Paul Hohnen considers comments generated by his previous piece “sustainability redux” on this website recently, and offers some further thoughts on the prospects for the green and sustainable growth agenda in 2011 and beyond
Paul Hohnen considers comments generated by his previous piece “sustainability redux” on this website recently, and offers some further thoughts on the prospects for the green and sustainable growth agenda in 2011 and beyondLast month I wrote an article entitled (‘Green growth: Sustainability redux’).
It suggested that long term trends – including raw material availability issues, the likely merger of financial and non-financial reporting, renewed governmental attention, and a stakeholder approach to problem-solving - were putting sustainability back on the agenda.
The twentieth anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit would be the next ‘peak’ in policy interest, coinciding with a high level UN meeting in 2012. This century’s prize, it said, was a new industrial revolution based on green growth.
“What planet are you on… and can I live there?” was the gist of the informal responses I received from around the world. Reactions made a number of important points which deserve further discussion. Here are the main themes raised.
No traction without government action… but where is it?
Pointing to recent falls in renewable energy share prices, triggered by reduction/withdrawal of government subsidies (e.g. Spain), some noted that long term markets for more sustainable and ethical manufacturing were still totally dependent on government support.
However, without an agreed global climate framework, for example, with consistent (and well executed) national polices, investment in new low-carbon energy products and services would not achieve their potential.
The Catch 22 was that few politicians get elected on a ‘green’ ticket and most consumers won’t pay higher prices for cleaner products. This explains why few - if any - governments have been able to reach existing sustainability targets.
On top of that, competition with China and other emerging economies, now seen as the drivers of international economic growth, would increasingly mean that OECD economies will be marching to the beat of the Asian drum.
While it is common ground that environmental and social problems are on the rise, there is apparently little confidence among observers in the willingness or ability of governments to tackle sustainability issues effectively.
Short-termism rules, OK?
Related to this, the argument was also put that a combination of economic factors had worsened, rather than improved, the prospects for sustainable development.
These included the impact of the financial crisis and the resultant cost-cutting and drive for quick returns.
Also mentioned were the retiring boomer generation cashing out shares and putting short-term pressure on pension companies, and the continuing failure of capital markets to price in ecosystem services and risks.
From the accounting side, some skepticism was expressed about how soon an integrated financial/non financial reporting standard might be developed.
Only recently, those responsible for developing a harmonized approach to international financial reporting standards had indicated slippage in their timetable. This wasn’t seen as boding well for efforts to place a value on sustainability risks and opportunities.
UN-derwhelmed?
Some respondents also questioned what impact ‘another UN meeting ’ would have.
Suggesting that the 1992 and 2002 Earth summits hadn’t changed much, doubts were raised whether the UN could agree anything (witness the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit).
And, if it did, which of the world’s 190 plus countries would actually follow through on their promises.
Similar caution was expressed about the prospects of the G20 driving a focused or sustained sustainability agenda. Not even the recent spate of floods and fires seemed to have raised fresh concerns about climate mitigation and adaptation.
On the plus side, it was pointed out that I had omitted the establishment by the UN Secretary General on 9 August of a special High Level Panel on Global Sustainability. Consisting of over twenty current and former heads of state and ministers, the group has a mandate to report by the end of 2011.
(This is a good point, remedied below. The length of the article prevented coverage of many high-level initiatives. Two particularly noteworthy are the ground-breaking UNEP The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) work and the Stiglitz Commission report on measuring economic performance and social progress. Both of these reflect the heightened level of concern to make markets work for, instead against, sustainability.)
All tosh and greenwash
Still another set of comments suggested that the sustainability agenda itself was unsustainable, and its own undoing. While it was common now for the business culture to talk up sustainability targets and report achievements, there was suspiciously little supporting corporate governance and staff capacity.
Sustainability was still far from being ‘mainstreamed’. Especially sore points included the perceived failure of companies to report on the most material issues and to make absolute reductions in material or energy use.
This job’s too hard!
On the business side, a common concern was that even among businesses that recognized sustainable development and green growth were ‘good things’, there was a sense of exasperation about where to start. The issues raised were often so immense, touching so many aspects of business, and the near-term benefits so unclear, that it was easier to postpone action until it was mandated.
The way forward?
These and other critiques are neither new nor necessarily wrong. No one ever said that achieving sustainability would be cheap or easy. But we know that the longer we delay, the more intractable – and expensive - the issues become.
And we can be fairly safe in betting that when ecosystem failures and atmospheric changes collide with societal practices and market economics, the latter will lose. This is in no one’s interest.
The establishment of the new UN High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, then, is potentially momentous. In the run-up to the 2012 UN conference, the Panel could play a historic role by doing three things.
First, to state clearly and authoritatively how our prospects look as a planet.
Second, to assess why faster and deeper progress has not been made since 1992. This would include consideration of issues like those noted above.
And third, to recommend institutional and policy reforms (including the case for ‘green growth’) that are appealing, effective and – above all - achievable.
In this, it should be given the resources necessary to draw on the learning and experience of all stakeholder groups and experts from around the world, recognizing the wide differences in viewpoints on sustainability (see ‘Sustaining the sustainable development debate=’, EC April 2010).
Here it would be well advised to listen closest to those that have a demonstrated track record of delivering positive and measurable change.
There are countless inspiring examples of change everywhere. 2012 should be the place to showcase, celebrate and fast track them.
Amsterdam-based, Paul Hohnen consults, speaks and writes on sustainability and CSR issues. An Associate Fellow of Chatham House, Hohnen is a member of Ethical Corporation’s Advisory Board. For more information, see www.hohnen.net