I used to work in finance early in my career, where I spent time navigating risk models and capital requirements. I believed, as many still do, that finance was a neutral tool and a facilitator of progress.
However, systems thinking and later my own research led me to a different understanding. Finance is not separate from our economic system, and our economy is not separate from our environment; each affects the other because they are embedded: finance in the economy, and in turn, the economy in nature. Finance cannot thrive in a collapsing biosphere, and a well-being economy cannot emerge without changes to financial incentives. Yet most financial frameworks still operate as if they were a realm apart.
Limits, not failures
When I revisited the 1972 Limits to Growth scenarios with updated data, one insight stood out: none of the model’s paths showed indefinite growth. The scenarios that avoided steep declines assumed a shift away from growth as the primary economic goal, instead directing resources toward education, health, and ecological protection. Far from utopian, these scenarios were pragmatic and increasingly urgent.
Today, our indicators confirm that economic growth is stalling.[1],[2],[3] More industrial output isn’t translating to higher well-being. We’ve entered the “peak” phase for global welfare, and the data show that pushing beyond it leads to breakdown. The real question is not whether growth ends but how it ends: by choice or collapse.
Sustainable finance: But for what?
Finance is waking up to the idea that sustainability matters. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds, green bonds, and climate-risk assessments are now common terms. But too often, these efforts aim to “make finance sustainable” within the same extractive paradigm. As I mentioned recently in my keynote at the Sustainable Finance Summit in Montreal, Canada, within this paradigm, we will do what is possible. But to get back within planetary boundaries to preserve life on Earth as we know it, we must do what is necessary. As one financial theorist commented on my keynote, the real question is: how do we finance sustainability?
This is not merely a choice of words. Financing sustainability means recognizing that nature is the foundation of all values rather than a resource to be exploited. It means transitioning from extractive investment to regenerative stewardship. It redefines risk not in terms of portfolio volatility, but in terms of ecological overshoot and social fragmentation.
Moving the goalposts
Changing what we finance means changing why we invest. Traditional fiduciary responsibility seeks to maximize returns. If those returns come from systems that undercut the conditions for life, then we need new definitions of responsibility that include long-term stability and intergenerational equity.
That shift is already underway. Central banks, institutional investors, and regulators are experimenting with new metrics and practices, from the Genuine Progress Indicator to debt-for-nature swaps that annul a country’s public debt in exchange for preserving their ecosystems.
Still, these steps remain exceptions and often shy away from confronting the root cause: our fixation on endless accumulation. What we need instead is a financial system that is centered around the concept of “enough.” A system that is distributive by design and supports livelihoods without demanding perpetual growth.
The opportunity in redefinition
Letting go of growth doesn’t mean choosing stagnation or scarcity. It means reflecting on who we really want to be and what world we long to live in. Letting go is not the same as giving up; it’s about opening space for something better. And I believe we’d want to make this shift even if ecological collapse weren’t looming because relentless growth hasn’t delivered on its promise of always equating to progress. In high-income countries, well-being has stalled or declined. What is decoupled from GDP is not carbon, but happiness.
As I’ve mentioned in earlier blogs, a well-being economy would be able to deliver much better on our non-material needs, such as a sense of community and purpose. Ownership would be redefined in a well-being economy from the right to do with something as one pleases (including extraction to the point of complete waste) to a responsibility of care. Financial practices in a well-being economy would see investment not just as a right to future payoffs, but as a commitment to our common future. Investment analysis, then, would include impacts on aspects such as community, health, education, and ecosystems—things that truly matter to us because they satisfy our social needs for belonging and meaning. Human and ecological well-being are not costs. They are returns—if we choose to value them as such in our economic system.
Finance in service to life
The future of finance goes beyond improving risk-adjusted returns. It requires aligning money with what we as a society really value. We possess the knowledge and tools; that is not the real challenge. However, that is not where this transformation begins; it starts within each of us. We all participate in financial systems as consumers, investors, regulators, or advisors. The changes we need in these systems will not be centrally orchestrated but will emerge from many nodes of action, connected by a shared shift in the narrative: from separation to interdependence. From “we are selfish maximizers doomed to exploit our commons” to “we are nature and once our basic needs are satisfied, we rejoice in contributing to the web of life we feel we’re part of.”
That’s why I advise people who ask what they can do: start with yourself. Find your influence, which you always have, regardless of your role. And connect with others who are sharing the same path of healing their inner narrative. You don’t need many. One or two people are a good start. With four or five, you can move mountains. This systems change we’re aspiring to begins with individual action but gains power when translated into concrete financial decisions and policy.
How do we move risk analysis from relative ESG rankings to a comprehensive and absolute assessment against fair planetary boundaries? Could fiduciary duty from institutional investors mean accepting lower rates of return in the short run to avoid massive losses in the medium term? For those in macroprudential supervision, does maintaining financial stability demand policy on how the financial system can become more distributive, rather than accumulative, given what we know about the destabilizing effect of wealth and income inequality? Should fiscal policy advice refocus on well-being directly, rather than through growth, with analysis including citizen funds, living wages, or a universal basic income?
These questions don’t have easy answers. But working on them—in your field, with your tools, in your context, with your few buddies—is how systems change begins. This process is not linear, and you don’t have to change the minds of the majority. Change agents start their work disjointedly at first, but over time, they build connections across company, sector, and country boundaries to reach a critical mass, typically around 20%. At that “social tipping point,” the system’s change becomes self-reinforcing. And only then does the majority come along. We still have a window of opportunity to choose a thriving future — a future where finance serves people and the planet, not the other way around. Let’s use it.
[1] The global growth slowdown is bad news for trust in government | CEPR
[2] Global Growth Is Stalling and Investors Need to Get Defensive: BCA – Markets Insider
[3] April 2025 update to TIGER: The world economy shudders and could stall
Add a comment