THE DIFFERENTS. Feat Timothy Rosenlund-O'Brien

TRANSFORMING WITH IMPACT, MEASURING WITH EASE & COMMUNICATING WITH CONFIDENCE, AS WE BUILD AN IMPACT FOCUSED SUITE OF TECH, STRATEGY AND SYSTEMS.

I was walking through Melbourne’s wind-swept streets with a close friend Sally Hill in ~2018, crossing gridded streets and talking through some of her work establishing Purpose Conference, and the type of people she was curating to participate in that amazing activation in the near future.

With a number of names and projects and knowledge share happening on the fly as 2 x gasbaggers are prone to do, she happened to drop a mention of a friend of hers named ‘Tim’ who had created the ability to measure impact, using technology rather than just theoretical frameworks, and was a master at this stuff, helping organisations unlock transformational ESG work, *measured* which can help steer the future direction of that org as they do more business, but with more good.

I got to know ‘Tim’ a little more over the years, interacting at Sally’s Purpose Conference of course, and in other forums, and I was particularly keen now to understand where he was at, especially with the rapid acceleration of technology, seeing as he had adopted it long ago.

Turns out Tim has been building, as Tim is prone to do.

So here’s my chat with Timothy Rosenlund-O’Brien, Purpose Made & Good Measure Founder, and one of Australia’s most foremost thinkers on systems finance, ESG, purpose-driven strategy, natural capital and impact measurement. He loves solving systemic problems (and writing the occassional Linkedin viral post. More on that later…)

Gaz:

Welcome to GROUPED Tim! What’s brewing on your side?

Tim:

For us, it's been an interesting journey over the last 10 years. Coming out of a really interesting role at Suncorp, where we essentially helped the organisation manage its emerging risks and explore areas of disruption.

AI (at the time), climate change, new ways of finance, and even the older days of Bitcoin and Ethereum. But then, the thing that I was drawn to most was this idea of establishing B Corps and initiating the process of a partnership regarding climate change, social enterprises, social innovation etc.

That was the stuff that just really drew me to the work, because it was apparent that these things were big risks for organisations, and they weren't looking at them and addressing them and making sense of how it might change their business model.

What ended up happening was that I decided that I wanted to set up Purpose Made, and help organisations solve those problems that have intertwined into a business.

And that went on to me setting up an impact measurement platform, which I exited three years ago, and also another supply-dependent carbonisation offering, which I've moved away from over the last two to three years as well.

So really, in the last three years, I’ve focused on Purpose Made, working on a few things:

One is, I would say, a transformational ESG strategy. How do you actually look at these big issues or ESG challenges that organisations have, but also think about what is unique about what those organisations are, and how you embed those into business models so they actually become core differentiators or core value creators?

We've done a lot of social impact measurement in the last three years, just as a service.

So that's sort of been the last three years. Long story short, what we're working on now is, to some degree, we've been convinced to look at an impact measurement platform again, and been forced to say: how can we make it more accessible?

Given that there are new technologies available, we’re launching something called Good Measure, which is an AI-driven impact measurement platform.

Essentially, it just allows really smart, quick calculations of your social impact. And it could move into the environment in the near future, which is auditable, trusted and easy (which is pretty hard to do!)

And we're also launching Purpose Made as an impact management coaching program, at a very low cost, to bring on ESG professionals or any individual in a not-for-profit who's got this challenge of how to measure their impact.

We set them up and coach them through that every month to get them up and running and running that in a world-class, super-efficient, highly effective way.

And then we've got one third other thing, which I won't get into in too much detail, but we've got a really interesting partnership emerging. We’re looking at a campaign impact evaluation tool. So, measuring the outcome or impact of campaigns that are looking to have social and environmental impact, called Make Good Measurement, launching very soon.

We’ve got sort of three big things on the go, which are really focused on impact measurement and making that as accessible and authentic and real as possible.

Gaz:

So you're basically in the piloting phase at the moment, measuring campaigns, and then will scale that by offering it in Australia and then globally? 

Tim:

Yeah, we've been working on it for around two years, and we've got to a point now we're really comfortable with the methodology, which takes a campaign from clicks and engagement to looking at actions taken, the outcomes driven, and then looking at did it actually had the impact that it intended to.

Which is what most people really want to know the answer to.

We're piloting that with a number of organisations at the moment, and we're going to be looking to roll that out and do a full launch in the coming months, which is exciting.

Gaz:

So let’s talk about tangible launch dates on your side, when is go-to-market / rollout?

Tim:

Good Measure has gone public, we’ve launched an introduction to the platform, plus a callout because the model is a marketplace model.

So we're calling out and asking: “who wants to commercialise an impact measurement model with us?”

So that's happened, and we’re now live with our impact measurement coaching offering, which is exciting.

And then we roll out the campaign impact measurement - Make Good Measurement - over the next two to three months

Gaz:

So, let’s centre on the persona that you typically centre on with your work, who finds the most use in partnering with you in this context, whether recent or emerging?

Tim:

Anyone who might be in disability, mental health, or somebody who has measured a particular aspect before. It’s a social impact measurement model, and these people are seeking to co-develop something to launch to market.

If somebody has got a need, and they want to create a standard around their impact measurement for mental health or disability, for example, we can offer that, automate it with our technology, and help them achieve those measurement objectives where formerly this was an extremely hard thing for them to get their head around.

Gaz:

So, what's the sort of sweet spot for a champion within the organisations at the moment? You're lobbying the leaders from a top-down perspective, or you find a particular champion internally who's driving this? What have you seen from a trends perspective in these worlds?

Tim:

That’s a really good question, actually, as I think in the past it’s always been an internal individual who's a changemaker who has a real passion for their organisation and product, and typically we're working with impact-driven individuals who know whether their product or service has a direct impact on the planet, on the culture, on the community.

And that has still remained the case, where you'll find someone reaching out to us who's a champion, doing a strategy, will use their measurement to showcase what they're doing to help them do their job.

And they will drive that change internally.

But what we're seeing now is a new audience coming through. And our real sweet spot is actually normally a board member who will be saying, “Hey, we need to be seeing more evidence of your impact or to grow what we're doing.”

“We need funding for that.” Or “we want to double down or realise we've got some social licence to change, not necessarily issues, but opportunities.”

And “we want to do a strategy around this piece.” And so we're finding now that we're getting this top-down, not necessarily pressure, but top-down opportunity where they're communicating to drive change, and saying either we want to measure it, or want to do a strategy around it.

And that's really enabling the change makers in the organisation freedom to do some of this work, which is exciting.

That has typically been a barrier in the past. And now we're finding it happening in a board, and at the C-suite level, where there's an individual who sees the opportunity there and they want to either measure it or further transform their organisation based on the impact they're having.

Gaz:

Where maybe previously it was some person lobbying incredibly hard to get that tick to make the approach? Sort of a ‘let’s test and see’ but not a fully fledged sort of leadership-driven approach, basically?

Tim:

Yeah, exactly right. Normally, it'd be someone you have to support through the layers of conversation to build a business case to get something up.

But we're finding that, although that still exists, we're finding that there's… though there may still be some resistance at a C-suite or board level, typically this is being driven by one or many of those individuals saying, “we want this change to happen”, and empowering the organisation to go and search and find organisations like ours to support them.

Gaz:

So I'll try to make this really concise: how about corporate obligations?

With your knowledge in terms of what you're conveying and what's being sent back to you in terms of legal or regulatory changes upcoming, and the obligations of organisations to sort of meet those… Organisations have… I guess they have a timeline to sort of make certain changes or advance further on what they're doing. Is this what’s occurring?

Tim:

I think that’s important to talk about through two lenses:

One is those we are working with more in the not-for-profit space, who, even though they have more of a blended finance strategy, will be reliant on a funder, whether that's a big foundation or a government.

And now, it is nearly impossible to get funding without having measurement in place to actually say, “this is how we're going to measure it, this is the report you'll be getting.”

And so it's not a mandated requirement from a regulatory perspective, but it's almost mandated from the funders to say, “We need this reporting to happen.”

So there's been a massive change happening in the not-for-profit space where it's now a requirement to do social measurement in particular, and obviously, there are some compliance requirements around the environment.

So that's been, for us, probably the biggest change that's happened and the biggest driver of our work, where six years ago, when we started in this space, it was much more of a nice-to-have or a competitive advantage to have it.

Now it's an absolute need to have, and a lot of people are scrambling to get it done.

In the for-profit space, it's very much driven by the climate disclosures that are mandated from next year onwards (2026), depending on the size of your organisation.

That has been a big focus, probably for the last three years, for most organisations to get their carbon reporting in, or their emissions-based reporting in order.

And that has actually been a big handbrake for many of us in the industry. So those who work in ESG, particularly to have a role directly related to driving, you know, environmental & social governance issues in the organisation, have been in compliance land.

So, they’re getting their back house in order to do the reporting, sifting through the reporting, getting the requirements up and running.

There are many environmental consulting organisations that have had dramatic growth. But what we've found is that it has actually put a big handbrake on any progress, meaning it's great to have the reporting in place because you need the transparency, you can set goals.

And I'm not dissing the reporting, but many ESG professionals, and even like consultants like myself, have been frustrated by potential transformation projects, which are looking at supply chain change, or looking at a big social program, or looking at helping the organisation really transform their business depending on a social issue that we can solve for, that had been paused.

We're already seeing the green shoots of that coming back now, where those organisations who have done and are probably ahead of their climate reporting are now saying, “Now, what can we do more of?”

Now, the best thing about that for us is that, because the climate and the emissions-based climate reporting have come into place, it means that there are now targets that are being set and there are some measurements.

So, we're seeing boards, executives, etc, saying “hey, what's happening in the other areas where we're doing in ESG? Can we have similar reporting? Can we put that in place?”

Gaz:

I’m going to ask now regarding the impact of impact investors on these shifting focuses and influence. What’s your perspective on the changing face of investment, whether in nascent companies receiving seed funding or sitting more at the family office, private equity side of the dollars conversation?

Tim:

I'm hearing a lot from my collaborators that I work with, particularly in Europe at the moment, that they are quite concerned that impact investors are turning off some of the more stringent requirements around reporting and selecting their deal flow, because of some of the waves of noise coming from the US in terms of political change, and maybe that's not a priority anymore.

So there is a concern that impact investing is shrinking, and I think there's tangible evidence of that. 

But what we're hearing from large businesses is investors, in particular, are very much more interested in ESG than ever before.

They are explicitly asking for data on their environmental and social performance return on investment. And they are downgrading their investor ratings or ESG ratings on organisations, which is actually harming their ability to attract investment.

So what we're hearing, and it's not probably in the hardcore impact investing area, but those funds that are at least not investing in harmful particular areas are increasing their requirements around ESG, because they know their investors are actually interested in it, wanting to report on it, and it's a material kind of risk for them to manage as investors.

So that's probably what we're seeing, but we're also hearing some interesting mentions that impact investing is less relevant than ever before.

Maybe that’s a little bit of disillusionment with it, because it hasn't delivered the impact that people have been looking for.

Gaz:

To move towards the changing face of B Corp certification, if B Corp is sort of one step that initiates social and environmental focuses, what is your lens on the shift at the moment with the changing requirements for certification?

Tim:

I'm always actively hopeful about how impact is mainstreaming and, you know, how business can evolve and shift to not just think about shareholder returns and really start to solve social, environmental, and cultural problems.

Like, that's my dream. That every transaction has an impact.

B Corp's at a really interesting point. We've been working with B Corp since, I think for over 12 years.

And formally, as part of Purpose Made, we've been certifying B Corp’s a number of times.

We've done this 25 to 30 times, and have done five fairly recently.

And there is a big change, and new standards have been launched.

They are coming into effect as of January 2026. And it's shifting from a points-based approach where you get rewarded for the impact you created, but not necessarily punished if you don't score well in a particular area.

It was pretty hard to get, but they're actually moving more to… I think there are six or seven key areas where you have to meet a certain standard.

And it's really, really interesting, because there are a lot of B Corps who have been here from the start.

I think, again, a bit like the impact investing movement, I think for a number of individuals who have been there from the start, who think B Corp is still relevant, it's super important, but they're looking at other areas, like ‘what else in the system can we start to shift and change, because we need to speed this up to solve these problems?’

So there's a bit of a… It's necessary. It's a bit of a mainstream move in becoming part of the normal economy, which is really cool.

And others sort of looking, saying: “I love it, but what's next?” And then there's this really interesting point where the new standards are launching and we're all assuming that it will increase the accountability for other organisations, which is really needed to bring everybody up and level everybody up, but there are a lot of questions.

And I think there's a concern whether something that is point scoring could be very objective, meaning some level of subjectivity, which it is trying to overcome.

But if it's more of a standard, which needs to prove evidence, can it become more subjective and more opinion-oriented, and less objective (because it's point scoring)...?

So it's a really interesting time for the B Corp movement. I think it's a huge decision. It's a risk, probably a necessary risk to take, but I think the execution of it is at a really critical point, and a proof point to see if they can make this transition.

There are a lot of amazing people working at B Lab, both here and in the US. There are more people interested in B Corp than ever before. There’s more certified B Corp’s coming through, which is great. But I think this new standard is a really interesting watch and see.

Gaz:

I’ve viewed it, quite interested, based on the fact that I have seen the occasional negative sentiment creeping through from people that may or may not be involved as intimately as yourself, of course, but they have their platform on the social medias, and do make that statement.

It’s just an observation, as I guess it becomes a little more normalised across multiple industries and seeing it more prevalent than ever, then to see these changes come into effect can cause a whiplash in some. Very interesting to see what transpires in terms of positive outcomes.

Tim:

Yeah, I think it's interesting. I mean, you might see the early days of B Corp, all the positive conversations coming out. But I think as a more normalised, more mainstream movement, it's inevitable that level we’re at now.

But I think there’ll be some criticism of it, some people not choosing to become certified, maybe some alternatives being produced.

I'm hoping that's a sign of success as opposed to it becoming less relevant.

Gaz:

I want to ask you more on an individual perspective on the creation of an impact measurement product, being that you were involved previously in impact measurement, specific impact measurement rather than theoretical…

And now in your new phase of going again, but with the assistance of AI tooling or others to either speed up the process or bake it in: what's your experience been like as you sort of entered into this newer phase of creating that as a tool, resource and platform?

Tim:

Yeah, I mean, building the first time around, I was very naive moving into it as a non-technical founder, in terms of coding and good technical infrastructure and a lot of lessons learned. A lot of pain and a lot of shame that came along with the failures that I went through with it.

But holding onto those and having the bravery to try and do it again is not a small feat.

So there's a big leadership question there for me that I'm really holding as a responsibility to enter into this again.

I’m excited about that because, you know, those lessons learned mean that you can be very deliberate about how you set an organisation up, but also how you build it to make sure it's as successful as possible.

And what is exciting about this sort of new era of technology we're moving into, although there are a lot of ethical challenges and environmental challenges that AI poses, there is a big opportunity for it, for good.

And what we're seeing is that in impact measurement, there are a couple of really critical pieces that are happening.

It's been really hard to overcome.

One is, when you take data, you normally have to put it through in a structured way.

So that means the user experience is horrible. You have to go in there and upload your data and click a whole bunch of stuff. And if it's not perfect, it doesn't work. Most impact measurement platforms have failed because they need a level of flexibility and customisation.

And so our platform is able to take data in any format and pull it from any, you know, wherever source it needs to come from and structure that in a really simple way in order to do the calculation, which is hugely challenging. And so that's exciting for us.

Then the second part is that usually in the impact measurement process, you're either referencing a framework or a global framework to, you know, assess best practice, but also potentially leverage for calculation.

But you usually need to source very specific data in order to achieve the outcome. So if you're trying to calculate a well-being outcome or a financial wellness outcome or an economic benefit derived from something, you need the data specific to the context you're working in to make it really accurate.

And so AI has this amazing ability to go and source that data instantly, calculate it, and give you very robust evidence around it to help you find that information without spending two or three weeks looking for it.

That ability to use an API used to be a scary thing to have to set up back in the day, because you'd have to manage 200 of them, and they're really costly.

But if you set the infrastructure up in a smart way, you can basically plug in any data you need to and talk to that data in a way that's very secure, light touch and lower cost.

And so I'm excited about the flexibility, but also the ability to be so nimble, and also super accurate in terms of the calculations.

And we're not necessarily helping organisations collect data or building CRMs. We're all about the calculation of that data and doing that in a really accurate, accessible way.

We're focusing on that, which is, I think, one of the hardest parts of impact measurement. The technology is now available to do that.

Gaz:

So I’ll ask you about presenting a light bulb moment to the leaders you engage with. Referencing working with large organisations, often bureaucratic and complicated organisations, and then your role in delivering both technology and the insights that they're seeking.

Do you have a moment, whether recent or defining, over your career where you've been able to deliver some impact measurement where basically you were able to just…knock their socks off?

Tim:

Yeah, I've got two examples. One recent one is, you'll find that a lot of people will come into impact measurement rather sceptical, meaning they've either tried it before and spent a lot of money on a consulting firm, and they may have got a really pretty document, but they have no idea how to implement it.

It's a theoretical academic model. How do you actually embed that into your processes to measure the data and then calculate in a way that people can understand?

And so there’s always been a scepticism. So in the first instance, we worked with this amazing preventive healthcare organisation with my first startup, and they were hugely sceptical that we could pull this off.

We were able to pull data from multiple different sources and calculate in real time, as people were moving through each phase of the project, what outcomes were being delivered for them.

And then that got translated into wellbeing, social benefit, and then there was a really great return on investment calculator for it.

It was amazing for that organisation because even though they invested in it, they thought there's no way we could do that measurement, but also do it in real time.

And I remember the big light bulb moments when the federal minister came into this meeting and he saw the measurement and he said they’d never, ever seen anyone be able to do this before.

And this is exactly what we've always wanted. And so that was huge for us. And recently we've been working with one of the ASX listed companies and who are doing an amazing transformational environmental project, which is fantastic.

We're looking at the social impact of that and looking at how we could do the measurement. And again, they had a similar experience where they've been trying to do this measurement but haven't been able to do it before.

And we applied something relatively simple to help them calculate their measurement in a really impactful way, which is a huge wow factor when you present that to the different stakeholders in the business.

But they've been able to use that as part of the core operations to make decisions and expand in a way that are not only environmentally impactful, but also, socially impactful for the regions that they're working in.

And just the a-ha moment where measurement can become a business imperative and an advantage for them to make sense and make decisions, and help them with their transition was probably awesome.

The main thing there is that somebody, even though it's technology or if it's one of our services, is placing trust in you and putting faith in you to be able to pull this off for them, because they could be taking a big risk.

And so being able to support them in their work to showcase the work that they're doing and helping them do their job, meaning, track more funding, learn, improve their services, you know, report to a CEO so they can make sense of what’s going on, that's fulfilling.

Gaz:

Now, to touch upon leadership in growing the business, I'll ask it from a slightly different slant: how do you challenge leaders to progress with their obligations or their enhancement of their social or environmental responsibility?

Can you think of any scenarios where as you've developed your leadership backbone or approach, where you've found yourself approaching these situations differently when talking to the most senior leaders, to actively challenge them to make a decision, or go harder?

Tim:

Yeah, that's really interesting. We did a lot of work about two or three years ago, so in COVID, post-COVID, in the US, in a partnership with another consulting organisation.

So we were working with some of the biggest organisations globally, which was an amazing experience. And this isn't just in particular for that, it's just talking about some of the layering and the decision-making that can occur.

So one of them is, there's two lessons, there's almost like polar opposites: one is that the organisations who are seeking to have, to at least communicate their impact and purpose, obviously their social washing, greenwashing challenges, but this sort of idea that it can't be a bolt-on.

So if you're delivering a new food offering and you want it to be healthier, like, it needs to meet nutritional standards at the very least in order to do that authentically.

Or if you're going to launch a new product, with, you know, environmental credentials around it or social or cultural credentials, it can't just be a way of, you know, telling a compelling story to sell your product.

It needs to be deeply embedded in the product's DNA and the service delivery so it has an active benefit. So the challenge always comes up when there's an intention to build a new product or a new service, or launch something which may come from a good place.

To see that it’s going to have this impact of saying we need to make sure the design of the product or service has this deeply embedded in terms of its impact and busting some of those assumptions.

So that's one of them, and that can be challenging because you might be talking to very senior people about making them aware of the design that they need, the depth that they need to go through for impact transformation.

And then the second piece is that it tends to be when you're going through a big transformational strategy with purpose in particular or impact, there always is a blocker in organisations, a cultural blocker.

There's something that's holding it back. It could be when the values aren't being lived. It could be a particular part of the organisation is resistant to change.

It could be that there is a, you know, a behaviour that's been allowed to sort of drift on throughout the organisation.

And having to call that out, that you’ve got an amazing strategy, but you're seeing something that might block it or might not help that organisation feel the potential, is working directly on enabling that issue to be transformed, to be moved through, if that makes sense.

So it's this is emotional healthy leadership and the ability to… almost this ability to unblock an organisation based on some of the cultural challenges that it might have to really live with its purpose.

That can be really challenging to navigate through as a leader because you're having hard conversations and showcasing or putting a mirror back, and then working through that.

And the times that we've done that, what has happened to the organisations in terms of growth and impact, and happiness has been amazing.

But I always think back to that moment of the leadership challenge to actually pull that out and do the right thing in that moment. It's hard stuff.

Gaz:

Now, a little bit of veering here, but I want to talk about the use of one’s platform, and in your particular scenario, you had a very pointed post about Bluey of all the things - a post you made on LinkedIn in the past…

Bluey is a very well-known and loved brand, especially in the Australia we reside in, but you took particular umbrage at the rampant capitalism of some of the product packaging that you’d observed in your travels, and called it out. And then it got a massive amount of traction all the way up the chain…

Tim:

So I think part of the…part of the challenge with doing the work we do is, and this is going to come out badly… but you can kind of indulge intellectually in the work.

I'm not a big natural writer, like it’s not a thing that comes naturally to me necessarily.

But you can write a lot intellectually from your head about solving problems and strategies and frameworks and drawing beautiful pictures.

I'm just trying to tell stories from the heart, like what really matters to me.

And I think the Bluey post was a perfect... example, where, you know, I'm literally trolleying around with my two little children in the supermarket. I’m driving around and they’re shouting out because they love Bluey, and you watch it with them and you're making an active choice to try and, you know, watch something that is educational and good for them.

When you walk around there and you see a chocolate egg with Bluey and the family, the first thing they want to do is grab it, and they want to talk about it.

And, you know, my kids can be good. They won't necessarily go crazy and have to have it. But, you know, by putting that label on the front with Bluey; Bluey is essentially, in my mind, endorsing this as the product that they think is good for their children.

Because the promise, the heart of the story around Bluey is, building and telling stories to children that help them on their educational journey.

And to me, selling a, a chocolate egg, which is high in sugar, is the direct opposite of that, in my view.

So, as a parent, I felt extremely let down by that. And obviously, I work in this space and I, and, you know, told the story from my heart, and I told it as a disappointed parent, you know, thinking through my daughter. And it blew up.

Like, it went crazy. When I knew it blew up was when I had the detractors coming in and saying, ‘Oh, you should let Bluey make as much money as it can,’ ‘who are you to tell them that they can't do this?’ blah, blah, blah

It actually went all the way up to the top. It got to the Partnerships Manager at BBC, who considered it, and they didn't necessarily want to engage, but they did take on my feedback, and I don't know what will happen from it.

I don't think it's going to change anything, but you can say it by actually talking from the heart of it, it may have made a little difference, and what I was trying to do through that work is to showcase that you can optimise everything for making money, but if you're making a promise through your product, you know, what your promise is, you've got to make sure those decisions are aligned to it.

And I reckon if I sat down with the Bluey founder and I had a conversation with him about it, he would be like, yeah, I know that there's been a deal with it. You see that where they've outsourced the licensing of the products

And I think you'd be disappointed with some of the things that are being licensed, because they're against the kind of ethos of what Bluey is.

I'm not against him making money. I want them to be hugely successful. I love what they're doing.

So the simple thing of this scenario is actually ‘how can I tell my stories from the heart where I really care about these things and be brave to start a conversation about something that most people would steer away from, potentially?’

And how do you kind of ride the wave of something like that? I mean, it got published in the paper and this stuff happened from it, which was really amazing.

It's trying to make people think a little bit deeper about… enjoying the moments and being present, but let's think a little bit deeper about what's going on.

I think that's, I think if everyone did that as a society, we'd be better off. And I think that was kind of what I was challenging, whether they agree with my opinion or not, at least it sparked a debate and conversation about something that I think is actually important.

Gaz:

So we'll bring it full circle to now round out the chat: that aspect of thinking deeply, but paired with, you know, predisposition towards action or action with urgency.

So what would you advocate for with the groups you work with in terms of taking action with some element of immediacy: social responsibility, environmental responsibility etc. What's important to lean into right now?

Tim:

A big question. I’ve got so many ways I could enter into that discussion.

There's a couple of things that are really relevant for me. Obviously, we're at a really important time in humanity.

Like, there's a point where, you know, we as humans could become extinct. Like, that's the reality. We could be responsible, and this amazing experience could end.

And I think there's a responsibility to the future generations that the quality of life that they have is as good as at least as good as what we've got.

And we're on a pathway where that doesn't happen. So there's that kind of big... polycrisis, metacrisis, we're talking about is an important moment in time.

So if we sit still and we don't actively change some of the way we think about the environment, some of the social inequity issues, some of the groups of disadvantage, we're on track for that to happen, to make it worse as a society than we have in the past.

And that saddens me, knowing that I could be responsible for it..

There's sort of a component of people like me, and I said it before, who love to sit around and talk philosophy and think about the big issues, systemic issues, and draw beautiful pictures on the wall.

And I love doing that. And some of that is a huge practical component. But the reality is it's time for us to, we know all the answers. We know how we need to solve. We have most of the technology. We have the capital. We have the human capability.

We need to transform some of the big things that we've got wrong. And action.

For me, not only is it necessary and really time critical. It also feels good.

Like if you're sitting around worried about how the world's shifting and changing, if you're actively working in this space of trying to shift and change things, to me, that puts you into a positive state and helps you sort of mentally navigate through it.

We need to be thinking about the systems, the key levers, the evidence, lived experience, and directly attaching the action to things.

And that'll give us the most traction. So it's time, action's needed, it feels good, but we need deliberate action.

Thanks for reading this edition of THE DIFFERENTS, here’s some links that matter:

Purpose Made: https://purposemade.io/

Good Measure: https://www.good-measure.ai/

‘Tim’ on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/purposemade/

(Bonus points to Tim, turns out he curates playlists too!👇️)

MORE GROUPED // ‘THE DIFFERENTS’: