Global instability isn't a distraction from sustainability work. It is the work
June 18 - As sustainability teams prepare for London Climate Action Week and eye New York's summit in September, a sobering question looms: will the international order even hold long enough to support a meaningful sustainability agenda? With wars, political assassinations, attacks on science and rising inequality and authoritarianism, global instability is escalating.
But this is not a distraction from our work. It is our work. Sustainability has never only been about goals, metrics or technologies. It's about people – about protecting lives, livelihoods, rights and opportunity on a finite, fragile planet. If we ignore rising threats to life, freedom and justice, we are part of the problem.
And yet the path forward isn't neat or certain. Many of us are asking: How do we lead in this moment? When the ground is shifting beneath us, what still holds?
As we argue in our recent report, Competing in the Age of Disruption, there are no perfect answers. But here are some of the most important questions that we need to engage with, both individually and collectively, right now:
When and how should we speak up?
Many of us are part of institutions with influence. In moments of crisis, using that voice matters – thoughtfully, and where it carries legitimacy and weight.
Professionals of all kinds have a duty to stand up for truth and reason in public life. As historian Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny, 'to abandon facts is to abandon freedom'. That abandonment is already well underway in some jurisdictions.
But knowing when and how to speak up is not always straightforward. Silence can be complicity, but speaking without listening – or without credibility – can do harm. We are grappling with where our voices matter most, and how to speak in ways that build trust, not division.
How do we build coalitions in a broken world?
Geopolitical instability and democratic backsliding affect every effort to build a fairer, more resilient future. Many of the alliances we've relied on are under strain. Political divisions, mistrust and economic precarity make collaboration harder but also more urgent. We can't wait for consensus or calm to return, we need to engage now with the realities of shifting power, contested legitimacy and emerging centres of influence.
That means working with those who are already shaping what comes next – not just defending what's being lost. Coalitions of consequence are forming where capability, legitimacy and intent align to drive meaningful change.
These include mayors and city blocs reshaping infrastructure and inclusion; middle and emerging powers investing in green industrial growth and holding the line on multilateralism; cross-sector alliances building the sustainable industries of the future. What's our role in helping these new coalitions gain traction, legitimacy and practical impact in a fractured world?
Can we stay with the messiness – without burning out or giving in?
Systemic change is happening, and not always in ways that serve people or planet. Progress is never clean or uncontested. There is no end state, no single breakthrough, no moment when the battle is 'won', just a series of choices: to act or stay silent, to protect gains or make tactical compromises. Some messiness is unavoidable, but not all of it. Part of the work is knowing when to sit with complexity, and when to cut through noise, clarify direction and let go of what's no longer working.
That constant negotiation takes a toll. The exhaustion comes not only from the scale of the task, but from navigating tough choices and moral grey zones day after day.
But we know the long arc of history does not bend toward justice on its own. It bends because people pull it, counter-acting those that are pulling in the opposite direction. The work is to stay in the fight – not with illusions of perfection, but with a refusal to give up on what's possible.
How do we navigate the battle for meaning and trust?
The fight over sustainability was never just a technology or policy debate - it's a contest over meaning and values: who defines progress, who gets blamed, and what futures are seen as desirable.
The contest won't be won with facts alone. We are up against powerful, coordinated forces - strategic disinformation campaigns, manufactured cynicism, populist manipulation. We need narratives that resonate - on progress, fairness, security, opportunity and belonging.
Institutions – including businesses – also have a vital role to play, protecting access to evidence, fostering public trust and keeping space open for inclusive, democratic dialogue.
Moral purity can't be a prerequisite for action. Institutions carry history. The same systems and countries that once upheld exploitation also nurtured the movements that fought back. What matters now is how those in power respond to today's defining challenges.
What does leadership look like when the answers aren't clear?
We are learning, often uncomfortably, that leadership in this moment involves difficult trade-offs and carries the risk of backlash, being misunderstood, even damaging the causes we care about. In such situations, institutions often default to caution, but caution alone will not meet this moment.
We need to act with integrity, stay open and thoughtful, and try bold things without being paralysed by fear of saying the wrong thing or choosing the imperfect path.
It's understandable to fear for our futures and those of our children, but we should try to make that fear a source of resolve, not retreat.
And we must hold on to the possibility of success – not as naive hope, but as a reasoned belief that change is still achievable. It's a time to connect, adapt, act – and to hold fast to the values and principles that brought many of us into this work in the first place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Sky News Business Podcast: Markets react to US strikes on Iran
Joining Darren McCaffrey are former secretary of state for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Greg Clark, and AJ Bell's Russ Mould.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour MPs show support for activists promoting 'transgender Cinderella' to primary kids
Labour MPs have shown support for an activist group which promotes ' transgender Cinderella' books to primary school children. Pop'n'Olly, which visits classrooms to teach gender ideology, welcomed politicians to a Parliamentary drop-in event which it said was sponsored by Nadia Whittome MP. The gathering included Labour MPs Kim Leadbeater, Paul Davies, Darren Paffey and Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty. These four MPs posed for social media photos in front of the Pop'n'Olly logo with a sign reading: 'I support LGBT + education'. Last night, campaigners condemned their support for the group as 'hugely concerning'. Pop'n'Olly, which describes itself as an 'LGBT+ educational resource', tells children that sex is 'assigned' at birth and gender can be seen as 'a spectrum'. It has also produced a book aimed at primary schools, 'Jamie - A Transgender Cinderella Story', featuring a girl who gets to dress as a 'boy called Jamie' for a ball and win the heart of a princess. Pop'n'Olly distributes this and other books to schools, and claims to have donated a total of 12,000 to 4,000 primaries. After the event, on June 3rd, Mr Davies reposted his photo on his own open Facebook page with the caption: 'Today I showed my support for LGBT+ education. 'I believe that every student deserves to see themselves reflected in what they learn.' However, many of Pop'n'Olly's teaching materials are highly controversial. Among them is a video called 'Gender Explained for Kids', which is marketed as 'family friendly'. It says: 'Most people's gender will be the same as their assigned sex, although this will not be the case for everyone.' It adds that gender 'can be something that someone discovers about themselves as they grow older'. And it says: 'Some people find it useful to think of gender as a spectrum'. The group's training lead, Jack Lynch, who identifies as 'non-binary', wrote last year about speaking to a group of children aged nine to 11 at a primary in Sussex 'about gender identity'. Lynch said a nine-year-old girl said during the session: 'I feel like you feel. I don't fit into a box that everyone else seems to fit into. 'I don't like doing normal girl things. I like football and wearing boys' clothes.' In 2021, Pop'n'Olly celebrated on Instagram after being awarded an 'honorary Mermaids' certificate by the now discredited Mermaids organisation. This month's event was revealed on Facebook where the group tagged in the MPs attending and boasted: 'A MASSIVE thank you to over 20 MPs, ministers and staffers who attended our drop in event in @ukparliament on Tuesday. 'We had so many fantastic conversations, shared valuable information and witnessed such amazing support for LGBT+ inclusive education at primary school! 'We have come away feeling proud, hopefully and renewed in our passion for this incredibly important work. 'A huge thank you to @nadiawhittomemp for sponsoring our event and for her ongoing support for LGBT+ Education.' The event has sparked concern that some Labour MPs may not be attuned to concerns about teaching transgender concepts to young children. Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend said: 'Pop'n'Olly is an activist organisation masquerading as an innocent, fun, children's educational resource. 'Their message to little children is that they may have been born 'wrong' and need fixing. 'They introduce doubt into impressionable children's minds – am I a girl or am I a boy? 'No child should be asking this question, as if they have a choice. 'Trans ideology can only cause confusion, doubt and fear for children too young to understand it is not the reality.' She added the transgender Cinderella story could be seen as 'turning a lesbian into a straight boy in order to win the hand of the princess'. 'It is hugely concerning that so many Labour MPs openly support such regressive, sexist and homophobic views,' she said. Parent groups have previously warned gender ideology reinforces old-fashioned stereotypes of 'male' and 'female'. The previous Tory government's guidance for 'gender-questioning children' says schools should not teach 'gender identity' as fact. However, this has been 'under review' since Labour took power last year. Pop'n'Olly is a private company which provides LGBT+ teaching resources, books, staff training and direct child-facing sessions to schools. While the company is not officially sanctioned by the Department for Education (DfE), headteachers are free to invite them or any other education company in to work with their school. Pop'n'Olly was created by Olly Pike, 39, who says he produces 'inclusive videos and children's books that combat homophobia and transphobia', while 'drawing on his background in theatre'. A spokesman for Pop'n'Olly said: 'We are incredibly proud of the work we do at Pop'n'Olly which supports schools, parents and carers in teaching about diversity and inclusion. 'Our work is supported by many thousands of teachers, educators, parents and carers, designed and delivered by education experts, in line with all current legislation and informed by research.' A Government spokesman said: 'Schools have a clear duty to safeguard their pupils – and should make sure children are never taught concepts that they are too young to understand, and never made to feel that not fitting with gender stereotypes means they were born in the wrong body. 'Our review of the Relationship, Sex, and Health Education guidance will put children's safety at its core, making clear that concepts around sex and gender should only be taught in a way that reflects the facts and law on biological sex and gender reassignment.' The MPs did not respond to attempts to contact them, and Labour declined to comment on their behalf.
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Iran's closure of strait of Hormuz would be monumental act of self-harm, says Lammy
Any Iranian move to close the strait of Hormuz waterway would be an act of monumental self-harm, David Lammy, the UK's foreign secretary, said, as he continued to refuse to endorse the Israeli and American strikes on Iran, or lay out the UK view of their lawfulness. Lammy said there was no need for the British government to say if the strikes were legal since the UK was not involved in the action and had not been asked by the US to take part, or to allow the US to use the UK's Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean to target Iran. The US used B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles to hit Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night. Lammy denied that the US was involved in regime change, saying the attacks were very targeted. No assessment had yet been completed on the effectiveness of the US attacks, he admitted, raising questions over whether Iran has moved its enriched uranium to a new site. Lammy, in an hour-long statement to the Commons, also disclosed the first RAF plane had evacuated 63 British nationals and their dependents to Cyprus from Israel. He said negotiations were under way to help the 4,000 British nationals in Israel that had registered with the Foreign Office. Referring to the Iranian parliament's decision to vote for the closure of the strait of Hormuz, he said contingency plans were in place. He told MPs: 'Be in no doubt we are prepared to defend our personnel, our assets and those of our allies and partners. We are closely monitoring how energy markets are responding to the conflict. We have been extremely clear to the Iranians. Any action to blockade their Straits of Hormuz would be a monumental act of self-harm, making a diplomatic solution even harder.' Lammy also repeated his plea for Iran to return to the negotiating table. He said: 'My message for Tehran was clear, take the off-ramp, dial this thing down, and negotiate with the United States seriously and immediately. 'The alternative is an even more destructive and far-reaching conflict, which could have unpredictable consequences.' For the first time since the crisis broke party political splits started to emerge with Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists and Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, Emily Thornberry, challenging the trustworthiness of the US and the legality of its action. Lammy was also repeatedly asked if the UK's reputation as an upholder of rule-based order was not damaged if it could not admit the acts of its allies were unlawful. By contrast the Conservative frontbench and Reform MPs congratulated the US's actions, with some MPs backing regime change. Lammy said: 'It's not our belief that it is for us to change the regime of any country – that is for the people of that country.' He added 'I am confident that this is not about regime change and the Israelis have been clear they are not attacking the civilian population.' Asked about the Israeli bombing of the gates of Evin prison in Tehran, he said he had been reassured in phone call by the Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar that 'nuclear targets remained their objective and focus at this time'. The UK has long taken the view that any public criticism of the US only reduces the UK's private influence, but it has been rare for the government to be so circumspect in setting out its views on such a major crisis. Lammy did implicitly question the wisdom of a US strategy based heavily on air power, pointing out that 'strikes cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has acquired over several decades nor any regime ambition to deploy that knowledge to build a nuclear weapon'. Thornberry expressed her concern over whether diplomatic negotiations favoured by Lammy would occur since that required a modicum of trust. She said given that Trump tore up the previous nuclear deal in 2018, Israel had ended the previous US-Israel talks by striking Iran and an emboldened Benjamin Netanyahu was talking about regime change, it is difficult to see how negotiations based on trust can take place. Lammy also broke new ground by saying for the first time that the UK's focus in any future diplomatic negotiations would be a requirement for Iran to accept zero enrichment of uranium, saying we have 'moved on' from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that allowed Iran to enrich to 3.75%. Lammy insisted that Iran was in breach of its obligations by enriching uranium at levels of purity as high as 60% and said the country was engaging in deception and obfuscation. Speaking to the BBC, he also refused to say if he agreed with the latest US intelligence assessment that Iran was close to securing a nuclear weapon, saying instead that he relied on the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency , the UN's nuclear inspectorate, which said in its latest report it had no evidence that Iran was seeking to make a nuclear bomb.
