Gabriella Lovas interviews Oliver Milliner Head of Sustainability for the University of Exeter and Falmouth University

Interview Feature

Oliver Milliner, Head of Sustainability for the University of Exeter and Falmouth University
Interviewed by guest writer - Gabriella Lovas, Sustainability & Finance Writer

 

Sustainability, ESG, Net Zero - three buzzwords dominating corporate strategies today. But what do they really mean, and how should organizations choose between them?Gabriella Lovas sat down with Oliver Milliner to unpack the differences, why the terminology often causes confusion, and how businesses can build strategies that actually deliver impact. They explored the challenges of adoption, the risks of getting it wrong, and whether companies really can (or should) pursue all three at once.

 

Let’s start with the basics: what exactly is a sustainability strategy?

For many professionals in sustainability, ESG, or Net Zero, assigning the concept of ‘sustainability’ into their roles feels slightly amiss due to the vastness and breadth of topics they become involved with. For anyone maturing within this profession, it becomes clear that the role is not just about sustaining direct resources or environmental and ethical management – it is about non-financial reporting and organisation-wide impact.

This means the word ‘sustainability’ has evolved into a new meaning – a broad sweeping concept whereby an organisation will have to essentially retrofit what sustainability, or non-financial reporting, means to them. Quite often we’ve seen companies move towards the umbrella catch-all ‘impact’ reporting which makes sense, however, may have less appeal.

The first step in building a sustainability or impact strategy, is conducting thorough materiality assessment across all aspects of the organisation including industry led research and key stakeholder engagement. This phase involves identifying what valuable internal information can be gathered while simultaneously horizon scanning externally for industry, political, or geographically relevant information.

The second step is developing a strategic roadmap that provides solutions to the material priorities identified within step one. This roadmap will typically be timebound with specific measurables and highly structured to create clarity and outcomes based on the complexity and vastness of the material topics identified within step one. 
A sustainability led approach will ultimately give an organisation a flexible platform, which is the best place to start as they begin to unravel a way of doing business differently. 

How is an ESG strategy different? 

For many of us who have either studied or been actively involved within ESG, these strategies are structured around the themes of environmental, social and governance/accountability related outcomes. An organisation has to assess these themes and retrofit specific objectives against them that are both material and high impact.

As this approach is focused on three themes, this may seem more restrictive than a broader sustainability approach, and rightly so.

As with a sustainability strategy, conducting materiality is also key to this approach as an organisation will need to define and retrofit its own individual principles and objectives.

And what about  a Net-Zero strategy? 

Net-Zero strategy is predominantly about decarbonisation and emission reduction. Adopting this overhaul is a macro topic pursuit, therefore there can be both complementary and competing aspects alongside a sustainability or ESG strategy.

Adopting a Net-Zero strategy should technically be a decision made following the materiality assessment to understand whether an organisation’s direct and indirect emissions are of material significance in relation to the numerous other sustainability and ESG impacts that may exist.

As a Net-Zero strategy is heavily structured around Scope 1, 2 & 3 reduction, the data and figures that create the foundation to this program can lead to areas of highly material impacts being ignored or under reported. For example, an organisation that uses a Net-Zero approach but has a high volume of waste will experience a lower priority to find solutions to a highly material impact.  

So where do companies go wrong when adopting these strategies? 

What is evident with the explosion of organisations adopting ESG and Net Zero strategies is a lack of time and planning with understanding an organisation’s material and impact landscape.

We see different scenarios. Some adopt either a sustainability/ESG/Net-Zero planning, and some solely focus on Net-Zero Scope 1, 2 & 3 reduction. Some companies focus only on sustainability or ESG with partial carbon management and Net-Zero integration, while others focus on ESG and integrate Net-Zero into a wider overhaul.

As an example, UK universities had a core focus of meeting Net-Zero targets as part of an industry and global movement for the adoption of some kind of environmental crisis response. What happened was technically a bypass of the fundamental materiality phase. Instead the climate emergency response was to immediately adopt a predominantly net-zero led plan. The problem with this is that the wider sustainability topics and impacts, such as social value and areas that cannot be evaluated using tCO2e, will no longer be seen as high priority due to the cost, resource intensivity, and complexity of adopting a net-zero plan. 

How should an organization decide which strategy to adopt? 

This is a decision that should be made following the materiality and research phase. The interesting aspect of this process is the value of information and research produced internally by staff. This part of the materiality process can produce some really useful information, but it is often quite messy and unstructured. This is why horizon scanning for external research can prove to be pivotal in materiality and strategy development.

A good example is the outdoor industry ,which is one of the most progressive industries. The information and frameworks that are readily available act almost like blueprints due to the fact outdoor retail companies have very similar material topics. These frameworks and resources are informed by science and strategic experts. They have been produced by the industry, for the industry.

This means the materiality phase can be focused on integrating these frameworks into strategic development for companies new to it all, rather than trying to figure it out independently. If these are not available, similar industry or competing companies can provide valuable information – most of which will be publicly available. 

Can companies adopt all three strategies at once?

Absolutely and this is the optimal approach. However, it is about finding the skills and resources to connect  all of these moving parts as well as implementing and operationalising it all.

 

Finally, what is the best approach for a company startimng out versus one with experience? 

For a company who is new but in the process of adopting a strategy – start flexible by factoring in the variety of topics of sustainability or impact. This has to be initiated by a thorough materiality assessment.

For a company who already has a strategic program in place – revisiting materiality and taking ‘a step back’ can be a highly valuable process to achieve clearer and more relevant strategic objectives and continuous improvement.

Ultimately – why restrict your new objectives to a format like Net Zero or ESG when being flexible opens you up to more opportunities? This is where sustainability moves beyond compliance and tick boxing and towards strategic opportunities, brand elevation and leadership.  

 

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace.

 

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

 

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.

 

Stay informed with the latest insights on OneStop ESG News.

 

Discover meaningful career opportunities on OneStop ESG Jobs.