The world’s first future generations commissioner, Sophie Howe, can already identify the impact of short-term thinking on future generations in Australia, despite only being here a few days.

She notes news reports highlighting the impact of rent costs rising at much higher rates than youth support incomes over the past few years, and how they are contributing to youth homelessness, which will further contribute to other challenges later on. And, when considering issues like climate change, housing, defence and aged care, it’s never hard to find short-term decision-making that’s failing the jobseekers of tomorrow, the elderly of the future, as well as those that are yet to even be born.

Howe is currently in Australia to highlight the value of putting considerations for future generations into decision-making, after her six years as Wales’ Future Generations Commissioner came to an end in 2022.

I met with Howe today alongside human rights lawyer Professor Susan Harris-Rimmer, and Taylor Hawkins from the Foundations for Tomorrow. Both Harris-Rimmer and Hawkins are leading calls in Australia to adopt a similar position as Wales, and see law reforms that can help hold decision-makers accountable for Australia’s long-term interests.

Howe took the position seven years ago, with the mission of protecting the interests of future generations in Wales. Her time crossed over the pandemic period, which saw countries all over the world scrambling to take action, despite having plenty of warning signs regarding the risk of a pandemic and the communities that would most likely be impacted. But she describes how Wales’ experience with making considerations for the future ultimately helped as they determined how to build back.

She says her ideas around the needs of future generations stem back to her childhood, growing up in a poorer community in Wales. The first in her family to go to university, she worked in local politics and was encouraged to run for office. When still in her early twenties, and six months pregnant, she was elected as a councillor.

Howe went on to become deputy police and crime commissioner, as well as an advisor to two first ministers of Wales. She is also now a mother of five.

She describes how short-termism results in decision making that may benefit some people immediately – and help get those making such decisions elected or to win more clients and contracts – but that so often the cost to future generations fails to be considered.

Asked what causes this short-termism, she noted short electoral cycles – like the three-year cycles Australia has in Federal politics. She also spoke about the fundamental principles in business and how we perceive return on investment and shareholder value in purely financial terms.

“We’ve lost the cathedral thinking,” she says. “The idea that a cathedral could take one hundred years to build before you’d ever be able to fully appreciate that.” Now, we marvel at those cathedrals and the work that went into them. Their legacy lives on well beyond anyone who was ever involved in designing or building it.

Howe points to plenty of examples of future-thinking that have occurred since Wales enacted the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act, which embeds the protection of future generations into legislation and makes sustainable development the organising principle of government.

The act means that all public bodies need to outline how they are meeting current needs, without compromising the needs of future generations – including the Welsh Government, health boards and local authorities.

As commissioner, Howe addressed a number of projects – including infrastructure projects, and the need to consider long-term environmental impacts. She has made recommendations around universal basic income, home energy efficiency measures, shorter working weeks and the establishment of a national nature service.

Education particularly has seen positive changes in Wales, including through addressing the future wellbeing of children – especially physical and mental health — as well as on addressing skills like creativity and empathy, to note some of the changes coming in the future from areas like robotics and AI.

Now advocating for similar future-generation considerations internationally, Howe notes some of the shifts that have been occurring, including the United Nations’ proposed declaration for the future generation. She sees future and foresight thinking happening in countries like Canada, Finland and Lithuania and also believes shifts to wellbeing budgets and other initiatives, like in New Zealand, Scotland and even in Australia with the Treasurer’s first budget last year, are moves in the right direction.

“But with all this, we need to make sure these measures don’t just become a high-level tick-a-box exercise. It needs to be embedded from how the budget is set, to how ministries set policies, to state and local government, and so on.”

Susan Harris-Rimmer shared how prevention thinking that translates into policymaking is still generally rare in Australia, adding that it’s difficult to think of examples where we’ve done it well. Even on areas like superannuation, which were designed to address the financial needs of Australia’s future ageing population, she describes how despite best efforts from women to predict how the system’s design would impact future generations of women, we’re now dealing with the consequences of it today.

“You can’t predict the future, but you can give future generations better options,” Harris-Rimmer says.

This week on Q+A… on the eve of Anzac Day, as the nation pauses to reflect on the sacrifice of generations past and present – has the true cost of war been forgotten?

The AUKUS pact is forcing Australians to confront the possibility of conflict, but what does the mythology and veneration of the Anzac spirit mean for how we as a nation imagine war? Are we too flippant about it? Veterans know the price that has to be paid – but are we listening? And what obligation do we have to future generations to avert war?

More turmoil for the Coalition, with a resignation and a front-bench reshuffle. Former Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews has quit the shadow cabinet, while other changes include high-profile “no” campaigner NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price becoming Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians. Will the changes be enough to keep party unity? Or will Peter Dutton’s leadership come under more pressure?

Meanwhile, Australia’s fractured relationship with China has taken a step forward, with tensions easing over the bitter trade dispute about barley – with winemakers now hopeful their trade barriers may be the next to fall.

But there is still scepticism about China’s motives – especially in cyberspace, with TikTok banned from government devices amid data security fears. Will the next battleground be virtual with cyber warfare a bigger threat than physical conflict?

Q+A is live from Sydney on Monday, April 24 at 9.35pm AEST.

Sophie Howe has appeared on ABC Radio National (RN) to talk about her former role as Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, her tenure, and how Australia could benefit from a Future Generations Act.

In Back to the Future part two, Marty McFly travels to the future, not the past, and in that future, he finds a copy of Grays Sports Almanac, a reference book of all major sporting results. It’s better than winning the lottery.

Marty knows that when he returns to his time, every bet he makes, on every sporting event, will be a winner. Of course, nothing is, or ever will be, that simple. The Almanac is stolen by Marty’s nemesis Biff, who uses it to create a horrific alternate version of the future, a dystopic hell over which Biff presides from the penthouse of a casino. The meaning is clear, knowing the future is not enough, not when you consider Biff’s need for power.

Over the coming decades we are facing challenges such as biodiversity loss, rising sea-levels, soil erosion, climate change, rising inequality and more[i]. These challenges are putting debts onto our children[ii] and those that come after us. Science has provided us with this foresight, and it’s almost but not quite like we have the equivalent of the sports almanac, and we are in the past with the ability to make winning bets on the future. However, even with the foresight of science it appears that we are failing. We might like to think we’re Marty McFly, but maybe we’re closer to Biff.

For example, to focus on climate change, it was in 1988, 35 years ago that the United Nations founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[iii]. This is more than a generation ago and longer than Marty’s time travel which was just 30 years (1985 to 2015). Given the time we have had to consider climate change it might be expected that emissions reductions would be well underway. Unfortunately, not. In 2021, the global average temperature was about 1.1C higher than the pre-industrial baseline and there is a high likelihood we will break the 1.5C barrier in the next five years[iv]. Further, going past 2C of warming is considered dangerous, yet now there is discussion of global warming of 3C or more[v]. So much for long-term thinking and our ability to use the foresight afforded by science.

This inability to limit our emissions has many reasons, wilful misdirection being one. For example, Exxon Mobil spent decades rubbishing the science of climate change, even though they made startlingly accurate predictions about future temperatures[vi]. While short-termism continues to rear its head, with BP recently announcing that it would scale back its emissions reduction targets, while at the same time as letting the world know it had made record profits from the boost given to fossil fuel prices by the impact of the war in Ukraine[vii]. In discussing these announcements, the CEO of BP, Bernard Looney made clear that his role is to deliver value for shareholders. In so doing, BP has deliberately turned away from foresight and prioritized the shareholders of today rather than those who might be around in 2050 and beyond.

Notwithstanding the short-term monetary pressures on a publicly listed company like BP, and without wishing to particularly single out Mr. Looney, perhaps his decisions are to be expected. At the time of writing this piece (2023) his approximate age is 53 and in 2050 he will be 80. If his likely life expectancy is 85 years old, as per OECD predictions[viii], it is unlikely he is going to live long enough to see the full effects of dangerous climate change. Hence, perhaps the foresight of science is irrelevant to him and other BP decision makers. They won’t be around to pick up the tab. However, such decisions are perhaps not so rational for those with plenty of life left in 2050 or perhaps the 2050 CEO of BP.

From our analysis of companies, the 2050 CEO of BP is probably about 29 years old now and if that person is like other young people, then climate change matters to them, especially because our wellbeing is tied to our expectations about our future[ix]. Perhaps Mr. Looney’s decision to loosen the emission reduction targets of BP was made without consulting the next generation of leaders. Yet he could have asked them.

Given the context sketched out above, we asked ourselves if the age of the CEO correlates to whether a business has a policy to reduce emissions? Our previous analysis on the Climate Action 100+ grouping of 166 companies that emit 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions[x] found that age does correlate[xi]. Building off that earlier analysis, we expanded our data set to just under two thousand companies. The aim being to understand if the signal we had seen in the 166 companies was repeated. The signal was repeated, and our expanded analysis revealed some interesting correlations as follows[xii];

• There is a golden age range of CEOs between 48 to 60 years old who are leading companies that are more likely to have an emissions reduction target. Outside of this range, companies are less likely to have a target, particularly those companies with older CEOs.
• As CEO tenure gets longer and particularly if the tenure is longer than 20 years, companies are less likely to have an emissions reduction target. Below 20 years of tenure, companies are more likely to have an emissions reduction target.
• Companies with 90% or more of non-executive directors on their boards are more likely to have an emissions reduction target. Companies with less than this percentage are less likely to have an emissions reduction target.
• Companies with the CEO and Chairperson being the same person are negatively correlated to the company having a reduction target.
• Companies older than 40 years are more likely to have an emissions reduction target than average. Those younger than 40 years old are less likely to have a target.
• Companies with a larger asset base tend to have a target for reduction. Likewise, an improving return on assets and reduced debt to equity ratio is positively correlated with a company having a reduction target.

Taken all together, this analysis while only a snapshot, supports our earlier work[xiii] and reinforces in broad terms that CEO age and power indicators correlate to whether the company has an emissions reduction target. CEO power being indicated by the length of the CEO tenure, the CEO also being the chairperson and the percentage of non-executive directors being low.

Given our societal reliance on companies being the key agents of change to help ameliorate the challenges we face, the correlations we have found indicate an issue. The foresight of science is not enough and unfortunately CEO age and power matters to whether a generational challenge is being tackled or not. Hence, do we need to shift how we govern companies and make the future incarnate to them. To do this, we hypothesize that future generation boards could be a key tool to help businesses govern generational challenges. In short, if decisions today incur future debts, then it is perhaps only right and proper that those who will incur that debt are asked for their input.

Some companies have begun to explore this type of structure as have some governments[xiv], and experiments have shown that future generation representatives on boards do enable a greater consideration of future debts[xv]. However, the actions of Mr Looney indicates that more needs to be done. Our analysis of data reveals correlations that CEO age and power matter as to whether a business is acting on generational concerns. Behind the numbers of our data are human behaviours. So where to from here? From here there is a need to meet with current executives, governance lawyers, the cadre of potential CEOs in 30 years’ time and more to gather their perspectives and build a framework for testing.

So, as it turns out, just like Marty McFly and Biff, we do know the future. But in the film that knowledge turns out to be too dangerous, too vulnerable to bad intentions and short-term gains. The data of climate science and science more generally is our Almanac, we just need to do better than Biff. Thankfully we can. Young people know the decisions of today are putting future debts on them. They are not ignorant. We should be polite and talk to them, gathering their input into the business decisions of today that will impact their future.

But then Marty goes a step further. He pulls away from Johnny B. Goode and allows the chords to grow heavier, chunkier. We’re time travelling forward to 80s rock, with squealing guitar solos and amp kicks. At the peak of the performance he stops and looks out at the crowd. They stand there, still, confused – he’s lost them. These musical motifs are too far in the future for them to get their heads (and ears) around.

“I guess you guys aren’t ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it,” Marty tells them.

It’s a classic cinema moment that riffs on the musical tensions that exists between generations. It works because the discussion of what constitutes ‘good’ music is always in contention. While this discussion can often take the form of an intergenerational fight, it’s also a conversation and a negotiation, a meeting between different generations and what they value.

This idea of intergenerational conversation underpins much of this piece. It’s a concept that has applications to how we manage our corporations, and how we shape our societies as we move toward a sustainable future.

Sustainable development is commonly defined as development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[i] This definition puts the present and future generations as key subjects. Unfortunately, the Brundtland report (which coined this definition) frames future generations as those not yet born and it’s difficult to account for those who have no say politically or economically in the eternal present. There has been some debate in the academic literature about how to move past the challenge of accounting for those not yet born. For example, Edith Brown Weiss wrote in 1990 about Fairness to Future Generations and creating a Future Generations Ombudsman.[ii] While more recently experimental research has found future generations representatives can increase investments in intergenerational justice.[iii] However, what is common is that this research assumes, like the Brundtland report, that future generations are those not yet born.

However, if a simpler perspective is taken, the philosophical knots of accounting for those not yet born can be avoided and a more practical perspective taken. To do this, one can ask; how long is a generation?

The answer to this question appears to be approximately 30 years[iv]. A time span reinforced by a 1960s article that argued ‘most students of the problem of generations agree that a generation lasts about thirty years.’[v] As such, if a generation is about 30 years, then a practical turn occurs. Suddenly, future generations are everywhere. We are living with them, we can account for them, and they have political and economic power. They are those of us who are 30 years younger and those of us likely to be alive in 30 years’ time. Thus, sustainable development moves from dealing in a temporal abstraction, to one where future generations are living and breathing, and we can have a conversation with them.

The definition of sustainable development can now be changed to something like –