We are in an era of great transformation, in all fields: the end of multilateralism, the disarticulation of the global value chains, the rise of populism, the rise of Technology over Humanism, the return to customs tariffs, the new centrality of the State apparatus, the need for a “new” Sustainability. For many, it is a painful transition. But we must act, so that humanism remains as an incontrovertible basis. Accepting the trauma of an era’s change requires an open confrontation on values and clear directions of the political agenda.

I’ve always had the peculiar habit to read two books at the same time, trying to alternate kinds and styles of writing.
In the 1990s it was the turn of “The End of Work” by Jeremy Rifkin and “The Road Ahead” written by Bill Gates, this time contravening the rule of alternating arguments since these texts have many unexpected contact points.

The first one deals with the end of the traditional jobs and the model of industrial relations as conceived to date, the second book leads to the representation of new professional roles with new competencies in a technological context of absolute innovation, able to modify processes and systems, times and methods, industrial relations and the organization of work of each of us. We have seen it. It has accomplished almost everything. These two texts were written by two Americans, two outsiders in their respective fields.

That combination revealed as an illuminating choice because, from that moment on, I started to open myself to a sustainable development perspective that changed my view of the world and the way to conceive economics and the industrial policies. At the time, I worked for an industrial plant in the United States in South Carolina, for the production of PTA, plastics and derivatives. Right there, for the first time, I learned about the possible combination of industry and respect for the environment, between production, development, consumption and environmental sustainability. Shortly, the American investor received from the local authorities the concession to build only at the condition to respect the eco-system of the territory through an extensive pluriannual reforestation program and a partnership with some local research centers for the protection of animal species. We were in 1996. A revolutionary solution.

Just a few years earlier, Prof. Giuseppe Catturi published: “Producing and consuming, but how? – going towards the Ecological Company” where he put down clearly the main concept  of what today Companies do to be considered sustainable: acting for profit, environment and society – the so called three axes of Sustainability, but also for the sake of its own survival and to meet the needs of consumers, investors, markets and finance. The text was asked at the University of Economics for the examination of Business Economy, and was considered disruptive and revolutionary. That’s why even the author declared that the current scientists  did not consider this new approach still appropriate to contribute to the regulatory measures to be suggested to the political decision-makers, because they were convinced that the business-related cause needed a defined, orthodox frame of reference rather than what was not yet verified at the time.

This introduction might help to introduce a certain vision of a certain organicist way to consider the Company, recognizing its structural characteristics in a community of individuals working in a coordinated and systemic way to meet social and environmental needs, where the public authority can harmonize these dynamics to ensure the future to the youngest generation. There have been some very encouraging signs of all of that after Covid till about one year ago.

As a huge deal coming from the world of the US Corporation, the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group composed of the nation’s leading CEOS, just announced in early 2023 that its members want to share a strong commitment to all of their stakeholders to deliver value to them for the future success of the companies, for communities, for the Country.

The commitment deals with a large training and education program dedicated to their employees so that they can develop new skills on sustainability, dealing fairly and ethically with the suppliers along the entire supply chain, supporting the communities in which they work and generating long-term value for share-stakeholders.

Now everything is changing quickly.

With two big wars and another one called “commercial” between US and China, we are obliged to see things in a different way. And I’m encouraging a deeper and positive analysis about all that.

A special focus on due diligence

Putting the CSDDD aside, advocates for sustainability (and I include myself among them) have a lot of work to do to make reality match the rhetoric. Adoption of the standards of the International Sustainability Standards Board can be helpful in showing the link to value creation because they are focused on financial materiality. Standards developed by the European Financial Advisory Group’s Sustainability Reporting Board and the Global Reporting Initiative can be helpful in showing impact materiality. While reporting standards are very useful, they are not a silver bullet. Alone they do not ensure good performance. Our survey provides some suggestions for what else must be done. Doing this hard work will finally make sustainability a key contribution to value creation. But things are changing also for Sustainability and a new set of norms has been issued the so-called “Omnibus I” package presented by the UE in February 2025 to simplify the existing sustainability regulations.

This package follows the recommendations made by the European leaders in November 2024 and follows the strategic analyses contained in Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi reports, which have highlighted  – inter alia – the need for a new regulatory approach to make sustainability more agile and innovation-friendly.

What next

But let’s go further. See how anti-capitalist criticism has become cosmetic. Radical slogans accompany the articles in the shops. Critique of power becomes a Netflix series. Every expression of resistance becomes a marketing opportunity. The more social movements such as ecology and diversity become visible, the more they are transformed into content flows and performance.

Moreover: US and China are not only rival superpowers, but generators of competing realities. The Silicon Valley platforms and China’s digital infrastructure embody two distinct models of production and real-world management. These are not only competing technological systems, but rival ontological frameworks, with different ways of organizing human experience and consciousness.

I went to US recently and I visited 4 different States, I have to say that people are nice, as usual, very welcoming, no discrimination at all towards me,  nothing liable to the actual social perception on foreigners; in one word we have to be careful before clustering part of the American society, being aware that the reality is often complex. The complexity is part of our society as well. French philosopher Edgar Morin’s opinion is  that the most serious threats facing humanity are linked to the blind and uncontrolled progress of knowledge, and he shows in his book  “Introduction à la pensée complexe” that these mistakes have a common character resulting from a mutilating mode in the organization of knowledge, unable to recognize and grasp the complexity of reality. I fully take this picture as mine, adding a recommendation to try to judge the actual era with prudence as much as possible while asking for immediate action on urgence matters like: stopping the wars and negotiate between parties for example.