Communicating sustainability under increasing public budget constraints
Jari Lyytimäki
Abstract:
Sustainability is simultaneously the fundamental and a secondary challenge for societies. It is a fundamental challenge defining the operating space for humanity, but as a long-term, wide-spanning, and holistic issue, it is often overlooked by actors focusing on narrowly defined and short-term economic or social concerns. The main aim of sustainability communication is to create bridges between these co- existing realms of long-term and immediate challenges. This paper discusses the use of sustainability strategies and indicators as tools to encourage a wide variety of actors, including private enterprises, to take concrete actions that produce systemic changes towards sustainability.
Experiences from the ongoing national-level sustainable development commitment process of Finland are presented, and lessons for Latin America are identified. A key lesson is the importance of transparency in sustainability communication.
Keywords:
indicators, public-private partnerships, strategies, sustainable
development, sustainability communication, systemic transformation
Dr. Ja ri Lyytimä ki works a s a senior resea rcher a t the Finnish Environment Institute, Environmenta l Policy Centre. His resea rch interests include environmenta l
communica tion, susta ina bility indica tors, a nd multidisciplina ry environmenta l studies.
Lyytimäki Jari (2014). Communicating sustainability under increasing public budget constraints. Latin American Journal of Management for Sustainable Development 1(2/3):
137-145. https://doi.org/10.1504/LAJMSD.2014.065476
Introduction
Sustainable development is perhaps the most comprehensive challenge facing mankind, at least if understood widely as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Sustainable development, or sustainability, is characterised by numerous actors in different levels and sectors of society, as well as by a high level of complexity and uncertainty. It may involve non-linear changes,
discontinuities, and thresholds that unfold during long timeframes and are difficult to foresee (Hildén 2009). In other words, sustainability is an elusive target, and development is often hard to measure. For example, the widely cited research introducing the concept of a “safe operating space for humanity” was not able to assess whether the biophysical thresholds for two of the nine interlinked planetary boundaries were overstepped or not (Rockström et al. 2009). However, the grim overall message from this research – and from several other assessments (e.g. MA 2005; IPCC 2013) – was a clear one. Humanity is not on a sustainable path.
Everyday challenges encountered by individuals, business enterprises, and societies are typically very different from sustainability challenges.
Instead of global and intergenerational concerns, most social actors focus on coping with more immediate concerns, such as financial profit,
employment, food, or education. During economic hardships, societies are particularly inclined to turn away from long-term sustainability issues and focus on securing jobs and economic growth. A prime example is the waning of public interest in climate change after the financial crises that started from the United States in 2007. Despite the increasing evidence pointing out the detrimental economic, social, and ecological effects of climate change, public and policy attention to climate issues has recently decreased (IPCC 2013; Schmidt et al. 2013). Sustainability
communication has an important task in increasing the saliency, credibility, and legitimacy of science-based long-term concerns.
Sustainability strategies and indicators aim to increase the policy relevance of sustainable development. Sustainability strategies can be defined as coordinated, participatory, and iterative processes of thoughts and actions to achieve economic, environmental, and social sustainability objectives in a balanced and integrative manner (UNDESA 2002).
Sustainability indicators are here understood as selected variables aiming to highlight the key trends of sustainable development and to reduce information overload for data users. Sustainability communication is here
understood as communication on sustainability that aims to facilitate societal transformation towards the normative goals of sustainable development (Newig et al. 2013).
A huge number of different sustainability indicators exist (Herva et al.
2011; Pissouris 2013; Pires et al. 2014). Examples include indicators such as total material requirement, ecological footprint, human development index, and genuine progress indicator. However, it appears that the ability of individual indicators and indicator sets to motivate and guide key actors to take concrete actions towards sustainability is weak. The use of
sustainability indicators has, in many cases, been confined to a relatively small group of actors, and the direct impact on decision-making has been limited (Rosenström 2009; Rinne et al. 2012; Lehtonen 2013). Indicators may remain unnoticed despite the efforts to communicate them, and even when they are noticed they can produce misunderstandings or
disagreements among decision-makers (Lyytimäki et al. 2014;
Mascarenhas et al. 2014). Hence, it appears that the indicators have not been able to induce the social transformations that had been hoped for.
However, this may say more about over-ambitious expectations than the failure of sustainability indicators. Instead of serving as a direct basis for decisions, sustainability indicators may have more important roles in enhancing long-term social learning or as tools for awareness-raising.
The aim of this paper is to discuss the use of sustainability strategies and indicators as communicative tools for involving and encouraging a wide variety of actors to take concrete steps, eventually producing systemic transformations towards sustainability. The ongoing Finnish strategic national-level initiative “Sustainable Development Social Commitment” is presented as an illustrative case. Conclusions for overcoming the key challenges of indicator-based sustainability communication in a context of growing public sector financial constraints are presented. In particular, widely applicable lessons for sustainability communication enhancing public-private partnerships are sought. This contribution is based on an assumption that learning from the experiences from different contexts is a fruitful way to advance the management of sustainable development.
Sustainable Development Social Commitment
Finland has a relatively long tradition of sustainability strategies and indicators. The Finnish National Commission for Sustainable
Development (FNCSD) was established in 1993, and it has been operational to date as a broad-based institution connecting different
ministries and non-governmental organisations. The first Finnish Government Programme on Sustainable Development was approved in 1998. Indicators have had a key role in awareness raising and evaluating the implementation of the strategies. Various conceptual frameworks and methods of communication and interaction have been trialled in order to enhance the use of indicators (Lyytimäki and Rosenström 2008;
Rosenström 2009; Rinne et al. 2013). The implementation of the strategies has also been evaluated by external evaluators (Patosaari 2003; Ramboll 2009).
The most recent strategy document is a charter called “The Finland we want by 2050 –Society’s commitment to sustainable development”. It was finalised and accepted by the FNCSD in December 2013. Unlike the previous extensive and detailed national strategies, this one is a concise statement of six pages. It highlights and concretises the long-term
perspective by presenting a vision for the year 2050. The vision, called “A prosperous Finland within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature”, briefly outlines that:
“In 2050, every person in Finland will be a valuable member of society.
Finland will be an affluent society that lays the foundation for
sustainability and provides its citizens, communities, and companies with the conditions they need to operate sustainably. The carrying capacity of nature is not exceeded and natural resources are used in a sustainable manner. Finland will promote peace, equality, and justice, and offer practical and sustainable solutions to the world’s problems.”
In addition to the vision, the new strategy presents general principles for sustainability that serve as a general guideline for strategy implementation.
The principles include: global responsibility; cross-generational thinking;
the limited carrying capacity of nature; cooperation; and creative
utilisation of knowledge and expertise. Guided by these principles, eight objectives were outlined, accompanied by monitoring indicators aiming to concretise the objectives and measure the progress on a national level (Table 1). The objectives focus on the well-being of people and the environment, a healthy and sustainable economy, and the promotion of sustainable lifestyles. Objectives and monitoring indicators serve both as a conceptual framework and as concrete tools for communication and evaluation.
Table 1. Key objectives and proposed indicators
Objectives Monitoring indicators as identified in the expert group meeting (5 February 2013)
1. Equal prospects for well-being
Life expectancy at birth; Development co-operation (official development assistance); Income differences (the Gini coefficient); Young people not in education (age group 17-24); Life satisfaction (survey data) 2. A participatory
society for citizens
Voting turnout (parliamentary elections); Direct involvement with policy processes; Civil society (membership of NGOs); Public trust in political institutions; Transparent and uncorrupted governance (corruption perceptions index)
3. Sustainable work Employment rate; Economic dependence ratio;
Government research and development funding (grouped by societal goals); Sickness allowance and work-related accidents; Possibilities to have an influence on work conditions (survey data) 4. Sustainable local
communities
Average commuting distance; Availability of services (schools, shops, broadband connections); Transport modes (incl. walking and cycling); Proportion of population exposed to noise (survey data) 5. A carbon-neutral
society
Energy consumption; Share of renewable energy;
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; Carbon intensity (GHG/GNP)
6. An economy that is resource wise
Total consumption of natural resources (TMR);
Intensity of material use (TMR/GNP); Increment and drain of growing stock in forests; Research and development expenditure; Share of renewable energy in final energy consumption
7. Lifestyles that respect the carrying capacity of nature
Housing (floor area per person, energy consumption, GHG emissions, second homes); Passenger transport (emissions, travelled distances, air traffic); Food (consumption of foodstuffs, water footprint);
Recycling (Treatment of municipal solid waste) 8. Decision-making
that respects nature
Endangered species; Development of bird populations;
Ecological state of the Baltic Sea; Recreation in nature (survey data); Environmental awareness (survey data)
Operational commitments are introduced as the key method for reaching the objectives. These voluntary commitments are invited from all actors of society, including all administrative branches, private companies,
municipalities, non-governmental organisations, educational institutions, local actors, and even individual persons. By establishing these voluntary commitments, different societal actors can commit themselves to taking concrete steps consistent with sustainability objectives. The operational
commitments can include any concrete measures, changes in operating procedures, innovative trials, or other action invented by the actor. They should be carried out in a short- or middle-term timeframe (up to ten years). The focus of the commitment may be on all or only selected objectives.
Impact indicators focusing on individual commitments will be developed and used by the actors making the commitments. Indicators may also be used for other purposes, such as self-evaluation or corporate social and environmental reporting (e.g. Global Reporting Initiative), or they can be developed specifically for the sustainability commitment process. The key issue is that the indicator enables transparent and public evaluation of the actions related to the commitment.
The FNCSD will coordinate, promote, and monitor the realisation of the social commitments. An independent expert advisory panel has been nominated to assist the process through critical evaluations and science- based insights. All commitments will be published on the website, which contains an open-access database of the commitments
(www.ym.fi/sitoumus2050). In addition, social media applications such as Facebook and Twitter are used to promote the commitments, together with more traditional communication using newsletters and press releases. The progress will also be monitored and best cases highlighted at annual national events aiming to stimulate collaboration between different actors, generate positive publicity, and increase awareness of sustainability issues more generally.
Roles of indicators in a voluntary commitment process
Indicators can be used as communicative tools that connect the different realms of sustainability challenges. Previous research and practical experiences from the implementation of the Finnish sustainability strategies indicated that both the extent and ways of indicator use should be enhanced considerably in order to achieve their full potential
(Rosenström 2009; Rinne et al. 2013). However, as emphasised by Steurer and Berger (2011), at the same time there is a need to focus on what the sustainability strategies and indicators can realistically achieve. The commitment process encourages actors to develop operational
sustainability indicators that are specifically tailored for unique uses. This context-sensitive approach helps to avoid unrealistic expectations easily created by ambitious sustainability strategies.
The commitment process continues the trend of moving away from over- arching national sustainable development strategies – based primarily on scientific insights – towards more practically oriented and participatory approaches (Lyytimäki and Rosenström, 2008). Instead of a top-down process outlining targets for the key societal sectors, the current strategy aims to encourage different kinds of actors to formulate targets that are relevant from their perspective and to develop innovative measures for achieving the targets. A key concern is whether this kind of bottom-up process can produce shared understanding and coordinated long-term action towards sustainability. The national monitoring indicators (Table 1) have a critical role in ensuring that all key aspects of sustainability are addressed and the long-term focus is taken into account.
The commitment process represents a new kind of partnership between the public, private, and third sectors. The focus on such partnerships was motivated by several factors. Key internal motivations included the experiences from previous sustainability strategies and the need to find novel approaches to induce social transformation under increasing state budget austerity. Reviews of the previous sustainability strategies have pointed out the low ability of the strategies to make an impact across different sectors (Patosaari 2003; Ramboll 2009; Rinne et al. 2013). The broad-based preparation phase involving several key actors has been one of the strengths of the previous sustainability strategies in Finland.
However, the weakness has been that the extensive strategy documents tend to become overlooked soon after they are agreed upon and published.
Some particularly relevant lessons were provided by a previous commitment process called “Future commitment”. This process was initiated by the FNCSD and the environmental and future’s committees of the Finnish Parliament in 2001. It involved more than 20 societal actors that gave different voluntary commitments for achieving a sustainable future. However, this process failed to attract a wider group of societal actors. One of the key lessons from this process was the need to adjust the commitment process with the economic logic of participating private sector business (Patosaari 2003). Today, this need has become even more important. The state budget constraints force a continuous search for “win- win-win” solutions that decrease the administrative burden and create economic opportunities, while advancing sustainability targets.
Encouraging experiences from other current national and international initiatives gave a further impetus for the commitment process. For example, the so-called “Promise” process has been initiated to collect commitments that enhance green growth. This national-level process was
started by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES). An example of a cross-national process initiated by a Finnish business entrepreneur is the
“Commitment to act for the Baltic Sea” by the Baltic Sea Action Group (www.bsag.fi/en/).
The key question for the success of the commitment process is the ability to involve new actors beyond those already committed to sustainability issues. A key risk is that the participating actors formulate commitments that do not introduce new action, but merely serve as new labels for current practices. Transparent operational indicators that are publicly presented have a critical role here. Even though they are developed by the actors themselves, they can be used by external reviewers, such as
FNCSD, non-governmental organisations, journalists or research
institutions, to verify and assess the relevance and novelty of the actions.
Potential investors may also find the indicators relevant. Of particular importance are indicators that present the costs and benefits of actions in monetary terms.
It should be noted that indicators can be abused or misused even when they are carefully developed and presented (Lyytimäki et al. 2013). In human communication, misunderstandings are inevitable. However, this can be seen as an opportunity, because the creation of incorrect
impressions is a sign of activity. Such activity can, in turn, create grounds for additional debate and information sharing, eventually producing shared understanding and action based on relevant and correct facts.
Conclusions and implications for Latin America
Sustainability is a fundamental challenge shared by humanity, but the practical short-time challenges related to sustainability are, in many cases, unique to the cultures and countries in which they occur. Economic, social, and ecological contexts differ between Northern European
countries such as Finland and the countries of Latin America (Jabbour and Jabbour 2014). Comparing experiences from different contexts can
provide a fruitful way to advance sustainability communication.
Furthermore, shared challenges and opportunities for sustainability communication are created by global driving forces such as global environmental changes, international trade, and worldwide diffusion of technological and social innovations. Therefore, some potentially relevant lessons for the Latin American context can be identified from the Finnish case.
Sustainability strategies and indicators have the potential to create bridges over short-term social concerns such as temporary economic challenges and long-term issues such as sustainability. Based on the case presented above, and other experiences from Finland (Heinonen et al. 2005;
Rosenström 2009; Lyytimäki 2012; Rinne et al. 2013), the key opportunities include at least the following:
• Inventing and implementing strategic approaches that help to identify and engage relevant actors currently not involved with
sustainability initiatives. New models of public-private partnerships are a key possibility in overcoming the challenges of indicator-based
sustainability communication in an era of growing public sector financial constraints and increasing international competition.
• Developing sustainability targets and operational indicators that help to keep the key actors motivated , to include long-term sustainability considerations of their operational activities. For example, positive
publicity created by a voluntary commitment may provide an incentive for increased regulatory compliance of firms in the context of developing economies (Liston-Heyes et al. 2014).
• Learning from the implementation of previous initiatives and experiences from other countries. In Finland, the limited use of national sustainability indicators gave a cautionary example for developing over- ambitious new strategies and indicators that do not take into account the practical everyday needs of the actors involved . However, cross-country comparisons are needed in order to evaluate the applicability of such experiences for Latin American countries.
• Avoiding communication focusing on only one of the dimensions of sustainable development. Transparent sustainability communication connecting social, economic, and ecological issues can help to build trust between different actors and to generate new interest towards
sustainability issues.
On a methodological level, the main focus of sustainability
communication has been on developing comprehensive indicators or indices that provide a trustworthy picture of the social, economic, and environmental key trends. Only a few studies of the actual effects of different indicator-based communication strategies have been performed.
Future studies of sustainability communication should utilise the lessons from communication and marketing studies (Lyytimäki et al. 2014). For example, neuromarketing is a promising multidisciplinary approach that can provide better understanding of the prerequisites of effective
sustainability communication (de Oliveira 2014).
A key challenge behind all of the above-mentioned issues is the
contextualisation of the indicators and sustainability communication. The question is not only about building scientifically robust, easy-to-
understand, visually appealing, relevant, and timely indicators, but about presenting them in a meaningful context. In addition to adequate
quantitative data, qualitative characterisations and active communication, making the indicator meaningful for the target audience, are needed. It is a particularly challenging task when the public resources for indicator development are scarce. One potential solution is a shift of focus from long-term problems towards “win-win-win” scenarios that can serve as a fertile ground for voluntary public-private partnerships.
Acknowledgements
I thank Sauli Rouhinen, and Marja Innanen and anonymous referees for constructive insights and information.
References
de Oliveira, J.H.C. (2014) ‘Neuromarketing and sustainability: challenges and opportunities for Latin America’, Latin American Journal of
Management for Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.35–42.
Heinonen, S., Hietanen, O., Lyytimäki, J. and Rosenström, U. (2005)
‘How to Approach the Sustainable Information Society? Criteria and Indicators as Useful Tools’, Progress in Industrial Ecology, Vol. 2, No.
3/4, pp.303-328.
Herva, M., Franco, A., Carrasco, E.F. and Roca E. (2011) ‘Review of corporate environmental indicators’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.
19, No. 15, pp.1687-1699.
Hildén, M. (2009) ‘Time horizons in evaluating environmental policies’, New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 122, pp.9-18.
IPCC. (2013) ‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge & New York.
Jabbour, C.J.C. and Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S. (2014) ‘Latin America: research opportunities on management for sustainable development’, Latin American Journal of Management for Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.1–6.
Lehtonen, M. (2013) ‘The non-use and influence of UK energy sector indicators’, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 35, pp.24–34.
Liston-Heyes, C., Vazquez-Brust, D. and Heyes, A. (2014) ‘An empirical investigation of strategic compliance decisions in Argentinean polluting firms’, Latin American Journal of Management for Sustainable
Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.17–34.
Lyytimäki, J. and Rosenström, U. (2008) ‘Skeletons out of the closet:
Effectiveness of conceptual frameworks for communicating sustainable development indicators’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.301-313.
Lyytimäki, J. (2012) ‘Evaluation of sustainable development strategies and policies: The need for more timely indicators’, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.101-108.
Lyytimäki, J., Gudmundsson, H. and Sørensen, C.H. (2014) ‘Russian dolls and Chinese whispers: Two perspectives on the unintended effects of sustainability indicator communication’, Sustainable Development, Vol.
22, No. 2. pp.84-94.
Lyytimäki, J., Tapio, P., Varho, V. and Söderman, T. (2013) ‘The use, non-use and misuse of indicators in sustainability assessment and communication’. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.385-393.
MA. (2005) ‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis’, Island Press, Washington DC.
Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L.M. and Ramos, T.B. (2014) ‘Exploring the self-assessment of sustainability indicators by different stakeholders’, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 39, pp.75-83.
Newig, J., Schulz, D., Fischer, D., Hetze, K., Laws, N., Lüdecke, G. and Rieckmann, M. (2013) ‘Communication Regarding Sustainability:
Conceptual Perspectives and Exploration of Societal Subsystems’, Sustainability, Vol. 5, pp.2976-2990.
Patosaari, P. (2003) ‘Kestävän kehityksen kansallinen kokonaisarvio [Overall national evaluation of sustainable development]’, The Finnish Environment 623, Ministry of the Enviroment, Helsinki.
Pires, S.M., Fidélis, T. and Ramos T.B. (2014) ‘Measuring and comparing local sustainable development through common indicators: Constraints and achievements in practice’, Cities, Vol. 39, pp.1-9
Ramboll. (2009) ‘Kansallinen kestävän kehityksen arviointi 2009 [National evaluation of sustainable development 2009]’, Ramboll Consulting Management & Ympäristöministeriö, Helsinki.
Rinne, J., Lyytimäki, J. and Kautto, P. (2012) ‘Beyond the ‘indicator industry’: use and potential influences of sustainable development indicators in Finland and the EU’, Progress in Industrial Ecology, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.271-284.
Rinne, J., Lyytimäki, J. and Kautto, P. (2013) ‘From sustainability to well- being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators in national and EU level’, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 35, pp.35-42.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S.III., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J.A. (2009) ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, Vol. 461, No. 7263, pp.472-475.
Rosenström, U. (2009) ‘Sustainable development indicators: much wanted, less used?’, Monographs of the Boreal Environmental Research No. 33, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki.
Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A. and Schäfer M.S. (2013) ‘Media attention for climate change around the world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries’, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.1233-1248.
Steurer R. and Berger G. (2011) ‘The EU's double-track pursuit of sustainable development in the 2000s: how Lisbon and sustainable development strategies ran past each other’, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.99-108.
Pissourios I.A. (2013) ‘An interdisciplinary study on indicators: A comparative review of quality-of-life, macroeconomic, environmental, welfare and sustainability indicators’, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 34, pp.420–427.
UNDESA. (2002) ‘Guidance in preparing a national sustainable development strategy: Managing Sustainable Development in the New Millenium’, Background Paper No. 13. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, UNDESA [online]
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/nsds_guidance.pdf (accessed January 31 2014).
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987)
‘Our common future’, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
