The blog of 23 May directs its call to abandon the SDGs towards the United Nations. The authority to change the SDGs however lies somewhere else: the 196 member countries. They negotiated the 17 SDGs between 2012 and 2014 and their heads of government and a lot of CEOs adopted them on 25 September 2015. UN-headquarters served as a secretariat. This is not just a ‘wrong address’ remark. It proves that the ownership of the SDGs lies much deeper and broader than with “bureaucrats and people in the organisations they fund”.

The blog claims that the SDGs were not a success right from the start and contradicts the widely claimed achievements of the Millennium Development Goals 2000-2015. The evidence has to be found in an abstract written by Jason Hickel, who advocates broadening the definitions of poverty and hunger. His plea is definitely sympathetic, but of course, it cannot retroactively be used to prove the goals are not met.

The blog continues with the statement there is a systematic problem with SDG 8: growth. Again an article by Jason Hickel is referred to. He has gathered empirical data to prove that the environmental SDGs are not feasible with 3% growth. He could be right, but why 3%? SDG-target 8.1 states: “Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances”. Countries do not choose an absolute growth rate, but a relative one that depends on achieving social and environmental SDGs of their country at the same time.

Another systematic problem that the blog indicates, is that the SDGs have the wrong starting point that technology, capital and management solve both poverty and environmental destruction. There are perhaps people who have such faith in mankind. People working on achieving all 17 goals are using many more tools: legal, fiscal, and communicative.

Instead of the top-down SDGs, the blog favours a bottom-up resilience and adaptation, complemented by attempts to re-localise trade, energy, and growth. These three alternatives have already been important for a long time. Nevertheless, the ambition of these measures is low: “reduce harm”. More ambitious would be “do no harm”. The ambition of the SDGs is even higher: “do better”. A bottom-up approach alone is not sufficient. Measurement and reporting of progress are required, but how to realise this without targets? Without them, we return to the era before the Rio-process. According to the 2006 “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” mopping is 10 times more expensive than closing the tap.

Thanks to measuring and reporting on the goals UN-SG Guterres was able to warn the world. Instead of shooting the piano player most other scientists take the responsibility to accelerate and scale up the inspiring SDGs.

If you’re at all involved in ‘sustainability’, then I expect there is a part of you that is terrified. I know I am!

A few years ago, I researched the climate crisis for a performance I was making – and found myself mourning for our lost futures. As I learnt more of the pollution and warming of our oceans, the catastrophic rates of deforestation and the unprecedented rates of extinction we are experiencing, I decided I needed to commit my time to somehow making a positive impact on the planet. I started to turn the oil tanker of my career in a new direction and focus on sustainability.

But what could I do? Where – in an NGO? In government? Would I need to study climate science, get another Masters?

How could I contribute?

Let’s skip the periods of existential crises, self-doubt and hesitation for the benefit of this article, and let me tell you about what has kept me going:

Kate Raworth spoke at De Balie in Amsterdam in 2018 and it changed my life. She was someone who was an expert in her field, innovative, determined to make a difference – and not completely depressed with the burden of knowledge of the state of the world. Raworth was promoting her book, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Her holistic approach, systems integration and challenges to the way we perceive value was truly inspiring. It taught me that we can do things at scale, and operate differently.

John D. Liu has been working in the field of ecosystem restoration for a number of years, and I discovered it via a Tegenlicht episode about his work. It was another early exposure to a practice which worked – which brought life to barren land. There are myriad ways to improve the health of our ‘natural’ environments; many of them have simple techniques, with a deep understanding of the interconnected relationships across species and systems. An online course called Ecosystem Restoration Design has evolved from an organisation Liu set up, Ecosystem Restoration Camps. Both intend to educate, create community and ultimately improve the health of the planet.

Justdiggit is my last example – an exciting, very well-marketed land restoration NGO (look at the image above! Tells a story so beautifully). They work with local partners to engage the communities in their projects to create new livelihoods from restored land, increasing biodiversity, improving water systems and nourishing the soil as they do so.

I don’t now work in land restoration, in case you were wondering. But this kind of work – work that has a holistic approach, integrates various systems, challenges norms, provides workable solutions while tackling various issues AND creates beauty – is what gives me the optimism to believe we can meaningfully change things. As Dr Cowie eloquently puts it: “We are not just another species evolving in the face of external influences. In contrast, we are the only species that has conscious choice regarding our future…”

This annual event allowed all regions to report on their progress and address several specific themes, such as Ukraine. The key themes included social issues, such as human rights, labour, children’s rights and youth interests, inequality and gender issues. Other prominent themes were SMEs, marketing for sustainable growth, just and inclusive transition, planetary boundaries (and natural resources scarcities) and “SDG Ambition”. There were also sessions on governance and financing the SDGs.

It seems that the Leaders Summit covered the most relevant subjects; however, the question lies in what the dominating perspective should have been: (1) celebrating what we have achieved so far, (2) setting a plan on what still needs to be done by 2030 and the obstacles therefor, or (3) re-energizing the commitment to the SDGs and start the process for beyond 2030 with an active design role by young generations, as UN-Secretary General Guterres called for in his 2021 “Our Common Agenda”.

I hope that our participation will help us sharpen our pencils for what we may need to do in Global Compact Network Netherlands (including our international value chains).

We recognise that the SDGs are foremost for businesses a significant and positive opportunity to celebrate achievements that should inspire us for the better and faster (together). But we should also consider that such upscaling and accelerating cannot be done by business alone. This perspective was missing in the program. The same challenge was apparent during the recent “Verantwoordingsdag” at VNO-NCW; while discussing the CBS “Brede Welvaart” report. The outlook, relative to our ambition, is more cloudy (in particular in the context of our international footprint).

Against this background, one must look forward to the first two sessions on Day 1: “State of the World” and “Business Leadership in Troubled Times”, during which UN leadership set the stage for the Summit and a re-energized ambition.

Further, follows my personal reflection on the critical components of the objectives of the Summit.

“Troubled Times”: ‘The UN Secretary-General has recently spoken about today’s “perfect storm”. The World Economic Forum 2022 was full of doom, gloom and uncertainty, as we fear that we are leading to the risk of adversity and paralysis. Post-COVID-19, “Building back better”, or rather “Building forward together”, was not taking off, despite the reconfirmed wisdom and imperative that universal, global issues need to be addressed jointly on an integrated basis. As seen by COVID, climate change, biodiversity loss, increasing social divides, and significant social and natural consequences are global issues that require mass participation. After 30 years of globalisation (with the SDGs and “Paris” as marquee), geopolitical and economic fragmentation and polarisation are now the order of the day.’

How can we recreate a renewed spirit of mutualisation of solutions in the tradition of the SDGs?

Economic slowdown, rising inflation and interest rates, continued public health issues, and the Russian-Ukraine war is putting severe pressure on all peoples’ living costs, pressure on public budgets, and debt-service problems in developing countries. These challenges require careful planning. It takes good sailors (us) and new co-navigators (youth) to excel during the “perfect storm”, and those who stay the course during the storm are more likely to succeed. With the SDGs, we are given a patchwork plan that allows us to do better and excel. Storms make better sailors and better fishers!

How do we stabilise, also in the interest of peace and justice (SDG#16), the effects of worldwide economic slowdown and recession?

“Business Leadership” discussed the recent developments in the business and investment community (notably in the USA). It suggests headwinds for stakeholder capitalism, ESG standards, SDG implementation, and reporting, causing some major investment firms and corporations to stagnate. There are other manifestations of “pain in the chain” (the cost of “greening”, juridification) and increasing regulatory oversight. In such a context, governments should develop positive incentives for businesses to stay the course and facilitate innovation, scale-up, and acceleration.

In other words, how to crowd in business? “Making Markets fit for SDG Purpose” should be a key policy initiative for any government through innovative legislative interventions (removing obstacles) and catalytic financial instruments (de-risking, return-enhancement; role of pension funds by more direct investments). This theme was notably absent.

How can the UN urge governments to initiate a “Making Markets fit for SDG Purpose”-initiative? (similar to the 2017 BSDC Report “Better Business, Better World”)

‘“State of the World” discussed how the SDGs have proven their great value as a comprehensive, universal, global agenda. It is a narrative; it is a SMART-target setting for governments, businesses, civil society, and public accountability is serving its purpose. However, we are behind schedule. New insights (GDP growth is a misguided driver) and our horizon of 2030 have become more of an intermediate milestone for the essential systemic changes that are needed in the long term. 2050 as the horizon is becoming more appropriate. Also, the transitions underway have intended and unintended consequences, which we need to map and collectively act upon.

The UN Secretary-General presented to the September 2021 UN General Assembly his “Our Common Agenda Report” and called for a September 2023 “Summit of the Future”. To improve the “state of the world” with a positive, shared perspective on “The World We Want,” i.e. by 2050: zero emissions, waste, biodiversity loss, poverty, planetary boundaries, etc. The way to get there is through just and inclusive transition, the inclusive governance (including diversity, accountability, no green-washing) and adequate financing thereof (revisit the Addis Action Agenda!), we need a blueprint for 2050 of “The World We Want” and an extended action plan.