt them based on what I have learned these past years. This includes our experience of self-organization at BSL and the challenge of finding new, better organizational and governance structures to operate in today’s world. Also, I want to revisit my (PhD) question about the connection of the inner and outer world and how transformation occurs at a personal, organizational and societal level. How do we change?
  • I would like to operate in a new structure, rather than seeking a next employment. I want to serve my purpose, to be of service, to add value with my reflections and research, to create tools and methods, courses and programs, more powerfully than before. And I will do that creatively, together with others and in a structure that suits this purpose.

B) These are emerging questions I would like to explore further:

  • What does the BSL incident mean for my work in helping organizations to transform so that longer-term “sustainability” concerns weigh more than a short-term profit focus. What is there to be learned for such change processes? How can this apparent organizational setback instruct my inquiry about the transformation of business?
  • How do I interact with those who looked at the transformation of BSL as an important sign of hope in the landscape of business education, who had chosen it as their place of study, or who had dedicated dear time and energy to support our emergence as a promising prototype for a new type of business education? What can I offer, now?
  • What are my personal lessons from this change? What has prevented me from finding a more constructive solution? What are my shadows, blind spots and shortcomings? What does this mean in my life as I have just turned 7 x 7 (or 49), and what is the deeper message for my journey?

Each of these questions will deserve a separate blog and shall serve as a further attempt to authentically share in times of uncertainty. I am attentive to the interconnection among these and I am curious what I will be learning in my exploration. I am grateful for those who accompany me in this journey. It reminds me of what Bob Quinn calls “Building the bridge as we walk on it”.

Katrin


by 1 Comment

Walking the path of change: from the invisible hand to the invisible heart!

Kate Raworth left me with a question I could not answer: “How do we transform the ‘value-extraction’ mentality of the 20th century with the ‘designed-in benefits’ mindset needed in the 21st century?”. I walked home after a lovely dinner with her and pondered about why arguments that make total sense to some of us can be dismantled so easily by those who follow the profit-maximization drumbeat that has brought havoc to the world and economics in my lifetime. Kate had shared a story of well-regarded expert who proposed a cleverly designed building able to extract CO2 from its environment to a CFO. The CFO killed the genius idea with as little as: “But why should I do such thing? It doesn’t serve me!”

Kate was in Lausanne to inspire our graduating students along with Peter Bakker, President of the WBCSD, both recipients of BSL Dr. Honoris Causa awards. And they did! Peter shared a story of when he was CEO at TNT and his purchase of two long-haul planes doubled the CO2 footprint of his company in one year. The planes served to fly mobile phone from China to Europe – customers like their orders fulfilled overnight irrespective of the cost to nature. He reminded the graduates that the origin of leadership is “path finder” and that they were more than ever required to serve exactly that; as pathfinders to bring organizations to be the positive force our future needs.

Kigen Moi, the BSL Valedictorian, talked about Ubuntu, a word well known where he grew up “Humanity”. Or, as his story illustrated, the idea that no one can be happy, if the others around him are not. Such a profound thought which stands in such stark contrast to Kate’s struggles we had debated the night before.

I am struck by an oldish HuffPost blog entitled “There is no trade-off between profit and purpose” and that Paul Polman had recently retweeted with the words “To reach the land of profit, follow the road of purpose”. I have been a long advocate of using the right language to talk to various audiences. And that it is necessary to talk to those who see profit maximization as the holy grain by pointing out the immediate opportunity and risks of embracing business ideas that go beyond serving the interest of shareholders but at the same time also serve other stakeholders, society and the world at large.

To hell with it! Why should we adjust a values-based argument to a value-disconnected audience. Why cannot we not shake the CFO in Kate’s story to senses by responding with utter disbelief and exclaiming with wide-open eyes: “But how can you be happy if around you so many are unhappy? And let him reconnect with the humanity that undoubtedly sits inside of him, maybe underneath much dust and fast asleep, but most certainly alive and ticking. Why argue that purpose leads to profit, as if following purpose needed any excuse? Why having to point out there is no tradeoff between making money and doing good?

Why not shake the hearts and minds of those stuck in the 20th century logic of the misinterpretation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand? Take a look at the state of the world, the state of any single country of your choice and you can clearly and without a single doubt see that the profit-maximization argument has gotten it wrong. We have spent the last decade trying to twist purpose and values-based arguments into the ill-fatted logic of the past century and we have gotten nowhere. If we want to change the mindset that Kathy Miller and I are trying to figure out how to change, maybe the time is now ripe to start talking the truth. Kathy ended her last blog with a deep insight of Mahatma Gandhi: “You must not lose faith in humanity.  Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”

Why not point out the amazing power and the beauty of the invisible heart that is beating in every single living thing and that connects all of us into a humanity across all living beings. Why not question empty values and fake arguments, and why not replace them with the wisdom of Ubuntu and insist that we can only rest if all of us are happy that that we will no longer take part in a race against each other but in a journey towards a place where all of us can be well on that gorgeous planet we are living on. Why not?!


by

10 steps toward organizational sustainability

What does it take to get an engineering company to embrace their care for a better world? Is it possible to provide access to the deeper meaning of sustainability to those who define it as either one-dimensional economic long-term survival, or as a predominantly ecological issue?

These were my questions as I prepared for my consulting day with a medium-sized traditional Swiss engineering company. The sustainability-fluent CEO had invited me to lead a workshop with his senior team, including the board, in a first conversation towards formulating a vision 2030 for a company that, in his view, had embrace sustainability. I am sharing here the step-by-step process of that very positive one-day workshop.

The design of the day involved some pre-work for the participants to enable me to ascertain the baseline from which we were working. At the same time I provided an accessible definition and framework of business sustainability to set the foundation on which they could build a common new language. The True Business Sustainability Typology developed by Thomas Dyllick and myself and produced into a convenient six-minute film came in handy (https://youtu.be/AEFqUh4PMmI). I asked them to complete a survey, which consisted of the following questions:

Question 1: What does sustainability mean for you? How would you have defined it before watching the video? What changed after the video? For you, what is sustainability and what is it not? (open ended response)

Question 2: How clear is it for you how your company might live true business sustainability? (multiple answers, including: crystal clear; I see possibilities; I have mostly questions; I have some concerns; I see a contradiction; I am open and look forward)

Question 3: Which sustainability problems touch you most / are a priority in your life? (multiple choice from a selection of 24 sustainability issues picked from the Gap Frame tool that translates the SDGs into a country-by-country measure)

Question 4: What do you expect from a whole day sustainability workshop at your company and what is important for you to say upfront? (open ended question)

In my preparation, I analyzed their responses to understand where they stood and what concerns, issues and hopes they brought along and I developed brief personal profiles containing my impressions (and a photo). Since I had never met the team, I grouped them into categories that would allow me to frame their anticipated worldviews and perspectives, in the hope to anticipate their attitude and responses during the day. Most importantly, it allowed me to be lightheartedly prepared for those from whom I might have to expect resistance.

The workshop was designed to be varied, encouraging listening, thinking and talking, and shifting between plenum, individual and small-group work; it included standing sessions with circle meetings, peer walks, silent personal reflection, presentations, group work and, of course, a bit of physical activity to keep the body, mind and heart active and involved. The CEO’s opening words, which I had asked him to hold standing around a lunch table, were to the point and honest; he finished by saying: “Katrin, you need to understand that everybody is a bit afraid of you right now. We never stood together like this to start a day and when we look to the room where we work, we see a circle of chairs with some funny decoration in the middle”. I smiled it off and immediately switched to everybody doing some straightforward physical activities to re-connect their brains, awaken the body and overcome the awkward feeling by doing awkward things! From there on, the day began to bloom.

Let us look at the journey we took together and how this may be helpful to you too, whether you are a business leader or a strategic consultant.

The personal passion of everyone (circle seating): each participant brought a personal item in response to the question: “If I had a magic wand, what is the one thing I would change in the world?” This round of sharing and story-telling set the tone of the day and the level of depth and engagement in the conversation. It allowed clarification of the term ‘sustainability’, including its less obvious facets, and brought everybody on board by revealing their deep personal connection with one or more sustainability issues.

How ready is your organization for change (open circle seating): each participant was asked to assess where they placed their organization on a scale where 1 was ‘incremental change’ and 2 was ‘quantum leap’. The discussion revealed that the change readiness of individuals was higher than the change readiness of the organization. By introducing my inner-outer world model that shows the interconnection between personal development towards responsible leadership and organizational development towards sustainable business, we had a way to frame the discussion; we highlighted the danger that can arise when organizational stability and comfort slows of extinguishes individual initiative. I used Cameron & Quinn’s Competing Values Framework to direct the thought process into a simple question for assessment: is the organization more internally or externally focused, and is the organization more focused on stability or on flexibility? Together, in an open discussion, we assessed the company’s journey and identified future areas of focus if, indeed, the organization were to embrace a quantum leap.

What are the biggest sustainability issues in Switzerland (lecture): In 30 minutes I explained sustainability, starting with the WEF Global Risks Report on which sustainability issues keeps CEOs awake at night, and outlining Rockström’s planetary boundaries and Oxfam’s social foundation, which Raworth used to develop the safe operating space for humanity. I then introduced the N. Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) and the Gap Frame (a project led by Business School Lausanne), which is a translation of the SDGs into a relevant normative framework applicable not only to the Global South but to every single country. We looked at Switzerland and highlighted five or six of the most burning issues in the domains of environment, society, economy and governance. I ended by sharing their own answers to my pre-workshop survey (see question 3 above), allowing them to connect their personal passion and cares to wider issues of concern within Switzerland (the country their business operates in).

What does sustainability mean for your company (world café): we used four relevant topics from the balanced scorecard the company uses and spent an hour investigating how an outside-in approach, borrowed from the True Business Sustainability Typology (Dyllick & Muff) might inspire entirely new strategic business opportunities for them. This process allows for capturing current product and service improvements, as well as more creative reflection upon which of the company’s core competencies might contribute to solving sustainability issues in their geographic region. This was a good moment to integrate social aspects into the ‘employee’ dimension and magic new ideas arose regarding, for example, integration across generations and cultural groups. Each group reported back and the follow-on discussion provided an incredibly rich tapestry for future strategic options.

Dyllick-Muff (2016): True Business Sustainability

What does this mean for me? What opportunities open up? What is new? (partner walk): participants met in pairs and went for a digestive after lunch walk investigating the questions, allowing them to select among more personal dimensions or discussing concrete business insights. They were equipped with the instruction to focus on listening and were requested not to interrupt or comment on what their partner said. They came back to the room with great energy and a good connection both within and among themselves. The condensation process had started.

What insights have I gained? (silent individual reflection space): without any sharing, each partner was invited to find a comfortable space with his journal and to reflect quietly on what he had learned so far during the day and the insights gained, either personally or for the company. The palpable energy in the room was one of high concentration and creative depth. We had prepared a large wall with paper where partners wrote down their company insights for others to read and share. Rather than debriefing in the plenum, I invited all participants simply to read the comments of their colleagues.

What might be a sustainability vision for our company? (fishbowl set-up): the three ‘elders’ present (board members and CEO) were invited to have a conversation among themselves in an inner circle of chairs with the rest of the management team seated in a circle around them. For half an hour, the participants held the space for a deepening and soul-searching conversation among the most senior partners. The level of attention and listening was most intense in the best of ways. In a follow-on 30 minutes, the outside circle – consisting of the slightly younger management team – were invited to reflect on what they heard and what questions and answers emerged for them. The profound, open and honest, critical and daring discussion showed how the existing company culture had already prepared the team to engage in such conversations. Entirely new ideas arose, including the need for playfulness and prototyping, some conversations also queried many of the initial unquestioned assumptions. We were suddenly at a point where we had more questions than answers. The potential was raw; we were further from where we wanted to be and not quite where the CEO had hoped. This was a critical point to assess how to embrace this potential and capture its value while it was so ripe.

What does sustainability mean for your company? (assigned small teams): the break allowed me to reflect on what was next needed and to amend my agenda. I replaced an exercise that I had pre-agreed with the CEO, with an exercise that would allow everybody to walk away with clarity, while also capturing the value that had been generated thus far. This would enable discussions within small teams to arrive at a concrete outcome that could be shared. To add a notion of playfulness, I suggested that the team that defined sustainability for the company using the least amount of words would win. That turned creativity on! On another wall of paper, the teams designed their ideas, and subsequently pitched their slogans – some of which were pure magic. In the process, they redefined not only the company but also themselves, both individually and collectively. I had to entirely redesign the closing hour of the day.

What more is needed to make this day complete? (standing bar talk): rather than coming up with a plan for the next hour, I decided to ask participants what they each needed to leave with a feeling of accomplishment. The answers varied from a) immediate next steps for action, b) practical application of these great slogans (step 8), c) how does this translate to our plan for the next year, or three years, and d) I want you to give us a lecture on the True Business Sustainability Typology (the exercise I had pre-agreed with the CEO, which I couldn’t ignore!). While I asked each of them to note what they would do a) the next day at work and b) the next week at work, I prepared a short guide as to how to translate the session’s outcomes into the next one and three years, as well as a suggested path on including the rest of the company. The condensation process was achieved when each participant committed their next actions to the rest of the team. My short and medium-term suggestions focused on attending to where energy flows with ease rather than pursuing paths of high resistance (the philosophy of water) and to attend to the opportunities they would attract as a result of this new level of shared. And, of course, I gave my short 10-minute lecture on true business sustainability, using it to further anchor what we had worked on all day.

How do you feel as we leave this workshop? (circle seating): every participant closed the day with some words on how he had begun the day and how he was leaving it. I have never experienced a more energized, inspired and motivated group of engineers in my life! What a humbling moment to be a part of.

These 10 steps are by no means the only way for a company to begin its shared journey of anchoring strategy and vision in the face of global challenges, but they show one way that worked. I am keen to see many companies succeed in this deep change. Kathy Miller in her last blog examined the different mental models that change agents can have and explained that, depending on which model they hold, their approaches will differ significantly. In many ways the above workshop was a means to get a change process going, only. An initial step in a much longer journey.

If you are interested in learning more about these processes, methodologies, and tools, please get in touch via katrin.muff@bsl-lausanne.ch.

The images used in this blog are copyright of Katrin Muff.