Posts

How AI Turns Sustainability Blind Spots Into Business Risk

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

The greatest risk is not only that AI gets sustainability wrong.

It is that AI may reproduce yesterday’s assumptions with extraordinary speed, fluency, and confidence.

That is the argument behind Perfectly Wrong.

When ChatGPT first became available to the public, I began using it like many people did: with curiosity, skepticism, and a willingness to see what the tool could do.

In 2023, while preparing a keynote for the Adhesive and Sealant Association Sustainability Summit, I began testing how AI systems responded to sustainability questions.

The results were not simply wrong.

That would have been easier.

They were often structurally coherent within a frame that already carried the limitations of the sustainability field itself.

In other words, the answers could be fluent, useful, and reasonable while still resting on assumptions that deserved examination.

That is a different kind of risk.

Perfectly Wrong - AI Risk

Confidence Changes The Risk

Business leaders are used to reviewing imperfect information.

They know a draft may be incomplete.

You know a model may need testing.

And you know a consultant’s recommendation may reflect the assumptions in the brief.

But AI changes the feel of the answer and AI risk management.

It can make an incomplete evidence base appear more complete, old definitions feel settled.

And it can make a narrow question produce a broad recommendation.

It can make a preferred decision sound more objective than it is and it can remove friction that should have remained.

That is not only a technology problem.

It is a judgment problem.

The Blind Spot Beneath The Output

Most conversations about AI risk focus on hallucination.

That matters.

Facts matter.

Sources matter.

Accuracy matters.

But hallucination is not the only risk.

There is also the quieter problem of inherited assumptions.

What does the answer assume about sustainability?

Mean by circularity?

Treat as evidence?

Define as success?

Whose perspective is missing?

What does it make easier to approve?

And what would have to be true for the opposite conclusion to be right?

Those questions are not technical housekeeping.

They are governance questions, strategy and business-risk questions.

Where This Becomes Exposure

AI-supported sustainability work becomes more serious when it begins to influence:

  • executive recommendations
  • board materials
  • ESG or sustainability claims
  • circularity strategies
  • investor communications
  • customer-facing language
  • risk assessments
  • market analysis
  • governance policies
  • public commitments

At that point, the organization is no longer simply exploring an idea.

It may be preparing to rely on an answer.

Before that happens, leaders need to know what the answer is carrying.

Not only the facts.

The assumptions.

The Better Question

The most important question is not:

Did the AI get the answer right?

The more useful question may be:

What assumptions made this answer possible?

That question slows the work down in the right place.

It does not reject AI.

It makes AI more responsible.

It asks human beings to remain accountable for the definitions, boundaries, evidence, and judgment that the tool cannot own on their behalf.

A Practical Starting Point

If your organization is already using AI-supported work in sustainability, strategy, reporting, governance, or board materials, start with one live decision area.

Do not audit everything.

Choose one output that may influence something important.

Then ask four questions:

  1. What decision will this answer influence?
  2. What assumptions had to be true for this answer to make sense?
  3. What has been verified outside the AI output?
  4. What needs human judgment before this moves forward?

If those questions are easy to answer, good.

If they are difficult to answer, the output may not be ready to carry executive weight.

That is why I created the AI Assumption-Risk Checklist.

And it is why I wrote Perfectly Wrong.

Both are attempts to help leaders see the risk before it becomes normal operating practice.

Calls To Conversation

Download the AI Assumption-Risk Checklist: AI CHECKLIST

Read Perfectly Wrong: PERFECTLY WRONG ON AMAZON

Explore Ken’s books: BOOKS

If your organization is already relying on AI-supported recommendations, disclosures, strategy, or board materials, book a diagnostic conversation: [CONTACT OR BOOKING LINK]

Why Sustainability Reached A Ceiling

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

For almost five decades, I have been asking why business sustainability has produced so much activity and yet so little transformation.

That question is not an accusation.

It is an observation.

Across companies, industries, governments, NGOs, universities, and professional communities, enormous effort has gone into sustainability. People have changed materials, improved processes, redesigned products, reduced waste, measured impacts, reported performance, set targets, and built whole careers around improving the relationship between business and the world it depends upon.

Some of that work has mattered.

Some of it has reduced harm.

Some of it has changed what companies measure, discuss, and claim responsibility for.

And still, the larger trajectory remains deeply concerning.

That is the tension at the heart of Our Common Future-Now.

The easy conclusion would be that sustainability has failed because business did not care enough.

That is too simple.

Many people cared deeply.

Many organizations invested seriously.

Many leaders tried to move the work forward inside real constraints.

The more useful question is different:

What if the ceiling was built into the assumptions we brought to the work?

The Ceiling Was Not Only Technical

For many years, sustainability was treated as a technical problem.

If we had better materials, better data, better metrics, better standards, better technologies, and better disclosure, surely the trajectory would change.

Those things matter.

But they do not, by themselves, change the operating beliefs of a business.

A company can become more efficient while still growing in ways that overwhelm the savings.

It can reduce the impact of a product while selling more products into the same linear system.

It can report more comprehensively while still making decisions inside the same inherited model of value.

It can improve what is measured without changing what is assumed.

That is where the ceiling begins.

Not at the level of tools.

At the level of belief.

The Question Beneath The Work

Sustainability often asks:

How do we reduce the negative impacts of business?

That is an important question.

But it may not be enough.

The deeper question is:

What are we trying to sustain, and for how long?

That question changes the work.

It moves sustainability away from being only a performance improvement agenda and toward a test of business design, decision-making, value creation, and responsibility over time.

If a business improves its sustainability performance while continuing to undermine the conditions its future depends upon, something is still unresolved.

The problem is not that the work is meaningless.

The problem is that the work may be operating inside too narrow a frame.

Why This Matters Now

The sustainability conversation is entering a new phase.

Some organizations are tired.

Some are defensive.

Some are caught between public expectations, regulatory complexity, investor pressure, customer skepticism, and internal fatigue.

At the same time, the planetary and social signals have not become easier to ignore.

This is not the moment to retreat into old language.

It is the moment to ask better questions.

What assumptions are shaping our strategy before the strategy begins?

What does our organization define as success?

What does it treat as external?

What does it optimize for, even when nobody says it out loud?

What forms of progress make the current system more efficient without making it more viable?

Those questions are harder than many sustainability questions.

They are also more useful.

The Work Ahead

If sustainability has reached a ceiling, the answer is not to abandon the work.

The answer is to examine the architecture underneath it.

That means looking at the beliefs, definitions, boundaries, incentives, and decision rules that shape what the organization is able to imagine, approve, and sustain.

It means asking whether the business is designed to reduce harm at the edges, or to create future capacity at the center.

It means recognizing that sustainability is not only a department, a report, a target, or a claim.

It is a test of what the organization believes business is for.

That is the inquiry behind Our Common Future-Now.

The book is now available on Amazon.

It is not a final answer.

It is an invitation to return to the question with more honesty than the moment usually allows.

Calls To Conversation

Read Our Common Future-Now: OUR COMMON FUTURE-NOW

Explore Ken’s books: BOOKS

Invite Ken to speak on why sustainability reached a ceiling: BOOK A CALL

If this question is already present inside your organization, Circularity Edge can help examine where the ceiling may be built into current decisions: CIRCULARITY EDGE