· 8 min read
In the realm of systems change — whether ecological, economic, or social — we are never short on frameworks. From climate mitigation to regenerative design, from doughnut economics to circular economies, from sustainability standards to equity scorecards, frameworks abound.
They help us make sense of the world and how to act within it. They offer structure, a language, a way to decide. They are our maps to make sense of complexity, to guide action, to shape strategy.
But here’s the problem. We are swimming in frameworks.
Frameworks are, as someone once quipped, “like toothbrushes. Everyone needs one, but no one wants to use someone else’s.” And it’s true.
The proliferation of frameworks is not inherently problematic. Diversity has value, and, as I always say, overlap in a regenerative system is a good thing! But when each operates in its own silo, disconnected from others, the result can be confusion, inefficiency, and fragmentation. We spend more time navigating between frameworks than using them. We waste precious hours deciphering: Is this the same as that? What’s different? Is one better? Why should I switch? And rarely do the creators of these frameworks talk to one another, much less collaborate. I should know.
I created one.
My drawdown experience
Years ago, I had the privilege of creating the Drawdown Solutions Framework at Project Drawdown, which helped shift the climate narrative from doom to possibility. It offered a clear, rigorous way to evaluate climate solutions and their systems-wide impacts. It became one of the most cited resources in the climate space.
After some time, my colleague Paul Hawken left to co-create a new framework—Project Regeneration. Though described with fresh language and infused with regenerative values, it was, in many ways, a welcome iteration of Drawdown. Around the same time, One Earth launched their own excellent Solutions Framework. They added some new solutions, categorized things differently, and added some new data, but the essence remained the same.
None of this is surprising. Nor is it unwelcome. Because if there is one thing I learned as a framework builder, educator and implementer it’s that there is no “One Framework to Rule Them All.”
I call this the Anti-Sauron Principle: there should not—and cannot—be a single dominant lens through which we should expect everyone to see the world. Multiple perspectives reach different audiences, illuminate different angles, and create resilience. Any attempt to create a singular unified approach to climate, nature, or our human systems is destined to fail. Such reductionist efforts inherently ignore the reality of the complex systems they attempt to explain. Besides, who wants to be forced to use someone else’s toothbrush?
Image created by Chad Frischmann
But plurality without relationship is fragmentation. And this is what we must confront: if our goal is transformative impact — then shouldn’t we be working together?
Shouldn’t framework designers be talking to each other, aligning where possible, and building interoperability instead of competition? Shouldn’t we be co-creating a polyframework approach, one that honors the specificity of each tool while creating pathways to navigate between them?
The patchwork
At RegenIntel and the Global Solutions Alliance (GSA), we’ve started a project called The Patchwork, aimed at weaving frameworks, not replacing them or flatten them into sameness. Like a quilt, it stitches across boundaries, respecting the unique fabric of each piece while creating a larger, coherent whole. It is a meta-framework of frameworks—a polyframework toolkit for navigating complexity in the age of the polycrisis.
Like a quilt, it stitches across boundaries, respecting the unique fabric of each piece while creating a larger, coherent whole.
We’re beginning with the 15+ frameworks that we already use in our RegenIntel Fellowship Course — each representing different vantage points on systems change. These frameworks span climate, economics, equity, ecology, Indigenous science, regenerative design, spiritual transformation, and beyond. They are brought to life by more than 40 instructors—activists, scientists, knowledge keepers, entrepreneurs, and artists—who guide us through the beautiful complexity of this work.
Together with these framework creators, we’re working on a white paper, guidebook, and a digital tool to help navigate across frameworks. The goal is not to merge them into one model, but to clarify how they relate, build relationships — to help people choose the right tools based on purpose and context.
What we’re seeing is that this approach gives practitioners more confidence. They’re not paralyzed by choice. They see frameworks as part of a larger toolkit and learn how to move behind them.
And here’s the thing: it works.
There is not the one ring
Let me be clear: The Patchwork is not about being the one tool. It’s about honoring the lineage of ideas and the thinkers behind them. It’s about stitching, not standardizing.
We don’t seek to supplant any framework. On the contrary — we clarify how they connect, where they diverge, and how they can be woven together to serve different purposes. We believe that by doing so, we unlock cascading benefits: less time lost in translation or reinventing the wheel, more time spent in implementation; less confusion, more clarity; less ego, more impact.
There’s no perfect framework. But working in silos is inefficient and avoidable.
Polycrisis demands polyframeworks
We live in a ‘system of systems’ — ecological, economic, social, biological, spiritual. For all the pain and destruction it causes, what the polycrisis reveals is a boon: understanding interdependence. We need tools that can interrelate as well as the systems they seek to transform.
The logic is straightforward:
First, name what’s shared. Drawdown, Project Regeneration, and One Earth are not identical, and yet they rhyme. Naming that common ground is not an insult to anyone’s originality. It’s a service to practitioners who must choose quickly and well.
Second, be honest about difference. Frameworks are designed with specific purposes, assumptions, and scales in mind. Some are built for portfolio design; others for governance; others for values and boundaries. Some center technical modeling; others center cultural practice and consent. None does everything. That’s not a weakness—it’s a design choice.
Third, let context lead. Tools don’t select themselves; people select them, for a reason, in a place. A coastal city with flood risk and housing insecurity will make different choices than a rural cooperative reclaiming land or a funder redesigning grantmaking. Start with who, where, and why. Then reach for the frameworks that match.
Fourth, refuse extraction. When we speak of weaving frameworks, we are also speaking of weaving knowledge systems. That requires relationship, attribution, and consent—especially where Indigenous knowledge is involved. Borrowing without relationship isn’t collaboration; it’s extraction. The Patchwork is grounded in respect.
Fifth, privilege action over allegiance. We are not choosing teams. We are harmonizing tools that can be used together to meet real goals in real time. If a framework needs another to be whole in practice, let's recognize that and fill the gaps. If a framework isn’t suited to the context, don’t force it to be.
This is not an academic exercise. It’s a practical response to the way work actually happens. Policies change, budgets shift, communities organize, crises accelerate. People need to move. The function of The Patchwork is to lower the cost of orientation and raise the quality of action.
How it looks in practice
Imagine a team tasked with decarbonizing municipal buildings, improving air quality, and creating good local jobs. They often will have a climate plan, a resilience plan, a financial plan and an equity roadmap. Each document stands on its own. Together, they compete for attention and scatter effort.
The Patchwork doesn’t replace those plans. It helps them link.
• A solutions framework clarifies a portfolio of actions
• A regenerative lens keeps the focus on living systems
• An equity lens brings justice from afterthought to design principle
• A governance framework defines roles and consent
• A spiritual or cultural lens, where appropriate, grounds the work in meaning
The Patchwork doesn’t erase difference; it situates it. It helps a team craft a coherent story of action that can be owned, resourced, and measured — without months lost navigating the sea of frameworks, or designing a new toothbrush.
Common concerns
“We don’t have time to weave — we need to move.” Most teams already lose time switching between disconnected tools. Clarifying how frameworks relate can make orientation faster.
“This will water down strong ideas.” Not if done carefully. The point is not to collapse frameworks into one another but to clarify what each offers
“Isn’t this just another framework?” No. The Patchwork is not a new model to pledge allegiance to. It is a cultural practice of interoperability. It’s a habit of calling each other, naming overlap, and building the road between maps.
That’s the promise of The Patchwork. It’s not about unifying frameworks into a monolith—it’s about learning how to navigate between them and effectively implement solutions. It’s about building a culture of interoperability, humility, and co-creation. It’s about making it easier for practitioners, policymakers, funders, educators, and movement leaders to orient themselves amid the noise, and find the blend of frameworks most relevant to the challenge at hand.
It’s about accelerating the Regenerative Future by weaving together the wisdom we already have. A mirror reflecting back what humanity already knows.
Image created by Chad Frischmann
Call to weave
The field of systems change doesn’t lack insight; it lacks coordination and ways to work across frameworks. The Patchwork is one attempt to support that shift through weaving as opposed to standardizing.
If you work with frameworks or depend on them to make decisions, the goal is simple: reduce confusion, improve alignment, and support action.
Let’s stop reinventing the wheel in isolation. Instead, let's attach your wheel to the same train and move forward faster to a better future together.
This is The Patchwork. If you want to weave with us, reach out.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Sustainability needs facts, not just promises. illuminem’s Data Hub™ gives you transparent emissions data, corporate climate targets, and performance benchmarks for thousands of companies worldwide.
