A new PArAdigm
FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
Summary of the deliberations of the Club de Madrid Working Group
on Environmental Sustainability and Shared Societies
The Club de Madrid welcomes this and the other documents
of the Working Group as an important contribution to the
debate on these issues, without endorsing all the views
expressed in them.
The Club de Madrid´s Environmental Sustainability and
Shared Societies Working Group was formed to explore
and advocate for a holistic approach to development that
integrates social, economic and environmental dimensions
to create sustainable development and Shared Societies. The
Shared Societies Project is a Club de Madrid global initiative
that has identified the necessity of creating a truly inclusive
and response society that meets the interests of all sectors.
The Shared Societies Project (SSP) has focused on bringing
to leaders of international organizations and governments
worldwide the need to promote the effective management of
ethnic, cultural, religious and other identity differences in
countries such as Kyrgyzstan and South Africa. At the global
level, the UN has acknowledged the Shared Societies message
and given these ideas a prominent role in the Agenda 2030.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
2
INDEX
Foreword: A new paradigm for sustainable development
Part 1. Key Components of a new equitable and sustainable development paradigm from a Shared
Societies perspective
A. SHAred SoCietieS, environmentAl ProteCtion And SuStAinAble develoPment
b. tHe SHAred SoCietieS PerSPeCtive on vAlueS, reSPonSibilitY And leAderSHiP
1. Shared values are important
2. A sense of Shared responsibility
3. Shared leadership and the political will to introduce change
Part 2. Transforming systems unfit to meet current and future trends and challenges
A. tHe eConomY
1 The growth model and GDP
2 Globalization and trade
3 Consumption
4 Competition
5 Costs and pricing
6 Regulation and taxation
b. nAturAl reSourCeS And tHe environment
7 Managing the commons
8 Land tenure
C. SoCietY And governAnCe
9 Nature of leadership
10 Participation
11 Shareholder model of corporate governance
12 Global governance
13 Fragmentation of development efforts
14 Monitoring mechanisms
d. looKing to tHe future
15 Planning horizon
16 Learning and education
17 Challenge of new technologies
18 Militarization
19 Bringing the approach to scale
Towards a Shared and equitable future
Members of the Working Group on Environmental Sustainability and Shared Societies
About WLA-Club de Madrid
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
3
FOREWORD
A NEW PARADIGM FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?
In order to examine the nature of the link between an inclusive Shared Society and
environmental sustainability, which was the task of the Club de Madrid Working Group, it was
necessary to explore many other topics, concepts and conceptual frameworks, some at more
length than others. This paper summarizes key insights and reflections, though individual
members may hold a different opinion on particular points or the weight that should be given
them. These insights relate to three main themes:
1.
It was clear from the start that environmental challenges had to be put in the context
of overall sustainable and equitable social and economic development,1 as social,
environmental and economic progress are closely intertwined and interdependent.
2.
Major attention was given to an important critique of the current dominant discourse
on economics and development, from the perspective of inclusion and sustainability.
The Working Group concluded that its fundamental tenets are not fit for the purpose of
ensuring a fair, prosperous and sustainable future for the planet and all of its inhabitants.
Specifically, it concluded that the current economic and development model will not
deliver the transformative elements of Agenda 2030.
3.
While it was not the remit of the Group to articulate a specific new development
paradigm more conducive to achieving sustainable development, it identified the
following key elements that would shape such a paradigm: shared values, shared
responsibility and shared leadership. These are very closely aligned with the concept
of Shared Societies as defined by the Club de Madrid, and the Group found the ideas
developed by its Shared Societies Project very pertinent to their discussion.
This document summarizes the Working Group’s discussion on positive elements of a new
paradigm to better achieve a more sustainable and just society. Part 1 gives an overview of how
Agenda 2030 aligns with the Group’s vision and the Shared Societies concept; and Part 2 gives
a more concrete critique of the fundamental building blocks of the world’s current development
paradigm.
1
The Members of the Club de Madrid Working Group believe that development is only sustainable if it is equitable, and use
the term “sustainable development” in this way throughout this paper.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
4
PA R T
KEY COMPONENTS OF A NEW
EQUITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM FROM A
SHARED SOCIETIES PERSPECTIVE
1
SHARED SOCIETIES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A.
The Working Group
agrees that there is a
link between the creation of Shared Societies
and the sustainability of the environment, but
puts this connection in the wider context of
sustainable development. Shared Societies
have the potential to be environmentally
friendly. They not only contribute to the
protection and restoration of the planet
and its ecosystems; at the same time,
they are inclusive, providing opportunities
for everyone to achieve their potential in
sustainable ways. Conversely, the absence of
inclusion leads to multiple interlocking and
reinforcing disadvantages. In other words,
sustainable development will not be attained
without Shared Societies.
This appreciation of the holistic nature of
sustainable development resonates with the
vision of Agenda 2030,2 whose 17 goals and
169 related targets aim to address the world’s
challenges and put humanity on a more
sustainable course, leaving no one behind.
While there are questions about how far it can
achieve its ambition while accepting current
political and economic orthodoxies,3 Agenda
2030 repeatedly emphasizes that sustainable
development means economic, social and
environmental wellbeing, and that these three
dimensions are interrelated and mutually
dependent. Fundamental to achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
is an integrated approach, in which each
2
3
SOCIAL
Bearable
Equitable
Sustainable
ENVIRONMENT
Viable
ECONOMIC
dimension is pursued in a way which ensures
the achievement of the other elements – not
in a way which disregards and undermines
them, as has happened with much economic
and industrial activity to date. There are many
transversal links across goals and targets;
for example, the strong integration of the
environmental dimension across the SDGs is
welcome, as are the specific goals on energy,
sustainable consumption and production,
climate change and protection of terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. From their own
experience, members of the Working Group
have seen that focusing on some desirable
goals without considering how they impact
on the achievement of others will lead to
unintended consequences and fractured and
disjointed progress towards the goals.
United Nations (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1 New York: UN, para 10.
See Part 2 of this document.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
5
PA R T
1.A
For example,4 while environmental conditions have improved for some, they remain worse
for poorer individuals and children. This negatively affects their health and earning capacity,
particularly in financially challenged countries and regions. Across the world, far too many
deaths are still due to poor environmental conditions such as inadequate housing, air and water
pollution, and exposure to hazardous substances. Poor environmental conditions can in turn
introduce or exacerbate inequalities and poverty; for instance, environmental pollution can lead
to illnesses such as chronic respiratory conditions, which undermine quality of life and earning
potential and, for the state, increase the cost of healthcare. Children are particularly vulnerable
in such circumstances, the afterm burden of disease (EBD), a measure of the environmental
burden on society in terms of health, shows high levels of environmental deterioration,
particularly in emerging market economies. In all economies the burden falls most heavily on
those who are already the most vulnerable in society – the poorest, the most marginalized, the
youngest, the oldest, and women.
DEGRADATION
OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
DEMANDS ON
AGRICULTURAL LAND,
WATER, FORESTS AND
FISHERIES
DECLINE IN
QUALITY OF NATURAL
CAPITALS
CLIMATE CHANGE
LOSS OF
LIVELIHOOD
THE
WORLD’S
POOR
4
OECD (2015) All on Board: Making Inclusive Growth Happen, Paris: OECD, http://www.oecd.org/economy/all-on-board9789264218512-en.htm
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
6
PA R T
The world’s poor are also
threatened by the trend
in degradation of natural
resources. Increasingly,
they live in rural areas –
often called “pockets of
poverty” – where much
of the quality of natural
resources is degrading.
Especially in developing
countries, the demands
on agricultural land, water,
forests and fisheries are
increasingly unsustainable.
Declining quality deprives
the rural poor of adequate
“natural capital” to support
sustainable livelihoods.
Furthermore, in these
pockets of poverty,
climate change impacts
are adding to the loss of
livelihood through higher
temperatures and extreme
events such as drought
and flooding. It is often
pointed out that subsistence
economies – i.e. those that
make the least demands
on the world’s resources
and are by definition the
most sustainable – are
the most affected by the
actions of those who are
more advantaged. The
communities, cultures and
languages of indigenous
peoples are regarded as
among the most vulnerable
in the world. The combined
pressures of environmental
degradation, climate change,
SOS
1.A
unfettered economic
development, inequality and
human rights abuses threaten
their cultural integrity, or risk
the complete destruction of
their distinct communities.
Small island states face
potentially devastating rises
in sea levels as a result of
climate change caused by
carbon emissions in larger,
wealthier and more powerful
states.
This poverty crisis is separate
from – and in addition
to – the biodiversity loss
that characterizes the
modern and manmade socalled “sixth extinction”.5
Many believe that we are
approaching a possible
ecological collapse and
that we are living through
the erosion of our planet’s
ability to sustain life in some
vulnerable ecosystems
and regions. Perhaps that
possibility has not been
sufficiently recognized and
internalized by the bulk of
the world’s population, and
more effort needs to be
made to bring that message
home. It represents an
ultimatum which should force
the world’s population at all
levels to take action.
5
E. Kolbert (2014) The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History New York: Henry Holt and Company; Gerardo Ceballos, Paul
Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich (2015) The Annihilation of Nature: Human Extinction of Birds and Mammals Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
7
KEY COMPONENTS OF A NEW
EQUITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM FROM A
SHARED SOCIETIES PERSPECTIVE
B.
PA R T
1
THE SHARED SOCIETIES PERSPECTIVE ON VALUES,
RESPONSIBILITY AND LEADERSHIP
An integrated
approach to
development is necessary and would be most
effective because, fundamentally, all aspects
of development require the same underlying
conditions if they are to be fully realized.
These conditions are all elements of a Shared
Society: the primacy of shared human values;
awareness of our shared future and shared
responsibility for that future; and shared
leadership along with the political will to take
the necessary actions together.
1Shared values are important.
Values may not always be clearly articulated,
but they govern actions and behaviours. The
current dominant values across the world
are not conducive to the holistic, inclusive
approach that is needed to realize “the
future we want for all”.6 They give primacy
to the accumulation of wealth, competition,
individualism, self-interest, short-termism,
consumerism and access to power as the
main drivers of human action, to the point
that such characteristics seem to be the
innate nature of humanity (while they are
part of human nature, they are by no means
the whole). The impact of these values on
sustainable development is negative, and they
are unable to de-escalate harmful trends. By
putting individuals and their own reference
1
2
3
RED
SHA UTURE
F
group first, these values are atomizing and
fuel identity conflicts. Seeking short-term
advantage is detrimental to the environment
and the needs of others, including indigenous
peoples and traditional farming and fishing
communities. Competitiveness accepts
inequality as inevitable and precipitates
division and tension between individuals,
states and commercial interests; while
reliance on power and force to influence
others compounds harmful trends such as
authoritarianism and violent extremism.
Current structures and systems reward these
dominant values and the attitudes, traits and
6
United Nations (2012) Realizing the Future We Want for All: Report of the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015
Development Agenda, New York: UN, http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/poverty-reduction/realizingthe-future-we-want.html
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
8
PA R T
behaviours associated with
them. We are told they are the
necessary drivers of progress,
yet they are not in tune with
protecting the planet or
facilitating the empowerment
of weaker and disadvantaged
sections of society to fulfil
their potential and contribute
to the community. This
suggests that the current
definitions of “progress”,
“development” and “success”
need to be rethought. The
Working Group believes that
the concepts of “wellbeing”
(in its broadest sense) and
“prosperity” provide more
meaningful criteria for human
achievement – compared
to the acquisition of power,
wealth or status viewed in
isolation – and are more
consistent with sustainable
development and respect for
the environment.
The underlying values of the
Shared Societies Project7 are
very similar to those required
to achieve environmental
sustainability. These same
values are needed if we
are to achieve an economy
which works for all and
protects the environment.
Therefore, with a few small
additions to explicitly address
environmental issues, they
are proposed here as a
very helpful and pertinent
framework.
1.B
SHARED SOCIETIES FRAMEWORK
Respect for the dignity of every individual
Respect for human rights and the rule of law
Altruism and identification with the needs of
other individuals, of the community and of future
generations, in a spirit of solidarity and collective
action
Equity, fairness and inclusiveness
Democratic participation in a way which enhances
the ability of all sections of society to express their
aspirations and their needs
Individual and community self-reliance and
autonomy in their own affairs, along with networks
of interconnectedness, caring and sharing
Respect for the environment and the rights of
nature and all species
Respect for the earth’s natural boundaries
Recognition of the irreplaceability of the global
commons – for example, sea, freshwater, air and
space – and therefore that their protection takes
precedence over other considerations
Modesty and restraint in consumption, lifestyle
and use of the earth’s resources
Peace and harmony
Club de Madrid (2009) A Call to Action for Leadership to Build Shared Societies, http://www.clubmadrid.org/img/
secciones/The_Shared_Societies_Project_Booklet_160910.pdf
7
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
9
PA R T
These values and principles
are familiar, traditional,
and still very much alive
and practised in some
traditional local communities,
particularly amongst
indigenous peoples, small
island communities and poor
rural communities. Such
communities display many
elements of a truly Shared
Society, that can teach us
much about effective social,
economic and political
organization, sustainable
development, and managing
and safeguarding the
environment. These values
are still widely held as
ideals and are laid down in
the Charter of the United
Nations, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights,
subsequent conferences and
summits, and most recently
in Agenda 2030. However,
they are not sufficiently
embraced as guiding
principles for the attitudes
and actions of all, and instead
are squeezed or pushed
to one side by the current
discourse and existing
structures and systems.
To redress this trend, it is
imperative to build the sense
of belonging to multiple
Shared Societies both locally
and globally, along with
the shared values that will
be necessary to deal with
current local and global
challenges. It is not expected
that current tendencies in
attitude and behaviour can
be quickly reversed and that
the current orientation will
suddenly change to embrace
these values and principles,
given all the countervailing
pressures. Instead,
the immediate goal
should be to
create a policy
and educational
framework informed
by shared values that
will guide decision
making,
and consequently actions
and behaviour. This may
facilitate the rediscovery
of appropriate values,
particularly if they are
seen to be more effective
in creating a prosperous,
sustainable and inclusive
society for the benefit of
all and the recovery of the
environment.
The socio-economic system
should therefore be reset to
favour economic solutions
that will help make this
vision a reality. It should
be values-driven, and
any regulatory measures
1.B
should be tested for their
capacity to contribute
to the realization of that
vision and principles. This
requires that incentives and
rewards respond to and at
the same time motivate and
encourage the co-operative,
compassionate, altruistic,
ethical and aesthetic aspects
of human nature to meet
the challenges facing the
global community today.
It follows that money
would be regarded as a
means of exchange, and
its accumulation would
not be seen as a sign of
achievement.
New ideas8 are emerging
in local communities,
think tanks, academia, a
few national governments
and in intergovernmental
institutions, but as yet
they have had only limited
impact on the wider public
consciousness or the
economic system itself. They
are designed to encourage
and release the potential of
humankind to work for the
wellbeing and prosperity
of all, and factor in nonnegotiable requirements for
true sustainable development
such as respect for the
environment, decent work
and a decent life for all.
For example: Report of the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly: www.un.org/ga/
econcrisissummit/docs/FinalReport_CoE.pdf; A. Kothari, F. Demaria and A. Acosta “Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj:
Alternatives to Sustainable Development and the Green Economy” in Development (2014) 57(3-4), (362-375); New Economics
Foundation at www.neweconomics.org; The Solutions Journal at https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/
8
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
10
PA R T
2 A sense of shared responsibility,
particularly for living within natural
boundaries and supporting other people and
living creatures, complements and reinforces
the shared values. The development
community and those fighting climate change
and environmental degradation face the
conundrum that people and communities
know that some of their behaviours have
a negative impact on the environment,
but often do not change these behaviours
unless their effects touch them directly and
personally. Examples range from simple
action like turning off taps and lights to save
water and electricity, to reckless dumping of
waste by major companies and government
agencies.
It is worrying that many people are unwilling
to make such minimal efforts in their personal
lives, though of course large institutions
have the biggest impact on societies and the
environment. Individuals have responsibility for
the impact of their own actions and also for the
influence they can assert on big institutions.
With globalization, it is even more the
case that no person, group or country is
“an island”, as the poet John Donne said.
Everyone makes a difference for better or for
worse. Many people are not yet aware of the
implications of their actions. Consumerism,
the media and social pressures encourage
people to ignore the harmful consequences.
Even when those consequences are
understood, a “culture of convenience”
tempts them to ignore their responsibility and
take the easy option, despite knowing that
greater personal effort will contribute to the
greater good. Modern communities tend to be
more amorphous and impersonal and people
are disconnected from the impact of their
own attitudes and behaviour.
9
1.B
There are examples of how particular images
in traditional and social media compelled
people to pause for reflection, changed the
narrative and shifted public attitudes, at least
for a short time. The publication of pictures
of the body of three-year-old Syrian refugee
Alan Kurdi9 is a case in point, which shows
that people can be moved by the plight of
others to accept their share of responsibility;
the next step is to make that a more
systematic and sustained awareness. This is
another reason why
it is imperative to build
the sense of belonging to
multiple Shared Societies,
locally and globally.
the sense of being a
valued part of an entity,
big or small, motivates
engagement with issues,
concerns, the needs of
others, and with the
ecosystem that sustains
the community.
It was noted that this sense of shared
responsibility is still found amongst
indigenous peoples and other small, selfsufficient communities, though of course
financial pressures may induce them to accept
development projects that are not in their
community’s best interests, and from which
they are likely to gain little benefit. The direct
contact of members of such communities
with each other and with their environment
may be an important factor in helping to
inculcate the sense of personal responsibility
for the impact of their actions. This relates to
a point made by Ostrom et al., that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alan_Kurdi
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
11
PA R T
“
Users who depend on a resource for
a major portion of their livelihood,
and have some autonomy to make
their own access and harvesting
rules, are more likely than others
1.B
across societies. Agenda 2030 argues that the
SDGs will not be achieved unless all sectors
of society are involved in the efforts to reach
them. Ban Ki-moon, the former UN Secretary
General, has said: “the success of the 2030
Agenda will depend on whether adolescents
and young people become agents of positive
change,”12 and then went on to note:
to perceive benefits from their own
restrictions, but they need to share
an image of how the resource
system operates and how their
“People are the central agents of
actions affect each other and the
their lives and are the first and
resource.”10
last responders to any crisis. Any
effort to reduce the vulnerability
of people and strengthen their
resilience must begin at the
Indigenous peoples are also very directly
aware of the traditional practices, customs
and stories of their communities, which
instil the sense of sharing and commitment
to the community and the environment, as
inheritors from the past and guardians for
the future. These qualities have been hard to
upscale and replicate, though the Working
Group considered positive experiences
from Bhutan and Costa Rica, and members
are aware of other examples11 of building a
social, environmental and economic model
around shared values and a sense of shared
responsibility. However, such approaches are
by no means the norm.
local level, with national and
Agenda 2030 rightly emphasized that not only
are the SDGs inclusive, but they also require
fostering a sense of shared responsibility
their needs are met.13
international efforts building on
local expertise, leadership and
capacities. Affected people must
be consistently engaged and
involved in decision making,
ensuring participation by
women at all levels. Legitimate
representatives of communities
should be systematically placed
at the leadership level in every
context. People must also be able
to influence decisions about how
”
E. Ostrom, J. Burger, R. Norgaard and D. Policansky “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges” in Science
(1999) 284(5412): 278-82, page 281.
11
For example, R. Levins (2008) Talking about Trees: Science, Ecology and Agriculture in Cuba, Delhi: Leftword.
12 Ban Ki-Moon (2015) One humanity: shared responsibility, Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian
Summit, A/70/709 New York: UN, para 101.
13 Ibid., para 114.
10
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
12
PA R T
Many of the obstacles to
meeting current challenges
and realizing the SDGs are
compounded by the lack of
meaningful engagement of
all relevant parties in shared
analysis of the problems
and the development of
shared solutions. At present,
decision making is too often
concentrated in the hands of
elite groups of politicians and
commercial interests, who are
committed to their narrow
concept of progress. They
cannot understand why their
plans should be opposed,
even when they impact
negatively on the lifestyles
and human rights of others
and are open to serious
criticism. They see their
opponents merely as a barrier
to their concept of progress
3 Shared leadership and the
political will to introduce change
can mobilize institutions and people in order
to bridge a gap in commitment. Many of
the challenges and threats are recognized
in terms of rhetorical statements, but are
avoided and not substantively or consistently
addressed. At all levels, there is a lack of
public commitment and political will to
take them as seriously as they need to be
taken. This lack of political will means that
known solutions are not applied. It requires
honest, courageous leadership to admit past
mistakes, the consequences of which are
still to be put right. It requires leadership to
say to one’s supporters that there must be
a change in current practices, such as the
over-exploitation of resources or disregard
for the impact of consumption patterns on
poor and disadvantaged communities, and
to acknowledge that these changes may
cause some minor inconvenience at home
but are necessary to meet goals and solve
problems elsewhere. It is challenging to
persuade people that while such changes are
not intended to meet immediate self-interest
or demands of citizens, in the long run they
will be in everyone’s interest and will create
a better social, ecological and economic
1.B
rather than as the champions
of more sustainable, inclusive
progress. The majority of
people are not consulted,
but they should be – not only
because it is right and just
to do so, but also because
it would lead to more
engagement and therefore
to more effective and
sustainable policies and more
efficient implementation.
environment for all. It is not easy to say to
big corporations that their activities will be
regulated for the greater good. It is difficult to
confront populist chauvinistic rhetoric, often
amplified by populist leaders and media, and
instead make the case for interdependency.
Equally, it requires leadership at the global
level, where there may be some measure of
consensus on the future we want for all, but
not on the best way to achieve it and respond
to the current threats.
it is challenging but
necessary to call on
people and states
to share power and
give up privileges,
and to commend
those who do.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
13
PA R T
Lack of leadership for
inclusive Shared Societies
feeds uncertainty and
inflames fear, frustration, lack
of trust and hostility towards
those who seem different.
How does one build political
support and motivation? How
does one engage people
in new ways of looking at
things? Where is the political
will? Positive leadership can
gain support for altruistic
policies, provided they
are fair and equitable and
the case is made openly
and transparently. Leaders
need to build awareness
that the challenges are
shared challenges, and the
responsibility for change is
shared by all sectors. The
Club de Madrid established
the Shared Societies Project
to promote – and it continues
to promote – this kind of
leadership at all levels. Such
leadership can be found
in any section of society,
including those that are
currently marginalized, and
can be most effective when
it is shared and dispersed
across society. There are
many examples of people
collectively mobilizing to
transform their lives for the
better and claim their rightful
role in decision making.
1.B
The nature of the interaction between leaders and the
community is crucial. The current challenges cannot be
resolved by leaders alone, but require the mobilization of the
whole community; therefore, enabling leadership is called for
that supports and encourages all sectors to play their part.
Leaders will also need community support in challenging
divisive tendencies; without this, they can easily become
captured by and dependent on those interests. Members of
the Club de Madrid said:
“Shared Societies are achieved
when all parts of a community
value and feel committed to
their shared achievements. The
most effective way is through
a partnership between the
state and political leaders, civil
society, religious institutions
and the private sector.”14
”
These sentiments equally apply to the efforts to achieve
sustainable development. The situation is critical, and change
is urgently required.
14 Club de Madrid (2009) A Call to Action for Leadership to Build Shared Societies, page 33, http://www.clubmadrid.org/img/
secciones/The_Shared_Societies_Project_Booklet_160910.pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
14
TRANSFORMING SYSTEMS UNFIT
TO MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE
TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
This section of the paper gives a more
concrete critique of the fundamental building
blocks of the world’s current dominant
development paradigm. It also aims to
illustrate why the Working Group concluded
that this paradigm is inadequate to achieve
a fair, prosperous and sustainable future
for the planet and all of its inhabitants. It
summarizes discussions in the Working
Group, using an inclusive perspective, on the
concepts that underlie and shape economic
and development policy, such as growth,
consumption, wealth, competition, efficiency,
the market, pricing, the functioning of the
joint stock company, the planning horizon and
government regulation.
Many of these concepts are basic tenets of
neo-classical economics, which still dominate
the prevailing view in the global financial
system and in many national economies.
They are closely interlinked and create a set
of feedback loops which mutually reinforce
existing assumptions and the status quo.
Therefore, it is important to approach them
in a fresh and critical way, with a particular
eye towards their impact on sustainable
development. In this section, a number of
other concepts relevant to environmental
sustainability and sustainable development
are also considered, such as land tenure,
technology and innovation, the global
commons, ecological boundaries, inclusion
and inter-disciplinary cooperation.
The current dominant thinking is based on
assumptions about human nature and the
functioning of the economy. These may or
may not be at least partially correct, but
they lead to tensions and outcomes that run
counter to the objectives of sustainability
PA R T
2
and Shared Societies, which need to be
addressed. For example:
The current dominant thinking
assumes that the only way to
harness human potential is through
a growth model that creates wealth.
However, we know that the planet
cannot sustain current levels of
growth and exploitation, and that
much of the wealth created is
not made available for improving
economic, social and ecological
wellbeing.
It assumes that human beings are
inherently selfish and that selfinterest and the profit motive
are the most effective way to
incentivize people. In contrast, we
also know that self-fulfilment and a
sense of achievement can be more
important than monetary incentives,
and we are also becoming more
aware of the limitations of selfinterest as a self-organizing
principle.
It is argued that increased taxes
reduce growth, but this is not
necessarily the case; it is also
known that people are willing to
accept increases in taxes to provide
for those things they consider
important, such as healthcare and
education.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
15
PA R T
2
In recent times, austerity and reduced spending have been promoted as necessary
to deal with deficits, but the consequences invariably fall on the weak and
vulnerable who are least able to bear the costs and who, not coincidentally, have
the least political influence to challenge spending priorities.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is considered to be the best measure of national
progress, but recent surveys in 11 countries show that only 23 percent of people
think that governments “should measure national progress using money-based
economic statistics because economic growth is the most important thing for a
country to focus on”.15
Current thinking also often fails to take account of the impact of expected trends in human
development. These include:
Improved living
standards leading
to growing
expectations in
housing, access
to goods and
services, and energy
consumption.
Shift from rural
areas to urban areas.
New technology and
access to it.
Shift from
subsistence
and exchange
economies to
monetized systems.
Access to education.
Reduction of fertility
and lower mortality
as wellbeing, health
and standards of
living improve.
Continued existence
of small, traditional,
self-sufficient
communities with
limited access to
resources.
Improved capacity
to measure and
assess national
progress that
is more multidimensional than
recording GDP.
There are many sources of friction between the processes of human development and
environmental sustainability, especially where the model for human development assumes
large increases in the consumption of physical products. On the other hand, the two processes
can create virtuous circles of mutual reinforcement: low-carbon energy economies; reduction
in population growth; increasing economies of scale in provision of infrastructure and services
as people migrate to larger, more accessible population centres (although there are also
downsides to increased urbanization, and challenges in enhancing living conditions and
opportunities in rural areas). All of these trends are to a large extent self-organizing, with
limited government direction, but responsive (negatively and positively) to government policy.
They produce outcomes, threats and opportunities – some fixed and inevitable, some avoidable,
and some to be encouraged and enhanced.
http://globescan.com/news-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2013/98-press-releases-2013/278-public-backingfor-going-beyond-gdp-remains-strong.html
15
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
16
PA R T
2
The failure of current national policies and their underlying assumptions to respond effectively
and deal with many of the challenges facing the world has led to a renewed critique of
current orthodoxies. Yet there are strong forces that resist alternative perspectives, arguing
when current strategies have not delivered that it is necessary to redouble efforts rather than
question if the approach is inappropriate and needs to be reoriented. There is a need to focus
on the deep roots of economic and social justice. This means focusing on systemic issues – tax
systems, harmful behaviour by firms and companies (such as rent seeking and rent capture)
– and on how to maximize opportunities for individuals and communities through education,
skills, access to decent work and job quality,16 and access to financial support.
For that reason, the rest of this section focuses on the three groups of systemic issues listed
below. It concludes by looking at appropriate approaches to a fourth range of issues that will
help to shape the future, for better or worse.
A.
THE ECONOMY
1The growth model and GDP
A new perspective on development is needed
that reflects the reality that our economies
are dependent on natural and human
resources and cannot operate beyond the
limits of ecological boundaries. the purpose
of the economy is to serve the people
and planet in terms of overall satisfaction,
prosperity, wellbeing and happiness, and
therefore is not an end in itself.
Most current development models give preeminence to economic growth, measured
as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is
justified on the assumption that growth
is needed to create wealth and provide
employment opportunities, which in turn
can drive further growth. As a result, the
financial bottom line becomes the main focus
of attention and GDP is used as a convenient
16
measure of the functioning of the economy,
and an indicator of success. However, if this
measure is used too narrowly and in isolation,
it leaves many factors out of consideration
– including the impact of growth on the
environment, on inequality, on sustainability
and on how wealth is used. A more accurate
frame of reference is needed that reflects the
reality that our economies are dependent
on natural and human resources and cannot
sustainably operate beyond the limits of
ecological boundaries.
For a more detailed discussion of job quality, see the OECD job quality database: http://www.oecd.org/statistics/job-quality.htm
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
17
PA R T
Additionally, the purpose of the economy is to be a tool to
meet people’s needs. Therefore, the goal of economic policy
must be to serve the people and planet, but – crucially –
it is not an end in itself. The economy is one of the three
dimensions of the SDGs, but not the prevailing one at the top
of a hierarchy. Similarly, from the Shared Societies perspective,
the hierarchy of the dominant discourse is reversed so that the
economy is not at the pinnacle but is subject to environmental,
societal and human concerns. Some members of the Working
Group tended towards a zero-growth model, globally and in
affluent economies, while others believed that sustainable
growth is possible, but all agreed that
growth alone should not be
the primary aim
of economic policy.
The measure of GDP has been seductive, as the data is readily
available and provides a convenient comparative index. We
acknowledge that GDP is relevant and will continue to be
useful, but only if it is refined and takes more account of the
costs and damage caused by production, distribution and the
loss of natural capital. GDP should also be used in conjunction
with other significant measures of human wellbeing, prosperity
and environmental sustainability.
2.A
approaches to economies,
societies, productivity and
growth that go beyond
GDP and focus on putting
people at the centre of its
development models. Its
report, “All on Board: Making
Inclusive Growth Happen”18
introduces a new approach to
economic growth that goes
beyond traditional monetary
indicators and shifts the
focus to multidimensional
living standards (MDLS).
Its “New Approaches to
Economic Challenges (NAEC)
Initiative”19 also seeks to push
macroeconomic models to
place greater emphasis on
the measurement of stocks
(of wealth, natural and
social capital, etc.), beyond
focusing solely on flows (i.e.
growth), as well as to give
adequate consideration of
both stock and flow concepts
in analyses.
It is a positive sign that there is recognition of the importance
of the qualitative aspects of wellbeing and significant interest
in developing other measures, such as the Happy Planet
Index, the Genuine Progress Indicator, Indigenous Human
Development Indicator and the Social Progress Index.17
The OECD, for example, has been developing a number of
17 See the Report by the Stiglitz Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress: http://www.
stat.si/doc/drzstat/Stiglitz%20report.pdf; see also section 14 of this document.
18 OECD (2015) All on Board: Making Inclusive Growth Happen, OECD Publishing, Paris: http://www.oecd.org/economy/all-onboard-9789264218512-en.htm
19
OECD (2015) NAEC Synthesis Report, OECD Publishing, Paris: http://www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/Final-NAECSynthesis-Report-CMIN2015-2.pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
18
PA R T
2.A
and exchange basis, and trade has been
one of the drivers of imperialism. Modern
communication and transport systems have
allowed an exponential growth in global trade,
and have broken down the role of the state
in mediating relationships between suppliers
in one country and buyers in another. While
this has lifted many people out of poverty and
offers the possibility of independent suppliers
and consumers co-operating and realizing
their own potential in a Shared Societies
way, the reality is that the change has mainly
benefited large global companies that are
now bigger, more powerful, and with more
concentrated financial resources than many
countries.
2 Globalization and trade
large global companies are now bigger,
more powerful and with greater financial
resources than many countries, resulting
in many distortions which work against
sustainable development. the unwillingness
of the most powerful national governments
to address these distortions and protect the
weak against the strong means that free trade
currently does not mean fair trade. to change
this imbalance and avoid negative impacts at
the local level there needs to be co-operation
between civil society movements and
multinational institutions; this is also needed
to achieve greater democracy in international
trade bodies and greater transparency in the
operation of large global companies.
“Globalization” is a recent addition to the
lexicon of terms which guide economic
activity, but it is a natural result of maximizing
growth. If growth is desired then the more
opportunities there are to produce and sell,
the better it is for business. Interregional
and intercommunity trade has existed
since time immemorial, mainly on a barter
This has led to many distortions which work
against sustainable development. These
companies straddle borders and many
cultural, legal and regulatory environments,
and are difficult for any state or institution to
regulate. They can electronically move their
profits around the world so that they are not
fed back into the countries where the profits
were made. The movement of profits also
allows the companies to pay only minimal
taxes, thereby restricting the funds available
for national budgets.
Global companies have the power and
resources to lobby national governments
effectively to ensure free trade and light
regulation. National governments are
negotiating trade agreements which facilitate
trade and favour companies with global
reach: at a global level in the World Trade
Organization, and in free trade agreements
between states such as the North American
Free Trade Agreement, Trans-Atlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership and the TransPacific Partnership, all three of which have
been promoted by the USA – at least until
recently, when opposition to free trade
agreements in their present form was
a feature of Donald Trump’s successful
presidential campaign.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
19
PA R T
As presently conceived, such agreements
give companies easy access for sourcing
supplies and for selling their goods and
services, but this is often at the expense of
local employment and the local environment.
They create a competitive environment in
which the strongest succeed and the weakest
suffer, deepening inequality and undermining
the achievement of the SDGs. For more than
a decade, concerns have been expressed
by labour organizations and international
NGOs,20 among others. In 2006, Rafael Correa
was elected President of Ecuador as a vocal
opponent of unfair free trade, following
protests by workers and indigenous peoples
to a free trade agreement being promoted by
the USA. In 2014 he said,
“
We don’t believe in free trade.
It is the most anti-historical
thing that exists; almost no
developed country used it.
But we do believe in mutually
beneficial trade.”
It is not surprising that protectionism seems
a better alternative for those disadvantaged
by free trade – there is a trend back toward
localization of production to serve the local
20
21
2.A
community. It is important to ensure that
this is not done in a way which protects the
disadvantaged in a developed country at
the expense of even more disadvantaged
communities in developing countries.
The problem is not global trading links, as the
ability of poor people in remote areas to be
able to trade and sell their surplus provides
them with resources to improve their life
chances. The problem is the unwillingness
of powerful national governments to protect
the weak in developing countries for reasons
of national self-interest, so that free trade
currently does not mean fair trade. To change
this imbalance requires co-operation between
civil society movements and multinational
institutions to achieve greater
democracy in international trade
bodies and greater transparency
in the operation of large global
companies.
In addition, the growth in global
trade with long supply chains
increases the environmental
costs of transporting products
around the world, and also
makes it difficult to monitor
unethical workplace and
environmental practices in
distant locations. There is
growing awareness of these
problems and growing civil
society movements to challenge
negative features of the supply
chain. The largest companies
have been forced to change
their practices as a result of
such campaigns, but much more needs to
be done to ensure ethical and sustainable
practices are adhered to across companies of
all sizes.21
For example, see: https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/no_deal.pdf
See page 26 for a fuller discussion.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
20
PA R T
Internationally agreed
standards are crucial, and
examples include the UN
Guiding Principles for
Business and Human Rights
and the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises
(MNEs) on Responsible
Business Conduct. The
OECD guidelines, backed
by governments, cover all
major areas of business
ethics, including topics such
as information disclosure,
human rights, employment
and labour, environment,
anti-corruption, and
consumer interests. Building
on the MNE guidelines,
the OECD Due Diligence
Guidance for Responsible
Supply Chains of Minerals
from Conflict-Affected and
High-Risk Areas22 provides
detailed recommendations
to help companies respect
human rights and avoid
contributing to conflict
through their mineral
purchasing decisions and
practices. This has become
the de facto international
industry standard for
companies working in the
field, that are looking to
assure mineral supply chain
transparency and integrity.
2.A
3 Consumption
fundamental changes are needed in the ways that our
societies produce and consume goods and services,
which will require ways to manage consumption and other
aspects of personal choice and socio-economic behaviour
that are currently unsustainable and inequitable.
If it is argued that growth is important because it creates
wealth, one must then ask how that wealth is used.
Orthodox thinking about growth requires maximum
consumption, because increased consumption generates
economic growth. However, consumption is heavily skewed
towards the wealthy, even as billions have unmet basic
needs. While some private expenditures are invested in
productive and socially desirable ends, much is diverted
to resource-depleting conspicuous consumption. Current
distribution systems and marketing priorities target the
affluent and are not geared to getting adequate basic
goods to those most in need, since that requires greater
distributional effort, often with low profits.
Almost by definition, overconsumption creates increasing
amounts of waste, a sure sign that the world’s resources
are being used up unnecessarily. It is ironic that when
we are more aware than ever before of the need to
conserve the planet’s resources, much of those resources
end up as waste, polluting the air, water and soil, and
contributing to global warming – a striking illustration of
the transformation of natural resources into deadly threats
to the planet and all living things. People recycle more
than they did in the past, it is true, but this may be a sign
that the affluent buy more than they need. It would be
preferable if they did not have so much “stuff”, which is
surplus to their requirements, in the first place.
22 OECD (2016) Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk
Areas: Third Edition, OECD Publishing, Paris.
http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/OECD-Due-Diligence-Guidance-Minerals-Edition3.pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
21
PA R T
2.A
In Agenda 2030, the UN Member States recognize the problem and “commit to making
fundamental changes in the ways that our societies produce and consume goods and
services.”23 It is important that they make good on this undertaking, which will require them
to find ways to manage consumption and other current aspects of personal choice and socioeconomic behaviour that are unsustainable and inequitable.
4 Competition
Competition can be
a driver of innovation
and improvement,
but can have direct
perverse effects on
sustainable development.
Collaboration may be
equally, if not more,
effective. the value
of collaboration must
be recognized and
encouraged through
education and in society,
and governments need to
create more incentives for
collaborative approaches.
Competitiveness is highly
valued and encouraged
by many, as it is believed
to be the best way to develop new products,
services and technologies, ensure higher
quality and, as a result, enhance economic
performance. The modern competitive
economic system therefore encourages
initiative and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately
it also encourages other traits, such as
individualism, acquisitiveness, selfishness and
short-term thinking, which are less conducive
to building an inclusive sustainable future.
Competitiveness often has a negative effect
at a human and social level. The norms, values
23
and behaviours associated
with competitiveness,
which put the individual
and his or her reference
group first, are atomizing,
at a time when we need
more collaboration
and inclusiveness to
tackle the challenge of
sustainable development.
Competitiveness
encourages singlemindedness, ignoring
incidental damage and
the concerns and interests
of others, and as such is
antithetical to the holistic
orientation of Agenda
2030. It also leads to
stress and overwork.
Competition for resources
can cause tension, conflict
and wars. The relentless effort to reduce
prices to gain competitive advantage has
many undesirable consequences, as will be
seen in the next section.
However, other more collaborative traits may
improve the working environment and be
equally, if not more, effective and sustainable.
For example, teamwork may produce more
creativity and innovation, as seen for example
in the development of open software, the
Creative Commons movement and initiatives
like Wikipedia.
Op. cit., para 28.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
22
PA R T
the value of
collaboration must
be recognized
and encouraged
in society and
through education,
and governments need to
create more incentives for
collaborative approaches.
Competition can be wasteful
at a time when we are
becoming increasingly
aware of the finite nature
of available resources.
Competing groups are
duplicating each other’s
efforts by working on similar
products at the same time;
and in the case of the least
successful, all their investment
of time, resources and effort
may be abandoned.
Competition is often less
genuine and fair than it
appears. It is often disrupted
2.A
by powerful interests that can
use their market position to
build monopolies that prevent
small and medium-sized firms
from benefiting from a level
playing field.24 These powerful
interests can also bring
additional economic and
political resources to bear,
or manipulate the situation
so that the brightest and the
most creative initiatives do
not always win out, and the
most socially useful ideas
often come to nothing.
5 Costs and pricing:
many of the real costs of production and
consumption, such as environmental
degradation and pollution, are often treated
as externalities and fall on someone else or on
future generations. they need to be viewed
more comprehensively, looking at both the
wider impacts of current practices and the
long-term costs and benefits. the pressure to
meet targets for climate change mitigation,
Agenda 2030 and the decent work for All
campaign, if they are taken seriously, could
help bring about this change of orientation.
Public bodies and civil society organizations
must play their part in ensuring that these
frameworks are central to future assessments
of costs and benefits.
Prices theoretically reflect supply and demand
– people will pay more for products that
are in short supply. Price plays a big part in
purchasing decisions, especially if there is little
24
difference in quality or performance. In these
circumstances, suppliers look for ways to keep
prices low by reducing or avoiding costs, with
unfortunate consequences.
See OECD (2015) All on Board, op. cit. chapter 4.3, http://www.oecd.org/economy/all-on-board-9789264218512-en.htm
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
23
PA R T
Many consequences of production, such as
environmental degradation and pollution, are
not considered costs and therefore fall on
someone else or on future generations:
“We are stealing the
future, selling it in the
present and calling it GDP.
We can just as easily have
an economy that is based
on healing the future
instead of stealing it.25
”
The mounting costs of the damage or repair
costs resulting from misguided development
programmes can no longer be ignored.
They need to be costed accurately in any
production process so that the cost falls on
the most appropriate party. At the same time,
there is some concern that more accurate
pricing could have the perverse effect of
legitimizing continued overexploitation
of resources. Herman Daly26 has pointed
out that trying to put a price on these
consequences of development through
taxation or some form of market mechanism
2.A
can have unpredictable results. He therefore
favours capping resource use. This will require
concerted intergovernmental action.
Reducing costs also leads to poor working
conditions and drives down wages and prices
for commodities, generally at the expense
of the communities affected. These are
short-sighted measures. The International
Labour Organization, which has promoted
the decent work Agenda, has shown that
decent work is not only fair and just but also
strategies which focus on promoting decent
work opportunities tend to yield sustained
development results27. A fair wage and a fair
price for supplies also increases workers’ and
primary producers’ spending power.
In thinking about costs, societies sometimes
accept achieving one goal (say, growth)
even if it means postponing an alternative
goal or accepting negative consequences.
From the perspective of the Shared Societies
Framework set out earlier,28 it is not adequate
to accept such trade-offs as inevitable.
Greater effort must always be made to find
win-win solutions. Costs and benefits need to
be viewed more comprehensively, looking at
both the wider impacts of current practices
and the long-term costs and benefits. The
pressure to meet targets for climate change
mitigation, the goals of Agenda 2030 and
the Decent Work for All campaign, if they
are taken seriously, should bring about this
change of orientation. Public bodies and civil
society organizations must play their part in
ensuring that these frameworks are central to
future assessments of costs and benefits.
Paul Hawken, Commencement Address, University of Portland, 2009
https://www1.up.edu/commencement/honorary-degrees/hawken.html
26 H. Daly and J.C. Farley (2010) Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wow3.47/pdf
27 International Labour Organization (2014) “Productive transformation, Decent Work and Development”, pages 65-82, World
of Work Report 2014, Development with Jobs, Geneva: ILO Publications
28 See Part 1 of this document and Sharing Our Planet: Today and Tomorrow: Key Insights of Club de Madrid Working Group
on Shared Societies and Environmental Sustainability, page 6-7.
25
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
24
PA R T
2.A
disadvantage in comparison
to others, but at the same
time are willing to accept
tough regulatory frameworks
and taxation regimes if they
apply to all companies.
6 Regulation and taxation
ensuring fair regulatory and taxation systems requires
strong political will, backed by a clear sense among the
population of the importance of these measures in ensuring
more fair and sustainable systems. At the international level,
individual countries need an enabling international economic
environment if they are to be able to develop effective
regulatory policies for sustainable development; this is what
Agenda 2030 calls a “Global Partnership for Sustainable
Development”.
As the previous sections have made evident, the current
economic system is not “fit for purpose”. It will not deliver
sustainable development, meet the needs of the planet, or
fulfil the aspirations of most of its inhabitants. Therefore,
regulation and taxation is often necessary to provide restraints
on negative behaviour and incentives for good practice. There
is often resistance to regulation or increases in taxation, even
when there is agreement on the need for more sustainable and
fair practices. Leaders in the corporate sector have often said
they will resist such measures and take advantage of any gaps
in the rules so as not to put their company at any possible
Regulatory and political
processes are susceptible to
capture by powerful elites,
giving them a privileged and
preferential role in setting the
agenda on a whole range of
issues, and influencing policy
design in ways which are not
consistent with sustainable
development or the needs of
the general population or the
environment. One example
of this is the situation of the
Yup’ik fishermen of southwestern Alaska. They follow
age-old sustainable fishing
methods but are restricted
by the regulations imposed
by distant State of Alaska
fisheries managers, who have
no idea of the benefits of
the centuries-old practices
involved. In contrast, the
fisheries authorities do not
interfere with large-scale
catches of the same fish by
commercial fleets on the
open sea from Washington
State, Japan and elsewhere.29
Powerful interests are also
able to subvert regulatory
and tax systems that do exist
and to ensure that harmful
activities, like rent seeking
and tax avoidance, are
tolerated.
29 For a report on Yup’ik fishermen being brought before the courts, and the arguments on both sides, see: https://www.adn.
com/rural-alaska/article/yupik-alaskans-trial-violating-salmon-fishing-restrictions-claim-religious-rite/2012/11/13. The fishermen
were ultimately found guilty.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
25
PA R T
These interests often rely on ideas from neo-liberalism, which
have proved politically persuasive; however, the Working Group
is satisfied that its supporting arguments are invalid, lead to
undesirable outcomes and must be challenged. As the Stiglitz
Commission on Reforms of the International Monetary and
Financial System found, in reference to the “flawed policies” that
helped to create the 2008 crisis:
“Underlying many of these mistakes, in
both the public and private sectors, were
the economic philosophies that have
prevailed for the past quarter century
(sometimes referred to as neo-liberalism
or market fundamentalism). These flawed
theories distorted decisions in both the
private and public sector, leading to the
policies that contributed so much to the
crisis and to the notion, for instance,
that markets are self-correcting and that
regulation is accordingly unnecessary.
These theories also contributed to flawed
policies on the part of Central Banks.30
”
As far back as 1961, Gore Vidal described the US economic system
as “free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich,”31 where
“the rich have been increasingly protected from the market forces,
while the poor have been more and more exposed to them”.32 By
that, he meant that states bail out investors, hand out sweetheart
contracts, and impose austerity to keep bondholders whole, but
2.A
demolish trade unions and
tariffs that block imports from
countries with low wages
and weak environmental and
safety rules, so that wages and
working conditions in these
countries further decline.33
To overcome these tendencies
requires strong political will
backed by a clear sense
among the population of
the importance of measures
to ensure fairer and more
sustainable systems. Tax
evasion and avoidance, for
example, have for decades
been depriving governments
of significant resources that
could be directed to things
that matter and fund the
policies that can help promote
equity and inclusion: education,
healthcare, infrastructure
and tackling environmental
degradation. For example,
revenue losses resulting
from tax base erosion and
profit shifting (BEPS) are
conservatively estimated at
US$100-240 billion annually,
or anywhere from 4-10 percent
of global corporate income
tax (CIT) revenues. Individual
countries have difficulty in
dealing with such practices by
transnational corporations in
isolation.
30 United Nations (2009) Report of the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly, www.un.org/ga/
econcrisissummit/docs/FinalReport_CoE.pdf
31 Gore Vidal (1972) “Edmund Wilson, tax-dodger” in Homage to Daniel Shays: Collected Essays 1952-1972, p.153. New York:
Random House.
32 C.J. Polychroniou: “Exposing the Myths of Neoliberal Capitalism: An Interview With Ha-Joon Chang”, http://www.truth-out.
org/opinion/item/39393-exposing-the-myths-of-neoliberal-capitalism-an-interview-with-ha-joon-chang
33 Cory Doctorow: “A succinct, simple, excellent description of the problems of neoliberalism and their solution”, https://
boingboing.net/2017/02/10/a-succinct-simple-excellent.html
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
26
PA R T
The OECD and G20, working in partnership
with many weaker countries, developed
a package of measures that will reduce
opportunities for aggressive tax practices by
firms, including BEPS. The aim is to ensure
that profits are taxed where economic
activities take place and value is created.34
These measures were endorsed in 2015. At
the same time, the OECD has also undertaken
efforts, in collaboration with international
partners, to promote the Automatic Exchange
of Information (AEoI)35 between different
countries’ tax authorities to improve
2.A B
transparency in the international system of
taxation and limit opportunities for individuals
to conceal taxable income in low-tax
jurisdictions. This emphasizes that individual
countries need an enabling international
economic environment if they are to be able
to develop effective policies for sustainable
development – what Agenda 2030 calls
a “Global Partnership for Sustainable
Development”.36 The Global Shared Societies
Agenda37 provides a template for such an
enabling global system.
B.
NATURAL RESOURCES
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
7 Managing the commons
the commons are increasingly challenged
by over-exploitation and pollution. efforts to
develop Shared Societies must be intensified
in order to ensure widespread support and
action, and political will, to restore and
preserve them.
The global commons – oceans, air, water,
wildlife and all natural ecosystems – are not
ultimately owned by any one individual or
state, but belong to humankind. In recent
times, digital commons can be added to
the list. They are the common heritage of all
people. They need to be treated with care
and respect, and communities need to take
collective responsibility for using them wisely
and sustainably. Some are regional or local
resources that need to be managed in terms
of local and regional collective interests,
but others, such as the circumpolar Arctic
region and the Amazon Rainforest, are global
resources on which the whole world depends,
34 OECD (2017) Background Brief: Inclusive Framework on BEPS, http://www.oecd.org/tax/background-brief-inclusiveframework-for-beps-implementation.pdf
35 OECD AEoI: http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/automaticexchangeofinformation.htm
36 Sustainable Development Goal 17 (and see this document, section 12).
37 See section 12.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
27
PA R T
and for which we must all
take responsibility. In the past,
to those who did not live
close to nature, they seemed
to be a limitless resource.
But traditional indigenous
communities have always
been acutely aware at the
local level of the commons’
fragility and unpredictability.
Of course, much effort, which
is not recognized or costed
in financial terms, makes
an important contribution
to environment and habitat
protection, including the
efforts of traditional farmers
and indigenous fishers.
The commons, and all of us
who depend on them, are
increasingly challenged: first
by over-exploitation which
is driven by the push for
growth and competition,
and second by the effort to
drive down costs, as was
noted in section 5. There is
an urgent need to find ways
to impose the full costs of
production and consumption
on producers and consumers,
otherwise there is a perverse
incentive to continue overexploitation. Significant
initiatives are underway
which aim to internalize these
externalities – ranging from
regulation and pricing to
strict education, conservation
and behavioural changes.
Furthermore, internationally
agreed methods to account
for material natural resources
like minerals, timber and
fisheries also help, such as the
UN Statistical Commission’s
System for Environment
and Economic Accounts
and the World Bank Wealth
Accounting and Valuation
of Ecosystems Services.38
In order to reach realistic
figures, valuations should
reflect the key principles
and questions of the Shared
Societies approach to
sustainable development39 and
the fundamental values of a
sustainable and just society, as
articulated above.40
Another solution advocated
is to recognize property
rights, and require and
incentivize the owner, whether
private or public, to maintain
sustainability. This has
happened at the national level
with the creation of Exclusive
Economic Zones, which give
a coastal state “the right to
exploit, develop, manage and
conserve all resources found
in the waters, on the ocean
floor and in the subsoil of an
2.B
area extending 200 miles
from its shore”.41 However,
any such arrangement could
give exclusive access to the
commons at the expense of
access for others.
A cautionary example from
the USA is the allocation of
Native American tribal land
to individual members of
the tribe, under the General
Allotment Act 1887. Whatever
the original intention, the
result was that Native
American landholdings
dropped from 138 million
acres in 1887 to 48 million
acres by 1934 when allotment
ended, and the land lost
through individual ownership
included important sacred
sites and the best agricultural
areas. As a result, the
community lost the benefits
of its sustainable use and
productivity.
Some members of the
Working Group argued
that the global commons
are irreplaceable and nonnegotiable, and therefore
their preservation takes
precedence over other
considerations. No use should
be permitted if it causes any
permanent change.
https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/natural-capital-accounting
See: Sharing Our Planet: Today and Tomorrow: Shared Societies contribution to Agenda 2030: A message for World Leaders
and Governments, page 5.
40 See Part 1 of this document.
41 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_
historical_perspective.htm
It should be noted that the Convention also has important chapters on protection of the marine environment.
38
39
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
28
PA R T
The need to protect the
global commons is not
only driven by exploitation,
but also by pollution.
Governments and societies
have not been able to
manage the levels of
pollution. We are told that
there will soon be more
plastic bottles in the sea than
fish.42 Algal bloom caused
by overuse of fertilizers is
widespread in the world’s
lakes, and acidification of
waterways is increasing.
Illnesses caused by air
pollution claim the lives of
nearly six million people each
year, with the vast majority of
deaths occurring in low- and
middle-income countries.
Other forms of water
pollution, contaminated
agricultural land and
toxic waste have further
health and life-threatening
consequences.43
Today, as the modern world
is pushed to the limits of
what the earth can absorb
without ecological collapse,
there is a growing awareness
of the need to protect it.
People in the community
can work together to use
productively common
pooled resources,44 and more
2.B
FACTORS FOR AN
EFFECTIVE PRESERVATION
OF THE COMMONS
PERCEPTIBLE THREAT OF
RESOURCE DEPLETION
THE PRESENCE OF
A “COMMUNITY”
APPROPRIATE COMMUNITYBASED RULES AND
PROCEDURES
dispersed and diffuse users
can also act co-operatively
when they see the need
to do so.45 Elinor Ostrom,
who was awarded the 2009
Nobel Prize for Economics
for her work on the
management of “common
pool resources”, which is
the term she used, identified
with her colleagues a number
of factors conducive to
effective preservation of the
commons.46 One of these
was a perceptible threat of
resource depletion, and it
has been noted already47
that it may be important to
bring home to people that
the world faces an ecological
42 World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2016) The New Plastics Economy:
Rethinking the future of plastics, http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinkingthe-future-of-plastics
43 See pages 2-3.
44 A. Kothari and P. Das, “Power in India: Radical Pathways” in (2016) State of Power 2016, Transnational Institute, 183-202,
https://www.tni.org/en/publication/state-of-power-2016
45 Andy Coghlin, “Canadian cod make a comeback” in New Scientist, 27 July 2011.
46 Ostrom et. al, op. cit.:278-82.
47 See pages 5-6.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
29
PA R T
collapse. Two other factors
identified by Ostrom and her
colleagues are, firstly, the
presence of a “community” –
a small and stable population
with a “thick” social network
and social norms promoting
conservation – and secondly,
appropriate communitybased rules and procedures
with built-in incentives
for responsible use and
punishments for overuse. It is
not necessary for these rules
and procedures, incentives
and sanctions to be formally
written down: the important
thing is that they are
recognized and respected.
The most effective
custodians of the commons
are local communities, many
of which are indigenous,
because in a globalized world
people often do not see
the effects of their actions
as they are experienced
far away. But for that very
reason, it is equally important
to raise awareness in wider
populations so that they
reduce the pressure they put
on local communities and the
commons for which they are
caring. This sounds very like
a Shared Society, and is an
additional reason why efforts
to develop Shared Societies
must be intensified in order
to ensure widespread
48
49
50
51
2.B
support and action, and
political will, to restore and
preserve the global commons
for all living things.
8 Land tenure
un member States must fulfil their commitment in
the Sdgs to give access and control of land to poor
people48 and women49 and to halt degradation and
restore and conserve land,50 though it is noted that
they make no specific reference to crucial indigenous
peoples’ rights, interests and traditional use in relation
to land.51 Achieving this ambition will require clear and
unequivocal rules and robust systems or oversight and
enforcement.
Land is an important resource which could be considered
as a global common, but much of it is held by individuals
or corporate entities. In some places it is held in common
by, for example, indigenous peoples and traditional
communities. The form of ownership and the way the land
is used will have significant impacts on the environment.
It is also now well recognized that access to land is a
key factor in many people’s opportunities for personal
progress and development.
Sustainable Development Goal 1.
Sustainable Development Goal 5.
Sustainable Development Goal 15.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2016/Docs-updates/backgrounderSDG.pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
30
PA R T
There have been many forms
of tenure historically and in
the modern era. Many of these
have led to anomalies which
limit the potential to achieve
sustainable development.
Land is often unequally
divided, with some holding
vast tracts of land, much of
which is not used productively,
and many have no access to
land which would allow them
to become economically
active and contribute to
their communities. There
are clashes between people
with different interests in
the same land (such as
pastoral and arable farmers,
or mining companies and
agriculturalists). Owners
may exploit their land
through deforestation,
large-scale monoculture,
unsuitable choice of crops,
overgrazing, release of
hazardous substances,
soil impoverishment and
erosion, without regard for
the effect on others and the
environment.
The value in land can fluctuate
widely as a result of demand,
planning decisions and
resources in the land, among
other factors. These changes
in value often accrue to the
current holder of the land
as an unexpected windfall,
or may influence land use
which does not support
sustainable development, such
as speculation, displacement
of users, over-exploitation
or hoarding. Historically,
limitations have been placed
on the use of land, regardless
of the ownership model,
through planning regulations,
conservation obligations,
redistribution schemes etc.,
usually for the common good.
But there are wide variations
in how these restrictions
are observed, and powerful
landowners can use their
influence to ensure they are
not rigorously applied.
All these tendencies show
the importance of ensuring
broader oversight of land
tenure and land use, and
an inclusive approach to
the achievement of fairer,
equitable and sustainable land
use and management, which
needs to be operationalized
in clear and unequivocal
rules and robust systems or
enforcement. Taxes on land
2.B
and on transfer of land should
be reviewed to ensure that
they incentivize sustainable
use of land and are a means to
share the wealth in land more
equitably. UN Member States
must fulfil their commitment
in the SDGs to give access
and control of land to poor
people52 and women,53 and to
halt degradation and restore
and conserve land.54
Since Agenda 2030 has
no specific reference to
indigenous peoples’ rights,
interests and traditional use in
relation to land,55 there is an
urgent need to address this
gap and protect indigenous
peoples from the pressures
already outlined. The benefits
of collective community
tenure of land and other
natural resources have been
recognized in international
instruments such as the UN
Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People (2008)56
and the Food and Agriculture
Organization Guidelines on
the Responsible Governance
of Tenure of Land, Fisheries
and Forests in the Context
of National Food Security
(2012).57
Sustainable Development Goal 1.
Sustainable Development Goal 5.
54 Sustainable Development Goal 15.
55 UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, preambular paragraphs 6, 7, 10, and 12 as well as articles 8, 10, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30 and 32. Article 25 specifically states: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive
spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas
and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.
56 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
57 http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
52
53
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
31
PA R T
2.C
SOCIETY AND
GOVERNANCE
C.
9 Nature of leadership
Political leaders have many tasks. they need
to challenge vested interests and at the
same time engage with all sectors to gain
their support for the common enterprise to
create a more equal inclusive society and
protect the planet. they also need to create
an enabling environment that supports
small local communities to help themselves.
local leadership should be promoted, and
inclusive and sustainable economic growth
should be built from the bottom up. City
governments are taking an increasingly
significant role in citizen’s lives – not least
because populations are increasingly
concentrated in metropolitan areas – and
citizens voices should be heard at the
highest levels.
58
There are a number of challenges, sometimes
contradictory, facing leadership for
sustainable development. On the one hand,
leaders need to challenge vested interests,
while on the other they have to engage with
all sectors and, as far as possible, gain their
support for a common enterprise to create
a more inclusive society and sustainable
economy. They also have to create an
enabling environment that supports small
local communities to help themselves, and
to encourage affluent communities in both
rural and urban areas to be more modest in
their use of resources. The OECD Coalition
of Champion Mayors for Inclusive Growth, for
instance, was created in recognition of the
critical role local leaders play in contributing
to more sustainable, inclusive outcomes for
our societies. This initiative brings together
“champion mayors” from across the world
to elevate the voice of cities in the global
inclusive growth agenda. In addition to
this political pillar, the initiative promotes
knowledge-sharing between the mayors and
city governments, supports local authorities
with expert research and analytical input, and
offers targeted support to cities. The areas
for targeted support include helping local
governments to align social inclusion with
environmental and climate-related objectives.
Strong political will and commitment is
required, as well as sensitivity. Vested
interests can be very powerful and resist
change which seems to affect their priorities,
even though they may recognize that
ultimately an inclusive and sustainable
Shared Society is right and fair, and that it
is in everyone’s interest. It has already been
noted58 that leaders of the corporate sector
can accept more regulation if this is also
See section 11.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
32
PA R T
2.C
applied fairly and consistently to their competitors. But in the present paradigm they feel the
need to compete to the limits of existing boundaries, and not limit themselves. Historically,
the most powerful voices have set the parameters for development, but strong leadership
can create a more balanced approach by helping to create an informed public (which relates
to the discussion below on education and alternative narratives59) and ensuring that there is
participation, as of right, in policy discussion and decision making. The latter can be achieved
in particular through increased local control and decentralization of decision making, including
within rural and remote areas across the globe.
10 Participation
meaningful participation and public
debate allow the reconciliation
of competing interests and also
create stronger commitment
to the decisions that are made.
devolved decision making facilitates
meaningful participation, which
in turn requires management of
the power imbalances between
stakeholders.
It should be clear from the
consideration of the other dimensions
of the current development paradigm
that they are antithetical, individually
and collectively, to meaningful
public participation. Yet an inclusive
approach to development is essential, not only
because it is fair, but also because taking into
account all sectors and interests usually result in
better decisions. Full participation of all sections
of society, in the sense of access to decisionmaking bodies and the right and capacity not
only to take part but also to set the agenda, does
not guarantee better decisions in every situation,
but it does have a number of features which
facilitate better decision making.
It allows different perspectives to be included,
which should lead to more appropriate and
sustainable decisions. Local people and local
59
governments also tend to have a more
intimate knowledge of the situation, and
know how inappropriate development
may destabilize the ecosystem and the
habitat. Their detailed knowledge often
led local communities to make more
accurate assessments of future risks and
outcomes than professional environmental
appraisals. Full participation and public
debate allows the reconciliation of
competing interests, raises awareness of
the issues and creates more commitment
to the decisions that are made. Ostrom et
al.60 in their work on managing commons,
noted that government intervention by
See section 16.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
33
PA R T
establishing rules and procedures could be
ineffective because the users of the commons
did not feel ownership of the arrangements
and were willing to avoid the rules if they
could. Participatory planning in Nepal61 is one
example of how an inclusive approach fosters
greater commitment from those directly
affected and leads to better outcomes.
To summarize the outcome statement
following a UN High-Level Meeting on
implementing the SDGs,62 key to the
successful implementation of the 2030
Agenda are institutions that are more
responsive to the needs and priorities of the
people; and greater capacities by government,
civil societies and the private sector, and their
coordination and cooperation.
All these considerations underlie the
concept of
“subsidiarity”:
the application of the
principle that decisions
should originate at
the local level or be
devolved as far
as possible.63
2.C
Devolving decision making facilitates
meaningful participation by all stakeholders.
Several members of the Working Group have
been involved in such processes: some are the
continuation of traditional practices; some are
part of devolution of local government by the
state; and some are situations in which local
people have taken control of their own affairs.64
They show that such systems are viable and can
ensure more sustainable decision making. They
point the way to fully participatory societies.
Because of the special relationship that
indigenous peoples have with their ancestral
and customary territories and their sense of
responsibility for passing them on to future
generations, particular attention has been
paid to their participation in decisions that
affect their lands. The right of indigenous
peoples to give or withhold “free, prior and
informed consent” is enshrined in international
law (for example, the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples65 and
Convention 16966 of the International Labour
Organization) and in some national laws
(for example, Australia and the Philippines).
Article 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples recognizes the right to
self-determination and, by virtue of that right,
freedom to determine their political status
and freedom to pursue their economic, social
and cultural development. The World Bank,
in its system of project appraisal,67 refers to
ensuring “broad community support”, but this
is not a very specific term.
Ostrom et al., op. cit.
https://assets.helvetas.org/downloads/issuesheet_pa_nepal_a4_0414.pdf
62 Chisinau Outcome Statement on Strengthening Capacities and Building Effective Institutions for the Implementation of the
United Nations Post-2015 Development Agenda, https://www.worldwewant2030.org/node/481165
63 UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 4: Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to selfdetermination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as
ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
64 A. Kothari and P. Das, op. cit.
65 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
66 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169
67 World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples.
60
61
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
34
PA R T
The ability of indigenous peoples not only
to maintain their own cultural context but
also to fulfil their responsibilities to future
generations, demonstrates the significance
of their own local government systems. Their
right to participate in decision making68 in
matters that affect indigenous peoples will
ultimately result in programmes and policy
that will have greater, long-term, positive
impacts on both the environment and society
overall. While not all marginal groups have
the same identification with an ancestral
homeland, they too are
stakeholders who need to
be involved in decisions
that affect their welfare,
and similar provision could
be made that recognizes
that human rights are
inherent in one’s legal
status and are not “given”.
2.C
decision makers with explicit responsibility
for the needs of vulnerable communities
and even future generations. Ecuador was
the first country to set out in its constitution
explicit and enforceable rights for nature.70
When we speak of informed consent that
includes ensuring that all parties to decision
making are informed about and aware of
the consequences of those decisions for the
planet, and developing stronger instruments
for environmental impact appraisal to inform
these debates.
In considering participation
for all sections of society,
the question arises: “who
speaks for the planet?”
In one way, the planet
is speaking for itself by
showing that there are
limits to its capacities to
renew itself and there are
consequences if we ignore
those limits. But many are
not listening, and so it is
important to amplify those
messages. The Rapporteur’s
briefing paper69 for the
Working Group drew
attention to ways that
some countries are vesting
Article 18, UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Katherine Trebeck, “Rapporteur Discussion Paper of Club de Madrid Working Group on Environmental Sustainability and
Shared Societies”, forthcoming.
70 Constitution of The Republic of Ecuador, chapter 7, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html
68
69
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
35
PA R T
The caveat has to be made that consultation
and participation is not always meaningful,
especially if the agenda is predetermined and
certain ideas are ruled out a priori. Even with
declared recognition of and compliance with
the right of free, prior and informed consent,
the wishes of indigenous peoples and others
are often ignored.
Discrimination and inequalities of power
may make participation ineffective. Poor,
weak communities may agree to proposals
against their better judgement because of the
financial or other inducements offered. They
may accept payments in return for access to
their resources in spite of the costs to them
and the environment, because they have no
other sources of income. As a result, they feel
compelled to compromise their values and
long-term interests and have not really made
a free choice. Therefore, meaningful dialogue
and the efforts to obtain consent require
management of the power imbalance to avoid
asymmetry of outcomes.
There will also be power imbalances within
communities, and it is difficult to know who
speaks for and fully represents the feelings of
the local community. Individual community
leaders may be co-opted to support proposed
initiatives. Therefore, participation should
be as wide, inclusive and well-informed
as possible. This may take time, but the
consequences of a poor process may be
disastrous for the environment and the
community that depends on it.
Participation is a core element in the Shared
Societies concept,71 because through
participation people can express their needs
and concerns, pursue their aspirations and
play a full and active role in their society.
2.C
Shareholder model of corporate
11
governance
the shareholder model encourages
tendencies and trends that are antithetical
to sustainable development and protecting
the environment. Political leaders and all
stakeholders are encouraged to work with
the business sector to find ways in which
the sector can help promote better social
outcomes, empowerment of individuals,
and sustainable development.
The publicly traded company was devised
as a means to mobilize capital and provide
investment for commercial enterprises,
and at the same time allow individuals to
use their surplus capital to support such
enterprises. Trading companies in the 16th
and 17th century and industrial corporations
in the 19th century became the main
mechanism driving economic development
and, as conceived at that time, there were
strong incentives to maximize production
71 Club de Madrid (2009) Commitments and Approaches for Shared Societies, Commitment II: http://www.clubmadrid.org/
img/secciones/SSP_Commitments_and_Approaches_for_Shared_Societies_260609.pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
36
PA R T
and increase profits.
Companies had to create
value to survive and make
a profit, in order to provide
returns for their owners – the
shareholders – who would
otherwise invest elsewhere.
It was also an effective way
to share risk. But those
same incentives encourage
tendencies and trends that
are antithetical to sustainable
development and protecting
the environment. They reward
a narrow focus on profit and
a disregard for other issues
or concerns, including fair
treatment and welfare of staff,
customers, suppliers and the
environment. They encourage
a short-term perspective, as
it is often necessary to satisfy
shareholders immediately.
The idea that shareholders
actually exercise oversight
of a company has become
something of a fiction, as
they may not have sufficient
information or interest to
exercise effective oversight.
Shares are often held for
only short periods, meaning
that the owners of those
shares have little opportunity
or interest in exercising
oversight. Increasingly,
the bulk of shares are in
the hands of hedge funds
and institutional investors,
who themselves are senior
corporate managers and
bring that perspective to their
role as shareholders. Angel
Gurría, Secretary General of
the OECD,72 has pointed out
that institutional investors
control over US$93 trillion
in long-term assets in OECD
countries alone, and the
pattern of these investments
could either play a decisive
role in financing the transition
to a low-carbon economy or
be used to entrench existing
practices.
All these factors reinforce an
exclusive focus on share price,
regardless of the fundamental
strength of the company –
encouraging speculation on
the price of shares on the
stock market rather than
investment in socially useful
activities. Modern computer
systems have allowed high
frequency trading which
has massively increased the
potential for speculation, so
that the stock market now
facilitates profit-taking more
than getting capital into the
hands of producers who need
it. These negative tendencies
are widely known and various
efforts have been made to
address them, both within
2.C
and outside the shareholder
model.
Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) has
become a significant factor in
many companies’ strategies,
emphasizing care and respect
for employees, customers,
the environment and other
stakeholders. Financial
advisors are now integrating
CSR in their reports as well
as noting exposure and risk
in relation to human rights
violations.73 Indigenous
peoples have been able to
use the concept to challenge
companies to respect their
rights to land, territory
and resources. It is a selfimposed code of conduct
and as such is vulnerable
to other pressures and
circumstances, including
the profit motive, and open
to different interpretations.
Sometimes CSR can be little
more than a public relations
exercise. It could be argued
that directors of a company
are failing in their duty to
shareholders if their profits
are reduced by CSR activities
without the agreement
of shareholders, who can
put pressure on directors
to deliver dividends and
increases in share price.
http://www.oecd.org/environment/rethinking-fiduciary-duty-for-a-more-sustainable-planet.htm
United Nations (2013) A Business Reference Guide: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN
Global Compact Business Reference Guide to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This guide “helps
business understand, respect, and support the rights of indigenous peoples by illustrating how these rights are relevant to
business activities”; See also Amy K. Lehr and Gare E. Smith (2010) Implementing a Corporate Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
Policy: Benefits and Challenges, Talisman Energy, Implementing a Corporate Free, Prior, and Informed Consent Policy: Benefits
and Challenges
72
73
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
37
PA R T
2.C
However, not only is a socially responsible approach ethically correct, but it is also good
business. If employees and suppliers are treated well they are likely to be more loyal and more
productive. Ethical practices are good for the image of the company and attract customers –
which is why CSR activities are often highlighted in marketing. Negligence in relation to the
environment may lead to heavy costs if the company has to repair the damage.
businessman Peter georgescu has stressed that values must matter for
business, both for more inclusive growth and because values are good for
business: businesses need to be able to walk in customers’ shoes, understand
their needs and values, and learn compassion for the customer. These values
are vital for the success of a business, and this kind of compassion and valuebased model for the private sector can help improve the lives of customers
and employees. Georgescu also stresses how corporate responsibility and
aligning sustainable outcomes with business models also demands a different
approach to company ownership, and more precisely a move away from
shareholder primacy. Shareholder primacy – wherein quarterly returns to
shareholders become the driving governing principle of companies – holds
a real risk of companies cutting wages, reducing investment in research
and failing to commit to innovation. Fair wages, research investment and
innovation are all building blocks for inclusive growth in the business sphere,
but also for businesses that grow and flourish in the long term.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z56eSEwetcw
Companies also are under other pressures to act responsibly. Campaign groups have used
the potential power of shareholders to challenge company practices by lobbying institutional
shareholders with whom they have influence, such as universities, and by purchasing shares
in the company and attempting to raise issues at shareholder meetings. They have also been
effective on occasion in bringing about divestment from undesirable activities, most recently
with the fossil fuel divestment campaign.74 Workers, organized through trade unions, have
a long tradition of demanding fair treatment and decent work, though companies have on
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/carbon-divestment-emissions-climate-change
R. Harrison “Consumer action and the economic empowerment of marginalised groups” in C. McCartney and W. Naudé
(eds.) (2012) Shared Societies: The Case for Inclusive Development, Madrid: Club de Madrid, http://www.clubmadrid.org/img/
secciones/SSP_Publication2012_Maastrich.pdf
74
75
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
38
PA R T
balance been more powerful and have
been able to suppress such demands, often
through co-operation with legislators to
restrict union action, media campaigns and
sometimes through statutory or private use
of force. The ethical consumer movement
has attempted to use purchasing power and
choice to influence retailers and producers.75
While it is difficult to mobilize consumers,
campaigns have stimulated the availability of
organic and fair trade foods and convinced
customers to switch brands for reasons such
as a company’s use of animal testing of its
products or avoidance of tax.
The internet facilitates communication within
such movements and between them and the
wider community. It also allows the possibility
of new, alternative business models such
as crowdfunding, open-source software
development and the “shift economy”,76
though these do not necessarily have intrinsic
social or environmental values. Some see
the potential of the internet to facilitate
contact between strangers to their mutual
advantage, and to allow everyone to be a
creative entrepreneur, shifting power away
from big corporations. While this is true, past
experience demonstrates that those who are
first to find ways to monetize these services
and products use the new technologies
to compete and assert their control over
competitors, and resist regulation and
government oversight of their activities in
ways not unlike those adopted by traditional
corporations. All these diverse movements
are in some sense the free market at work;
as effective as these efforts have been on
occasion, there is still a need for public
scrutiny and government regulation to avoid
unwanted outcomes.
76
2.C
Even recognizing the enlightened approach of
some managers, the balance of power is very
much weighted against the protection of the
environment and promotion of sustainable
development. Business leaders often say
they are willing to work within the laws and
regulations that are laid down provided
they apply fairly to all companies, but find
it difficult to take the risk of implementing
socially responsible practices if their rivals are
not also doing so. They may argue against
restrictions but at the same time acknowledge
that they need and want clear regulation
and incentives, through fiscal policy and
other means, to stimulate more broad-based
sustainable practices that are sensitive to
wider social concerns. There is a clear need
for government to enhance the contribution
of the business sector to inclusive, sustainable
and equitable economies. We urge political
leaders and all stakeholders, including the
business sector, to work to find ways in which
the sector can help promote better social
outcomes, empowerment of individuals, and
sustainable development.
H. Shaughnessy (2015) Shift: A User’s Guide to the New Economy, Boise, Idaho: Tru Publishing.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
39
PA R T
2.C
12 Global governance
An inclusive governance
system at national and
local level is impeded if
it is not replicated at the
global level. there are
many weaknesses in the
current global governance
architecture, which need
to be tackled if the global
community is to realize
Agenda 2030. therefore,
the call for a new global
Partnership is welcome, and
the un is urged to engage
without delay all relevant
parties – intergovernmental,
governmental and nongovernmental – and begin
the process of bringing this
about.
Participative, shared
governance models are not
only appropriate within
states, as is discussed in
section 10, but are relevant
to all levels of decision
making and all sectors,
including government,
business, civil society and
intergovernmental bodies.
There are many weaknesses
in the current global
governance architecture.
A number of powerful
international and global
processes (for example,
on trade) are separate
from the UN but can make
decisions that undermine
global agreements on issues
such as the environment,
human rights and justice.
Bodies like the World
Trade Organization can
impose sanctions, but such
sanctions are much weaker
in relation to agreements
on environmental and social
issues. The limited power to
enforce such agreements is
a matter for concern, and
another example of how
protection of economic
and commercial interests
takes precedence over
addressing serious social and
environmental threats.
All intergovernmental bodies
are dominated by the more
powerful states. It has to
be recognized that local
communities and small
states are often affected
by external decisions and
impacted upon by activities
elsewhere, impeding
their own efforts to build
sustainable Shared Societies.
For example, global warming
and the resulting rising sea
levels are global phenomena
which particularly affect
small island states, but their
governments cannot legislate
to prevent the causes and
have only limited capacity
to ameliorate the impacts.
They need to be able to
engage internationally, and
to some degree are able
to do so at the UN, though
sub-national governments
do not have the same right.
The Working Group supports
further consideration of
the proposal of a “global
peoples’ assembly”, where
diverse peoples of the world
can be represented, with
links to the UN decisionmaking process.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
40
PA R T
These are major challenges that need to be tackled if the
global community is to realize a new Global Partnership as
envisaged in Agenda 2030:
“
The scale and ambition of the new
Agenda requires a revitalized
Global Partnership to ensure its
implementation. We fully commit
to this. This Partnership will work
in a spirit of global solidarity, in
particular solidarity with the poorest
and with people in vulnerable
situations. It will facilitate an
intensive global engagement in
support of implementation of all the
Goals and targets, bringing together
Governments, the private sector, civil
society, the United Nations system
and other actors and mobilizing all
available resources.”77
How is this to be realized? While recognizing “that there are
different approaches, visions, models and tools available to
each country, in accordance with its national circumstances
and priorities,”78 they “need to be supported by an enabling
2.C
international economic
environment, including
coherent and mutually
supporting world trade,
monetary and financial
systems, and strengthened
and enhanced global
economic governance”.79
The Club de Madrid worked
with partners to develop an
outline of the elements that
would constitute such an
inclusive global system, the
“global Shared Societies
Agenda”.80 Such an inclusive
approach in the spirit of
solidarity would be in line
with the ideas proposed in
the present document and
a real paradigm shift, and
therefore is to be welcomed;
at the same time, there
has not been a great deal
of evidence that powerful
nation states and other
interests are willing to make
such a shift. However, as
is argued here, Agenda
2030 will not be fully
realized without a strong
and meaningful partnership
of all relevant parties. The
UN is urged to engage
without delay all relevant
parties – intergovernmental,
governmental and nongovernmental – and begin
the process of bringing this
about.
United Nations (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1 New York: UN,
para 39.
78 Ibid. para 59.
79 Ibid. para 63.n,
80 Club de Madrid, Friederich Ebert Stiftung and Center of Concern (2012), Towards a Global Shared Societies Agenda to
Promote Long-Term and Inclusive Sustainable Growth:
http://www.clubmadrid.org/img/secciones/Global_Shared_Societies_Agenda_2014.pdf
77
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
41
PA R T
2.C
The world needs an alliance of countries and regions (supported by progressive companies
and social groups) that is committed to fostering a development model that focuses on human
and ecological wellbeing rather than narrowly defined economic output. A number of Working
Group members are already supporting the idea of an alliance of “Wellbeing Economies”, called
the “WE7” in obvious reference to the G7, that responds to this need for change. The WE7 will
give status, recognition and leadership to countries and regions that champion human and
ecological wellbeing in their economic policies. Countries and regions that join WE7 will be
those that recognize that size and growth of GDP is not a good measure of success. They are
either entities that have shown the capacity to marry a low-impact economy with high living
standards or that are sincerely committed to achieving this in future policy decisions.
ALLIANCE OF WELLBEING ECONOMIES: THE WE7
InternAtIonAl Co-operAtIon
fAvour Common posItIons In CrItICAl AreAs of
gloBAl governAnCe
mutuAl leArnIng And Co-operAtIon
sHoWCAse of CHAmpIons WItH dIfferent
development models
empHAsIZe neW notIons of progress
This informal alliance will create synergies in international co-operation, favour common
positions in critical areas of global governance (e.g. at the UN level or within other groups such
as the G20 and the OECD). It will also encourage mutual learning and co-operation within the
alliance itself, for instance through technology transfer, industrialization policies, reciprocal
foreign direct investment and development aid. It will showcase champions of a different
development model and emphasize new notions of progress, beyond the size and growth of
GDP. By showing that a different approach to development is possible (and desirable), and by
providing a different model for global leadership, the WE7 informal alliance would be a source
of inspiration and a role model for other countries and regions, and a champion of the SDGs
(for example, by integrating its goals and targets in day-to-day policy making).
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
42
PA R T
13
Disciplinary and professional
boundaries and fragmentation of
development efforts
to be effective, disciplines and agencies
must be able to work outside their traditional
boundaries to develop synergies and pool
knowledge and expertise with other agencies
and professionals. they require new models
of teamwork, which will have implications for
education, training and recruitment.
2.C
In the same way that the challenges facing
the planet cannot be dealt with by agencies
and states working in isolation from each
other, multi-disciplinary approaches are also
required. All aspects of development are
interrelated and interdependent: progress on
one aspect of development and any one of
the SDGs is dependent on progress on the
others. Equally, progress on Agenda 2030 will
be affected by other events, including natural
and human disasters. The World Humanitarian
Summit in May 2016 endeavoured to
transcend the “humanitarian-development
divide”, as articulated in the UN SecretaryGeneral’s synthesis report81 for the summit,
which makes the connection between Agenda
2030 and humanitarian activities.
81 United Nations (2016) The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet, A/
RES/70/1 New York: UN, para 14, http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/reports/SG_Synthesis_Report_Road_to_Dignity_
by_2030.pdf
82 See Part 1 of this document and Sharing Our Planet: Today and Tomorrow: Key Insights of
Club de Madrid Working Group on Shared Societies and Environmental Sustainability, pages 6-7.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
43
PA R T
This orientation has
implications for professions
and disciplines, including
economics, social
development, natural
science, law and human
rights protection, rural and
urban planning, participatory
development planning
and peace-building. It is
ironic that as disciplines
become more specialized,
they become more narrow
and therefore need to be
interdependent. To be
effective, professionals must
be able to work outside their
conventional boundaries to
develop synergies and pool
knowledge and expertise
with other agencies and
professionals with other
forms of knowledge, skills
and expertise. They must
also engage meaningfully
with all stakeholders,
including local communities,
asking themselves and their
interlocutors the kind of
questions that reflect the
principles of the Shared
Societies Framework.82 This
will require new models
of teamwork and will have
implications for education,
training and recruitment.
83
84
However, there is a tendency
for each discipline to
remain in a silo, targeting
its own particular concepts,
principles, assumptions and
approaches, applying that
frame to the tensions and
challenges that it identifies,
and selecting its priorities.
The Working Group has
discussed the limitations of
such an approach, but the
image of “silos” is potentially
misleading. It postulates that
they are equal but distinct
policy areas, isolated from
the others, but in fact they
do impact on each other
and one discipline can come
to dominate the others.
For at least the last 200
years, policy debates in the
West have given primacy to
economists. The arguments
of the security sector are also
powerful,83 and we will see84
how the possibilities offered
by science and technology
are increasingly adopted
without questioning of their
wider impacts. However,
current challenges show the
limitations of a development
paradigm in which the
economic or security
dimensions are dominant.
2.C
The environmental dimension
is central because it sets
limits which we go beyond
at our peril. The social
dimension is critical because
dysfunctional societies do
not have the capacities and
resilience to be able to tackle
global challenges, even if the
resources exist to do so.
Each dimension also needs to
incorporate the best thinking
of the others. It is necessary
to move beyond an economic
model based on competition
and therefore inequality, a
social model based on power
and therefore exclusion,
and an environmental
model based on maximum
exploitation of the planet
and therefore leading to
ecological collapse. Those
who drafted Agenda 2030 are
to be commended for trying
to achieve that conceptual
shift in the preamble, and
we urge policy makers and
the academic community in
other fields to reorient their
thinking and critically reassess
the “accepted truths” and
“received wisdom” of their
disciplines in a more holistic
context.
See section 18.
Section 17.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
44
PA R T
2.C
14 Monitoring mechanisms
good monitoring mechanisms will guide and encourage states to take the necessary
initiatives to achieve the Sdgs. in identifying sources of data to monitor progress, equal
attention should be given to more subjective measures, including assessment of wellbeing,
and the application of the key principles and questions of the Shared Societies approach to
sustainable development.
It is widely understood that progress towards the SDGs needs to be monitored and that
good monitoring mechanisms, data collection and analysis will guide and encourage states
to take the necessary initiatives to achieve the goals. The UN High-Level Political Forum on
Sustainable Development is the most relevant body to provide the necessary stimulus and
strategic coordination between relevant organizations. It is intended that peer review will
take place between countries in the same region, and large international NGOs and the Cities
Alliance85 will also contribute. Particularly in the early stage, the focus will be on the systems
and structures that are being created to meet the goals and targets of Agenda 2030, rather
than the outcomes, which will take longer to become evident. The Working Group cautions
against too much reliance on the projected outcomes in national development plans (though
it is important), but also to audit strategies and proposals in terms of the Key Principles and
Questions for a Shared Societies Approach to Sustainable Development, as outlined below.
85
OECD Champion Mayors for Inclusive Growth initiative: http://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growth/champion-mayors/
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
45
PA R T
2.C
KEY PRINCIPLES AND QUESTIONS
FOR A SHARED SOCIETIES APPROACH TO
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Participation: Are all sectors of society involved in developing
sustainable policies and programmes, beginning with joint
assessments of the issues and concerns, rather than only seeking
support for preconceived solutions?
1.
transparency: Is there transparency and full access to
information for all stakeholders?
2.
3.
Shared benefits: Does everyone and the natural environment
benefit from policies and projects, or are some affected
negatively?
Affirmative action: Does the proposed initiative benefit groups
that are marginalized, whether on grounds of physical location,
identity, gender or for other reasons? How will they be negatively
affected and left behind?
4.
long-term perspective: Are the long-term ecological, social
and economic consequences of policies and programmes
positive? Are they sustainable in the long term?
5.
responsible pollution mitigation: Do those who are
responsible for negative consequences, including environmental
degradation, bear the cost of repair? How will that obligation be
enforced?
6.
disaggregated monitoring data: Are provisions built into the
systems of monitoring programmes and projects for sustainable
development to ensure the collection of disaggregated data in
terms of ethnicity, race, religion, gender and other aspects of
identity, in order to identify quickly what groups are being left
behind and introduce corrections?
7.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
46
PA R T
The answers to these
questions will indicate the
extent to which policies
promote consideration of
values; encourage dialogue
and participation; create
awareness of the challenges;
impact on the environment;
and impact on all sectors so
that no one is left behind.
It is recognized that
considerable work is ongoing,
both within and outside the
UN system, on what will be
appropriate indicators.86 As
mentioned above, it is also
important that the data is
disaggregated to compare
the situation of different
groups, including in terms of
gender, race, ethnicity and
culture, location, language
and religion, to identify
if any specific groups are
being left behind. Equal
attention should be given to
broader measures, including
assessment of wellbeing. The
OECD has been examining
new data and metrics which
aim to encapsulate what
matters for people, looking
at the relevance of concepts
such as wellbeing, equity,
happiness and environmental
sustainability. In its “All on
Board” report,87 it addresses
inequalities in income and
opportunities, and proposes
a new metric to gauge
people’s prosperity more
effectively – a measure of
“multidimensional living
standards” (MDLS). Using
this tool, it is evident that
countries with higher GDP
are not necessarily the best
at converting their wealth
into improvements in living
standards for their citizens:
for example, France and
Germany registered almost
the same per capita GDP
growth between 1995 and
2007, but living standards
grew 1.7 times faster in
France. Additionally, the
OECD Better Life Index88
(BLI) is an interactive tool
that measures wellbeing and
progress, and allows users to
visualize wellbeing outcomes
according to the priorities
that the user inputs. Both the
MDLS and the BLI are part
of the wider OECD effort to
measure progress beyond
GDP.89
It has been pointed out that
care must be taken that the
focus does not shift to what
is measurable and making
2.C
that the goal, rather than
working out really important
but hard-to-measure
indicators of progress,
including qualitative data,
and developing ways to
obtain that data. There
is concern that statistical
data has the potential to
“have a reductionist effect
on the overall vision” of
the 2030 Agenda.90 The
Working Group stresses
that participation by all
stakeholders is not only
important in the planning
and implementation of
projects, but also in the
monitoring process and the
identification of indicators.
Save the Children, in
its recommendations
on the preparations for
national-level reviews
within the Agenda 2030
framework, stressed the
importance of following
the principle of “leave no
one behind” by being open,
inclusive, participatory and
transparent; this includes
seeking the views of
economic and social groups
that are furthest behind,
and highlighting policies
and strategies to reach the
furthest-behind first.91
86 For example, the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, http://www.stat.si/doc/
drzstat/Stiglitz%20report.pdf
87 OECD (2015) op. cit., http://www.oecd.org/economy/all-on-board-9789264218512-en.htm
88 http://www.oecd.org/statistics/datalab/bli.htm
89 See also the indexes referred to on page 32.
90 http://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/sdg/dihr-fur_paper_final_draft_29_02_16.pdf
91 Save the Children Fund (2016) Recommendations on the Zero Draft Resolution of 6 May 2016 on the Follow-up and Review
of the 2030 Agenda at the global level, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21190Save%20the%20
Children2.pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
47
PA R T
d.
2.d
LOOKING
TO THE FUTURE
15 Planning horizon
A short-term perspective is harmful to longterm development, and other mechanisms
are required to encourage long-term
planning. taxation and other means can
discourage a short-term planning horizon.
It follows from the discussion of shareholder
governance92 that this model encourages
short-term thinking, and other factors
92
also play a part. The political system also
contributes, because in many political
systems politicians have a limited term of
office and may then have the option of
seeking re-election. As a result, they are
mindful of the need to satisfy public opinion
or the ruling elite by producing quick results,
and may be less concerned about longterm consequences which will become the
responsibility of future leaders. It has been
noted already that a short-term perspective is
harmful to long-term development, and that
pricing, taxation and other mechanisms are
required to encourage long-term planning
and discourage a short-term planning horizon.
See section 11.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
48
PA R T
16 Learning and education
education and learning has an important contribution
to make to the achievement of inclusive sustainable
development,93 but it will require new approaches and a
fundamental shift in education systems across the world.
effective education should encourage critical reassessment
of current thinking and ideas through new experiences and
interaction with others and with the environment.
2.d
following the 2008
financial crisis,
people with higher
rates of education
were less affected by
unemployment, and
the already wide gap
in earnings between
people with higher
education and those
with lower levels
actually grew.
Good education provides
individuals with the
environment that nurtures
their talent, allows them
to develop their skills and
knowledge, and equips
them to seek decent work or
establish their own business.
Learning and education in all its forms, from pre-school to
life-long learning, has a key role to play in all areas of human
endeavour and can make an important contribution to the
efforts to achieve inclusive sustainable development. The
Millennium Development Goals promoted access to education,
and Agenda 2030 maintains that goal with an emphasis on the
quality of education available.94 Formal education can help to
empower poor and marginalized individuals and communities,
reducing inequality. Young people from poorer families
are badly under-represented in higher education, which
risks exposing them to a lifetime of reduced earnings and
undermines the foundations of wider prosperity and wellbeing.
93
94
95
In order to help all individuals
to fulfil their potential and
equip them with valuable
skills for the workplace,
policy needs to be informed
by comprehensive and
comparative data that can
facilitate the sharing of best
practices between countries.
To this end, the OECD has
developed the Programme
for International Student
Assessment (PISA),95 a
comprehensive international
comparison of the skills
and knowledge of 15-yearolds around the world in
mathematics, science and
See Target 4.7, Agenda 2030.
Sustainable Development Goal 4.
OECD PISA: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/home/
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
49
PA R T
reading. The PISA survey
has both drawn attention to
the significant differences in
educational outcome within
and between countries – for
instance, there are large
differences in numeracy
scores within countries, with
students from disadvantaged
socio-economic backgrounds
registering significantly lower
scores than the average – and
pointed to effective policy
interventions. The PISA
programme has shown that
children who were enrolled
in pre-school education
perform better throughout
their education life. Similarly,
the OECD Survey of Adult
Skills (PIAAC) shows that
the skills distribution among
the adult population is also
heavily determined by socioeconomic background.
For example, PIAAC 2013
showed that parental levels
of education – a strong
measure of socio-economic
background – influence
literacy proficiency scores in
all countries.
The interaction between
education and skills training,
and job quality, must not be
forgotten. People in formal
employment spend many
hours each week at work,
and an increasingly larger
share of their adult lives in
paid work, which means that
work is strongly related to
the quality of individuals’
lives and wellbeing. The
OECD framework on job
quality looks at it in terms of
2.d
“earning quality” (the extent to which earnings contribute to
workers’ wellbeing in relation to average earnings and their
distribution), labour market security and the quality of the
working environment, and gives a comprehensive and holistic
assessment. Matching skills and training to employment roles
is again vital, and is key for individual wellbeing; however, the
OECD PIAAC in 2013 pointed to the existence of significant
mismatches between skills and their use at work.
The Working Group focused particularly on how learning
can inspire, nurture talent and creativity, raise awareness,
encourage appropriate values and stimulate critical thinking.
These qualities are characteristics of a mature, well-rounded
individual and will be needed if he or she is to contribute
to sustainable development through work and free time.
Therefore, Target 4.7 of Agenda 2030 should be stressed as
central to achieving the whole vision:
“By 2030 ensure that all learners
acquire the knowledge and skill
needed to promote sustainable
development, including among others,
through education for sustainable
development and sustainable
lifestyles, human rights, gender
equality, promotion of a culture
of peace and non-violence, global
citizenship and appreciation of cultural
diversity and culture’s contribution to
sustainable development.
”
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
50
PA R T
Many educationalists
support this perspective,
but achieving it will
require new approaches
and a fundamental shift in
education systems across the
world.
Effective education
should encourage critical
questioning of current
thinking and ideas through
new experiences and
interaction with others
and with the environment.
Members of the Working
Group have been involved
in various forms of critical
dialogue, and techniques
were shared such as
mindfulness, appreciative
inquiry, scenario building,
resource training, etc. The
challenge is to extend
the application of such
approaches more widely
and in different settings,
including through distance
communication using
electronic media.
Unfortunately, education
often fails to provide those
opportunities, and individuals
and groups remain static.
Everyday interaction with
colleagues, friends and
acquaintances tends to
confirm existing ideas and
attitudes, reinforcing the
current way of doing things
because no new perspectives
are introduced. Formal
education tends to transmit,
without questions, current
orthodoxies including neoclassical economics and
existing power relationships,
without also introducing
alternative perspectives as
is advocated in Target 4.7
of Agenda 2030. It often
undermines traditional
knowledge96 and culture,
in particular minority
languages. These messages
are not only conveyed
through the curriculum. A
lack of diversity in teaching
staff at all levels of education
sends its own message.
For example, 80 percent
2.d
of teachers in the USA
are white women. These
tendencies are additional
reasons why involvement
by local communities is
important, including in
the establishment and
management of schools that
share with the children their
commitment to local culture
and language,97 while at the
same time ensuring this does
not lead to ghettoization.
It is important to recognize
the power of narrative
in shaping thinking in
general, and its relevance to
shifting perspectives on the
challenges of sustainable
development. How a story
is told shapes and then
reaffirms understanding
of the story. It is through
narrative that people
understand their past and
are aware of their future.
But all narratives are partial.
Often only some stories are
heard – stories of the more
powerful, the articulate and
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 31:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and
traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and
genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports
and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their
intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these
rights.
97 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 14, confers the right to establish and control educational
institutions. For a recent example of an agreement under which the Navajo Nation will control their schools, see: http://
indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/09/28/obama-administration-gives-historic-control-education-system-navajonation-165937
96
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
51
PA R T
those who have access to
the means to disseminate
them. They reflect the status
quo, but may not be the
most accurate depictions.
The stories of the weakest,
the less articulate and those
without access to media are
not heard, but they may have
important insights to share.
A member of an indigenous
tribe living deep in a tropical
jungle may understand
the consequences of
indiscriminate logging, but
his or her voice is not heard.
Someone living near the
edge of melting shore-fast
ice above the Arctic Circle or
on a coral atoll in the Pacific
is more aware than most of
the consequences of global
warming, but few people are
listening or want to know
about their plight. Someone
living in poverty and ill health
in a declining industrial
wasteland has insights into
the real costs of current
forms of production, but no
way to share that narrative.
Equally, there are many
communities implementing
effective approaches that
respect the planet and build
Shared Societies, and these
stories are also not heard.
Therefore it is important to
ensure that these narratives
are listened to and not lost
in the multitude of other
narratives, and that they
are shared in a variety
of ways, including direct
communication, through
films, television and the
2.d
THE POWER OF NARRATIVE
HoW
A STORY
IS TOLD
SHAPES AND THEN REAFFIRMS
UNDERSTANDING OF THE STORY...
...tHeY
REFLECT THE
STATUS QUO ,
BUT MAY NOT BE THE MOST ACCURATE
DEPICTIONS. THE STORIES OF THE
WEAKEST, THE LESS ARTICULATE AND
THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO MEDIA
ARE NOT HEARD, BUT THEY MAY HAVE
IMPORTANT INSIGHTS TO SHARE
printed word and through social media. One image can tell a
story – but what story is told and what is our understanding of
it? It is important that everyone has the capacity to interrogate
narratives, test what they really can tell us and see how they
complement each other. We need to understand more about
the impact of narratives shared through different forms.
The more narratives that are shared and critically examined,
the richer and deeper the understanding of the stories they
tell and the situations they describe. More opportunities for
dialogue around narratives need to be created.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
52
PA R T
2.d
The current dominant narratives increase fatalism and acceptance of the way things have been
and how they will be. Narratives of the future are either complacent in their avoidance of future
challenges, or doom-laden. They do not inspire or encourage engagement and participation.
If they are to enthuse and mobilize the population to take action, they must be more exciting
and positive. Such narratives exist, and the means must be found to share them more widely.
New narratives can help people to understand the failures and mistakes of the past and how
to prepare for different futures. If the alternative narratives are grounded in the type of values
endorsed in this paper, then those values will critique the contradictions and failures of the outof-date stories.
17 Challenge of new technologies
it is important to assess the possible
impacts of new technology against a clear
set of values and principles such as those
identified in this paper. given the speed of
technological innovation, agencies need
to be developed, strengthened and given
a higher profile in order to oversee and
assess technological development with a
specific focus on their impact on sustainable
development and inclusivity.
Scientific knowledge and technology-based
solutions to real or perceived problems are
advancing at an exponential rate, and there
is no indication that this process will reach
a limit in the future. The potential benefits
of such innovation are accepted.98 They
can provide cheaper, more environmentally
friendly approaches, as well as introducing
solutions to what were previously thought to
be insoluble problems. There is the promise
of further developments in fields such as
communications, biotechnology, robotics,
health, climate science, clean energy and
climate-smart agriculture.
It was not the intention of the Working Group
to assess these technologies and expected
future innovations in scientific terms, but to
98 United Nations (2016) Global Sustainable Development Report 2016, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York:
UN, chapters 3 and 5, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2328Global Sustainable development report
2016 (final).pdf
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
53
PA R T
consider the implications
of new technology for the
inclusive Shared Society,
which is advanced here
as being at the core of
meeting the challenges
posed by Agenda 2030. New
technology can introduce
profound changes in
individual and social identity.
In the past, technology
developed slowly and the
impact on culture and
society was gradual. Since
the agricultural and industrial
revolutions in Europe in
the 18th and 19th centuries
technological change has
been increasingly rapid,
opening up possibilities for
access to knowledge and
information, and greater
geographical and social
mobility and opportunities.
This has created possibilities
of empowerment and
advancement for some,
and left others more
obviously disadvantaged
and marginalized. The
old social structures and
conventions – practical and
cultural – have been found
unnecessarily restrictive,
and have been eroded and
ignored, most markedly in
the West and in cultures
that were most affected
by western colonialism.
However the impact of these
changes on social bonds
and interrelationships is not
fully understood and taken
into account. This tendency
is likely to increase with the
rapid introductions of new
emerging technologies.
2.d
Today we see a new cultural clash between modernity and
tradition. The spread of internet and mobile technology is,
paradoxically, bringing the world closer and, at the same
time, the virtual world is accused of isolating people from
direct physical contact and from problems in their own
neighbourhood. It is clear that the internet, smart technology
and social media can have a profound impact on our sense of
being part of a global community that stands or falls together.
Those with less access to state-of-the-art communication
technology will be further marginalized, though the extent of
the reach of these systems into very remote and traditional
communities is remarkable.
For the future, technology can exacerbate existing negative
trends if it is not guided by a clear set of people- and planetoriented values and principles. Most technology is open to
misuse for destructive purposes.
it is conceivable that
new technology could offer the means
to solve problems but undermine the human
capability to apply those solutions
effectively, if it is not guided by the thinking
underpinning inclusive
sustainable development.
Dystopian visions in contemporary films and novels articulate
the dangers.
This is of particular concern in the field of robotics and bioengineering. For example, biotechnology is challenging the
understanding of what it is to be human and potentially could
speed up the erosion of human values, which has already
been identified as one of the obstacles to meeting current
environmental and social challenges. New diagnostic tools
could allow people with limited medical training to treat
patients effectively and, through advanced communications,
people in remote areas could have virtual access to highly
trained doctors. While this may be positive, unequal access to
this new technology could reinforce and accentuate current
disparities. Robotics could also destroy the livelihoods and
self-esteem of those it displaces while enhancing the quality of
life of those who have access to its benefits.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
54
PA R T
Since the industrial
revolution, developments
in science and technology
have marginalized earlier
knowledge systems. These
have not been totally lost and
are still valued by indigenous
peoples and traditional
communities, among others.
Various global agreements
recognize the importance
of all knowledge systems,
and the current ecological
and social challenges
require the pooling of all
forms of knowledge. This is
happening in the increasing
collaboration between
modern scientific institutions
and indigenous peoples in
understanding and dealing
with climate change, or
in the creation of holistic
health services combining
allopathic, ayurvedic and
other health and medical
systems. Such developments
are best served by treating
knowledge and information
as part of the global
commons, and reversing the
trend towards privatized and
monopolistic control that is
inherent in the ownership of
intellectual property rights
– bearing in mind that much
of this knowledge is in any
case the product of public
investment in research and
development.99
The speed of development
and the urge to try
99
2.d
out new ideas and be at the forefront of commercial
applications makes it difficult to subject new ideas to
rigorous dispassionate assessment, yet it is all the more
important to assess their possible impacts against a clear
set of values and principles. There are existing bodies that
have some responsibilities in this area in some countries and
internationally, but none with a specific focus on the impact of
new technology on sustainable development and inclusivity.
Such bodies need to be developed, strengthened and given
a higher profile in order to be able to respond effectively to
the global reach and power of modern technology and the
organizations that use and promote it.
18
Militarism and the
option of force
in wartime, militarism and
conflict have very direct
and obvious impacts on
the environment and
development. even in
peacetime, militarism
not only justifies and
encourages combativeness,
but it also distorts the
economy. for real progress
to be made on sustainable
development for all,
demilitarization has both
a practical contribution
to make in freeing up
resources, and also an
existential contribution in
breaking down the barriers
of national self-interest and
pointing instead to a shared
future.
M. Mazzucato (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, London: Anthem Press.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
55
PA R T
One of the weaknesses of governance at
all levels is the dominant role played by
those who are more powerful, and the way
in which they exert their power. Many (but
by no means all) states,100 communities,
corporations and individuals are reluctant to
pool their capacities and resources and share
power in order to address the challenges.
When there is a conflict of interest, the default
option is to use financial or military strength
to get one’s own way. As discussed above,
many aspects of current orthodox attitudes
and assumptions, such as competition,
encourage the belief that exerting one’s
power is a virtue, and they reinforce the close
relationship between the military, industry and
politics.
There is a feedback loop between the
assertion of power, the acquisition of power
and the acceptance of force as appropriate
path to success. The desire to assert power
leads to the accumulation of power in terms
of capital, armaments or both. Having power
increases the tendency to use it. The capacity
to use or threaten to use power is taken as a
validation of the powerholder, and it becomes
accepted that the use of power and force is
appropriate. The argument is made that a
strong military posture is necessary to deal
with threats, but in terms of this feedback
loop, the military posture increases the sense
that violence is the only effective option, and
therefore increases rather than decreases
the level of threat. In other words, rather
than reducing war-like behaviour, militarism
actually reinforces it.
In wartime, aside from moral and ethical
considerations, militarism and conflict
have very direct and obvious impacts on
the environment, development and human
2.d
security. Militarism distorts the economy,
and in many countries military expenditure
far outstrips expenditure on overseas aid,101
reducing the resources, capital and labour
available for sustainable development.
Nuclear weapons are the extreme example
because of their destructive power and
cost. Most countries selling arms are already
affluent, and many of the countries buying
arms can ill afford them, so the trade
contributes to inequality. Often the buyers are
among the most repressive regimes.
As the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs
says:
“
We acknowledge that
disarmament alone will not
produce world peace. Yet
we also maintain that the
elimination of weapons of
mass destruction, illicit arms
trafficking and burgeoning
weapons stockpiles would
advance both peace and
development goals. It would
accomplish this by reducing
the effects of wars, eliminating
some key incentives to new
conflicts, and liberating
resources to improve the
lives of all the people and the
natural environment in which
they live.”
102
100 For example, Costa Rica – see forthcoming paper presented to the Working Group by Laura Miranda Chinchilla (2016) The
Costa Rican Experience.
101 http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#Spendingforpeacevsspendingforwar
102 https://www.un.org/disarmament/vision/
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
56
PA R T
“Disarmament alone will not produce world
peace” and a change of orientation is needed
in order to bring about a more inclusive,
sharing world. The inexorable advance of
climate change is the kind of threat that may
expose the limitations and powerlessness of a
militarized world and demand a rethink. SDG
16 is a very direct response to this challenge,
but it was hard won, as some states argued –
on this occasion unsuccessfully – that issues
2.d
of peace and security were not the concern of
an agenda on sustainable development. But
for real progress to be made on sustainable
development for all, demilitarization has both
a practical contribution to make in freeing up
resources, and also an existential contribution
in breaking down the barriers of national
self-interest and pointing instead to a shared
future.
19 Bringing the approach to scale
The Shared Societies approach is crucial to realizing a holistic vision in which everyone feels
that they are part of the whole, are sensitive to the wellbeing of others and feel a shared
responsibility. This approach can be found in many small communities and they have much to
teach the world community about how to create Shared Societies and to facilitate sustainable
development. Their sense of involvement and belonging can be replicated on a wider scale if
care is taken to maintain the essential features of these small communities.
A recurring factor, related to all the dimensions of this paper and also in the literature, is the
problem of scale. The Shared Societies approach, values and practice, can often be seen within
a small-scale community, where all the members of the community are directly known to each
other. But is it possible to replicate this on a national or global scale where these personal
bonds are absent? This document argues that these values are essential in the modern world.
But are they still feasible? If they are, how can they be reactivated and re-energized? They are
conspicuously absent in larger, more complex systems, in powerful states and in the global
governance system, including the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions, where there is less
direct contact between people, and powerful voices carry more weight.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
57
PA R T
Ostrom and her colleagues
talk about “thick” social
networks. How does
one create “thickness”?
In many indigenous
societies and other small
communities, there is direct
personal knowledge of
and connection with other
members of the group and
the environment around
them. These communities
have a profound relationship
with the environment
and natural world, as well
as a wealth of intricate
knowledge concerning
sustainability. Their
communities, nations and
peoples have manifested
distinct values, customs,
practices and institutions
for centuries. Their different
103
cultural contexts provide a
vast array of examples and
instructions for maintaining
our natural environment
and the means to nurture
harmony between humanity
and our shared planet.
To realize the vision and
approaches of this document
would require scaling up
these practices and insights
to larger and potentially
more impersonal situations,
while ensuring that their
essence is not lost. Building
the sense of involvement and
belonging is crucial, such
as: the sense of the group
as an important entity; the
sense that we matter (that
our dignity is respected);
and that each person has to
2.d
and can take responsibility.
This requires that people are
treated by their leaders and
their fellow citizens in ways
which nurture that sense of
belonging and responsibility.
As in small, close-knit
communities, this means
openness and transparency,
raising awareness of the
challenges we face, and
involving the whole society
in a shared project to decide
on preferred solutions.
Many of these principles
are part of ancient or newly
emerging worldviews such
as ubuntu and others.103 They
are still relevant, and ways
to ensure they inform and
enrich mainstream thinking
should be encouraged.
For example, buen vivir, sumac kawsay, ubuntu and swaraj. See A. Kothari et. al (2014) op. cit., (362-375).
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
58
T O WA R D S A S H A R E D
A N D E Q U I TA B L E
FUTURE
The approach advocated in this paper requires a paradigm shift. It proposes alternative lenses
through which the development process needs to be viewed and key questions that need to be
asked. The situation is critical and change is urgently needed, but it is likely that the preferred
way forward will be sought in incremental stages appropriate to local circumstances, building
on the strengths of local systems in order to minimize features that undermine sustainable
development. There are different views on whether that will be sufficient to bring about the
changes required. A local perspective may facilitate a holistic view of the overall challenges
and needs of each community, but it could also shift the focus towards particular concerns and
issues in isolation from the wider dimensions of these issues. In either case, real progress will
only be made if the development process is viewed in a new way.
So, what will be the implications of an analytical framework that is more inclusive and
incorporates an environmental orientation based on conservation and modest consumption,
a social orientation based on inclusion, respect and sharing, and an economic approach
based on maximizing wellbeing? It is proposed that while it may not maximize GDP, such a
framework may lead to more sustainable development characterized by greater co-operation,
environmental renewal, lower levels of intergroup tension and higher levels of wellbeing, all of
which will free up wealth for future development. It will be easier to get consensus on the key
challenges (e.g. climate change), on starting points for tackling those challenges and holistic
approaches to overcome them.
Finding the right way to gain support for these ideas is also critical. What is the most effective
way to mobilize people around challenges? Is fear more effective than hope? Or self interest?
Or a positive vision? Or solidarity? Or demands for rights and justice? Past efforts have had
elements of all these incentives and this will likely continue in the future. Sometimes alliances
will be uncomfortable. Those who have felt oppressed are more likely to use the terminology
of demands and justice, but that may not resonate with the people whose support they want
to enlist to bring about change. Perhaps the most effective message, which can be drawn from
the work of the Shared Societies Project, is that by working together and pooling our interests,
everyone can benefit.
Agenda 2030 is not just the responsibility of political leaders; it is also the responsibility of
the whole of humanity which will have to play its part in realizing the SDGs and ensuring
that governments and intergovernmental bodies fulfil their tasks. Therefore, this analysis is
also commended to people’s movements and civic society, in the hope that it will give them
perspectives and ideas that will be useful in their work.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
59
MEMBERS OF THE WORKING
G R O U P O N E N V I R O N M E N TA L
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y A N D
SHARED SOCIETIES
CHAirS of tHe worKing grouP
laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica
(2010-2014) and Club de Madrid Member
Zlatko lagumdzija, Prime Minister of Bosnia
& Herzegovina (2001-2002) and Club de
Madrid Member
memberS of tHe worKing grouP
Jamil Ahmad, Deputy Director, UN
Environment, New York Office
frederic bontems, Former Director for
Development and Global Public Goods
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, French
Ambassador to Ethiopia, France
beatriz merino, former National
Ombudsman of Peru and Club de Madrid
NetPLUSS Member
david miller, former Mayor of Toronto
(2003-2010) and President and CEO
of WWF – Canada. Club de Madrid
NetPLUSS Member
roberto mukaro borrero, Consultant and
Member of United Nations Indigenous
Peoples Major Group
Patrick reinsborough, Special Adviser of
the Center for Story-based Strategy
Carter brandon, Global Lead Economist
for the Environment and Natural Resources
Global Practice, World Bank
doug Saunders, Journalist, International
Affairs Columist, Toronto Globe and Mail,
author of “Arrival Cities.”
dalee Sambo dorough, 2014 Chairperson
of the United Nations Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, Associate Professor at
University of Alaska Anchorage.
Sarah Silver, Alan B. Slifka Foundation
Executive Director
thomas gass, UN Assistant SecretaryGeneral for Policy Coordination and InterAgency Affairs in the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA)
Juan Somavía, former Director-General
of the International Labor Organization
and Director of the Diplomacy Academy
“Andres Bello”, Chile
lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Director of the
Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Local
Development and Tourism at OECD and
Coordinator of the OECD’s Inclusive Growth
Initiative
Alfred tolle, Founder and Chairman of
Wisdom Together
Ashish Kothari, Founder Member of the
Kalpavriksh Environment Action Group, India
veerle vandeweerd, Former Director of
the UNDP Environment and Energy Group
Youba Sokona, Special Advisor on
Sustainable Development, South Centre
Katherine trebeck, Policy and Research
Advisor, Oxfam GB Global Research Team
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
60
ABOUT
THE WLA-CLUB DE MADRID IS A NON-PROFIT
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND THE
WORLD’S LARGEST, INDEPENDENT GROUP OF
DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL LEADERS,
committed to addressing the challenges of good governance and effective leadership. The added
value of the Club de Madrid is a membership of more than 100 former Presidents and Prime
Ministers from over 65 countries, willing to share their diverse expertise and networks. We partner
with governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society, scholars and the business world,
building bridges between them and the current leaders and policy makers and encouraging
dialogue to foster social and political change towards inclusive and peaceful societies.
Club de Madrid A new PArAdigm for SuStAinAble develoPment?
61