They say that what get measured gets done.

 

So what metric would we need to measure if we wanted to change the world?

 

If what we measure is profit, then what we get is a world that makes a lot of money, but where lakes and rivers are polluted, children are starving, and one third of all species of frogs, toads and other amphibians are at risk of extinction. (That's one third of all species of frogs, not 'just' one third of all frogs.)

 

If what we measure is a "triple bottom line" of social, economic and environmental measures, then at least we can count what percentage of frog species are dying. (If you call that progress.) And maybe we can decide to change the way we do business -- if we think that one of the 122 species of amphibian lost since 1980 might be worth more than, say, another billion dollars/pounds/euros of profit this year.

 

But it's not really a systemic solution is it? It feels like we're managing symptoms not causes. We're treating "people, planet, and profit" as somehow separate, which they are not. And we're leaving someone, some manager, to decide how much 'planet' equates to how much 'people' or 'profit'.

 

What if there was a measure we could use that would integrate all these things?

 

What if there was one metric we could focus on and maximise, and then all the other elements would automatically fall into place and be optimised as well, as part of some systemic solution?

 

I used to think that was cloud cuckoo land. But as of yesterday I am not so sure.