Is the CSO irrelevant? Not so fast
The real question, said Dylan Siegler of Universal Music Group, is whether we are bold enough. Read More
On the main stage at GreenBiz 26 yesterday, two teams of sustainability experts wrangled over an existential question: Has the role of chief sustainability officer become irrelevant?
Inconceivable only a year ago, the question arises from two directions — one positive and one opposing.
On the one hand, CSOs’ achievements over the past decade in embedding sustainability throughout organizations has paradoxically made some wonder: Have we succeeded in making ourselves obsolete?
On the other hand, external forces have rolled back years of forward-looking policy and endangered decades of scientific knowledge. Do intensifying climate challenges require stronger executive leadership than ever?
Accountability = power
Arguing that “Yes, the CSO is now irrelevant,” the “For” team acknowledged that sustainability leadership is crucial, but that the role as currently designed is not fit for purpose.
“The question is no longer whether sustainability belongs in business — of course it does,” said debater Dylan Siegler, SVP and head of sustainability at Universal Music Group. “The question is whether we are bold enough to evolve how we lead.”
“Accountability always follows power,” said Alexa White, co-founder of Áse Analytics and the Aya Research Institute. The people who can bring real change as not sustainability teams: “Climate accountability must sit with the executives who control the capital, the risk and the revenue.”
Grab a hammer
On the “No” side — arguing that the CSO is more important than ever —
Kelly Fisher, head of sustainability for the Americas at HSBC, used the metaphor of a hammer: an essential and irreplaceable tool.
“The business world’s metaphorical roof is about to cave in from the weight of climate change,” said Fisher. “And our opponents today will tell you that somehow the one person whose job it is to address all of that is irrelevant?’
Trellis Briefing readers concurred: Three-quarters voted “No.”
‘A strategic counterweight’
As for the live audience in Phoenix, the response was overwhelming: Not just “No,” but “Hell no.” By loud acclaim, attendees declared that the “Against” team had made the more forceful arguments.
The chief sustainability officer provides “a strategic counterweight,” said debater and E.L.F. Beauty Sustainability Manager Olabamise Onabanjo, “because companies must deliver value to their shareholders, and their performance is often incrementally trapped on a short-term basis, mostly quarterly. Sustainability considerations run the risk of being put to the back burner, because they take a longer term to materialize, and they’re more cumulative.”
Most importantly, said Alexis Morgan, global water stewardship lead at WWF, the CSO is critical for business growth in an era of accelerating climate change. “Nobody in a company I would argue has as long-term a vision as a chief sustainability officer; they are there to think about the opportunities of tomorrow. Lord knows, there are going to be some problems that need fixing, and CSOs are there to find those opportunities and make that happen.”
Clearly, reports of the death of the CSO have been wildly exaggerated. And judging from the responses at GreenBiz, the question is not “Are we still relevant?” It’s “How do we move forward in a hostile environment, at a time when our work is more critical than ever?”
You can watch the full debate here.
