3: Findings

The interview series (2.3) was the source of this project’s key findings. These were fed back in anonymised form to the ARC team (2.2), and also informed the development of the performance piece (2.4). For the purposes of this report, these findings are summarised in terms of the perceived role relations between ARC and the business sector.

3.1: The role of ARC

Interview respondents were generally very positive with regard to ARC’s self-assigned role as the prime mover (or protagonist) in its proposed narrative of developing nature-based climate resilience for the Aire valley. This role-positioning was seen as appropriate, given that ARC is backed by responsible authorities including LCC and the EA. There was also appreciation of the ambition and innovation represented by the ARC initiative, as these are features that play well in the business sector. Factors that caught respondents’ imaginations included:

the expansive, catchment-scale ambition of ARC’s upstream/downstream model;

ARC’s orientation towards collaboration between public and private sectors;

ARC’s contribution to Leeds’ identity as a hub of innovation, given that a flood resilience project on this scale has not previously been attempted elsewhere;

ARC’s emphasis on green, eco-friendly interventions in the landscape, which reduce the need for yet more urban flood walls.

3.2: The character of ARC

Despite this generally positive reception of ARC’s intended role, there was a more ambivalent response to its perceived character (or ‘personality’) as an initiative. This was particularly the case among interview respondents who had already been ‘pitched to’ by the ARC team – either on an individual basis or at one of the Business Breakfast events that had been arranged to promote the scheme.

Respondents noted that the ARC proposition seemed deeply value-driven, but that it risked coming across as ‘someone’s passion project’ – in the sense that this passion was evident in the ARC team, but was not necessarily being inspired in others. Presentations of the scheme had come across as ‘a bit technical’ to some (in their focus on NFM measures) or as ‘very financially focused’ (in attending to green finance models). As such, ARC’s offer was ‘not very compelling’ for non-experts in these areas.

One respondent commented that ARC seemed to resemble a charity, in that it was asking for financial contributions, but was not addressing businesses effectively on their own terms: ‘charities don’t know how to ask corporations for money. They tell you what they do, but they don’t tell you why you should give. They never talk about the benefit to the donor organisation.’

3.3: The role of business

It should be noted that the ARC team had never considered the project in charitable terms. Rather, the initial intention was for the offer to be strictly transactional. Businesses were conceived in the role of buyers – who would benefit from the additional flood protection being offered. This model was based on the River Trust’s successful, earlier scheme in the Wyre catchment (see 1.1). In that instance, however, the initiative’s scale was much smaller: a fixed consortium of five corporate buyers had been in place from the start of the scheme, and did not need pitching to.

3.3.1: 'Buyers'

The researchers’ interviews suggested that, in Leeds, casting businesses in the transactional role of ‘buyers’ might prove counterproductive. A prospective buyer will typically assess whether or not the service being ‘sold’ represents value for money, but the ARC was perceived as failing this test on several counts:

Several interview respondents pointed out that a ‘purchase’ from ARC would provide businesses with no visible or quantifiable benefit, because if the NFM measures worked effectively, nothing would happen in Leeds. ‘I’d almost want to see it flood,’ one interviewee memorably noted, ‘so I could complain about it not working!’

Similarly, it made little sense to regard ARC’s offer in terms of ‘buying additional insurance’, because in contrast to conventional insurance schemes, there would be no pay-out in the event of damages being suffered.

‘Buying’ from ARC also presented an obvious ‘free rider’ problem. Everyone in Leeds would theoretically benefit from additional NFM protection, whether or not they had paid for it, so why should some companies pay for it and not others?

Framing businesses as ‘buyers’, then, was counterintuitive to many of those engaged during the interviews, with some perceiving a mismatch between the idea of a purchase and the ‘product’ being offered. One respondent summarised the problem by observing that ‘you can’t sell fresh air’. Clearly though, fresh air remains a necessity.

3.3.2: 'Supporters'

Many interview respondents suggested that a more promising role for businesses – in relation to ARC – would to be that of supporters or donors. Contributions to ARC might be sourced, for instance, from a company’s ESG or CSR budget (environmental and social governance/corporate social responsibility). Such donations could then be framed as an expression of aenlightened generosity: ‘you’re buying feelgood factor, being able to say you’re amazing’.

Reconceiving businesses as donors rather than buyers would, however, have important implications for ARC, in terms of who they approach for support. Given that many of the businesses most visibly at risk of flooding in Leeds are SMEs (small and medium-size enterprises), the ARC team had initially considered the SME sector to contain potential ‘buyers’ for the scheme. However, SMEs tend to work with narrower operating margins than larger corporates, and do not typically have CSR budgets. Interview respondents representing SMEs confirmed that annual contributions to ARC were unlikely to be affordable: ‘in an ideal world, if we had plenty of cash, we’d do it’, but ‘there’s not a lot spare to chuck at that kind of thing.’

Larger corporates typically have more money than SMEs to contribute to good causes, but they also have to make careful judgements about which ones to prioritise. In this respect, the interviews revealed that ARC’s most obvious ‘benefits’ might be disadvantageous:

Flooding a low priority. Several respondents commented that they did not think of Leeds ‘as a place that floods, other than Boxing Day [2015]’; ‘There isn’t a clear image of Leeds flooding, in my mind.’ By contrast, York was perceived as much more flood-prone – and so presumably a higher priority for schemes like ARC. Perceptions of this sort might be erroneous, but tackling them through rational counter-argument may not be a way to win converts.

‘Sustainability’ a low priority. The interviews also elicited recurrent suggestions that initiatives oriented toward ‘sustainability’ currently have something of an image problem: ‘the word sustainability actually puts people off’; ‘the data says sustainability doesn’t land’. The term has come to be perceived narrowly, in relation to ‘Net Zero’ carbon mitigation objectives – and while these are understood to be important, they are now widely associated with compliance measures and statutory targets. They therefore excite little passion.

Respondents suggested that ARC might be better advised to emphasise ARC’s roots in innovative local and regional collaboration (see 3.1 above), and foreground ARC’s role as a protector of the city. This would support Leeds’ image as a progressive ‘city region’, and establish ARC as an engine of social value – noting ARC’s environmental benefits without framing its ambitions in primarily ecological terms. Supporting ARC would thus present businesses with the opportunity ‘to show you’re doing the right thing in your local area’, with additional gains for people across the catchment (for example, NFM payments made to farmers and farmworkers would be of demonstrable benefit to the local economy in upland areas that are much in need of support). In supporting ARC, therefore, a company would also – by extension – be supporting the communities and public- and third-sector organisations behind it, and there might be perceived capital in doing so.

3.4: The character of business

The findings above suggest a need to think more carefully about what the ‘story’ of ARC is, and about the perceived role, or roles, for businesses within it. It should also be remembered, though, that businesses are made up of individuals with differing attitudes and values. In approaching potential supporters for ARC, consideration of such differences might be wise.

During their interviews, some respondents frankly emphasised the competitive, profit-driven nature of their work, and argued that any support for ARC would need to be justified by corporate self-interest. In this framing, a company’s contribution to good causes is driven by opportunities for ‘good optics’ (i.e. being seen to ‘do the right thing’). The donor might also seek to curry favour with relevant partners, such as LCC.

Other respondents, however, seemed more genuinely concerned to do the right thing, and clearly valued their companies’ stated support for certain social or environmental values. One spoke of ‘a feeling of involvement in the good things the company is doing’; another appreciated ‘things that make your work seem more important, not just money’.

For other respondents again, there was an apparent tension between personal values and professional roles. Indeed, an unexpected feature of these conversations was the frequency with which reflections would be volunteered on ‘this divide between what I need to do as an entrepreneur, and my values.’ Another respondent spoke of being ‘good at what I’m doing in a professional sense’, yet feeling that ‘I need to be doing something with [more] purpose.’ A third described feeling almost fraudulent in their professional role: ‘I was on the phone to all the big companies, but it was like – “I’m lying to you, I don’t care about this.”’

These confessions seem to have been elicited by the open-ended nature of the confidential interviews, and by their inevitable focus on climate ethics. As one respondent said of the interview itself, ‘it’s made me question what I work on in my firm’. Another concurred that ‘it’s made me think more about why I work in my role in the first place.’

It would appear, then, that many individuals in the business sector might appreciate the opportunity to connect their personal values and professional roles in (more) meaningful ways. Careful cultivation of such relationships could result in ARC acquiring some enthusiastic and committed allies/advocates within the business community.

3.5: Adapting the narrative

The findings above suggest that opportunities exist to drive engagement with ARC by clarifying businesses’ need for it to exist. Yet there is likely no simple, one-size-fits-all narrative with which ARC can make this case. Instead, prospective supporters may need to be approached on a case-by-case basis, with due consideration for context and personality.

Some will likely respond best to rational arguments about the need to take preventative action now – to reduce flood risk and protect future supply chains. Others may be swayed by strategic self-interest. Others still will appreciate a ‘hearts and minds’ approach that emphasises positive values, collective action and social responsibility.

Contact

If you have any questions or reflections on the report, please reach out to us via the form below: