Should foresight have a return on investment?

This is a peculiarly phrased question, but it is one that is worth bearing with. It highlights a key issue in our motivation for undertaking foresight. There are various motivations for undertaking foresight. One motive could be that it would help to produce decisions that more closely align with where we want to be in the future - an aid to better strategic planning. Another motive could be to use foresight to build a better world - as a vehicle for a transformative future. There are more motives for undertaking foresight, but I want to focus on just these two because they have the feel of polar opposites from which we might learn something. Let's start with the former motivation before looking at the latter.

Foresight as an aid to better strategic planning is unfashionable in some quarters and very fashionable in others. It tends to be sought after in the corporate world, where the futurist is often asked to make the 'business case' for foresight. In terms of justification, we are entering the world of cost-benefit analysis. Where a return from an activity has to be shown in excess of the cost of undertaking it. In this sense, foresight needs to have a return on investment, even if we can't quite quantify those costs and benefits, and despite the eventual costs and benefits existing in an uncertain future. 

The underlying philosophy of this approach is utilitarianism - the social good is enhanced when the greatest benefit accrues to the greatest number of beneficiaries. It is the core philosophy underlying much theoretical economics and it has a number of flaws. To start with, the beneficiaries are not identified. One could argue that unborn generations ought to considered as beneficiaries with an equivalence to current ones. There has been a move in this direction in recent policy developments. However, the most damaging criticism of this approach is that is does not factor in individual rights and has the potential to be the source of grave injustices. The partiality of whose voice counts - and those who are excluded - is the core argument against this approach.

By way of contrast, foresight as a transformational device starts with the individual as the core of its focus. This approach tends to be seen more in community and governmental settings, usually by those who wish to effect profound change. In this case, a project will be endorsed if it can be shown to lead to a better world. It needs to show an absolute positive impact to be worth undertaking. In this sense, a project doesn't necessarily need to show a return on investment. It only needs to show a positive impact.

The problem with this approach lies with how the positive impact is ascertained and in whose interest the positive impact accrues. This is a fairly serious issue. The transformational approach is being adopted to the issue of climate change, which can help to expose some of the flaws arising fro this approach. It is generally accepted that climate mitigation is a good thing and that we need to act today to ensure a better tomorrow. 

Laying aside the issue of whether or not that is true, it does create a distributional problem over who bears the costs of mitigation. So far, where mitigation policies have been implemented, it is the poorer elements in society who have had to bear the greater cost of climate mitigation. This exposes the problem at the heart of the transformational approach. Unless each and every person affected by the policy is consulted, the approach is delivered as a top down policy that has a tone of authoritarianism about it. The 'Guardians' deliver policy to the masses. It exposes the connection between Futurism and Fascism that futurists strive to deny. 

This leaves us in an unhappy place. On the one hand we have an approach that is infused with a corporate bean-counters mentality. On the other hand we have an approach where the great and the good tell the rest of society how they ought to live their lives. In practice, most of us try to find a pragmatic compromise in order to avoid an extreme position. A more balanced approach might be the best way to deal with the question. Should foresight have a return on investment? In a corporate setting it probably should. In a community setting it probably shouldn't.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021