Global System Change and System Change Investing: New Whole-System Concepts and Strategies for Achieving Bridge System Change

Global System Change and System Change Investing

New Whole-System Concepts and Strategies for Achieving Bridge System Change

Frank Dixon
Global System Change
fdixon@SystemChangeInvesting.com

Abstract

System change is the key to resolving the major challenges threatening business and society. Larger-scale system change is most effectively achieved through whole-system, nature-based approaches. This paper introduces new concepts and strategies that are based on the laws of nature and derived through whole-system thinking. They are intended to substantially enhance the effectiveness of the system change, responsible investing, and sustainability fields. New concepts include the distinctions between: bridge and transformation system change; system change content and process; systemic and symptomatic risks; and direct and indirect sustainability impacts. New approaches include: a model for describing the evolution of human consciousness; a whole-system, nature-based framework for guiding the evolution of human systems and society (Global System Change); a whole-system approach to inner change; a method of summarizing and clarifying system change at the corporate and financial sector levels (Rule of Law); a form of responsible investing that engages the capital markets in driving system change (System Change Investing); and a model for integrating system change into corporate sustainability strategies (Total Corporate Responsibility). This paper is based on the Global System Change Books.¹ They use whole-system thinking to provide systemic solutions for all major areas of society. 

Key New Concepts and Strategies Introduced in this Paper

Bridge v. Transformation System Change	Stabilize society in the short-term v. long-term sustainability transformation
System Change Content v. Process	Content: goals/systemic changes (What) v. Process: means to achieve them (How)
Systemic v. Symptomatic Risks	Root causes of risk (flawed systems) v. symptoms of them (e.g. climate change)
Direct v. Indirect Sustainability Impacts	Negative impacts (direct) v. changing systems that cause impacts (indirect)
Global System Change (GSC)	Whole-system, nature-based framework for guiding system/societal evolution
System Change Investing (SCI)	Rating corporate system change performance and shifting investments to system change leaders
Total Corporate Responsibility (TCR®)	Integrating system change into corporate sustainability strategies, enabling total impact mitigation
GSC Levels of Consciousness	Unconscious Unity, Conscious Separation, Conscious Unity
GSC Inner Change Model	Using all drivers of human behavior (e.g. consciousness raising, profit motive) to achieve bridge system change
GSC Rule of Law	Freedom of action, provided no one is harmed. Hold individuals and companies fully responsible for harm

Copyright © 2026 Frank Dixon

For information about applying these concepts and strategies through advisory services, see the SCI Services section at the end of this paper.

Introduction

System change is a huge opportunity for business and society. Rapidly growing environmental, social, economic, and political problems show that current responsible investing, corporate sustainability, and system change approaches are not working nearly well enough. Large, accelerating sustainability challenges pose severe threats to the capital markets, business, and society. Clearly new approaches are needed. This paper provides several.

Human society reflects human thinking. Reductionist thinking produced flawed economic, political, and other systems that compel companies to harm the environment and society. These systems, and the reductionist thinking that created them, are the root causes of climate change and essentially all other major problems. Improving flawed systems (i.e. system change) is the most important action needed to resolve challenges and protect business and society.

Higher-level, whole-system thinking is the foundational solution to evolving human systems and society into sustainable forms. But broadly evolving human consciousness and thinking could take a long time.

Rapidly growing problems strongly indicate that our unintentionally destructive systems already are in the process of changing. Quickly improving these systems is essential for resolving challenges and preventing severe disruption of business and society.

Bridge and Transformation System Change. To facilitate that, this paper introduces the concept of bridge (short-term) and transformation (long-term) system change. Bridge system change involves stopping the bleeding (rapid environmental and social degradation) and stabilizing the patient (humanity). This will provide the time needed for a fuller transition to sustainable systems and society (i.e. transformation system change).

Consciousness evolution is part of bridge system change, but not the main part. Instead, it utilizes current systems and mindsets to change systems. It plays by the rules of current systems (i.e. profit and investment return enhancement) and appeals to main drivers of human behavior change (e.g. logic, self-interest, profit motive, reputation).

System Change Content and Process. Evolving economic, political, and financial systems into sustainable forms requires new system change strategies. To facilitate them, this paper introduces the concept of system change content and process. Content refers to system change goals and the systemic changes needed to achieve them (i.e. the What). Process refers to the means of achieving these goals and changes (i.e. the How).

Current system change efforts usually form collaborative groups and then develop system change goals and strategies within them. This could be called putting the How before the What. This approach works well for smaller-scale change. But larger-scale, higher-level system change (e.g. national economic and political reform) requires many system change strategies and efforts. If each system change group develops their own goals and strategies, it can produce conflicting strategies and views of reality. Higher-level system change is most effectively achieved by putting the What before the How. 

Global System Change facilitates this. It uses the laws of nature and whole-system thinking to define sustainable society and clarify the means to achieve it. GSC provides an objective reality, nature-derived framework that can guide and coordinate higher-level system change groups and efforts. Working toward a common system change vision and strategy greatly increases the likelihood of quickly achieving bridge system change.

System Change Investing. The corporate and financial sectors have the greatest power to drive bridge system change. They largely are controlled by investing. This potentially makes investing the most powerful system change lever in all areas of society. Current system change-focused investment strategies usually emphasize green investing (a.k.a. impact investing – funding environmental and social solutions). But this does not directly drive higher-level system change.

This paper introduces a new investment strategy for directly driving system change, called System Change Investing (SCI). The approach rates companies on their efforts to promote system change, and shifts investments to system change leaders. Based on current responsible investing strategies, SCI is relatively easy to implement, broadly applicable in the capital markets, and return-enhancing. It utilizes current systems and mindsets to change systems. SCI strongly incentivizes the corporate and financial sectors to engage in system change.

GSC, SCI, and the other concepts and strategies discussed in this paper are intended to support and accelerate current system change, responsible investing, and sustainability approaches. They were developed by Frank Dixon, a pioneer of return-enhancing responsible investing. As the head of research for the largest, #1-rated ESG research firm, Innovest (now MSCI), he developed and refined the original models that manage trillions of dollars of assets. He saw long ago that traditional ESG models were not resolving major challenges. As a result, in 2003, he created the concept of using investing to drive system change and built the first models for implementing it. He has been evolving SCI models and developing whole system change solutions ever since.

Reductionist thinking is the foundation of current unsustainable society. Whole-system thinking is needed to achieve sustainable society. As a result, this paper focuses first on thinking and consciousness. It then uses this foundation to introduce practical system change strategies.

The paper discusses whole-system thinking, bridge and transformation system change, levels of consciousness, flawed systems, making system change profitable, system change content and process, whole-system inner change, risk management, impact measurement, GSC, and SCI.  

Whole-system Thinking Clarifies Prosperity

GSC and SCI are based on the whole-system, implied unity thinking of nature. Nature displays nearly infinitely higher levels of coordination, sophistication, and long-term, widespread prosperity than humanity. The parts of healthy natural systems, like the human body and nature overall, operate as one interconnected, interdependent system. Consciousness cannot be observed directly. But the results of nature show that it operates from a unity perspective.

Humans are parts of the whole, interconnected system of nature. But we usually do not think at this level. And that is the ultimate root cause of essentially every major challenge facing humanity.

Rather than seeing ourselves as interconnected parts of one whole system, humans generally see themselves as being separate from each other and nature. This limited thinking produced economic, political, and other systems that ignore relevant factors. This in turn produces unintended consequences, such as widespread environmental and social degradation. 

Reductionist systems make it impossible for companies to stop harming the environment and society and remain in business. Improving these systems is essential for achieving sustainable society. As Einstein implied, we cannot solve complex problems by using the same level of thinking that created them (i.e. reductionism). We must use higher-level, whole-system thinking – the implied unity thinking of nature.

Complexity is a main barrier to this. The human mind did not evolve to think of the whole Earth system and its sub-element human society at once. To overcome the complexity barrier, we must find ways to make the whole system clear and actionable for nearly everyone. This is a main goal of GSC. It uses the laws of nature to clarify sustainable society and the means to achieve it.

Throughout history, all flawed, destructive systems (like our own) changed, usually by collapsing quickly (e.g. American and French revolutions, the end of US slavery and USSR communism). Rapidly growing problems strongly indicate that we already have entered a phase of system change. 

Modern human systems grossly violate the laws of nature. As a result, it is guaranteed that they will change through voluntary or involuntary means. If we do not voluntarily improve our systems, nature and reality will involuntarily change them, almost certainly in a highly disruptive manner. (The laws of nature and how human systems and society violate them are discussed in the GSC sections below.)

We should err on the side of caution and assume that systems will change sooner rather than later, because the consequences of involuntary system change (i.e. collapse) are so severe. Even if we are wrong about the timing, improving systems in ways that reduce environmental and social harm can only benefit business and society. Therefore, seeking to improve systems as quickly as possible is the most prudent and beneficial strategy. 

Climate Change and the Laws of Nature

Climate change illustrates the reductionist, destructive, unsustainable nature of modern human society. It took nature about 500 million years to produce the Earth’s fossil fuels.² This process sequestered vast amounts of carbon in the Earth’s crust. Humanity is on track to use up most of the Earth’s fossil fuels in about 300 years. This is quickly dispersing large amounts of stored carbon back into the atmosphere. 

Current emissions are about ten times higher than the fastest carbon emission rate ever seen on Earth (i.e. the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 56 million years ago).³ They are also about 140 times higher than the Earth’s normal, long-term carbon release rate.⁴ We are altering the Earth’s atmosphere at a pace and scale never seen in its 4.5-billion-year history. 

Nature is highly efficient. It produces no material waste – nearly every output becomes an input to another process. It lives on renewable resources and continuously cycles matter. From a whole system perspective, fossil fuels stored in the Earth’s crust are not waste. They serve a foundational purpose. 

Sequestering carbon in the Earth’s crust cooled the planet and enabled higher life forms, such as humans, to evolve. Returning nearly 500 million years of stored carbon to the atmosphere in about 300 years severely threatens humanity and many other species. 

At current consumption rates, it will take humanity about 50 years to use up the Earth’s remaining oil and natural gas, and about 100 years to use up its remaining coal.⁵ But fossil fuel use almost certainly will be ended or greatly reduced long before then. Either we will substantially cut back use voluntarily or nature will compel reduction through climate change. 

Bridge versus Transformation System Change

This paper introduces the concept of bridge (short-term) versus transformation (long-term) system change. Transformation system change involves evolving human consciousness to the implied unity consciousness of nature, thereby enabling us to achieve the long-term sustainability and prosperity displayed there over the past 3.8 billion years.

The model for sustainable human society is all around us in nature. The resolution of essentially every major challenge is modeled there. We are each walking around in an economic system that is essentially infinitely more advanced and sophisticated than capitalism, socialism, or any other modern human system.

In nature, as in a healthy human body, the parts operate in harmony with each other, producing brilliant, resilient outcomes. This is a vision of sustainable human society. Imagine if humanity operated like other parts of nature, with overwhelming cooperation and limited competition. 

(There is limited competition in nature at the individual level, as when one animal eats another. But the overwhelming force in forests and other healthy natural systems is cooperation. When the overwhelming force is competition, as in a body with terminal cancer, the system changes or dies.)

Some might say that this vision of cooperative human society is idealistic, utopian, or unachievable; instead, we should focus on practically improving current systems. But humans operating like the rest of nature is not utopian. As discussed below, it is objective reality. This is how nature has been operating for 3.8 billion years. This type of behavior is guaranteed on Earth. The only uncertainty is whether humans will be here when nature imposes compliance with its laws. The true utopian concept, in the sense that it absolutely never will occur, is the idea that humans can continue to grossly violate the laws of nature with impunity.

We almost certainly are on the verge of the most significant transformation in human history. We could go down or up to the unity and prosperity of nature. It’s up to us. We can be almost infinitely more prosperous, individually and collectively, than we are now. System change is essential for achieving this positive transformation.

This is where bridge system change comes in. Widespread, accelerating major challenges show that we probably do not have enough time for the full transformation to unity consciousness and nature compliance. As discussed, bridge system change means stopping the bleeding (rapid environmental and social degradation) and stabilizing the patient (humanity) in the short-term. This will provide the time needed for longer-term individual and societal transformation.

Bridge system change involves meeting people where they are, at their current levels of consciousness. It uses current systems to change these systems. From a corporate and financial perspective, this requires making system change practical and profitable. As discussed below, that is what SCI does.

Levels of Consciousness

Human society is a reflection of human thinking. Essentially every major challenge facing humanity is foundationally caused by our current level of thinking. Higher-level thinking is needed to solve these challenges. Thinking is the ultimate cause and solution.

The GSC books introduced a new model for describing the evolution of human consciousness. It discusses three levels: unconscious unity, conscious separation, and conscious unity. The immense sophistication and long-term success of nature show that it implicitly operates from a unity perspective. Plants and animals are guided by DNA, instinct, and other mechanisms that we do not fully understand in ways that enable individuals and the whole system to prosper.

The parts of nature display unity by acting as interconnected parts of one whole system, thus providing a perfect model for sustainable human society. For example, creatures meet individual needs by seeking food. But they do not harm the ability of other creatures to get food by taking more than they need, a common human practice. They apparently do not self-reflect, and therefore could be called unconscious at the individual level.

The long-term survival and success of many original people indicated that they retained at least partial awareness of unity with nature and each other. But over time, humans began to perceive themselves as being separate from each other and nature. This phase of consciousness, the one we largely still are in, could be called conscious separation.

The illusion that we are separate from something that we actually are a part of is the root cause of essentially all major problems. This illusion produced fear that needs would not be met. This led to a belief in the need for competition. In this environment, those with greater physical strength, aggressiveness, and competitiveness (men) often were more highly valued. When power is defined this way, men innately have more power. 

Many studies show that women have more wisdom when it is defined as greater capacity for cooperation, empathy, whole-system thinking, multitasking, relationship skills, and intuitive wisdom. (These generalizations often do not apply at the individual level. Everyone is different. All women and men have power and wisdom.)

The suppression of women mirrors the suppression of wisdom in human society. Rapid environmental and social degradation show that we have an abundance of power and lack of wisdom. Power and wisdom implicitly are balanced in nature, as shown by its survival and success for billions of years.

To achieve sustainability and real prosperity, we must do a much better job of teaching that power and wisdom are equal and essential. Power without wisdom is destructive, as shown in the world today. Wisdom can do nothing without power. Power can do nothing right without wisdom. Elevating the status of wisdom will elevate women to a position of true equality with men.

Separatist human consciousness can make it appear that we are more advanced or intelligent than nature’s creatures. In some ways, we are. But the most important measure of intelligence, sophistication, and success is survival (because all other factors ultimately are irrelevant without it). We compare ourselves to other creatures, assuming that they are separate entities. But other creatures act as parts of larger systems. 

Comparing ourselves to nature overall shows that we are far less advanced. The technology and sophistication of the simplest of nature’s creations (e.g. blade of grass – photosynthesis, DNA, cells) is essentially infinitely more sophisticated than the most advanced human creations (e.g. AI, spacecraft). In addition, nature has survived for billions of years, while we are rapidly destroying the environmental and social systems that keep us alive.

Humans are far less advanced than nature because we think at a lower level of consciousness (separation). But we are nature. Our bodies already operate on unity. Our minds have the same ability to do so.

Unlike other creatures, humans gained the ability to self-reflect. This journey apparently started with partial unity (original people), and then moved to separation (modern society). Reality and nature are compelling us to advance our consciousness. 

As we elevate and honor wisdom, we will better understand our interconnectedness with nature and each other. Our journey of self-reflection will bring us back to where nature has always been (unity). However, unlike nature, we will be able to reflect on it. We will reach the third level of human consciousness – conscious unity.

Flawed Systems

Separation consciousness produced reductionism (i.e. addressing parts without adequate reference to the whole system that contains them). The human tendency to focus on the individual perspective (e.g. person, organization, country) produced systems that fail to see the big picture, and thereby do not adequately address many relevant factors. 

For example, we developed economic systems that do not adequately protect the environmental and social systems that enable the economy to exist. Flawed systems focused on the benefits of burning fossil fuels, but not the severe threats they pose to humanity. These well-meaning systems are unintentionally destructive, and ultimately suicidal. 

Reductionist economic, political, financial, and other systems unintentionally demand environmental and social degradation. Many system flaws cause this, such as externalities, time value of money, and limited liability. These and essentially all other system flaws related to the corporate and financial sectors could be rolled up into one overarching, meta system flaw – the failure to hold companies fully responsible for negative environmental and social impacts.

This is the general mechanism that makes it impossible for companies to stop harm and remain in business. Very generally speaking, companies can profitably mitigate about 20 percent of total negative impacts (i.e. short-term, long-term, tangible, intangible, environmental, social). This profitability was a main factor causing responsible investing and corporate sustainability to become mainstream.

However, in competitive markets, if companies go beyond regulations and attempt to further reduce harm voluntarily, their costs often go up (relative to companies that are not going beyond regulations). If they continue to reduce harm under systems that don’t require them to do so, they will put themselves out of business long before reaching full impact mitigation. Their choice is, harm the environment and society, or harm themselves. Beyond a certain point, voluntary corporate responsibility equals voluntary corporate suicide. 

Fully stopping harm equals killing the company. That is why there are no companies, public or private, under modern systems that do not harm the environment and society in some ways. There can be no sustainable (i.e. non-harmful) companies in unsustainable systems (i.e. those that demand harmful behavior). Obviously, reductionist economic and political systems that unintentionally demand environmental and social destruction will not last. 

Current responsible investing and corporate sustainability approaches largely are based on voluntary corporate responsibility. It is impossible for this system to work. It is a perfect example of reductionist thinking. We hold individuals fully responsible for harm, but not companies. This compels them to cause harm. 

People in the future will look back at current systems in the same way that we look back at slavery. They will ask, why did you not hold companies to the same standard as individuals? Why did you not hold them fully responsible for harming the environment and society? The answer largely is that reductionist thinking prevented us from seeing the gross harm caused by our flawed systems.

The main reason that responsible investing and corporate sustainability have not come close to resolving major challenges is that they largely focus on changing companies, instead of the systems that control their behavior and compel them to cause harm. They also mainly focus on addressing symptoms, such as climate change and other Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) problems, instead of root causes. Flawed systems are the root causes or engines that create SDG problems. It will be impossible to solve these problems under the systems that created them in the first place.

Flawed systems enabled vested interests to profit by degrading the environment and society. This drove vast concentration of wealth and made nearly half of the people on Earth unable to meet basic needs.⁶ A main reason that destructive systems usually change through rapid collapse is that vested interests often oppose changing systems that appear to benefit them, but harm society. (The term appear is used because vested interests profit by degrading the systems that keep them alive.) 

Vested interest opposition to system change causes negative impacts to accelerate, become overwhelming, and cause system failure. If this occurs now, the disruption almost certainly would be unprecedented, because humanity is larger and more interconnected than ever before, and we are near or beyond many environmental and social tipping points.

Rapidly growing problems strongly indicate that our destructive systems are near the end of cycle. This is the challenge of bridge system change. How do we halt rapid environmental and social degradation, and thereby give ourselves the time needed for full transformation?

US slavery illustrates the challenge. What could have been said to southern slave owners in 1857 (four years before the Civil War) to convince them to voluntarily end slavery? One strategy would have been to help them see that slavery inevitably would end, because it so grossly violates the laws of nature. Rapidly rising problems strongly indicated that the end of slavery was near. Keeping slavery in place would not have been an option for very much longer. Their only options were voluntary or involuntary change. With the latter, they might lose everything, including their lives. Clearly voluntary system change was their best option.

We likely are in the same situation now. Our reductionist systems grossly violate the laws of nature. System change is inevitable, and probably already occurring. The difference is the worldwide scale of potential environmental, social, economic, and political collapse. We may only have a few years to voluntarily change our destructive systems before reality and nature change them involuntarily. 

Make System Change Profitable

Making system change profitable probably is the best and potentially only practical strategy for achieving timely bridge system change. Current systems emphasize high profits and investment returns. These are the rules of the game. Asking investors and companies to accept lower returns in exchange for environmental and social benefits is an uphill battle.

Until the 1990s, responsible investing nearly always was done with negative screening (e.g. excluding harmful sectors). This often lowered returns and kept responsible investing marginal. However, positive screening identified hidden value and frequently increased returns. Once responsible investing played by the rules of the game, it became mainstream (i.e. widely used in the capital markets).

SCI is based on the proven positive screening strategy. It enables investors and companies to profit from system change. This facilitates rapid, widespread engagement, thereby maximizing the likelihood of achieving timely bridge system change.

US slavery once again illustrates the immense challenge and opportunity of system change. One option for convincing slave owners to voluntarily end slavery before involuntary collapse would have been to make non-slavery agriculture profitable. Some slave owners knew that slavery was wrong. Thomas Jefferson, for example, knew that it was morally indefensible and a major threat to US survival. But he and others operated in slave-based systems. They likely would have faced severe economic and other consequences if they tried to grow and market crops without slaves.

A strong effort to show the financial and other benefits of non-slavery agriculture, along with practical strategies for transitioning to it, could have facilitated a peaceful end to slavery. It also could have facilitated the transition culturally. Instead of being criticized by other slave owners as do-gooders, farmers transitioning to non-slavery agriculture often would have been seen as prudent, forward-thinking businessmen.

However, this approach would immediately raise highly valid moral objections. Many people would say, “Slavery is grossly wrong, an abomination. Forget profits. End it immediately.” This is the approach that was used to end slavery. It worked, but in a highly traumatic fashion. Many might say, “So what if slave owners died; they got what they deserved.” But many innocent people died too. 

The point of this strategy would not have been to coddle slave owners. It was to facilitate the peaceful, non-traumatic end of an extremely harmful and unjust system.

This analogy perfectly applies to modern systems. These systems are rapidly destroying life and the systems that sustain it. They literally kill and harm many people through toxic emissions, fossil fuel use, poverty-level wages, lack of healthcare, and numerous other mechanisms. Many people would strongly oppose helping companies that harm the environment and society to make more money. They might say, “Destroying the environment and society is morally and objectively wrong. Stop it. You don’t deserve any profits, much less more profits.”

The corporate and financial sectors often defend themselves by saying they provide many benefits to society. They imply that they should be allowed to cause harm because they also do good. This is not a logical argument. Doing good does not justify or allow causing harm. Of course companies do good. They wouldn’t exist if they didn’t provide benefits. But that is irrelevant to causing harm. There is no right to harm others in a civilized society.

Activists are morally correct when they say destructive systems and corporate behavior must end. However, this moral approach almost certainly will produce involuntary, highly disruptive system collapse as vested interests oppose system change. This is not meant to criticize the role of activists. They are essential. They make problems public and create strong pressure to change. They often are the true heroes of society.

However, they cannot do the job alone. They need inside help. Helping those who harm the environment and society to make more money might seem like a deal with the devil. But corporate and financial sector leaders, and the politicians they control, are not the enemy. They are good people who intend to help society, and do in many ways. They simply are playing by the rules of the game. Flawed systems, and the reductionist thinking that created them, are the true enemies of humanity and all life on Earth.

SCI is designed to play by the rules of the game. It uses current systems to change systems. It gives corporate and financial sector leaders a practical strategy for driving system change. It enables them to also be seen as heroes by posterity.

The following sections discuss strategies for evolving human systems and society into sustainable forms, with an emphasis on bridge system change. If we don’t quickly stop the bleeding (i.e. rapid environmental social degradation), we might not have the opportunity to achieve a fuller transformation to unity and nature compliance.

System Change Content and Process

System change can refer to systemic changes ranging from the individual to whole-system level. In this paper, it means evolving human systems and society into sustainable forms (i.e. capable of achieving survival and broad prosperity over the very long-term). 

This paper introduces the concept of dividing system change into content and process areas:

• Content (the What) refers to system change goals and the systemic changes needed to achieve them (e.g. achieving nature-compliant society, implementing democracy, holding companies fully responsible for harm). 

• Process (the How) refers to the means of achieving these goals and changes (e.g. collaboration, inner work, mapping complex systems). 

Economic and political reform, and other types of systemic change, have been discussed throughout modern human history. The specific fields of system change, thinking, and dynamics have existed at least since the 1970s. However, the inability of current sustainability approaches to resolve major challenges is driving rapidly growing interest in system change.

Much of the work labeled system change around the world focuses on the process-side. These methodologies frequently cite Donella Meadows’ and MIT’s work, starting in the 1970s, on complex adaptive systems, system mapping, feedback loops, and similar concepts. They often emphasize helping groups to collaborate and achieve goals more effectively. 

Process-focused system change approaches frequently include some or all of the following principles:

• Inner change must precede outer change.
• Context, constraints, and solutions should be identified during the process.
• The evolution of complex systems cannot be predicted.
• Individuals and groups should develop their own solutions, don’t impose them.
• Promote small, practical prototypes, then scale them into broader systems.

To illustrate, the Theory U system change process promotes scaling up small prototypes and doing inner work that shifts the focus from protecting self to protecting the whole system. A core premise is that systems cannot be transformed until the consciousness of those in the system is transformed.

Current System Change: Putting the How Before the What

Many system change approaches emphasize first forming effective collaborative groups (How), and then identifying system change goals and strategies within them (What). This could be called putting the How before the What. These approaches have achieved favorable results in thousands of applications around the world. They often are the optimal strategies at the organizational, community, and sometimes higher levels (e.g. regional environmental or social issue-level).

However, putting the How before the What and some of the above principles can inhibit system change results at higher, broader levels (e.g. state, national, societal, whole Earth system). Reasons for this relate to the following principles and ideas:

Inner change precedes outer. This largely is true over the long-term, but often not for broad, short-term change (i.e. bridge system change). Economic, political, and other systemic changes are needed in the short-term to halt rapid environmental and social degradation. Transforming the consciousness of vested interests and others (i.e. inner change) often is not possible or practical in the short-term. Many strategies are needed beyond inner transformation to achieve bridge system change. One of the most important is to change vested interests from being barriers of system change to drivers of it. That is a primary goal of SCI.

Complex system evolution cannot be predicted. This is true at the detail level, but often not at the whole-system level. Gravity and other natural laws control all life. They can be used to predict with 100 percent accuracy the most important aspects of sustainable society at a high level (i.e. the main factors determining human survival and prosperity).

Clarifying constraints imposes solutions. Clarifying the constraints or laws that control all life up front does not impose solutions. It identifies the objective reality requirements for survival and prosperity. This clarifies the vessel within which humanity can successfully evolve. There might be an infinite number of ways that we could evolve (i.e. solutions) within this vessel. But there are zero ways to do this outside the vessel over the longer-term.

Individual versus whole-system focus. The emphasis of system change approaches on inner change is sometimes out of context. Focusing first on the individual level is like focusing on the well-being of a cell instead of the whole body. When considering human health, we would not focus first on the well-being of cells and other parts. We’d focus on whole human well-being, recognizing that this is the best way to maximize the well-being of the parts. 

Individual transformation is critical. It is a main driver of societal transformation. But it should be framed and pursued within the context of whole-system well-being. As Einstein implied, we must begin to think more from the whole-system rather than individual level. This means that for larger-scale system change, the initial focus often should not be on the individual. It should be on the implied consciousness and operation of the whole system (i.e. think like nature). GSC facilitates this.

Scaling prototypes to broader systems. This is effective in the sense of one entity (e.g. organization, community, region) modeling success for others. But small-scale models often are not applicable at higher levels. For example, optimal local economic and political systems might not be the most effective models for more complex national systems. The laws of nature and frameworks based on them frequently will be more effective.

Higher systems constrain organizational/regional system change. National economic and political systems often make it impossible for communities and regions to become sustainable. For example, local businesses operating in national markets and systems frequently will be unable to stop environmental and social harm. This is why organizations and regions should incorporate system change into their sustainability strategies. In this way, they collaborate to change the higher-level systems that prevent them from achieving their sustainability goals.

Identify context/constraints during the system change process. This often is the optimal strategy for smaller-scale change. But many strategies and collaborative efforts are required to achieve high-level system change (e.g. national economic and political reform). If each group develops their own understanding of the whole-system context, it could produce different views of reality and uncoordinated, sometimes conflicting strategies.

Global System Change: Putting the What Before the How

As discussed below, the laws of nature are not matters of opinion or philosophy. They are objective reality. High-level system change usually is most effectively achieved by putting the What before the How. Clarifying higher-level system change goals and the means to achieve them up front, through a whole-system framework, is essential for guiding and coordinating the numerous system change efforts required to achieve sustainable systems and society.

There are many frameworks or models for defining sustainable society and how to achieve it, such as the Doughnut Economy and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. These often are based on general principles, such as circularity, regeneration, higher purpose, human dignity, environmental restoration, fairness, and living within nature’s boundaries. GSC provides a more specific whole-system framework based on the immutable laws of nature.

Inner Change – The GSC Whole-system Approach

As discussed above, many system change processes emphasize inner change as the way to achieve outer change, often believing that outer change is not possible without inner change. This is true in the sense that the inner precedes the outer. Behavior is always caused by inner processes, even if they are instinctual, automatic, or unconscious.

The concern is not with the idea that inner drives outer. That’s a constant. It even could be called a law of nature. Rather, the concern is with how inner change is defined, and subsequently pursued. This section discusses a broader definition of inner change. It includes many factors that drive inner change, beyond evolving consciousness. A true whole-system approach must broadly utilize human psychology to effectively achieve bridge system change.

The Importance of Unity Consciousness

Many approaches to inner change focus on the consciousness evolution discussed in this paper – from separation to unity. This is a deep, often life-changing transformation. Changing one’s image from being a separate, isolated entity to being part of one interconnected system is deeply satisfying and life-enhancing. This occurs in a large part because people move out of the illusion of separation and into the reality of unity.

This deep transformation goes beyond the conscious intellect. Unity is experienced. People know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are part of something larger. The natural response to the deep knowing of unity is love. This is the force that holds healthy natural systems and nature overall together. It is the implied love of the right hand for the left, or the kidney for the heart. Love is the reality of nature. One could say that it is the most powerful force in reality, or even that it is reality.

This is mirrored in essentially all major religions. They have the common suggestions to treat others with kindness and respect, help the needy, and protect God’s creations (nature and all life). These are universal truths. They enhance life for all who practice them, because people are acting on the reality of unity with others and nature.

Our five senses often trick us into thinking that we are separate from each other and nature, as they once tricked us into thinking the Earth was flat. But the wisdom of nature, which we all can access through the intuitive, shows that we are one. The intellect and logic can show it too. None of us can survive in outer space (without a simulated Earth). The human is as much a part of the whole Earth system as the hand is of the body.

This inner awareness of unity, and the love it generates, is the ultimate transformative power in human society. As we begin to operate on a unity basis (i.e. reality/nature-aligned), we will begin to manifest the immense sophistication, sustainability, and widespread prosperity seen in nature. We will begin to act like what we are in reality, rather than continuing to live in the fantasy (or nightmare?) of separation, appearing to be disconnected from nature and each other. 

Deep unity consciousness will inform our intellect. We will intuitively know how to evolve our economic, political, and other systems into sustainable, nature-compliant forms. To survive and prosper on Earth, we must do what all successful species do – act on a unity basis and comply with the laws of nature. This action will become as automatic as a heartbeat once we evolve to unity consciousness.

Why Consciousness Evolution Can Take Time

However, the transition to unity consciousness, and the sustainable society it will create, could take a long time, possibly generations. The sense of separation and isolation, deeply inculcated in humanity by our demeaning advertising, education, and separatist society in general, can make inner change difficult.

Deeply held beliefs or worldviews (e.g. self-judgment, liberals or conservatives are the cause of all problems in society) are people’s security blankets. Changing them can be difficult, or impossible for some. This occurs in part because our deepest, often unconscious beliefs are formed before we can think rationally. 

For example, much of the foundation of a person’s psychology and worldviews are formed in the first year of life. The child’s world is the family. Whatever they learn there largely determines how they see the world. If they have good, kind, loving parents who meet their needs, the child learns at a deep, precognitive, foundational psychological level that the world is a safe place, the people I love will love me, and my needs will be met. 

However, if parents have problems or are absent, the child can learn the opposite. They might see a dangerous, unloving world (as they saw in their family). They could come to believe that they must fight for everything, because people can’t be trusted. They will hurt you if they can.

This complexity of the human mind and psychology shows why the transformation to unity consciousness can take a long time. Even in the most loving families, our cultures and society often promote separatist, disempowering self-images. For example, people in the US see about 2 million ads during their lives.⁷ Each one is a mini sermon on the religion of materialism. It teaches children and adults that they are inadequate without the ‘right’ looks, wealth, or possessions. Competitive grading in education teaches children that they are inadequate if they do not receive superior grades. 

The list of disempowering factors in our separatist society goes on and on. The fruit of a separatist, competitive society often is isolation and disempowerment. This makes it easy for vested interests to manipulate and control the masses. 

It potentially shows one reason why those in power routinely promoted separatist religions and cultural ideas since the First Agricultural Revolution. Religions often contain principles that are broadly applicable (e.g. respect others, help the needy) and dogma that can be harmful and disempowering. For example, some religious dogma says or implies that we are separate from God, nature, and each other. That we are innately flawed or fallen. And that we are bound to sin. But if we submit ourselves to God, we will be shown mercy. 

There also are many positive interpretations of religion. Despite the illusion of separation, human society is overwhelmingly positive. For every negative action, there are vastly more positive or society-enhancing ones, such as when we don’t hit or insult every person we pass on the street. The fact that society exists shows that we have the ability to cooperate. But separation consciousness, and the isolation and sadness it often produces, cause many problems in society.

Expanding the Definition of Inner Change

The time-consuming nature of consciousness evolution creates the need for a broader understanding of inner change. If our main strategy for resolving rapidly growing challenges is to achieve deep, unity-based inner change, we almost certainly will not resolve challenges before major system collapse.

Effective bridge system change requires using many drivers of inner change. These include logic, fear and other emotions, instinct, intuition, self-interest, the profit motive, desire to protect people and things in one’s life, desire to be accepted by peers and society, and desire to help one’s groups and organizations.

GSC and SCI utilize these factors to achieve bridge system change. This whole-system approach to inner change provides the best chance of resolving challenges in the short-term, thereby enabling us to evolve more deeply over time.

This doesn’t mean abandoning unity efforts. That is the ultimate solution. It is the main factor that will enable humanity to survive and prosper over the very long term. It also can be a powerful motivator of short-term change, as shown by the widespread success of these processes in smaller-scale applications. But they have been around for over 50 years, and the environment and society nevertheless are declining rapidly in many areas.

Regarding emotion and the desire to protect what one values, fear can be a powerful motivator of change. Once collapse is imminent or already occurring, the survival and protection instincts drive action. However, before collapse is obvious, discussing major problems can cause apathy and inaction, if people do not understand causes and solutions. If they do understand them, fear can drive successful action.

The whole-system thinking of GSC makes root causes and high-level solutions clear. It also helps people to see the inevitability of system change and likely collapse if we don’t voluntarily change soon.

SCI works within current systems and mindsets. The focus is on logic, self-interest, and the profit motive, rather than trying to change the consciousness and worldviews of leaders and citizens. As discussed below, the approach enhances profits, reputations, organizations, careers, and several other foundational drivers of human behavior.

This section briefly summarized the GSC whole-system approach to inner change. Far more information is provided in the GSC books.

Global System Change

To achieve bridge system change, we must think from a whole-system level. This requires making the whole system easy to understand and act upon. The laws of nature provide an ideal way to describe and frame the whole Earth system and its sub-element human society.

Evolving one’s worldviews or consciousness from separation to unity can be a long-term process. It often requires addressing fear and other psychological issues. As discussed, achieving rapid bridge system change requires harnessing the full spectrum of factors driving inner change and outer behavior. 

Much of human society is driven by the intellect and logic (as when we seek to use current economic and political systems to benefit humanity). Deceptive media, fear, and other emotions can inhibit logic. But the intellect is a powerful and well-developed tool. The laws of nature are appealing to the intellect because they are obvious and logical. They also appeal to the heart (emotions) through the immense individual and collective well-being resulting from a unity, reality-based approach.

Using the laws of nature to build a whole-system framework for guiding human systems and society provides many benefits, including the following:

Whole-system roadmap. The laws of nature provide more specific and objective guidance than models based on general principles. The laws clarify the structure of sustainable society at a high level. This clarity enables us to identify the objectively necessary systemic changes and actions required to move from current systems and society to sustainable ones. A whole-system framework illuminates root causes, systemic barriers, key leverage points, societal interconnections, and optimal solutions.

Moving beyond debate into action. Differing views and philosophies of sustainable society (e.g. capitalism, socialism), along with vested interest deceptions, stimulate debate and inhibit system change action. The laws of nature provide an objective reality framework that transcends human bias, opinion, and philosophy. Gravity and other laws of nature are objectively true, regardless of what humans think of them. They preceded humanity, and will postcede us if we do not comply with them. Objectively clarifying sustainable society enables us to move beyond honest and deceptive debate into action.

Making the complex simple. One person’s life can be highly complex. But imagine all lives, all creatures, and all issues taken together. It is incomprehensible to the individual conscious human mind. The GSC framework is not meant to make all these details clear. Instead, it clarifies the overarching laws or vessel that contains all aspects of life. The laws of nature (discussed in more detail below) provide a whole-system framework that nearly everyone can understand.

Grounding and guiding experts and groups. Academic and other experts often dive deeply into the details of particular fields. They sometimes develop theories and processes that sound logical. But the approaches frequently have unintended, harmful consequences, because they lose sight of or do not adequately address the whole system that contains their fields. Sustainable society defined by the laws of nature can provide an objective reality, whole-system frame of reference that grounds and guides experts as they do in-depth work in their various fields. It also can coordinate and guide the many groups focusing on different aspects of sustainability.

Nature is dynamic and always evolving. But the laws of nature are fixed and inviolate. Reductionism produced systems that put humanity in conflict with nature and each other. Every major life support system is in rapid decline, with some regional exceptions. We are destroying life at a rate not seen since an asteroid hit the Yucatán 66 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs. Our level of thinking is causing humanity to act like a cancer on Earth. The Earth and nature will be fine. They will heal the cancer. How that healing occurs is up to us, if we act quickly.

Can we use the gift of self-reflective consciousness to comply with the laws of nature? Virtually everyone on Earth wants humanity to survive and prosper. As parts of nature, we have access to the essentially infinite wisdom and intelligence seen and implied there. GSC harnesses our power to observe and emulate nature, and thereby achieve sustainable society.

GSC Framework

The GSC framework uses the laws of nature to define sustainable society and the means to achieve it. The framework has three parts: 

1. Sustainable society defined at a high-level by the laws of nature.
2. Systemic changes needed to achieve sustainable society.
3. Actions required in all major areas to bring about necessary systemic changes.

GSC provides an objective, high-level roadmap for guiding humanity to nature-compliance and sustainability. The approach is equally applicable to all regions and cultures, because it is based on the inviolate laws of nature and objectively necessary high-level systemic changes. As discussed below, different countries and cultures likely will use different strategies for achieving nature-compliance and system change. But the overall change and sustainable operations will be the same everywhere, as the high-level functioning of nature has been the same everywhere for billions of years.

GSC is focused on system change content (i.e. goals and means to achieve them – What). It helps to identify and coordinate the many processes needed to achieve sustainability (i.e. system mapping, collaboration, consciousness change – How).

Part One. Laws of Nature Defining Sustainable Society

The laws of nature are the consistent qualities observed in healthy natural systems at all levels. They are called laws because they are inviolate. When they are absent or temporarily violated, systems change or die.

With some laws (e.g. gravity), enforcement is immediate. With others (e.g. cooperation, equitable resource distribution), compliance can take longer, and then occur very quickly, for example, through system or species collapse. Violations of natural laws only can occur for relatively short periods. For example, gross natural law violations since the Industrial Revolution can seem like a long time to humans. But it is almost instantaneous from a whole-system perspective.

The laws of nature define and clarify the environmental, social, and governance characteristics of healthy natural systems, and therefore of sustainable human society. 

Observable laws of nature include:

• Seeking balance not growth
• Producing no material waste
• Living on renewable resources
• Equitable resource distribution
• Widespread cooperation (with limited competition at the individual level)
• Equally valuing generations
• Equally valuing species
• Decentralizing production
• Decentralizing governance (except in limited cases where broader governance is most effective)
• Enabling individuals to reach their fullest potential

Implied operating principles of nature include:

• Democracy/self-government
• Equality
• No externalities/total cost accounting
• Full employment

The above list shows obvious and important qualities of healthy living systems. But it is not comprehensive. Experts will refine it. Clarification sometimes will be needed. For example, some people might believe that equitable resource distribution means everyone gets the same level of resources, regardless of how hard they work or what they need. But that would violate natural laws. In nature, squirrels that work harder get more acorns. A redwood tree gets more resources than a daisy.

However, the grossly inequitable resource distribution seen in human society largely does not result from some individuals working harder or being more creative than others. It mainly results from lack of democracy and inappropriate government influence. This produces unjust laws and policies (e.g. corporate welfare, weak campaign finance laws) that unfairly concentrate wealth.

Enhancing Current Sustainability Models

Nature’s laws can be used to support and enhance the effectiveness of current sustainability models, such as those based on planetary boundaries and the SDGs.

Planetary boundaries (the limits of nature) are receiving growing attention in the sustainability field. It is useful to know how much pollution nature can sustainably absorb, for example. It also is helpful to understand corporate emissions in the context of environmental limits. 

However, nature’s laws should take priority over its limits. Even if limits were known, the key question would be, how do we live within them? The laws of nature provide the answer. They show how to live within the limits of nature. We almost certainly will be within the limits when we abide by the laws.

The Sustainable Development Goals provide a framework for human sustainability and action. However, they are human-centric, and therefore not reality-based. The SDGs are focused on humanity, implying that we are the center of life on Earth. But in reality, human society is a sub-element of the whole system of nature. This whole system determines the sustainability and prosperity of all life, including human life. 

Nature is the reality-based, whole-system frame of reference for humanity. The survival and prosperity of humanity will be completely determined by the extent to which we abide by the laws of nature. Making them our foundational goal and guiding standard is the only way to achieve the outcomes described in the SDGs.

(A clarification should be made about the term natural law. Religions sometimes call their dogma natural law. But dogma often varies among religions. In this paper, the term natural law does not refer to unprovable dogma, moral stories, or creation narratives. Instead, it refers to the objective, always present qualities of healthy natural systems, as shown by observations of reality and science.)

Part Two. Systemic Changes Needed for Nature Compliance

The second part of the GSC framework identifies the systemic changes that are required to evolve current systems and society into sustainable, nature-compliant forms. The framework emphasizes high-level systemic changes that are universally applicable. Different countries and cultures likely will use different strategies for achieving them. But the high-level, overall changes are the same.

The GSC books describe systemic changes needed in all major areas of society. Many of them are high-level changes that apply to all regions. The books also provide hundreds of examples of country-level changes, with a focus on the US.

Three examples of universal, high-level, necessary systemic changes relate to democracy, holding companies responsible (rule of law), and measuring societal success.

Democracy

Democracy is the only sustainable form of government. It is based on the innate, natural human rights to equality and self-government. The alternative (i.e. some people ruling others without their consent) violates natural laws, and therefore inevitably will fail.

However, as the US Founders well knew, democracy is an unworkable form of government for more than small groups. As a result, they built the US on the principle of democracy, but structured it as a republic. Most citizens do not have enough time to study and make well-informed decisions about every issue. As a result, democracy must be implemented through republican forms of government. Under this approach, citizens elect politicians who make decisions, often assisted by experts, that are intended to maximize the long-term well-being of society. 

Effective republican government requires that politicians equally and fairly serve all citizens, a condition that does not exist in the US and many other countries. Widespread prosperity, freedom, and rights protection strongly indicate high levels of democracy, as seen in several Nordic countries. High levels of poverty, wealth concentration, and rights suppression show low democracy. Democracy is suppressed in different ways (and therefore requires different country-specific solutions to establish it).

To illustrate, weakened campaign finance laws, deregulation, and several other factors largely converted the US from a democracy to a plutocracy (i.e. the wealthy control government and society).⁸ This contributed to nearly all economic and stock market growth over the past 40 years going to the top of society⁹, and the US having among the highest child poverty rates in the developed world.¹⁰ In Russia, China, and many other countries, democracy is violated through inadequate elections and other means.

Democracy is essential for many reasons, including control of technology. For example, democracy is the primary solution and means to control threats posed by AI. Whether AI helps or harms society largely depends on who controls it. If it is controlled by a small group of wealthy vested interests, it will be used to benefit them. Jobs will be eliminated to enhance profits and investment returns. AI will be used to mislead citizens in ways that protect systems that benefit vested interests, but harm society.

Democracy is the key to effective AI use. Under true democracy, citizens would demand that AI or any other technology with the potential to greatly benefit or greatly harm society be used only in ways that enhance society. Harmful uses would be prohibited. For example, under democracy, AI might be used in ways that cut the average work week from 40 to 20 hours, enable citizens to spend more time with their families and do what they love, and substantially reduce the cost of meeting basic needs.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is an ideal framework for guiding and simplifying system change in the corporate and financial sectors, as well as broader society. It is a primary mechanism for implementing and protecting democracy. The concept means that society is ruled by laws established by citizens’ elected representatives. These laws apply equally to all citizens, corporations, and government officials.

GSC expands the definition of the rule of law to include the idea that people and companies should be free to do what they want, provided they do not harm anyone. This concept protects freedom, while prohibiting harm. It is essential for democracy and sustainable society. Civilized, sustainable society cannot exist if people and companies are allowed to harm others. The absence of this requirement in modern systems is a main reason why they are unsustainable and destructive. 

Current definitions of the rule of law refer to the body of existing laws. But we should ask, what is the purpose of these laws? It is to prevent harm. If not this, then what? If a body of laws prohibits some types of harm (e.g. murder, assault), but not others (e.g. environmental and social degradation), it is not achieving its purpose of prohibiting harm and enabling civilized, sustainable society. To be effective, systems and bodies of law must prohibit all types of significant harm. Under GSC, systems that fail to do this are held to violate the rule of law.  

As discussed, the many system flaws that compel companies to cause harm could be rolled up into one meta system flaw – the failure to hold companies fully responsible for harm. Current economic and political systems allow companies to cause extensive harm, by not holding them fully responsible for it. 

In competitive markets, allowing harm is the same as compelling it. Companies cannot stop harm under these systems and remain in business. These reductionist systems unintentionally compel the destruction of the environmental and social systems that enable the economy and business to exist. This allowed/compelled harm grossly violates the rule of law. 

The meta solution (i.e. rule of law solution) is to hold companies fully responsible for harm. Under current systems, companies often maximize profits by harming the environment and society. Under sustainable systems that hold companies fully responsible, they maximize profits by causing no harm. 

In the corporate and financial sectors, the rule of law boils system change down to one easy-to-understand, non-debatable (within the realm of logic) solution – hold companies fully responsible for harm. Companies might be able to argue that it is not their responsibility to benefit society; that is government’s job. But they cannot logically argue that they should be allowed to profit by harming the environment and society (i.e. that they should be allowed to benefit shareholders by harming other stakeholders). 

Furthermore, regarding the corporate argument that it is not their job to benefit society, in a democracy, citizens might logically ask, why would we allow the existence of economic entities that are not primarily focused on maximizing the well-being of society? In the early US, we did not allow this.

The power of corporations and their ability to harm society were well understood.¹¹ As a result, they were severely restricted. Charters often were limited and could be revoked for misconduct. Corporations were prohibited from influencing politics. They often could not expand their business beyond the purpose established in their charters. Voting rights sometimes were scaled to limit the influence of large shareholders.

However, over time, business-influenced government expanded corporate power. They frequently were given the rights of citizens without the accountability of humans (e.g. they can live forever, but can’t be imprisoned, executed, or drafted).¹² Several mechanisms give corporations far greater power than humans, including the ability to aggregate capital, influence government for decades, and escape liability through bankruptcy proceedings that lack the punitive, years-long consequences individuals face. They also avoid responsibility for harm through limited liability and collective decision making (e.g. boards, executives, shareholders). This makes it more difficult to hold corporate representatives responsible.

The power of corporations enables them to greatly benefit or greatly harm society. Failing to hold them fully responsible violates the rule of law and compels them to cause extensive environmental and social harm.

Economists and business leaders sometimes argue that trade-offs are needed to provide benefits. In effect, they argue some harm should be allowed. But nature provides services without causing widespread harm. We don’t allow individuals to cause substantial harm. If a preacher helped 100 people during the week, we wouldn’t allow them to kill someone on the weekend. 

Prohibiting harm could lower profits as companies are held responsible (e.g. as externalized costs are internalized). To protect profits, companies often use their power and resources to oppose these types of systemic changes. However, as growing impacts increasingly harm business and society, it will become less viable to essentially argue that companies should be allowed to profit by causing harm. Once systems abide by the rule of law (i.e. hold companies fully responsible), businesses will use their know-how and resources to figure out how to provide products and services without causing harm, because this will be the profit-maximizing strategy.

From a practical perspective, holding companies fully responsible requires focusing first on ending the largest and most obvious forms of harm. Smaller harms might be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But the standard should be: cause no harm. If vested interests argue some harm is needed, they should be required to compensate those harmed. This usually would make it more cost-effective to not cause harm.

The rule of law provides a framework for reforming externalities, time value of money, limited liability, and other system flaws related to the corporate and financial sectors. We will know that these systems are reformed and sustainable when they hold companies fully responsible for harm.

The approach holds companies to the same standard as individuals. They are held responsible through laws prohibiting murder, assault, robbery, and other crimes. But companies are allowed to cause extensive environmental and social harm. This puts them between a rock and a hard place. No leader intends to harm the environment and society. But if they don’t put shareholder returns first, they often will lose their jobs or kill their companies. We should not be putting business leaders in this position. SCI (discussed below) provides a practical and profitable way to resolve this dilemma.

Beyond the corporate and financial sectors, the rule of law can be used to guide system change in broader society. A key purpose of democratic and republican governments is to protect citizens’ rights and prevent harm. Allowing rights violations and other types of harm violates the rule of law. 

To illustrate, allowing wealthy citizens and corporations to give large amounts of money to politicians is a rule of law violation. This process (called campaign finance in the US and bribery in other countries) suppresses citizens’ speech and equal access to government. 

Throughout US history, businesses often used their influence over government to gain even more influence. For example, companies and their owners encouraged politicians to appoint pro-business judges. These judges gave the wealthy greater control of government by weakening campaign finance laws, in part by equating campaign spending to free speech.¹³ They said that restricting campaign spending restricts free speech.

But the opposite is true. Free speech implies equal ability to be heard by politicians and communicate ideas to the public. Giving large amounts of money to politicians compels them to pay more attention to those who gave money. Also, if access to political ads and media is based on wealth, only the wealthy can be heard. 

If speech equals money, only those with money can speak and be heard. Giving money to politicians and free speech are two separate issues. Wealthy people are free to speak as much as anyone else. Restricting their ability to give money to politicians does not restrict their free speech. It restricts their ability to unfairly influence government, media, and public messaging. Restricting campaign spending protects the speech of those who can’t afford to give money to politicians or buy political ads. 

Giving money to politicians might be the greatest suppression of free speech in a democracy. These election systems cause harm (i.e. violate the rule of law) by violating citizens’ innate rights to equality and self-government. This violation of natural laws means that these systems inevitably will fail. 

The rule of law framework can be used to guide the evolution of campaign finance and other flawed systems. As in the business area, we will know that these systems are reformed and sustainable when they fully prohibit rights violations and other types of significant harm. 

As discussed below, SCI models can be structured to drive systemic changes in all areas of society, including protecting democracy by fully and equally enforcing the rule of law.

Measuring Societal Well-Being

Modern economic and political systems often assess the success of society by measuring economic growth with the metric gross domestic product (GDP). This is one of the most well-known system flaws. It has been studied for decades. Several alternatives have been proposed and implemented, such as Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness index.

GDP is a poor measure of social well-being for many reasons. It does not count unpaid labor or the degradation of environmental and social assets. It creates a focus on short-term growth, which often degrades long-term well-being. It hides poverty and income inequality. Society-degrading actions (e.g. environmental destruction, disease) appear to enhance society by raising GDP (through remediation). As shown in the US and many other countries, when GDP increases, the environment and society often decline. 

Economic growth is assumed to be the means to the end of social well-being. But if we measure the means, it becomes the end. Social well-being, like individual well-being, cannot be accurately measured with one number. Measurement must be switched from the means to the ends. We need more sophisticated, accurate, multi-factor measures of social well-being.  

What gets measured gets managed. To achieve sustainable society, we must measure the many factors that define and cause it. Shifting the focus of measurement will shift the focus of management. The goal is to emulate and achieve the widespread, long-term well-being seen in nature.

Improving Current Systems

Evolving capitalism and other systems into nature-compliant forms does not necessarily mean eliminating them. It involves expanding the effective parts (of which there are many) and improving the harmful ones.

To illustrate, many aspects of capitalism align with the laws of nature. The system’s partial success indicates this. High productivity, individual initiative, and decentralization are widespread in nature. We almost certainly could evolve capitalism into a nature-compliant form that provides far greater benefits, while eliminating harm.

This is what nature has been doing for 3.8 billion years. It will continue on Earth, regardless of what humans think, say, or do. Like slavery, our destructive systems inevitably will end or change. We are far better off voluntarily evolving them into nature-compliant forms, rather than having nature and reality impose the change involuntarily.

Part Three. Actions Required to Achieve Systemic Changes

The third part of the GSC framework identifies actions required to bring about necessary systemic changes. Using a whole-system framework that first describes sustainable, nature-compliant society and necessary systemic changes enables identification of necessary actions. Actions are needed in all major areas, including government, the general public, and corporate and financial sectors.

Government change is essential, in part because nearly all economic change requires government change. Only government can enforce the rule of law and hold companies fully responsible for harming the environment and society. Government also influences or controls many actions needed to abide by the laws of nature. For example, it strongly influences the degree of democracy, how societal success is measured and managed, the extent of centralization and decentralization, fair and equitable use of public wealth, and creation and management of the money supply.

Governments in the US and many other countries largely are controlled by vested interests. As a result, they are unlikely to change on their own, in advance of a major collapse or crisis. Government change usually requires pressure from outside government, mainly from the general public and corporate/financial sectors.

The general public is the most powerful segment of society (after nature). If citizens understood and acted upon their collective best interests, they could quickly change any business or government (even totalitarian ones). These common interests include protecting environmental life support systems, establishing democracy, and equitably using the public wealth.

But unfortunately, as the US Founders well knew, it often is easy to mislead, divide, and disempower citizens. The primary strategy for doing so is to divide them into debating factions, such as conservatives and liberals. This often causes them to blame the other party for society’s problems and ignore actual causes. Vested interests take advantage of tribalism and use deceptive media to divide and disempower the public. This enables them to perpetuate flawed systems that benefit vested interests, but harm society overall. Citizens often wind up supporting ideas and systems that harm them, and opposing those that would help them.

The GSC books extensively discuss the many factors that cause public division and disempowerment, and the systemic changes needed to unite and empower citizens. Three important areas include weakening political parties, requiring honest media, and improving education.

Political Parties

The US Constitution does not mention political parties. Vested interests have used them for all of US history to divide citizens. Like government overall, political parties largely are controlled by wealthy campaign donors. The two major parties in the US appear to have partly different agendas. But over the past 40 years, wealth was concentrated at the top of society, while the environment and society declined in many ways, regardless of which party was in power.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington called the spirit of party (i.e. political parties, faction politics) the worst enemy of elected government. He listed several problems, including how the spirit of revenge, fostered by political parties, can create public desire for stability and acceptance of an autocrat or despot.

Uniting and empowering citizens to rule themselves and protect their common interests requires weakening political parties, eliminating vested interest control, and ensuring that they well represent the diverse interests of society.

Public division and deception cause many people to vote based on party. This causes them to largely support the agendas of the wealthy citizens who control both parties. Citizens should be encouraged to do what the Founders intended – assess and vote for candidates based on who will do the best job of maximizing the well-being of society overall (not just on a few issues), regardless of party. 

This takes more work than blindly voting according to party. But the US Constitution gives all ultimate power to the people. Effective democracy and republican government require that these citizen leaders lead by making well-informed election decisions, rather than blindly supporting vested interest-controlled party agendas. AI and other tools can be used to produce accurate candidate summaries that enable citizens to make well-informed decisions.

Media Reform

Honest media is essential for democracy. Citizens cannot effectively rule themselves and compel government to ensure the long-term well-being of society if they do not have honest, accurate information. In many countries, vested interest-controlled, dishonest media is a main factor deceiving, dividing, and disempowering citizens. This enables vested interests to perpetuate systems and actions that benefit them (e.g. increasing corporate welfare, reducing environmental and social protections), but harm society.

In the US, the Fairness Doctrine (1949 to 1987) required major media to provide both sides of controversial issues. This enabled citizens to make well-informed decisions. But this requirement to essentially tell the truth inhibited vested interests’ ability to mislead citizens and protect harmful, unjust systems. As a result, business-controlled government removed the Fairness Doctrine. This essentially enabled media to lie. 

It is no coincidence that radical, deceptive media has grown rapidly since the Fairness Doctrine was removed. Media announcers are seen as role models by many children and adults. The Fairness Doctrine promoted polite, fair, rational announcers (e.g. Walter Cronkite) who modeled mature behavior. This promoted a rational, well-functioning society. Under the Fairness Doctrine, if someone made a factually-incorrect, irrational claim (e.g. climate change is not real) or was rude to someone with differing views, on rebuttal, they would be shown to be incorrect or acting like an immature child.

Eliminating the Fairness Doctrine eliminated rebuttal. Now media announcers are allowed to make factually-incorrect claims and insult those with differing views. This misleads citizens into supporting harmful ideas and teaches them that acting in a childish, rude manner not only is acceptable. It is admirable. These destructive media personalities make horrible role models for our children and society overall. 

Citizens wind up electing leaders who act like rude children, in large part because media modeled this behavior and made it appear admirable for over 30 years. At least two generations of US citizens have been taught to blindly believe angry, factually-incorrect statements (e.g. the other party is the cause of society’s problems) and disrespect those with differing views. 

Dishonest media is a main reason why the US has devolved into such a bitter, divided society. This division prevents citizens from working together to ensure their collective best interests. It enables economic and stock market growth to continue, regardless of the environmental and social degradation they are built upon.

As discussed, corporations were severely restricted in the early US. They were prohibited from having any influence on politics. But business-influenced politicians and judges equated corporations to human citizens and gave them Bill of Rights protections, such as free speech.

However, media companies do not have a right to mislead and divide citizens for the purpose of perpetuating unjust, harmful systems. Citizens’ right to and need for honest, accurate information takes vast priority over media companies’ non-existent right to lie.

Restoring democracy, uniting citizens, and ensuring the well-being of society require that media, AI, social media, and any other means of broadly informing the public be required to provide full, balanced, accurate information (i.e. in effect, tell the truth). To achieve this, updated versions of the Fairness Doctrine should be implemented for major media, AI, and social media.

To enhance their ability to mislead citizens, vested interests often falsely claimed that the Fairness Doctrine inhibited speech and tried to force particular views on society. If vested interests honestly said what the Fairness Doctrine actually did, citizens would have strongly opposed removing it. In this and many other cases, honesty would not have protected vested interests. Therefore, dishonesty was required. 

Under the Fairness Doctrine, no government oracle decided what was right or wrong, or true or false. The deciders were citizens. Government takes positions on issues by making laws against harmful actions. But the Fairness Doctrine did not tell media what to say. Instead, it required that full, honest, balanced information be provided on controversial issues. This empowered citizens to form their own opinions and make their own decisions. If citizens only are given one side of an issue, it is impossible for them to make accurate, beneficial decisions. 

The Fairness Doctrine did not directly prohibit lying. That would have required government to decide what was a lie. But the requirement to provide both sides of controversial issues strongly inhibited lying. Media knew that if they made irrational, factually-incorrect claims, rebuttal would show them to be false. This compelled media to make logical, accurate, respectful arguments that could withstand rebuttal. 

Requiring rebuttal or the opposing view in media made misleading the public far more difficult. Removing the Fairness Doctrine facilitated public deception. Misleading and dividing citizens with deceptive media helps vested interests to control society (i.e. replace democracy with plutocracy).

Some news organizations only want to provide one side of issues because this benefits their owners and advertisers, such as when an oil company seeks to promote the idea that climate change is not real. But promoting one side of an issue is propaganda, not news, especially when the side being promoted is factually-incorrect. The purpose of news organizations should be to honestly inform citizens, and thereby empower them to rule themselves effectively. 

Deceptive media often discusses only positive aspects of particular issues and uses biased research to support their positions. This misleads citizens into thinking the positions are accurate and beneficial. But when they are given balanced, honest information (e.g. unbiased, peer-reviewed research, positive and negative aspects), they often would see that deceptive media positions are inaccurate and harmful. 

The Fairness Doctrine did not inhibit honest speech. In effect, it prohibited dishonest, one-sided, society-degrading speech. It required fair, balanced, factually-correct speech – the kind that is essential for effective democracy. 

Education Reform

Effective education is essential for uniting and empowering citizens. Education should teach young people to be effective citizen leaders. They should learn to think for themselves, understand societal common interests, effectively cooperate with others to achieve them, and follow their hearts in career and life.

But the US education system largely fails on these issues. In many ways, it achieves the opposite. Business-driven education reform since the 1980s has severely degraded the quality of US K-12 education. Privatizing and standardizing public education helped the private sector, but harmed children and society.¹⁴

Young people are often forced to sit in sterile classrooms for about 35 hours per week, listening to adults talk to them. They are constantly ranked against each other and made to feel inadequate if they fail to achieve superior grades. They are forced to study subjects in which they often have no interest and quickly forget. Students are constantly monitored and controlled by authorities. They are taught to blindly believe dominant societal ideas. Young people frequently learn that fun occurs outside of school.

This coercive, compulsive education system suppresses critical thinking. It teaches young people to obey authorities and endure boring jobs for the rest of their lives. It creates a cowering, compliant population that can be easily manipulated by deceptive media. It protects vested interests by causing citizens to not question unjust economic and political systems. 

Education reflects society. Our society is focused on maximizing economic growth and shareholder returns. It is no surprise that young people are trained to serve this end, even if it does not meet their needs.

True education reform (i.e. actual improvement) is needed to empower citizens to protect their common interests. Competitive grading should be eliminated. It severely degrades self-esteem. All young people are important and valuable. They should not be ranked against each other during 13 of the most formative years of their lives, as if they were commodities. They should not be made to feel that their value is based on how well they perform on subjects that often will have no impact on their lives. 

Many people spend the rest of their lives trying to prove that they are not as stupid as they were made to feel during their disempowering education. Beyond eliminating competitive grading, young people should be taught to critically examine ideas and make their own decisions. And they should be taught to trust their inner wisdom and use it to guide their careers and lives. 

The GSC Education book (Transforming Education)¹⁵ provides a whole-system approach to improving education, empowering young people, and facilitating system change. For example, it discusses proven methods of assessing student progress without degrading self-esteem. 

Systemic Disruption

The current political turmoil in the US and many other countries did not occur overnight. In the US, the fields were plowed over the past 40 years. This enabled the current climate to bloom.

Since the 1980s, so-called education reform suppressed critical thinking. Deceptive media and political parties divided and disempowered citizens. Plutocracy-driven wealth concentration kept inflation-adjusted wages nearly flat. Working class people today are far worse off financially than those in the 1970s. Productivity has risen greatly since the 1980s, but not wages, because nearly all the benefits went to the top of society.

When using an honest definition of poverty (i.e. inability to meet basic needs, not the deceptive US government definition that measures extreme poverty), nearly half of US citizens (43%) live in poverty, while we have the highest number of billionaires and millionaires in the world.¹⁶ Millions of citizens are financially stressed and misled into blaming the other party for their difficult lives. 

As President Washington warned long ago, these are the conditions that make people accept an autocrat or tyrant. The current situation shows that we are very likely in the midst of system collapse. During collapse, growing turmoil and the apparent ineffectiveness of current approaches often cause a reversion to older ones. This frequently accelerates collapse as proven ineffective approaches are implemented again.

To illustrate, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance – programs that reduce corporate harm) and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – programs that reduce discrimination), are logical, proven, society-enhancing approaches. But these and other beneficial approaches are being cut back. The implied idea driving these cut backs (i.e. removing programs that reduce corporate harm, discrimination, and racism will enhance society) is irrational and destructive.

Quickly cutting back renewable energy and climate protection, while accelerating fossil fuel production and use, is equally irrational and harmful. It ignores science and the obvious reality of what is happening in the climate and other areas. These actions degrade society and place us at great risk.

George Washington wished us brotherly affection in his Farewell Address. On the 250^th anniversary of our country, we are giving him the opposite. As always, there are many kind, loving actions occurring in families and communities across the US. But our overarching systems are rapidly moving us in the wrong direction.

For over 100 years, investors and business leaders profited from systems that compel environmental and social destruction, as slave owners once profited from slavery. It is highly likely that we are in the same situation as 1857 (four years before severe, destructive system collapse). Will we suffer the same fate? Will we be able to end or greatly reduce harm before reality and nature end it traumatically?

The situation is not as clear-cut today as it was then. There are no obviously right (anti-slavery) and obviously wrong (pro-slavery) sides. Wealthy business owners and the politicians they control are not the enemy. As discussed, they largely are good people who mean to help, not harm society. The true enemy is not any one person or group. It is our myopic, reductionist, separatist thinking, and the flawed systems, fear, and harmful competitiveness it produces.

We are rapidly removing environmental and social protections built up over the past 50 years. This is like destroying the lifeboats on a ship that is sinking. Trying to extract more wealth from society by removing environmental and social protections will accelerate decline and worsen the suffering of collapse.

We live in the real world. Pretending that climate change, racism, and other major problems don’t exist won’t make them go away. We must find the courage to face these challenges and do something about them quickly. There is much good work occurring in the world and millions of people devoting their lives to achieving sustainable society. But more is needed. Many problems are accelerating.

The preceding discussion illuminates the challenge of uniting and empowering the general public to drive system change. Work in this area should be expanded now. But changing deeply-held, emotionally-charged worldviews is a longer-term effort.

The long-term nature of changing the general public and the unlikelihood that vested interest-controlled government will unilaterally change leaves the corporate and financial sectors as the only major segments of society with the power to quickly drive voluntary bridge system change.

Record profits and stock market returns will cause many business and financial leaders to say, why should we change now? We’re doing better than we’ve ever done. But not all business and financial leaders are the same. As the environmental and social degradation caused by our destructive systems quickly becomes more obvious, awareness will grow that this actually is a time of great opportunity.

The purpose of GSC, SCI, and other system change approaches is not to harm business. Business already is doing that on its own. The purpose is to transform business and investing into forms that become major drivers of social well-being over the long-term.

Economic activity, productivity, and implied profits (i.e. business activity) are a foundation of nature, as they will be of sustainable society. Business leaders with the vision to see the vast opportunity posed by system change will be seen as heroes by posterity. SCI gives financial and corporate sector leaders a powerful, practical, and profitable means to effectively drive system change.

This section briefly summarized the three-part GSC framework and gave a few examples of systemic changes and actions. Vastly more information is provided in the GSC books.

System Change Investing

The financial and corporate sectors have the resources and power needed to drive bridge system change. Through their control and influence over media, they have great power to divide or unite citizens. Through campaign finance, lobbying, and other means, they have great power to compel government to remove regulations and allow more harm (which will accelerate harm) or require no harm (which makes acting responsibly the profit-maximizing strategy). They also have the strongest possible incentive to drive widespread, rapid system change – survival first, then long-term prosperity.

The fact that our natural law-violating, destructive systems will change is obvious. But the timeframe is not. Leaders with a shorter time horizon (e.g. five years to retirement) might feel it’s easier to continue what they’re doing, making record profits and returns, and leave the difficult system change work to future leaders. But at some point, the horizon for involuntary system change falls to less than five years. There is a very good chance that we are in that window now. 

The unprecedented destructive behavior of the US government and extreme division and vitriol in US society strongly indicate that we are near the point of transition. The collapse of our destructive systems, like the collapse of slavery, will greatly harm business and the capital markets. Trillions of dollars of investments will be lost, and many companies will go out of business. 

But this is not a foregone conclusion. If we voluntarily change our systems before they involuntarily collapse, much of this disruption can be avoided. As discussed, we should err on the side of caution and drive voluntary system change as quickly as possible, because involuntary change will be devastating to companies, investors, and society overall. 

Long-Term Investment Returns

Business and capital market concerns about lower profits and investment returns are a main barrier to engaging them in system change. But the purpose of system change is not to end or greatly reduce profits and returns. A main purpose is to protect them.

SCI is designed to engage the financial and corporate sectors by increasing short-term investment returns. The approach uncovers hidden value that is not assessed by traditional ESG and financial analysis. SCI rates companies on system change performance and shifts investments to system change leaders. These visionary companies are better-managed overall, and therefore likely, on average, to outperform financially over the short-term.

Over the longer-term, overall profits and investment returns probably will decline under sustainable systems. Companies will no longer be allowed to profit by harming the environment and society. Internalizing costs and holding companies responsible in other ways will compel the provision of sustainable products and services (because non-harmful ones will be the most profitable).

As systems abide by the natural law of equitable resource distribution, unfair wealth concentration will be reduced or eliminated. As wealth is distributed equitably and fairly throughout society, based largely on merit, hard work, and need (not unfair government influence and corruption, as currently occurs), profits and investment returns will decline. This might seem like a problem to vested interests. 

However, they are making an inaccurate comparison. They are comparing lower profits under sustainable systems to current profits. But current profits violate reality and natural laws. They are a fantasy and utopian in the sense that they absolutely will not continue. We essentially are burning the walls of the house to heat the house. Environmentally and socially destructive profits are very likely near the end of their cycle.

The accurate, reality-based comparison for vested interests about long-term profits is not sustainable profits versus destructive profits. It is sustainable profits versus no profits and business death. Under this whole-system, reality-based assessment of the future, the choice is obvious, as it would have been obvious to slave owners if they had used whole-system thinking.

Under sustainable systems, there still will be better and worse corporate performance. Investors still will seek out and invest in better-managed and performing companies. But the overall range of profits and returns will decline as unfair wealth accumulation practices are ended. Also, as the emphasis of society shifts from maximizing economic growth to social well-being, the focus on profits and investment returns likely will decline.

GSC provides an overarching nature-based framework or vessel for guiding system change. The specifics of how different regions evolve their systems into sustainable forms will be determined over time through the work of many people.

GSC provides a framework for developing solutions. It does not predetermine outcomes, with one major exception. Higher-level outcomes are predetermined in GSC by nature and reality. For example, there will be overwhelming cooperation, as seen in healthy natural systems. This is a vessel or reality requirement. How we comply with this and other natural laws is up to us. Our options are nearly unlimited, as long as we remain within or get within the nature-compliant vessel.

SCI also does not impose solutions. A main goal is to motivate system change by providing a practical and profitable pathway for the financial and corporate sectors to engage in it.

SCI Opportunity

Several factors combine to make SCI potentially the most powerful strategy available to humanity in all areas for driving bridge system change and resolving the major challenges threatening business and society. These factors include leverage, efficiency, comprehensiveness, proven track record, appeal to the capital markets, and ease of use.

Leverage. As discussed, the financial and corporate sectors have the greatest power to drive bridge system change (in developed democracies). They are largely controlled by investing. This makes investing with the goal of driving system change the most powerful transformation leverage point available in much of human society.

Efficiency. System change is a highly efficient strategy. Nearly all work being done to achieve the SDGs is focused on reducing symptoms and end-of-the-pipe solutions (e.g. reducing greenhouse gas emissions and green energy). Far more root cause-focused work is needed. Flawed economic and political systems are the root causes of nearly all SDG and other major problems. Improving these systems is highly efficient. One system change solution largely resolves nearly all challenges. 

To illustrate, current systems compel companies to cause climate change and other SDG problems. One broad system change solution (i.e. evolving systems into forms that hold companies fully responsible) largely resolves SDG problems. If companies cause these problems under sustainable systems, they will make less money or go out of business (i.e. the opposite of what happens now). Exhortations to voluntarily mitigate impacts often will become unnecessary. Companies automatically will no longer cause SDG problems because this will be the profit-maximizing strategy.

Comprehensiveness. Many actions are needed in all areas of society to evolve human systems into nature-compliant, sustainable forms. As discussed below, SCI models can strongly incentivize companies to promote necessary systemic changes in all major areas, including government, media, and education. As a result, investments in SCI funds can promote necessary systemic changes throughout society.

Proven Track Record. SCI is based on the proven ESG approach. The ability of ESG to change corporate behavior and enhance investment returns has been proven over many years of research and experience. Few large companies had sustainability strategies 25 years ago. Now nearly all have them. Investor interest through ESG was the main factor driving this corporate behavior change. When enough owner/investors demand change, companies provide it (or current leaders get fired, then new leaders provide it).

Enhanced investment returns were the main factor causing a large percentage of the capital markets to provide ESG funds. The majority of research over the past 25 years showed that, on average, ESG leaders outperform, primarily because they are better-managed, lower-risk companies.

SCI does the same thing. System change is an even more complex challenge than sustainability. Therefore, it is an even better indicator of superior management quality and stock market potential. SCI is not a new approach in the sense that it is built on and includes ESG. Instead, it is an evolution of existing ESG, thereby utilizing the ESG track record to prove that it is effective and profitable.

Capital Market Appeal. SCI is appealing to the capital markets for several reasons. These include ease of use, broad applicability, risk reduction, return enhancement, highest possible impact reduction, reputation enhancement, and attracting new investment.

In its simplest form, SCI involves adding system change metrics to existing ESG models. Then investors use these enhanced ESG ratings in the same way they use current ratings. This makes SCI the easiest form of system change-focused investment to implement.

Every company (large, small, public, private) can be rated on system change performance. SCI ratings can be used as overlays on nearly all fund types to enhance financial and sustainability performance. This enables SCI to engage nearly the entire capital markets in driving system change.

As discussed above, SCI has strong return-enhancement potential. Effectively addressing root causes enables it to provide the highest possible sustainability benefits. This enhances reputation and attracts new investment. (Risk reduction and other benefits are further discussed below.)

Ease of Use

System change (evolving human systems and society into sustainable forms) is the most complex challenge facing humanity, in part because everything else is a sub-element of it. While system change is complex, SCI is relatively easy to implement. Rating companies on system change performance is practical and achievable. We’ve already been rating corporate sustainability performance for over 30 years. SCI expands the definition of corporate sustainability to include system change. It uses similar research techniques to those already being widely used in the capital markets.

The overall goal of SCI is to directly drive economic, political, and other types of systemic change. But the immediate goal only is to incentivize it. A simple analogy of how SCI works involves comparing getting people into the system change room versus what happens inside the room. Currently, there are many experts around the world working on system change. They are ‘in the system change room’. But the power and resources needed to widely implement expert ideas are not in the room. Largely as a result, we are failing to change systems in a timely manner.

When investors shift investments to system change leaders, companies are powerfully incentivized to implement system change strategies. SCI causes companies to pay attention to system change (in the same way that ESG made them pay attention to sustainability). SCI essentially gets companies and the capital markets into the system change room. They are incentivized to seek out system change experts and implement effective system change strategies. 

In summary, the immediate goal of SCI is not to change systems (i.e. what happens in the system change room). It is to get those with the power to drive system change into the system change room (i.e. incentivize the corporate and financial sectors to engage in system change).

Gaps in Current Systemic Investing

The failure of responsible investing to resolve major challenges drove increased financial community interest in system change. Several investment strategies have been developed to drive it. Examples include Systemic Investing, System-Level Investing, and TransCap. SCI can support and accelerate these approaches. It fills important gaps in the current field of investments seeking system change.

As discussed in the System Change Content and Process section, current system change approaches often focus on the process-side. Systemic investing approaches frequently are based on this work, and therefore also are process-focused. To illustrate, they frequently promote mapping complex systems, identifying key leverage points, learning, collaboration, and lobbying for policy reform. The processes frequently are applied to specific system change situations, often focused on the sector or issue-level (e.g. green energy and transportation). 

Current approaches frequently use blended finance (i.e. public, private, philanthropic) and promote synergistic investment across the financial community. They often use multiple asset classes (e.g. public and private equity, debt). Strategies mainly focus on green/impact investments in environmental and social solutions, as well as sustainable/regenerative companies and technologies.

These approaches are being used successfully in several areas by many investors. Filling gaps in the field could enable the capital markets to drive system change more broadly and effectively. Gaps relate to whole-system approaches, directly driving high-level system change, and broad, easy capital market use.

Current approaches often are more focused on the How (process) than the What (content). They usually are not based on a specific whole-system, nature-compliant vision of sustainable society and the systemic changes and actions needed to achieve it. They also generally are not focused on directly driving economic, political, and other types of high-level systemic changes, for example, by rating companies on their efforts to drive this type of change, and then shifting investments to system change leaders. 

Instead, system change investment strategies largely are focused on green/impact investing, based on the idea that this will shift the economy to green. This work is essential. Building green capacity is critical for the sustainability transition. But it’s not enough on its own.

Green investing will not create a green economy under systems that demand brown (i.e. harmful, unsustainable). Current economic and political systems often make brown investing more profitable. In effect, these systems heavily subsidize brown investments by not holding companies fully responsible for environmental and social harm. They essentially force green companies to compete with one hand and two legs tied behind their backs.

Current systemic investing strategies often include encouraging lobbying for policy reform. But this frequently is focused on the sector-level (e.g. internalizing sector-specific externalized costs). Investments that directly drive high-level system change (i.e. SCI) have stronger potential to convert economic and political systems from brown to green. Once this occurs, there will be an explosion of green investing and technologies, because they will be the clear low-cost, highest-benefit options.

Green investing generally applies to a limited segment of the capital markets, because most of the economy is still brown. Also, current approaches can increase difficulty by requiring new investment structures, learning, and collaboration.

SCI fills these gaps. The most advanced forms are based on the GSC whole-system, nature-based framework. The approach directly drives high-level system change. It can be applied across the entire capital markets. And it is relatively easy to implement, in part because it is based on ESG strategies that many asset owners and managers already are using.

SCI and TCR Methodology

SCI is based on the proven, logical idea that what gets measured gets managed. In the US, for example, we mainly measure economic growth and stock market returns. With some of the brightest people in the country focused on these goals, we achieve them. But we do not adequately measure (and therefore do not adequately manage) the environmental and social factors that enable the economy and stock market to exist. As a result, many environmental and social aspects are rapidly declining, while the economy grows (burning the walls to heat the house). This unsustainable situation appears to be near the end of its cycle.

Current responsible investing failed to resolve major challenges and threats to business and society because it only measures 20 percent of the solution – negative impacts that companies can profitably mitigate. Companies typically mitigate until it becomes unprofitable and threatens shareholders. SCI measures (and thereby promotes) a new type of corporate responsibility. 

The corporate side of SCI is called Total Corporate Responsibility (TCR^®). Developed in 2003, TCR was the first model for integrating system change into responsible investing and corporate sustainability. Under SCI and TCR, companies take full responsibility for negative impacts. They continue to mitigate when it is profitable. But instead of stopping there, they collaborate to change the systems that make further mitigation unprofitable. The full impact mitigation formula is: ESG (20%) + system change (80%) = SCI/TCR (100%).

(As noted, 20 percent is an estimation of total negative impacts that companies can profitably mitigate. It is based on many years of experience overseeing the assessment of thousands of companies’ efforts to mitigate negative impacts. The actual number varies by company and sector. Also, quantifying and monetizing total negative impacts often would be difficult.  Long-term, intangible negative impacts frequently can be estimated, but not objectively quantified. For example, the crime, divorce, and mental health problems caused by closing a factory in a small town would be difficult to accurately quantify.)

This paper holds that system change is at least 80 percent of the sustainability solution. But a strong case can be made that it is closer to 100 percent. A key question is, why do companies cause negative impacts in the first place? The answer mainly is that flawed systems compel them to do so. Under systems that compel no harm (by holding companies fully responsible for it), companies will cause no harm. Many voluntary impact reduction efforts will no longer be needed, in the same way that voluntary murder reduction efforts are not needed under current systems that hold individuals fully responsible for murder.

SCI is practical because it uses current systems to change these systems. It plays by the current rules of the game – profit and shareholder return enhancement. Rather than sacrificing returns to change systems and benefit society, companies lower risk and potentially increase returns. SCI will be appealing to many investors, including those who do not care about sustainability or system change, simply because it is a prudent, return-enhancing strategy in the short-term and long-term. No sacrifice is required. It’s a true win-win approach. 

To protect returns, institutional investors generally invest across the broad market and economy. SCI is a broad market strategy. Rather than indirectly driving system change through green/impact investing, investors can use a much larger percentage of their portfolios to directly drive it in all sectors, brown and green, while reducing investment risk and increasing return potential. Shifting investments to system change leaders in every sector (through many types of SCI funds) incentivizes every sector (nearly the entire capital markets) to drive system change.

The most important aspect of SCI is sending the ‘system change signal’ from investor/owners to companies. As investors shift investments to system change leaders, companies will be powerfully incentivized to engage in system change. All SCI rating models send the system change signal.

SCI Rating Models

SCI is most effectively applied (in terms of maximizing financial and sustainability performance) as a best-in-class approach, analyzing and ranking system change performance within sectors. It is possible use general system change rating models that compare companies across all sectors. But best-in-class approaches focus on specific systemic changes, strategies, risks and opportunities that are most relevant for each sector. This is a far more powerful strategy for driving system change in all sectors and across the entire economy.

It also is the best strategy for reducing investment risk and increasing returns. Negative screening reduces portfolio diversity, which often increases risk and lowers returns. Positive screening, best-in-class approaches involve remaining in sectors, overweighting sustainability leaders, and underweighting laggards. This maintains portfolio diversity, reduces risk, and increases return potential by shifting investments to lower-risk, better-managed companies.

SCI models range from introductory to full whole-system approaches. Basic/introductory models involve adding system change metrics to ESG models. The standard SCI model is segmented into three metric categories: 

• Traditional ESG.
• Mid-level system change: assessing system change efforts at the sector, stakeholder, and environmental/social issue-levels. 
• High-level system change: assessing system change efforts at the overarching economic, political, financial, and social system-levels.

The most advanced SCI models are based on the GSC framework. SCI models are more complex than corporate sustainability/ESG models because the frame of reference is much broader. A main frame of reference for ESG is negative corporate impacts. Knowing this enables analysts to effectively assess how well companies are mitigating impacts. Without this knowledge, analysts are vulnerable to greenwashing.

The frame of reference for companies on system change performance ultimately is the whole Earth system and its sub-element human society. System change performance cannot be accurately rated until system change overall is understood and clearly defined. GSC provides an objective reality, nature-based, high-level definition of sustainable society and the systemic changes and actions needed to achieve it. Once this system change roadmap is clear, the optimal corporate role in system change can be identified. Aspects of this become metrics in whole-system SCI rating models.

Whole-system models based on the GSC framework can drive systemic changes in all areas of society, because the framework addresses all areas. Everything discussed in this paper (e.g. democracy, rule of law, political parties, media reform, social well-being measurement, education reform) and the far greater number of system change issues discussed in the GSC books can be integrated into SCI rating models. 

The models rate companies on their efforts to drive systemic changes in all critical areas. This gives investors great power to drive systemic change throughout society. It shows why SCI potentially is the single most powerful lever available to humanity for resolving major challenges and achieving sustainable society.

SCI metric examples include mid-level and high-level system change goals and strategies, collaboration, senior management commitment, tracking performance, accountability, reporting, sector-specific systemic risks and opportunities, initiating and supporting system change efforts and organizations, and system change results.

New Risk and Impact Measurement Concepts

This paper introduces important new concepts in the areas of impact measurement and risk mitigation. The concepts highlight the distinctions between direct versus indirect impact measurement and systemic versus symptomatic risk management.

Direct and Indirect Impacts. Nearly all ESG measurement is focused on direct impacts. Analysts assess how well companies mitigate impacts, for example, by switching to sustainable products and services. This analysis implies that better sustainability strategies will enable full impact mitigation. They help, but cannot come close to full mitigation. Nearly all negative environmental and social impacts are caused by flawed systems, rather than lack of adequate sustainability strategies. System change is the only way to fully mitigate all significant negative impacts. 

SCI introduces a new category of corporate sustainability impact measurement called indirect impacts. This is focused on companies’ efforts to change the systems that cause negative impacts. SCI combines measurement of direct impacts (i.e. negative environmental and social impacts) and indirect impacts (i.e. efforts to change the systems that cause direct impacts). It is another way of describing the distinction between ESG impacts (direct) and system change impacts (indirect).

Systemic and Symptomatic Risks. Rapidly growing environmental and social problems are causing pension funds and the broader financial community to increasingly focus on systemic risks. These include climate change, biodiversity loss, and several other factors that threaten many sectors and the economy overall. These factors are systemic in the sense that they pose system-wide threats. However, climate change, biodiversity loss, and essentially every other major environmental and social challenge are symptoms of flawed systems that create these problems. In this sense, these issues are more accurately described as symptomatic risks.

The true systemic risks are the flawed systems that create the symptoms. The purpose of systemic risk assessment in the financial community is to reduce risks and protect portfolios from them. But like ESG, nearly all the mitigation work focuses on reducing symptoms, for example, through shifting portfolios to green investments. This helps, but it does not directly address root causes. Therefore, it cannot eliminate climate change and other symptomatic risks. It’s like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Full investment risk mitigation requires effectively addressing the true systemic risks – the factors that cause climate change and other symptomatic risks. SCI provides institutional investors with a practical and profitable way to strongly drive economic, political, and other systemic changes. This does far more than current approaches, which only delay the inevitable collapse. It enables the ship (i.e. economy) to keep sailing and pensions to meet their long-term financial obligations.

SCI Benefits

Making a strong business case for SCI and system change overall is essential for engaging the financial community in this work. The business case has carrot and stick incentives (i.e. upside and downside). 

On the downside, businesses operate within the closed Earth system. As the human economy seeks infinite growth in the finite whole Earth system, limits are reached and consequences to investors, business, and society grow rapidly. Flawed systems compel companies to negatively impact the environment and society. Through feedback loops, as the economy expands, these negative impacts return more quickly to harm investors and companies, for example, through lawsuits, boycotts, reputation damage, and reduced ability to attract a high-quality workforce.

Companies have rapidly growing incentives to stop harming the environment and society. But they are between a rock and a hard place. As discussed, their choice essentially is to harm the environment and society, or harm themselves. The only way to resolve this dilemma is to change the systems that create it. SCI and TCR provide practical, profitable ways to do so.

On the upside, SCI benefits include reducing investment risk and enhancing returns, impact, reputation, and assets under management. 

• Risk Reduction. By addressing root causes, SCI enables investors to effectively address the true systemic risks that create climate change and other symptomatic risks. As a result, it provides a full investment risk mitigation strategy. 

• Return Enhancement. The approach can increase returns by uncovering hidden, intangible value that is left on the table by traditional ESG and financial analysis. System change is the most complex challenge facing management. Therefore, it potentially is the most accurate measure of management quality (the primary driver of investment returns) and stock market potential. Beyond the proxy value for management quality, SCI enhances returns by assessing systemic risks and opportunities that are not adequately addressed by ESG and financial analysis.

• Impact, Reputation, AUM. By focusing on total impact mitigation (i.e. direct and indirect), SCI provides the highest possible sustainability benefits. It is the first responsible investing approach with the potential to achieve the SDGs. This enhances asset manager reputation and attracts new investment. If investors have a choice between funds that slow climate change and other SDG problems (current ESG) or ones that have the potential to solve the problems (SCI), they often will choose SCI funds.

The Future of Responsible Investing

SCI is the logical next evolution of responsible investing. It is the easiest form of system change-focused investing to implement. It has the broadest capital market application. And it plays by current system rules (i.e. enhance profits and investment returns). As a result, SCI is likely to become a dominant form of responsible investing in the 21^st Century.

Just Begin

Complexity has been a main barrier to effectively driving system change. But reality will not wait until we better understand it. Nature and reality move at their own pace, regardless of human perceptions of them. Nature and reality are giving us plenty of signs. It’s time to change. Around the world, there are many experts with excellent ideas and approaches. There also are numerous successful system change models already implemented, waiting to be emulated.

The greatest model, the one we are all walking around in, is nature. There is no need to delay further. We have everything required to succeed with voluntary bridge system change. We do not need to know all the answers up front. Nature provides the high-level guidance required to succeed.

The key is to just begin. With return-enhancing responsible investing (i.e. positive screening), a few financial community pioneers and institutional investors tried the approach and proved it worked. Others then used it and responsible investing became mainstream. 

The same can happen with SCI. As a few financial community leaders show that it works, others will implement it. But we probably need a faster scale-up than occurred with ESG. Time almost certainly is limited. The many benefits of SCI can facilitate rapid scale-up. As discussed, it is not a new approach that requires a multi-year track record before use. It is built on the proven ESG track record.

We are in a time of great and growing turmoil and change. Many people understand that current approaches are not working. They are seeking more effective solutions. SCI, GSC, and TCR provide them. They are intended to fill gaps in the system change, responsible investing, and sustainability fields. They are true whole-system solutions, designed to drive systemic, nature-compliant changes throughout society. 

SCI Services

The Global System Change and System Change Investing organizations (founded by Frank Dixon) provide the expertise, support, and advisory services needed to implement the many ideas and approaches discussed in this paper and the GSC books. The overall goal is to help public and private sector clients to substantially improve their positive impacts on society, while also improving financial performance.

For financial clients (e.g. asset owners, asset managers, family offices), the work often involves assessing current sustainability and responsible investing strategies, and then suggesting the most effective ways to integrate system change and improve sustainability and financial performance. The work could involve integrating system change into existing responsible investing funds or launching SCI funds.

SCI can provide substantial benefits to family offices and pensions. A main goal of family offices is to preserve wealth for descendants. A growing number are heavily focused on protecting the environment and society that will support future generations. They often do this by investing a portion of their portfolios in responsible investing and impact areas (e.g. green investments), while leaving a majority of investments in the broad market, including brown sectors.

For reasons discussed in this paper, these approaches help society, but often do not directly address root causes. This limits their ability to protect future generations. SCI enables family offices to use a much larger percentage of their portfolios to more powerfully drive system change, while preserving capital through a diversified, best-in-class investment strategy.

Instead of passively investing a substantial portion of their portfolios in brown sectors (thereby supporting the brown economy) to maintain portfolio diversity, family offices (and all investors) can use SCI investments in brown sectors to drive system change in those sectors and throughout society. Brown sector SCI investments often provide far greater sustainability benefits than green/impact investments, because they directly address root causes. They drive economic and political reform, thereby changing the systems that make it impossible for green/impact investing to achieve a green economy and sustainable society.

The same applies to pensions. They must meet long-term payment obligations. To ensure their ability to do so, many are focusing on systemic risks. As discussed, these strategies also often do not directly address root causes. Through SCI, pensions also can use a much larger percentage of their portfolios to directly address the true systemic risks (flawed systems), and thereby more effectively meet long-term payment obligations.

The TCR model helps companies to improve financial, competitive, and sustainability performance by integrating system change into their sustainability strategies. GSC and SCI also help government, nonprofit, and other clients to effectively address all areas and aspects of system change. The GSC books provide systemic solutions for all major areas of society. This expertise helps government clients to implement the many systemic changes needed to achieve sustainable society.

Whole-system thinking facilitated the development of the new system change concepts and strategies discussed in this paper. These ideas and tools are intended to substantially enhance the effectiveness of current system change, responsible investing, and sustainability strategies.

A main goal is to help humanity successfully achieve timely bridge system change. This will give us the time needed to evolve human systems and society into nature-compliant, sustainable forms and prosper over the very long-term. 

For more information, contact Frank Dixon at fdixon@SystemChangeInvesting.com

Frank Dixon has over 25 years of system change, sustainability and ESG experience, with a proven track record of pioneering whole-system solutions to growing global challenges, creating return-enhancing ESG models, and leading successful ESG research teams. He developed the first models for integrating system change into responsible investing and corporate sustainability strategies, pioneering a new approach to sustainable finance. He wrote the Global System Change books, which provide systemic solutions for all major challenges threatening business and society. Formerly the head of research of the largest, #1-rated ESG research firm (Innovest/MSCI), he launched the Global System Change and System Change Investing companies. His SCI and Total Corporate Responsibility (TCR^®) approaches provide the most advanced financial and corporate sector system change and sustainability strategies. He advises leading organizations, including Investors for Purpose, Capgemini, Walmart, and the US EPA. Frank Dixon has presented at many conferences and universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT and Cambridge. He holds an MBA from the Harvard Business School.

fdixon@SystemChangeInvesting.com

Copyright © 2026 Frank Dixon

---

1. Dixon, F. (2017). Global System Change: A Whole System Approach to Achieving Sustainability and Real Prosperity. Global System Change. ↩︎
2. Dukes, Jeffrey S. (2003). “Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy.” Climatic Change, 61(1-2), 31–44. ↩︎
3. Zeebe, Richard E., Ridgwell, Andy, & Zachos, James C. (2016). “Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years.” Nature Geoscience, 9(4), 325–329. ↩︎
4. Klein, F., Schroeder, T., John, C. M., Davis, S., Humphris, S. E., Seewald, J. S., Sichel, S., Bach, W., & Brunelli, D. (2024). “Mineral carbonation of peridotite fueled by magmatic degassing and melt impregnation in an oceanic transform fault.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(8), e2315662121. ↩︎
5. Energy Institute (formerly BP). Statistical Review of World Energy (Annual Datasets, including recent editions up to 2026). ↩︎
6. Hickel, Jason. (2020). The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ↩︎
7. Tomales Bay Institute, The State of the Commons, www.OnTheCommons.org, November 2006. ↩︎
8. Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. ↩︎
9. Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1–39. (Series updated through recent years; data available at eml.berkeley.edu/~saez.) ↩︎
10. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti (2023). Innocenti Report Card 18: Child Poverty in the Midst of Wealth. Florence, Italy: UNICEF. ↩︎
11. Grossman, Richard L., and Frank T. Adams. “Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation.” Charter, Ink., 1993. ↩︎
12. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886). ↩︎
13. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). ↩︎
14. Dixon, F. (2024). Transforming Education: A Whole System Approach to Empowering Young People and Achieving Sustainable Society. Kitsap Publishing. ↩︎
15. Same as above. ↩︎
16. United For ALICE. (2018). ALICE: A Study of Financial Hardship in the United States. United Way National Report. ↩︎