As discussed on the environmental integration page, cognitive environmental integration has two dimensions: the internal dimension refers to the existence or creation of an overarching cognitive framework that can provide guidance on what environmental processes, limits, principles or imperatives need to be respected to preserve the environmental systems on which life, including human life, depends; the external dimension refers to the integration of those ‘parameters’ as core elements into the cognitive frameworks (ideologies; theories, management frameworks and other) that guide human behaviour, actions and practices in what are usually regarded non-environmental areas, such as economic thinking, ideas, theories or models guiding the development of energy systems, technology, agriculture, transport, the production and consumption of goods and services, the design and construction of buildings and the built-up environment, and any other areas that have (potentially) a significant impact on the environment.
It may surprise those who think that the creation and adoption of such an overarching cognitive environmental framework at the global level is a utopian idea that, in practice, this is an area of environmental integration in which global efforts have been relatively successful. I am referring here, in particular, to the rise of the notion of sustainable development and the extent to which it has been adopted by governments worldwide and international organisations.
Sustainability: a dominant discourse?
The concept (or discourse) of sustainability was advanced by several widely distributed reports, notably the World Conservation Strategy, published by several international nature conservation organisations in 1980, and especially Our Common Future (the Brundtland report), a report produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. Whilst the World Conservation Strategy promoted the integration of nature conservation concerns into sector policies, Our Common Future put forward a broader interpretation of sustainability and sustainable development that encompassed environmental, social and economic needs or imperatives that were seen as (potentially) mutually compatible. This idea of compatibility represented a departure from the prevailing view that economic and environmental needs or imperatives were incompatible, a view that had been prevalent among environmental advocates until then. This compatibility claim made sustainable development attractive to governments, businesses, as well as academic and environmental circles. From the late 1980s, sustainable development became a globally dominant cognitive framework, discourse, or paradigm. As Dryzek noted in 1997: “[…] sustainable development is emerging as the main game (though not quite the only game) when it comes to environmental affairs, at least the global ones.”[1] As a principle, it was endorsed by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and enshrined in international conventions and multilateral agreements. It has taken a place alongside justice, equity, freedom, and human rights in global discourse as an almost universally accepted moral principle.
Moulding the concept of sustainability
Yet, sustainability can and has been interpreted in many different ways. It has been the subject of considerable critique and debate regarding its use by governments, businesses, and status quo advocates. The core assumptions on which the concept, as advanced by the Brundtland Commission, has been built can and have been fiercely contested. One assumption is that there are no fixed environmental limits. Environmental limits may exist, but they are flexible and can be shifted by improved knowledge and technology that reduce environmental impacts and resource use. But while it is plausible that the environmental effects of technology and practices can be reduced, this does not mean that environmental limits do not exist – it simply means that it takes (a bit) longer for them to be breached. Another contestable assumption, related to the faith in human ingenuity and technology, is that economic growth and environmental protection can be compatible. As production systems (can) become increasingly resource-efficient, a view advanced by adherents of “natural capitalism” and “ecological modernisation” [2], production and consumption can continue to grow while resource use and environmental impacts are reduced. Thus, capitalism, which inherently requires economic growth, is made compatible with environmental protection.
As discussed on the Greening Capitalism Page, these assumptions are flawed and have proven untenable in the real world. In practice, governments and businesses have used the notion of sustainable development to justify their continued pursuit of economic growth while paying lip service to environmental considerations, a practice commonly referred to as ‘greenwashing’. The sustainable development strategies adopted by many governments have commonly been mainly symbolic exercises that have faded away without much, if any, impact on non-environmental policies and institutions. Not surprisingly, environmental advocates have called for the concept of sustainable development to be abandoned. Yet, although the discourse has lost much of its shine and appears to have been overshadowed by climate change as the most pressing environmental issue, it has become so entrenched that it cannot simply be removed from public discourse. Neither, in my view, should it be.
Making the concept more meaningful
Whether sustainability and sustainable development can function as a collective global cognitive framework for meaningful and effective environmental integration remains debatable. Some argue that these concepts must be interpreted in specific contexts and implemented through a decentred approach, making a globally agreed framework only possible in the most general terms. However, while what is sustainable surely depends on local or regional conditions, one cannot ignore that the Earth system is also global in nature. There are globally interdependent processes that need to be understood and respected if humans are to preserve conditions conducive to their well-being or even survival, as well as that of other species. Knowledge of these global, planetary processes, interactions, and boundaries related to climatic conditions and other vital processes essential for keeping the Earth habitable has steadily increased over the past five decades. Some boundaries can be quantified based on plausible models, assumptions, knowledge, and data. For instance, most scientists agree that global warming must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius to prevent highly damaging or disastrous consequences. Hence, a global limit and budget for greenhouse gas emissions have been specified that humanity must respect. In principle, this limit can be translated into commensurable decisions, targets, actions, and practices at all levels of government and governance. Similarly, specific global limits can be formulated for, for instance, the emissions of ozone-depleting substances, phosphorus and nitrogen, and deforestation to keep humanity within a “safe operating space”.[3]
Several other concepts can help translate the idea of sustainability into more specific ecological, resource, and socio-economic conditions and requirements, such as the notions of environmental space, ecological footprint, material consumption and footprint, and social equity. It deserves repeating that specifying such limits or boundaries is not just a matter of science. It implies making judgements given the assumptions, uncertainties, and values that are unavoidably involved in this process and that relate, among others, to assessing the seriousness and distribution of risks and views on what is equitable. Hence, decisions on limits or boundaries, and their translation into specific national, regional, and local implications and obligations, must involve public debate and participation, rather than being left to technocrats. Again, there is no reason to think this is technically and/or politically impossible. Global decisions on many issues are already made based on highly selective (and often discreet or secretive) processes involving the most powerful non-state actors. How global decisions are made is not God-given but depends on economic and political-institutional power structures. These decision-making institutions have been shaped and can be reshaped through (collective) human action.
Meanwhile, it is worth hanging on to the notion of sustainability and its derivatives (like sustainable development and management) as the core of a cognitive framework that can guide environmental integration efforts at all levels, from the global to the local. Apart from the fact that no other cognitive framework has achieved the same global prominence, its integration of environmental, social, and economic principles or considerations is a significant strength, even if existing dominant interpretations tend to be biased towards the latter. While acknowledging the scope for governments and businesses to use and abuse the concept for self-serving purposes, its potential to be translated into meaningful and specific limits and terms must also be recognised. Some moves in this direction have already been made, notably related to global warming and a range of global sustainable development goals (to be discussed below). The case for setting and respecting specific limits and targets will likely gain growing support as environmental conditions further deteriorate, despite the formidable opposition from vested interests.
No greening of sector-based thinking
We cannot say that global efforts to integrate environmental principles and concerns into what are commonly regarded as non-environmental cognitive frameworks have been as prominent or significant as those based on sustainability. Since the 1980s, in the economic realm, global thinking (theories, ideas and beliefs) has shifted from Keynesianism to neoliberalism. Although both frameworks are based on the assumption (and capitalist imperative) that continuous economic growth is necessary and desirable, it is fair to say that neoliberalism leaves even less scope for integrating environmental principles than Keynesianism. Keynesianism at least acknowledged the crucial role of the state in protecting and advancing collective goods and interests, which from the 1970s began to include environmental protection. The deregulatory, hands-off, free-market ideology that has come to dominate government thinking worldwide has done nothing to advance green economic theories and ideas. On the contrary, it has led to reverse integration, whereby environmental values have been converted into economic commodities that can be privatised and traded to help increase economic growth and profits, for instance, by creating new opportunities for capital accumulation through emissions and carbon trading. Globally, the ideology of ‘free trade’ dominated international relations and agreements, often to the detriment of social and environmental protection, especially in low-income countries.
Similarly, the development of science and technology, energy, agriculture, transport, and other industry sectors has continued to be driven by the capitalist economic imperatives of those sectors and, increasingly, the globalised financial sector. Although environmental advocates, international NGOs, and United Nations organisations have produced a variety of publications revealing the environmental failings of these sectors and have presented ideas on how these can and should be addressed to move them towards sustainable practices, sector-based environmental integration initiatives have remained voluntary and under the control of the leading business organisations based on what they regard doable and realistic (not impinging on the profit imperative). Frameworks like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and standards for ‘best practice’ are, at best, voluntary and modest moves towards mitigating the worst social and environmental practices and effects, especially if this creates a competitive advantage and produces economic benefits.[4] They help to legitimise a company’s practices and to enhance its image. But they are not cognitive frameworks that recognise the need for the fundamental transformation of sectors based on environmental limits and imperatives, and for truly sustainable technologies and practices. Moreover, as discussed above, while perhaps inspired or framed by the discourse on sustainability, these initiatives are not based on a globally agreed-upon overarching cognitive framework that specifies targets (let alone binding obligations) for reducing the environmental effects of each sector to bring their collective impact within global or planetary boundaries.
The continuing hegemony of neoliberalism
Although, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, faith in neoliberal economic ideology was shaken and its shortcomings have come to be more widely recognised even in leading global financial circles,[5] it has not been replaced by an alternative economic framework. While governments have introduced some measures aimed at enhancing financial stability and this has become a key topic of discussion in international fora like the G20, fundamentally, the global and increasingly interdependent financial-economic system remains largely out of the control of governments and in the hands of the “free market”, making a repeat of a financial crisis, or even collapse, likely.[6] In line with capitalist imperatives, the primary concern and priority on the global political-economic agenda remains economic growth, even if governments adopt different strategies linked to national political priorities to pursue it. No economic theory or cognitive framework has emerged that provides guidance for managing the global economic system in light of social and environmental imperatives and an overarching sustainability framework. Although some alternative economic perspectives, such as those centred on the concept of the “circular economy” [7] and “doughnut economics” [8], have been proposed and gained popularity in international discourse, they are still a long way from becoming the dominant economic paradigm at the global level.
In summary, the sustainability discourse gained global prominence in the late 1980s as an overarching cognitive framework for integrating social, environmental, and economic concerns. Still, in political and economic circles, it has been interpreted in ways that have done little to green economic thinking and/or to move away from emphasising economic growth as a global (and national) priority. Neoliberal capitalist ideology is still the dominant paradigm, providing the cognitive framework for interpreting and defining social and environmental needs and policies globally.
References
[1] Dryzek, John S. (1997), The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 125.
[2] Hawken, Paul, et al., Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; Simonis, Udo E., Ecological Modernisation: New Perspectives for Industrial Societies. ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
[3] Rockström, J. et al. (2009), “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity”, Nature, Vol.461, No.7263, pp.472–475; Steffen, Will, et al. (2015), “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet”, Science, Vol.347, No.6223, p.736+.
[4] Rowe, James K (2005), “Corporate Social Responsibility as Business Strategy”, in R. D. Lipschutz and J. K. Rowe (eds.), Globalization, Governmentality and Global Politics: Regulation for the Rest of Us? London: Routledge, 130-170; Prakash, Aseem (2007), “Corporate Environmentalism: Problems and Prospects”, Global Environmental Politics, Vol.7, No.3, 130-135; Clapp, Jennifer, “The Privatization of Global Governance: ISO 14000 and the Developing World”, in Levy, D. L. and P. J. Newell (eds.), The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge, Mass and London: MIT Press, pp.223-248.
[5] Ostry, Jonathan D., Prakash Loungani and Davide Furceri (2016), “Neoliberalism: Oversold?”, Finance and Development, June, pp.38-41.
[6] Keen, Steve, Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned? London: Zed Books, Chapter 15; Inman, Phillip (2018), “World Economy at Risk of Another Financial Crash, Says IMF”, The Guardian, 3 October; Roubini, Nouriel and Brunella Rosa (2018), “We Are Due a Recession in 2020 – and We Will Lack the Tools to Fight It”, The Guardian, 13 September.
[7] Korhonen, Jouni, et al. (2018), “Circular Economy as an Essentially Contested Concept”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.175, 544-552; European Environment Agency (2019), Paving the Way for a Circular Economy: Insights on Status and Potentials Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union; de Wit, Mart et al. (2020), The Circularity Gap Report 2020 Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy (PACE).
[8] Raworth, K., Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House.