The invisible purchasing gap

In recent years, sustainability has become an increasingly important issue, not only for consumers but also for companies and states. Through the EU's Green Deal, the issue has also ended up on the agenda in the new regulations that, for example, govern investments within the EU. By utilizing the power you have as an investor, customer, buyer or partner, you can influence others to contribute to a more sustainable future. But do we really need to take any action in the field of social sustainability? Have we not come far enough already as it is?

Sustainability - what does it mean and what importance do we attach to it in society?

Sustainability consists of three parts: Environment, Social and Governance. Sustainability is thus not only about the environment but also about social issues / inequality in different parts of society and the structures that are in place to ensure good order and structure that is also a prerequisite for increasing both environmental and social sustainability. All three parts of sustainability are needed and are prerequisites for each other. A society will not be able to cope with the environmental challenges if it does not deal with the social challenges and vice versa at the same time. A low level of ambition in one leg can cause the stool to tip over, no matter how good you try to be in the other leg.

As sustainability issues have become more important in society in recent years, however, there has been a clear shift in emphasis where many only count the environment as an important sustainability issue while social sustainability is considered less important and unprioritised. This is most clearly seen in the EU's handling of the Green Deal and the regulations that will guide the EU's sustainability work in the future and which we have written about here earlier. More than one thousand billion euros will be led to sustainable (read "environmentally sustainable") investments, but in principle nothing is intended to be led to companies that work deeply with increased social sustainability. As long as companies do not engage in human trafficking, etc., they will be considered sustainable from the EU perspective, even if in principle all companies in an investment portfolio are owned by a limited group of men, even if all founders belong to the same group of men, even if all innovation comes from the ideas that the same group of men have, even if all the purchases that these portfolio companies make go to other companies that are owned and founded by the same group of men, etc.

The business community's opportunities to influence sustainability

How we look at environmental and social sustainability is also reflected in many other parts of society. In the business sector, there has been an increased focus on sustainable supply chains, where it is primarily intended that the supply chains should be environmentally sustainable. To the extent that purchasing policies also cover social issues, however, this is also mostly about basic human rights such as the ban on slavery and human trafficking and basic labor law requirements.

We have set the bar for social sustainability very low to enable almost all companies in a country like Sweden to meet the requirements. We do not demand equality. We have no views on whether the suppliers maintain the unequal structures that cause us to tread water in terms of both women's and minorities' opportunities to get the same conditions as the norm in society.

The question we should ask ourselves is: Why do we not demand more? Are we happy that so little progress is being made (if any)? Are we satisfied that only after a number of additional generations - when we ourselves no longer exist - will society become more equal? When those who today profit from inequality long ago handed over to the next generations who in their turn do not want to see changed conditions for themselves either?

Lack of ambition regarding social sustainability both politically and in business

When the EU develops regulations for sustainable development and sustainable investments, nothing is done to reduce the problem of about 90 times as much financial resources going to companies that are owned and founded by men compared to women. We do not discuss this lack of prioritization, perhaps because we also do not discuss in depth why this difference exists from the beginning. Many people are content to believe that the problem is easily solved if more financiers come into contact with more female founders, if more people become aware of how many fantastic companies women are founding, if more women "dare" to start companies, etc. There is no shortage of examples of many who consciously or unconsciously try to help maintain those perceptions. It seems that we find it uncomfortable to approach the problem from another angle, which would have been a more rational explanation for the situation as it is:

Do we as a society, businesses and companies believe in the innovations that women create to the same extent as we believe in the innovations that those who are the norm in society create? Are we prepared to buy the products and services that women create, just as much as we are prepared to buy the products and services that those who are the norm in society create? Do we even follow up and make demands on those we buy products and services from that they should strive for sustainability also from a social perspective on more than a basic basic level, a level which already qualify most as "socially sustainable"?

The answer to these questions is very unclear because we are not talking about it. We're not investigating. We do not have statistics on it. We choose not to ask ourselves if there is a purchasing gap that we all need to help break down.

What you know about, you have the opportunity to follow up on. What you follow up, you have the opportunity to change. What you have the opportunity to change, you will change as long as you have the will to change.

If that will is lacking and our acceptance of inequality is maintained, the situation will continue to be strikingly similar to the situation we have today.

A thought experiment - a purchasing policy that sets requirements that lead to change

As a thought experiment, one could ask oneself what objections arise internally if the following purchasing policy was to start spreading in large parts of the business community. What problems would we see and why? Are we sure that there really are such problems with such a purchasing policy or can the fact that the requirements are starting to be set solve the problems that we believe would exist?

Unaddressed sustainability risks that are realized when the purchasing gap is not addressed

Do you know if there are any companies in Sweden that work with sustainable purchasing policies as described above within their supply chains today? I do not know of anyone and I have for a few years asked the question in different contexts with the same reaction: No one has even reflected on it but does not ask for it either. What will be the consequence of not doing so? What make us think that we do not have to start making these kinds of demands to increase equality both in terms of business and resources?

If women and foreign-born people received a larger share of the resources, those who control societal development through their innovations will be broadened. It creates opportunities for many more sustainable solutions that also last in the long run. It creates greater opportunities for everyone in society to age safely.

When I myself reflect on these issues, I always end up with the question: What sustainability risks do we take in society as long as we continue to deprioritize the issue of social sustainability? The answer to that question today we can only guess. It is necessary to dare to imagine what society could have looked like if more people with different perspectives had been given resources and opportunities to contribute to sustainable societal development.

We have large unaddressed sustainability risks, but we also live our lives where such unaddressed sustainability risks are already realized and continue to be realized. It's just that we do not connect it and thus do not see any need to solve the problem of social sustainability.

The invisible purchasing gap and why it is important to make it visible

The purchasing gap is invisible because we do not look for it. Because we do not follow up. There is no other reasonable explanation to why companies founded by men get 90 times as much of the financial resources.

In order to obtain financing, you must be able to show that there is a demand in the market for your goods and services. It is shameful to admit that you have no customers and mistrust is always directed at the person who provides the goods and services and that this is where the fault lies.

As long as we do not help to expose the purchasing gap and try to change it, it will probably remain at previous levels and the same investment gap levels will remain while we continue to highlight role models as successful examples for other women with the message "if you just are good enough, you can also succeed". Those who are singled out as role models may be easily flattered and pose willingly as "superwomen" who show that they are capable of success "despite" all obstacles.

As female founders, we have an obligation to resist the temptation to be portrayed as successful examples to other women and instead demand fundamental change. Only in this way can we contribute to a sustainable society and in which future generations of founders will have better conditions to make their innovations grow.

Malmö, November 19, 2021

Christina Blomkvist
Founder of the legal tech company GreenCounsel