At first glance United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) appear to be a call for businesses to transform and contribute to improving society and the environment.
Launched in 2015, the program includes 17 goals that address the world’s most pressing challenges, from climate motion to poverty eradication. These goals are the major pillars discussions on global politics and so they became buzzword for corporations willing to demonstrate its commitment to social and environmental sustainability.
However, the reality for a lot of corporations could be very different: the SDGs are increasingly used to reinforce existing practices moderately than to truly solve social problems.
Supposedly, the Sustainable Development Goals provide a worldwide framework that aligns and engages key stakeholders to achieve common social and environmental goals. Supporters of the Sustainable Development Goals for business is struggling to constitute a comprehensive social contract that pays attention to sustainable development, and supply a system to help managers implement them.
However, corporations are free to use the SDG framework, logos and colours of their communications without external verification. That means they will easily use them as an easy signal of excellent intentions without having to take them seriously.
Political textbook strategies
Our latest research article examines how corporations use these goals to not only contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, but additionally lobby governments for favorable treatment and shape the processes and outcomes of political decision-making.
We did this by conducting a case study of 4 subsidiaries of Western European multinational corporations in Indonesia, where the government is decentralized and sometimes interferes with the activities of personal sector corporations. especially foreign multinational corporations.
We have observed that the SDGs influence fame – project integrity, responsibility and commitment – for corporations to be strategic moderately than altruistic. Businesses are using the SDGs to strengthen relationships with policymakers, influence policy discussions and advance their very own interests under the guise of sustainability and the common good.
Rather than making meaningful change, there’s a risk that the SDGs will likely be hijacked by corporations to improve their public image, while perpetuating the practices they claim to address.
(AP Photo/Richard Drew)
While the cozy relationship between business and politics is nothing recent, our research shows that corporations are using the SDGs not only to “do good,” but additionally to gain political access and influence government regulation.
Our research found that corporations were using SDG-related strategies to strengthen their ties with governments and shape policy agendas that ultimately benefited their financial performance. In particular, we identified three strategies: cross-sector partnerships, conflict management and constituency constructing.
Cross-sector partnerships
The first strategy that corporations used to advance their policy agendas using the SDGs was to develop cross-sector partnerships. Traditionally seen as a cornerstone of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, cross-sector partnerships bring together government, industry and nonprofit partners to achieve a typical goal.
Such partnerships are often an invite to a seat at the table for dialogue on sustainability and related policy discussions. Due to the financial power of huge corporations, these partnerships tend to shift towards supporting corporate interests.
By participating in such partnerships, corporations gain legitimacy through a visual connection to governments, nonprofit entities, and the common good. This, in turn, builds social capital that might be used to further influence. example of that is the paradox that a few of the biggest polluters often rank high in environmental, social and governance (ESG) rankings.
The electoral district constructing
The second strategy utilized by corporations was constructing an electorate, i.e. creating support amongst local communities. This involves directly supporting government priorities – reminiscent of farming communities – to help alleviate tensions between businesses and native governments.
Its aim is to create a support base for corporations. Thanks to this social support, corporations can gain access to and support from local politicians who resolve whether to grant or extend factory licenses.
This strategy encourages the mobilization of stakeholders to advocate on behalf of corporations. Constituency constructing may play a big role in shaping decision-maker sentiment during conflicts reminiscent of union strikes or labor rights disputes. This strategy often complements other strategies.
Conflict management
The third and final strategy corporations used was conflict management, which focused on constructing the support needed to resolve political disputes. The SDGs were used to enhance efforts to find common goals amongst a spread of stakeholders.
Building social capital and credibility in such situations was irreplaceable for corporations. Significant social investment can improve public perceptions and supply businesses with bargaining power during conflicts, serving as a tool to ease tensions. This strategy isn’t any different from the strategy used for individuals who: put your conscience comfy by purchasing carbon offsets for air travel.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
All three strategies – cross-sector partnerships, conflict management and constituency constructing – have helped corporations operating abroad reduce nationalist bias, face fewer bribe requests and improve their relationships with host governments.
While investing in the SDGs is a greater alternative to paying bribes, our research warns that these strategies may have negative effects by empowering political actors. For example, political figures may find a way to maintain or consolidate their power through increased corporate investment.
Beyond the company’s fame
The use of the SDGs by the private sector must be rigorously examined, as not all SDG initiatives can serve the common good. Our research, together with other people’s researchfound that corporations put money into corporate social responsibility initiatives to improve their relationships with host governments.
Greenwashing — when corporations exaggerate or misrepresent their environmental efforts — and the manipulation of sustainability rankings are well-documented issues. As our research shows, the same applies to the use of sustainability claims for political purposes. These issues indicate that the SDGs may change into tools to maintain the established order moderately than driving meaningful change.
Canada lags behind in global rankings of progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. To reverse this trend and speed up progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, Canada needs higher mechanisms to hold businesses accountable, ensure compliance with the intended goals of the SDGs, and take a serious – even perhaps altruistic – approach to addressing social and environmental challenges.
An necessary step on this direction can be for the private sector to adopt the SDGs, not for the sake of corporate fame, but as a part of a real commitment to sustainability and social responsibility.
