I’m on a reading kick of business and entrepreneurship books. As you might expect, advice varies between authors. What’s more interesting to me, though, is that the baseline assumptions also vary.
The dominant assumption throughout the business world (well, the English-speaking business world that I operate in, anyway) is that companies want growth, and they want it fast. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve had to clarify that yes, we’re a young science-based company in the sustainability space, but no, we’re not a start-up—we don’t want investment and we don’t want rapid growth.
It wasn’t until I started reading Company of One, by Paul Jarvis, that I realised that baseline assumption had also been operating in every other business book I’ve read to date. The vague sense of discomfort I felt from reading books designed for start-ups was coming from the disconnect between that assumption and our reality. We want to turn a profit, yes, and we want to grow, but we don’t want to sell the most appealing possible product to the most people possible. What we want is to change the chemical industry, and that requires a different approach.
Jarvis’s book questions assumptions about growth, and points out that rapid growth often takes companies under, rather than making them successful. What about setting limits on growth, he posits? Companies like Southwest Airlines have succeeded by deliberately slowing their growth, enforcing upper limits that kept the company from losing touch with its core values. Focusing on becoming a better company, rather than a bigger one, is often the key to success.
So I’ll be developing metrics for Green Rose over the next few months that have nothing to do with revenue, and everything to do with impact. How many impactful partnerships have we created? How many chemists have we empowered to become green leaders? How many companies have we steered away from sustainability misconceptions? How many clients feel that our services have really helped them?
This also got me thinking about the other topic always on my mind: our economic system.
If we’re questioning whether growth is good for business, we naturally need to consider whether it’s good for countries. How can a country become better, rather than bigger?
This movement is already in progress. Gross domestic product (GDP) is no longer considered a very good measure of welfare. Alternative metrics like the UN Human Development Index, OECD Better Life Index, the Green GDP, and the World Happiness Report are redefining what it means to be a successful country. The UK Office of National Statistics is working on metrics for inclusive income and inclusive wealth.
I’m interested to see how these two alternative growth concepts intersect. Will alternative metrics trickle into start-up pitches? Sustainable investment is a growing trend, but (as far as I know) we’re not yet seeing VCs asking for evidence of say, environmental justice, biodiversity, or happiness impacts. If I’m wrong, let me know! I’d love to hear that questions beyond market size and carbon footprint are being asked.
In the end, this post is producing more questions than answers. What’s your take on sustainable growth, for companies or countries? Do we need to set hard limits, like planetary boundaries? What will it take to get from here to there?