I'm a Traditionalist, a Capitalist, and a Justice Oriented Advocate

Gwen Migita, MBA

Gwen Migita, MBA, Global Head of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) & Social Impact Practice at Point B, offers a pro-business and capital markets perspective on integrating fully inclusive equity and justice — as a necessity for planetary and societal survival for all.


I am married to a woman and grew up attending a Baptist church. I am culturally an Asian Pacific Islander and a philosopher. Early in my career I was fascinated by economics and educated in business marketing and management. I spent most of my career in business, consulting, and casino gaming.


All of this to say, as an American, I was a majority minority who came to be "the only" at so many levels through lived experiences and sexism, ageism, homophobia, and xenophobia at times. My world has mostly been impacted by mild to moderate levels of micro-aggressions, unconscious biases, and conscious biases. The more feminine I became and the more I dressed, spoke, and acted like white corporate America, the less I experienced those types of discrimination. And clearly, the more I rose in executive ranks and conformed to corporate norms, the less I was exposed to all this.  


Yet, there are many other populations whom people need to be aware of, whose voices are often talked over, and who should be part of efforts toward inclusion. For example, introverts and those who prefer written communication are often undervalued relative to workers who are highly articulate and speak out frequently in the American workplace. Another example is colorism, which is skin-tone bias toward those with lighter skin. What about non-traditional families such as single parent households, same sex couples, or adoptive families? What about those with invisible or non-apparent disabilities? Or those who are gender non-conforming? These are only a few examples of employees, business partners, and vendors who are a part of our global diversity and who need to be included to ensure equity, justice, and inclusivity.


Where We’re Headed


Wealth creation and an equitable quality of life for all is a necessity for planetary and societal survival. If we are going to achieve that, we not only need access to living wages, but in the business context we need access to management roles, capital and financing, and prime contracts that represent significantly more of the private sector ecosystem.

I mention this because if we are going to achieve this and lead towards the world we want, we need leaders and all of us to be more comfortable being uncomfortable. Whether it is preferring certain news or social media feeds or avoiding “irritating” conversations, we are wired to compartmentalize and tune out ideas that are different from our own. In turn, we close off the “other” social and economic backgrounds and different thinkers, which perpetuates cultural and racial disparities. The problem is getting worse with the breakdown of civics education and the prevalence of social media, the 24-hour political news cycle, and an in-person social structure. And our biases will soon be on hyperdrive given the amount of investment going into generative AI.


An Ask to the Sustainability Profession


So, how are we going to advance sustainability, improve quality of life for all, and reduce biases when the most foundational level of human needs — food, shelter, and safety — are not being met for most of the world? In my country, the U.S., morbidity and mortality rates have hit crisis levels. These factors play a huge role in the growth of extremism and political instability and adversely impact economic growth.

We in the sustainability space have much more power to impact change than we did 15 to 20 years ago. Let’s tap into that.


Let's Lean into Solutions


My banker father, who was a wise boss, coached me, “Don’t bring me problems without solutions.” Below, I offer several to think about and to act on more deeply with unusual partners or competitors.


  1. Rather than working on what you can do, think about what you should do at a systems level. Then establish context-based goals, those grounded in both science and ethics when planning and developing measures of success. The sustainability profession prioritizes a 1.5° C climate benchmark while ethics-based thresholds tend to be dispersed by social and societal issue, racial or ethnic identity, or community-based needs. Too often we are pulled into a "company-impact-on-planet" approach, while social issues are addressed elsewhere via several departments down the hall. We need to revise our thinking on that.
  2. Consider an indigenous-first approach to sustainability. What would this look like? How often are these populations at the table with equitable say and weight to planning and development? Consider foundational beliefs among native populations that humans are of the Earth and are caregivers of the natural world. A recent eye-opening read is “Decolonize Conservation”.  
  3. Be real about corporate virtue signaling and how you partner with organizations or communities that might embarrass your company.  An example is corporate giving to certain business associations over addressing the fact that procurement spend should be four times higher with diverse businesses to make any real impact.  How about tackling the elephants in the room such as the intersectional root causes of climate change and social determinants of health?  Before attracting workers or customers to high density, mixed-use commercial developments, let’s get ahead of gentrification and rectify exclusionary zoning in planning.
  4. What about investing in political and lobbying capital to affect equity and opportunity among disadvantaged and minority-owned businesses, mental health in the workforce (and among caregivers), and disparities in air pollution? Each of these actions also support common government affairs objectives in companies: lower the cost of doing business and manage headwinds from changes in allocated costs of public goods and administrative actions. And remove frictions to attracting and retaining desired talent. Tie advocacy for justice and equity back to these business benefits to gain buy-in from influencers and decision-makers outside of sustainability.
  5. Be more intentional about integrating systems interventions into your work. Regulatory, legislative, and market incentives are needed to mitigate the gross inequalities in the widening wealth gap. And, the continued systemic racism in everyday actions from the U.S. school to prison pipeline, disparities in the impacts of air pollution and the distribution of disaster relief, and the ability to build generational wealth through saving wages and home ownership. No change in the U.S. situation would mean regressing to developing world conditions in the wealthiest countries on earth.
  6. Speak out on the backlash against corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the slashing of the DEI workforce. Many of us have faced the early years of having one organizational role — or even a partial or a volunteer role — in sustainability.  We then adapted to attach our work to the bottom line, quantified our impact, and pushed for global frameworks, standardization, market incentives, and regulations. Corporate DEI needs this help among allies. This is how many movements have reversed the tide against progress. It needs to happen here and now.


What’s Next?



Every few years, I reflect upon my life purpose and how my career serves to support this. It’s my Ikigai and my pono: my reason for being and my responsibility, my way of living. Ikigai is a Japanese term. Pono is Hawaiian. I am ethnically Japanese with five generations in Hawaii.

Many of us in the sustainability profession are deeply purposeful and intentional about our lives and our careers. Let’s take action — and get it done together!


About the Author:

Gwen Migita, MBA
Global Head of ESG & Social Impact Practice, Point B


PHOTO:  Gwen Migita | West Oahu, Hawaii


Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

Paper cut-out figures holding hands in a chain against a dark blue background.
By Elizabeth Dinschel, December 18, 2025 December 18, 2025
Elizabeth Dinschel, MA, MBA, is the Executive Director of ISSP Earlier this month, we hosted our first global ISSP Town Hall since I stepped into the role of Executive Director. I logged off that call energized, humbled, and deeply grateful for the honesty, generosity, and care that our members brought into the space. This Town Hall was never meant to be a one-way update. It was designed as a listening session — a chance for ISSP leadership and staff to hear directly from sustainability professionals across regions, sectors, and career stages. And you delivered. What follows are a few reflections on what I heard, what we learned, and where we’re headed next together. Why We Called This Town Hall ISSP has gone through a period of transition — new leadership, new staff, and a renewed focus on modernizing how we serve a truly global membership. Change can be energizing, but it can also create moments of uncertainty and disconnection. We knew we needed to pause, gather our community, and listen with intention. The Town Hall brought together members from multiple continents, industries, and disciplines. Sustainability practitioners, consultants, engineers, communicators, policy professionals, and career-transitioners all showed up with thoughtful questions and candid feedback. One thing was immediately clear: this community cares deeply about its work, about each other, and about ISSP’s role in supporting sustainability professionals at a challenging moment for the field.
Can sustainability be saved by tackling loneliness, not just CO₂ emissions?
By Raz Godelnik, Associate Professor November 20, 2025
Raz Godelnik is an Associate Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons School of Design — The New School. He is the author of Rethinking Corporate Sustainability in the Era of Climate Crisis . You can follow him on LinkedIn .  Can sustainability be saved by tackling loneliness, not just CO₂ emissions? Earlier this month, I stopped at Sunshine Coffee in Laramie, Wyoming, on our way to Yellowstone Park. What brought me there was the fact that it’s a zero-waste coffee shop, with no single-use consumer items. In other words, there are no disposable cups — not for customers dining in, and not even for those who want their coffee to go, like I did. Instead, you can either bring your own reusable cup or get your drink in a glass jar for $1, which is refunded on your next order when you return it (or you can simply keep it, as I did). At first, I was excited about the zero-waste coffee shop concept, wondering what it would take for Starbucks and other coffee chains to adopt it and eliminate the waste that has become an integral part of our coffee (and other drinks) consumption. But as I waited for my coffee, I began to notice something else — something that had little to do with waste and everything to do with people. As I looked around, I noticed their stickers. Beneath the logo, it read: Zero waste. Community space . Suddenly it clicked — this coffee shop isn’t just about eliminating waste; it’s about creating a place where people feel connected. As owner and founder of Sunshine Coffee, Megan Johnson, explained in an interview with This is Laramie : “I wanted to bring sustainable values to Wyoming as well as build a business that serves the community.” That got me thinking about how the second part — serving the community — is integral to the first. After all, in a world where loneliness — a key barrier to people’s well-being — is on the rise, shouldn’t creating spaces for connection be just as central to sustainability as going zero waste?
By Nicole Cacal, MSc, October 30, 2025
Nicole Cacal, MSc, is Executive Director of the TRUE Initiative in Hawaii and serves as Vice President on the Governing Board of ISSP. In our October blog, she challenges the prevailing narrative around AI's environmental impact, arguing that strategic deployment can transform AI from an environmental burden into a driver of recursive sustainability. Drawing on her background in strategic design and technology management, she presents emerging pathways for responsible AI adoption that balance societal benefit against environmental risk. Toward Appropriate and Responsible AI: Pathways to Sustainable Adoption and Infrastructure Nicole Cacal · October 27, 2025 Whenever I give an AI presentation or offer advice on AI adoption, whether to business owners, C-level executives, or sustainability professionals, one concern surfaces time and time again, especially here in Hawaii: the environmental tension. People want to explore AI's potential, but they're acutely aware of the energy consumption, the water usage, the carbon footprint. It's become almost a reflex: mention AI, and someone immediately raises the environmental cost. I get it. The data centers, the training runs, and the resource demands. They're real and they're significant. But here's what I've come to believe: if we shift the narrative from focusing solely on AI's detriment to the environment and instead ask how much good it can create, what role we can play in driving data centers to go greener, and how we can generate recursive sustainability, we unlock better questions. We start thinking forward rather than just defensively. As sustainability professionals, our job isn't to reject technology wholesale. It's to shape its evolution. And right now, we have an opportunity to influence how AI develops and deploys in ways that align with planetary boundaries and social equity. But to do that, we need to move beyond binary thinking. Right-Sizing AI: Why Bigger Isn't Always Better One of the most overlooked levers we have for sustainable AI is also one of the simplest: choosing the right model for the job. The AI industry has been caught in a "bigger is better" arms race for years now. Every new model release touts more parameters, more capabilities, more everything. And sure, these massive general-purpose models are impressive. But they've created a dangerous assumption: that every task requires maximum firepower. This is where my strategic design training from Parsons kicks in. Good design isn't about having the biggest toolkit. It's about matching the tool to the task. It's about elegance through constraint. The same principle applies to AI deployment. The emerging concept of "Small is Sufficient " is gaining traction for good reason. Research shows that selecting smaller, purpose-fit AI models for specific tasks can achieve nearly the same accuracy as their larger counterparts while reducing global energy demand by up to 28% . Twenty-eight percent. That's not marginal; that's transformational. Think about what your organization actually needs. Are you processing customer service inquiries? Analyzing spreadsheet data? Generating product descriptions? Most of these tasks don't require a frontier model. A fine-tuned, task-specific model will do the job with a fraction of the computational overhead. The shift we need is cultural as much as technical. We need to move from asking "what's the most powerful AI we can deploy?" to "what's the most appropriate AI for this specific use case?" That question changes everything, from procurement decisions to vendor relationships, internal training, and infrastructure planning. AI as Infrastructure Manager: The Self-Optimizing Data Center Here's an irony that doesn't get enough attention: AI might be energy-intensive, but it's also one of our best tools for managing energy systems efficiently. When we only think of AI as a consumer of data center resources, we miss part of the story. AI can also be the conductor of efficiency, orchestrating complex systems in real-time to minimize waste and maximize renewable integration. Consider three optimization domains where AI is already making measurable impact: Cooling systems: Data centers generate enormous heat, and cooling accounts for a massive portion of their energy use. AI can continuously adjust cooling based on workload patterns, outside temperature, humidity, and dozens of other variables, optimizing in ways that static systems simply can't match. Workload scheduling: Not all computing tasks need to happen immediately. AI can intelligently schedule batch processing, model training, and background tasks for times when renewable energy is abundant or when grid demand is lowest. This isn't just theory. Companies are already doing this. Renewable energy integration: This one hits close to home in Hawaii, where we're working toward aggressive renewable energy targets but face unique challenges with grid stability and storage. AI-managed facilities can modulate demand in response to solar and wind availability, essentially turning data centers into flexible grid assets rather than inflexible burdens. When organizations approach their operations as integrated systems rather than collections of independent components, they achieve results that surprise even them. AI-orchestrated data centers represent this systems thinking at its most sophisticated. The technology optimizes itself recursively, reducing the footprint of AI through AI. That's the kind of elegant solution we should be scaling. Measuring What Matters: Beyond Energy to Net Benefit But here's the challenge: if we only measure AI's direct energy consumption, we miss the full picture. We need frameworks that capture both the operational cost and the systemic benefit. This is where life cycle assessment combined with comparative modeling becomes essential. We need to ask: compared to what? And over what timeframe? The sectoral success stories are compelling when you run the numbers: Building automation systems powered by AI are consistently achieving energy savings in the range of 20-30% across diverse building types. One documented case study of a commercial office building in the United States showed a 32% reduction in overall energy consumption with a 2.4-year return on investment (a $2.1 million system investment generating $875,000 in annual savings). In Stockholm, the SISAB school building portfolio achieved similar results with a two-year payback period. In precision agriculture, AI-driven irrigation and fertilizer application systems are cutting water consumption by 20% to as much as 50% and reducing chemical runoff, addressing both resource scarcity and ecosystem health. Waste management optimization is another powerful example. AI-powered sorting systems in recycling facilities dramatically improve material recovery rates while reducing contamination. The resource efficiency gains far exceed the AI system's energy footprint. These aren't marginal improvements. When properly deployed, targeted AI applications produce emissions savings and resource efficiencies that dwarf their own operational costs. That being said, given today's fossil fueled data center expansions, we may find that we have much further to go in making the environmental positives outweigh the negatives. But that's no reason to throw in the towel or to assume that these technologies cannot - over time - deliver more environmental benefits than downsides. It requires companies to demand more of their technology providers and deploy their systems sustainably when greener options become available. But (and this is crucial) these benefits only materialize when we pair the right AI with the right infrastructure and the right deployment strategy. Which brings us to governance. The Path Forward: Governance, Transparency, and Adaptive Thinking The sustainability community, including organizations like ISSP, is actively developing shared frameworks for assessing AI's net impact. These emerging approaches include system-level energy auditing, selective task deployment protocols, and strategies for minimizing "dark data" (the vast amounts of stored data that's never used but still requires energy to maintain). Multi-stakeholder governance initiatives are bringing together technologists, policymakers, environmental scientists, and business leaders to create adaptive standards. This isn't about creating rigid regulations that will be obsolete in two years. It's about establishing principles and processes that evolve with the technology. Those with a technology management background know that the most successful systems are those designed for adaptation. We need governance structures that can respond to new information, course-correct quickly, and remain grounded in measurable outcomes. Transparency is non-negotiable. Organizations deploying AI need to measure and report not just their energy consumption but their net impact. What problems are you solving? What resources are you saving? What would the alternative approach have cost? These aren't easy questions, but they're the right ones. As sustainability professionals, this is our arena. We have the frameworks: life cycle thinking, systems analysis, stakeholder engagement, and metrics development, to name a few. We need to apply these tools to AI with the same rigor we've applied to supply chains, built environments, and industrial processes. So here's my invitation: What are you seeing in your sector? How is your organization approaching the AI sustainability question? Are you finding innovative ways to ensure deployment is appropriate and responsible? Because ultimately, appropriate AI isn't about choosing between progress and sustainability. It's about insisting that progress is sustainable. It's about right-sizing models, optimizing infrastructure, measuring net benefit, and building governance systems worthy of the challenge. The technology itself is neutral. Our choices determine whether AI becomes a driver of sustainability or another extractive burden. Let's choose wisely.
More blog posts