Some of you may have seen the Richard Dimbleby Lecture, titled "Facing the Future" as delivered by HRH The Prince of Wales, last week.
The lecture received a mixed response in part because of the position the Prince holds in British public life. The core of his lecture was an interesting one - that the global population has increasingly become disconnected from the natural ecosystem of which we are a part. He makes the point that the industrialised world has increased its demands on resources to such an extent over the past 30 years that it is currently exceeding nature’s capacity to renew by 25% each year. Put another way, we have used up what we can safely take from nature before the end of September - in accounting speak we have been living off capital for the last quarter of the year. While this is not a healthy or sustainable position, it is nothing compared to the deficit that will arise with the projected growth in population from six billion to nine billion by 2050.
As part of this lecture the Prince also reiterated the importance of refining our ability to measure what we do. He mentioned the work of the Accounting for Sustainability project and the encouragement he gets from the fact that many private companies, government departments and agencies are testing the ideas it has promoted in the field.
The following day, by coincidence, I received the latest report from the New Economics Foundation titled "The Unhappy planet index 2.0 - Why good lives don't have to cost the Earth". It is something I have featured before, and while one can question some aspects of its analysis, it does pose some important questions about how we have come to measure performance and success in most western economies over the past few decades. Perhaps now is the time for a rethink. Do have a look at the full report, here are a few extracts:
- The highest Happy Planet Index (HPI) score is that of Costa Rica (76.1 out of 100). Reported highest life satisfaction in the world, second highest life expectancy of the Americas (second only to Canada) and a per capita footprint of 2.3 global hectares.
- Of the next 10 countries, all but one are in Latin America.
- The bottom ten countries were all sub- Saharan African countries.
- Many of the countries that do well are small islands.
- While most countries have seen their scores improve between 1990 and 2005 the three largest countries China, India and USA have seen their scores drop.
- Different countries do well on different components: highest life expectancies (Japan 82.3 years, Hong Kong 81.9 years); highest life satisfaction Costa Rica followed by Ireland, Norway and Denmark; highest ecological footprint Luxembourg, UAE and USA.
As governments around the world start to develop an integrated policy response to the challenges of climate change, food and energy security, they should have regard to the thinking in this report. As I mentioned in a previous blog, the challenge will be to present a vision of the future that is engaging and inspirational, one that can motivate behavioural change. Just as importantly, it's a vision that those in business need to challenge themselves on if they want to remain competitive.
As always I am pleased to hear your views and comments on the postings, and to take questions about corporate reporting.
David
Comments