The strategic challenge to charities from Extinction Rebellion

This is the first of three articles about the strategic lessons for charities from the climate change activist movement Extinction Rebellion. This article focuses on the lesson from Extinction Rebellion’s strategy for all charities which seek to change society. This lesson is about overall strategy design rather than simply the tactics of protest. The second article will show an application to the field of youth mental health. The third will give a framework for boards of trustees and chief executives to address the issues raised in the first two articles.

Introduction

The impact, in the UK at least, of the upsurge in activity by Extinction Rebellion (henceforth XR) earlier this year was impressive. Within a short space of time after launching its “International Rebellion” in April, XR managed to change behaviours and attitudes towards climate change. This included getting the British Parliament to declare a climate emergency and influencing the language used around climate change, as well as discussions in board rooms, committees and among people around the country. Most recently, six House of Commons parliamentary committees announced plans to hold a Citizens’ Assembly on climate change, reflecting a key demand of XR (see below).

There is a general acceptance that the rebellion launched in April was helped by factors such as the school strike for climate and a BBC documentary on climate change narrated by Sir David Attenborough. Nevertheless, for a movement only launched in October 2018, XR’s rise has been impressive. The longer-term impact is clearly unknown, but the striking success to date is attracting scrutiny. This has so far concentrated on (a) climate change itself (eg, here), and (b) the movement’s tactics and approach (eg, here and here).

Another, equally important, issue has so far been ignored. This concerns, not XR’s tactics, but its strategy. And the relevance of this extends beyond charities working on environmental issues; it applies to any charity which seeks a wider influence on public policy or society.

The logic of XR

The tactics XR used when it launched the International Rebellion contributed to its short-term success. Large scale peaceful protests, occupying public spaces, and mass arrests, caused disruption and attracted headlines and coverage, enabling XR to put across its argument, win supporters and influence policy. These tactics were, if not new, different to many past protests in terms of scale, persistence and tone; which probably meant they reached and persuaded many more people. The movement continues to campaign using the same principles.

But clever tactics need a good argument and logic as part of an overall strategy. Tactics in pursuit of something unpersuasive or unclear are unlikely to succeed.

The basis for XR’s overall strategy is very clear and straightforward. Its argument and the starting point of its strategy has two core points:

1. We are in a climate emergency.
2. The authorities have failed to respond adequately to this.

(There is an additional feature of the second point, namely that the authorities have been lying, but that does not detract from the simplicity of the argument.)

The movement's demands flow from these points. Those demands are that the government must tell the truth about the crisis; declare a climate emergency; cut greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2025; and create a citizens’ assembly to find ways to tackle the crisis.

Elements of a strategy

The US academic and writer, Richard Rumelt, in his book “Good strategy, bad strategy” defines the elements of a good strategy as comprising:

• A diagnosis defining the challenge to be overcome. In the case of XR, this is the two points above — the scale of the problem and the inadequate response;
• A guiding policy to help navigate through obstacles and opportunities. In the case of XR, this is the principle of nonviolent and coordinated public action, increasing the number of people engaged and getting arrested, in order to make the argument about climate emergency.
• A set of coherent actions, or tactics. XR’s actions centre on targeting specific public spaces and institutions using the approach in the guiding policy, working with local groups and activists in the UK and internationally.

The diagnosis is the launching point and the platform on which the rest of the strategy is based. A clear and lucid diagnosis is necessary. The policy and the practical actions which follow must be consistent with this diagnosis. A coherent strategy in which the tactics can be seen as justified as well as easy to understand is then the result. If the tactics do not seem to follow from the diagnosis, the strategy is inconsistent and, as a result, incoherent. Such a strategy is less likely to achieve its goals.

XR’s strategy

XR provides a case study of consistency and coherence in strategy design. Let us consider it in a little more detail.

There is no credible argument against the view that climate change is real, its effect is potentially catastrophic for whole swathes of society, and the situation is getting worse. In particular, the longer that society does not take adequate steps, the bigger the threat becomes. Unless one quibbles about the term “emergency”, the first point in XR’s diagnosis is easy to accept.

This leads to the second point about the authorities’ response. There has been an acceleration in the steps taken by the authorities, in both public and private sectors, in the UK as well as in other countries. It is also true that these steps collectively are insufficient and time is running out. This is the clear conclusion of the IPCC report of 2018 which is not disputed by most policy-makers. Therefore, it is easy to accept that XR’s second point stands. The first point about an emergency is reinforced as a result.

The depth of the problem and its impact combine with the inadequate response to give XR’s logic and diagnosis greater force. If either point did not apply, the argument would not be as compelling.

The force of the diagnosis then requires a strong response. For XR, this is its “Declaration of Rebellion”, included in its just-published handbook. The declaration states:

“When government and the law fail to provide any assurance of adequate provision of and security for its people’s well-being and the nation’s future, it becomes the right of citizens to seek redress in order to restore dutiful democracy and to secure the solutions needed to avert catastrophe and protect the future. It becomes not only our right but our sacred duty to rebel.

“We hereby declare the bonds of the social contract to be null and void; the government has rendered them invalid by its continuing failure to act appropriately.”

The basis for the actions of XR follows directly from and is compelled by the diagnosis. It is not possible, XR argues with justification, for a more modest response. It would simply not make sense.

As well as the seriousness of the issue, the appeal of XR’s message is its simplicity and clarity. The movement helps itself in this regard by not offering concrete solutions. The third of its demands — for a citizens’ assembly to decide what is to be done to reach zero emissions by 2025— reflects this. One might say this side-steps the challenge of what practical policies and measures should be introduced. As criticism of XR’s strategy, that would be unfair. Its strategy is to create the conditions in which practical measures can be considered. These conditions do not currently exist because the emergency is not properly understood and accepted by society and, importantly, policymakers. Measured against this goal, the strategy is comprehensive. Its tactics — actions to raise the profile and provide the conditions in which the argument can be made, understood and accepted — feed off the diagnosis and make it more likely that the overall goal will be achieved.

Incoherent Greenpeace

XR understands the importance of a coherent strategy. One of its first acts, when it launched in October 2018, was to challenge Greenpeace, a long-established and respected NGOs. It occupied Greenpeace’s headquarters in London and issued an open letter to the organisation, in which it said:

“We love you. … We understand that legitimacy brings privilege and opportunity, that funding keeps food on the table and the rent paid so that people can work. We understand that positivity used to be a call to action. But it does not work when faced with ecological and societal collapse. … We all need to come together and consider what could be done differently. … With this in mind, we suggest it is time to ask the ordinary people to step up. To make extraordinary choices in the face of our life or death situation. … We are doing this occupation of Greenpeace Headquarters today to ask that you take leadership on the climate breakdown and the extinction crisis.”

XR is complaining, in as polite terms as possible, that Greenpeace’s tactics are not adequate given the diagnosis. More bluntly, its strategy is incoherent. That same message is reflected in the statement XR made following their occupation and a meeting with Greenpeace:

“Our experience is that of positivity and agreement that we are in a dire situation, that we need radical action. However there is little action afterwards. Greenpeace appear unwilling to talk about strategy.”

XR’s view is that Greenpeace cannot take the lead because of its organisational structure and that they “can be risk averse”. On its website, XR says of Greenpeace:

“They [Greenpeace] are a large NGO with a business model that probably limits their willingness to mass mobilise people in civil disobedience. The civil disobedience they feel able to undertake is limited to small teams of people. We believe that mass civil disobedience is the only way we will see vital and inspiring change on the scale that is needed.”

Again, tactics must follow from the assessment. Tactics used by Greenpeace are, XR suggests, constrained, and rendered incoherent and ineffective by the nature of the organisation.

One can see XR as a nimble start-up challenging an established incumbent. This often happens in business (and in charities) when a new product or service is developed. Perhaps this is just another instance of disruptive innovation. But the need for something different on climate change — the demand for some disruption — flows from the diagnosis. The “something different” in XR is less a new “product” or “service”, no matter how fascinating are the tactics. The core difference is developing a clear strategy within which all the elements fit together, make sense, and are more likely to succeed.

(Greenpeace, as well as Friends of the Earth, backed XR’s actions in April, but it is not clear whether it acknowledges or accepts any challenge regarding its own strategy.)

The XR questions for charities

XR shows how a diagnosis combines with clever tactics to form a powerful strategy. Other charities should consider their own strategies in light of this. That is not restricted to charities working on environmental issues. Nor is it limited to charities whose tactics involve mobilising large numbers of supporters. Any charity which seeks to change public attitudes, policy and society can learn from XR. (Charities which only deliver services obviously also need a good strategy, but the reasoning which follows applies less clearly to them.)

XR’s two points about climate change can be framed as general questions for a charity to address, as follows:

• Is the problem you are addressing serious and urgent?
• Is the response of society inadequate, allowing the problem to persist and perhaps get worse?

If the answer to both questions is yes, the charity should then ask itself:

• Is your response to this problem adequate and likely to lead to sufficient change quickly enough?

We can call these the three “XR questions”.

If the answer to this third question is negative after positives to the first two, the diagnosis and the tactics do not match. There is then a strong case for a thorough review of strategy including tactics.

A positive answer to the first two questions and a negative to the third is the accusation made against Greenpeace. As XR suggests of Greenpeace, that set of answers might indicate an incoherent strategy. Alternatively, better tactics might simply not be available regardless of the force of the answers to the first two questions. The process of reviewing a strategy should be thorough in order to establish this and a charity should reach that conclusion reluctantly. Not all charities can emulate the tactics of XR, but that movement has shown the power of thinking clearly about the scale of the challenge and designing actions to match this.

Conclusion

The XR movement has been open about its structure and approach — this video by co-founder Gail Bradbrook describes it well. There is a lot that charities and others can glean from studying the approach and tactics. The strategic approach and narrative provide more fundamental, and valuable, challenges though.

XR provides a powerful illustration of strategy design, beginning with the framing of the diagnosis and flowing through to action plans. Interest in its tactics, or even the cause of climate change, should not deflect charities from the relevance of that wider point.

Boards of trustees, as well as executive teams, of charities which seek wider change in society, should heed this and look at their own strategies. The starting point should be the first two XR questions. Clear answers to these should frame an attempt to answer the third XR question including, if needed, options to change plans and do things differently. This way the charity can ensure it has a consistent and coherent strategy which has the best chance of success.

Martin Brookes
martin@brookesimpact.com
@martinbrookes
20 June 2019