System-Level Change and the New Equilibrium

“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time,” said the late US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

There are two ways to change an existing system. Either through wholesale destruction or incremental shifts. Given the costs involved in the former’s process, human and/or financial, it should not be attempted. It may destroy what’s beneficial in the system, no matter how miniscule. And, there is no guarantee that a new system could be built after at all. On the other hand, step-by-step changes are not easy but save us from largescale upheavals. As useful pieces of the existing structure, they generate further improvements.

I was introduced to the concept of system-level change last Spring when I took the course “Social Impact: Business, Society, and the Natural Environment” with Professor Flammer at the Columbia Climate School. As I reflect upon the philosophy of system-level change, I am reminded by my engineering background that changes will only become sustainable if they are driven to a new point of equilibrium in the system.

The importance of new equilibrium for system-level change raises two critical questions. Who will create this new equilibrium? How it will be created? I would try to answer these questions by utilizing my recent experience of working on corporate biodiversity disclosures.

I will take up the second question first. I have observed that majority of companies do not know about biodiversity and that biodiversity loss is actually happening. So, the first step in the system-level change is awareness and knowledge of a problem and how corporate actions are contributing to this problem. Then comes the deep-dive into corporates’ governance and policy framework to look for entry points to kickstart the process. Identifying these points is easy but requires advocacy, collaboration, persuasion, reorientation and innovation to actually work on these avenues.  Once corporate leadership changes the focus from business-as-usual to permanent transformation, companies would be able to create new system equilibrium by taking short-term pain to achieve long-term gains.

However, reality check comes from the first question. Economic downturns can put companies in survival mode and the system-level change momentum could be easily lost. I agree that survival is necessary but I would argue that efforts to maintain the new equilibrium should continue. Therefore, enter governments and conscious consumers. They play a key role in keeping the system from moving away from the newly-established equilibrium. Governments have the regulatory power as well as resources to support companies and economies during distress. Consumers faced with financial constraints of their own but looking at the bigger picture are willing to pay premium to keep system-level changes permanent. I acknowledge that it is easier said than done because in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, many countries are struggling to keep their economies running. Yet they have a responsibility towards transformation of the system because starting again from zero means wastage of resources.

In a nutshell, bringing change is easy but maintaining new equilibrium for system-level change demands sacrifice, support, innovation and resources on the part of all stakeholders. Despite the current unfavorable global geopolitical and economic situation, numerous positive changes are happening. However, system-level permanent changes are still far away.