Green Growth Blog

Can we optimise the great transition away from fossil fuels so that it creates stronger regional industries, greater housing opportunities and thriving ecosystems?

I believe we can. Through conversations with many of my regional development colleagues I understand that they share that view: we can better optimise the settings surrounding the transition so that regions capture more of its long-term economic, social and environmental value.

A familiar regional challenge

Across Australia, regional development practitioners are being asked to help their communities capture the opportunities created by renewable energy and other major investments. At the same time, they must consider whether their regions have the workforce, housing, infrastructure and services needed to accommodate growth.

The tension—and sometimes trepidation—is understandable. Practitioners want to welcome investment and support economic diversification, while also ensuring that rapid development does not intensify housing shortages, place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure or diminish the qualities that make their regions good places to live.

This is not a lack of ambition or positivity. Regional development practitioners tend to be practical, can-do people who want to find a way through these challenges and secure better outcomes for their communities.

The regional coordination gap

At the local and regional level, the challenge is compounded by fragmented responsibility.
Regional developers may have trusted contacts across government and productive relationships with individual agencies. However, no single agency necessarily takes full ownership of how workforce, housing, infrastructure, industry development and environmental considerations intersect within a region.
The work of connecting these issues and navigating responsibilities across multiple government portfolios is therefore often left to the regional developer—even when many of the relevant policy settings, resources and decision-making powers sit outside their direct authority.

Moving beyond impact mitigation

When renewable energy or other major infrastructure projects like data centres come to a region, negotiations can focus primarily on mitigating their immediate impacts. While that is essential, it can leave broader opportunities unexplored. A more integrated approach considers:

• how local people can develop the skills needed to participate in emerging industries;
• how new housing and accommodation can support local workers and their families, provide flexibility during periods of rapid growth, and add to the region’s longer-term housing supply;
• how transport, water, energy and community infrastructure can support growth; and
• how investment can contribute to lasting regional capability rather than short-term activity.

This requires more than asking each agency or project proponent to manage its individual area of responsibility. It requires the overlaps to be made visible and the combined regional outcomes to become part of the conversation.

Natural capital is part of the picture

From my perspective, this integrated approach must also account for natural capital and resource requirements.

Biodiversity, water, land use, energy inputs and climate resilience need to be considered alongside workforce, housing and infrastructure if development is to maintain—and ideally enhance—the amenity and resilience of regional communities.

By incorporating natural capital into regional development, regions can generate greater value from the transition—supporting economic growth, long-term community prosperity and the natural systems upon which their economies depend.

Making regional readiness visible

The complexity of these challenges is part of why I am exploring regional workforce needs in greater detail and why I developed a rapid assessment approach to understanding regional readiness.

The aim is not to reassess everything a region is already doing or produce another plan. It is to make existing connections, strengths and gaps more visible so that practical priorities and options can emerge.

A region may already be undertaking valuable work across economic development, workforce planning, housing, infrastructure, investment and environmental management. Greater visibility and articulation of issues can help identify:

• where activities reinforce one another;
• where responsibilities or actions are fragmented;
• where coordination and ownership need to be strengthened; and
• where existing investment can create greater and more enduring regional value.

Finding local ways forward

Every region has different industries, assets, pressures, relationships and ambitions. There will not be one solution that can simply be applied everywhere.

If your region is working through these challenges, I am always happy to have a no-obligation conversation. You bring detailed knowledge of your region and the will to pursue better outcomes; I can bring an external perspective, practical frameworks and experience to help uncover locally appropriate ways forward.

The picture is of the Google data centre and wind turbines, Eemshaven, Netherlands. Photograph: Wvdp/Wikimedia Commons, CC0

Reflections on Committee for Economic Development's State of the Nation 2026

I congratulate the Committee for Economic Development's (CEDA) for delivering the State of the Nation. I particularly appreciate that they have provided an opportunity to step back from the day-to-day work of delivering projects and responding to immediate priorities, to reflect on how we are or as the case maybe, not progressing.

Reading CEDA's latest assessment of Australia's climate transition and adaptation, three things jumped out at me that I had to raise with my colleagues and clients.

1. We are making progress, but will not meet our targets

Australia is undoubtedly making some gains. It is true that renewable generation is increasing, emissions are falling and significant investment has been made. However, as their analyses state, despite the considerable effort and investment being made, we are unlikely to achieve our renewable energy and circular economy targets on our current trajectory.

Having spent many years working with regions through what I often describe as the great transition, it is not a surprise.

While there is great effort being made it is not always in concert. The layers of government, industry players and stakeholders may not always be pulling in the same direction. Equally, I've often seen places doing many of the right things and still falling short of the outcomes they were seeking.

The abundance of good intent and effort are not question. Rather, it suggests there are material issues influencing successful delivery that we do not yet fully understand or have not yet adequately addressed.

If we genuinely want to accelerate transition, perhaps our greatest opportunity now lies in better understanding the material conditions that enable successful delivery.

2. Regional readiness is increasingly important

The industry experts involved in CEDA’s report indicate that many of the constraints are no longer primarily technical. They relate to the readiness of regions, organisations and institutions to deliver change.

This is not surprising to me or my regional, economic development colleagues. In fact, working in regional, economic development, green growth and climate resilience this feels very familiar.

Projects rarely succeed or stall because of technology alone. They succeed or stall because of workforce capability, planning systems, governance, transmission, local businesses, community confidence, institutional capability and many other interconnected conditions that determine whether good ideas become successful outcomes.

These each have their relevance to different stakeholders, communities, businesses levels of government and bigger industry players. The issues material to these actors are vitally important. It is not just identifying what is financially material, but understanding what is genuinely material to the people, organisations and communities involved in transition.

The hurdles in adaptation and renewable roll-outs also show that transition depends on much more than financial investment. It depends on how well we strengthen and connect financial, manufactured, human, intellectual, social and relationship, and natural capital. When one of those forms of capital is underdeveloped, it often becomes the constraint that limits progress on other fronts.

Perhaps once we better understand the material conditions influencing successful delivery—and strengthen these forms of capital together—we will begin to change the trajectory.

3. Regional transition mirrors climate disclosure challenges

Overall, our transition issues remind me of what we are finding out from organisational, sustainability reporting, especially climate disclosures.
Increasingly, boards and those genuinely invested in sustainability make comments like:

“We understand the risks. We've established governance. We have plans. We're making progress but getting results is proving more complex and difficult than we thought.”

The observations on climate disclosures are that the more helpful ones are those that are dealing with the material risks. Australia's transition is much the same.

While many are trying hard they are discovering there are important issues we still need to work through.

While initially this might be disheartening, the reality is we are getting closer to our goals by knowing what issues we still need to solve.
We are moving from the less informed ambition state, towards understanding the conditions that will enable successful implementation.

Perhaps one of the most valuable lessons emerging from climate disclosures is that materiality is not simply a reporting step. It is becoming a practical discipline for understanding what genuinely influences successful delivery.

I wonder whether the same thinking has something to offer regional and national transition.

Rather than asking whether we are progressing, organisations are advised to ask:
have we identified the issues that are genuinely material to achieving the outcomes we want?

Similarly, at a regional level, we can ask:
are all forms of capital and aspects of regional readiness being addressed?

How we make more progress

The real value of reports like CEDA's is to help us understand why or why we are not progressing. Having a State of the Nation report encourages us to think about what is working and what is not plus how to make things better.

Working with regions has convinced me that successful transition is rarely about finding one more project or one more policy. It is about understanding the material issues, delivery conditions and how to support all forms of capital for regional readiness. that enable places to adapt, prosper and remain resilient through change.

The next phase of Australia's transition is not simply about doing more. It requires better understanding the material conditions that allow the solutions we already have to succeed.

One of the sentiments I glean from regional developers is a degree of caution about taking a leadership role in energy transition discussions.

Naturally, they welcome the opportunities that can accompany major investment:

• New infrastructure
• Local procurement opportunities
• Workforce development
• Industry diversification
• Population growth
• Improved regional services
• Community benefit funding

Unfortunately, many of the factors that determine whether these benefits are realised sit outside the economic developers’ direct influence. Others:

• Set energy policy
• Approve projects
• Build transmission infrastructure
• Operate electricity marketsDetermine coal closure schedules
• Allocate private capital
• Shape broader community sentiment

Yet regional and economic developers are often expected to help communities, governments, industry and investors navigate the transition. Their role is less about making decisions and more about translating complexity into practical opportunities, actions and partnerships. They work across councils, government agencies, developers, landholders, industry groups, training providers, community organisations, Traditional Owners and investors to help regions respond to change.

The challenge is that when regional developers champion transition agendas, they can find themselves associated with expectations that depend on decisions made by governments, investors and project proponents.

The more empowering position, however, is to recognise that while regional developers may not control the transition, they can influence the conditions that shape its success. They can strengthen collaboration, build regional capability, identify opportunities, support informed decision-making and help ensure regions are prepared to benefit from change when it occurs.

Shaping conditions for success

The challenge is not to predict exactly how the transition will unfold. Nor is it to take responsibility for decisions that sit with governments, investors, regulators or project proponents.

The challenge is to understand and strengthen the conditions that allow regions to respond successfully to change.

Taking a more structured approach to understanding regional readiness can be valuable.Rather than focusing on individual projects, technologies or policy settings, the Regional Transformation Framework I’ve developed encourages regions to step back and consider the broader factors that influence long-term prosperity, resilience and adaptability. It helps regions assess the capabilities, relationships, assets and conditions that support successful responses to economic, environmental and social change.

Importantly, it is not a transition plan, a detailed strategy or a major consulting exercise. It is designed as a practical and relatively low-cost way for regions to take stock of where they are today and identify areas that may warrant greater attention in the future.

The accompanying Tracking Tool provides a structured process for assessing strengths, identifying gaps and tracking progress over time. Rather than attempting to predict a single future, it helps regions understand whether they are building the foundations needed to respond to a range of possible futures. It prompts consideration of questions such as:

• Are we building the workforce needed for future opportunities?
• Are local businesses positioned to benefit from emerging investment?
• Do stakeholders share a common understanding of regional priorities?
• Are we strengthening the natural, social and economic assets that underpin future prosperity?
• Are we building the relationships and capabilities needed to respond to change?

Most importantly, the process helps regions focus on what they can influence rather than what they cannot.

In an environment where policy settings, project pipelines and investment decisions continue to evolve, understanding regional readiness may be more valuable than attempting to predict the future. By assessing current conditions and identifying practical actions, regions can prepare for a range of possible futures without over-investing in any single one.

For regional developers, this offers a way to engage constructively in transition discussions without becoming responsible for outcomes beyond their control. Instead of trying to determine the future, they can help create the conditions that allow their region to thrive regardless of how the transition unfolds.

Reflections from EDA’s Brisbane Roadshow 2026

Economic Development Australia’s National Roadshow in Brisbane was more than a valuable networking and learning opportunity. It was a timely reminder that Australia’s regional economic future depends on how well we understand place and plan for 50 years into the future. As a local sponsor and participant, I was pleased to be part of a conversation.

I’ve taken the liberty of relaying the takeaways and their implications for green growth.

Why Exponential Thinking Matters for Regions

Impact investor Lisa Andrews set the tone with a compelling keynote on the mindset and technology we need to adopt for impact. She challenged us to move beyond linear planning and adopt mindsets that can accelerate technology adoption and system‑level change. Her example of being both a futurist and impact investor demonstrates we need to not just think about new tools, but deploy new ways of organising capital, institutions, and incentives to deliver outsized positive impact. 

There is so much green and enabling technology available—and so many reasons for optimism—but its development and deployment must be guided by principled care. Without care, the risk of unintended consequences is real, particularly when changes ripple through communities and environments that are already vulnerable.

From a resilience perspective, we should ask: how do we harness exponential thinking in ways that strengthen ecosystems—natural and social capital for value added green industries that at the same time as improve economic productivity.

Place-Based Strategy and the Power of Unique Value Propositions

Paul Cranch, a respected thought leader in investment attraction, emphasised the importance of focus in economic strategy. Rather than spreading effort across too many priorities, he challenged regions to clearly identify and deliberately leverage their unique value propositions.

In practice, this is more difficult than it sounds. Unique value propositions are rarely captured by marketing slogans alone; they are typically embedded in the natural endowments, histories and capabilities that have shaped a region over generations. Importantly, this includes natural capital. Understanding and protecting the natural systems on which regional economies depend is not a constraint on development but a source of enduring competitive advantage.

As strategic and land‑use planning moves through to investment decisions, a clear articulation of place‑based assets helps align public and private effort towards productivity. This alignment is critical for the emergence of new green industries, which tend to be highly place‑specific—drawing on local ecosystems, resources, skills and infrastructure. Regions that understand the full suite of capital already present—natural, social, institutional and economic—are better positioned to identify where green industries can take root and to attract investment that builds on, rather than undermines, those foundations.

The Sunshine Coast: Innovation and Stewardship as an Economic Strategy

The Sunshine Coast is a powerful case study in long‑term, stewardship‑led innovation. Drawing on five decades of foresight and investment on the coast, Colin Graham illustrated how deliberate planning decisions have translated into sustained job creation, a growing knowledge economy, and improved health outcomes. 

Anchor institutions such as the University of the Sunshine Coast and associated hospitals have played a critical role, creating employment pathways while attracting complementary investment. These outcomes have been further strengthened by enabling infrastructure, including a high‑speed, deep‑sea internet cable that has encouraged technology companies and digital innovation to locate in the region. 

From a natural capital perspective: what distinguishes the Sunshine Coast from many other regions in South East Queensland is its long‑standing sensitivity to the natural environment. While early agricultural industries—sugar, horticulture, dairy, and timber—shaped the landscape, the region’s evolution into a tourism hub was accompanied by a stronger community commitment to environmental stewardship. Today, the Sunshine Coast and Noosa are internationally recognised for preserving natural beauty while growing the economy—an outcome that was neither accidental nor inevitable. 

I recall participating in early innovation ecosystem conversations through ECOllaboration, where there was a conscious effort to ensure that economic ambition sat alongside stewardship of land and water. The types of approaches used by the Sunshine Coast’s Food and Agribusiness Network members is a clear testament to what can be achieved when care for nature is built into production and growth strategies, rather than treated as an externality.

Landuse planning and long term productivity

The economic productivity and social dimension of economic development was highlighted by Kerrianne Haggie’s exploration of data‑driven job ecosystems. Her analysis covered the profound intergenerational impacts of urban development patterns that separate housing from employment centres. 

According to Kerrianne’s research the effects compound over time:

• First generation -  fewer local jobs, longer commutes, insecure work, reduced disposable income, and less time for family interaction.
• Second generation - limited exposure to career pathways, lower skills attainment, and weaker workforce attachment.
• Third generation - entrenched disadvantage and increased welfare dependency. 

These patterns are not only socially inequitable—they are economically inefficient. Low productivity is the inevitable outcome when talent is disconnected from opportunity. As both an ESG professional and an economic developer, this intersection of social outcomes and productivity resonated deeply with my motivations. 

What This Means for Green Growth

Overall, the day reinforced the imperative for strategic planning, place‑based job creation, via technology and investment frameworks that integrate exponential growth with measurable impact.

What became increasingly clear is that green growth is not a niche agenda—it is the logical evolution of economic development once we fully account for the systems on which our economies depend. The role of natural capital—was assumed as the basis for our economies and societies. It is worth me making it explicit here. 

Natural capital—our land, water, biodiversity and ecosystems—is not simply an environmental consideration to be balanced against growth. It is a productive asset that underpins prosperity, workforce participation, innovation and liveability. Thinking about natural capital helps regions:

• Identify and articulate their unique value propositions
• Inform land‑use planning for housing, industry, and infrastructure
• Build resilient economies that can adapt to climate and market change

The economic professionals in the room were implicitly encouraged to:

• Understand their regional assets in a holistic sense—natural, social, institutional and economic
• Invest with long‑term intention, rather than chasing short‑term growth metrics
• Be active and informed participants in land‑use decisions, recognising their generational consequences

From a green growth perspective, this represents a shift from mitigation to value creation. When development pathways are aligned with natural systems rather than working against them, regions are better positioned to attract investment, deliver quality jobs and avoid the costly trade‑offs that so often emerge later.

If we take seriously the advice shared by speakers at the Brisbane Roadshow—particularly around place‑based strategy and long‑term thinking —we will be far better equipped to deliver growth that is productive, inclusive and resilient. Not just for the next investment cycle, but for the decades ahead.