Kalle reflects on a flow of rhetoric questions about resistance
Kalle Reflects on the Resistance to Strategic Sustainable Development
and
A Flow of Self‑Explaining Questions to Overcome Resistance
A Flow of Self‑Explaining Questions to Overcome Resistance
Takeaway for leaders at all levels everywhere
In previous reflections, I have described myriad systematically worsening societal symptoms that must be halted if civilization is to endure. They follow from a limited number of inbuilt design flaws—three ecological and five social. Flaws that, if left unaddressed by too many leaders, drive us toward points of no return.
These few design flaws continue to increase the severity and number of symptoms that will ultimately become fatal to civilization. That is, in fact, what “systematic” implies—the inherent logic of the design structure itself. Attempting to manage these worsening symptoms one by one—for example “solving climate change”—becomes, both in theory and in practice, impossible.
Leaders in science, politics, and business must therefore learn how to model futures that are attractive and scalable by simultaneously addressing these few design flaws. This is not only necessary; it is also more rewarding, and arguably more engaging, than continually chasing symptoms that arise precisely from not doing so.
This pattern has been deeply explored in science, validated both theoretically and empirically, and further tested through decades of applied research in private as well as public organizations and universities across the globe.
Here, then, lies a striking paradox:
We know the nature of the problems, we know a robust Operative System to address them strategically, and we know that such action is more advantageous than piecemeal responses; yet systemic change remains remarkably slow.
We know the nature of the problems, we know a robust Operative System to address them strategically, and we know that such action is more advantageous than piecemeal responses; yet systemic change remains remarkably slow.
Why is this—more specifically?
Eroding meaning of terms.
My previous reflection and podcast pointed to one such dominant mechanism—the erosion of meaning in key terms, which in turn opens the door to value‑based arguments and counterarguments, creating gray areas across political positions—while, in practice, they all miss the well‑established point.
My previous reflection and podcast pointed to one such dominant mechanism—the erosion of meaning in key terms, which in turn opens the door to value‑based arguments and counterarguments, creating gray areas across political positions—while, in practice, they all miss the well‑established point.
A series of simple questions may help frame further reflections on resistance.
Are the increasing severity and number of symptoms themselves in doubt?
For example, the systematically rising concentrations of pollutants (Boundary conditions 1 and 2), the systematic physical degradation of ecosystems (Boundary condition 3), and the systematic erosion of trust at geopolitical levels (Boundary conditions 4–8). Or is the increase in seriousness and number of symptoms from these design patterns, in fact, well established both theoretically and empirically?
For example, the systematically rising concentrations of pollutants (Boundary conditions 1 and 2), the systematic physical degradation of ecosystems (Boundary condition 3), and the systematic erosion of trust at geopolitical levels (Boundary conditions 4–8). Or is the increase in seriousness and number of symptoms from these design patterns, in fact, well established both theoretically and empirically?
Is it perceived as unlikely that innovations addressing fundamental survival challenges will prove competitive in future markets?
Yet we already see how scalable solutions based on sustainable flows of energy and materials grow rapidly, often driven by their own internal dynamics. Still, this seems to have limited impact on most decision‑makers who are anchored in incumbent systems. Why are clear survival issues not sufficiently convincing?
Yet we already see how scalable solutions based on sustainable flows of energy and materials grow rapidly, often driven by their own internal dynamics. Still, this seems to have limited impact on most decision‑makers who are anchored in incumbent systems. Why are clear survival issues not sufficiently convincing?
Is there a lack of trust in our ability to navigate such transitions at an appropriate pace?
Not too fast—risking investments with returns coming too late.
Not too slow—risking loss of competitiveness.
History offers many examples of both pitfalls under major and inevitable paradigm shifts. But does this uncertainty justify not even engaging with robust knowledge of how to stay in between?
Not too fast—risking investments with returns coming too late.
Not too slow—risking loss of competitiveness.
History offers many examples of both pitfalls under major and inevitable paradigm shifts. But does this uncertainty justify not even engaging with robust knowledge of how to stay in between?
Or are leaders awaiting precise scientific forecasts?
Must science provide exact timelines for when critical thresholds will be reached before action is justified? And if so—is that not a self‑defeating argument? When risks of inaction are systematically increasing, and opportunities are both inevitable and advantageous for competent leadership, is uncertainty not a reason to act rather than to delay?
Must science provide exact timelines for when critical thresholds will be reached before action is justified? And if so—is that not a self‑defeating argument? When risks of inaction are systematically increasing, and opportunities are both inevitable and advantageous for competent leadership, is uncertainty not a reason to act rather than to delay?
Finally, is the multitude of proposed methods, frameworks, and tools itself a source of confusion?
UN SDGs, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, Science‑Based Targets, Corporate Social Responsibility, Biomimicry, Bioeconomy, Life Cycle Assessment…yes, there are many more of those. But do they not each address selected aspects of impacts and solutions? And therefore, taken together, do they not point toward a need for an Operative System that integrates their insights and shows how they can be understood cohesively—and then selected when helpful to complement tailored planning?
UN SDGs, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, Science‑Based Targets, Corporate Social Responsibility, Biomimicry, Bioeconomy, Life Cycle Assessment…yes, there are many more of those. But do they not each address selected aspects of impacts and solutions? And therefore, taken together, do they not point toward a need for an Operative System that integrates their insights and shows how they can be understood cohesively—and then selected when helpful to complement tailored planning?
Concluding reflections
Taken together, these questions point toward a conclusion that is difficult to ignore:
It is not the absence of data and know‑how, nor of viable and self‑beneficial pathways, that explains the inertia.
It is not the absence of data and know‑how, nor of viable and self‑beneficial pathways, that explains the inertia.
I have yet to encounter a truly rational argument against engaging with the Operative System for strategic sustainable development, found under www.stepwise.global. It has evolved over more than three decades—peer‑reviewed in both theory and practice. The barrier, therefore, may lie elsewhere. Where?
Perhaps in social psychology?
Reluctance to deviate from prevailing norms. A discomfort with challenging established narratives framed in cultural terms—where strength is associated with certainty, and considerate doubt with weakness. But is this sufficient to explain the inertia, when both the logic and the self‑benefits of acting are so compelling?
Reluctance to deviate from prevailing norms. A discomfort with challenging established narratives framed in cultural terms—where strength is associated with certainty, and considerate doubt with weakness. But is this sufficient to explain the inertia, when both the logic and the self‑benefits of acting are so compelling?
Or couldn’t there be a deeper, almost philosophical dimension?
The speed and granularity of modern industrial development leave little room to question its foundational assumptions. Attention is continuously drawn to the constant noise of conflicts, disruptions, and fluctuations in the global economy driven by such dynamics. Or, in other words, immediate cost pressures emerging from a flawed design that remains largely unquestioned due to stress and time constraints. But if not then—when is there time to reflect on such fundamentals?
The speed and granularity of modern industrial development leave little room to question its foundational assumptions. Attention is continuously drawn to the constant noise of conflicts, disruptions, and fluctuations in the global economy driven by such dynamics. Or, in other words, immediate cost pressures emerging from a flawed design that remains largely unquestioned due to stress and time constraints. But if not then—when is there time to reflect on such fundamentals?
And so, the essential question remains:
If the direction is increasingly evident, and the means to change it are known—what, ultimately, prevents us from acting accordingly, knowing what we know?
Karl-Henrik Robèrt
Professor
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Campus Gräsvik,Valhallavägen 1
SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden
Phone: +46 455385000
Blekinge Institute of Technology helps you take strategic steps toward sustainability!
Research for Real Change | Training for Leaders | Coaching for Role Models | A Movement for Change