Lessons from history: why what we say about sustainability matters

What does the history of the American progressive movement in the early 20th century have to do with sustainable business in the early 21st? Lately I’ve been reflecting on the relevance of my earlier academic research to the day job I do now, making some unexpected but important connections.

The words we use to describe things matter a great deal. Around the turn of the last century, progressives in the US managed to capture and re-define a number of key terms of political debate. This linguistic victory wasn’t the only (or even the most significant) cause of the legislative and societal changes that swept through America in the first two decades of the 20th century. But, given that the so-called “progressive” movement was so disparate that sometimes the only thing its members agreed upon was the label itself, words mattered.

They still do – a lesson that the modern sustainable business movement seems to have forgotten. Too often, good intentions are mired in linguistic incoherence. Companies seem to choose labels at random: CSR, sustainability and corporate citizenship are all used more or less interchangeably, with only true aficionados able to articulate a difference. The trouble with this inconsistency is that it creates false divisions where none should exist.

The wider culture that has emerged around the core issue of sustainable business is even worse in terms of the proliferation of jargon and new terminology. Organisationally and linguistically, we’re a fragmented bunch. There’s conscious capitalism, breakthrough capitalism, long-term capitalism, capitalism 2.0 (or even 3.0). B-Corps jostle with social enterprises and mission-driven organisations for the limelight.

Of course, there are some great people doing fantastic work under all of these banners, but until we can agree on a common language we won’t see the systemic transformation we aspire to. That’s where the history lesson comes in.

The genius of the progressive intellectuals in late-nineteenth century America was that they didn’t invent new labels. Instead, they sought to subtly shift the definition of keywords that already resonated with the public. In their hands, individualism went from being shorthand for an absolute adherence to the doctrine of laissez faire government to being an argument for an activist state in certain areas. They managed this trick by arguing that the over-concentration of power and wealth was holding individuals back from fulfilling their full potential. Surely, they said, an individualistic society is one in which self-fulfilment is attainable for all.

Similarly, democracy morphed from being merely a form of government to being a way of life. It went from meaning little more than voting at elections every four years to something much more holistic that encompassed all of society – paving the way, in due course, for full-blown social democracy.

Today’s battle for the heart and soul of business will be won not by inventing new and unfamiliar labels, but by changing the ideological content of the corporate world’s core vocabulary. Rightly or wrongly, the terms ‘sustainability’, ‘social responsibility’ and ‘corporate citizenship’ have a negative connotation in the eyes of many businesspeople, just as socialismhad for the American electorate in 1900. The progressives didn’t change people’s mind about socialism, but they did manage to convince them to swallow many aspects of a socialist agenda by making their case in language the public already understood.

Rather than devoting our energies to making an ever stronger case for action on sustainability, we should focus on disputing, refining and evolving the accepted meaning of terms like efficiency, free market, value creation and leadership – words that already strike a chord with the mainstream of global business.

Efficiency is a jolly good thing, but it doesn’t just mean minimising financial costs. It means putting all resources – human and natural, as well as financial – to their best use. Similarly, a free market is not necessarily equivalent to an unregulated one, especially when some players in the market get so big that they are effectively able to abrogate the freedoms of their smaller competitors.

I often get asked what the definition of good leadership is, as this is an area which my organisation focuses on. I could say that good leadership is conscious, authentic, values-driven, compassionate, courageous and inclusive. But I generally don’t – not because I’m lazy or can’t remember all those words when put on the spot, but because each one of these qualifying terms provides an opportunity for the listener to decide that that kind of leadership doesn’t apply. My goal is not to see terms like ‘authenticity’ or ‘consciousness’ spread, but to see them become redundant.

We are on the brink of a new progressive moment. Business has replaced politics as the most important arena in which social reforms is enacted, but the dynamics of change remain largely the same. Looking back could yet be the best way to help us move forward.

The business futures hub is funded by The Crystal. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled “brought to you by”. Find out more here.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox.