By Jonathon Hanks

Published in Bidvest’s internal magazine

“Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger.  The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close.  In its place we are entering a period of consequences; we cannot avoid this period, we are in it now.”

These words could easily have been echoing through the plenary of the Bella Centre in Copenhagen in December 2009, at one of the largest-ever gatherings of global leaders who came together with the hope of addressing one of society’s most pressing challenges: global climate change.  Despite the distraction of a few dissenting voices, there is now sufficient evidence that human-induced global warming presents a fundamental threat to human security and prosperity. Global policy-makers and scientists are largely at one – the science has given us the plainest warnings, we have entered a period of danger, and the era of procrastination should be coming to its close.

But these are the words not of Obama, Brown, Zuma or Wen, but rather of Winston Churchill, speaking in 1936 of the threat posed by Hitler’s ambitions. The disappointing Copenhagen summit has been described by some as the “Munich of our time.” The comparisons are clear. In 1938, the then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, went to Munich, sacrificed Czechoslovakia in an effort to appease Hitler and came back promising “peace for our time.” Despite the evidence that peace was not possible, he secured a meaningless agreement and he was cheered on his return.

So, too, in 2009, where President Obama – and with him the leaders of the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) – arguably lacked the audacity to move beyond the dictates of national self-interest that so many had hoped for.  President Obama may well be cheered at home for facing up to China and protecting US interests, but this is at the cost of securing the necessary outcome for Copenhagen: a commitment to a binding legal agreement with clear reduction targets, signalling the end of an era of procrastination.

The nature of the Copenhagen Accord, and the manner by which it was agreed, suggests that we need to look beyond traditional international processes to find solutions to global challenges, and it provides a compelling invitation for business to demonstrate the required leadership. In this context it’s useful to identify the characteristics that we would wish to see of our CEO, company or business sector, and to judge whether we are being led by Churchills or by Chamberlains.

First and foremost we will need leaders who have sufficient vision and imagination to see the big picture, who recognise the interconnectedness and complexity of the climate challenge, and who fully appreciate its scale and urgency and the complete inadequacy of current responses. We will need business leaders who can anticipate and provide for what business author Nicholas Taleb has called “Black Swans”: high-impact, hard-to-predict events that are beyond the realm of our normal expectation (or what Donald Rumsfeld less prosaically refers to as “unknown unknowns”).

If we need vision and imagination to anticipate these probabilities for the futures, then we will need courage to implement such responses. We will needed businesses whose leaders are willing to be outliers, who encourage debate and who are open to challenging existing mindsets in implementing their new ideas. They will be mavericks, willing to confront those amongst their peers who have become comfortable in their positions of power, and who may thus have the least motivation to change the system that gave them their power.

To effect this change – both at an organisational and a systemic level – will require leaders who have the charisma to inspire others. Being inspirational, they will frame the climate challenge not simply in the context of managing risk or avoiding harm – or worse still through the deadening mindset of compliance – but rather will see it as a powerful opportunity for fostering greater levels of social and emotional wellbeing.  Not for them the “I have a nightmare” mantra that characterises the contribution of many in the climate change arena, but instead, the more empowering “I have a dream” as to what a post-carbon economy looks likes.  Finally, we would expect these business leaders to demonstrate bothempathy and integrity, characterised by humility over hubris and an openness for collaboration. We would expect to see principled leaders with a strong sense of social contract and who lead by doing, acting the change they expect to see of others.

When it comes to addressing societal challenges, for too long many business leaders have been demonstrating “followership”, acting largely in response to the demands of regulators, activists and an embarrassingly small pool of informed responsible investors. On social and environmental issues, many business “leaders” seem to be driven more by the desire to outperform their peers on SRI rating schemes, than by a real understanding of the imperative to engage actively in developing the new economy. Some executives choose to fudge the issue, arguing that it’s not for business to inform social policy; but in so doing they seem to forget why it is that they have recruited their corporate affairs directors from high office in government, or why the company continues to pay annual dues to business lobbying bodies.

With some notable exceptions, businesses function best in a flourishing and stable economy. To be successful, businesses cannot ignore the extraordinary socio-economic, environmental and financial challenges that threaten to undermine the stability of global and national economies. They can no longer afford to be bystanders, awaiting leadership from government or civil society; instead they must become active players in anticipating and, as far as possible, averting the challenges ahead. Businesses should be using their leverage to push for broader reform, engaging with government to shift policy, with consumers to inform their purchasing decisions, and with investors to promote more responsible investment practices.

It is time for business leaders to take a stand and to address the persistent “baffling expedience of delays” that the Copenhagen Accord so clearly demonstrates; and its time to enquire whether the CEOs, companies or sectors that we work for are up to this challenge.