Are the United Nations SDGs Actually Appropriate?

The United Nations has considered issues such as the environment as part of its brief for fifty years or so, going back to the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment (the Stockholm Conference), which was called to tackle the pollution caused by global industrialisation during the 1960s and 70s. In more recent years, as the world tries to address these tough issues, the organisation has increased its efforts in terms of greater scope and more activity.

The most significant development for many years came in 2015, when world leaders signed up to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 17 global sustainable development goals (SDGs) for a better world were agreed, under the auspices of the United Nations. The SDGs, set by the United Nations General Assembly and intended to be achieved by the year 2030, are part of UN Resolution 70/1 (the 2030 Agenda), and are listed n summary on the next page. 

Sitting underneath those goals are no less than 169 targets. So, for example, under the first poverty-related goal, targets include reducing by at least half the number of people living in poverty by 2030 and eradicating extreme poverty (people living on less than $1.25 a day) by that date too.

But not everyone is happy

Perhaps unsurprisingly for such a high-profile initiative, there are many critics of the goals, and some weaknesses are apparent. Some are very broad and general, and 17 goals may be too many to communicate easily to the general population. The complexity of some might also not help when it comes to getting clear messages across.  What exactly does this mean, for instance?

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.

How do you define an “inclusive society”?  Or indeed an “institution”? A political sciences graduate might be able to give a reasonable interpretation but not sure I can. And what does it mean to someone in the slums of a developing country or a tribal elder in the Amazon or Sahara?  

Then there is a huge question of affordability – or at least, where the money is going to come from to achieve many of the goals. The goals aren’t prioritised, either; some have lobbied that the climate “emergency” should take preference over everything else in the short-term, for instance.

Perhaps the most interesting objection is the criticism that SDGs assume a “business as usual” approach, placing a central emphasis on economic growth (the “development”) which does not sit well with many of the environmental issues we see, even if those are captured in the “sustainable” aspect of the SDGs.

Reducing consumption by the world’s wealthiest nations and individuals is seen by many experts as the only real solution, but the SDGs don’t tackle this. As Jason Hickel said in this 2015 LSE (London School of Economics) article;

“And yet the core of the SDG programme for development and poverty reduction relies precisely on the old model of industrial growth — ever-increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption. Goal 8 calls for 7% annual GDP growth in the least developed countries and higher levels of economic productivity across the board…”

Hickel points out that we are producing and consuming some 50% more than the planet’s “capacity” every year at the moment, driven by consumer capitalism.  Yet the SDGs only propose what he calls “superficial” responses such as reducing food waste, more efficient resource use, and trying to “encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices.” 

SDGs are here to stay

However, despite this critique, many organisations, both public and private sector, are looking to take action that aligns with the SDGs. That means when we talk about sustainable business and procurement with purpose, it is often useful and important to relate those actions (where appropriate) to the relevant SDG goals and targets. Whether it is referencing SDGs along with corporate achievements in annual reports, or using the #SDG hashtag on Twitter or LinkedIn, the terminology is now well-accepted.

Leading organisations are also seeing the targets as growth opportunities, rather than problems or threats. In 2016, Unilever CEO, Paul Polman, said this. “Every business will benefit from operating in a more equitable, resilient world if we achieve the SDGs. We have an opportunity to unlock trillions of dollars through new markets, investments and innovation. But to do so, we must challenge our current practices and address poverty, inequality and environmental challenges.”

So the SDGs have their drawbacks; but they also have their uses, and it looks like they are here to stay.