Do you ever find yourself in circular conversations with people?
Where you tell them a thing they adamantly fight you on this thing, like their life depends on it, desperate to prove you are wrong about said thing only to find themselves, a few moments, days or months later, talking about something that they consider totally different but rather it is something that would be actually solved by the thing you mentioned in the first place. The thing they were so adamantly against.
ItÔÇÖs exhausting.
ItÔÇÖs wasteful.
ItÔÇÖs constant.
And I am not even going to go into how this plays out when trying to persuade an elderly relative to follow their doctorÔÇÖs advice, a young relative to eat their broccoli, or the ÔÇÿfanged monsterÔÇÖ nature of many a political conversation that plays out like this. People objecting to things on vague principle even when actually in reality the thing they object to in the abstract solves a problem they have in actuality.
I wonÔÇÖt go into detail because I donÔÇÖt have to. You know the pattern. And you know this type of conversation just keeps happening.
In fact, I said I wonÔÇÖt talk about politics, but everything is politics.
How you feel about complex regulation is actually coloured by your politics. How you feel about entire market segments is coloured by your politics. And how you feel about the degrees of urgency and investment different areas of activity merit is coloured by your politics.
And frankly: thats fine. In fact thats great. We need a multitude of voices and perspectives on what is important. In those frictions, real debate arises.
Some people are evangelical about something. 
Others suspicious. 
Others yet pragmatic.
The dialogue is key. In life, politics and work.
And few topics combine the urges and beliefs of all three (life, politics and work) than the issue of sustainability.
Some of us are messianically committed. Because they believe fervently and urgently that this is the right thing to do.
Others are pragmatic. We need to do something to reverse the sins of our fathers and besides that are regulatory commitments that donÔÇÖt leave much to choice.
Others are slightly indifferent and happy to let those who care carry the load.
And some are sceptical and worse, and will do no more than is absolutely essential by regulatory decree and market pressure. Skeptics are not stupid: even if they donÔÇÖt support something they see the value of market trends and demands and understand regulatory commitments.
Arguably, the last couple of groups are mercenary. They will do what suits their purpose and ticks the boxes and no more. The former are missionaries, prepared to take on the burden of driving the vision and breaking new ground.
Who is right and who is wrong is in many ways determined by your politics. And of course when you are in the weeds of the debate, my nonchalance is hard to stomach. You may be sitting there thinking I am right and you are wrong and why canÔÇÖt you see that sustainability is the only way to actually have more of what we love, for longerÔǪ for the long term? But in reality, the other side of the table feels as strongly. And you will notice I have stayed well clear of the anti-woke agenda that says ÔÇÿscrap it all and set fire to the lotÔÇÖ for reasons that I hope are self-explanatory. My whole argument is that divergence of opinion and commitment and that has to be OK provided we meet in the middle to talk.┬á
Because the missionaries and the mercenaries need to work together. So they need to talk and decide what we all need to do, what we canÔÇÖt agree on and therefore canÔÇÖt do and what we are happy to let the missionaries continue with provided they donÔÇÖt need anything from people on the other side of the table.
If you are a missionary this may feel like a concession, but itÔÇÖs a start.
If you are a mercenary, this may feel like the beginning of a slippery slope and yet itÔÇÖs not asking more of you than the bare minimum participation and compliance.
Ultimately, the rest is an industry-level conversation.
But in order to have that conversation, we need information.
We need data.
To inform our debate with each other.
But also to fuel the passion and work of those who care and meet the minimum compliance obligations of those who dont.
The missionaries on the one side and the mercenaries on the other (to steal a concept from John Doerr) actually need the same thing right now. And they are plagued by the same thing.
There is a data gap in this space.
We all need data to decide beyond emotions and politics where we really are, what is important and what is urgent. Also, the regulator asks for it: reporting is required (whether you like it or not) and there is a gap where rich, insightful data should be.
We as an industry (and species) just havenÔÇÖt been gathering the data with the discipline we should have shown.┬á
It happens.
So we need modelling.
Take the data you have, extrapolate and build models that will help us move forward.
Make clever use of publicly available data. Find the right partner. Close the gap.
For the missionaries, this will inform and fuel their work and argument.
For the mercenaries, this will tick a box.
For once, they will both be satisfied at the same time with the same thing. 
Because, for once, doing the easier thing and doing the right thing are not at odds with each otherÔǪ so you can do the lower effort, quick win thing now and still not be short-sightedÔǪ Admittedly, after weÔÇÖve taken this step, the missionaries and mercenaries will part ways again. A new set of conversations will emerge.┬á
But for now, their needs can be met by the same solution. The minimum effort folks and the ÔÇÿwe need moreÔÇÖ folks can be satisfied by the same solution this time, by this one step. Data modelling to close the information gap.
Sure, their views will diverge again.
But for now, let there be data modelling and harmony in the realm.
