Dirk Verburg

‘You need to provide recyclable note paper to demonstrate the commitment of our company to sustainability’, I was told when I co-organized a meeting where the vast majority of participants arrived by airplane, most of them on intercontinental flights…

I have always been quite cynical about ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) initiatives from public companies.

Some of my favorite examples include:

• A “Big Oil” company using the “greenness” of suppliers as a selection criterion in the purchasing process
• A Financial Services company that directly contributed to the Euro crisis but gave its employees an afternoon off to paint schools in derelict areas to “give back to society”
• ESG leaders flying en masse to conferences in New York to discuss how to make the world a more sustainable place
• Companies that started “recalibrating” their DEI efforts in the aftermath of the last US presidential election.

The behavior of most pubic companies in the ESG and CSR space always strikes me as ‘Do as I say, not what I do’. Not because the leaders of these companies are inherently ‘evil’ or ‘immoral’, but simply because, when push comes to shove (most often under pressure from their supervisory boards, or activist shareholders), they do not seem to have an alternative but to let Shareholder Value prevail in their decision-making process.

‘People, Planet, and Profit. But the greatest of these is Profit…’

---

🎙️ ‘A big conversation with big questions’, that is how Sander Tideman characterized the conversation I had with him about ESG and CSR.

Sander is a researcher, author, entrepreneur and executive coach in sustainable leadership. He works with leaders to build flourishing organizations equipped to address the unprecedented challenges of today. He has worked for and consulted with leading organizations on three continents, and is publicly known for his work with top leaders in, for instance, Unilever.

In the 31th episode of the Leadership 2.0 podcast, I interview Sander about the question if and how pubic companies and our society should adopt ESG and CSR concepts.

During our conversation, we discussed the following topics:

0️⃣1️⃣ The Growth Triangle
0️⃣2️⃣ Companies considering their environmental and societal impact as ‘for free’
0️⃣3️⃣ Greenwashing: Why should we take ESG and CSR seriously?
0️⃣4️⃣ The (in) capacity of Public Companies to address ESG
0️⃣5️⃣ Do we make it too easy for companies to transfer their burden to our society?
0️⃣6️⃣ The Development Stages of ESG in organisations
0️⃣7️⃣ The link between CSR and Business Results
0️⃣8️⃣ Best Practice Companies
0️⃣9️⃣ The Adoption of CSR by B2B companies
1️⃣0️⃣ Resilient Companies
1️⃣1️⃣ What is Triple Value Leadership?
1️⃣2️⃣ The Regenerative Capacity of Mankind
1️⃣3️⃣ Integrating Triple Value Leadership in Executive Coaching
1️⃣4️⃣ The Current Status and Outlook of CSR
1️⃣5️⃣ Final Thoughts

---

► You can watch or listen to this podcast episode on:

➡️ Apple Podcasts

➡️ Spotify

➡️ YouTube

➡️ No time to watch or listen to podcast now? Here is a short summary of our conversation ⤵

Dirk Verburg: Could you briefly explain the traditional growth triangle of capital investment, production, and consumption?

Sander Tideman: The traditional growth triangle is a theoretical concept that has shaped economics for centuries, tracing its roots back to Adam Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand.” This model is built on a very simplistic, yet powerful, assumption: that markets are free and generate well-being for everyone as long as producers and consumers are free to trade. A third party, the funders, also benefits, creating a conceptual triangle of producers, consumers, and financiers. The marketplace serves as the neutral intermediary.

This model has become the underlying paradigm for both macro and microeconomic systems, where success is primarily measured by financial profits. These profits can then be translated into capital, giving rise to the term capitalism. The entire system is designed to preserve and generate capital.

However, this view is overly simplistic because it completely ignores what economists call externalities. It assumes that natural resources are always freely and abundantly available, an assumption that was perhaps more plausible 200 years ago but is demonstrably false today. It also overlooks the fact that consumption is not unlimited; people have diverse needs beyond being “blind consumers.” Furthermore, capital itself has become a power in its own right, with the financial economy now larger than the real economy, meaning money often drives markets more than trade does.

To address these shortcomings, we need a paradigm shift. Instead of a “growth triangle” committed to perpetual growth based on a material worldview, we need to move towards a “circle of well-being” and a living systems view. This new perspective acknowledges the complex interdependencies and aims for holistic well-being rather than just financial profit.

Dirk Verburg: What are the implications for companies if we stop treating natural resources as unlimited and free?

Sander Tideman: The implications are going to be huge, and I believe this is why we’re seeing such a strong backlash against ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and “wokeism.” Emotionally, this pushback is related to the fact that we will have to start factoring in all the externalities that the current system ignores.

Business as usual and capital markets as usual do not account for the true cost of nature or the societal suffering caused by our economic models. For markets to be truly free and function effectively, we must price in the real costs of these resources and their impacts. This will fundamentally change the market. While I don’t think this means the end of markets altogether—there will always be a place for free exchange—the prices of goods and services will undoubtedly change.

This is an underlying revolution that is already happening, but it is a confusing one. There are many losers in this transition. While nature and small communities may stand to win, large institutions that have long benefited from the current system are losing, and they are actively resisting this change. We are at an interesting tipping point, and the pushback is a clear sign of the systemic shifts at play. A lot of the resistance is a sort of emotional response to the fact that the things we’ve taken for granted for so long—like a boundless environment and a healthy society—will now have a price tag.

Dirk Verburg: Why should people take corporate sustainability and responsibility seriously, given the prevalence of greenwashing?

Sander Tideman: That’s a very good point, and I must admit that we see far too many examples of greenwashing and window dressing today. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a logical outcome of how corporate social responsibility (CSR) was initially conceived.

If you zoom out, CSR was a defensive response to the environmental movements of the 1970s and 80s when people began to realize the “limits to growth.” For a long time, the domain of addressing these issues belonged to civil society, NGOs, and governments. The business community needed to formulate its own response, and that became CSR. However, it was, and in many cases still is, a very defensive approach.

The problem is that CSR initiatives are often placed on the periphery of a company’s operations. The underlying business model, which I call the “triangle of growth,” remains unchanged and continues to function as before. CSR is then used for purely reputation management, philanthropy, or “doing good,” without ever challenging the fundamental principles of perpetual economic and financial growth.

This is why there is so much skepticism about whether these initiatives can truly make a difference. The current system is simply still the current system. We need to go a level deeper than just CSR. Luckily, there are examples of companies that are moving beyond this superficial approach. They are not just adding sustainable practices as an afterthought; they are integrating them into the core of their business model. For corporate sustainability to be taken seriously, it must move beyond being a side project and become a central driver of a company’s strategy.

Dirk Verburg: Are publicly traded companies truly capable of adopting long-term, stakeholder-driven strategies, or is structural change impossible?

Sander Tideman: We must be optimistic because companies are human systems, and humans want to survive. I believe structural change is possible, though it’s very difficult within the current system. I’ve seen some large corporations, like Unilever, make significant progress. Under leaders like Paul Polman, the company implemented a sustainable living plan that prioritized a long-term vision over short-term shareholder price. While there was considerable pushback from shareholders demanding immediate results, the company’s decade-long movement toward sustainability created a lasting positive legacy.

This is an uphill battle because there’s no level playing field. Companies that act as “free riders” by not upholding sustainability standards are often rewarded by financial markets. The system itself needs to change, with different financial incentives. While we need more courageous leaders to drive this change in large companies, I think there is more hope for smaller, family-owned companies. In these businesses, the ownership is more closely tied to the core business and its long-term sustainability potential, providing a stark contrast to large, publicly traded companies driven by shareholder value.

Dirk Verburg: Should we wait for companies to make a move themselves, or is international legislation the answer to ensure they internalize externalities and take full responsibility?

Sander Tideman: We shouldn’t just wait; we’re in the middle of a power struggle between free-riding companies focused on a few stakeholders and the broader community—the people dependent on nature and the economy. This is an ideological and very real power struggle between a negative expression of private enterprise and the community.

International legislation is part of the answer, and it’s already happening. In Europe, for example, the European Union is strategically investing in environmental sustainability legislation like CSR and ESG. This isn’t just a fleeting trend; it’s a structural shift that has been developing for over 15 years, driven by both environmental and risk management concerns.

However, legislation alone isn’t enough. We also need international governance. When nations act as “free riders,” focusing only on their own interests and ignoring the global whole, it creates a governance gap. This is a global issue. We’re lucky in Europe that we seem to be moving toward more collective responsibility, but it’s a slow process. Ultimately, businesses must comply with the needs of society. If they don’t, we face a grim future with a few wealthy pockets and a dark reality for the rest. We are at a crossroads, and we must choose to move toward the light, which means embracing global governance and collective responsibility.

Dirk Verburg: Could you briefly walk us through the three stages of corporate sustainability—compliance, CSR, and triple value creation—and what sets the last one apart?

Sander Tideman: The first stage is compliance, where companies reluctantly realize they must do something, often leading to greenwashing. They might produce a social or environmental report, but their core business model remains unchanged and often contradicts their stated goals. The second stage is CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). At this level, there’s a growing sense of responsibility. Companies acknowledge their impact but don’t fundamentally challenge their core business model. They may measure their negative footprint and engage in positive, but non-structural, initiatives like philanthropy or community work. The third stage is triple value creation. This is a paradigm shift. Instead of seeing themselves as separate from society and just mitigating their negative impact, companies see themselves as an integral part of society. They reason from the outside-in: “What does society and the ecosystem need?” Their goal becomes solving these challenges and serving these needs. This approach creates a triple win: it generates societal value, which in turn leads to business value and market success. Ultimately, it also creates a sense of purpose and contribution among employees, leading to higher performance and engagement. I’ve seen this happen at Unilever, where employees were motivated by the company’s social purpose.

Dirk Verburg: You mention that companies leading in the CSR space tend to excel in other areas like product innovation and employee engagement. Why do these aspects go hand in hand?

Sander Tideman: They go hand in hand because when you open yourself up to the needs of society and ecosystems, you are forced to challenge your existing mindset and assumptions. This process expands your awareness and understanding of how the world operates, which is a form of leadership development. It grows your capacity to solve other business problems more easily. The idea that this is “wokeism” is a complete misinterpretation; in reality, this work expands your capacity to create value. People, as a whole, are naturally inclined to contribute to society. When given the opportunity to do so at work, they become more creative and energetic, which ultimately leads to higher performance. There’s no real conflict; it’s an integrated process where one positive change leads to another. However, this has to be an authentic practice, where leaders embody the values they preach. When they do, people will follow, and an incredible amount of positive energy will be unleashed.

Dirk Verburg: Can you give a concrete example of a company that truly embodies the principles of triple value leadership?

Sander Tideman: While it’s difficult to find perfect examples among large, publicly traded companies due to shareholder pressures, one company I studied that truly embodies this is Chobani. The founder, Hamdi Ulukaya, an immigrant from Turkey, started as a yogurt maker. He created a product that was completely natural and healthy, which was the foundation of the company’s success. But what truly sets Chobani apart is its social commitment. Ulukaya intentionally employed fellow immigrants who were often neglected in the job market and eventually made them co-owners, turning it into a partially employee-owned company. The company also spontaneously engaged in philanthropy, serving immigrant communities with schooling and other services. Chobani exemplifies triple value leadership by taking the needs of the environment, society, and its own people into account. Employees love to work there, and the company has created many millionaires out of people who were once unemployed. Ulukaya even created a campaign called the “anti-CEO playbook” because he believes the traditional CEO mindset is part of the problem. He argues that it’s a matter of the heart: if you believe in your product, want it to have a positive impact on the world, and trust your employees, you can succeed. We need more examples like this to prove that it’s possible to change the capitalistic system from within.

Dirk Verburg: Do you also see similar hopeful movements toward sustainability in B2B companies?

Sander Tideman: Yes, I definitely see hope in the B2B space. I recently met the CEO of a major chemical company who is personally committed to sustainability. He’s making incredible investments in alternatives to plastics and in the hydrogen revolution. While this would have been unthinkable a few years ago, he’s managing stakeholder relationships and getting buy-in. He discovered that the desire for change is coming from within the company; his engineers and employees want to see a shift. While it’s a challenge, especially for a large, stock-listed company, I believe it is possible. A critical element for B2B companies is having a strong position in the value and supply chain. If you are a small player at the mercy of middlemen, it’s very hard to move toward sustainability. However, large, powerful companies have the ability to make a big impact on their entire value chain. A great example of this is how Nestlé made its coffee supply chain more sustainable and fair, a success story detailed by Michael Porter. For these companies, it’s a whole-systems approach. You need to get the consumers to recognize the value in your product so they’re willing to pay more, but the biggest players can drive this change throughout the entire chain.

Dirk Verburg: You write that living systems must find an optimal balance between efficiency and resilience. What lessons can individual companies learn from this?

Sander Tideman: This model isn’t just an abstract scientific concept; it’s something that can be applied directly to a company because organizations are living organisms. If we focus only on efficiency, which in business means maximizing profits and share price, we deplete our organizational batteries. We fail to invest in the relationships with our employees, partners, and the environment that create resilience. A company needs to find a balance. It should not neglect efficiency but must equally invest in resilience—both social and environmental. By taking care of the relationships within your entire supply and value chain, you are strengthening the resilience of the whole system. This is a different kind of logic than purely financial logic. I’ve developed a model where efficiency and resilience are integrated. It also requires a strong sense of purpose, a mission, and a long-term vision that extends beyond short-term quarterly profits. When you get these elements in place, your organization becomes more productive and more sustainable. It’s a holistic approach that recognizes an organization is more than just a profit machine; it’s a living system that needs to balance its inputs and outputs to thrive.

Dirk Verburg: What does it look like for a leader to adopt triple value leadership?

Sander Tideman: Triple value leadership starts with a fundamental understanding that your organization is a living system and that you, as a leader, are an integral part of it. Your role is to positively influence the system by first taking care of yourself and then spreading that care to your colleagues and employees. A key element of this approach is being fully conscious of yourself and your environment. When you’re willing to face the true needs of your organization and its stakeholders, something magical happens. People feel seen and recognized, and they begin to trust you more. The entire system starts to come to life and reorganize itself. This isn’t chaos; it’s a different, more effective type of order that ultimately creates more well-being for the entire system. Triple value leadership is a practice, not just a theory. It begins with the leader’s personal journey of self-awareness. By becoming more fully alive, leaders realize the incredible positive impact they can have on their environment. This is the invitation I offer. In a time of systemic crisis, the opportunity for change is closer to home than we think—it’s in people’s hearts and in their courage and openness to make a difference.

Dirk Verburg: Could you expand on the point that we, as human beings, have a capacity for change?

Sander Tideman: Yes, we have an innate capacity to change. The problem in our current culture is that there’s a lot of fear, reinforced by the media we’re exposed to, which keeps us locked into old ways of doing things. However, our natural state is not to be fearful; it’s to be relaxed, open, and connected to the world. A lot of science supports this idea. We are naturally pro-social beings who are inclined to care for one another and for our environment. As a leader, if you can help yourself and your team get into this more natural state of relaxation and openness, positive change will inevitably follow. It may be difficult because we are swimming upstream against a culture that isn’t conducive to this, but at the same time, we’re aligning ourselves with the positive forces of nature. This type of leadership is not about force; it’s about invitation and fostering a different kind of energy. It’s sometimes described as more feminine, focusing on inclusivity, slowing down, and understanding true needs. While it might seem slow on the surface, this approach is ultimately faster and more effective because it creates a “triple win” where everyone benefits, rather than a system where a few people win and everyone else loses. We can be the change we want to see in the world.

Dirk Verburg: How do you integrate the principles of triple value leadership in your work as an author, coach, and entrepreneur?

Sander Tideman: I’ve shifted my focus from campaigning against capitalism to working more directly with individual leaders and their teams. I’ve found that I can see more immediate results and generate more joy by helping them unleash positive energy within their direct environment. While I remain aware of the larger systemic challenges we face, I’ve realized that change starts by opening up our minds and hearts to the reality of today. Most leaders I encounter are not in denial; they simply lack the tools to integrate these issues into their leadership. Once they see the need for change, they can find the tools to act on it and feel empowered. That’s where I love to spend my time. I believe there is a strong intrinsic motivation among both leaders and the workforce to work toward positive change. This force needs to be encouraged and strengthened. I hope that the next generation will take it even further. Although the systemic solutions are hard to see, at least we can tell our grandchildren that we tried to do our part to create a more sustainable world. I’m hopeful that the big challenges we face will be overcome by this positive force within humanity, even if it’s currently obscured by the noise of our media landscape.

Dirk Verburg: What’s your take on the current situation around CSR, especially with recent pushback? Are you optimistic or pessimistic?

Sander Tideman: I don’t have a definitive answer because it’s a really big crisis for humanity. We’re facing a “polycrisis” with converging environmental, resource, and political challenges. I don’t believe CSR will survive in its current form because it was a defensive reaction. We need new language and new concepts. I’m trying to use terms like “triple value,” because “value” is a word people tend to like. While I see some recent pushback, such as “Trumpism,” as a temporary setback, it highlights that many people have been left behind by globalization. Their negative sentiment is exploitable, and we see it happening everywhere. However, history has shown that fascism and dictatorship are not paths to success. We need to create more clever systems based on the emerging science of life, from biology and neuroscience to quantum physics. These sciences point to the idea that we are all part of one interconnected web of life. I’m hopeful that the essence of our wisdom traditions—values like care, love, and stewardship—will not only survive but make a comeback in new forms. We are at a crossroads, and we must choose to create a future that benefits everyone within the system, rather than destroying it for the benefit of a few. I do believe that underneath it all, there is a strong positive survival force within humanity that can overcome these challenges.

---

► Book: Triple Value Leadership

► Website Sander Tideman