The Impact Edit: The Quiet Friction Shaping Our Decisions
When people are given a choice between the thing they’ve always done and the thing that asks them to stretch, they almost always choose the familiar path. Not because they don’t care, and not because they don’t understand the stakes, but because the everyday rhythms of work make the well-worn route feel safer, faster, and far less exhausting.
I see this play out across every corner of social sustainability. Supply-chain equity. Healthy materials. People-centered ESG. Different challenges, different teams, but the same quiet pattern underneath it all: if the better option adds even a little friction, the default will win before the meeting is over.
The good thing is that there is an upside here- this isn’t a motivation problem. It’s a friction problem. And friction, unlike human nature, can be redesigned.
Below are the three friction patterns that I have seen consistently derail progress, along with the some actions that can move things forward.
1. Too Many Cooks Spoil the Data
Whenever I see an indicator stuck in limbo, I don’t look at the quality of the data first.I look at how many teams need to touch it.
HR has pay equity numbers. Procurement tracks suppliers. Facilities monitors air quality. Product teams know what materials you use. Finance... well, Finance has opinions about everything.
Here's the problem: once you need more than two teams to complete a metric, your chances of actually finishing it drop fast.
Once a metric requires input from more than two teams, the likelihood of completion drops sharply, not because people aren’t capable, but because coordinating across multiple reporting cycles, systems, and priorities introduces real cognitive and logistical strain.
Behavioral economists have a name for this: coordination cost aversion. Translation: humans avoid complicated tasks, especially when "complicated" means chasing down seven different people for seven different spreadsheets.
The fix is simpler than you think: Stop designing metrics based on a perfect world where every team has clean data ready to go. Design them based on what actually exists right now. Ask these questions: Who owns this data? Where is it stored? How often does it get updated? Does anyone actually use it to make decisions? When you build metrics around what's real instead of what's ideal, things start moving immediately.
2. The Default Always Wins, So Change the Default
Most organizations stick with whatever materials, systems, or processes they’ve used for years — not because they’re the healthiest or most equitable options, but because every workflow around them was built to make the familiar choice effortless.
This pattern shows up everywhere: Tier 1 supplier data gets collected while Tier 2 and 3 remain elusive; pay equity becomes standard while worker-voice indicators get pushed to “next quarter”; indoor air quality is monitored religiously while structural social determinants linger in PowerPoints.
This isn’t a budget issue or a values issue. It’s status quo bias interacting with workflow lock-in. The better option loses not because it’s too expensive, but because adopting it requires changing a tangle of adjacent processes, templates, approvals, and habits.
The intervention: make the better option compatible with the existing workflow instead of asking the workflow to change. Provide procurement templates that look and behave exactly like the old ones. Create spec-ready documents that require no translation. Align warranties and maintenance sheets with what installers already expect. Offer cost-parity models that eliminate the financial uncertainty. When administrative friction disappears, adoption becomes almost automatic.
3. Nobody Moves Without Proof - But Everyone Needs a Different Kind
One of the biggest misconceptions in sustainability is that compelling stories will carry the day. Organizations don’t make decisions based on inspiration; they make decisions based on how well a choice minimizes perceived risk.
Passionate storytelling about impact doesn't close deals. Proof formatted for how decision-makers minimize risk does.
Different stakeholders need different forms of risk reduction: developers look for cost models that incorporate avoided remediation and long-term liability exposure; manufacturers need feasibility analysis and supplier cooperation pathways; certification bodies need indicators tied to real-world data availability and evidence standards; policymakers look for health datasets, burden mapping, and community outcomes.
Narrative can warm the audience, but proof determines whether anyone moves.
The intervention: structure your evidence so it matches how each decision-maker evaluates risk. When your evidence matches how people actually evaluate risk, social sustainability stops being idealistic and starts being practical.
If Your Team Keeps Hitting Walls
The patterns above show up almost identically in every organization that’s struggling to move from intention to operational reality. And the moment leaders recognize their own systems in these patterns, things tend to shift quickly — not because anyone suddenly works harder, but because friction that was invisible becomes unmistakable.
The truth is, every organization has a friction architecture. Some have learned to redesign it. Most haven’t yet. And the teams that learn to see it clearly are the ones who end up moving faster, making better decisions, and producing the kind of proof that actually earns trust.
The Conversation Continues...
This post is part of our ongoing exploration into how the human side of strategy—like invisible friction, coordination costs, and status quo bias—can make or break the impact of your ESG and social sustainability efforts. As problem-solvers, we believe the best insights emerge when diverse perspectives meet. Have you encountered similar challenges or discovered different approaches? Share your story.
Connect with us as we continue to prototype, test, and learn:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join us on Linkedin
Explore our resources
We acknowledge that social sustainability is always a work in progress. These insights represent our current understanding, shaped by our partners, communities, and continuous learning.