̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Gemma Cranston

Study demonstrates how academia and business can ensure sustainability of resources

sc604 — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 23:01:00 +0000

Companies both depend upon and impact the environment, and are subject to interdependent pressures over food, energy, water and the environment. Yet their perspectives are often overlooked by the research community, which lacks access to their business thinking. Equally, businesses find it challenging to engage with the academic community, and to define researchable questions that would benefit from more detailed analysis.

̽��ֱ��study, published in the journal Sustainability Science and organised by the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, included over 250 people, including academics and companies such as Asda, EDF Energy, HSBC and Nestlé, to produce research priorities that are both scientifically feasible and include results that can be practically implemented by the business community.

“ ̽��ֱ��process of co-design engages businesses at the outset to help define the challenges, limitations and ambitions of research agendas. These considerations ultimately have important consequences for the impact and practicality of research outputs,” said lead author Dr Jonathan Green, formerly of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Department of Geography. “Greater investment in the complex but productive relations between the private sector and research community will create deeper and more meaningful collaboration and cooperation”.

̽��ֱ��project is part of the work of the Nexus Network, an extensive network of researchers and stakeholders coordinated by the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), the ̽��ֱ�� of Sussex, the ̽��ֱ�� of East Anglia, the ̽��ֱ�� of Sheffield and the ̽��ֱ�� of Exeter, and supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

̽��ֱ��study was carried out over five months and involved researchers collecting over 700 questions from business practitioners, academics, policy-makers and members of the public. Over 50 per cent of these questions were submitted by businesses from a range of sectors, including retail, utilities, manufacturing and consumer goods. These questions were then reviewed by an expert group of businesses and researchers, who narrowed this list down to 40 questions that reflect key challenges for corporate sustainability.

Dr Bhaskar Vira, one of the project leads from the Department of Geography and the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute said: “We were able to bring together 40 experts with a huge diversity of backgrounds and knowledge. This unique group of senior business practitioners and interdisciplinary researchers, who represented 13 universities, 16 businesses and other important partners including ESRC, were able to inform the debate by their ability to answer both ‘Is this question answerable through an academic research project?’, but also ‘If answered, would this change the way we do business?”

Several themes emerged from the study, highlighting the issues that require more research and better engagement between the academic and business communities. These included research around development of pragmatic yet credible tools that allow businesses to incorporate the interactions between food, energy and water demands in a changing environment into their decision-making; the role of social considerations and livelihoods in business decision-making in relation to sustainable management; identification of the most effective levers for behaviour change; and understanding incentives or circumstances that allow individuals and businesses to take a leadership stance on these issues.

“As pressures start to mount, placing enormous demands upon natural resources, we are increasingly asked for support by businesses who want practical approaches that they can apply to address their growing challenges,” said Dr Gemma Cranston, project lead from CISL. “Co-designing new research is critical to provide business with robust and rigorous approaches that are academically sound but that are also directly applicable to a business context. We have identified priority areas that can guide new research development and look forward to seeing a greater integration of businesses into collaborative research agendas.”

It will be the role of multi-disciplinary groups of researchers and business practitioners to devise the projects that will deliver the solutions to these pressing issues around food, energy, water and the environment.

Reference
Jonathan Green et al. ‘Research priorities for managing the impacts and dependencies of business upon food, energy, water and the environment.’ Sustainability Science (2016). DOI: 10.1007/s11625-016-0402-4

Collaboration between business and academia can identify the most urgent research priorities to ensure the sustainability of food, energy, water and the environment, according to a new study.

As pressures start to mount, placing enormous demands upon natural resources, we are increasingly asked for support by businesses who want practical approaches that they can apply to address their growing challenges.

Gemma Cranston

Asian Development Bank

High Mountain Agribusiness and Livelihood Improvement Project in Nepal

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Opinion: How Davos power brokers can start tackling major environmental risks

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:48:05 +0000

̽��ֱ��World Economic Forum (WEF) published its annual Global Risks Report in the run up to its annual meeting in Davos. Food and water crises, energy price shocks, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, extreme weather events and failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation, it said, are the biggest threats facing society.

Three of the top five global risks in terms of likelihood and three of the top five global risks in terms of impact have links to the environment. Of even greater concern, however, are the linkages between these systems, and the trade-offs associated with decisions in one area affecting another.

This growing recognition of environmental risks for business, and their interconnections, reflects what is emerging as “nexus” thinking in the natural and social sciences.

Those with long memories will recall that these issues have been high on the Davos agenda for much of the past decade and, therefore, discussed by the great and the good of corporate and political life. So why has significant business action not necessarily followed?

Making connections

Five years ago the WEF launched a report on the “Water-Energy-Food-Climate Change nexus”. It was a recognition that water concerns were closely linked to issues such as inequality, terrorism, famine, poverty and disease. This set the stage for business to consider a rounded approach to addressing the intimately interwoven threats from water scarcity, energy and food security and climate change. While there has been some progress, however, there is little evidence of a step change in attitudes and practices commensurate with the scale of the challenges.

Joined up thinking is needed. shutterstock.com

One reason for this inaction is what the Bank of England’s governor, Mark Carney, called the “tragedy of the horizon” in his speech to the insurance industry in September 2015.

̽��ֱ��impacts of many of these interconnected environmental risks fall outside the traditional decision-making horizons of most of those involved. Current decision makers have little incentive to fix the problem, even if they acknowledge and understand the risks.

This is illustrated in the latest Global Risks Report, which highlights an alarming finding:

… the relative absence of environmental risks and, more generally, of long-term issues among the top concerns of business leaders in their respective countries.

Myopic visions

Of more than 13,000 business executives in more than 140 economies whose views were sought in the WEF’s Executive Opinion Survey none identified environmental risks as among their top risks for doing business, both in terms of impact or likelihood.

Similarly, there is a stark contrast in the report’s identification of the top five global risks of highest concern over longer and shorter time frames. ̽��ֱ��four most important risks over a ten-year period are all environment-related (water, climate change, extreme weather events and food crises), but none of these feature in the 18-month time horizon.

Responding to potential environmental risks seems to always be just beyond the current decision horizon – important, but not requiring immediate action. We hear much about long-term planning, but it’s about time that environment risks were brought into the here and now.

To do that we need to understand why there has been a lacklustre response from the global community. One possibility is that key people and institutions – from business, academia and politics – are not yet efficiently working together to create solutions, despite meetings such as those that are taking place this week at Davos.

Drought is part of wider problems that affect business. EPA/Barbara Walton

Co-creating responses, now

̽��ֱ��Global Risks Report highlights the need to recognise joint interests and bring people together across shared priorities, but we still lack some tangible way to bring these common agendas together.

̽��ֱ��time is ripe for business leaders to shape the research that will enable them to better respond to major challenges across the nexus and empower them to act sooner rather than later. Instead of a reactive stance, responding when threats become immediate and unavoidable, there is an opportunity to shift to being proactive and collaborative.

As part of the Nexus2020 project the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership recently convened academics and business leaders to collectively prioritise key issues that need to be addressed. We identified how to help companies manage their dependencies and impacts upon food, energy, water and the environment.

Those who are gathering at Davos need to seize the opportunity to overcome the tragedy of their short time horizons and work together to identify key questions and possible solutions. Otherwise, as Mark Carney has warned, by the time a problem becomes high on the agenda, it is often too late to respond. Moreover, these interconnected challenges will be harder and more costly to solve if action is delayed. ̽��ֱ��WEF presents a unique opportunity to co-create responses to the issues that are highlighted in this year’s Global Risks Report. Putting this off till the next meeting should not be an option.

Bhaskar Vira, Reader in Political Economy at the Department of Geography and Fellow of Fitzwilliam College; Director, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge; Gemma Cranston, Senior Programme Manager, Natural Capital Leaders Programme, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, and Jonathan Green, Postdoctoral research associate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

Find out more about the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge's activities at the World Economic Forum 2016 here.

Bhaskar Vira (Department of Geography), Gemma Cranston (Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership) and Jonathan Green (Department of Geography) discuss what global powers need to do to tackle some of the biggest threats facing society.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes