Minutes from DiS Advisory Panel Meeting #1

Diversity in Sustainability held its first Advisory Panel meeting on June 14, 2021. A summary of the meeting is shared below.

Agenda:

For the inaugural meeting of our advisory panel members, we planned for the group to meet each other, discuss ways of working, review Diversity in Sustainability’s (DiS) Theory of Change and its assumptions and missing voices, reviewing the organization’s 6-month plan and business plan.

What principles should we demonstrate in our ways of working as a collective group?

The group reviewed the terms of engagement and also provided additional feedback on the principles that it should demonstrate in its ways of working as a group. These included:

·         Respect personal, organizational and systemic constraints

·         Decrease the fear and loathing when people think about diversity in sustainability

·         Disaggregate cultural intelligence

·         Be ok with ambiguity

·         Be unafraid to focus on privilege

·         Optimize opportunities for the next generation

·         Invite curiosity

·         Co-create intentional and intersectional spaces

·         Define what is a safe space for BIPOC in the workplace

·         Be open and transparent

·         Blue sky thinking

·         Separate advocacy and inquiry

·         Apply an intersectional lens

·         Create constructive discomfort

·         Use conflict as a way of finding new answers

·         Short-term wins with long-term perspective

·         Iterative and evolving

What voices are missing from our advisory panel?

The group concluded that Indigenous voices are missing from the advisory panel. While several advisory panel members have worked closely with Indigenous communities, Indigenous voices cannot be represented by proxy and more outreach will have to be completed. The advisory panel could also benefit from representation from People of Colour who are working directly with natural environments and ecosystems (e.g. forestry, farming). Therefore, it is important to consider not only the corporate perspective, but the perspectives of the people who live and work on the land and are directly impacted by sustainability challenges.

What assumptions are we making in our Theory of Change?

The Theory of Change is a roadmap that is meant to provide a sense of actionable items and provides a visual baseline. It is not comprehensive, but should include examples of outputs for specificity (e.g. what does community building mean).  There was a recommendation that we need to be laser focused on what we can and want to achieve through this model. For instance, “the sustainability field is representative of the world it aims to sustain” as a goal might be more focused and less diffuse. This could incorporate Indigenous thinking. Therefore, the outcomes should all lead to a more representative and diverse field of sustainability professionals. With this inclusion of diverse people also comes a consideration for what sustainability means for different groups of people. Some perspectives can be radical when compared to the industrial, capitalist model of sustainability under which much of the sector operates so the question arises as to which is more important: sustainability or inclusion. This is another assumption in the Theory of Change, which is that sustainability is defined by a constant status quo established by institutions. These institutions hold varied perspectives such as the distinction of inclusivity and sustainability, or the belief that one is not necessary to achieve the other.

There was also discussion on DiS’s focus not only being on diversity, but being actively anti-racist as well. This may require thinking outside the corporatist framework of sustainability.

Intersectionality is important as it helps move away from the tendency to lump all BIPOC together and instead affords individuals the opportunity to offer perspectives from multiple identities to the field of sustainability. Sustainability practitioners from diverse backgrounds often feel frustrated as they have to ask others to create space for them. This can lead to their burnout – especially within Indigenous communities and in dealing with emotionally laborious topics, which DiS considers to be a vital issue. Rather than focusing on criteria for who is included under the DiS umbrella, the group should collectively focus on resisting hegemonic, oppressive spaces. When thinking of goals in the Theory of Change there was a suggestion of conceptualizing another layer of goals that speaks to specifically the impact DiS is having on individuals.

Business plan/6-month plan discussion

Currently, Diversity in Sustainability is set up as a non-profit organization without charitable status. The co-founders have been considering how that should be structured. The organization would like to do some advocacy over time, which is not allowed as a charitable organization. At the same time, there have been several discussions regarding foundation funding, so there may be a possibility of setting up a related charitable arm to the association.

DiS was encouraged to consider a Plan B option for funding and determine the bare minimum the organization can operate on. Panel members stated that for corporate funding in particular, elevator level metrics on success will be important to look at.

Defining a service model will be salient going forward. To attract funding, it is important to look at it from the perspective of selling something that people want or you’re appealing to a marketing or charitable perspective. While this is an opportunity in advocacy and corporate partnerships, considerations need to be made that some corporations are invested in inclusive sustainability teams for either practical or performative reasons. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate that having a diverse sustainability team is not just the right thing to do, but a vital step for any corporation. It is important to note that sustainability teams are typically quite small in proportion to the rest of the workforce within organizations so it may be harder to get them to pay for a diverse slate of candidates. We must also be clear on how we are articulating the value proposition of DiS over other initiatives.

A few advisory panel members put forward the idea that the promotion of diversity is likely best achieved by focusing on member service provision rather than services for corporations. One of the recommendations included DiS becoming a ‘convener’ organization that funders see as an organization that has the bandwidth to ‘vet’ diverse organizations looking for funding.

The survey will help understand the needs of the members and the community the organization is trying to serve. Going forward, there will need to be thinking about creating quality professional development content for young BIPOC professionals, so they are energized and see the value of DiS.