This might sound like a bit of an odd one, but this year, I'm on
a mission to stop our clients using the word 'sustainability'.
I know 'sustainability' is in my job title. It was my
suggestion that we change our team name to Sustainability from
Corporate Responsibility a couple of years ago. And we have
several (rather excellent) events with 'sustainability' in the
title coming up in 2012.
But the problem comes when you use the word sustainability with
people outside the fairly small village of corporate sustainability
practitioners - whether these people are your board, your
investors, your front-line colleagues or your customers.
While many understand the word to carry connotations of resilience,
shared value and longevity, others will bring their own
interpretation ("It's about volunteering in the community and
recycling, isn't it?") or, worse, reject it as hollow
corporate-speak.
Crucially, it can lose the business-specific relevance that
corporate sustainability needs to keep building the momentum it's
generated in recent years.
But how do we get around this - and the answer isn't reverting
back to 'Corporate Responsibility' or 'CSR.' Both use the word
'responsibility', which comes with the linguistic baggage of
obligation and duty, and risks prompting the same blank reaction as
'sustainability.'
The advice we're giving clients is fairly simple: define what
sustainability challenges really matter to your business, your
strategy and your stakeholders, and talk about them in an authentic
voice. By doing this, you'll craft a story that sits
seamlessly with your other corporate narratives - highlighting the
really important stuff, and only giving people the nuances of the
word 'sustainability' on a need-to-know basis.
So now to the small matter of what we should actually call
ourselves… Answers welcome on a postcard, on the comments below, or
via Twitter to @rysustain.