Curiosity is a Privilege
And That Comes with Responsibility
Dear Curious Minds,
Happy Friday! I don’t enjoy being in front of the camera which is why this newsletter has more pictures of Mocha than me. But I couldn’t pass up the opportunity when I was asked to be interviewed as an ambassador for….Curiosity! A series of short videos will be shared of the interview and I took this opportunity to dwell on what it means to be curious. Hope you enjoy today’s newsletter. Thanks for being here, I appreciate you.
Interview with Gautami from Proxima Consulting (she is awesome!)
Q: How do you see the role of curiosity in the workplace, especially in fields related to sustainability?
Stella: Curiosity is often seen as an intellectual exercise, but in sustainability, it’s a necessity. The way we frame problems, especially in business, is deeply shaped by Global North perspectives that prioritise linear solutions, efficiency, and immediate outcomes. But sustainability challenges don’t always have neat answers, and sometimes, the rush to “solve” things prevents us from truly understanding them.
I think it’s important to use that curiosity to explore what the situation is really telling us. Instead of just responding with another policy, metric, or framework, we need to question why we see something as a problem in the first place. For example, is waste really a crisis, or is it a design flaw in our economic system? Is ‘efficiency’ always the goal, or does it sometimes strip away resilience? These are the questions that lead to deeper, long-term shifts rather than just band-aid fixes.
Of course, curiosity also comes with discomfort. It forces us to challenge the assumptions that make our work feel easier, more palatable, and more marketable. And we are not really incentivised to be curious or remain curious for a long time in our workplaces. But real transformation, whether in business, sustainability, or governance…doesn’t happen by sticking to what’s comfortable.
But it’s true that curiosity also makes things hectic. I’ve definitely been that person who falls down research rabbit holes, emerging hours later with 15 open tabs and a new existential crisis. It’s chaotic, but that chaos is where the real breakthroughs happen.
Q. What role might curiosity play in developing solutions for sustainability challenges? Can you share an example?
Stella: Curiosity pushes us beyond surface-level fixes. A lot of ‘sustainability solutions’ focus on mitigating harm: reducing emissions, minimising waste, improving efficiency. But those are very reactive approaches. Real sustainability isn’t just about solving problems. It’s about redesigning systems so that harm isn’t created in the first place.
The growing global push for a Right to Repair is a great example of curiosity driving systemic change. For years, the assumption was that products were becoming more disposable because of market demand. Copious amounts of whatever products we don’t really need filling the shelves, only to fill the landfill again…But a small number of angry nerds, passionate people got curious and uncovered a web of planned obsolescence, restrictive corporate policies, and sometimes software locks that prevent independent repair. That curiosity turned into a movement that’s changing laws in certain countries and forcing some companies to redesign their products, which I hope will get replicated here in Aotearoa with the Right to Repair Bill currently in Parliament.
In my own work, we are working on a repairability and durability index. Curiosity led me to question why New Zealand doesn’t have better repair policies when places like France have already implemented them. That opened up a whole line of collaboration and partnerships with several leading businesses that are committed to better product design, looking into policy gaps, consumer rights, and corporate incentives. I hope we can shift the project from just scoring products to understanding the ecosystem around durability with enough coalition of the willing.
Q. What - if anything - would you do differently with the current ways of working and problem-solving?
Stella: I’d change lots of things. We won’t have enough time to list all of those things…
First, I’d challenge the idea that we need to rush every issue with a quick solution. We are addicted to identifying a series of ‘problems’ to ‘fix’ with the lowest possible cost. But this often leads to linear, KPI-chasing, short-term plans that don't address underlying structures. But it fuels our individualistic trained brain to feel good about having done something, “yay, a win”! Sometimes, instead of asking ‘How do we solve this?’ We really should be asking, ‘Why does this problem exist?’
One of the biggest things I’d change is who gets to be in the room when decisions are made. Right now, the dominant ways of working and problem-solving are shaped by a very narrow demographic…One that are trained to see the world in economic and legal terms…and to favour short-term economic gains, incremental changes, and generally risk-averse strategies. But sustainability requires a paradigm shift, and that shift won’t come from the same perspectives that created the problems in the first place.
Aotearoa has an incredibly rich cultural and intellectual landscape…Mātauranga Māori, Pasifika knowledge systems, and diverse global perspectives from our migrant communities…but these worldviews are poorly represented at the boardroom level. When decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of people who share similar backgrounds, education, and life experiences, it limits our ability to tackle complex problems with fresh thinking.
Take Indigenous knowledge, for example. We talk about the circular economy as if it’s some groundbreaking concept, but Indigenous communities around the world have practised circularity for centuries, not as a trend, but as a way of life. The same goes for concepts like intergenerational thinking, reciprocity with nature, and collective governance. If these perspectives were genuinely valued at the highest levels of decision-making, we wouldn’t be stuck in cycles of short-term fixes. These worldviews challenge the idea that sustainability is just about metrics and KPIs; they reframe it as an ongoing relationship between people, economy, and ecology.
This shift isn’t just about ethics, it’s commercially smart. Businesses that embrace diverse decision-making are more resilient, innovative, and better equipped to navigate complex risks. So, if I could change something, it wouldn’t just be about who is in the room, but how decisions are made in the first place.
But that requires more than just inviting diverse voices to the table. It means reshaping the table itself. The current structures aren’t neutral; they’re designed to centre certain ways of thinking while sidelining others. If we want real change, we need to challenge not just who is making decisions, but how those decisions are being made.
Q. How can a simple question change the way you think?
Stella: Language holds power. A well-placed question can shift an entire worldview. One that fundamentally changed my perspective was: Who benefits from things staying the same? That question reframed my international development career and sustainability for me; That it is not just as a technical challenge, but as a power struggle. The reason we haven’t fully transitioned to circular economies or decarbonised key industries isn’t because we lack solutions. It’s because those with the most power to change things often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Another question I return to is: What if we stopped calling it a climate crisis and started calling it a systems failure or deliberate consequences? That shift in framing changes everything. It forces us to look beyond carbon reduction targets and start addressing governance, economic models, and social inequalities as part of the same system. The right question doesn’t just change what we see. It changes what we believe is possible.
Final Thoughts
Q. What’s one important takeaway about curiosity that you’d like listeners to remember?
Stella: Curiosity is often framed as a universal virtue, but the reality is, it’s also a privilege. Not everyone has the luxury to ask hard questions, especially when job security, social status, or even physical safety is at stake. The system is working exactly as designed when we feel too overworked, too burned out, or too dependent on the status quo to challenge it. When you’re desperate to put food on the table, questioning the "hand that feeds you" is not just inconvenient, it’s dangerous.
That’s why, for those of us in positions of relative stability, curiosity gives us a responsibility. It gives us a responsibility to use that privilege to advocate for those who can’t afford to ask those hard questions. In sustainability, where so much of our work involves shifting entrenched systems, curiosity is essential. It allows us to see beyond surface-level fixes and ask deeper, structural questions:
Who benefits from the way things are?
Who is excluded from these decisions?
Are we actually creating solutions, or just reinforcing old power structures with some fancy new branding?
And here is one sneak peak of the video, kudos to the best photographer & videographer in town, Alex Sanghun Kim at Content Box!
You are just awesome. Thanks for the kudos 😆