From our sustainability team
Looking ahead
“The Big Picture. - In midst of a polycrisis, much of the world remains fixated on the relentless pursuit of infinite growth at any cost -”
The times we live in.
Our world is increasingly disruptive and volatile, facing multiple simultaneous and interconnected calamities: from ecological breakdown to economic uncertainty to geopolitical tensions and the unsettling rise of extremist politics. Increasingly polarized societies, the race for AI weaponry, deepening social inequality, and accelerating climate change all contribute to this fragile global state.
In short, we live in the era of polycrisis
defined as the simultaneous occurrence and interaction of multiple interconnected crises across various domains, creating a complex and intertwined web of challenges, each feeding into and amplifying the others. Meeting these challenges requires a comprehensive, systems-level approach, because not only are these crises all occurring at the same time, but they worsen and influence each other in complex ways.
This means that a narrow focus on only one issue can lead to spillover problems elsewhere. For example, “solving” climate change by rapidly scaling up renewable energy production could, due to increased mining, destroy the last few remaining critical ecosystems, which control the global climate regime, thus further destabilizing our climate. Only by understanding and addressing these crises as an interconnected whole can we hope to navigate the complexities of our time. This is why it’s crucial to examine the root causes that have led us here.
Why are we here?
These entangled crises are the result of a flawed global economic system that incentivizes
unsustainable growth, drives vast overconsumption in high-income nations, perpetuates wasteful linear production and consumption models, and encourages financial capital myopia, short-termism and siloed thinking..(1)
At the heart of this is an extractive, growth-driven neoliberal form of capitalism, where fiduciary duty is defined narrowly as maximizing only shareholder value. This focus on profit above all else has resulted in today’s high-profit, low-wage economy, and the failure to adequately price negative externalities, i.e., the full environmental and social costs of economic activities.
In our view, fiduciary duty must extend beyond short-term gains for shareholders. Long-term business continuity and profitability depends on addressing the root causes of today’s polycrisis. It is, essentially, about safeguarding the survival of both business and the planet.
Fundamentally, it’s simple enough: business cannot flourish on a planet overwhelmed by various crises and uncontrollable risks.
And businesses, as key driving forces behind several of these issues, also wield substantial leverage over potential solutions to drive change. However, no single entity can manage these complex, interconnected risks alone — success requires systemic foresight and collective action. We at Foxway are invested in a livable future, which requires a collective shift across the whole tech industry toward a circular economy, free of unnecessary excess consumption.
The Tech Sector Is Racing Toward Resource Depletion
As digitalization and decarbonization accelerate, the tech industry faces a stark reality: the critical minerals that power our devices and the green transition are dwindling, and their extraction comes at significant ecological and social costs.
Smartphones, laptops, and other digital devices are composed of dozens of materials, many of which, like lithium, cobalt, nickel, lead, aluminum, neodymium, etc., overlap with those needed for the decarbonization of the energy system, creating a competing demand. And this demand is rapidly outpacing supply. Some projections indicate that shortages of key minerals like lithium and cobalt could begin as early as 2025 unless sufficient investments are made to expand production. The World Bank estimates that by midcentury, demand for graphite, lithium, and cobalt could surge by nearly 500% compared to 2018 levels.
However, this issue goes beyond mere scarcity; it’s about outright depletion of these resources. And the depletion timelines are not all in a faraway future.
Projected depletion date of key non-renewable resources
This is physics imposing hard limits on the availability of materials, creating practical, non-negotiable limits on “business as usual”. While many companies still feel comfortable profiting from their current linear business models, we see this comfort as deceptive, because the laws of physics cannot be outmaneuvered.
Unless there are some significant breakthroughs in circularity in near future, we are heading down the road to depletion, which will be a bumpy ride, marked by volatile prices and increasing supply chain instability.
Ecological and social toll of the scramble for resources
The supply chain challenges are further complicated by the fact that most of these minerals are concentrated in conflict-affected, fragile regions that also house critical ecosystems, such as the Amazon, the Congo Basin, Indonesia’s rainforests, and deep-sea beds. These areas are essential for maintaining the Earth’s carbon and water cycles, and protecting them must be a global priority to help stabilize the climate regime. What is more, mining in these regions not only risks accelerating ecological collapse but also exacerbates geopolitical tensions and human rights abuses, as it is often linked to predatory practices by state and corporate elites, further deepening economic inequality(4).
As we look ahead, it is clear that the tech industry must embrace circularity. Refurbishing devices, extending their lifespans, and decreasing reliance on virgin material extraction will help mitigate both mineral shortages and the damaging effects of mining. With our expertise in refurbishment and urban mining, Foxway is well-positioned to influence the value chain, transforming the way we think about resource use in the tech industry..
How do we begin
to solve the predicament we’re in?
Corporations are the most powerful economic and environmental actors globally, which means that corporate action is essential for addressing the crises we face. However, it needs a new direction. Solving these global challenges requires a systems-level change, a fundamental shift in corporate sustainability practices, and fresh economic thinking—including ideas like degrowth. So enter Foxway’s Sustainability Vision 2028. A new way of approaching corporate sustainability, ready to rewrite the rules.
References
(1) ey-gl-neu-a-new-economy-report-05-2024.pdf
(2) The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions – Analysis – IEA
(3) minerals-for-climate-action-the-mineral-intensity-of-the-clean-energy-transition.pdf (worldbank.org)
(4) Youngs_and_Lazard_EU_Climate_FINAL_07.08.21.pdf
Kai-Riin Kriisa
Chief Sustainability Officer
In their book Bright Green Lies, Max Wilbert, Lierre Keith, and Derrick Jensen offer an important reflection:
ignorance is easier to maintain with distance.
This notion holds especially true in today’s corporate world. Distance comes in many forms. Geography is one kind—those who are most affected by industrial extraction are often far removed from the consumers benefiting from the final product. Hierarchy is another form of distance, where the dispossessed—those with the least power—bear the brunt of the harm caused by these systems. Lastly, there is the distance of denial, where we convince ourselves that the luxuries of modern life, including the latest tech gadgets, do not come with a devastating cost to the living world, played out somewhere far from where they are consumed.
The corporate sustainability space, too, is plagued by its own form of distance: distance from real action. Too often, sustainability is an afterthought, retrofitting a cute narrative onto a company’s existing strategy. It’s a matter of convenience, where sustainability becomes a glossy cover rather than the driving force behind decision-making. Speak to sustainability consultants, and some will openly admit that very often sustainability strategies and targets are drafted as part of the annual exercise of writing ESG reports. These reports weave together “realistic” (read: already planned or easily achievable) targets into a positive story, all while keeping the core of business-as-usual intact. In all honesty, we’ve been guilty of the same crime – setting targets that we think are easy to reach, but we’re determined to change course and give sustainability the attention and effort it deserves.
Obsession with measurement is another culprit. The mantra, “What you don’t measure, you can’t manage,” is repeated endlessly, yet common sense often gets left behind. Not everything that matters can be easily measured. The happiness and dignity of artisanal cobalt miners, or the importance of preserving the habitats of mountain gorillas, who are facing extinction due to coltan mining, are so obviously important that they should not need to be quantified for their worth to be recognized. Circular solutions—like refurbishing devices instead of manufacturing new ones—are a clear common-sense solution. We don’t need to calculate the water footprint of a refurbished laptop to understand it’s better for the planet than building a new one. But here we are, paralyzed by the pursuit of endless metrics and data points.
This focus on measuring everything, often through arbitrary and obscure rating systems, has created a paradox in the corporate sustainability space. Companies are ranked on a scale of “more or less sustainable,” but the problem is that sustainability is not something that exists on a spectrum—you either operate in a way that sustains the planet and its people, or you don’t. This detachment from reality allows companies with horrible track records on labor rights and environmental protection to be labeled as “most sustainable” because they perform well on narrow criteria. But sustainability should not be about chasing points on ESG scores or competing for awards—it should be about real-world impact and a commitment to change.
The risks of these rating systems go beyond mere misrepresentation. When ratings agencies misrepresented the risks associated with subprime mortgages, it led to the global financial crisis of 2008. What could be the cost of misrepresenting the risk that systemically unsustainable business models pose to the planet? We have already breached six of the nine planetary boundaries that keep Earth stable, with the seventh boundary dangerously close to being crossed. Thus, it is quite easy to understand that the true cost is an unlivable planet.
The effort, therefore, must be, at a minimum, to rethink the fundamentals of how corporate sustainability is done—moving beyond ESG reports and ratings into genuine, systemic change. And at maximum, aim for a whole system change, altering the way the economy works, from a linear consumerism to a circular, sufficiency-oriented wellbeing economy.
It’s not complexity that’s hindering progress—complexity is inherent in our world. The real issue is oversimplification. We’ve focused too narrowly on isolated problems, like reducing emissions in one area while ignoring the broader ecological and social context. What’s needed is a broader perspective, one that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all these challenges and approaches them holistically.
The distance between intention and action, between corporate sustainability rhetoric and real-world outcomes, must be closed. Only then can we begin to address the urgent environmental and social crises we face.
Stefan Nilsson
Chief Impact Officer
Is it possible to combine promises about endless economic growth and carbon net-zero pledges?
An impossible equation
Taking on the dual roles of strategist and interim sustainability officer has provided a unique perspective on the tech industry and the hyper-consumeristic society in which it operates.
The Global South bears the brunt of climate change, while the Global North’s reliance on imports of critical materials underscores a troubling dependency that could lead to further exploitation and conflict over resources. The industry’s efforts to address these issues, particularly in regions like Congo, Madagascar, and China, are inadequate. The environmental impact is devastating, and the social consequences are equally tragic.
From a strategic standpoint, the path forward must involve developing a comprehensive strategy that prepares for potential carbon taxes, de-growth scenarios, and supply chain disruptions caused by trade wars, material scarcity, and price volatility. This approach is not just about adapting to the inevitable changes on the horizon, but about rethinking the very foundations of how we operate. It’s clear that our current trajectory is unsustainable, and without significant adjustments, we risk exacerbating the very problems we aim to solve.
In developing a strategic approach, my goal has been to create a business model that not only allows for growth but also ensures that the work becomes meaningful beyond just financial rewards or feel-good moments. Whether we face a future where we must urgently address the challenges of climate change and resource scarcity, or one where hyper-consumption continues to dominate, the aim is to contribute to a circular economy that supports sustainability. Through this approach, as growth occurs, the overall footprint of the tech industry can be reduced, and the environmental impacts of consumption can be lessened. While this alone won’t solve all our problems, it represents a commitment to fostering a more sustainable way of engaging with technology.
There is still a long journey ahead to fully implement this strategy and achieve these ambitions. Challenges like meeting net-zero targets by 2050 may seem insurmountable, but by maintaining a broad perspective and involving all stakeholders, significant progress can be made. The path forward requires unwavering dedication and alignment among all involved, recognizing that strategy and sustainability must be deeply intertwined. The effort to be a force for positive impact must permeate every aspect of operations, guiding decisions and actions at every level.
Reflecting on these experiences has made it clear that achieving true sustainability requires us to confront some uncomfortable truths, both within the industry and in society at large. The reality is that the global commitment to the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, is increasingly out of reach. The promises of achieving “net-zero” emissions by 2050, while maintaining an energy-intensive economy and pursuing continuous growth, are neither realistic nor honest. This disconnect between ambition and reality became starkly apparent when the Science Based Targets initiative removed around 500 corporations from their validation process and demanded that others revise their climate mitigation plans. The message is clear: what was once marketed as achievable is now being exposed as overly optimistic and, in some cases, entirely unfeasible.
Looking ahead, it’s crucial to acknowledge that we are falling short of our ambitious goals. For instance, Sweden recently abandoned its near-term climate targets for 2030, and public data from major tech companies shows almost no progress in reducing emissions from production. In some cases, companies continue to pursue growth targets within a linear business model that leaves little room for supporting climate objectives.
This suggests that we may soon find ourselves grappling with new financial realities, such as de-growth scenarios and the impending implementation of carbon taxation. Moreover, the need to curb consumeristic behavior is becoming increasingly urgent. The challenges we face extend far beyond Europe, the U.S., and the Global North; ultimately, it is our way of life that lies at the heart of the crises we confront. We cannot continue to consume as we have in the past, and the consequences of this unsustainable lifestyle are rapidly catching up with us.
The current situation is dire. Climate data and projections are not aligning with the optimistic goals set out in international agreements. Reports like the one from PwC in 2023 highlight not only the impending scarcity of critical resources but also the potential for the total depletion of several key minerals within this century. These challenges are not just environmental—they are geopolitical as well.
