| Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), welcomed delegates to the Business for the Environment summit on 22 April 2008. He hailed it as a “critical part of the conversation” in response to climate change, especially from within the Asian business community.
The summit, which was held at the Suntec International Convention and Exhibition Centre, aimed to further explore the role of business in slowing the impact of climate change, centring on partnerships, resource efficiency and renewable energy. The two-day event saw participation from numerous multinational companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and boasted an impressive speaker list that included Göran Persson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, Georg Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, and David Suzuki, award-winning scientist, broadcaster and environmental activist. It was to be a promising conference, if this list was anything to go by.
Yet, the conference was more a combination of soliloquies rather than the hoped-for conversation and dialogue.
The issue of who was to lead businesses in becoming more environmentally friendly came up intermittently throughout the various panel discussions. Kell spoke of ‘business statesmanship’, a term that was dangerously ambiguous on the direction towards which the community should move. After all, what is the very heart of business but profit making? As a consolation, the conference often came to the conclusion that resource efficiency and innovation in production were essential and strategic to long-term survival and growth.
Public policy leadership also garnered votes. Melinda Kimble, Senior Vice President of the UN Foundation, saw public policy action as crucial to “driv(ing) global negotiation”. The roundtable discussion led by various governmental personnel and political figures vaguely underscored the difficulties to be expected in environmental public policy.
The panel discussion between representatives from various NGOs, such as the Emirates Environmental Group (EEG), WWF International, and Centre for Environment and Development (CED), Sri Lanka, was lively and spirited, even if haphazard. Uchita de Zoysa, executive director of the CED, left an impression with his fiery outcry at the lack of acknowledgement towards the failure to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Chairperson of the EEG, Habiba Al Marashi, emphasised that the practical way forward to engage different sectors was through a multi-stakeholder approach. Sasha Gabizon from Women in Europe for a Common Future pointed out her organisation’s cautious attitude towards cooperation ethics before accepting corporate partnership. If diversity of opinions were to be rewarded, then the panel would have received a perfect score.
The format of the discussions was distinctly styled along business, governmental and NGO lines. If anything, it resulted in somewhat incongruent conversations. There were plenty of points put forth, spanning from highlighting resource-efficiency measures to expression of concern for the unreliability and incompatibility of the stock market with long-term development and environmental goals. There were even impassioned speeches that sought to remind all of the disparity between victims and perpetuators of climate change.
However, rather than exploring new ways business could further the environmental agenda or vice versa, “rehash” was more the word of the day. One aim that the conference seemed to fall especially short of was progress in the search for a more comprehensive method of partnership and collaboration. Tellingly, Aron Cramer, President and CEO of Business for Social Responsibility, suggested that the global challenge was less about partnership and more about systemic changes.
Fortunately, solace was found in that there seemed to be many opinions on how we should tackle this global challenge. As one speaker put it, “permanent dialogue” is an indispensable factor in our endeavour to alter the collision course that seems set for us. What we should worry about is if it only remains as permanent dialogue. |
At the Business for the Environment summit on April 22, Dr David Suzuki, a Canadian science broadcaster and long-time environmental activist, touched on a very relevant topic of why the global arena was still moving at a slow pace in adopting sustainable and environmentally friendly practices. This was despite overwhelming consensus that climate change has been taking place, and the phenomenon has been anthropogenic in nature (i.e. caused by humans).
“The terms ‘ecology’ and ‘economy’ come from the same root word, ‘okios’, which means ‘home’ in Greek,” Suzuki explained in his keynote address. “The economy should, rightly so, be the management of home while ecology is the study of home.”
The current system that we are so used to -- where the economy is prioritized over everything else -- is not sustainable at all. A quick analysis of the summit would highlight the irony of this situation.
While it would be idealistic and, at best, naïve to expect this global summit to be a vast improvement over similar dialogues, in reality it seemed like a green façade. The summit was supposed to foster partnership and cooperation between businesses and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Instead, it seemed to function more like a stage where respective companies, organisations and countries showcased ’how green they were‘ and thus be free from criticisms. Vested interests would always exist, but it was sad to see that, even at this juncture where the climate crisis threatens to be a global disaster unlike any other, the leaders who could make that much of a difference seemed oblivious to it.
By disregarding ecology in the economy and calling them externalities (i.e. external effects not factored into cost-benefit analyses), we have been making a grave mistake.
So we need systematic change and a shift in mindsets, but how do we achieve this? The entire summit centred on how business could capitalise on the green tide that was coming our way. But do we need to look beyond market forces? Should we account for environmental impact in economic indicators? And who will effect such change?
The consultative process of the summit was too slow, and this was surprising since all of these business leaders were supposed to be fast and efficient. In truth, nothing of significance seemed to come out of it. The 3P partnership of “people, public and private sectors” was so widely highlighted, but true interaction and cooperation between these parties did not seem to happen. In the first place, it was still questionable as to whether NGOs could be wholly representative of the people sector in this partnership.
In the end, it seemed more like an opportunity that was lost -- again. The potential to drive a more sustainable global future could not be fulfilled. These leaders and decision-makers looked more like they were trying to find loopholes and opportunities for greater profit at the expense of the environment. Instead of coming together for the environment, it appeared that they came for themselves.
What we are consoled with, at least, is that the true power lies with consumers. Businesses and corporations sing to our tune and if we demand for greener products and greener practices, they would oblige. The profit-driven cannot ignore the green tide that is coming our way. Perhaps the decision-makers that would really effect change would not be the big multinational companies or global leaders, but individuals like you and me demanding for and getting a better environment for all of us to live in. |
