I have been privy to many conversations about climate leadership and movements over the last two weeks at COP28, the global climate conference held annually to spur progress on climate action.

While sitting through conversations, presentations, and even pitches about the next movement designed to galvanize the public to care about and act on climate change, I kept asking myself: How sustainable, really, is this movement/organization? Does it have the durability to truly realize the aims it pursues?

From all my years doing this work, I know my question comes with a loaded response. Sustainability is not a finite concept with clear measurements that any subsector of the cause space can easily adopt.

Some, especially on the institutional funder side, will say they have created a model for measuring sustainability that is either proprietary and/or based on financial health indicators. While this may be true and acceptable, we also must realize another truth: Passionate social movement leaders do not give up easily, even when the money runs dry. I can name more than a handful who are actively engaging in social movement building with minimal resources and committed to continuing their work.

This brings me back to the central question: Is the movement to address climate sustainable―and, of course, will it get the traction necessary to make a solid start toward systems change? As I evaluated various movement leaders’ approaches and projected impacts, I set myself to the challenge: How would I define sustainability in this area? I offer my ideas here.

A key point before I begin: My focus is solely on organizations that rely on the general population to sustain their operations, viability, and impact work. While many great organizations can count on institutional funders, major donors, and government contracts to sustain them, this model doesn’t necessarily mean they have the broad support and adoption required for long-term viability.

With that said, here is my approach to measuring sustainability with three key indicators: public action, individual change, and intersectionality with public life.

Public action

I have used this test multiple times to understand whether an organization’s approach to programs, campaigns, and/or initiatives is broad-based or selective. I examine two levels:

Level 1: At this level, The barrier to entry is minimal to nonexistent; anyone can be part of the community without high expectations or requirements for participation. This level can engender a “light” community that creates difficulties for movement builders raising resources and prompting actions; they will spend their time trying to activate the community consistently for milestone and impact achievements.

For example: an organization conducts climate campaigns that provide a simple calculator to understand one’s personal carbon footprint, and the individual receives an email for tips and resources to reduce their carbon footprint at home.

Level 2: At this level, the program, campaign, or initiative targets individuals who meet certain thresholds of knowledge, interest or past engagement. The barrier to entry is solely one’s willingness to engage at higher-than-minimal levels; while perhaps not stated, an expectation of participation leads to clear benefits for the individual or organization. Such expectations can restrict the public’s engagement—even if the organization is not intentionally seeking to do so—thereby presenting challenges for broad adoption of the mission, vision, and/or programs.

For example: an organization promotes tax incentives for electric vehicles (EV). However, the EV’s are already a higher price tag for the average American to consider as a potential purchase, therefore, the entry point is beyond the median household in the country.

It is important to understand the intended and unintended design for prompting public action. Targeting certain individuals creates potential unintended consequences and limitations to public support. When an entity has an approachable model for all who desire to engage, it can create mechanisms for anyone to help the organization’s financial sustainability.

Key questions for a public action approach:

• Can anyone participate in this movement/organization?
• How will one individual add value to the movement’s aim?
• Is this movement selective (intentionally or not) in its desired community?

Individual change

When reviewing organizations, I try to understand what change individuals can make by engaging, either by themselves or with others (the collective impact approach). I want to know whether a person who earns $50,000 a year can make an impact by providing a monetary donation, time, and/or resources.

The individual change model is often missing from institutional or stakeholder-style organizations (organizations that focus on policy or systems level work at the executive leader or policymaker level only su[4] ch as changing emissions targets); individuals feel that their contributions of small actions or minimal resources have little impact on those organizations’ achievements. This will create challenges to acquiring broad and collective resources, forcing organizations to vie for large-scale grant funding or contracts with government agencies.

Key questions for an individual change model:

• Can an individual have an impact with a $50 gift?
• Can an individual action advance the movement?
• Can non-financial opportunities contribute to change?                  

Intersectionality with public life

When it comes to social issues and change, it’s easy to get into intellectual and esoteric conversations. I often have to check myself on the realities of how issues, organizations, and movements intersect with everyday public life. I grew up in a small town, Aviston, Illinois (population 1,000 back then, now 2,300). I remind myself of my own lived experience and the social issues that intersected with my environment and family. Ours were the dinner-table issues of our health and wages alongside the cost of groceries and transportation. While the complex social issues of today can, at times, be interconnected with the issues a family deals with every day (think racism, abortion rights, social justice), most are pretty far removed from how to pay for groceries or get to work. Thus, understanding intersectionality is crucial if you are looking for broad engagement and support.

Movements, entities, and institutions that seek public engagement―even voting on an issue―forget that the entity they designed may not be as closely tied to everyday issues and may necessarily take a back seat to those that demand more immediate attention.

Key questions for intersectionality:

• How does the topic relate to everyday life?
• Will the public understand the issue’s connection to their life, family, and/or lived experience?
• How will individuals contribute their own relevant stories to the movement?

While not wholly a scientific approach to measuring sustainability (this coming from a researcher who lives in measurement daily), the elements of sustainability discussed here provide a framework for understanding whether an entity that relies on broad public support is viable and durable. Anyone on the receiving end of any movement or investment pitch must take these questions into account.

Movements and nonprofits rely on the public to support their values and carry out the change they want to see. But many leaders, including myself at times, can become too enamored with high-level concepts that barely turn the heads of the everyday person. And it’s not because the idea isn’t well intentioned; it’s because the idea is rooted in concepts and participation designed for the converted who are already at a certain level of knowledge or interest. The public may be inclined to give to, act on, or support a cause, but they have too many chances of getting lost in an issue’s complexities. Leaders must offer approachable ways to add value that will move their inclination to action.

Derrick Feldmann (@derrickfeldmann) is the founder of the Millennial Impact Project, lead researcher at Cause & Social Influence, and the author of The Corporate Social Mind. See Derrick’s related articles in Philanthropy News Digest, “Nurturing a community for the greatest impact” and “Creating symbiosis between marketing and advocacy.” He also is managing director, Ad Council Research Institute and the Ad Council Edge Strategic Consultancy.