There’s more than enough blame to go around for why the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, ended so badly. A week later, heads continue to roll about which are the worst offenders among the 190 nations represented for creating the tepid Rio+20 outcome document, “The Future We Want.” So outraged were the NGOs in Rio that they walked out of the conference, declaring that “The Future We Want is Not Here.” An online petition is now circulating outlining opposition to the agreement made in Rio and calling for a mass people’s movement to bring about the green economy that government leaders have seemed to turn their collective back on. There were no fewer than 15 mentions of “sustained growth” in the outcome document. Not “sustainable development, “sustainability,” or even “sustainable growth,” but “sustained growth” which is nothing more than business-as-usual.
The Rio blame game--or a chance to look in the mirror?
And so where was business in all this? Did they step up to the plate when heads of government decided to play it safe? The answer is: not exactly. At The Business Action for Sustainable Development Day, the business community called on Rio+20 negotiators to put in place policy frameworks that will enable global business to scale up solutions necessary to achieve sustainability goals. That’s all well and good—clear policy sets the parameters for business to act decisively. But has business looked itself in the mirror?
What is needed is to break ranks, as we’ve argued before in this space when the World Economic Forum pledged a leading role on sustainable consumption but lacked the courage to weed out the slow-movers and laggards.
That’s why it’s refreshing to see the new outspoken and more radical-thinking president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Peter Bakker, talk about how “We need to create coalitions of the people who want to be good, who have plans to progress and make it attractive for other people to follow. The 20% of really bad guys we need to regulate out of existence.”
But once again, the reliance is on “regulation” rather than a forceful move by business to exert pressure against the companies and industries which insist on conducting business in the old, unsustainable way, and lobbying governments to continue to make that possible.
Government will continue to step in (although not enough) and demand of business what it does not demand of itself. One of the brighter moments of the past week, for instance, is the UK government’s pledge, announced during Rio, to require all firms listed on the London Stock Exchange to report the levels of greenhouse gases they emit from the start of next financial year.
It would feel less deflating if Rio+20 were to succeed in galvanizing business to get tough on its own rank-and-file, to reject the “self-satisfaction” that Bakker speaks of, and instead, in his vision, “align business with the world we want to create. We all talk about green growth but what do we mean by it and for us it has to be about growth which is inclusive.”
Bakker admits, “We have a global emergency and a global process which is completely not working to address that emergency.”
It’s time for business to rescue itself.
Peter Paul van de Wijs 12:42 pm on June 28, 2012 Permalink
Dear Amy
I liked your blog, although I am not sure that I completely agree with the conclusions of it. I agree that business is not doing enough and that there are still too many business out there that benefit from and actively support maintaining the status quo. At the same time I do believe that business is doing a heck of lot more than it is given credit for. Under various banners (sustainability, efficiency improvements or …) all through the value chain change is starting to happen. Not at the scale and speed ultimately needed but the number of examples is growing rapidly. It is worth noting that in a surprising large number of cases we find that existing legislation is a clear barrier for progress and creating effective markets for new products. The widespread use of fossil fuel subsidies is a clear example of government lead actions that hinder innovation. This is why we are asking for different policies, and for example the removal of all fossil fuels subsidies.
Also, I am wondering whether it is helpful to focus on whether or not the conference was a failure and suggesting that certain groups did not take enough action to influence the process. The failure of the process to deliver concrete actionable outcomes should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Over the past 10 years hardly any progress is been made in these multinational fora. Expecting this one to be different or suggesting that any stakeholder (business or other) has a chance of altering the outcome is admirable but slightly naïve. I think that latest GlobeScan/Sustainability survey was spot on when noticing that the lack of POLITICAL will was the key reason for the lack of progress.
I would prefer to talk about the positive things that happened: SDG’s have survived, Green Economy concept is still in the document, agreement on the need for broader more inclusive accounting rules for countries and companies, there is for the first time ever a reference in the document about south-south financing, etc. Mind you, it is worth remembering that RIO + 20 is not a treaty-making body, charged with making decisions which stick. Rather it is a Summit of UN Member States aimed which at delivering a universal message of intent on the broad group of issues encompassing sustainable development. Many of these issues are dealt with in individually through a series of binding specialized Conventions each with its own subset of countries (e.g. UNFCCC , UNCCD) or by various bodies of the UN (UNEP).
Having said this, I saw a lot of good things happening. Reality is that at a national level and city level a lot of progress is made and continuous to be made. Business and other stakeholders ARE actively engaged there and are making real, lasting progress.
Best regards.
Amy Brown 2:45 pm on July 2, 2012 Permalink
Dear Peter Paul
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate that there are many companies that are leading the sustainability agenda and that several were present at Rio+20 to try to push the agenda. But there were also a number who lobbied against the aims of sustainability to protect their vested interests and that was part of the reason for the watered-down document. I agree that government subsidies for fossil fuels should be abolished but part of the reason they exist is the strong oil and gas lobby that wants them there and does not share the WBCSD’s call to abolish them. I recognize that Rio+20 was never meant to lead to actionable outcomes but its power to influence the agenda with a strong universal message of intent sadly failed to carry the conviction that so many, including forward-thinking businesses, think is necessary. I commend any positive actions that emerged from Rio, and agree that the acknowledgement for the need for more inclusive accountability and reporting on sustainability by business is an important step in the right direction, and that having it in the Rio+20 outcome should give integrated reporting a boost. And yes, there are great examples at the city and local level, and I sincerely hope that these have a ripple effect, supported by all actors–governments, business, NGOs, the public. There is engagement, no doubt, but whether it leads to the real, lasting progress we need–well, Rio+20 still leaves me doubtful, not only of political will for governments to agree on the need for substantive action, but the political will to resist the powerful influence of those members of the private sector that so badly wants to maintain the status quo.
Amy