The 'Inner Development Goals' movement faces criticism

Just days before Christmas 2024, a bombshell dropped in the tight-knit community of philosophers, developmental psychologists, and holistic thinkers focused on inner development.

Danish economist and bildung activist Lene Rachel Andersen posted a YouTube video titled "Statement by Lene Rachel Andersen on The Nordic Secret and Inner Development Goals". The video sent ripples through social media and private WhatsApp groups, because Andersen has long been associated with the Inner Development Goals movement (IDG). But in the video she suggested she wanted nothing to do with it.

We’ll get to that – but first, some backstory.

What are the Inner Development Goals?

For those unfamiliar, the Inner Development Goals were formally launched in 2020 as a framework for personal growth, emphasising that inner development is essential to tackling global challenges like climate change and inequality.

The framework includes a set of skills and qualities, such as cognitive flexibility, empathy, and resilience, designed to help individuals contribute meaningfully to societal progress.

The organisation behind the framework is a not-for-profit initiative, managed by Inner Development Goals AB – a Swedish limited company owned by the Ekskäret Foundation. Both were set up by Tomas Björkman, a former banker who left finance in the 2000s to focus on promoting self-awareness and personal growth.

The IDG initiative now boasts 700 local hubs across 80 countries and has been referenced in hundreds of academic papers. In October, it was invited to a White House roundtable. Even the Catholic Church has shown interest.

The Nordic Secret and its connection to the IDGs

Lene Rachel Andersen became associated with the IDG movement due to her earlier collaboration with Björkman on The Nordic Secret (published in 2017). The book explores the historical role of bildung, a German concept of deep, holistic education, in shaping the Nordic countries’ societal development.

The Nordic Secret received significant attention in Scandinavian academic and policy circles, praised for linking personal development with broader societal transformation. Some of its key themes – such as the role of inner growth in shaping social progress – appear to overlap with the principles behind the IDGs.

But Andersen now says she wants nothing to do with IDGs – and she’s even questioned Björkman’s contribution to The Nordic Secret itself. Indeed, in later editions, his role is listed only as “editor of the first edition.”

"Through our discussions, Tomas and I found an interesting connection between these two schools of thought, and that’s what I based the book on," she tells Impact Loop. However she objects to how he has developed some of these ideas into the IDGs.

“As soon as you start categorising people – talking about levels, goals, personality types, and colours – it becomes something entirely different. I don’t want to contribute to that. You can’t rate yourself or others and expect to build genuine relationships.”

"Piggybacking on the SDGs"

Andersen also takes issue with the movement’s perceived affiliation with the UN’s Sustainable Development goals (SDGs). The IDGs’ visual framework was designed by Jakob Trollbäck, a Swedish designer who, alongside his team at The New Division – a Stockholm-based strategic communications firm – also created the official SDG branding.

"People think this [the IDGs] is a UN initiative, when in reality, it’s something a few coaches and business consultants in Stockholm and Germany have come up with. Piggybacking on the SDGs gives it an aura of credibility. But I think it’s deeply unethical," she says.

Other critics, speaking off the record, go even further. One source tells Impact Loop that the movement is little more than "the emperor’s new clothes," reinforcing “existing patriarchal and colonialist structures” under the guise of global transformation.

Justified criticism – or a misunderstanding?

But Björkman, speaking to Impact Loop over Zoom, says the book was a joint effort.

"We developed the book together through discussions. Even though Lene wrote the drafts, which I then edited, we agreed that we would both be listed as co-authors. I have always acknowledged her crucial role as the primary writer."

At the same time, he concedes that criticism of IDGs is worth discussing.

"Some criticism is justified and helps us improve. Other criticism is based on misunderstandings – often because we haven’t been clear enough in communicating the broader purpose of the initiative."

He insists IDGs are about aspirations, not rigid benchmarks, as Anderson implies in her critique.

"The SDGs aren’t always measurable either. They’re ambitions – like 'global justice'. And the same goes for the IDGs."

A neon sign, not a rulebook

Erik Fernholm, one of the co-founders of Inner Development Goals, tells Impact Loop he views IDGs as a neon sign pointing towards system change research rather than a rigid framework.

"IDG is a young initiative that has gone global in just a few years, so we still have a lot to learn about how we best contribute to society’s challenges."

He argues that the world is not just in a sustainability crisis, but a behavioural crisis.

"The market pushes us toward narrow goals, short-term gains, and self-interest over systemic and long-term values. If we want to transition in time, we need an inner shift as big as the outer one."

"I know they mean well"

But for American systems thinker Nora Bateson, IDGs are missing the point entirely. Speaking to Impact Loop from the US, she describes them as dangerous.

"I’m deeply concerned and worried that several of my friends are involved in this. And if I feel this strongly, I have to speak out."

For Bateson, the problem is fundamental: nothing exists in isolation – and trying to measure personal growth is futile at best, harmful at worst.

"I know they mean well. But anything that involves ranking people, categorising them, or placing them on levels is incredibly dangerous. I grew up in California in the 1970s, and this sounds like the self-help boom of 1974 – just without the fun bits. Back then, it was all the same talk about ‘individual development.’ Believe me, it just created a bunch of assholes."

Bateson’s biggest fear? That IDGs could feed algorithmic capitalism, making it easier for AI to box people into predefined categories.

“AI thrives on categorising and polarising people. That’s why we need to be extra cautious about any attempts to define ourselves through surveys and assessments. Otherwise, this is just an extension of early 20th-century eugenics – or a Soviet Man 2.0.”

Asked what it would take for her to support the movement, she responds strongly: "It would have to be dismantled."

However, she adds that watching such a shift unfold would be fascinating.

"Understanding how groups of people can rethink their beliefs and shift their perspectives may be one of the most important projects of our time. In a complex world, we need to shed old assumptions – and stop treating people as isolated islands."

Translation and additional research by Maddy Savage.