Capitalism Within Planetary Boundaries

Special Edition

2 3

Copyright © The Brewery (London) Ltd 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permission in writing from the owner.

The greatest care has been taken to ensure accuracy but the publisher can accept no responsibility for errors or omissions, nor for any liability occasioned by relying on its content.

Editor: Edward Amory, Director, freuds

For more information on The Brewery, please contact brewery.journal@freuds.com

Capitalism Within Planetary Boundaries

4 5

3

4

2

1

Special Edition

7

6

8

9

Executive summary

Dr Arlo Brady, Corporate Managing Director, freuds 5

Big ideas at the SLOW LIFE Symposium

Jonathon Porritt, Founder Director, Forum for the Future 8

At the stroke of a pen, Britain can save our waters

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Writer and Broadcaster 11

Capital idea – or making matters worse?

Tony Juniper, former Director, Friends of the Earth UK 13

Learning to love the oceans

Hanli Prinsloo, Freediver and Founder, I AM WATER 16

Getting the message: Planetary boundaries – outside of them and

we’re all out of business

George Duffield, Co - Founder, Blue Marine Foundation 19

Oceans of values

Bruce Bromley, Chief Financial Officer, Soneva Group 22

How does Virgin Unite work to improve the state of our environment?

Interview with Jean Oelwang, Chief Executive Officer, Virgin Unite 28

Increasing food security and reducing poverty: how fish can feed the

developing world

Stephen Hall, Director General, WorldFish 32

Why high returns and meaningful impact on climate change are compatible

George Polk, Director, Tulum Trust 35

The future of philanthropy

James Arbib, Venture Investor and Founder, Tellus Mater 39

The evolution of the Shell Foundation strategy

Chris West, Director, Shell Foundation 43

Why SLOW LIFE? Why now?

Sonu Shivdasani, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Soneva Group 47

12

11

13

Capitalism Within Planetary Boundaries

5

10

CONTENTS

Executive summary

When Wordsworth wrote his words, blasting the

material cynicism of the time, the year was 1802.

The Industrial Revolution was in full swing -

cotton gins and steam engines were transforming

landscapes and lives. The Romantics feared that

with such developments, humanity was drifting

from its relationship with nature, and in doing so

was undermining its own existence.

Those words and concerns are as relevant now, at

the beginning of the 21st century, as they were at

the beginning of the 19th. The dominant capitalist

narrative of ever-faster progress, growth and

development - of getting and spending as quickly

as possible - is causing immense damage to the

world around us. If we continue to treat nature

as something separate from ourselves - an endless

resource that we can tap at will without cost or

penalty, then we are heading for calamity.

We must change how we see the Earth and its

resources if we are to have any lasting positive

impact and arrest the current damage we are

wreaking. Nowhere was this more evident than

in the Maldives, where the 2014 SLOW LIFE

Symposium took place. George Duffield, writing

in this Journal, quotes the Maldivian Minister

of Fisheries: “If we can’t solve this problem,

we’ve had it”. Grim words indeed – even without

Wordsworth’s language.

When over 30 years of campaigning and

awareness-raising seem to have had little real

impact on the way we treat our planet, it is

easy to become disheartened. But I believe that

gatherings like the SLOW LIFE Symposium hold

the key to tackling this problem. They hold the

keys because they recognise that this problem

is not one that can be solved by any single

perspective or stakeholder, but is instead one that

requires a multilateral approach.

All too often in the world of sustainability

and environmentalism, causes are supported

and actions taken by stakeholders from one

community. As a consequence, the work such

groups are able to undertake is limited by their

own experiences and understanding. This isn’t to

say that existing campaigns have been ineffective

- far from it - but given the scale of task we face,

they haven’t been effective enough.

What SLOW LIFE offers - and what the campaign

for global sustainability needs - is a multitude of

perspectives. From individual philanthropists to

NGOs to corporates to bankers, all have something

to offer, something to teach. The Maldives acts

as a symbol: its position balanced between

Western and Eastern cultures and perspectives,

its territory some of the most threatened by any

failure to change our current path.

DR ARLO BRADY, CORPORATE MANAGING DIRECTOR, FREUDS1

The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers: Little we see in Nature that is ours;We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!

William Wordsworth

6 7

This Journal provides an inkling of the

collaborative and innovative thinking that

SLOW LIFE promotes. George Polk and

Tony Juniper make clear that that successful

sustainability will only function if ethical

imperative is matched with economic incentive.

We must make it profitable to be sustainable if

the planet is to survive, creating blue and green

economies that draw investment and support

- and that will require investment and insight

from larger financial organisations who have

so often been vilified by sustainability groups.

James Arbib and Chris West argue passionately

for greater rigour in NGO governance and

wider philanthropic funding processes, in order

to drive effectiveness and impact. Bringing

the lessons of entrepreneurialism to bear on

social and sustainable innovation will help

build profitability while reducing waste and

environmental impact.

Business may be the eventual driver of

sustainability, but political actors are arguably

the gatekeepers, setting the agenda and

providing regulatory guidance to make the

sustainable profitable. Stephen Hall and George

Duffield discuss the geopolitical power that

can be leveraged towards sustainability with

respect to the Oceans that cover over 70% of our

planet. Drastic overfishing is threatening global

food security, causing secondary threats from

unemployment and poverty to piracy. Jonathan

Porritt discusses the UN’s 2015 Sustainable

Development Goals, which will help focus

attention on the task at hand.

But perhaps the greatest lessons come from Bruce

Bromley and Sonu Shivdasani - the CFO and CEO

respectively of luxury resort group Soneva - who

are demonstrating how businesses, if they put

their mind to it, are capable of enacting immense

change without anyone to tell them to do it at

all. They have worked to partner their business

with sustainable practices, and then used the

funds generated to finance projects as varied as

reforestation in Thailand and providing low-

carbon stoves in Darfur.

The Renaissance and the democratised learning

it encouraged birthed, amongst other things,

the mercantile classes of the 17th Century. As

merchants became bigger and more powerful,

they searched more seriously for innovation

to drive profit, which sparked an Industrial

Revolution. In effect, they got serious about the

business of making money. That attitude was

what Wordsworth was talking about when he

worried that ‘we have given our hearts away’.

Well, today, through conferences and discussions

like SLOW LIFE, we’re finally getting serious

about nature. Using only emotive words, as the

Romantics did, failed to halt the damage they

railed against. This Journal - and SLOW LIFE -

contains far more than poetry, but arguments

for rational, incentive-based sustainability. I

believe they are the basis for a new relationship

with our planet, and hope others do too. Because

if we don’t buy them, there won’t be any poetry

left to enjoy.

Business may be the eventual driver of sustainability, but political actors are arguably the gatekeepers, setting the agenda and providing regulatory guidance to make the sustainable profitable

8 9

Big ideas at the SLOW LIFE Symposium

JONATHON PORRITT, FOUNDER DIRECTOR, FORUM FOR THE FUTURE2

Every system has its limits. The human body, a

coral reef, social enterprises, a national economy,

the global food system, each of these examples

is a sub-system of some bigger system, locked

into a pattern of interdependencies and complex

relationships that both constrain and promote

life within that structure.

When you spell it out like that, it’s almost obvious.

‘No man is an Island, Entire of itself’, and all that.

However, so much of the way we do politics and

economics today sets aside those ever so obvious

observations as irrelevant inconveniences.

In this very broad context, the SLOW LIFE

Symposium is one small part of a burgeoning

movement to stop setting aside such insights.

Our overarching theme of ‘Capitalism within

Planetary Boundaries’ focuses on ideas that

harness the dynamic power of market-

based solutions within a more sophisticated

understanding of the physical space within

which we can safely operate.

This issue of the Brewery Journal hones in on a

number of those solutions identified at the 2014

SLOW LIFE Symposium. Over three days in

November last year, 30 accomplished individuals

sought out opportunities to inject new energy

into existing initiatives or get some wholly new

ideas shared and tested.

The Symposium is the brainchild of Sonu and

Eva Shivdasani, who set up the SLOW LIFE

Foundation back in 2010, not only to promote

ever higher standards of sustainability in their

own resorts in the Maldives and Thailand, but

also to support and promote charitable initiatives

in clean water, low carbon technology and

community empowerment.

The Shivdasanis recognised long ago that

sustainability is basically good for the business

today, and the only way for the business to remain

successful in the future.

There have always been a number of really

complex barriers in terms of ‘selling in’ the

whole notion of sustainability. Not least the way

it seems to work against what we’ve been trained

up to see as ‘progress’. If you go back to the start

of the modern era after the Second World War, a

prevailing narrative of economic growth and an

upward trajectory towards a ‘better future’, have

been powerfully reinforced through the political

system, educational establishment, the media and

so on.

As a result, there’s very little debate in mainstream

politics about any ‘limits to growth’. Indeed, after

the financial crash of 2008, governments have

been even more desperate to ‘score’ high levels of

economic growth, both in the rich world (how

else can we get back to something resembling

normality?) and in the poor world (how else

can we possibly address continuing, chronic

poverty?) Growth is the all-encompassing

The Shivdasanis recognised long ago that sustainability is basically good for the business today, and the only way for the business to remain successful in the future

panacea, both in terms of GDP and in terms of

corporate competitiveness. Without growth, there

is nothing. Just a slow, painful descent into the 21st

century equivalent of the Dark Ages.

Most people today have no idea just how lively the

debate about economic growth was back in the

1970s – richly stimulated by publications like ‘The

Limits to Growth’ and The Ecologist magazine’s

‘Blueprint for Survival’. The ‘anti-limits’ lobby

gradually won the day through a combination of

misrepresentation and ridicule. By the mid-80s,

that debate had gone underground, and despite the

astonishing fact that almost all academic studies

carried out on the ‘Limits to Growth’ models

since then have shown just how well those 1970s

projections have stood the test of time, that’s pretty

much where it remains.

The planetary boundaries concept (exploring

the safe operating space for humanity) has been

around from 2009, based on pioneering work by

Johan Rockström and colleagues at the Stockholm

Resilience Centre. Johan is a regular attendee at the

SLOW LIFE Symposium, and this year provided a

compelling update on the planetary boundaries

framework, which was published February 2015.

In some respects, you could say that there’s not much

difference between ‘Boundaries’ and ‘Limits’, but

in terms of countering today’s dominant narrative

of ‘growth without limits’, it resonates with a

wider audience. The idea of prosperity (or even

abundance) within planetary boundaries is much

more inclusive, drawing people in, rather than the

idea of a ‘zero growth economy’, which tends to

push people away.

A number of our participants demonstrated just

how practical the idea of planetary boundaries

can be in implementation. Johan is working on

an ambitious project to bring together some of

the largest fisheries companies in the world to

explore their role in establishing more sustainable

management practices. The Maldivian Fisheries

Minister is developing new schemes to incentivise

fishing communities catching both tuna and

grouper to reduce over-fishing. Rikin Gandhi (of

Digital Green) demonstrates how the work he’s

doing with rice farmers in India can substantially

improve yields whilst reducing the environmental

footprint – in terms of chemicals, energy and

greenhouse gas emissions. Once the physical

boundaries of any system have been assessed (and

shared with all the stakeholders involved – a

critical aspect of any sustainable management

process), it’s just then a question of good economics.

50 years of politicians promising ‘endless growth

without limits’ has clearly reduced ‘the safe

intellectual space’ within which the rest of us have

to operate. Those political realities are a constant

presence at the SLOW LIFE Symposium, but our

focus is primarily on the role of business, civil

society and, this year, philanthropy.

There’s a growing consensus that philanthropists

now have a critical part to play in facilitating the

transition to a more sustainable world. That is not

just in terms of more money (much more money)

needed to go into environmental causes, and into

addressing climate change in particular, but in

terms of finding more creative ways to open up the

whole debate about the nature of capitalism – as

Jamie Arbib demonstrated through the work of

Tellus Mater mapping how our economic systems

actually operate (see page 39).

Beyond that, many Trusts and Foundations today

have an unequivocal commitment to improving

the lot of the huge numbers of people who have

seen little of the vast increase in GDP over the last

50 years or so. In her new book, ‘Collision Course’,

Kerryn Higgs reminds us of this reality.

Despite a world pie that has grown eight to

ten times larger than in the 1950s, the slices

available to the poorest people have certainly

not; immense inequality persists within and

between nations. Even if higher percentages of

people are better off – which may be the case –

Despite a world pie that has grown eight to ten times larger than in the 1950s, the slices available to the poorest people have certainly not; immense inequality persists within and between nations

10 11

Our oceans are our planet’s lifeblood. Flowing over

nearly three-quarters of the earth’s surface, they hold

97% of its water and produce more than half of the

oxygen in the atmosphere. They provide the air we

breathe, the fish we eat. They regulate our climate.

They are the source of our survival – a fact that is

often taken for granted. In return, we have a duty to

protect them from irreparable harm.

Our precious waters are under severe threat. Their

delicate ecosystems are fragile. By polluting our

waters and plundering our marine resources

through illegal fishing, humanity is causing

irreparable harm to aquatic life. Currently only

1% of our oceans are actually protected. If these

practices are left unchallenged, areas of significant

environmental importance will be lost forever.

Species will become extinct in our lifetime. Together,

we have a duty to do something, to take action before

it is too late.

So what can we do to make a difference? Sometimes

the overwhelming challenge of protecting

and preserving our environment can seem

insurmountable, and so we do nothing. But we must,

and we can. The answer lies close to home. By creating

marine reserves in some of our most environmentally

significant waters we can do a huge amount to save

unique marine environments from extinction

The UK has a huge opportunity to take global

leadership. It is responsible for the fifth largest area

of ocean in the world. Its waters represent the most

diverse marine portfolio on earth – supporting

a high number of rare and threatened species.

Therefore a British coalition of leading conservation

organisations is calling on the UK Government to

create the largest marine reserve in the world, off the

shores of the UK’s Overseas Territories. These waters,

specifically off the Pitcairn and Ascension Islands,

harbour unparalleled marine ecosystems, including

hundreds of threatened species such as whales,

turtles, seabirds, fish and corals – many of which

are found nowhere else in the world. As a first step,

legally safeguarding the waters around the Pitcairn

and Ascension Islands would increase the global

area of protected oceans by a third – and would go

some way towards meeting an international target of

protecting 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020.

Monitoring and enforcing the protection of waters

would be simple, and low cost. Pioneering satellite

technology, already developed in the UK, would

allow analysts to identify and monitor illegal fishing

practices in marine reserves, as well as alert them

to vessels acting suspiciously. Crucially, the reserve

already has the backing of local communities.

Taking this step would undoubtedly secure the long-

term economic future of Pitcairn and Ascension

by boosting scientific and conservation tourism.

Economically as well as environmentally, this project

makes sense.

At the stroke of a pen, Britain can save our waters

HUGH FEARNLEY-WHITTINGSTALL, WRITER AND BROADCASTER3

the gross numbers of people who are in difficulty

(with incomes of less than $2 a day) have been

similar for the last three decades.

But even the pursuit of a more equitable, socially

just world has to be positioned within that self-same

‘safe operating space for humanity’. Social justice

within planetary boundaries is as big an imperative

as prosperity within planetary boundaries.

These simple insights have been recognised (more

or less) in the UN’s 17 emerging Sustainable

Development Goals, which will be released later

this year. The focus on poverty captured in the

old Millennium Development Goals, has now

been reinforced by some new thinking around

planetary boundaries.

Set against that kind of ‘big picture’, the measures we

can initiate at the SLOW LIFE Symposium inevitably

look somewhat diminutive. However, there are

important ‘multiplier effects’ at work here; it’s always

a privilege to spend time with people focussed on new

ways of addressing old, but still massively problematic

challenges. On leaving last years’ Symposium, I think

we all felt an additional sense of urgency about

turning these ideas into actions that could make a real

difference in the lives of millions of people.

The UK has a huge opportunity to take global leadership. It is responsible for the fifth largest area of ocean in the world. Its waters represent the most diverse marine portfolio on earth

12 13

Capital idea – or making matters worse?

TONY JUNIPER, FORMER DIRECTOR, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH UK4

Several questions down the decades have

divided environmentalists. They include the

role genetically modified crops might play

in sustainable farming, the pros and cons of

nuclear power and the extent to which green

consumerism, as compared with regulation from

governments, can drive change. More recently,

environmental advocates have been split by the

idea of ‘natural capital’.

This concept has added a new dimension to

environmental and sustainable development

debates through, among other things, creating

a parallel between finance and ecology. Natural

capital, like financial capital, can be husbanded

and wisely used to generate returns and dividends,

or like money can be blown in a spree with little

concern for future security.

For example, take the tropical rainforests.

Rainforests are unparalleled celebrations of life

on Earth, full of wonders and irreplaceable havens

for thousands of indigenous cultures. However,

they are also a highly cost-effective carbon capture

and storage system and the source of much of the

rain that powers hydroelectric dams and sustains

farming. While it is vital to recognise the first

set of values, for the second set it is possible to

make not only ethical and moral arguments, but

through economic calculations, more compelling

political cases to save these unique ecosystems.

The economic and political case is manifest in

the dividends that arise in the form of so called

‘ecosystem services’ provided by the natural capital

assets of intact tropical rainforests. Many other

dividends arising from healthy ecology can be

identified – including the cleaning of sediments

and pollution from water by wetlands, therefore

making water cheaper to supply; the reduced flood

risk caused by upland forests as they hold water in

the environment for longer, thereby smoothing

flood peaks in adjacent lowland areas; the work

done by pollinating insects in supporting food

production; the replenishment of the wild marine

fish stocks and the health and wellbeing benefits

that come from access to wildlife-rich areas.

All this and more have huge economic value, and

increasingly financial figures can be assigned to

at least some ecosystem services. For example, it

has been calculated that the annual global value

of pollination to farming is about US$190 billion

per year, underpinning about $1 trillion dollars

worth of agricultural sales. The value of the carbon

capture and storage services that would be sustained

through halving the deforestation rate by 2030 was

recently calculated at about $3.7 trillion.

The millions of species of animals, plants and other

life forms that run the ecosystems which sustain

life on Earth also add massive value. For example, it

is estimated that between a quarter and half of the

Why the economic valuation of nature is causing friction among greens

It is estimated that between a quarter and half of the world’s annual $640 billion pharmaceutical market is based on compounds first developed by wildlife

From dry land we can’t always see the harm we are

causing our oceans. Marine conservation rarely

makes the front pages of the newspapers. But we have

a duty to act. We are the custodians of the planet and

we have a duty to protect it for future generations. I

add my voice to the coalition of 100 conservationist

experts who are urging the UK Government to take

action now put 1.27 million square kilometres of

ocean under full protection. At the stroke of a pen,

overnight, those politicians would create a lasting

global legacy, safeguarding the treasures of our

oceans for future generations.

I don’t want to live in a world where the sea turtle no

longer roams our seas and shores, where the puffin

becomes extinct, where our children cannot enjoy

the diversity and immense beauty of our planet. We

must act now, before our incredible biodiversity is

lost forever. The responsibility is great – but so is the

opportunity. We can deliver a global environmental

legacy for future generations, for our planet, for our

future. Let us not waste it.

This article was originally published in The Times newspaper 09.02.2015

14 15

world’s annual $640 billion pharmaceutical market

is based on compounds first developed by wildlife.

Natural systems help to sustain public health in

other ways as well. Take the loss of vultures in India.

The decline in these birds during the 1990s was found

to increase disease risk in humans through rotting

carcasses being left uneaten. This contributed to

costs estimated at around $34 billion over the course

of the decade in which the birds’ population crashed.

Additionally, wild birds help with pest control. The

annual value of this service in one coffee plantation

was found to be $310 per hectare per year. Birds

eating pests in a commercial forest were found to

be protecting timber values worth about $1,500 per

hectare per year.

Then there are calculations as to the savings that can

be made through investing in nature. For instance,

the City of New York is believed to have saved

some $7 billion through investing in ecosystems to

provide clean water, rather than alternatives based

on technology and engineering.

Some natural assets have been reviewed in the

context of national GDP. In the case of Belize, it has

been estimated that at least a quarter of the economy

depends on the country’s coral reefs and its coastal

mangrove forests. The biggest single contribution

was found to be in relation to providing natural

storm defences. Closer to home, the Office for

National Statistics recently calculated that the

value of the UK’s natural capital in 2011 was about

£1.5 trillion, roughly equivalent to the country’s

national debt.

On top of these approaches, towards the valuation of

natural capital, are estimates as to the added value

that might be gained through optimising how assets

are managed. One piece of work from the World

Bank concluded that an extra $50 billion could be

derived from the more rational exploitation of wild

fish stocks.

Numbers are also being calculated as to the value

being lost as a result of environmental degradation.

One famous study completed by Trucost for UNEP

suggested that in 2008 the cost of environmental

damage worldwide was about $6.6 trillion (11 per

cent of world GDP). The world’s 3,000 largest

companies were estimated to have caused about

a third of that damage, costing US$2.15 trillion. If

these so called environmental externalities were

deducted from the value these companies deliver

in profits and dividends, then our judgement as to

which companies are adding overall social value

would undoubtedly change.

Despite the compelling conclusions for investors,

policy makers, companies and the public,

many environmentalists resist moves toward

a more natural capital-based conservation and

sustainability agenda. Their critique can be

summarised thus.

Firstly, there is a fear that economic valuation

will replace arguments based on the protection of

nature’s intrinsic, aesthetic and spiritual values.

The case will no longer be led by the cause of

nature for its own sake, and those elements that

have no discernable financial value will be lost. The

beautiful rare butterfly, the songbird or rare snake

that can’t prove its worth will be let go, it is believed.

Then it is said that the numbers are nonsense.

How can you assign a monetary value to the work

being done by a tree, or a bee? If it were possible

to work out even half believable numbers, would

that lead to a price being put on nature through

markets in ecosystem services? This in turn leads

to a wider fear as to the progressive privatisation

and commodification of nature, as ecosystem

services are bought and traded, taking value from

local people and instead converting them into

value for shareholders.

All of these points are founded on real concerns. The

risks can, however, be managed. For a start there is

no need to abandon spiritual or intrinsic values. The

task is about recognising nature’s full value, and

not just parts of it. When it comes to values being

turned into prices, it is important to remember that

while regulated markets might be useful in some

limited circumstances, once nature’s economic

contributions are known it becomes a driver for

policies and laws as much as anything else. To give

another example, when the value of pollinating

insects is revealed, bans on the chemicals that are

killing them will be easier to achieve.

The numbers being published as to the financial

value of nature can certainly be contested. But the

point is that nature is not worth nothing in economic

terms. And simply put, this is why: despite hundreds

of speeches, laws and good intentions, economic

decisions still lead to the overall degradation of

nature. Nature is regarded in mainstream economics

as merely a set of resources to be converted into

economic growth, failing to appreciate how value

is often being lost, as vital ecosystem services are

progressively degraded, with the costs arising from

that appearing on nobody’s balance sheet.

This is why the measurement of externalities could

be such a powerful tool in making the transition

to a sustainable economy. This seems to me to be a

place where environmentalists should be actively

engaged – not resisting the biggest opportunity

for the kind of integrated thinking that they

have championed for years. For example, rally

behind the idea of ‘environmental growth’ and

advocate policies that increase the stock of natural

capital assets. The restoration of wetlands, forests,

grasslands, fish stocks and more all fit naturally

in to that idea, and therefore economic numbers

become more compelling priorities both for public

policy and corporations than any proposition based

on ethics alone.

I suspect that much of the opposition to the idea of

natural capital is ‘knee jerk’ and ideological rather

than based on a rational thinking through of a

forward thinking plan that has at least some chance

of success. Carrying on with business as usual is

taking us to a very bad place - fast. The longer we

fail to align our economic system with ecosystems,

the quicker we get there. Breaking the assumption

that the destruction of nature is an inevitable

price of progress is top of the list for ensuring a

sustainable future for life on Earth - the notion of

natural capital offers some prospect for doing that.

The numbers being published as to the financial value of nature can certainly be contested. But the point is that nature is not worth nothing in economic terms

16 17

Learning to love the oceans

HANLI PRINSLOO, FREEDIVER AND FOUNDER, I AM WATER5

I can hardly breathe. I stumble but regain my

balance, shells digging into the soles of my feet, my

lower back complaining about the extra weight.

I pause; this might be harder than I thought. The

water is only knee-deep, but the skinny arms around

my neck are tight as a vice and their owner’s eyes,

like saucers, will me to stop, turn and back away.

I’m in the tropical paradise that is Mozambique, at

the bottom of a tall sand dune with a ten-year-old

orphan hanging off of me like an oversized, terrified

sack of potatoes. As the water gets deeper, she babbles

at me in Portuguese and I speak soothing words of

relaxation back at her in English. I readjust the mask

on her face and motion for her to take slow deep

breaths, she’s definitely not ready for a snorkel yet.

As the water comes up to my waist and she gets

lighter, we catch a moment of floatation as a wave

washes by. A giggle escapes her and I laugh along

- “see it’s not so bad.” I pull the mask onto my face

and stick my head underwater – “Look, look below.”

She shakes her head emphatically. I nod vigorously,

“sure you can”. Just then Peter swims in underneath

us with the underwater camera and I motion for her

to put her head below and wave at the camera. The

curiosity of a ten-year-old overcomes the fear of a

non-swimmer and two eyes open underwater for the

first time. Gabrielle is one of 40 orphans living less

than 500 metres from a crystal blue ocean that divers

travel from around the world to explore. Yet none of

the kids can swim or have ever been snorkelling.

Growing up on a horse farm outside Johannesburg,

with hectares of unspoilt nature around me but no

ocean, I dreamt of being a mermaid. My like-minded

sister and I played endless games of dolphin, kicking

underwater in the pool, growing our hair long like

Ariel and even creating our own mermaid language

of squeaks and squawks. We perfected it from pool to

dam, river to bath-time. As soon as I could, I moved

closer to the sea and discovered freediving. When I

started, it was a little known sport considered extreme

and practiced by eccentric aquatic loners. After fifteen

years of competitive freediving, eleven national

records, and hours, days and months of training up

and down a rope, up and down a swimming pool, I

had had enough. There must be more.

And there was. So much more. On a small boat in

the middle of the Indian Ocean I pulled on my

monofin and jumped in the water with a pod of

Spinner Dolphins. Local researchers had given up on

interacting with them - “They’re just not interested

in humans, they’ll be gone the second you hit the

water.” But with a six minute breathhold and the

ability to dive deep, (to over 65 metres repetitively) I

slid into the water, dolphin kicked my monofin down

to the bottom at 20 metres and was surrounded by

the pod of dolphins. Excited sleek bodies circled me,

scanning me with their clicking curiosity, speeding

up and turning on a hair - the skills of a champion

diver were barely enough to keep the pod interested.

But for me, everything changed.

The following year I founded I AM WATER.

Growing up it was a known fact that “black people

don’t swim, they don’t like water”. South Africa is a

country of contrasts. With eleven official languages,

nine widely diverse provinces (four of which are

coastal) and two oceans that span from the ice-cold

Atlantic in the west to the tropical Indian Ocean

in the east, we are as diverse in nature as we are in

peoples. Somehow, this swimming division was

an accepted and understood reality that I never

questioned, as one doesn’t when growing up in

a system expert at helping you believe untruth.

Swimming pools were for whites only. Beaches were

for whites only. Townships hardly had running

water, and rivers and dams were off limits in case of

the bother of somebody drowning.

In 1994, the race line separating the peoples of South

Africa was erased. But today, twenty years later, we

are a nation separated by those who can and cannot

swim, along a line shockingly similar to the line

that divided whites from blacks. As I transitioned

out of competitive freediving, I taught hundreds of

freediving courses to pay the bills. I watched people

transform before my eyes, from fear to joy, from

diffidence to connection.

Looking at planet Earth from space we see a small

blue sphere, unique in that vast expanse because

it is blue, because of the thin veneer of water that

covers 70% of the surface. Scattered throughout

this blue expanse we have green flecks of land

united by oceans. More than a billion people live

within walking distance of the ocean. Landlocked

countries see seasonal migrations of inhabitants

holidaying by the coast. Despite this seemingly

close connection to the ocean, both in proximity

and need to experience, we have been remarkably

slow at conserving this vast expanse.

In the last couple of years ocean conservation has

come to the attention of the well-read and informed

citizens of the blue planet, with topics like ocean

acidification, floating plastic islands, over-fishing,

coral bleaching and species extinction getting more

Gabrielle is one of 40 orphans living less than 500 meters from a crystal blue ocean that divers travel from around the world to explore. None of the kids can swim or have ever been snorkelling

credit: Peter Marshall – I AM WATER

18 19

I recently found myself in a conversation with

a commercially successful friend of mine, who

is also a supporter of my charity, The Blue

Marine Foundation.

“Why are you asking people to help save the

oceans?” he asked with exasperation, bordering

on rudeness.

Taken aback, I paused without an immediate response.

“Your message is all wrong,” he continued, “the

planet will survive. You should be asking people

to help save themselves!”

A salutary exchange. In answer to the question

‘why must successful businesses adopt new

models that value our finite natural resources?’

The short answer is simply, “because our lives

depend on it.” Adopting new models of capitalism

are not about smug CSR initiatives that still gild

the waste pipes of many ‘get it while you can’

firms, or the worthy Corporate Sustainability

that badged the heralds of ‘everyone’s a winner’

enlightened capitalism. Adopting new models is

about human survival.

This is language that some may find explosive, but

I believe it is realistic. A new paper by Dr Johan

Rockström of the Stockholm Resilience Centre

published in Science, this January, concludes that

earth could cease to be a “safe operating space”

for human beings within decades. He refers to

his findings as “probably the most important

message from science to humanity”. And he’s

probably right.

The paper demonstrates with terrifying clarity

that we have crossed at least four of the nine

‘planetary boundaries’. These are the critical

biophysical boundaries of the natural world

that we need to stay within to avoid serious

environmental change that could have potentially

catastrophic consequences on society. The four

we’ve already exceeded are the extinction rate;

deforestation; the level of carbon dioxide in

the atmosphere; and the flow of nitrogen and

phosphorous (used on land as fertiliser) into the

ocean. Cross all nine boundaries and humanity’s

very existence will be threatened.

The more clear-sighted business leaders and

thinkers such as Mike Barry of Marks and

Spencer and Jamie Arbib of Tellus Mater are

starting to use this language. But let’s face it,

at the moment, most businesses, however you

unpack and repackage them, are still constructed

on the framework of creating short-term profit

by fuelling ever increasing and unsustainable

consumption.

The maths is relatively simple to do: unless we

value our natural resources and factor them into

our equations for success and profitability there

simply won’t be any success or profitability.

The question is whether understanding the cast iron

links between our economic and environmental

futures will engender action swift and profound

enough to save humanity.

Getting the message

GEORGE DUFFIELD, CO - FOUNDER, BLUE MARINE FOUNDATION6

Planetary boundaries – outside of them and we’re all out of business

Unless we value our natural resources and factor them into our equations for success and profitability there simply won’t be any success or profitability

airtime and international efforts to protect our

oceans more effectively.

For us at I AM WATER, we believe that much of

this ocean degradation we witness is due to people,

individuals, feeling completely disconnected from

the ocean. We stare at the vast blue of the ocean,

staring at the surface, at the skin – thinking that

surely something that vast cannot be at risk. Surely

we cannot hurt that. Having watched scientists and

conservation lobbyists share the facts, do compelling

and touching campaigns, even watched climate

change whip the ocean into a rage that kills, our

behaviour is slow to change. Senegalese poet Baba

Daoum said it, Jacques Cousteau said it and every

parent knows it – we protect what we love. “In the end

we will conserve only what we love; we will love only

what we understand; and we will understand only

what we are taught.” (Baba Dioum, 1968).

Back to Gabrielle hanging off my neck in southern

Mozambique. I initially believed that this deep

disconnect from the ocean I had witnessed in

South Africa was due to our generations of racial

discrimination. That this was a South African and

possibly an African problem I was wrong. In 2012 I

was invited to speak at a TEDx conference in Bermuda.

I had eye opening conversations with Bermudians

sharing that they couldn’t swim - kids who live a literal

stone’s throw from crystal blue water and colourful

reefs but who have never snorkelled. As I explored

beautiful oceanscapes around the world, diving for a

project where we meet large marine creatures, I see the

same. Maldives. Ecuador. Mozambique. My partner

Peter saving seven lives his first day life guarding in

Los Angeles, all inner city youth.

We are expecting children and youth who have no

experience of the greatest expanse of our planet to

understand its complicated fragility and grow up to

be conservation minded adults, leaders and decision

makers. For the seven billion people on our rapidly

growing planet, solving the challenges to our shared,

sustainable future is not limited to resources and

conservation, but also fundamentally relies on the

knowledge and engagement of individuals. As all

humans are over 70% water, we are drawn together

by the aquatic within us. We are all water, and we all

share the opportunity and challenge to protect our last

wilderness beneath the waves.

An important part of the solution is for individuals

to have behaviour changing ocean experiences,

combined with the knowledge that their actions

can and do make a difference. To hear, read or

see a picture of the beauty and devastation of the

ocean environment can never replace the personal

transformation of putting on a mask and fins, taking

one breath and experiencing the salty majesty of the

ocean, the strength of the currents, the playfulness of

a dolphin or the curiosity of a seal. We need to engage

the local communities in the solution, especially those

who are often at times blamed for ocean degradation

when balancing their actions against their livelihood.

Finally, we need a legal framework that protects the

oceans and is enforced, and a system for governance

of the high seas which knows no national boundaries.

Within this context, I AM WATER’s mission is

to create a physical and emotional connection

between the marine environment and all of us,

thereby changing human behaviour and creating

a mutually beneficial relationship that ensures the

long term survival of both.

Privilege for me is measured in a child’s access to

water: from clean drinking water, to learning to swim

and finally experiencing the world below the blue

surface. It is not only about ocean conservation; it is

about the development of a whole person. It is about

the development of a person who understands their

role on our blue planet and who experiences the great

joy that our oceans have to share.

Gabrielle takes a deep breath, lets go of my neck and

bobs under. She still can’t swim, but she’s confident

enough to float and dive and explore. Watching over

her and her friends closely we see their fear turn to

fascination. This summer Gabrielle and her friends

will be taught to swim, and suddenly living on a sand

dune a few hundred meters from a crystal blue ocean,

is an opportunity, not a risk.

In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we are taught Baba Dioum, 1968

20 21

The need for new models of capitalism isn’t,

necessarily a message of gloom and doom.

Depending on how we decide to act, it could be

the impetus we need for real transformation.

The oceans crisis provides one of the clearest

demonstrations of this. It gives us a cogent example

of why the model needs to be changed and, most

hearteningly, how it can be done.

Our technological advances have made us too good

at fishing. Improvements in vessel design, fishing

gear, tracking and communication technology

mean we can pretty much get at every fish in the

sea. The effects of global warming in hitherto

inaccessible areas such as Antarctica mean that,

with a little help from superior boat build, we

can get in there too. Slower to advance has been

our willingness to face the facts, or perhaps to

overcome our survival instinct-driven desire for

immediate gain. (Or just call it greed.) Whatever

the retardation responsible, the facts are that in

the last 50 years, 90% of our big fish have gone, 90%

of remaining commercially fishable stocks are

facing collapse and 25% of all remaining marine

species face extinction.

Yet, the solutions to the oceans crisis lie well within

our reach. As leading marine biologist Professor

Callum Roberts’ research has shown, fish stocks

and marine eco-systems regenerate within five to

seven years. Creating effectively managed marine

protected areas and working with communities to

develop sustainable fishing practices, enables the

right conditions for this to happen. To implement

these relatively straightforward innovations

requires the right confluence of community

engagement, scientific expertise, political will,

investment and intelligent business thinking. The

last three are the most difficult to bring to the

table. This is where the model needs to change.

Despite the immense and co-dependent economic,

social and environmental benefits well-managed

oceans offer, marine regeneration is pretty much

seen as a charity case. NGOs (such as my own)

struggle on minimal resources to find piecemeal

funding to achieve the Aichi biodiversity target

of 10% of the world’s oceans under protection by

2020. (This in itself is a dangerously low base line

to maintain global ocean health.) To try to solve

a problem that is so vital to keeping the earth a

“safe operating space” for humans, society relies

essentially on individual, organisational and

corporate philanthropy.

Some are making attempts to bring bigger guns

to bear on the problem and create what is being

called a ‘Blue Economy’. HRH Prince of Wales,

with his customary concern and foresight recently

convened the investment and business world with

marine conservationists and small island states to

try to incubate cross-sectorial solutions.

The response was typical from the investment

community. They have too much money to be able

to help. The capital is there but the individual

projects are too small. It’s a problem of scale they

tell us. What could be on a larger scale than 71%

of the earth’s surface? An oft-cited World Bank

report The Sunken Billions demonstrated that

over £40 billion a year is lost in poor management

of fisheries. As technology enables greater access,

the sea is becoming increasingly targeted as a

source of valuable raw materials for industries

ranging from pharmaceuticals to aggregates. For

about a billion people, fish is the primary source

of protein.

The short sightedness is staggering. With the

vital services that the oceans provide to a global

market, this is the ideal space for investors and

entrepreneurs who have enough vision to see

beyond quarterly returns and look ahead at the

shape of the world in a quarter of a century.

In his latest book ‘The World We Made’, Jonathon

Porritt sets out the balance of economic prosperity

and planetary and personal well-being that could

be achieved with many of the tools we already

have in our hands today. What is most needed is a

shift in thinking.

It’s not just an economic problem - ocean

mismanagement is already having tangible

political ramifications. Food security now

dominates political agendas worldwide. A big

question is how are we going to feed a population

rapidly pushing nine billion. Unemployment in

coastal communities is a problem facing politicians

from Blackpool to Mogadishu to Rio. Piracy in

Somalia, with Africa’s longest mainland coastline,

is an ugly consequence of the resulting poverty.

The Maldives itself presents an important case

to consider in creating a Blue Economy. In the

words of Minister Shainee, Maldivian Minister

of Fisheries and Agriculture, with regard to

sustainable fishing, “If we can’t solve this problem

we’ve had it. All we’ve got is tourism and fishing.”

Developing a workable blue economic model in

the Maldives, where sustainable fishing underpins

marine health and therefore sustainable tourism

and provides adequate livelihoods for the atoll

communities, is indeed a challenge.

The Maldivians have reached out to the

international community for help in the form

of investment and expertise, but we are slow

to engage. This is a challenge worth rising to.

The predicament that the Maldives is currently

facing – working out how to develop a profitable

economic model that values finite natural

resources because their lives depend on it – is a

microcosm of the one we are all facing. Cushioned

by our current circumstances, we may not feel it

quite so close to home.

Although feel it we will. As Thor Heyerdahl said

towards the end of his life, “The most important

thing we can learn from the past is that no earlier

civilisation has survived. The larger the pyramids

and temples and statues they build in honour

of their god or themselves, the harder has been

the fall.” Essentially, we are following the classic

pattern of civilisations that destroyed themselves,

such as the Mesopotamians, the Mayans or Easter

Islanders, because they became too successful at

exploiting and consuming their natural resources.

The result for them was societal collapse.

We too are wiping out our core capital without any

thought of reseeding. But this time we’re operating

on a global scale. Unless we plan to make like the

Mayans, it’s time to listen to Dr. Rocktröm’s message

and to innovate new business and economic models

before we are all out of business.

It’s not just an economic problem - ocean mismanagement is already having tangible political ramifications

22 23

Oceans of valuesBRUCE BROMLEY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SONEVA GROUP 7

In Matthew Freud’s introductory notes in the

inaugural Brewery Journal, he asserts that successful

companies focus on long-term sustainable growth

and reputation management rather than short-

term performance and quarterly sales targets. To

paraphrase Freud, successful companies focus on

their values, not their value.

Soneva is a brand built around the guiding principal

of Intelligent Luxury. We question what is truly

luxurious in a world where the trappings of wealth

are available on every high street. Luxury and

opulence are not necessarily the same thing. The

definition of luxury is something that is a rarity, but

for many in today’s society, eating in an expensive

restaurant or buying the latest smartphone is no

longer considered a luxury. What has become rare is

peace, time and space to reconnect with yourself and

the natural environment.

Consistent with our brand values and philosophy at

Soneva, we focus on our connection with nature and

we are almost maniacal in our efforts to eliminate

our negative environmental footprint. There is

simply no excuse for resort companies such as ours

to fail to adopt sustainable operating practices.

As a CFO who is tasked with protecting the value

of the company it is evident to me at every turn

that being true to our values is adding to this value

– I see it daily on the bottom line. Sustainability

makes commercial sense. Simple. Supporting linear

processes such as importing branded bottled water

from half way around the world has neither a

commercial nor an environmental rationale. Why

manufacture a plastic bottle, ship it somewhere in

the world to be filled with water (very often from

a municipal supply), and then ship it to a remote

location somewhere else in the world (via a supply

chain network of docks and warehouses) for it to be

consumed in a matter of minutes after which the

bottle is tossed onto a rubbish pile somewhere to

begin its 450 year journey to decomposition?

According to American campaigners Ban the Bottle,

Americans alone use 50 billion plastic water bottles

a year, and only a fraction of these are recycled. 17

million barrels of oil are used in the production of

the plastic for those bottles, which, to give it some

perspective, is enough to keep 1.3 million cars on the

road. And that’s just in the US.

And then there’s the environmental impact of all the

plastic waste. Some of the numbers thrown about by

scientists are so incomprehensible it’s scarcely worth

quoting them. 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic debris

litter the oceans, 4 billion plastic microfibers per

square kilometer of ocean are found in the deep sea.

Scientists estimate that up to 80% of marine debris is

plastic. And it’s not just the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, with its 700,000

square kilometers (an area the size of Texas) of plastic

soup, where we see the effects of this accumulation.

As plastic breaks down into microscopic particles it

finds its way into the food chain through marine life

- a circular and carcinogenic process that is beginning

to impact on all of us.

Soneva banned the sale of branded bottled water

on our resorts in 2008 and we haven’t looked back.

We produce, bottle and sell high quality filtered,

desalinated water in reusable glass bottles and

the impact on our bottom line has been highly

favourable. So favourable, in fact, that we have been

able to donate 50% of our water sales to charities

and still see a good bump up in the profits we book

There is simply no excuse for resort companies such as ours to fail to adopt sustainable operating practices

credit: One Drop

24 25

from those sales. The environment benefits from

this circular process, while our guests benefit

from an exceptional quality product that is free

from the hormone-mimicking pollutants and

other nasties routinely found in bottled water.

Our initiative also provided the impetus for the

launch of the WHOLE WORLD Water campaign

(www.wholeworldwater.co), which encourages

the hospitality industry to produce bottled water

locally and to donate 10% of the profits from water

sales to support charities addressing water needs in

developing countries.

Soneva calls the Maldives home. Our first resort

was built there and as a country it represents many

of the ideals of an intelligent approach to luxury.

But even in a remote and beautiful location like the

Maldives, the challenges of wasteful linear processes

are beginning to undermine the very reason that 1.4

million tourists are attracted to its coral atolls each

year. The resource demands created by this huge

number of tourists (the population of the Maldives

is less than 350,000) are largely met through the

import of consumables, and the consequential waste

this produces is altering the landscape.

The Maldives island of Thilafushi, colloquially

referred to as “trash island”, is a permanent smoldering

reminder of the futility of linear processes and the

impact of tourism on small island states. A rubbish

tip a couple of miles from the country’s capital, Male,

is the repository for waste from the main island, as

well as the country’s hundred or so island resorts.

Thousands of tonnes of solid waste and toxic material

are unloaded on Thilafushi every week. The amount

of waste continues to grow as more and more tourists

flock to the country’s remote resort islands. None of

this waste is adequately processed.

Here again there is an opportunity to align value with

values. Soneva has all but eliminated waste leaving our

resort island (except for waste which requires special

Dilemma’ – where organisations fail to cooperate

even if it is in their best interests. Players are driven

inexorably to adopt strategies which they know to be

undesirable in the long run, for fear that they will

lose out on exploiting exhaustible natural capital if

they do not. The reason for their actions lies either

in their inability to communicate with other parties

or their deep mistrust of the other’s intentions – in

effect the same thing.

For the travel and tourism sector, following non-

sustainable business practices and over-exploitation

of natural capital represents a linear path that will

ultimately be to the detriment of the industry in the

longer term. At the same time an opportunity exists

for concerted and combined action from the industry

and its key players to create circular business practices

processing). The simple process of material recycling

at our resorts has reduced our waste handling costs

considerably. The compost that we produce from our

food waste is used to feed our organic gardens (which

now produce the majority of our fresh produce

requirement) while surplus compost is sold for a

healthy profit. Glass from thousands of wine bottles

is crushed and used to make attractive table-tops and

will soon become the feedstock for our own glass

factory, producing functional glassware for the resort

as well as items of fine glass art for sale. We may soon

be taking compostable organic waste and glass from

other resort islands to feed these waste-to-wealth

profit centres. In this case, one man’s trash is another

man’s cash.

At an operating level, the case for more sustainable

business practices is the benefit to the bottom line.

Reduce your energy consumption and you reduce your

costs. Produce your own water and you increase your

profits. Recycle and you reduce your waste handling

costs. There really isn’t a reason for failing to pursue

more sustainable practices, and if not for the health of

the planet then at least for the health of your P&L.

The real value vs values challenge for business is

justifying the investment which is required for

a common good where there is no measureable

return for the investor, and any return which may

materialise is likely to benefit other parties who

may not carry the same social responsibility. This

is particularly the case when it comes to corporate

responsibility for our oceans.

The business case for investing in oceans falls

foul of Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons.

Companies acting independently and rationally

according to their own self-interest behave contrary

to the best interests of society as a whole. Their

exploitation of “free” natural capital, such as coral

reefs or fish populations, depletes the common

resource. Spending on ocean protection is difficult

for companies to justify because the returns are

intangible or, at the very least, incalculable and the

beneficiaries are invariably not the prevailing capital

providers to the company.

From a resource exploitation perspective the

challenges are equally significant. The global

fisheries industry is a textbook case of the ‘Prisoner’s

that reduce demands on natural capital and underpin

the long-term sustainability of the industry.

With such change a necessary priority, the

mantra of the travel and tourism industry must

be communication and collaboration and not

competition. It’s time to revisit our values.

At an operating level, the case for more sustainable business practices, is the benefit to the bottom line

26 27

SLOW LIFE Symposium 2014

28 29

How does Virgin Unite

work to improve the state

of our environment?

INTERVIEW WITH JEAN OELWANG, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIRGIN UNITE

8

Virgin Unite is about how we connect great people

with entrepreneurial ideas to bring about positive

change in the world. We were built on the premise

that business can and must be a force for good.

Therefore, we focus on three things. One is looking

at building disruptive collaborations that combine

people from different sectors to tackle global

issues. As a result we have successfully incubated

organisations like The Elders, The Carbon War

Room, the B team and Ocean Unite. The second

thing we do is work with entrepreneurs, all over

the world, to create jobs. And thirdly, we work

with Virgin’s 25 businesses across 15 industries to

see how they can put driving change at the core of

what they do.

We start by helping them to find their purpose,

to identify how they can make a difference in

the world. With Virgin Active, for example,

it’s all about keeping young people active; for

Virgin Money, they came up with “Everyone is

better off”. Then we work on specific projects,

so in 2005 we collaborated with Virgin Active

in South Africa to start up backyard gyms with

local entrpreneurs. Virgin Active then worked

with the community in Soweto to create a full

service township gym, which pulled in local

entrepreneurs, such as local DJs and hairdressers,

to collaborate with. The outcome was the creation

of a profitable business which also helps the

community - the best of both worlds.

No, I think instead they reinforce one another. The

world has seen a radical shift in the past decade, as

people want companies to play a much stronger role

in taking care of communities and the planet. This

is now expected of companies rather than “nice to

have”. I believe that companies who can demonstrate

their commitment to this will not only do well in

their business, but will have a much happier work

force, and certainly happier customers.

First and foremost we have 65,000 dedicated people

across the world that are very entrepreneurial and

deeply passionate about driving a change in the

world. I think that is our starting point. On top of

that we feel a responsibility that the brand has the

power to convene and to also build awareness of

issues. For example, our founder Richard Branson

has over 20 million social media followers right

now, which can amplify important messages to a

very large audience.

So how have you enacted change through Virgin’s businesses?

Do you think there is a trade off between the financial bottom line and the social and environmental bottom line?

What is the Virgin Group’s particular contribution - what can you do that other commercial organisations cannot?

30 31

Resource Defense Council, Ocean 5 and a host

of others, who had a very clear understanding

of what needed to happen. Then you had other

groups like Ocean Elders and the Global Ocean

Commission who had the celebrity voices that

could amplify and connect to the right people.

However, the two weren’t connecting, so we set up

Ocean Unite – a very nimble, small independent

organisation that takes the critical information

from the organisations doing the in-depth

research and makes sure that it gets into the hands

of the amplifiers.

If a celebrity is willing to use their voice to

amplify an issue and is truly doing it at a level

of depth, I warmly celebrate that because I think

it is something that can make a significant

difference and they will reach audiences

that we would never reach as a not for profit

organisation. The second thing I would say

about celebrities is that we have an opportunity

to turn our perspective upside down and start

making celebrities out of the people in the

world who lead through moral courage, long

term thinking, empathy and inclusiveness.

I have a strong belief in its ability to create jobs.

That’s why Virgin Unite set up employment

training centers in the Caribbean and South

Africa. We’ve also built an online platform that

helps connect business mentors with mentees

around the world and in the UK we’re working

on how to get more small business start ups

to reach scale. We’re deeply passionate about

entrepreneurship and how it can change the

world. We have some excellent examples where

our support of entrepreneurs has made a huge

difference. We supported an incredible female

entrepreneur, Claire Reed, in South Africa who

built a business called Reel Gardening, where she

created strips of paper with seeds and fertiliser

placed inside. You can literally take that strip of

paper and put it in the ground and you have a

garden. She is a great success story. To help her

further, we introduced her to Paul Polman from

Unilever, and they are now enabling her to bring

her idea to scale, creating thousands of gardens

across South Africa and Zimbabwe.

I deeply respect the concept of abundance for all

within planetary boundaries. I do not believe you

must stop growth in order to make a difference in

the world. I think smart growth and innovative

growth that respects Mother Nature and the

dignity of a human being is a real opportunity for

us. It is an extraordinary moment in time where

we can combine the technology that already exists,

the new technology that is emerging, and our

entrepreneurial spirit as human beings. In doing

so I think we can create a world that’s fair and

equitable for everyone.

Jean Oelwang

CEO of Virgin Unite. She was talking to Edward Amory from freuds

Has there been a practical outcome from attending the SLOW LIFE Symposium?

Do you see entrepreneurialism as a force for good in the world?

Is economic growth the enemy of the environment?

How do you feel about the involvement of celebrities in sustainability campaigns?

Could you describe what you’ve done with Ocean Unite?

Richard never accepts the unacceptable; if he sees

something that is wrong or could be different he

will want to turn it upside down and make sure that

he changes it. He brings this unique entrepreneurial

lens to everything we do, as well as an ability to

open his arms to collaborate with a wide range of

partners. Maybe most importantly,=he is one of the

few senior leaders that I’ve seen who will dig in,

roll up his sleeves and get involved in the detail.

I think there were two key turning points in my life

that led me to where I am now. I started my career

in telecommunications and then formatively, I was

an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer, giving a year of

service to impoverished communities in America.

Through this, I ended up working in a homeless

youth shelter in Chicago city centre, where I

realised how screwed up we were as a society to

allow 70,000 young people to live on the street. The

second point came when I was fortunate enough

to live in South Africa. I moved there in the mid

nineties to help start up a mobile phone company.

When we launched pre-paid services, it was

extraordinary to see the entrepreneurial energy

in townships. People were utilising this new access

and lifting themselves out of poverty. It was a huge

awakening to the power of how business can help to

change people’s lives for the better.

Both sides have a lot to learn from one another.

There tends to be this animosity between the

sectors and it is such a missed opportunity. It is only

through collaborations, when the two sectors come

together, that you start to see real change happen.

We need to get rid of the donor model and turn it

into a true partnership model where both sides

respect the other.

The complex issues humanity is facing right now

demand wide collaboration between unlikely

partners. New approaches should aim to bring artists

together with business leaders and philanthropists.

It is clear we must stop looking through just one

lens and work in different ways to solve some of

these problems.

Yes, Virgin Unite works with a group of business

leaders called the B Team to find better ways of

doing business. After the conference we brought

them together with people from the SLOW

LIFE Symposium, ranging from a documentary

filmmaker to a financial investor to two people

that are working in the fishing industry. It was

beautiful to see the collaboration between those

groups. We had some great discussions about what

a future world of business could look like to inspire

millions of business leaders to work towards a

better way of doing business for the wellbing of

people and the planet.

We felt that in the ocean space there were lots

of organisations doing great work but not

collaborating - there was a lack of much needed

momentum. Towards the end of 2014, we brought

together around five of these groups and we all

spent two days together looking at what the critical

issues were for the ocean. A tangible outcome of

this gathering was that you had knowledgeable

organisations such as the Pew Trust, the National

How about you, Jean? What led you in this direction?

What else do you think Richard Branson brings in his approach and values?

A lot of your discussion focuses on collaboration. Why is that particularly important in this area?

What do you feel businesses have to learn from the not for profit, social entrepreneurial sector?

32 33

Increasing food security

and reducing poverty

- how fish can feed the

developing world

I believe that the answer to some of the world’s

greatest poverty challenges lies close to home – in

our seas, oceans, lake and rivers. Fisheries provide

more than one billion people with most of their

daily animal protein. It provides micronutrients and

fatty acids that are essential to cognitive and physical

development, especially in children, and which

are a key component of a healthy diet. Globally,

micronutrient rich fish can save lives and promote

healthier communities.

Under-nutrition remains a huge global issue. It

kills more than three million children every year

and affects physical and cognitive development in

many more. The 2014 Global Hunger Index (GHI),

produced by the International Food Policy Research

Institute (IFPRI) shows that even though access to

food has improved substantially over the past two

decades, more than two billion people suffer from

‘hidden hunger’ or micronutrient deficiencies

which are caused by not eating a diverse diet.

Although eating more fish can help address this

problem, supplies are failing to meet demand. There

are major shortages in some critically poor countries

and catches from wild fisheries are projected to

remain flat, or at best increase only moderately with

improved management. This means that most of the

growth in supply must come from fish farming. The

World Bank estimates that aquaculture will provide

close to two thirds of global food fish by 2030. In

that timeframe, preliminary calculations suggest an

additional 34 million tons of fish will be needed to

match the world’s future population.

Globally, more than 250 million people depend

directly on fisheries and aquaculture for their

livelihoods and millions are employed in fisheries

and aquaculture value chains in roles such as

processing or marketing. The very poor often rely on

fishing as a primary source of income. These small-

scale fishers are particularly vulnerable as fish stocks

diminish. Increased productivity and an equitable

distribution of the benefits from sustainable

fisheries and aquaculture can be a driver for rural

development by mitigating risks to livelihoods and

contributing to income generation and employment.

I believe that a sustainable approach to fisheries

and aquaculture will help to protect our natural

resources, improve food and nutrition security,

increase income and improve livelihoods, promote

economic growth and ensure that fish stocks

are available for future generations. Currently,

overfishing, ineffective management practices,

coastal development and nutrient pollution from

agricultural run-off have reduced fish stocks. While

sustainable fisheries management is a challenge,

solid global and regional governance of these vital

resources will ensure that we can produce enough

fish for those living in poor regions. Aquaculture, or

STEPHEN HALL, DIRECTOR GENERAL, WORLDFISH9

The World Bank estimates that aquaculture will provide close to two thirds of global food fish by 2030

fish farming in particular, has tremendous potential

to enhance food security.

A recent paper, co-authored by WorldFish and

the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies,

provides proof that increases in small-scale

aquaculture productivity can significantly increase

food security. However, the report stresses there is

a need to support wild capture fisheries in parallel

to the development of the aquaculture sector. Many

rural households rely on this common resource and

so the development of policies that support both

fisheries and aquaculture is especially important

for ensuring food and nutrition security among

vulnerable populations.

As fish require a smaller environmental footprint

or sources of food than other animal sourced food,

aquaculture is a more environmentally sustainable

option for meeting the world’s food needs. Fish, as

compared to either pork or beef, convert a higher

percentage of the food they eat into consumable protein.

The production of fish also leads to markedly lower

carbon emissions. A report by the World Resources

Institute (WRI), WorldFish, the World Bank, INRA

and Kasetsart University proposes a variety of actions

producers can take to minimise impacts and encourage

sustainable growth. Among solutions are: greater

investment in technological innovation and transfer,

specifically breeding and hatchery technology, disease

control, feeds and nutrition, and the development of

low-impact production systems.

For both fisheries and aquaculture, research,

combined with strategic partnerships linking

government, civil society, and private sector players

at multiple levels, is needed to identify and bring

promising innovations to scale and shift policies

34 35

In August 2006, I rented a beautiful house in Ibiza

with a lovely view of the sea. Every day for two

weeks I settled in a comfortable chair by the pool

with one of a stack of books that I had collected,

but not had the time to read, over the previous

year. They were books on medicine, science, the

brain, wars, explorations, social challenges, and

in the middle of the stack, climate change. I was

looking for topics to explore.

Five years previously in London, I had started The

Catalyst Dinners. The Catalyst idea was to bring

together, in a private intimate setting, 50 wealthy

and powerful people who had the capacity to

change the world, and global experts who could

give them an inside view of the complexities of

dealing with major global challenges. Catalyst

was prompted by the feeling that what you

read in the press, or even books, was usually

only a part of what is a complex story, and that

moderated private discussion with experts could

open windows to understanding – and maybe

creativity and engagement around a solution.

The evenings were lively, even combative, with

the first questions flying well before the speakers

had finished, moderated on the principle that we

would only get insight if we could awake passion

and explore contradictions and omissions.

Success at a Catalyst evening was that a few

members would leave determined to dig deeper

and engage in attacking the issue we debated.

We didn’t always succeed, but some members

have subsequently gone on to focus significant

resources on social and environmental change,

some creating foundations, which in turn have

given away well over $1 billion.

But what did I do? We had discussed climate

change at two dinners in Catalyst’s first year, but it

had seemed rather abstract. Two years later we had

another climate dinner, at which an expert told us

there were many profitable ways to fight climate

change. I left that dinner thinking he was naive.

After each climate dinner, like several billion

of my fellow citizens, I didn’t think much more

about it. Over those five years, I struggled to

find the thing that I thought made sense for me

to engage in. After all, I had my own business

to run, and making the dinners dynamic was

a challenge. Maybe simply providing a route

for others was enough of a contribution, I

sometimes thought.

That was until Ibiza. The book on climate change

lurking in the middle of my pile gripped me.

It predicted a grim future, describing a break

down of the natural weather and agricultural

cycles, leading to an unpredictable and unstable

global environment. The impact on civilisation

as we knew it would be catastrophic, as order

disappeared and the social fabric fell apart.

It would be like New Orleans after Katrina,

extended across the globe.

Although the author was a thoughtful and

reliable thinker, I assumed he was exaggerating

to make a point. But his vision was grim enough

that I wanted to be sure. So over the next months,

I made a point of visiting the most prominent

climate scientists in the US, UK and Germany.

What I learned shocked me and the consensus

presented to me was that we were on a rapid train

to disaster.

Why high returns and

meaningful impact on climate

change are compatible

GEORGE POLK, DIRECTOR, TULUM TRUST10

and investments to enable sustainable fish-based

solutions that promote food and nutrition security

and reduce poverty. WorldFish, an international

nonprofit research organisation, utilises a “research

in development” approach that places scientific

evidence at the centre of development solutions that

help the millions who are dependent on fish.

WorldFish and our development partners are currently

conducting research in several areas, from improving

nutrition and health in fish dependent communities,

to increasing the resilience and productivity of small

scale fisheries and aquaculture.

A WorldFish led project exemplifying the research

in development approach focuses on helping women

in Bangladesh transform homestead ponds into

productive sources of nutritious food and income. With

support from project researchers, women designed a

research plan, led meetings and conducted research.

The communities are now equipped to put research

findings into practice and have significantly increased

production of fish from their ponds with parallel

improvements in household fish consumption.

In the Solomon Islands, WorldFish worked with

fishing communities to guide post tsunami relief

for the rehabilitation of fisheries and the building

of resilience. This involved helping the poor secure

tenure over resources so that they could make longer

term investments in sustainability.

Within aquaculture, there are several areas that hold

particular promise to increase fish yields for the

poor, specifically: genetic improvement programs,

reducing risk of disease in fish and improving access

to profitable, and environmentally sound fertilisers

and feeds.

Through WorldFish research, the breeding of

higher-yielding tilapia varieties has increased

productivity and incomes of poor, small-scale fish

farmers in Asia and Africa.

In Egypt an improved strain of tilapia, a fish breed

native to Africa, has led to a 30 per cent increase in its

production. This strain was bred and introduced by

WorldFish with support from the Swiss Government

and fish farmers are now able to provide one fish per

person, per week, for 85 million Egyptians.

In Bangladesh, WorldFish is improving productivity

and incomes by training and supporting rural

farmers in the south of the country. Working

especially with women, we are improving the

productivity of their homestead ponds and gardens

– an important goal in a country where almost half

the population struggles with both poverty and

hunger. Supported by USAID, capacity building by

WorldFish generated more than US$120 million

worth of additional production of carp and shrimp

during in 2013, benefitting more than 500,000

farmers and many more consumers.

The High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on food

security and nutrition recently reported that

fisheries and aquaculture are critically important to

any to reduce poverty and improve food security and

nutrition. It noted that limited attention has been

given so far to fish as a key element in food security

and nutrition strategies. The panel concluded, “Make

fish an integral element in national food security

and nutrition policies and programmes.”

It’s time for the role of fish to be given the

recognition it deserves. WorldFish will continue to

work with farmers and partners at the local, national

and international levels to harness the potential

of fisheries and aquaculture to promote food and

nutrition security and reduce poverty for millions.

36 37

Suddenly I felt the need to do something.

However, I was still at a slight loss. I knew how

to create new businesses, build management

teams, raise money, and sometimes even inspire

others. Did those skills apply to this fight? I

decided I would only find out if I got into the

fight, and stepped down as CEO of my business

(and eventually decided to sell it) and focus all my

energy on climate change.

When I began, that simplistic sentence was my

only guide. I knew nothing about what we could

do, if anything, to slow climate change. I just

assumed there must be something.

I began with a simple question. What do we need

to do? Scientifically the answer was simple – emit

less greenhouse gases. But there was a surprisingly

unclear theory of how exactly that could be done.

One option I heard was that we had to radically cut

our level of prosperity. Others suggested piecemeal

adjustments to various parts of the economy.

But both of these views seemed too basic and

uninformed as the magnitude of required change

is far more profound then I originally thought. To

put the problem in economic terms, today we emit

over 700 grams of CO2e per dollar of global GDP.

In 2050, if you assume we will meet our projections

for population and GDP growth but need to remain

within the understood planetary limitations, we

What do we need to do? Scientifically the answer was simple – emit less greenhouse gases. But there was a surprisingly unclear theory of how exactly that could be done

To make this happen, we have to move the way we invest capital, spending money building the new economy and stop spending money building the old

will have a carbon budget of only 6 gram of CO2e

per dollar of GDP. Even assuming we are willing

to accept dramatic cuts in our prosperity (which I

think is unlikely), or we change a few things about

our economy, that would only be a start on a path to

a required to decrease emissions 100 fold. We have to

start thinking radically differently.

As an entrepreneur I naturally wondered if we

could find a way to “grow” out of this problem, to

harness our capacity for innovation, to build an

entirely new blueprint for economic prosperity,

looking industry by industry, country by country,

to understand how we could come up with

new policies, rules, technologies and economic

opportunities that would drive a transition to a

dramatically lower carbon economy. I was not alone

in this thinking, but at the time this was a fringe

idea, not really supported by any credible analysis,

and sounding rather more like a wish than a plan.

Over the following three years, I had the privilege

of working with some of the most interesting global

philanthropists as we funded and guided an effort to

take apart models of economic activity and see if by

changing the energy system, reducing and reusing

waste, identifying and squeezing inefficiencies, and

managing better what we had, we could somehow

see a path to a solution. We spent something in the

order of $50m, funding research across commercial

and academic institutions to explore this question,

testing and sometimes piloting the results with

companies and communities, and trying to get

governments to consider the outcomes, while also

understanding the consequences of failure.

What emerged were a number of versions of a plan

that showed us how we can build a prosperous and

dynamic global economy and limit climate change.

The most accessible is the McKinsey ‘greenhouse

gas abatement cost curve’ analysis, but there were

many more focused reports like Roadmap 2050

(roadmap2050.eu) and even a very comprehensive

book called ‘Reinventing Fire’ from the Rocky

Mountain Institute. As we have continued to invest

in understanding this pathway over the last few

years, it has become more and more credible. There

is good reason to believe that if we follow the plan,

not only will we avoid devastating climate change,

but we will achieve higher (numerical) and better

(qualitative) prosperity.

The bad news is that these analyses call for dramatic

change. They outline a pathway to totally transform

our energy and agricultural systems, to derive

our power and resources in ways that are far more

sustainable, to reduce waste and massively increase

the efficiency of our societies. The numbers are large

- energy alone is a $1.7 trillion industry - and the

changes touch every aspect of the modern economy.

The pathway is built on changing our impulsive bias

towards the old, inefficient, resource intensive ways

of producing energy into a preference for the new,

efficient, resource preserving ways.

To make this happen, we have to move the way we

invest capital, spending money building the new

economy and stop spending money building the old.

Redirecting investment capital is very challenging.

Capital tends to move towards things that markets

already understand, where the risks are thought to be

clear and the business models well established. Moral

imperatives may move small amounts of capital, but

the massive capital flows we need to redirect to fight

climate change do not have a very strong conscience.

In fact, large scale capital basically just flows to what

it perceives as the right risk adjusted return. So no

matter how laudable the goals, our only hope to

make this huge shift is to show that investing in the

right way is just as profitable – and eventually more

profitable – than investing it the wrong way.

Indeed governments and industry have started

down the path of making it attractive for capital

to flow the right way. $214 billion was invested in

renewable energy in 2013. The cost of that capital

has fallen dramatically as investors have come to

understand the risks, and partially as a result, next

year it is estimated that China will deploy more

renewable power capacity than the rest of the world

38 39

The future of philanthropy

JAMES ARBIB, VENTURE INVESTOR AND FOUNDER, TELLUS MATER11

Philanthropy traces its roots back towards the

dawn of civilisation. The Judeo-Christian model

of philanthropy, which grew through the Middle

Ages, placed more emphasis on acts of love for

fellow men and the relief of suffering. The

Greeks and Romans had strong traditions and

expectations that the rich should contribute the

most to society. In a way, it was a substitute for

taxation. Much of Greek and Roman philanthropy

was aimed at sponsoring the arts or sports, with an

implicit expectation of payback through societal

recognition and even political patronage. If

donors and corporations are really honest with

themselves today, this concept of reciprocity is

still a motivating factor in much giving. And that

is not necessarily a bad thing.

A full acknowledgement of motive can help

create necessary openness that is often missing,

and can drive greater returns both for donors and

those who work in the ‘Third Sector’. It may be

controversial, but I’d argue that no motive is ever

entirely altruistic, and of that we should not be

ashamed. My own motives, beyond doing my bit

towards saving the environment, include a certain

amount of ego - a desire for influence and respect.

The role played by government in providing

services to the population has varied over time and

philanthropy has often stepped in to fill the gaps

left by the state. In many ways philanthropy stems

from an understanding that very unequal societies

do not thrive, and social cohesion and democracy

are best supported by efforts to redistribute wealth.

In successful civilisations a balance has always

been struck between groups who feel exploited

and those who are able to profit from the fruits

of their labour. No one ever became rich purely

on the back of their own efforts – and the debt

owed to the civilisation that ‘facilitated’ success

has always been recognised. The mechanism to

‘repay’ this debt has varied from taxation to the

expectation of philanthropy. More enlightened

‘donors’ have always recognised that their

longer-term interests are best served by a

society that is sustainable (in the real meaning

of the word) socially, economically and, more

recently, environmentally.

Today in advanced economies where governments

play far wider roles in society, the role of

philanthropy is narrower but no less important.

There is still a critical role to be played and I

believe there are a number of key ways in which

the sector might become even more effective.

It is important to recognise dynamics that drive

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

The sector is driven by a funding imperative

that can often negatively affect their business

model and ability to solve the problems they

are created to address. In some ways NGOs can

become cause-related marketing tools, often

having to compromise their activities to meet

specific demands from large donors. I believe

philanthropists can drive a more effective NGO

sector in a number of key ways:

The role played by government in providing services to the population has varied over time and philanthropy has often stepped in to fill the gaps left by the state

has until now. But as satisfying as that is, there

are many more sectors of the economy that are

neglected, which will need an equally radical

shift in capital availability.

To face this challenge, I founded Tulum Trust

three years ago to deliberately invest capital in

the parts of the new energy and climate economy

which our analysis told us should be profitable, but

where market barriers – lack of debt, or regulatory

uncertainty, or simply unfamiliar business models

– were stopping capital from flowing. Tulum’s

objective is to make investments that show that these

new areas are great places to make money, and while

doing that, to create capital deployment ‘pathways’

that larger pools of capital can follow.

Since starting, we have invested in four sectors

– waste industrial heat to energy, micro/local

heat and power generation, waste food to energy,

and conversion of coal power plants to cleaner

alternatives. Working closely with a small group

of family offices, The Tulum Trust has committed

over $150m of capital – a tiny drop in the bucket

but a start – to investments that generate an annual

yield in excess of 15% for the 10-20 year life of the

projects. We only invest in infrastructure, we take

no technology risk, and we aim to create stable and

excellent cash flows for our investors.

We have been quiet about this work so far, as we

wanted to show actual results before talking about

it much. But now we are branching out across the

broader ‘things that are wasted’ to the ‘things that

we value’ investment thesis. By the middle of 2015,

we will be able to show that we are generating

excellent market returns while investing in the new,

low carbon pathway. And when you think of it, it

is obvious that using heat that is otherwise thrown

away to generate electricity, or using the food that

could have been powering our bodies but has ended

up as waste to power our grid, should be a great way

to make money.

Indeed, people are now finding low carbon

opportunities across the economy. Since I started

Tulum, the electric car company Tesla has gone

from a market cap of $2 billion to $25 billion. This

is because people are starting to realise that electric

cars may be good for the planet and a lot more fun

to drive. Google has pioneered self-driving cars,

BMW and Zipcar are leading in car sharing, and

radical innovation and fuel saving technologies are

creeping into the shipping and trucking industry.

Taking these innovations to their logical conclusion,

it is starting to look realistic that we can balance

with access to great transportation while cutting

emissions from transportation by 90%. Solar and

wind plus storage is doing the same for distributed

generation, while smart grids and remote telemetry

and big data are dramatically increasing the

efficiency of energy use. Once you start looking,

there are savings available all around.

There are still lots (and lots and lots and lots)

of challenges. New regulatory structures, new

risk mitigation strategies, and of course new

technologies and business models still have to be

developed. And we will require far more capital

than is being deployed today. There are also forces

against us – many people still doubt climate change,

the global economy still loves fossil fuel, and many

of those who benefit from the old economy will not

give up their old ways without resistance. So the

path is complicated and often difficult. But we are

starting to move in the right direction, and the sums

tells us that incremental actions, compounded, can

lead to profound change.

40 41

1. Mergers and acquisitions

Duplication of effort and a failure to collaborate

are key issues in the NGO world. The funding

imperative can mean NGOs jealously guard

their area of focus and compete for grants with

similar NGOs. Whilst competition is generally

healthy – the principle of the ‘survival of the

fittest’ that works so well (and brutally) in

ecology and business does not always apply to

the sector. Often the NGOs that survive are

those that are most adept at raising funds, not

creating results. In the same way that predators

in nature strengthen the herd by ‘pruning the

weakest members’, it is incumbent on donors

to drive this process to ensure that the best

NGOs receive support and are strengthened

(with obvious consequences for the weakest).

The strongest NGOs are often weakened by

activities of the weakest organisations.

2. Core funding

Another area where philanthropists drive

effectiveness is in their support for core funding

over programme grants. It is always tempting

to support only direct programmes where

there appears to be more direct impact and a

greater proportion of the funding reaching the

‘issue’. However appearances can be deceptive.

As a venture capitalist, one of the key lessons

I’ve had drummed into me (by experience and

advice) is to support good management teams.

However, by supporting programme grants,

donors are backing ‘good’ programme officers

and not good executives who can help drive

the strategy of the organisation. Core grants

are essential to ensure the effectiveness of the

organisation. There is also the suspicion that

programme grants suggest that the donor is

better placed to understand how the money

should be spent than the NGO.

3. Siloes

Related to this is the problem of siloes. Focus

placed just on the outcomes of specific

programmes can often ignore the bigger

picture and obscure unintended ‘systems’

effects of the work an NGO is performing.

This can be amplified by the tendency to be

slaves to measurement and reporting. The

economy and society are complex systems and

the interacting forces that drive change are

often ignored. A greater systems focus can help

drive effectiveness through co-ordination of

activities with other NGOs and stakeholders,

giving a more strategic viewpoint and clearer

sight of the real drivers of change. However,

this is not easy to do and all the incentives in

the system drive a focus on specific impacts

and not systems change. Furthermore, since

the effects of systems change are dispersed

throughout the system, they are not easy to

identify or quantify.

4. Measurement

The measurement and quantification of

impact and how it is reported is of critical

importance to the sector. However, a

singular focus on reporting can be counter-

productive. Not everything important can be

quantified or measured (including systems

level change). Care should be exercised in

choosing Key Performance Indicators etc. and

they should form part of the picture, not the

overall criteria for judging ‘success’. Focus on

the wrong or incomplete metrics can drive

perverse outcomes. This can lead to the most

‘successful’ NGOs becoming those who are best

at reporting and justifying their work against

irrelevant metrics and not those that actually

have the most impact.

5. Risk

Take on risk. A lack of risk appetite and a fear of

failure drives a tendency in donors to support

only programmes that deliver incremental

change. Unfortunately many of the issues we

face need more radical solutions. Philanthropy

has a key role to play in supporting new,

innovative initiatives with high potential

impact that both government and business

are unable to explore. To provide the essential

seed capital to high risk, high return projects,

whilst not encouraging recklessness, can lead

to valuable lessons learned even where they

fail. The NGO world still has a lot to learn from

the business world - technology developments

mean that new models and initiatives can be

trialed more quickly and cheaply allowing fast

‘prototyping’ and ‘pivots’ to be made.

6. Triple bottom line

There has been a lot of focus on driving NGOs

and programmes towards a more sustainable

basis that can help drive the scale up of many

activities – scalability is one of the major

challenges this sector faces. Scale is perceived to

be achieved by ‘monetising’ the benefits (social

and environmental) of their activities to create

self-sustaining enterprises. This is clearly

desirable where it can happen and has spawned

an entire impact investment ecosystem.

However, like any change, there is a danger

in it going too far. There are some worthwhile

initiatives that do not lend themselves to such a

model and require pure grant funding to exist.

Philanthropic ‘investments’ can be made along

a scale from grants (where returns are entirely

social and environmental) to market-based

returns. The key is to find initiatives whose

total return, the triple bottom line (economic,

social and environmental), is maximised.

7. Disruption

One of the key areas that philanthropy can

contribute to is in acting as a counter-balance

to the interests of incumbents. In an age

where there is a degree of ‘legislative and

media capture’ by the vested interests (mainly

business) and an incumbency that resists the

fundamental changes necessary – philanthropy

42 43

The evolution of the Shell Foundation strategy

CHRIS WEST, DIRECTOR, SHELL FOUNDATION 12

When the Shell Foundation was set up 14 years

ago, we set out to tackle major obstacles to

inclusive development in ways that were both

sustainable and scalable. As a charity, we chose

to focus on entrenched global problems, such

as access to energy for low-income consumers,

sustainable mobility and job creation via small

and medium sized enterprises. Our approach to

create, prove and scale disruptive technologies

and business models has remained ever constant

– yet our strategy to achieve this has had to

change significantly as we sought to improve

our impact and efficiency.

Moving to an ‘enterprise

based’ approach

In our early years, we selected grantees by

consulting widely, publicising our areas

of interest and then reviewing multiple

proposals – a classic ‘Request for Proposal’

methodology. It was based on offering short-

term grants of up to three years and awarding

less than $300,000 each to a multitude of not-

for-profit organisations.

This ‘spray and pray’ approach was marred

by a fundamental lack of success, with over

75% of grantees in our first three years failing

to demonstrate any potential for large-scale

impact and financial independence. The

quality of applications we received was poor

and, of those we selected, most failed to even

achieve their basic stated objectives due to weak

execution, an inability to ascertain the true

needs of the market and insufficient expertise

to develop a business model that could progress

beyond a long-term reliance on subsidy.

Through a process of trial and error, we

discovered we could radically improve our

philanthropic effectiveness by focusing

resources (time, money and effort) on

developing new approaches with a few

carefully-selected entreprenerial partners, and

supporting them to build the organisational

capacity needed to validate and scale new

market-based models.

By recruiting staff with a blend of commercial

and development expertise, we applied greater

business discipline to our own processes for

partner selection, performance management,

cost-efficiency and risk assessment resulting

in improved performance over time.

A new theory of change: from

pioneers to building markets

By 2009, we had narrowed our focus to a small

portfolio of entrepreneurs. Take for example,

our Access to Energy programme, one of the

Foundation’s three main focus areas. By this

stage we had supported pioneers in totally new

fields, developing solutions to make modern

energy products (like cookstoves and solar

lights) and services (such as off-grid electricity

and engine retrofits) affordable and available

to low-income communities.

Over the next two to three years, pioneers such as

Envirofit, d.light and Husk Power Systems began

has a key role to play in mobilising civil society

and challenging the status quo, driving change

both at a legislative and a cultural level. This

high-level systems work will always require

‘pure’ grant money but it is at least as essential

as any of the other more ‘sustainable’ models

currently being developed.

Philanthropy has a critical role to play in

developing a truly sustainable and fair global

society. Governments and businesses will never

be perfect. There will always be areas where

the activities of both either fail to recognise or

create conditions that are less than optimal. It

is here that philanthropy has its clearest role,

in protecting and representing the best interest

of civil society in counteracting market and

government failures.

A CLEAN COOKSTOVE

44 45

to demonstrate the potential of decentralised

energy solutions and cutting-edge technology to

deliver measurable financial and social benefit to

customers in India and several countries in Africa.

Each business, however, remained fragile.

Promising initial growth had slowed by 2011, and

it became clear that structural barriers such as low

consumer awareness, affordability constraints

and limited routes to market stood in the way of

significant global expansion. Alongside a range

of public and private sector collaborators, we

wrestled with ways to overcome these challenges.

Over time, a series of direct interventions evolved

into something more strategic. We started to

prioritise the creation of dedicated ‘market

enablers’ – intermediary businesses, financiers

and industry bodies – to provide the critical

market infrastructure that a broader set of early-

stage energy enterprises needed to thrive. With

partners beginning to mature, we entered a new

phase of organisational growth: looking beyond

pioneer social enterprises to the creation of

inclusive markets in order to amplify our impact.

Our Six Step Theory of Change

Shell Foundation has, by need more than

design, evolved to work in six areas designed

to accelerate social innovation and build new

inclusive markets. One of our greatest successes

was our work to catalyse a global market for

clean cookstoves, set out here against our

“Theory of Change”.

Stage 1: Catalyse

In 2002 Shell Foundation started analysing

the issue of inefficient cooking in developing

countries. Every day three billion people

around the world cook their meals on open

fires or inefficient stoves – burning biomass

fuels such as wood, waste and charcoal. This has

major ramifications on health, income and the

environment. Cooking in this way produces a

dense black smoke that kills 4.3 million people a

year. Mainly women and children – thus is a death

toll higher than HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis

combined. Burning fuel inefficiently also

significantly raises fuel costs (which can

represent up to 40% of family income in parts

of Africa) and time spent gathering wood for

the poorest families, while the resultant black

carbon is a major contributor to climate change.

Although cleaner cookstoves had for decades

been identified as the solution to this challenge,

no initiative (typically NGO or government-led)

had proved able to produce a product that could

solve the problem on any sort of scale at state

or national level. We identified the potential to

catalyse private markets to solve this challenge

by making more efficient stoves available to the

people who need them.

Stage 2: Pilot

Between 2002 and 2007, Shell Foundation

conducted nine pilot projects across seven

countries, at a cost of nearly $20m, to understand

varying cooking technologies, business models,

and customer needs. None of these resulted in the

creation of a product that met customer desires for

affordability, high performance and durability.

With partners beginning to mature, we entered a new phase of organisational growth: looking beyond pioneer social enterprises to the creation of inclusive markets in order to amplify our impact

Nevertheless, the market knowledge gained

proved invaluable and informed the selection

of Envirofit in 2007 and the evolution of a new

business model to serve this market.

Stages 3 and 4: Create Pioneer and Scale

In 2007 we formed a long-term partnership

with Envirofit, a social enterprise spun from the

acclaimed engineering department of Colorado

State University, to build a clean cookstove

business that targeted financial viability and

scale from the outset (a radical departure from

traditional approaches which centred on give-

away schemes and heavily subsidised stoves).

Envirofit’s engineers pioneered a new cooking

technology to produce affordable cookstoves

that are efficient, durable and desirable, and are

adapted to suit the cooking preferences and fuel

choices of local customers. They now have a range

of biomass stoves for different markets, retailing

between $10 and $30. Each stove reduces toxic

fumes by up to 80% while cutting costs and fuel

usage by up to 60% when compared with open

fires – delivering massive cost savings and health

benefits to customers.

Stage 5: Tackle Market Barriers

Despite having a great product that tested well

in different markets, Envirofit struggled to gain

traction in the market place – and growth was far

slower than projected. Around 2009, we began

to uncover major structural barriers that would

affect the scale-up not just of Envirofit, but any

clean cookstoves business (in fact any business

that sought to serve Bottom of the Pyramid

markets). Major challenges constraining growth

included rural distribution, consumer financing,

low product awareness and a significant lack of

working capital across their supply chain.

Shell Foundation responded in two ways.

First by working with Envirofit to innovate,

test and scale new ‘value chain’ solutions to

key market barriers, such as partnerships

with microfinance institutions (consumer

affordability), corporates (market access and

brand recognition) and shifting to a B2B

distribution model. Secondly, Shell Foundation

partnered with a range of social entrepreneurs

to tackle these barriers to growth at an industry

level. This meant working to co-create new

supply chain and distribution models and

developing new financing solutions to enable

the replication of these models and to improve

affordability for consumers. Partners included

Dharma Life (a specialist rural distributor) and

IntelleGrow (a specialist financier providing

debt finance to early stage enterprises) who

have now supported multiple clean cookstoves

to scale in India.

As a result, Envirofit have grown from an initial

pilot in southwest India to an international

business that works in over 45 countries. They

are the stand-out leader of a new market for

clean cookstoves, with a large range of efficient

biomass-burning products suited for different

uses and regions and over 850,000 stoves sold

to-date across Asia, Africa and Latin America

(benefiting more than 4.2m people to-date).

Stage 6: Build Markets

As part of our efforts to encourage new entrants

into the market, and to create a robust value chain

to support them, Shell Foundation partnered

with the UN Foundation in 2009 to co-develop a

non-profit institution that could provide critical

support and infrastructure to catalyse the growth

of a worldwide industry. The Global Alliance

for Clean Cookstoves (the Alliance) is a multi-

stakeholder public-private partnership initiated

by Shell Foundation, the UN Foundation and

the US State Department. Established in 2010,

the Alliance is working to build a global market

46 47

for efficient household cookstoves, and aims to

foster the adoption of cleaner cooking solutions

in 100 million households by 2020. It aims to

mobilise public and private grant and investment

resources, codify best practice and develop global

standards for clean cookstoves and fuels, build

the capacity of organisations in the sector, and

advocate for a supportive enabling environment.

Shell Foundation seconded a dedicated full-time

staff member to the UN Foundation to help

design an effective model for the initiative.

Since launching at the Clinton Global Initiative

in September 2010, the Alliance has secured

over 950 partners and to-date has leveraged

$200 million funding into the sector from

governments, the private sector and NGOs.

The clean cookstove sector now includes well

over 40 businesses who are serving low-income

communities with high-quality products (using

different technologies and fuels) at a regional or

global level. From our perspective, demonstrating

that viable businesses can work has lowered

the risk for a range of social and commercial

investors to explore the sector, and the market is

now primed for significant expansion over the

next few years.

Lessons on Piloting

One of the reasons that Shell Foundation is

so well suited to catalyse inclusive markets

is our ability to make available risk tolerant

capital. The Shell Foundation choose to deploy

this in support of high-risk, yet potentially

transformative ideas, technologies and business

innovations (at both an enterprise and market

level) which other types of private and public

funders simply won’t touch.

This means getting comfortable with, perhaps

even redefining failure. A large number of

the partners we have supported over the years

have, while making a genuine difference at a

local level, failed to meet our expectations for

scale and sustainability. The word ‘failure’,

however, belies the iterative learning we gain

when things go wrong. Time and again, our

experiences have led to the insight we needed to

find a successful partner.

While we work to mitigate these risks through

improved partner selection and due diligence,

Shell Foundation’s view is that failure is a

necessary step towards disruptive innovation. We

believe failure is acceptable, providing you learn,

you learn quickly and you share lessons widely.

Why SLOW LIFE? Why now?

SONU SHIVDASANI, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SONEVA GROUP13

When you look back at the early history of

corporations, the expectation that they should

serve to benefit society is clear. From the 15th

century onwards, a Charter of Limited Liability

was a gift by the citizens of a country, through

their governments, so that corporations could

provide a service to the public. There were limits

on profits, limits on the amount of debt allowed

and even limits on how much land corporations

could own. They had a clear mandate by the

people to serve the people.

Over time this relationship has gradually

changed. Corporations have grown increasingly

independent. In many cases, the emphasis has

moved away from the creation of public good

towards the creation of wealth for shareholders,

and as such, the contract between businesses and

society has broken down. Today corporations

measure success through profits, share price

and dividends. But as Robert Kennedy said, this

“measures everything except that which makes

life worthwhile”. It seems that corporations

are no longer mandated by society to do good,

and yet they still enjoy the benefits that limited

liability brings. So, how will this imbalance

affect our society, our economy and our planet?

The charity Oxfam recently published research

forecasting that by 2016 the richest 85 people

in the world will have the same wealth as the

poorest half of the world’s population: 3.5

billion people. Christine Lagarde, the Managing

Director of the International Monetary Fund,

proclaimed, “Make no mistake; it is the world’s

most vulnerable people who will suffer most

from the convulsions of climate.”

She went on to say that due to environmental

degradation, by 2030 “almost half of the world’s

population will live in regions of high water

stress or shortage” and “that 40% of the land

now used to grow maize in sub-Saharan Africa

will no longer be able to support that crop”.

So we will see the natural environment upon

which we depend to sustain us instead turning

against us.

I have spent my life working in the hotel

industry, and have devoted my career towards

building what is now a network of luxury

resorts. I do not believe that this puts me at odds

with conservation but I am the first to admit

that my sector has a role to play in admitting

where it has failed. Hotels serve the richest 20-

30% of the world’s population, and in doing

so consume far too many natural resources,

therefore negatively impacting the other 70-

80% of society, the world’s poorest. There can

be no doubt that we, as an industry, consume far

more than our fair share of resources.

But I believe that all companies, hotel businesses

included, must have a purpose beyond profit.

They must play a greater role in the world

beyond just enriching their shareholders. I don’t

believe that this has to run counter to a successful

business model – in fact it can be central to it.

In the hotel business we can find opportunities

to make small positive changes that do not

Make no mistake; it is the world’s most vulnerable people who will suffer most from the convulsions of climate

48 49

impact negatively on either our profitability

or our guests’ perception of our products, yet

which can generate considerable good for both

the environment and society. In fact, they can

often enhance our guests’ experience. By taking

bold steps we can fundamentally redress the

balance between business and society, and shift

back to the original purpose of the corporation

as a service to society.

We are trying to achieve this at Soneva. We have

made some radical changes to the way we do

things, but we are the first to admit that this

is the beginning of a journey and that there is

still much to do. Our hotels are located amongst

some of the world’s most pristine waters and

natural environments which makes us acutely

aware of their natural importance, and we are

passionate about conserving them. Reducing

our environmental impact is central to our

company’s philosophy. We have implemented

some specific initiatives that we can practice in

our own business, but we also have programmes

that are designed to impact the wider world.

In 2008 we took the simple step of adding a

mandatory 2% carbon levy to our guests’ bills,

to off-set their travel emissions. It was a small

change and relatively small charge, which we

found our guests more than happy to accept.

And the rewards have been great. In seven years

we have raised about US$5m, which the SLOW

LIFE Foundation has used to fund a reforestation

programme in northern Thailand. Through

this, we have planted around half a million

trees, mitigating around 250,000 tons of

CO2. Additionally, funds have financed wind

power generators in South India, and we have

distributed 30,000 low carbon cooking stoves in

Myanmar and Darfur, helping 150,000 people.

We have also convened some of the world’s

greatest minds across science, business,

philanthropy and policy at our annual SLOW

LIFE Symposium. Described by one of our

participants as a ‘laboratory of intent’, the

event, now in it’s fifth year, provides these

leaders with the time and space to address the

worst challenges threatening our incredible

natural environment, and create tangible,

collaborative solutions.

The Symposium has delivered real results. For

example, in 2011 the WHOLE WORLD Water

(WWW) initiative was conceived and co-founded

by Symposium attendees Karena Albers and

Jenifer Willig in partnership with the SLOW

LIFE Foundation. The premise was simple: how

can we scale the Soneva model of filtering and

bottling water locally and using part of the

revenue to fund clean water initiatives rather

than importing bottled water? The model devised

not only eliminates plastic waste but also cuts out

unnecessary transportation miles. Today WWW

extends this concept out to the travel and tourism

industry, with 10% of sales revenues invested in

clean and safe drinking water initiatives around

the world. The scale of ambition for WWW is

dizzying – we estimate that if the entire travel

and tourism industry united around this single

issue, we could raise $1bn annually. While this

target is still some way off, last year WWW made

its first investments in clean water projects in

Cambodia, Uganda and India.

It is remarkable that many children in our

island nation, The Maldives, do not swim. A

fear of the water is compounded by a nationwide

waste problem that sees local island beaches

used as a dumping ground for household waste.

Following the 2013 SLOW LIFE Symposium,

Soneva Fushi established a Learn To Swim

programme with our neighbouring island

Eydhafushi. By teaching children to swim, we

hope that they will learn to love their ocean, and

when they love it, they will protect it. In 2015

we will scale this programme to offer intensive

swimming programmes across Baa Atoll,

partnering with other resorts, local and national

We have implemented some specific initiatives that we can practice in our own business, but we also have programmes that are designed impact the wider world

50 51

NGOs, environmental awareness groups

and government ministries. Supported

by filmmaker and National Geographic

adventurer Jon Bowermaster, who made a

documentary film of the 2014 Learn To Swim

programme, we aim to develop a model of

environmental inspiration and education that

can be applied around the world.

At the 2013 SLOW LIFE Symposium, we were

inspired by Jochen Zeitz’s introduction of

an environmental profit and loss account at

the sports brand Puma. We have committed

to adopt this at Soneva and we will use the

methodology we develop to support other

businesses that are preparing to take this step.

We already undertake a granular analysis of

our environmental performance, but the EP&L

will take this to another level. As Jochen says,

you cannot manage what you do not measure.

Much of this management is necessarily via our

supply chains.

At the 2014 Symposium, discussions with

Maldivian government ministers centred

around plans to develop a Blue Economy.

Connections were made between foundations,

marine experts, economists and government

ministries to devise an economic model for the

Maldivian fisheries that is sustainable, provides

a viable livelihood for the nation’s fishermen,

and values and protects the reef ecology.

Digital Green, led by the remarkable young social

entrepreneur Rikin Gandhi, is doing amazing

work through peer-to-peer video tutorials to

increase yield for smallholder farmers in India.

Digital Green is supporting many of these

farmers to convert from an anaerobic flood-

based cultivation of paddy to the System of Rice

Intensification (SRI), which can reduce nitrous

oxide emissions by 0.90kg per hectare. A team

from the SLOW LIFE Symposium is assisting

Rikin to certify SRI farmers for Gold Standard

carbon credits (and possibly water credits). The

returns will be reinvested to sustain and scale

Digital Green’s important work.

These examples of SLOW LIFE Symposium

initiatives give an insight into what we can

achieve when we collaborate. There is no question

that if a change is to be made it is partnerships,

collaborations, and brilliant innovations that will

bring the greatest efficacy. The private sector has

a huge role to play in the solutions agenda and

we assume this responsibility as totally central to

our core purpose. Corporations should look back

to the history books and remember that having a

purpose should be central to their mandate - and

that this contribution should be measured and

valued as robustly as any financial returns.

In partnership with