Rio+20: More Progress from Business Needed

The Rio+20 conference on sustainable development, which took place in Rio de Janeiro, wrapped up on June 22, 2012. Photo credit: Flickr/Digo_Souza

This piece originally appeared in The Guardian.

Big business seemed to be everywhere at Rio+20, arguably more visible than the 100 or so heads of state and government, who arrived for the final few days.

Hundreds of business initiatives were announced through groups including Business Action for Sustainable Development and the UN Global Compact’s Corporate Sustainability Forum. And the corporate leaders who flocked to Brazil made all the right noises. “We have to bring this world back to sanity and put the greater good ahead of self-interest,” Unilever CEO Paul Polman told the Guardian.

But how much substance lies below the surface of these declarations?

The disappointing reality is that while a few of the business initiatives offer the promise of progress towards a more sustainable and inclusive global economy, most were incremental and unambitious. For a sector that prides itself on innovation, global companies largely failed to offer ideas commensurate with the challenges of climate change and over-use of natural resources.

Why, with so much business firepower at Rio, was this the case? We suggest three reasons:

First, the global financial crisis is stifling business activity and distracting CEO attention from what are (wrongly) viewed as longer-term challenges, such as sustainability. The same pre-occupation is true of governments, who underachieved as much, if not more, than business did at Rio. This is a missed opportunity as integrating sustainability into business plans can actually be part of pro-growth economic strategy, as GE, Siemens, Unilever, and many other companies are showing.

Second, increasingly multilateral global forums are not the settings for breakthrough innovation, tending to settle for lowest common denominator outcomes. More likely to make a difference are bottom-up solutions where companies, governments at all levels, and other constituents, such as NGOs and development banks, work as partners to solve specific sustainability problems. Sectors such as clean energy and water supply, in particular, lend themselves to such an approach.

Third, governments matter. Companies beholden to shareholders will only go so far on their own in embracing sustainable practices. While business is increasingly active in shaping the sustainable development agenda, governments must provide the paradigm-changing policies and incentives needed for global green markets and investments to flourish.

Fossil fuel subsidies, the subject of civil society protests at Rio, are a good case in point. Such subsidies dissuade energy companies from diversifying from coal and gas into cleaner, lower-emission sources and hold back the global growth of renewables. Yet governments declined to use the once-in-a-generation sustainable development summit as an opportunity to make progress on fossil fuel subsidy reform.

Potential for Progress

All this said, Rio+20 did produce some business-related outcomes with real potential for action on the ground, depending on sufficient follow-up progress.

Valuing Natural Assets

First were the multiple efforts by global corporations to do something about their huge impact on natural resources. The Natural Capital Leadership Compact, signed by 15 global companies, urged action to properly value and maintain the Earth’s natural capital; the Natural Capital Declaration saw similar commitments from 39 banks, insurers and investors; and an additional 24 companies, worth a collective $500bn (£403bn), reinforced the importance of accounting for natural capital as a business imperative.

More specifically, 45 chief executives, who belong to the Global Compact’s CEO Water Mandate, announced commitments to improve water management practices and pursuing public-private partnerships to solve the global water crisis.

Unfortunately, governments at Rio stepped back from the more ambitious proposals to embrace a GDP-plus approach to national accounting that incorporates natural assets. This is an area where forward-looking businesses can take the lead.

Corporate Disclosure and Reporting

Although the final Rio communiqué watered down a proposed requirement for large companies to report on sustainability, it still provided a push for voluntary global disclosure of private sector impacts. Also welcome was the UK government’s announcement that, in April 2013, it will introduce regulations to require publicly listed companies to fully report their greenhouse gas emissions – a move supported by Cisco, PepsiCo and Aviva Investors, among others.

Sustainable Transport Finance

While the groundbreaking commitment by eight multilateral development banks to provide $175bn (£112bn) over 10 years towards sustainable transport in developing countries was not a business-led initiative, it could help kick-start smarter and more innovative public-private sector co-operation, in a sector responsible for about one-quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions.

With initiatives like these, Rio provided modest progress on some areas, but the clock is ticking down to a time when humanity breaches Earth’s ecological limits with unknown consequences.

New ideas and enhanced cooperation between governments, the private sector, and civil society are needed now if we are to avoid this daunting scenario. Business must help lead this effort by doing what it does best – thinking up innovative solutions that can change the world and setting time-bound targets to bring them to scale.

1 Comment

Comments expressed on this page are opinions of the authors themselves, and not positions of the World Resources Institute or its partners. WRI reserves the right to remove any comments that it considers inappropriate or spam.

Rio+ 20 New Paradigm Until

Rio+ 20 New Paradigm

Until the Rio+20 World Environmental Conference on 20-22 June 2012, NGOs and the civil society saw UN as the best protection Humanity as to counter global warming. This situation changed. Rio+20 created a new paradigm.

A victory
The UN Secretary-General, Banns Ki-moon, described Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro as a success. It depicts it as the victory of multilatéralism after months of difficult negotiations and he is proud of the durable development objectives and of the high level political forum created. Results are however very weak compare with the situation reported by the intergovernmental Group of experts on the evolution of the climate created in 1988. Its special report on the management of extreme events risks and disasters with the aim of a better adaptation to climatic changes shows nevertheless that climatic changes is very probably of human origin and that the temperature of the planet will increase from 1,1 to 6,4 °C during this century.

And a failure
But although it emphasizes the development of a green economy, long-term development and the eradication of poverty, Rio+20 final document lack concrete objectives and schedules to realize them. Several Pacific and Indian Ocean islands, such as Maldives or Tuvalu, will be submerged in few decades. All who live in coastal regions are also going to see the erosion of their coastline. The expert's report also foresees a decline of agricultural production in most of the tropical zones and a decrease of drinking water in subtropical regions. It is without counting a decrease of water from snows and ice melting. Extreme meteorological phenomena will have more impacts on the planet population. Up to 300 000 death a year can already be attributed to climatic change.

False science
The new Rio+20 paradigm shows that countries as Canada and Russia have no desire to act against climatic changes because they see themselves as the winners of these changes. The decrease of arctic polar ices opens new commercial roads and makes easier to access submarine resources, which were inaccessible. To protect themselves from criticisms and possibly legal proceedings, stakeholders also paid scientific studies to deny climatic warming and their responsibility in its growth. That these analyses will be contradicted by facts has no meaning to them because the purpose of the operation is to create an uncertainty zone that will serve them to accumulate resource and power before everything collapses. After, these people trust their own inventiveness and human resilience to survive at the top. The rise of the water level does not interest them, as far at it doesn't threaten their interests.

Law of nature
The fight for survival dominating the new paradigm created by Rio+20. Asymmetry among those who creates environmental damages and those that suffer them is now an integrated part of the new UN structures. Small countries that are at sea level will be gobbled up in some decades and they have no appeal. They are weak, they are going to die and it is the law of nature. Rich and developing countries have neither time nor interest to take charge of their problem, monopolized as they are by their own survival and growth. The economist Nicholas Stern estimates that climatic changes will cost 5 500 billion euros but this changes nothing because no stakeholders believe they have the obligation to pay. These sums will disappear as the losers drown or starve to death.

NGOs reaction
The NGOs and the civil society noticed the big difference between what UN said and did to insure a human management of the situation. The Rio+20 Earth Summit failed to control polluters and NGOs now question the UN capacity to manage this situation for the common good. This new paradigm takes its source from the fact that greenhouse gas emissions increase cannot be curbed quickly enough to avoid an increase of the world temperature to a point it is dangerous to Humanity. Rather than following Rio+20's results that assert it is necessary to set up global adaptation methods, the new paradigm looks for a justice binding polluters to the damage they create. Most important in this new paradigm, civil society and NGOs asserts that unless been suicidal and having no consideration for others, it is impossible to adopt a fatalist attitude in front of climate change.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is to verify that you are indeed an actual person, and not a spam-bot or other nuisance.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.