Everyone seems to be concerned about “impact” these days, so much so that a tortuous new adjective has arisen: “impactful.” Politicians stump about it, consultants analyze it, researchers theorize about it, and visionaries call for transformations of it. Whether the impact in question is social, environmental, or collective, the primary concern driving the impact conversation is exactly the same one driving the geologists’ naming of the Anthropocene era: that human beings are having unprecedented, and not entirely positive, impact on our planet, and particularly on the quality of other humans’ lives.

The ramifications of this conversation are wide-ranging, as the reach of “impact” is global. It encompasses economic development, public health and disease control, educational opportunities, climate risk, and political stability. On a slightly smaller scale, for companies and NGOs it covers areas like supply and value chains, workforce engagement, and energy use. And on the personal level, individuals experience the impact these global and organizational forces exercise in shaping realms of choice, opportunity, and quality of life.

So this is an important conversation, and those engaged in it are exploring territory necessary for all of us to find solutions to the complex problems of our modern world.

As I listen in on the talk about impact, and absorb its implications, I nonetheless feel that two essential aspects of the conversation are either being left out entirely, or are simply remaining implicit – and therefore virtually inaudible amidst the buzz.

The first is that the three levels of human impact – the personal, the organizational, and the social – are almost always discussed in isolation, or only through relating two at a time. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, as that does tell us something about the nature and extent of the impact under discussion. But it’s not sufficient to the complexity of our age’s major issues. In every issue, whether a problem or opportunity, all three levels are simultaneously active. How do I know this? Simply because human life is fundamentally relational. We relate to ourselves, to the multiple groups and organizations that structure our daily life, and to the broader social, ideological and geographic communities to which we belong. Without keeping all three levels in view, our solutions and endeavors will always neglect an important level of impact, and, ultimately, will be unsustainable over time.

The second aspect is that the entire discussion of impact is often framed in such a way that it diminishes or ignore the fact that we are talking about ethics. We are talking about how human beings in our time ought to behave, what is right, what is good, what harm we create and how we repair it. Impact is not merely, or even essentially, a matter of managerial competence, public policy, scientific research, innovation, or psychological dynamics. These are all necessary components of what is, fundamentally, an ethical conversation. And until we call that out, all the conversation will only scratch the surface of how we truly need to proceed to solve our collective problems.

In upcoming blogs, we’ll focus on each of the three levels of impact, and explore further the ethical nature of the conversation about impact.