People, planet, progress: getter better at integrating social and planetary impact

Reducing inequality and absolute poverty while improving ecosystems’ and planetary health are increasingly seen as interrelated challenges. Doughnut economics illustrates this relationship succinctly, showing the consequences of going over the boundaries. The publication on sector transformation in food systems highlighted cases, methods and models from programmes across Africa and Asia addressing social and environmental impact as separate topics, we wanted to explore how these two areas can be managed in an integrated and sustainable way. Are there initiatives that address socio-economic inclusion, planetary health and business viability at the same time (win-win)? Or do they face trade-offs, prioritising some objectives over others? And if a ‘win-win’ approach is taken more often, can these outweigh the initiatives that do not take an integrated approach? To begin to answer these questions, we explored two case studies – the PiP programme in Uganda, and Gishanda fish farm in Rwanda – and unpacked the topic during a panel session with three practitioners (Esther Katonga, Commercial Manager at Tunga Nutrition; Eyerusalem Mitiku, Impact Officer at BopInc; Stuart Morris, Director East-West Seed Knowledge Transfer) and two Dutch policy-makers (Ivo Walsmit, Thematic Expert Biodiversity at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Simkje Kruiderink, Team Leader Biodiversity & Water Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature). The key learnings and conclusions are summed up here.

Getting the framing right

It quickly became clear that we needed a better framework to understand and assess socioeconomic and planetary health within the cases. This meant shifting to looking at three areas rather than two; first the social impact on people beyond their livelihoods. Second the profit, or viability, angle. And third the planetary or ecosystems aspect – or people, planet, profit (three Ps) as it’s often referred to. Next, we needed to distinguish between the depth of impact the two projects could make within both the people and planet aspects; for people this is about just reaching them (e.g. getting training), ensuring they benefit (they apply the training), or are empowered (the results mean a genuine improvement in their lives). Similarly and more intuitively is the impact on planet, to either minimise this impact, do no harm, or actually improve ecosystems (the two images illustrate this). These two mental frameworks allowed for far more robust conversations with the experts.

The fourth P: prioritisation.

Interviewees agreed that addressing the three Ps is crucial, but challenging to do simultaneously. Prioritisation differed depending on donor preferences, organisational mandates, and local contexts. Success in one 'P' is necessary to develop the other 'Ps.' In practice however, people are always prioritised and typically high, aiming to benefit or empower them (see second framework above), while for the planet, doing no harm is often considered sufficient—unless regenerating nature is directly linked to human impact, such as restocking a lake with fish or providing ecosystem services. This approach ensures economic stability and social well-being, which can then support sustainable environmental actions. However, some argued that prioritising the planet should come first; a healthy planet supports long-term economic and social stability, making environmental stewardship key to a sustainable future for everyone.

Business culture, and the individuals within them, make the difference

The attitude and tenacity of key individuals is so important to help achieve the ambitions for people and planet in a project, programme or during activities. In a similar vein, business culture and values of aiming for a positive impact on people and planet, if properly lived up to, really makes the difference. This begs the question; how can these abstract principles best be translated into local adoption and ownership rather than being imposed? What mechanisms should be used to finance and monitor this and for how long? Some of these points are addressed in the remaining two lessons learned.

Getting the scale right

After piloting an idea and achieving initial results (both for people and planet), the discussion on how and for how long it should scale remained open. Both in-depth case studies of PiP and Gishanda fish farm highlighted the importance of building on local successes without simply copy-pasting initiatives elsewhere. Instead, they emphasised that these initiatives should be adopted or replicated by local communities (in PiP’s case) and entrepreneurs (for the fish farm), ensuring they are tailored to the local context. Practices that are effective in one community or business-setting may not be accepted or feasible in another due to differing social norms, economic conditions, or governance structures.

The fifth P… policy

Complexity in translating practical learnings into policy and strategy arises despite, and sometimes because of, the broader vision and multiple instruments that ministries like those of the Dutch government have at their disposal. Evaluating the impact of a successful programme or business at a local level may look different when zooming out to assess whether the inputs sourced from or outputs exported to other places have a similarly positive impact. Making this assessment is crucial for determining whether and how to scale the initiative. Additionally, getting the monitoring and evaluation systems right is essential; what is measured will determine whether something is regarded as successful. Often, donors want all the boxes ticked, but as previous points illustrate, these achievements often come consecutively and iteratively. Finally, structuring the funding is extremely tricky. While a direct and full subsidy can easily improve the chances of success, it is the least effective way to determine if a win-win scenario can be achieved with more limited external funding in the medium to long term.

The takeaways

So, what can we conclude and consider for future programme design;

First, adopting an integrated triple P approach can be done, but it’s not easy; it needs at least partial external funding, good technical support, and a skilled and committed team. You’ll also need to prioritise some areas without forgetting the others in the longer term. Based on our short exploration of integrated approaches in practice, it seems necessary to be clear about the positive result on humans, especially to create buy-in.

Second, support from local or national public bodies is required, if only for endorsement but ideally for proactive support. Expanding focus beyond a specific location can reveal unintended negative spillover effects elsewhere. This is good to be aware of, but shouldn’t stop people from starting new initiatives. Having clear governance structures or strong networks can create more coordinated effort, thereby decreasing negative spillover.

This leads us to the third point, which is that monitoring, evaluation & learning (MEL) is so key for programme managers and other decision-makers; ultimately the data you collect and how it is interpreted will determine whether you continue, adapt or stop the programme as it progresses. Being realistic about your budget, timeline and operating environment will help set your and others’ expectations in terms of realistic shorter and longer-term results.

These two cases show that positive impact is possible across people, planet, and profit, and the need for the two other Ps of policy and priority. However, the question remains whether an integrated approach is able to address the challenges we’re facing on a larger scale? The most recent IPBES reports (IPBES Nexus assessment and IPBES Transformative Change Assessment) remind us that time is running out. Should we pursue gradual changes that balance planetary actions with benefits for people and profit, or push for regenerative, planet-first strategies, even if immediate human benefits are unclear? This also relates to a broadly held view of the value of nature, which for many exists in practice often to fulfil human needs, overlooking its intrinsic or cultural value. But while these cases take an integrated and incremental approach, transformative change is what’s needed. Getting the balance right not just between the three Ps but also between short-term needs versus the longer-term implications will remain the challenge… but it won’t stop us trying.

You can find the podcast series by searching for ‘People, Planet, Progress’ in your podcast provider or here on Spotify.