What are we tipping towards? Charities, funders and the futures we assume

Tipping Points research is fascinating, and it is more relevant to the work of charities and funders than many people realise. The basic idea is simple. Systems can change slowly for years, then suddenly accelerate once they reach a threshold. A relatively small push can tip the whole system in a new direction. Contributing to the positive tipping points toolkit led me to wonder: what direction are we tipping towards as a society? And what role do charities and funders play in shaping that direction? At a time when political shifts are reshaping what seems possible, the future we want and how we reach it is a critical question for us all.  

Charities and funders influence systems, even when they do not explicitly work on systems change. Every day organisations decide what problems to prioritise, what programmes to fund, what policies to support and what partnerships to build. Each choice rests on assumptions about how change happens and what kind of society will deliver the future we want. Yet assumptions about future economies and social structures are rarely discussed beyond specialist circles. Every charity and funder operates with an implicit theory of the future but very few make it explicit.

I often help organisations develop vision statements. Many end up with something strikingly similar, usually some version of “people and nature thriving”. The vision may be shared, but the assumptions behind it often differ. Some organisations assume the current economic system will largely continue, perhaps with greener technologies and stronger regulation. Others believe deeper systemic change is needed. Many sit somewhere in between.

If we share a destination but assume different routes, collaboration becomes harder. Programmes pull in different directions, partnerships struggle, and opportunities for collective progress are missed.

Why business as usual is being questioned

Across research, policy and practice, many people now agree that business as usual will struggle to deliver the future many charities and funders say they want. Seven of the nine planetary boundaries that regulate the stability of the Earth system have now been breached, according to the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s planetary boundaries framework. At the same time, poverty and inequality remain deeply entrenched, for example the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Minimum Income Standard research shows millions of households in the UK fall far short of the income needed for a socially acceptable standard of living. There is also growing concern that climate change could destabilise parts of the global economy. Economists, climate scientists and insurance institutions now warn that conventional economic models may underestimate the scale of climate risks and potential economic disruption. Taken together, these pressures raise difficult questions about whether incremental improvements within the current system will be enough.

Four ways people think about the future

When people talk about the future of the economy, they are often - even if unconsciously - describing one of four broad paradigms. These are not rigid categories. They are ways of understanding how the world works and how change might happen. You can also think of them as different trajectories societies might follow depending on the choices we make.

Collapse

Some people believe modern industrial civilisation is already entering systemic breakdown. This perspective draws partly on research linked to the Limits to Growth modelling first published in 1972. Updated modelling has repeatedly suggested that if trends in resource use, pollution and inequality continue, global industrial systems could face collapse as soon as 2030-2040. In this paradigm, the focus shifts from preventing collapse to navigating it. Local resilience, community self-reliance and food security become central priorities. It is important to note that people operating within this paradigm are not choosing collapse. They believe it is already underway because societies are failing to make the changes needed to avoid it.

Status quo

Others assume the basic structure of today’s economic system will largely continue. Markets remain the dominant organising force. Economic growth remains a central objective. Environmental challenges are addressed through technological innovation, efficiency improvements and gradual policy change. This paradigm broadly reflects the neoliberal economic model that has shaped economic policy across much of the world since the late twentieth century. Environmental improvements are often expected to come through innovation, market incentives and gradual decarbonisation. Some studies suggest economic growth is beginning to decouple from emissions in parts of the world, reinforcing the belief that existing economic systems can evolve rather than transform.

Reform

A third perspective accepts that the current system needs significant reform but not complete replacement. In this paradigm markets and economic growth can continue, but they must operate within stronger social and environmental limits. Governments, businesses and civil society organisations work to reshape incentives, strengthen regulation, and shift investment towards sustainable activities. Many reformist approaches focus on redesigning economic rules so that economic activity supports both environmental sustainability and human wellbeing, for example sustainable capitalism. Some may see this as a transition space (H2 in three horizons thinking) for others it is the destination.

Transformation

A fourth paradigm argues that achieving a thriving future for people and nature requires deep systemic change. In this view economies need to be redesigned around human wellbeing, ecological limits and long-term stewardship. Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics framework is one well known example of thinking in this space, proposing that economies should operate between a social foundation and an ecological ceiling. This paradigm space also includes discussion of degrowth which advocates scaling down resource use and prioritising wellbeing over economic growth, commons-based economic models, which manage shared resources through collective governance, and even visions of a world of abundance for all. For advocates of transformation the aim is not simply to reform existing systems but to reshape them, including how wealth is distributed, how resources are governed and how success is measured. Many of these approaches emphasise participation, democratic ownership and regenerative relationships with nature.

Our day-to-day choices shape the future

This is not an abstract economic debate. These assumptions shape everyday decisions and the future we help create. They influence what we see as possible, what risks we are willing to take and what kinds of solutions we prioritise.

Many environmental groups implicitly operate within reformist or transformational paradigms. Some social issue charities still assume the underlying economic system will largely continue. That difference can create tension, even when organisations share the same ultimate goals. Many charities and funders find that transformation paradigm resonates with their values and objectives and yet operate in ways that reinforce the status quo, for example looking at social, environmental and equity issues in isolation.

Futures researchers often describe similar patterns. For example, futurist Jim Dator identified four recurring archetypes of the future: continuation, collapse, disciplined societies and transformation.

If we want solutions that are better for people and nature, as charities and funders we need to be clearer about the systems we are trying to build.

The Positive Tipping Points research helps explain why these questions matter now. Researchers study how rapid positive shifts can occur in human systems. Once certain thresholds are crossed, change can accelerate through self-reinforcing feedback. This has already happened in several sectors - the rapid decline of coal power in the UK is one example. Researchers are also examining tipping dynamics in finance, politics, technology and social norms.

The key insight is that systemic change does not always happen gradually. It can accelerate when the right conditions align. Small interventions, new policies or shifting social expectations can trigger cascading effects across wider systems. Charities and funders help to create these enabling conditions every day.

In other words, the direction we tip towards is not predetermined. It depends on the choices we make and the signals institutions – including charities and funders - send.

Working towards futures that are better for people and nature

Much of my work focuses on what some call multisolving. I tend to call it common sense. Good multisolving supports social, environmental, and equity outcomes at the same time. Community energy projects can reduce emissions while lowering bills. Urban green spaces can improve biodiversity, public health and climate resilience. Housing retrofits can cut carbon while tackling cold homes and fuel poverty. But multisolving works best when organisations share at least a broad sense of direction.

Not because everyone needs to agree on a single model, but we need greater awareness of the assumptions shaping our work - both to navigate differences and to maximise impact.

For charities and funders - especially when developing strategies or programmes - a simple question can open up a useful conversation:

There may not be a single right answer. But making these assumptions explicit can help organisations align their strategies, partnerships and funding choices more intentionally.

Because if tipping points teach us anything, it is that small decisions made today shape our collective future.