The Impact Edit: The Anti-Reset Year
I usually tend to be a "new year, new me" person. A fresh new planner, a set of resolutions, the whole thing.
This year, the vibe is more like: new year, everyone's sick, it's too cold to think straight, and I'm not making any promises I can't keep in February. The grand reset has lost its appeal.
What I’m more interested in is this: what can we actually do better with what we already have?
That question matters because, in social sustainability strategy, most organisations aren’t starting from zero. They’re starting from years of decisions, initiatives, and commitments layered on top of each other.
The accumulation problem
The problem isn't ambition. Most orgs I work with have plenty of it. Sustainability strategies don't fail from lack of effort. They fail from accumulated good intentions that no one ever had the authority (or the stomach) to retire.
That's when friction creeps in:
Decisions take longer than they should
Trade-offs exist but no one will name them
Policies say one thing while incentives quietly reward another
Governance assumes alignment; systems reinforce silos
Everyone is working hard and no one is quite sure on what
None of this is unusual. It's what happens in large, complex organisations doing serious work over long time periods.
The optimisation trap
When this happens, the instinct is to optimise. Add a new framework. Refine the metrics. Commission another piece of work to make sense of the last one. Hire a consultant to map the consultants.
But in many cases, the more strategic move isn't optimisation. It's editing.
Social sustainability isn't something we add. It's something we reveal. The social impact of an organisation already exists- in hiring decisions, procurement choices, community relationships, how meetings run and who gets listened to. It's happening every day, long before it shows up in a report. Editing is the work of making those patterns visible and intentional.
What This Actually Looks Like
A few questions worth asking out loud:
How many initiatives does your organisation have that no one can explain the origin of?
How many appear in reporting/specs but don't have a clear owner?
How many exist because no one ever had the conversation to end them?
How many were launched under previous leadership and quietly inherited without review?
How many duplicate efforts across departments without anyone noticing: or admitting it?
Most organisations I talk to can rattle off at least three without thinking hard. Usually more.
Editing means:
Retiring initiatives that look good on paper but don't change behaviour
Merging the ones that duplicate effort across teams
Clarifying ownership so accountability is real, not theoretical
Simplifying governance so decisions don't require archaeology
Ending things that no longer serve the strategy, formally, not by neglect
The goal isn't fewer things for the sake of fewer things. It's a strategy you can actually explain (and defend) without a 40 slide deck.
The Risk No One Talks About
Misalignment in social sustainability doesn't just create inefficiency. It creates risk, the slow eroding kind.
Erosion of internal trust
Fatigue among the people responsible for delivery
Credibility gaps that widen until someone external notices
By then, the gap is expensive to close. Trust, once visibly broken, takes longer to rebuild than it took to lose.
Contradictions have a cost. Removing them lets the work that remains actually function.
The Win
This kind of work doesn't photograph well. No launch, no ribbon-cutting, no LinkedIn post announcing you've stopped doing things that didn't make sense.
But it gets you something better:
Budget recovered from initiatives that weren't delivering
Reporting you can actually stand behind
Teams that know what they're responsible for
Less time defending contradictions
More time on work that moves
The organisations that hold up under scrutiny aren’t the ones doing the most. They’re the ones that know exactly what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and what they’ve intentionally chosen not to do.
The Conversation Continues...
This post is part of our ongoing exploration into how the "accumulation problem" stifles progress, and why the most strategic move for your organization isn't to add more frameworks, but to rigorously edit what already exists. 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.