Close to the beginning of a dialogue on sustainable development in the Rio+20 negotiations, I caught sight of a government delegate preparing to head over to the conference venue with an air mattress packed in his tote bag.
There will be long nights ahead. Governments face obstacles in the fundamental areas of these deliberations relating to technology access, intellectual property rights and financial support. Developing countries are also concerned over the cost and impact of proposed green economy frameworks. Meanwhile, heads of government begin arriving on Tuesday to bring the meeting to its conclusion on Friday.
Looking at these sticking points, I am struck by how many of them are similar to those discussed at the first Rio Earth Summit twenty years ago -- and just how much the business sector is involved in these areas. The 1992 meeting agreed on a blueprint for action in sustainable development known as Agenda 21, which stated:
“…A stable policy regime enables and encourages business and industry to operate responsibly and efficiently and to implement longer-term policies. Increasing prosperity, a major goal of the development process, is contributed primarily by the activities of business and industry. Business enterprises, large and small, formal and informal, provide major trading, employment and livelihood opportunities. (…) Business and industry, including transnational corporations, and their representative organizations should be full participants in the implementation and evaluation of activities related to Agenda 21.”
Photo of green boardroom provided by GrandeDuc via Shutterstock.
Next page: Fundamental business points for negotiations
Business does not lack
Business does not lack listening ears when it comes to political leadership nor does it lack a voice. Both articles (this article and the IHT article mentioned) are ridiculous in their assumption that businesses are not participating 'enough' or not being heard 'enough'.
This article states how business is being proactive, "yet in the actual discussions of the meeting, business has been limited to the same extremely brief and very rare opportunities to offer their expertise and knowledge at the same level as other non-governmental interests." To me that is a pretty vague example to rest this article's case on. Are there any examples great, feasible ideas from business being shot down by bureaucracy and government? THAT would support this idea that business is not being listened to.
The reality is, business has a lot of opportunity to be heard by political leaders behind closed doors and in discussions with the lobbyists.
To the extent the business
To the extent the business execs are going to contribute accelerating actions, great! But to mention this as a negative is really shortsighted for a multitude of obvious reasons. One research paper from RIO states it well:
The social logic that locks people into materialistic consumerism as the basis for participating in the life of society is extremely powerful. But it is also detrimental ecologically and psychologically. An essential prerequisite for lasting prosperity is to free people from this damaging dynamic and provide opportunities for sustainable and fulfilling lives.
For this reason, structural change must lie at the heart of any strategy to address the social logic of consumerism. And it must consist in two main avenues. The first is to dismantle the perverse incentives for unproductive status competition. The second must be to establish new structures that provide capabilities for people to flourish — and particularly to participate meaningfully in the life of society — in less materialistic ways.
yes, all those poor
yes, all those poor businesses who clearly have no say in how environmental policy is drafted and developed ever. give me a break.