International

Management,
Governance and
Sustainability
(IMGS)

WEEK 8: Sustainable Development Goals

Dr Posi Olatubosun PhD, FCCA, FHEA.

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this lecture, you should be able to
demonstrate critical understanding of:

• The Context of SDGs, and

Substantive Issues
• Governance Theories of SDGs
• Actors and Dynamics in the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development
• Exploring relevant Case
Studies and linkages.
 From MDGs to SDGs

• The SDGs were adopted in September 2015, and they are set to
determine the global development agenda for the coming decades and
thus deserve the attention of all stakeholders involved in development.
• The SDGs are a follow-up of (and they are more comprehensive
compared to) the MDGs.
• The SDGs are in fact so integrated that they could be seen as a ‘network
of targets.’ (Le Blanc, 2015:3).
• The SDGs provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to establish
commitments and express their preferences and interests on a broad
set of issues under discussion. They could help to:
1. Form and coordinate the interests of different stakeholders across
issues:
2. Mobilise collective action based on a shared vision and metanarrative
on development and sustainability; and
3. Help create shared global understanding about the issues and
problems at hand.
 Reporting SDGs by Companies:
The journey so far
Brundtland Report

Non-FR Directive (CSRD) GRI initiative MDGs

ESG Reporting CSR Reporting

Integrated Reporting SDGs

Sustainability Reporting

• Communicating non-financial information to stakeholders is

seen as a step forward in corporate communication and
considered as an effective way to increase corporate engagement
and transparency.
 Mebratu’s (1998) model of “cosmic XKCD (2017) Sustainable
ESG model of sustainability interdependence” https://xkcd.com/1007/

Sustainability and Sustainable development

“Sustainability is defined as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Brundtland Report (1987)

The distinction between ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ is that sustainability is

commonly understood as a destination or end-state, and sustainable development is a means of
getting there.
 The context
for the SDGs.

Re-arrangement of the
Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) based on
Mebratu’s model of sustainable
development.

SOURCE: Monkelbaan, J (2019). Governance for Sustainable Development Goals. Exploring and
Integrating Framework of Theories, Tools and Competencies. Springer.
 • The Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 united almost all the world’s nations in a single agreement on
tackling climate change for the first time in history. A key objective of the Paris Climate Agreement is

SDGs and the Paris to keep global temperatures ‘well below’ 2.0C above pre-industrial times and ‘endeavour to limit’
them even more, to 1.5C.

Climate Agreement
• The Agreement is based on countries’ voluntary actions (Nationally Determined Contributions or
‘NDCs’) which each country reviews every 5 years so that they can scale up their efforts. The Paris
Climate Agreement is widely hailed as a success of multilateral diplomacy. However, more critical
voices say that the Paris Climate Agreement has undermined environmental law as it contains no
commitments or obligations but only voluntarily determined ‘contributions.’

Most important SDGs for society to focus on to achieve the most progress (% of Most important SDGs for society to focus on to achieve most progress (% of
experts). (SOURCE: GlobeScan/SustainAbility 2017)
experts), priorities by sector and by region. SOURCE: GlobeScan/SustainAbility (2017)
Unchecked environmental
degradation
• In 2017, indeed more than 15,000 scientists endorsed an
article by Ripple et al. (2017) which says that human
well-being will be severely jeopardized by negative
trends in some types of environmental harm, such as a
changing climate, deforestation, loss of access to fresh
water, species extinctions and human population growth.
• At the same time, positive changes can be made in other
areas—such as a reduction in ozone-depleting chemicals
and an increase in energy generated from renewable
sources. There has been a rapid decline in fertility rates
in some regions, which can be attributed to investments
in education for women. The rate of deforestation in
some regions has also slowed.
Unchecked environmental degradation
(continued)
Among the negative 25-year global trends noted by Ripple et al. (2017) are:
• A 26% reduction in the amount of fresh water available per capita;
• A drop in the harvest of wild-caught fish, despite an increase in fishing effort;
• A 75% increase in the number of ocean dead zones;
• A loss of nearly 300 million acres of forestland, much of it converted for agricultural
uses;
• Continuing significant increases in global carbon emissions and average temperatures;
• A 35% rise in human population;
• A collective 29% reduction in the numbers of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and
fish
(Ripple et al. 2017).
Governance and the role of in the 2030
Agenda
• There are two main linkages between governance and the
SDGs. On the one hand, governance is crucial for the
achievement of all SDGs (Biermann et al. 2017). In other
words, governance is a critical ‘means of implementation’
(MoI) for the effective deployment and mobilization of all
other means for implementing the SDGs (Arrow 1). On the
other hand, improved governance can be seen as a goal that
works on the SDGs in itself can reach (Arrow 2), even if
some (e.g. Elder et al. 2016) see it more as an essential
means to achieve human well-being.
• Governance is most explicitly addressed in SDG 16 (on
‘Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions’) and SDG 17 (on
‘strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing
the global partnership for sustainable development’).
Overview of Governance
Theories that are relevant for
SDGs
• Transition theory
• Metagovernance
• Polycentricity
• Network governance; and
• Experimentalist governance.
 Transition Theory
• In order to understand structural change, an interdisciplinary field of studies
has emerged that focuses on ‘transitions’, most commonly defined as long-
term, nonlinear processes of social change in which a societal system is
structurally transformed (Grin et al. 2010; de Haan and Rotmans 2011).
• Frantzeskaki (2011) identifies three types of transitions: institutional
transitions, social– ecological transitions and socio-technological transitions.
Transitions can take place at several levels: while households and individuals
can transition to sustainability, some speak of a ‘Great Transition’, and
envision ‘the advent of a new development paradigm redirecting the global
trajectory towards a socially equitable, culturally enriched, and ecologically
resilient planetary civilization’. (Tellus Institute 2015).
• Some see SDGs indeed as smaller transitions within the ‘Great Transition’
towards sustainability and true pros-perity, and the coming of age of
humanity. A sustainability transition generally refers to a ‘radical
transformation towards a sustainable society as a response to a number of
persistent problems confronting contemporary modern societies’ (Grin et al.
2010: 1). Such a transformation process is ‘long term, multidimensional and
fundamental’ (Markard et al. 2012), paradoxically comprises radical change in
incremental steps (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010), and shifts established socio-
technical systems to more sustainable modes of consumption and production.
 • Meuleman (2008:11) defines metagovernance as: ‘the
totality of interactions of governments, other public
bodies, private sector and civil society, aimed at
solving societal problems or creating societal
Metagovernance opportunities’. Metagovernance is an approach that
Theory aims to design and manage sets of situational
preferences for a mix of institutions, instruments and
processes with elements from the main modes of
hierarchical, market and network governance.
• Broadly speaking, government depends on
hierarchical governance, the private sector on market
governance and civil society on network governance.
Each of the governance modes exists on their own,
but metagovernance can help understand how they
relate, interact and can be coordinated.
 • One of the biggest questions in governance for the SDGs
is how to harmonise global agreement and target setting
with local implementation and how to combine bottom-up
Metagovernance with top-down approaches. Governance for the SDGs
requires a variety and dynamic mixture of approaches,
Theory ranging from centralized to decentralised; from legally
(continued) binding to voluntary; and from hierarchical to network and
market styles of governance. This allows for variation in
time, in place and in the roles of different actors
(Meuleman and Tromp 2010).
• Metagovernance represents dynamic mixtures of
hierarchical, network and market governance styles and
seems suitable for addressing the numerous ‘wicked’
problems (see next slide) that the SDGs aim to address.
Wicked Problems
The notion of ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and Webber 1973) refers to a situation where there is neither
consensus on values nor on knowledge (see Table 2.2) and is crucial for understanding sustainability and
climate change. The typical characteristics of wicked problems are (Rittel and Webber 1973:162–166):
• Every wicked problem is essentially unique
• There is no definitive description of a wicked problem
• Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false but good-or-bad
• Every implemented solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’ which leaves traces: it
changes the problem
• There are no criteria which enable one to prove that all solutions to a wicked problem have been
identified and considered.
The result of tackling wicked problems is often path-dependent. Wicked problems are characterized by
lock-in effects with regard to physical (long lead) time, bounded by the use of a specific technique or
infrastructure) and social (mental, lifestyles) (Meuleman 2012: 42).
 • Polycentric governance means that there are ‘many centres of
decision-making that are formally independent of each other’
(Ostrom et al.1961:831). Polycentric governance systems can be
defined as ‘complex, modular systems where governance units
Polycentricit with different purposes, organizations and spatial locations
interact to form together systems characterized by many degrees
y theory of freedom at different levels’ (Pahl-Wostl 2009:357).
• In a truly polycentric system, responsibilities at different
governmental levels are tailored to match the scale of the public
services they provide (Ostrom 2009a). Ostrom observed that
‘[global] solutions, negotiated at a global level—if not backed
up by a variety of efforts at national, regional and local levels—
are not guaranteed to work effectively’. Decentralized centres of
authority can organize collective action successfully to deal with
public goods (Poteete et al. 2010) when they operate coherently
as a system. Global Regimes (e.g., for deforestation) need
support ranging from national implementing legislation to
subnational monitoring and enforcement. Thus, effective global
governance institutions are necessarily polycentric in nature.
Polycentricity theory (continued)
• Polycentricity applies both to the ‘horizontal’ proliferation of actors at the global level and
to the distribution of actors across different governance ‘levels’ and ‘scales’. Because much
of the challenge of promoting the SDGs ends up being about the cross-level phenomena
that characterize interactive social and environmental phenomena, the complexity of global
environmental change, and in particular climate change, necessitates analysis processes at
lower levels of social organization and across different governance levels (Karlsson 2000).
• Polycentric systems tend to provide more opportunities for experimentation and learning to
improve policies over time, and they improve communications and interactions to help
build trust needed for increased cooperation. Thus, polycentricity can enhance innovation,
trustworthiness, levels of cooperation and the achievement of more effective and equitable
outcomes for the SDGs at multiple scales. However, disaggregating environmental politics
and dividing responsibilities can carry risks for political accountability and the effectiveness
of governance.
Private Corporations and SDGs
• The engagement of the private sector is crucial for achieving the SDGs. Sixty per cent of the 150
biggest economies in the world are private companies. Corporations are aware of the importance of
sustainability; in a survey of 766 CEO’s by the UN Global Compact (2010), 93% of those CEOs said
that sustainability is important to the future of their company. In addition, 96% of those CEOs agree that
sustainability considerations should be fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company
(up from 72% in 2007).
• SDG target 12.6 encourages ‘companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt
sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle’. However,
contributions by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will be critical for the success of the
SDGs. SMEs provide livelihoods to most people in developing countries and are the largest contributors
to job creation. SMEs account for more than 90% of firms and 90% of total employment in emerging
economies (Bamber et al. 2014). The SDGs recognize the role of SMEs to ‘promote strong, inclusive
and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all’ (SDG 8 and 9). Yet, SMEs in developing
countries face multiple obstacles, including: the lack of skilled workers, legal and regulatory
frameworks, inadequate access to financing and the ability to participate in global value chains (GVCs).
Private Corporations and SDGs (continued)
For business, the SDGs represent a unique opportunity by providing:
• A global framework with a visible set of outcomes;
• A long-term horizon that offers direction for policy, investment and innovation, pointing
to new, mostly untapped, markets; and
• A common language on social, environmental and economic issues that can help to
improve communication, coordination and collaboration.
The most prominent guide for business action on the SDGs is provided by the SDG
Compass (WBCSD 2017), which outlines steps to ‘assist companies in maximizing their
contribution to the SDGs’. The SDG Compass also provides a list of over 800 business
indicators and a summary of nearly 60 business tools to guide the application of the SDGs
to business.
Private Corporations and SDGs (continued)
Companies are interested in sustainability because it allows them to:
• Develop new growth markets for green goods;
• Cut costs and become more profitable and energy- and resource efficient;
• Profile themselves as sustainability leaders (branding/marketing concerns);
• Have a global-level playing field because they are concerned about losing competitiveness
when sustainability measures are enforced on them but not on foreign competitors; and
• Follow developments on sustainability that can be important for identifying strategic
directions based on dynamics in society and on expected policy changes.
Companies that do lead on sustainability receive high scores on the ability to articulate a
vision and define ambitious goals in the 2017 Globescan/SustainAbility report
‘Sustainability Leaders’. Integrated sustainability strategy, vision, innovation and
transparency are the qualities that experts believe will define leading organisations a decade
from now.
NGOs and SDGs
• NGOs can play critical roles in stimulating action on the SDGs as they can channel
diverse political values, interests, concerns and arguments into decision-making
processes. NGOs are important in the implementation of international commitments and
sometimes compete with government bodies to provide what the government cannot
provide in terms of public goods. NGOs can create a global public sphere in which policy
proposals and options are discussed. However, after their activistic high point at the end
of the 1990s, culminating in the ‘Battle of Seattle’ in which they disrupted the WTO
Ministerial Conference, NGOs seemingly play an ever-tamer role in global governance.
• Most NGOs changed their political strategies in recent years from a confrontational
towards a cooperative engagement on sustainability (Kolk and Pinkse 2007), indicating
that they want to take part in the governance process in constructive ways.
NGOs and SDGs (Continued)
The SDGs have triggered a renaissance of civil society. Civil society can further contribute to achieving the
SDGs in five new ways:
1. Protect civil society space: governments should ensure that CSOs are able to effectively contribute to
achieving the SDGs, and meaningfully engage in their monitoring and review.
2. Include civil society in emergency response: CSOs are often the first to respond during calamities. After
Typhoon Haiyan in 2014, for example, CSOs in the Philippines realized their enormous responsibility in
helping communities reduce their vulnerability to future natural disasters, and they have started to
mainstream disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in their interventions.
3. ‘Go smart.’: CSOs have discovered that information and communications technology can help them deliver
services in a more efficient way. Mobile phones can be used to collect data in rural communities to perform
monitoring and evaluation in agriculture projects.
4. Power to the people: technology and social media have transferred power to the people and have given rise
to online activism. It has never been easier to start a campaign and express support for a cause such as
implementation of the SDGs.
5. Target the youth: SDG implementation should be inclusive and responsive to the needs of the youth—civil
society can educate them, help them develop sustainable livelihoods and empower them to contribute more
fully to a better society (Nazal 2015).
CASE STUDY –
Decarbonisation of the global
economy (SDG7 and 13)
CASE STUDY1 – Decarbonisation of the
global economy (SDG7 and 13)
• SDGs 7 (Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern
energy for all) and SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate
change and its impacts), together with the Paris Climate Agreement
provide mandates for deep decarbonization of the global economy.
SDG 7 can be considered as an enabling factor for the implementation
of the other SDGs, and in particular of SDG 13 on climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
CASE STUDY1: Decarbonisation challenge
(SDG 7 and 13)
• Global energy demand is expected to double by 2050 (World Energy Council 2013). As
a result, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are projected to increase at least until
2030 (IPCC 2014; IEA 2015) and might double by 2050 compared with 1990 (ibid.).
Such an increase in emissions would result in a 4–6 °C rise in global temperature as a
result of self-reinforcing warming. While adaptation of ecological, economic and social
systems to slightly rising temperatures should be feasible, the 6 °C average rise in
global temperatures that the world is headed for by the end of this century can trigger
the breakdown of many of those systems (World Bank 2012, 2013; IEA 2014).
• The IPCC foresees, for instance, that many parts of the world will suffer from flooding,
drought, the loss of biodiversity, coastal erosion, wildfires, the spread of new diseases
and a reduction in crop productivity. UNDP foresees that the number of people that will
be displaced because of climate change ranges from 200 million to 1 billion (UNDP
2009:45).
Decarbonisation challenge (SDG 7 and 13)
• The challenge that the world faces is that in order to limit global warming to the globally
determined target of maximum 2 °C, by 2050 GHG emissions will need to be cut by 50–85%
while satisfying the doubling demand for energy. At the same time, billions of people are
expected to join the middle class (OECD 2010; EU 2012) and its carbon-intensive lifestyle. It
has been suggested that with existing technologies, a global energy system that depends for
100% on renewables would be feasible (WWF 2011; Greenpeace 2015). However, as, e.g.,
Trainer (2007) argues, it is challenging to support a growing consumer society of 9 billion
people by using current forms of renewable energy.
• ‘The’ energy transition involves moving to energy sources with lower power density, which
can reduce the average productivity of the economy as a whole. This makes the energy
transition a tough political challenge and implies the importance of the social-political
acceptability of lower economic growth in the short run. Building up the required stock of
renewable energy further calls for upfront inputs of fossil fuels and can increase emissions
from the manufacturing of renewable energy equipment in the short term.
Carbon crunch
Source Figures
et al. (2017)
Case Study 2 – Energy Efficiency and the SDGs
Energy
efficiency as a
conceptual
‘vector’ for
connecting
different SDGS
Energy efficiency and
the SDGs
• The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines
energy efficiency as ‘a way of managing and
restraining the growth in energy consumption’ (IEA
2017b).
• A common operational definition of energy
efficiency is ‘using less energy to provide the same
service’ (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).
• The term ‘sustainable energy’ generally includes
both energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Energy efficiency and the SDGs
• SDG Target 7.3 is ‘doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030’.
Access to energy and renewable energy (SDG Targets 7.1 and 7.2, respectively) has
typically been prioritized compared to energy efficiency. However, the prominence of
energy efficiency has risen on global, regional, national and subnational agendas reflecting
the low cost and array of multiple benefits on offer.
• Doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency means that energy intensity
(primary energy demand divided by GDP into real terms) needs to be raised from a
baseline over the period of 1990–2010 of 1.3% per year to an average annual 2.6%
improvement between 2010 and 2030 (IEA and WB 2015).
• It is widely recognized that improving energy efficiency is a vital condition for
implementing global mandates that are both directly and indirectly related to the SDGs,
such as those provided by the Paris Climate Agreement, the Sustainable Energy for All
(SE4ALL) initiative (Sustainable Energy for All 2013), and the Clean Energy Ministerial
(2017), among others. The prominence of energy efficiency has grown in recent years and
there is a need for clarifying the linkages with the other SDGs.
Primary CO2 emissions
reduction potential by
technology in the
Reference Case and
IRENA’s Remap
scenario, 2015–2050.
Source IEA and IRENA
(2017)
CASE Study 3: the ‘WEF-climate Nexus’ Approach
as a Framework for Systems Thinking on the SDGs.
• By 2050, the FAO predicts 70% increased demand for food (100% in
developing countries), and the World Energy Council expects a 100%
increase in energy demand by that time. Almost all this increase will come
from non-OECD countries. Biofuel demands could already double by 2030
(IEA 2012).
• As farming remains the largest user of water, food must be produced
sustainably to ensure future supplies of food and water. Water scarcity
already affects more than 40% of the world’s population, largely because too
much water is used to produce food.
• This case study describes the three issues or ‘sectors’ of water, energy and
food, and the strong linkages between them. Activities in any of these three
sectors may drive or limit economic growth in the two others.
CASE Study 3: Water–energy–food (WEF)
• Water–energy–food (WEF) ‘nexus’ approaches hold the promise of
greater policy coherence by integrating governance across energy, water
and food sectors and scales. Extant policy-making in ‘silos’ therefore
needs to be complemented by nexus approaches that reduce trade-offs
and build synergies across sectors.
• A nexus approach can also help to avoid ‘sunk costs’, i.e., investments
that lock development into non-sustainable pathways. The guiding
principles of the nexus are like those that underpin the SDGs, namely
ensuring access to resources for the most vulnerable, promoting
efficiency in resource use and ensuring sustainability (Weitz et al.2014).
CASE Study 3: Water–energy–food (WEF)
• The SDGs show the need for a systemic nexus approach to sustainability challenges.
Whereas the MDGs fell short in terms of identifying sectoral goals with little consideration of
how efforts to attain a goal in one sector would affect efforts in another sector (Weitz et al.
2014), the SDGs open up the opportunity for integrating goals across sectors in order to make
implementation more efficient and cost-effective and to consider trade-offs between goals.
• The WEF nexus can serve as a framework for systems thinking among different stakeholders,
rather than being directly implementable as such. SDG 7 (on sustainable energy) can be
closely connected with SDG 2 (food and agriculture) and SDG 6 (water and sanitation).
Climate change (SDG 13) can put additional pressure on the connections within the WEF
nexus (see next slide). For example, climatic changes may affect rainfall and thus water and
energy use for food production.
• The nexus approach highlights these interdependencies and the need to address
interconnected policy sectors and resource systems not in isolation but through integrated
management approaches that cut across multiple domains.
CASE Study 3: Water–energy–food (WEF)
Guillaume et al. ( 2015) suggest five ways in which systems theory can
help us to help us to understand nexus issues better:
(1) Mapping nexus issues and their interlinkages;
(2) Finding the most important linkages;
(3) Using models for systems models;
(4) appreciating the rebound effect from a systems perspective and
(5) Crafting system-level solutions.
Linkages within SDGs 2, 6 and 7
• There are numerous examples of linkages between two of the three nexus sectors, for
example, the water-energy nexus (e.g. hydropower, power plant cooling and groundwater
pumping). Water and food are linked through irrigation and rainwater harvesting. Thinking
of the energy–food nexus, usually biofuels versus crops trade-offs come to mind. Moreover,
the full food production and supply chain are responsible for around 30% of total global
energy demand. Energy accounts for almost 55% of the operating costs of water utilities
(IRENA 2015), and 70–90% of water used by humans is for food production (FAO 20111).
• However, it is more challenging to find examples of how all three issues jointly are affected.
For a true nexus approach, the three interrelating sectors must be brought together, including
those that are currently considered separately and in isolation. This is easier said than done.
Examples include groundwater irrigation, water desalination for food production and biogas
production from wastewater, where residues are used as fertilizer.
Water–energy–food nexus and the main
pressures on it. Adapted from CNA (2014)
End of WEEK 8 Lecture