How we work

We are a globally distributed team, together nurturing the capacities and capabilities needed for planetary-scale governance.

Within this, we seek to experiment with alternatives to business-as-usual. In doing so, we hope to prefigure new ways of being, knowing and working together that bring us closer to the futures we envision. 

All of our working practices are co-created with the members involved, yet we always welcome ideas and constructive criticism. If you would like more information on how we work then please get in touch at contact@foundationsearth.org

Core values

We are guided by our core values, which we seek to embody and to which we hold ourselves and our work accountable.

  • Connectedness - We view the planet holistically, learning from the interdependence between all forms of life and matter.

    Relational - We foster caring relationships between people and organisations, creating the conditions for transboundary responses to emerge.

    Generative - We generate responses that are creative, possibility-oriented and ultimately move us towards new systems and paradigms. 

    Service - We serve the people and organisations who are tackling our planetary predicament. 

    Inclusive - We redistribute power to those most affected by our violent and unsustainable systems, and seek to be led in our work by the experiences of those most affected.

    Multi-Generational - We ensure not only that young people are included, but that our practices and responses consider the needs of future generations.

Group structure

We have two core groups - a Steering Group and a Service Group - which work together in pursuit of our mission.

  • Our Steering Group provides guidance, oversight and accountability based on expertise and experience relevant to our mission, while our Service Group delivers on our objectives and activities.

    This type of structure allows us to benefit from diverse and transboundary thinking: for members who are working day-to-day to benefit from the perspectives of Steering Group members’ distance and bandwidth; and a dedicated, self-directing Service Group enables the project to follow the hearts and minds of those putting the most energy in, and for a sense of shared agency and purpose to emerge.

Consent-based decision-making

We use a consent-based approach to making decisions, which enables all members to propose topics and participate in governance. This helps us to be agile and adaptive to changing circumstances, being led by those most involved.

  • The process we follow for formal decision-making goes as follows:

    1) Proposal round: proposer presents the proposal, which covers both what it is and why it is needed (ideally shared with participants in advance).

    2) Clarifications round: everyone is allowed to ask questions that will help them understand the proposal; if someone does not have a question, they can pass.

    3) Reaction round: everyone gets to briefly say what they think of or how they feel about this proposal.

    4) Objection or vote round: everyone has to give one response from the following:

    a) I consent;

    b) I consent with concern (and state the objection);

    c) I object (valid objections only, that will do harm to the collective).

    5) Decision announcement.

Equitable pay structure

We believe it’s important to be transparent about pay and to build shared understandings around how to collectively determine how people should be remunerated. We aim to avoid perpetuating injustices and expose hidden biases, as well as create an environment that feels equitable to all involved.

  • We have a pay ratio of 3:1, which means that the most someone can be paid is three times the minimum. We set the minimum amount at 14 GBP per hour, which is set at roughly the world’s highest living wage. The maximum amount one may be paid is therefore 42 GBP per hour.

    Pay is determined according to two key factors: needs and responsibilities. All members must consider 1) how much they need, and 2) how much responsibility they are taking.

    Starting at the minimum amount, members first add on anything more that they need, and then factor in their relative sense of responsibility that they take in this work.

    In an attempt to build shared understandings of responsibility, we identify several relevant factors to consider:

    • Intensity (from low- to high-capacity)

    • Initiative (from supportive to proactive)

    • Emotional labour (from minimal to heavy)

    • Exposure to liability and harm (from hidden to vulnerable)

    • Importance to core mission (from discretionary to mission-critical)

    This is then discussed collectively and agreed following whole-group consent.