The Global Opportunity Report is the result of a process stretching over almost one year. Aiming to show how risks can be turned into opportunities, we produced the report – by means of a three-stage process.
The markets have been identified through a three-stage process:
1. Identify challenge. The starting point of the analysis is to select a set of global sustainability challenges and risks to inspire the work. Throughout the three reports 15 different global risks have been addressed. We do not claim these risks are the only or necessarily the most prominent challenges facing the world today – but certainly all are of great importance.
2. Co-Create Market Opportunities. Through a total of 17 innovation labs facilitated across the globe, participants from business, academia, NGOs, the public sector and youth representatives, have collaborated to develop innovative market ideas to overcome global challenges. In addition, digital crowd-sourcing campaigns were conducted, where everyone had the opportunity to submit their best ideas for tackling the fifteen global challenges. This material formed the basis for identifying the 45 market opportunities presented in the three Global Opportunity Reports. In this process, both internal DNV GL and UN Global Compact resources as well as external experts provided input.
3. Survey the Market Opportunities. The attractiveness of the 45 market opportunities has been measured in annual surveys involving 5,500 private and public sector leaders from across the globe. The surveys presented on this platform have all been conducted in collaboration with the research company YouGov and have occurred in the autumns of 2014, 2015 and 2016. We asked respondents how important a particular opportunity is for their country. This included evaluating its benefit for society and the capabilities their countries have to pursue the opportunity. The responses to these questions form the basis of the general ranking of opportunities. Respondents were also asked to evaluate the value of the opportunities for business by considering two questions. First, respondents were asked to consider the overall expected effect on their own business; second, they were asked how likely their own business is to develop new ventures related to the opportunity. Each of the opportunities is presented together with information on how respondents have measured its attractiveness for society and business.
Respondents were also asked to evaluate the value of the opportunities for business by considering two questions. First, respondents were asked to consider the overall expected effect on their own business; second, they were asked how likely their own business is to develop new ventures related to the opportunity. Each of the opportunities is presented together with information on
how respondents have measured its attractiveness for society and business. For all the opportunities, a range of related solutions were also identified. These solutions are examples of how opportunities are already exerting a positive impact on people around the globe.
WHERE DID WE GO?
An international endeavour
The insights in the Global Opportunity Reports are based on two large investigations: a crowdsourcing campaign for identifying opportunities involving an opportunity lab across the globe and an online campaign – and a annual surveys of approximately 5,500 private and public sector leaders.
The surveys reported on in the reports were conducted in collaboration with the research company YouGov. In the following we explain the numbers behind the survey, using the data from our 2016 survey.
There are a total of 5,499 completed computer-assisted web interviews (CAWI) with persons with management responsibility working in companies with a minimum of 100–200 employees. The survey was conducted between September 30, 2016, and October 23, 2016. YouGov is responsible for collecting the data and the Global Opportunity Secretariat conducts the analysis of the data. Survey responses are based on perceived behaviour rather than actual metered data. Respondents to the survey were identified as working within a specific sector of the economy. In this report, we operate with five sectors; brackets indicate the number of respondents:
– Finance (579)
– Manufacturing (963)
– Service (595)
– Governmental (545)
– Other Businesses (2,817)
In order to have a solid number of respondents, various sectors were combined into one named “Other Businesses.” Other Businesses is a combination of the following sectors: Academia (356), Agriculture (50), Construction (313), Food (131), Healthcare (338), Mining and Extraction (77), Trade (241), Transport (228), and Other (1,083).
The survey was conducted globally; in the reports, we include nine regions. Some regions are groups of several countries; other regions are single countries with very large populations (China and India). The regional classifications differ from those of the United Nations in order to maintain the validity of the responses by region in the survey. To learn more about how the United Nations classifies regions, please visit the United Nations composition of regions site here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm
Respondents’ management responsibilities, country of residence, sectorial affiliation, gender, and age were also recorded to enable analysis of the survey results along these lines. When illustrating percentages in the figures, not all of them add up to 100, due to rounding. In the report, we operate mainly within two areas — the impact on society and the impact on business. These two areas are reported differently: Each opportunity’s impact on society is reported as the percentage of responses it receives that are “most positive” (respondents rating them above 5 on a scale from -10 to 10). When the impact on society is illustrated on a scatter chart, the values are simple averages. The impact on business is reported as a simple average of the responses, either within a specific sector, region, or other cross sections of data used throughout the report. Data are indicative and caution should be taken when interpreting them, especially closely positioned data points, as confidence intervals do not allow all rankings to be distinguished.