Post on 22-Feb-2022
JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITÄT LINZ AltenbergerStraße694040Linz,Österreichwww.jku.atDVR0093696
Submitted by Brooke Baldwin Submitted at Institute of Strategic Management Supervisor Dr. Regina Gattringer October 2018
THE EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Master’s Thesis toconfertheacademicdegreeof Master of Science intheMaster’sProgram
General Management
October18 BrookeBaldwin 2/148
STATUTORY DECLARATION
Iherebydeclarethatthethesissubmittedismyownunaidedwork,thatIhavenotusedotherthanthesourcesindicated,andthatalldirectandindirectsourcesareacknowledgedasreferences.Thisprintedthesisisidenticalwiththeelectronicversionsubmitted.Linz,______________Signature
October18 BrookeBaldwin 3/148
Executive Summary The aim of this thesis is to provide a general perspective on the effects of
globalization on sustainable development (SD) in our current world. Globalization has
various aspects, which have varying effects on SD (Martell, 2010, p. 12; Held et al., 1999,
p. 15). Therefore, three aspects of globalization (economic, environmental, and cultural &
social) will be assessed in relation to SD in order to analyze the current environment
(Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 5). Globalization has led to increased interdependence amongst
nations and has brought about much benefit and opportunity to many people in many parts
of the world (UN, 2018). Despite that, there still remains a large part of humanity which
has not been able to experience the benefits of globalization, as extreme poverty and
inequality still remain a reality for some (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; UN, 2018). Hence a major
aspect of SD has been devoted to fairly distributing the benefits of globalization in order
to eradicate the world’s gravest challenges (UN, 2018). These efforts have not gone
unnoticed, as there has been much change and progress in the field of SD over the past 5
years (Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Shaikh et al., 2016).
In order to assess the development in the academic literature, a systematic
literature review has been conducted using academic articles published between January
2013-January 2018. The following new frameworks and concepts have been proposed
throughout the recent academic literature: Broman & Roberts’ (2015) FSSD Framework,
Holden et al.’s (2017) renewed SDG framework, Voegltin & Scherer’s (2017) concept of
RI, Herrschel’s (2013) concept of Smart (New) City Regionalism, Stiglitz’s (2017) Policy
Program, Schmitz & Mitchel’s (2016) RBA for NGOs, and Huckle & Wals’ (2015)
GESC. Additionally, the following topics were popular throughout literature and have
been critically assessed: transparency in global governance, citizen participation in global
governance, transnational business governance and VSSs, the SDGs, income inequality
and ESD. Based on the findings of the systematic literature review, it has been concluded
that the effects of globalization on SD are both positive and negative. However, the
positive effects present an optimistic outlook for the future of the SD agenda. Overall, the
results showed that there has been significant progress made in the global coordination
and cooperation of SD initiatives. Based on the analysis the three main challenges facing
globalization and SD are: (1) effective global governance and the coordination of policies;
(2) gaining societal support of SD; (3) gaining business support of SD.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 4/148
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................................3
TABLEOFCONTENTS.........................................................................................................................4
ACRONYMS&ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................6
1.INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................81.1.PROBLEMSTATEMENT...............................................................................................................................111.2.OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................................................111.3.STRUCTURE...................................................................................................................................................12
2.METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................122.1.DATACOLLECTION......................................................................................................................................13
3.CONCEPTUALBACKGROUND...................................................................................................143.1.GLOBALIZATION...........................................................................................................................................14
3.1.1. The Concept of Globalization........................................................................................................153.1.2. Defining Globalization.....................................................................................................................213.1.3 Dimensions of Globalization...........................................................................................................223.1.3.1. Economic Globalization...............................................................................................................23
3.1.3.1.a. Trade..............................................................................................................................................................................243.1.3.1.a.i. The Economics of Trade.............................................................................................................................253.1.3.1.a.ii. Controversial Topics of ITAs..................................................................................................................273.1.3.1.a.iii. Recent Controversial ITAs.....................................................................................................................30
3.1.3.1.b. Investment...................................................................................................................................................................323.1.3.1.b.i. Foreign Direct Investment.........................................................................................................................32
3.1.3.1.c. Short-term capital flows..........................................................................................................................................343.1.3.1.d. The Increasing Role of MNCs in the Global Economy...............................................................................35
3.1.3.1.d.i. The Development of Corporate Globalization.................................................................................363.1.3.1.d.ii. TBL Thinking................................................................................................................................................40
3.1.3.2. Environmental Globalization.....................................................................................................413.1.3.2.a.AirPollution...............................................................................................................................................................433.1.3.2.b.DifferingStandards................................................................................................................................................443.1.3.2.c.GlobalWarming........................................................................................................................................................45
3.1.3.3. Social and Cultural Globalization...........................................................................................473.1.3.3.a.ClashofCultures......................................................................................................................................................473.1.3.3.b.KnowledgeandMovementofLabor...............................................................................................................483.1.3.3.c.RecentControversialEvents...............................................................................................................................50
3.1.3.4. New Dimensions..............................................................................................................................51A New Global Economy....................................................................................................................................................52
3.1.3.5. Summary.............................................................................................................................................533.2SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................55
3.2.1. The Concept..........................................................................................................................................553.2.2. The Goal.................................................................................................................................................583.2.3. SD Initiatives........................................................................................................................................59
3.2.3.1. The UN’s MDGs...........................................................................................................................................................603.2.3.2. The UN’s Agenda 2030..............................................................................................................................................61
October18 BrookeBaldwin 5/148
3.2.4. Summary.................................................................................................................................................633.3GLOBALGOVERNANCE.................................................................................................................................63
3.3.1. Intergovernmental Organizations................................................................................................653.3.1.1. The UN.............................................................................................................................................................................663.3.1.2. The IMF, the WTO and the World Bank..............................................................................................................67
3.3.2. Criticism of IGOs................................................................................................................................693.3.3. Summary.................................................................................................................................................71
3.4.SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................................71
4.SYSTEMATICLITERATUREREVIEW......................................................................................734.1.THEEFFECTSOFGLOBALIZATIONONSD...............................................................................................76
4.1.1. Income Inequality...............................................................................................................................774.1.1.1. Environmental Degradation......................................................................................................................................784.1.1.2. Technological Change.................................................................................................................................................814.1.1.3. Stiglitz’s Inequality Reducing Policy Program..................................................................................................83
4.1.2. Growth through Economic Globalization.................................................................................844.1.2.1. Knowledge Transfer....................................................................................................................................................84
4.1.3. Development through Cooperation.............................................................................................854.1.3.1. An SDG Framework....................................................................................................................................................86
4.1.4. Summary.................................................................................................................................................904.2.GLOBALGOVERNANCE................................................................................................................................93
4.2.1. Citizen participation..........................................................................................................................944.2.1.1. CSOs & NGOs...............................................................................................................................................................944.2.1.2. Designing a System for Citizen Participation.....................................................................................................964.2.1.3. Receptiveness of Citizen Participation..................................................................................................................964.2.1.4. Smart (New) City Regionalism................................................................................................................................97
4.2.2. Transnational Business Governance...........................................................................................984.2.3. Transparency......................................................................................................................................100
4.2.3.1. Industrialization Focus.............................................................................................................................................1024.2.4. Summary...............................................................................................................................................103
4.3.EDUCATIONFORSD.................................................................................................................................1054.3.1. ESD in Higher Education..............................................................................................................106
4.3.1.1. Implementation of ESD...........................................................................................................................................1074.3.1.2. GESC.............................................................................................................................................................................1084.3.1.3. Focus of ESD in Higher Education.....................................................................................................................109
4.3.2. Summary...............................................................................................................................................1104.4.SDBUSINESSMODELS&SOLUTIONS...................................................................................................111
4.4.1. The SD Business Challenge..........................................................................................................1124.4.2. Sustainability Strategies.................................................................................................................114
4.4.2.1. FSSD Framework & RI...........................................................................................................................................1174.4.3. Summary...............................................................................................................................................120
4.5.SUMMARY&DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................121
5.CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................127
BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................131
October18 BrookeBaldwin 6/148
Acronyms & Abbreviations BoP- Bottom of the Pyramid
CETA- Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
CP- Cleaner Production
CSO- Civil Society Organization
DESD- Decade of Education for SD
EEA- Europe Environmental Agency
EPA- Environmental Protection Agency
ESD- Education for SD
EU- European Union
FDI- Foreign Direct Investment
FFSD- Framework for Strategic SD
GATT- General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GESC- Global Education For Sustainability Citizenship
IA- Investment Agreements
IGO- Intergovernmental Organization
ILO- International Labor Organization
IPR- Intellectual Property Rights
ISDS- Investor State Dispute Settlements
IMF- International Monetary Fund
ITA- International Trade Agreement
M&As- Mergers & Acquisitions
MDGs- Millennial Development Goals
MNCs- Multinational Corporations
MNEs- Multinational Enterprises
NGOs- Non-Governmental Organizations
OECD- The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFDI- Outward Foreign Direct Investment
RBA- Rights Based Approach
RI- Responsible Innovation
SD- Sustainable Development
SDGs- Sustainable Development Goals
TBL- Triple Bottom Line
October18 BrookeBaldwin 7/148
TTIP- Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
TPP- Trans-Pacific Partnership
UN- United Nations
US- United States
UNIDO- UN Industrial Development Organization
UNDP- UN Development Program
VSS- Voluntary Sustainability Standards
VSSSO- Voluntary Sustainability Standard Setting Organizations
WHO- World Health Organization
WTO- World Trade Organization
October18 BrookeBaldwin 8/148
1. Introduction Over the past decades the world has become exponentially more interconnected
and interdependent (UN, 2018). This development began ages ago with the exchange of
products and services between countries and continents (Das, 2010, p. 67). As demand
in domestic regions increased so did the supply of these foreign products, leading
exporters to search for more efficient ways to get their products overseas. Innovations
led to advancements in transportation and technology and have allowed the world today
to exchange much more than just products/services and are largely part of what has
made globalization possible (Das, 2010, p. 67; Gopinath, 2008, p. 14). Globalism is
defined as “a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multi-
continental distances. The linkages occur through flows and influences of capital and
goods, information and ideas, and people and forces, as well as environmentally and
biologically relevant substances,” (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 4). Globalization is
therefore the increase of globalism, the strengthening of the links between all the
countries in the world, through the formation of networks and the international
exchange of each nation’s physical and intangible resources (Keohane & Kye, 2007, p.
6). However, globalization is a concept with many dimensions having varying and often
unpredictable effects and implications on the world and its environment, economy, and
humanity; i.e. SD.
Although the world has benefited from globalization in many aspects, new and
serious problems arose along side, causing controversy: one of the greatest
controversies facing globalization today is SD (Meadowcroft, 2016, p. 988; Stiglitz,
2017, p. 312; Docalavich, 2016, p. 50), which is defined, as “development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs,” (UN, 1987). Sustainability is also referred to as the “Triple Bottom
Line” as there are three components to it: economy, environment, and equity (social)
(Elkington, 1997). Research has shown that globalization is both harmful (Stiglitz,
2004, p. 473; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 475; Brondoni, 2014, p. 19; Stewart, 2016, p. 75; Holden
et al., 2016, p. 3) and beneficial (Das, 2013, p. 104; Chia, 2015, p. 1; Jaumotte et al.,
2013, p. 31; Brondoni, 2014, p. 15) to SD in various ways, but due to the diversity of
the world’s countries, what is good for one may not be for another.
The UN is the largest supporter of SD and its main objective is to create an
environment where global peace and equality can be fostered (Docalavich, 2016, p. 6).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 9/148
Part of this effort has been the development of numerous global initiatives working
towards SD; currently, the UN’s Transforming Our World: the Agenda 2030 for SD is
the SD plan for the next 15 years. Agenda 2030 is made up of 17 SD Goals (SDGs) with
169 targets, to stimulate action from all countries and stakeholders acting in partnership
with the UN (UN, 2015). Such efforts by the UN have been in motion since the 1970s.
Almost 50 years later, and the world is still struggling with global SD issues such as
inequality, unemployment and uneven distribution of resources (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16;
Brondoni, 2014, p. 28; Stewart, 2016, p. 62; Holden et al., 2016, p. 3; Firat, 2017, p. 6;
Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988). At the same time there have been significant
improvements in SD, particularly in developing countries such as China, India, and
Africa (Docalavich, 2016, p. 62-66; Das, 2013, p. 104; Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 22;
Chia, 2015, p. 1).
SD has also gained increased global awareness and acceptance by the public and
authorities over the past ten years (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxxi; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 989).
For instance in 2015 the Paris Agreement was signed by 195 countries agreeing to
reduce climate change, even developing countries like India supported this despite their
unstable environment. Additionally, more and more corporations have started to
integrate some form of sustainability into their processes (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3;
Belz & Binder, 2015). These improvements over the past ten years illustrate how
globalization can enforce SD if it is utilized the right way. Many claim that in order for
globalization to be utilized the right way, it will require policies and regulations that are
fair and justified by accounting for the varying levels of development in today’s world
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; Fura et al., 2017, p. 977; Kacowicz & Mitrani, 2016; p. 203;
Herrschel, 2016, p. 1). This will require global governance that assess the impacts of
their actions and that looks at the various aspects of globalization and SD.
As activities increasingly take place at the global level, forms of global
governance including intergovernmental organizations (i.e. UN, WTO, IMF, World
Bank) as well as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have provided some
structure to handling global issues and mediating problems between national and global
governments. While these supranational authorities of global governance have been put
in place to promote the equality and development of all countries, many scholars
(Stiglitz, 2004, p. 481; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988, 2013;
Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 22; Gopinath, 2008, p. 126-128) believe that they (i.e.
IMF, WTO, World Bank) have become a source of the problem in the globalization
October18 BrookeBaldwin 10/148
debate. These scholars characterize today’s globalization as run by neo-liberal
supranational authorities supporting capitalism by prioritizing the needs of corporations
over the needs of world development (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 367; Meadowcroft, 2013, p.
988; Holden et al., 2016, p. 3; Gopinath, 2008, p. 126-128; Brondoni, 2014, p.19). Over
the past fifteen years globalization has enabled corporations to gain increasing amounts
of influence and control in the global market and global governance, Stiglitz (2017)
argues that this is the main cause for the failure of globalization today (Stiglitz, 2017, p.
xxii). Whether intentionally or not, globalization has allowed for corporations to expand
beyond their national borders and search the globe for the most profitable locations to
exploit while increasing their revenues and market share (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39;
Gopinath, 2008, p. 132).
Unfortunately, such activities have come at the expense of economic, social and
environmental prosperity and permitted the uneven development the world is currently
facing (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39). International trade and investment agreements have been a
controversial topic of globalization since the beginning (i.e. formation of the GATT),
because such agreements restrict the sovereignty and control of the countries involved
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Kacowicz & Mitrani, 2016, p. 203; Fura et al., 2017, p. 977). In
today’s global economy, MNCs are increasingly gaining influence and control over
such agreements, which has become even more troubling since the authority and control
of the nation state is no longer confined by foreign governments but by foreign
corporations; which are known for their activities of arbitrage and immoral capitalism
(Ghemawat, 2003; Johanson & Vahlne, 2009, p. 1411; Brondoni, 2014, p. 19; Gopinath,
2008, p. 132).
Furthermore, the effects of globalization are no longer only considered harmful
to developing countries but have also come to have adverse effects on developed
countries in recent years (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxv; Rasiah et al., 2015, p. 6). While many
scholars, policy makers, and supranational authorities have varying ideas on how to
‘solve’ the globalization problem it must be understood that the motives of each party
widely vary, so coming to a cohesive and mutually beneficial solution will require the
collaboration of governments, individuals, corporations, IGOs and NGOs at various
levels of the global scale (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5; Fura et al., 2017, p. 977). This
effort will require compromises, knowledge, and awareness to come to terms that can
lead to a mutually beneficial outcome for the world and its stakeholders.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 11/148
1.1. Problem Statement SD and globalization have been working against each other, leaving the world in
an unequal state of poverty and inequality, while straining the earth beyond its limits
(Holden et al., 2016, p. 4; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988). Some claim that the greatest
challenge with making globalization and SD work is having inequality, which is
preventing developing countries from adopting sustainable methods, while others claim
it lays in the policies and regulations of global governance which should be better
regulated (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; UN, 2018). Several methods have been proposed in
order to combat this problem; including the SD initiatives of the UN, citizen
participation in global governance and numerous frameworks for integrating SD into
businesses practices. Despite these efforts, SD continues to remain a growing concern
with poverty still present and the levels of environmental pollution rising (WHO, 2018;
Meadowcroft, 2016, p. 988). Why is this, what is causing these problems and how can
they be overcome? Evaluating the effects of globalization on SD will provide a basis for
understanding what issues are preventing the world from achieving SD goals and what
could be done better in the future.
1.2. Objectives The main objective of this thesis is to provide a current and thorough assessment
of the effects of globalization on SD. There are varying views on the effects of
globalization on SD; hence it will be of importance to review many perspectives and
opinions in order to achieve an impartial result. Additionally an important aspect will be
highlighting key themes and topics throughout the academic literature. Once the effects
of globalization on SD have been determined, it will be possible to determine the
current status of certain topics in the field and hence reveal the progress or regress the
world is currently facing with regards to SD. As an American business student, working
at an Austrian based start-up that aims to deliver global SD goals, I am very interested
in gaining further insight on how globalization and SD have altered the world and
particularly the business context in recent years. It is this interest, which has led me to
write my master thesis in this field and on this specific topic.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 12/148
1.3. Structure The structure of this thesis will proceed as follows. In the next chapter the
methodology of the study will be explained in detail, and the data collection will be
discussed. Following the methodology section, the conceptual background begins by
explaining the concept of globalization and its definitions before moving onto its
various dimensions. Once the concept and the dimensions of globalization have been
reviewed, the conceptual background of SD will be discussed and past and present SD
initiatives and their goals will be analyzed. After covering the various dimensions and
definitions of globalization and SD and clarifying their interlinked relationship, the
numerous institutions of global governance will be introduced.
In the following chapter, a systematic literature review will be conducted using
scholarly journal articles, which have been published in the last five years. The selected
articles will be categorized and ordered to reveal the most popular themes and topics of
globalization and SD currently under discussion in the academic literature. After
highlighting the most common themes in the literature, the findings will be reviewed
and the main challenges facing globalization and SD today will be summarized. This
thesis concludes with a discussion on how to initiate and transition the change towards
SD and use globalization as a catalyst.
2. Methodology The method of research for this paper will take the form of a systematic,
evidence informed literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003, p.207). Only scholarly
articles, which have been published in the last five years, will be selected for analysis in
order to determine the current effects of globalization on SD in today’s world. There are
various aspects of both globalization and SD, and the varying effects of each dimension
are rarely discussed together (Martell, 2010, p.2). Therefore, this thesis aims to fill that
void and provide a general overview of the various effects. The objective of this
systematic literature review is to determine the effects of globalization on SD in the
recent literature and to determine key themes and topics in the literature. Hence, four
different databases were used to conduct the systematic literature review of this thesis.
These were: EBSCO, JSTOR, Emerald and Google Scholar.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 13/148
2.1. Data Collection In the advanced search settings of each database, I searched for peer-reviewed
articles and journals, which contained both words ‘globalization’ and ‘sustainable
development’ somewhere in the text. Initially I had searched for ‘globalization’ and
‘sustainable development’ or ‘sustainability’ but the search results were too large and
the articles too unspecific for the use of this paper. The publication type was set to
articles and/or journals, which were peer reviewed, ‘accepted articles,’ or classified as
‘scholarly journals’. On EBSCO I searched for ‘journals’ and ‘academic journals’,
which were classified as ‘scholarly peer reviewed journals’. On JSTOR ‘journals’
which had been peer reviewed were selected. On Emerald I looked for ‘articles and
chapters’, which were ‘accepted articles’. Additionally, on all databases I have searched
for English articles only. To provide an up to date assessment on the literature in this
field, I have only searched for articles and journals, which have been released within the
last five years, so between January 2013 and January 2018.
For the purpose of narrowing down my search, I have also refined my search
two more times. First, I have refined it to articles and journals, which had the words
‘globalization’ and ‘SD’ in the abstract of the article. The purpose of this was to
hopefully find articles, which were more focused on the relation of ‘globalization’ and
‘SD’. However, because JSTOR does not provide abstracts in the search results, the
results for this category are inconclusive. Second, I searched for articles and journals,
where ‘globalization and SD’ were found in the text and which I had full access to.
Lastly, I also searched for articles on Google Scholar with the search terms
‘globalization and SD’ from the periods of January 2013 to January 2018 and found
42200 search results. However, the advanced search function of Google Scholar does
not allow the search to be narrowed down to ‘peer reviewed scholarly articles’ so the
results also include books and book chapters. As a quality control, only articles
published in academic (peer reviewed) journals, ranked with a “B” level or higher, or
with a JCR Impact Factor of 1.5 or higher, or equivalent, have been selected. After a
thorough review of the search results, 35 articles have been selected for the data
analysis.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 14/148
3. Conceptual Background The purpose of this section will be to gain an understanding of the concepts of
globalization and SD. Apart from understanding the two concepts solely; the main
objective of this section will be to illustrate the interconnectedness and interlinking of
the various aspects of globalization and SD. The globalization section will include
conceptualizing, defining and explaining globalization and it’s various dimensions:
economic, environmental, and social & cultural (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p.4-6).
Following the globalization section, the concept of SD will be discussed and several
past and present SD initiatives will be introduced. Once globalization and SD have
become familiarized, the various forms of global governance will be explained. At the
end of this chapter, a summary highlighting the main themes and problems of
globalization and SD will be presented before moving onto the next chapter, the
Systematic Literature Review.
3.1. Globalization Globalization is a difficult term to define as it has multiple dimensions to it,
which overlap, relate and affect one another. As a result definitions of globalization
widely vary, as many scholars define globalization in the context of a single dimension.
Author Martell states “you can’t understand globalization without looking at its
economic and political dimensions, or by analyzing cultural and social spheres instead
of, or separately from, politics and economics,” (Martell, 2010, p.2). He explains that if
one dimension of globalization is assessed without consideration of the others, then the
effects that these dimensions have on the other dimensions is overlooked. Therefore this
section will begin by conceptualizing globalization. Following the concept, the
definitions of globalization will be compared and the various dimensions of
globalization will be described.
Defining globalization and its dimensions will set the foundation of this paper,
and will include an array of various foci. Globalization has become a large and popular
topic of interest in today’s world and due to its multiplicity of dimensions; perspectives
and opinions in the literature widely vary making it a highly debated topic with no clear
overall opinion or definition (Martell, 2010, p.12; Held, 1999, p.15). Martell (2010) for
instance suggests four pluralist views of globalization to prevent mono-causal, over-
October18 BrookeBaldwin 15/148
westernized, homogenizing perspectives on the concept. He argues that pluralist, hybrid
and multidimensional views of globalization view globalization as operating at different
levels from the economic to the cultural or political.
Martell’s (2010) Pluralist Views of Globalization are multi-causal, multilevel,
hybrid and localized (Martell, 2010, p.12). Multi-causal implies that globalization is not
just caused by one chief factor. Multilevel classifies five levels: economic, political,
cultural, military and environmental. The hybrid view includes mixtures of inputs from
East/West/North/South. Lastly, the form globalization takes varies depending on where
it is received for this purpose a localized view is important (Martell, 2010, p.12). By
maintaining a pluralistic view of globalization throughout this paper, an unbiased and
fair representation of the concept of globalization will be the aim.
3.1.1. The Concept of Globalization Due to the complexity of globalization, it is key to clarify the concept and the
definitions as well as the varying dimensions of globalization in order to fully gain an
understanding of the topic itself. This section will begin with the concept of
globalization, as it is crucial to understanding the roots of its definition. Various
scholars have conceptualized globalization over the past two decades, and despite all the
changes that the world has encountered several of these concepts overlap highlighting
key themes in the literature.
Held et al. (1999) highlights the complexity of defining globalization and
explains it as being located on a continuum with the local, national and regional- these
three factors make up the varying levels in which globalization takes form. On this
continuum of globalization, one end makes up the social and economic relations and
networks, organized on a local and/or national basis; and on the other end of the
continuum lies social and economic relations and networks which crystallize on the
wider scale of regional and global interactions (Held et al., 1999, p. 15). Held &
McGrew (2003) further explain this continuum, stating that globalization does not
displace or take precedent over local, national or regional orders of life but that the local
becomes more embedded within more expansive sets of interregional relations and
networks of power (Held & McGrew, 2003, p. 3). Martell (2010) emphasizes these
varying levels with his concept of globalization and draws upon “guidelines” to
October18 BrookeBaldwin 16/148
differentiate the phenomenon from other similar concepts. These “guidelines” are
important when considering globalization since without any geographical referents it
becomes difficult to distinguish globalization from internationalization, regionalization
or trans-nationalization (Held & McGrew, 2003, p. 4; Scholte, 2005, p. 59). Martell’s
(2010) guidelines aim to form a coherent and universal concept of globalization
because, “if the global cannot be interpreted literally, as a universal phenomenon, then
the concept of globalization lacks specificity,” (Held & McGrew, 2003, p. 4). These
four guidelines will be described below, followed by the key themes making up the
concept of globalization.
Martell (2010) claims that globalization involves the compression of space in
such a way that distance is less of a factor than it previously was in terms of knowledge,
communication and movement (Martell, 2010, p. 12). In their work Keohane & Nye
(2007) also remark on the significance of space in their conceptualization of
globalization (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 4-7). Held et al. (1999) further emphasize that
“globalization can be taken to refer to those spatio-temporal processes of change which
underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking together and
expanding human activity across regions and continents,” (Held et al., 1999, p. 15). As
a result of this “shrinkage” of global distance, geography and territory is undermined
and things begin to develop at the global level, a level way above the international
relations level (Martell, 2010, p. 12).
(1) Therefore globalization must be global, meaning that it needs to reach all
continents and majority of those continents (Martell, 2010, p. 6).
(2) Another ‘global’ factor is that globalization needs to have inputs from across
continents and multiple countries within them (Martell, 2010, p. 12). According
to Martell (2010) and Held et al. (1999) relations need to be stable and regular to
establish a structure or system in order to be global in scale.
(3) Furthermore, Martell (2010) claims that globalization needs to involve the
elites as well as the masses and a global consciousness must happen so people
have an awareness of the globe as a single place (Martell, 2010, p. 12). Held &
McGrew (2003) further explain this idea, “globalization thereby engenders a
cognitive shift expressed both in a growing public awareness of the ways in
which distant events can affect local fortunes (and vice versa) as well as in
October18 BrookeBaldwin 17/148
public perceptions of shrinking time and geographical space,” (Held &
McGrew, 2003, p. 4).
(4) Lastly, as Martell (2010) mentions in his definition, for it to be global there
must be interdependency in the relationships between countries, companies, or
groups rather than solely interconnection. Detrimental repercussions arising
from a loss of a relationship or agreement can distinguish interdependency from
interconnectedness (Martell, 2010, p. 12).
Martell’s guidelines will guide this section to form the concept of globalization
and include four main points: For it to be globalization it must (1) be global in scale, (2)
have inputs from across continents and multiple countries within them, (3) involve the
elites as well as the masses and a global consciousness must occur, and (4) entail
interdependency between global parties (Martell, 2010, p. 6-12).
Interdependence (the Network Effect)
Trans-regional interconnectedness
In relation to Martell’s concept and guidelines, Held et al. (1999) states that
globalization first and foremost implies the stretching of social, political and economic
activities across frontiers to such an extent that events, decisions and activities in one
region can come to have significance for individuals and communities in distant regions
of the globe; in other words it embodies trans-regional interconnectedness (Held et al.,
1999, p. 15). He defines trans-regional interconnectedness as the widening reach of
networks of social activity and power and the possibility of action at a distance (Held et
al., 1999, p. 15).
Networks
Economists refer to the situation in which a product becomes more valuable the
more people use or have it as a “network effect,” because it is a happening that triggers
a chain reaction (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 7). The systematic relationships within
different networks become more important as globalism increases and this leads to more
interconnections: “Intensive economic interdependence affects social and environmental
interdependence; awareness of these connections in turn affects economic
relationships,” (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 8). Furthermore, the awareness of this
October18 BrookeBaldwin 18/148
problem is widely spread leading to more involvement and skepticism from those
outside the network. According to Brondoni (2014), global networks have been the
source of increased interdependence and hyper competition between firms since the
start of Firm Globalization in the 1980s but Network Globalization (2010-2020)
characterizes the current era (Brondoni, 2014, p. 15).
The Effects of Global Interdependence
In accordance with Martell (2010) and Keohane & Nye (2007), Held et al.
(1999) argue that a greater level of interconnectedness forms through relations, which
occur regularly and intensify. This growing extensity and intensity of
interconnectedness may result in a speeding up of global interactions and processes, “as
the development of worldwide systems of transport and communication increases the
potential velocity of the global diffusion of ideas, goods, information, capital and
people,” (Held et al., 1999, p. 15).
Velocity
Vahlne et al. (2011), explain that globalization has led to increased
interdependence as a result of networks- a firm is embedded in a web of relationships
with multiple parties within its environment (i.e. customers, suppliers, governmental
authorities), and as time goes on the number of mutual experiences grows and the
parties adjust to each other which increases their degree of interdependence (Vahlne et
al., 2011, p. 3). In their article, Keohane & Nye (2007) underline the concept of velocity
and its relation to interdependence in their theory of globalization. The authors explain
that institutional velocity reflects the speed in which a system and the units within that
system can change and refers to the intensity of contact between individual linkages as
well as between networks and interconnections among networks (Keohane & Nye,
2007, p. 10). This in turn increases the relevance of “complex interdependence,” or
transnational participation (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 11). Consequently, the growing
extensity, intensity and velocity of global interactions may result in the deepening
enmeshment of the local and global to such an extent that the impact of distant events is
magnified (Held et al., 1999, p. 15).
Message velocity, or the speed of communication, has allowed for information
to diffuse rapidly and for capital to be moved quickly (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 10).
Starting from the inventions of the telegraph and the steam ship to the airplane and the
October18 BrookeBaldwin 19/148
Internet, all of these innovations have increased the velocity of communication but more
importantly have decreased the cost of communication (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 10-
12). The reduction in communication costs increases institutional velocity and allows
more actors to participate. Castells (2000) describes the influence of the Internet on
globalization, as having ‘spread throughout the globe with lightning speed’ in the past
decades, ‘connecting the world’ in a more fundamental sense than was the case with
previous technological revolutions (Castells 2000, p. 32). Hence, velocity (institutional
& message) has permitted and increased the process of globalization by allowing
people, products, capital and knowledge to flow across the world and form networks
sparking enhanced interdependence between nations (Vahlne et al., 2011, p. 3; Keohane
& Nye, 2007, p. 10).
Thick Globalism
Globalism has been apparent in various degrees throughout history, some
scholars distinguish between these degrees as periods of thick or thin globalism;
Keohane & Nye (2007) use “thicker globalism” to explain the increase of globalism,
globalization, where times of thick globalism imply a greater level of apparent
globalization than periods of thin globalism. Factors determining an increase in
thickness arise from the level of interdependence between global parties (Keohane &
Nye, 2007, p. 10-12; Held et al., 1999, p. 21). Scholte (2005) provides a multifaceted
social explanation on some of the factors increasing trans-planetary connectivity in the
modern global economy:
(1) Capitalist production and accumulation strategies;
(2) Changes in regulatory and governance mechanisms that have facilitated
increasing global connections in the economy, travel, cultural exchange, disease
control etc.;
(3) Changes in identity construction so that there is ‘a shift from nationalism
towards pluralism and hybridity in respect of identity’;
(4) The spread of rationalism and instrumental reason as the dominant
knowledge framework, accompanied by the rise of a secular global
consciousness.
(Scholte, 2005, p. 121)
October18 BrookeBaldwin 20/148
Therefore the thicker globalism is, the more interconnected and interdependent
the world becomes. Thicker globalism implies complex interdependence: complex
interdependence is an idealized concept describing a hypothetical world with three
characteristics: multiple channels between societies, with multiple actors, and multiple
states; multiple issues, not arranged in any clear hierarchy; and the irrelevance of the
threat or use of force among states linked by complex interdependence (Keohane &
Nye, 2007, p. 10-13). The authors state that an idealized concept of complex
interdependence is already apparent in different parts of the world, and as it becomes
more of a reality the thicker globalism is. In accordance with Keohane & Nye (2007),
Held et al. (1999) further explain thick and thin globalization in their typologies of
globalization.
The typologies present alternative ways of conceiving globalization; “global
flows, networks and relations can be mapped in relation to their fundamental spatio-
temporal dimensions: extensity, intensity, velocity and impact propensity,” (Held et al.,
1999, p. 21). The first typology is, thick globalization describing a world in which the
extensive reach of global networks is matched by their high intensity, high velocity and
high impact propensity across all the domains or facets of social life from the economic
to the cultural (Held et al., 1999, p. 21). The formation of global empires in the late 19th
century era is similar to a period of thick globalization. According to the definition of
Keohane & Nye (2007) and Held et al. (1999), globalization today is becoming
increasingly thick as the interdependence between countries becomes stronger (intensity
& velocity) and more and more countries continue to develop (impact) and enter the
global market place (extensity).
Thin Globalism
The opposite of thick globalism is thin globalism, explaining a state in which the
high extensity of global networks is not matched by a similar intensity, velocity or
impact, as these all remain low (Held et al., 1999, p. 22). For instance the early silk and
luxury trade circuits ‘the Silk Road’ connecting Europe with China and the East could
fall into the fourth typology of thin globalization. While trade itself has historically been
a driving force of cultural exchange (the Silk Road), colonization resulted in the
integration of economic and political views through a structure that fostered the sharing
of ideas (Gopinath, 2008, p.28). Therefore, the main variation between periods of thick
October18 BrookeBaldwin 21/148
and thin globalism is based on the velocity of communication between the global
networks and the impact that these relationships have on the networks.
3.1.2. Defining Globalization Held et al. (1999), Held & McGrew (2003), Keohane & Nye (2007) and Martell
(2010) all drew upon similar key themes in their concepts of globalization. These key
themes were the shrinkage of space, velocity (time-space compression), accelerated
interdependence, and interconnectedness. Building off of the key themes mentioned in
the concept, Held et al. (1999) defines globalization as “a process (or set of processes),
which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and
transactions- assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact-
generating trans-continental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction,
and the exercise of power,” (Held et al., 1999, p. 16).
As was mentioned before, globalization is a difficult term to define because it
varies depending on which dimensions are being assessed and what values the authors
may have. Discussing the various dimensions and definitions of globalization will
demonstrate why it is necessary to assess all aspects and will reveal how they overlap.
While the concept of globalization explained how the phenomenon works, defining it
sheds light on the importance of the material aspects of globalization. The material
aspects of globalization are considered to be the flow of trade, capital and people across
the globe (Held & McGrew, 2003, p. 2). In this respect, Held et al. (1999) state that
globalization is a process fueled by, and resulting in, increasing cross-border flows of
goods, services, money, people, information, and culture (Held et al., 1999, p. 236).
For instance, authors Keohane & Nye (2007) define globalism as a state of the
world involving networks of interdependence at multi-continental distances where these
multiple networks of interdependence, reliance and coordination between two or more
parties, at multi-continental distances, allow for the world to metaphorically shrink and
become closer together as there is more interaction and knowledge shared between
people across the world (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 4-7). A similar definition is from
Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who describes globalization as “the
closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought
about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication, and the
October18 BrookeBaldwin 22/148
breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge,
and (to a lesser extent) people across borders,” (Stiglitz, 2002, p. 9).
While, geographers Gibson-Graham’s define globalization as, “a set of
processes by which the world is rapidly being integrated into one economic space via
increased international trade, the internationalization of production and financial
markets, the internationalization of a commodity culture promoted by an increasingly
networked global telecommunications system” (Gibson & Graham, 2006, p.120). From
a political science perspective, Robert Gilpin defines globalization as “increasing
interdependence of national economies in trade, finance, and macroeconomic policy,”
(Gilpin, 1987, p.389). Globalization scholar Guillen (2001) defines globalization as “a
process leading to greater interdependence and mutual awareness (reflexivity) among
economic, political, and social units in the world, and among actors in general- the term
also appears linked to cross-border advocacy networks and organizations defending
human rights, the environment, women’s rights or world peace,” (Guillen, 2001, p.
236).
Although these definitions differ in their focus, they reinforce key aspects
highlighted in the concept of globalization such as interdependence, velocity, the
shrinkage of space and interconnectedness and emphasize the varying dimensions of
globalization. The main dimensions that will be discussed below are economic
globalization, social and cultural globalization and environmental globalization. These
various dimensions exist within globalization because one global interaction has effects
on other aspects of the world, whether intentionally or not. Below we will discuss how
these dimensions overlap, relate, and to some extent enhance each other as globalization
continues to increase.
3.1.3 Dimensions of Globalization The concept and definitions of globalization have been presented in the previous
sections. This section is dedicated to presenting the various dimensions of globalization,
which include; economic globalization, environmental globalization and social &
cultural globalization. Before introducing the dimensions, it must be mentioned that
globalization effects advanced economies and developing economies differently in two
ways (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxv). For one, advanced economies like the US have been able
to set the game of globalization, while developing countries have been forced to choose
October18 BrookeBaldwin 23/148
between either agreeing to those terms or being ostracized, excommunicated (Stiglitz,
2017, p. xxv). Secondly, advanced economies possess the resources and capabilities
they need to ensure that almost all within their borders benefit. In contrast, developing
economies typically have less capacity to raise taxes and generate revenues necessary to
compensate those hurt by globalization (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxv).
Economic globalization introduces the various activities and parties involved in
the globalization process. The economic globalization section will be the largest and
apart from explaining the various aspects of economic globalization, which include;
trade, foreign direct investment, and short-term capital flows, it will also introduce the
influence of MNCs in the globalization process. Following the economic aspect of
globalization, the environmental and social & cultural aspects will be explained to
illustrate how all the aspects correlate and influence one another to form the
globalization process. Current events such as Brexit, the Global Refugee Crisis, and
recent ITAs are discussed to provide examples on how the activities of globalization
have a global cause and effect relationship with SD issues. After the three main
dimensions of globalization have thoroughly been explained, some new dimensions
characterizing our current state of globalization according economist and Nobel Prize
Winner Josef Stiglitz will be discussed to exemplify the current course of globalization
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 38-50). A summary on the topics of globalization (i.e. concept,
definition, & dimensions) will be presented at the end of the section to summarize how
global activities have an economic, environmental, and social & cultural effect on the
world.
3.1.3.1. Economic Globalization Economic globalism refers to the flow of goods, services, and capital across
long distances and involves the organization of the processes that link these flows
(Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 4). A more specific definition of economic globalization is
from Bhagwati who defines it as, the “integration of national economies into the
international economy through trade, FDI, short-term capital flows, international flows
of workers and humanity generally, and flows of technology,” (Bhagwati, 2004, p. 439).
Stiglitz’s five dimensions of globalization align with Bhagwati’s definition, and are
trade, foreign direct investment, short-term capital flows, knowledge and movement of
labor (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 469). The economic dimension of globalization is the most
October18 BrookeBaldwin 24/148
complex dimension of globalization, as it has many aspects, forms and implications.
Hence this section will be dedicated to explaining the economic dimension of
globalization and will focus on trade, investment and short-term capital. Stiglitz’s last
two dimensions; knowledge and the movement of labor, will be included in the cultural
and social dimension of globalization discussed in the next sections.
3.1.3.1.a. Trade
One of the first forms of global exchange between nations has been through
trade; such exchanges date back to around 100BCE when the Silk Road was a main
trans-Eurasian network for the exchange of goods and materials between the East and
the West (Andrea, 2014, p. 105). While merchants traveled the Silk Road for business,
they were also able to exchange cultures and ideas between people from other parts of
the world and were able to introduce foreign goods and materials back to their local
cultures. Since the Silk Road, trade has evolved into much more than the exchange of
goods between merchants but is now done on a larger scale involving countries and
corporations.
A change in the perceived value of trade became apparent in the 16th-18th
century when a popular and dominant ideology began to form: the theory of
mercantilism, which argues, “a nation’s prosperity depended on the amount of capital it
accumulated,” (Gopinath, 2008, p. 28). Mercantilism supports a positive balance of
trade, with the goal being for exports to exceed imports in order for a nation to make a
profit (Gopinath, 2008, p. 28). Policies followed in order to support this theory, and
created monopolies in trade to allow close control. By the 19th century another
revolutionary change took place in international trade when Britain initiated the notion
of free trade with the abolishment of the Corn Laws in 1846 (Rodrik, 2010, p. 23;
Glasner & Cooley, 1997). This led to the formation of the first bilateral free trade
agreement in 1860 the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, an agreement between the United
Kingdom and France. Soon after “the first truly international crisis,” the Panic of 1873,
struck and left citizens skeptical and apprehensive about international relations and
trade (Glasner & Cooley, 1997). Bilateral trade agreements persisted, while multilateral
trade halted being perceived as risky. To tackle this problem, at the turn of the 21st
century yet another groundbreaking event took place in the history of trade with the
October18 BrookeBaldwin 25/148
formation of IGOs for the purpose of monitoring and controlling multilateral trade
agreements between participating parties (Gopinath, 2008, p. 28).
This brief history of trade illustrates the complexities of trade and how the
exchange of foreign goods has both social and economic implications for a country.
Below the complexities and implications of trade in today’s globalized world will be
discussed, starting with the economics of trade. Following the economics of trade, some
of the most controversial topics surrounding trade will be explained and two current
examples of ITAs will be discussed to illustrate the effects that ITAs have on
participating parties.
3.1.3.1.a.i. The Economics of Trade
Trade refers to the imports and exports of each nation’s goods and services, and
follows the standard theory of trade, which argues that countries benefit from removing
their own barriers to trade, even if the countries with which they trade do not remove
their own barriers (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 470). Under the theory of comparative advantage,
created by David Ricardo in the 19th century, each country can produce more of what it
can produce cheaply and effectively compared to another country (Rodrik, 2010, p. 23).
In effect this allows each country to focus on what they are best at and to sell beyond
their domestic borders into the global market (Stiglitz, 2017, p.31). Additionally, the
standard theory of comparative advantage argues that by eliminating trade barriers,
resources will move from low productivity uses to high productivity uses and results in
an increase in GDP (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 472). This resulted in the governments of the
world’s major economies to significantly reduce the restrictions they had placed on
trade in the form of tariffs and explicit prohibitions (Rodrik, 2010, p. 22). However,
“depending on where a country stands in the world economy and how trade policies
align with its social and political cleavages, free trade can be a progressive or a
regressive force,” (Rodrik, 2010, p. 25).
Increased Competition
From an economic perspective, free trade opens up the markets to foreign
suppliers and in turn increases competition. This competition is beneficial because
without it, domestic companies could form monopolies or oligopolies increasing their
October18 BrookeBaldwin 26/148
power and control over the market prices and product offerings (Choudhri & Hakura,
2000, p. 30; Irwin, 2008). Additionally, increased import competition can result in
medium-growth manufacturing sectors to enhance their overall productivity growth
(Choudhri & Hakura, 2000, p. 30). Additionally, free trade can lead to increased
efficiency through greater competition, and allows firms to produce in economies of
scale since they can then sell in larger markets (Irwin, 2008). Having more players,
playing in bigger markets exposes countries to other countries’ techniques and
technology, and trade disseminates this knowledge across the entire market (Irwin,
2008). In turn this greater awareness and transparency in the global market, provides
firms with a greater incentive to invest in R&D activities and to copy and improve their
competitor’s techniques leading to greater innovation in the market (Irwin, 2008).
Additionally, research has shown that developing countries, which join ITAs, are more
likely to attract FDI and hence increase their economic growth (Büthe & Milner, 2008,
p. 741). As more countries became interested in attaining these benefits and ITAs
became more complex, it became clear that a monitoring system must be put in place.
This monitoring system is the WTO (WTO), which today consists of 164 member
countries. ITAs facilitate the removal of trade barriers and are set in place to monitor
the goods coming in and out of a country and provide a legally binding agreement on
these terms (Irwin, 2008). In doing so, ITAs permit a more stable and transparent
trading and investment environment (WTO, 2017).
Unemployment
However, increased competition also has economic and social implications as
more imports may lead to less production in the home country and therefore a loss of
jobs (Irwin, 2008). Under standard theory, opening up trade to cheap imports would
result in the loss of jobs in the import-competing sectors but would create new better
paying jobs in the export sectors (Stiglitz, 2017, p.7). Stiglitz argues that often old jobs
in the protected industries are eliminated before new jobs are created, resulting in
resources moving from low productivity uses to zero productivity uses rather than from
high productivity uses to low productivity uses; as standard comparative theory implies
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 7). As a result there is an increase in poverty and a decrease in GDP.
Hence, job creation is the core of growth and poverty reduction and globalization may
hinder job creation if it continues to be managed as it has (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 473).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 27/148
In his 2017 article, Stiglitz comments on the debate of job creation arising
through trade agreements, “contrary to what our politicians assert, trade agreements are
not about creating jobs,” (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 7). It is the responsibility of a country’s
monetary and fiscal policy to keep the economy at full employment, not that of trade
policy (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 7). The result of a scarce job market is therefore caused by an
ineffective monetary policy or the political constrains facing fiscal policy. Therefore,
mismanaged globalization is more likely to result in job loss when there is already an
unemployment problem present (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 8). For instance Stiglitz (2017) argues
that, areas of the country that are producing products in competition with Chinese
imports, like the US, are experiencing lower wages and greater levels of unemployment
as a result of free trade (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 6). Stiglitz (2017) states that the effects of
globalization are real, as he explains that the flood of imports is directly responsible for
destroying jobs and affecting others in the community as a result of the drop in prices in
the housing market and the decrease in demand for non-traded goods (Stiglitz, 2017, p.
6).
Therefore trade is no longer just the exchange of products and services between
countries but also affects the employment rate of a country, the income of a country, the
competition in the global market, the growth of a country and the innovation and
knowledge in the global market (Büthe & Milner, 2008, p. 741; Rodrik, 2010, p. 22;
Stiglitz, 2017, p. 7; Irwin, 200; Meyer, 2008). Discussing some of the most
controversial topics around ITAs today will illustrate the impact that international trade
has on the world. Additionally this section will introduce the increasing power of MNCs
in today’s globalized world, as the issues included in ITAs have been expanding their
scope.
3.1.3.1.a.ii. Controversial Topics of ITAs
Historically, there is much controversy around trade agreements as there are
many controllable and uncontrollable factors at play when two or more countries enter
into an agreement and increase their relations. Free trade agreements in general aim to
create fair and equal conditions for businesses competing across free trade zones- but
this requires participating nations to adapt their regulatory requirements to the jointly
agreed standards that can’t and don’t please all parties (Meyer, 2017). Studies have
October18 BrookeBaldwin 28/148
shown that countries open to international trade experience rapid income growth in
comparison to those that are closed to trade (Büthe & Milner, 2008, p. 741; Irwin,
2008). However due to the loss of sovereignty and the consequences of competition and
unemployment there are four broad areas of controversy revolving around ITAs:
consumer protection, environmental and social responsibility, shifting bargaining power
between MNEs and host countries, and IPR (Meyer, 2017).
Consumer Protection
Free trade agreements require the parties involved to negotiate and compromise
on jointly agreed upon standards. Issues around trade and consumer protection deal with
the standard of food, products and services that a country has implemented to protect its
consumers. Not all countries have equal standards (ex. US permits genetically modified
foods (GMOs) and hormone treated beef), and different societies have different views
and priorities shaping their domestic regulations (Winters, 2014; Meyer, 2017).
Environmental and Social Responsibility
Similar to the issues of consumer protection, labor standards and environmental
protection standards vary by country, especially between developed and developing
countries. The gap between developed and developing countries’ labor standards and
environmental protection makes it challenging to decide which country’s standards to
use when goods are being produced for export (Meyer, 2017). On the one hand, if the
standards of developed countries are used then developing countries may not easily
accept decisions made outside of their borders. On the other hand, if the standards of
developing nations are used, then the developed countries will argue that these
standards will reduce their competitive advantage, which they have attained by holding
their producers to higher and more expensive standards (Meyer, 2017). Additionally,
trade permits the transfer of technology between nations, and to developing countries,
which allows wage rates to rise (Rodrik, 2010, p. 22). This rise in income makes cleaner
production technologies more affordable for developing countries and improves the
environmental standards in that country (Irwin, 2008).
There has also been pressure to include labor and environmental standards to
trade agreements to improve working conditions and prevent environmental damage
(Meyer, 2017; Irwin, 2008). Some believe that having unrestricted trade will result in a
“race to the bottom” in labor and environmental standards because it will allow
October18 BrookeBaldwin 29/148
multinationals to search the globe to find where they can cut costs on labor and
environmental standards (Irwin, 2008, Crotty et al., 1998, p. 1). Irwin (2008) argues that
labor unions and environmentalists in rich countries are the strongest supporters of
implementing labor and environmental standards into trade agreements, but if these
standards were implemented it could become an excuse for ‘rich-country
protectionism’; as a result, workers in poor countries could be harmed because they are
not able to meet the standards and unable to join in trading activities (Irwin, 2008).
Shifting Bargaining Power Between MNEs and Host Countries
Developing countries may argue that imposing higher and more expensive
standards will make them less competitive by shifting bargaining power between MNE
and host governments. Generally, FDI by MNCs has grown rapidly over the recent
decades (Büthe &Milner, 2008, p. 741; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37). Additionally, ITAs have
been expanding their scope in other ways leading to the increasing power of MNCs in
international trade relations:
“FTAs often include international investment agreements (IIA) which empower
MNEs to take legal action – in international arbitrage councils – against nation states.
While it is true that this shift is not entirely a result of globalization, there is no denying
that countries' voters and those they elected to represent them have lost some of their
ability to shape the rules by which people live in their country,” (Meyer, 2017).
Investment agreements are agreements between countries stating how investors
from abroad should be treated and effectively encourage corporations to invest abroad
(Sitglitz, 2017, p. 37). ITAs and preferential trade agreements provide mechanisms for
making commitments to foreign investments about the treatment of their assets, thereby
reassuring investors and increasing investment (Büthe & Milner, 2008, p. 741).
Therefore the more powerful multinational enterprises become, the more they can
influence the governments of countries in which they do business (Meyer, 2017;
Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37). The WTO and other large agreements like NAFTA have also
received much criticism from ant-globalization protesters, who argue that they only
support the interests of multinational corporations and not the workers (Irwin, 2008;
Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37). Investment agreements are one of the new discontents of
globalization today, Stiglitz argues that they, “are really an attempt by corporations to
write the rules of the economic game in their favor through trade agreements negotiated
October18 BrookeBaldwin 30/148
behind closed doors, with corporate interests at the table, in ways that would not pass
muster in an ordinary legislative process,” (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37).
IPR
Lastly, regulations on IPR are also increasingly being included in trade
agreements between countries, two recent examples are RCEP and TTP. The free
movement of ideas, also known as intellectual property rights (IPR), has become a
growing debate in the field of globalization as they have become more important due to
our knowledge-based economy (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 41). Stiglitz (2017) claims that IPR
has been included in trade agreements because these agreements give the governments
in advanced countries control and allow them to impose trade sanctions (Stiglitz, 2017,
p. 41). Typically, the advanced countries like the US possess the most valuable IPR in
the world- meaning that the low-middle-income countries are paying royalties to the
high-income countries for the use of their IPR (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 41). Lastly, the scope
of international transactions flowing in and out of countries has widened over the past
decades making it difficult to assess the implications these transactions may have on a
country’s national security (Meyer, 2017). Having no clear-cut and defined rules agreed
upon internationally makes it even more difficult to assess the risks involved (Meyer,
2017).
3.1.3.1.a.iii. Recent Controversial ITAs
Ex) TTP: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was under discussion between
the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada,
Mexico, Chile and Peru. Together these countries make up 40% of the global trade. TTP
is still under negotiation but currently excludes the US from the agreement as of
Trump’s withdrawal in 2016. However, TPP also came with disadvantages that have
caused controversy. For one, it included an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). An
ISDS allows foreign-owned private firms to seek settlement against governments for
actions infringing the agreement, which some argue allow capitalists to take advantage
(Tucker, 2016). Another issue was the fact that TPP excluded China from the
partnership. In consequence, China has continued to form its own trading blocks with
other countries allowing it to increase its power and control. TPP also aimed to extend
October18 BrookeBaldwin 31/148
restrictive intellectual property laws across the globe, which caused concern for the
protection of each country’s patents and copyrights (Tucker, 2016).
US’ President Trump stated five reasons why he withdrew the US from the TPP
agreement (Blackwill, 2017). First, Trump stated that he is no longer interested in
entering into multilateral trade agreements because unlike multilateral trade agreements,
bilateral trade negotiations promote US industry, protect US workers, and increase US
wages. Second, he argued that it would have economic consequences for the US as it
would give away US jobs and part of the US’s wealth and income. Third, he stated it
would enable competitors to ship cheap subsidized goods into the US increasing
competition. Fourth, he claimed that entering into TPP would lead to an attack on US
business. Lastly, Trump remarked how TPP was designed for China to enter the
agreement and take advantage of the market. The US has been refraining from entering
into multilateral trade agreements with China, who has become one of the most
powerful global leaders in international trade and investment over the last half decade
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 374; Blackwill, 2017).
After Trump’s withdrawal, the negotiations for RCEP commenced in 2013 and
included topics on trade in goods and services, investment, economic and technical
cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement, e-commerce, and
SMEs amongst others (ASEAN, 2016). Together the parties of RCEP (incl. China)
account for almost half of the world’s population (3,536.6 million), make up about 30%
of the global GDP ($23.8 trillion) and control over a quarter of the world exports (AG-
DFAT, 2017).
Ex) TTIP: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a
trade and investment deal that was under negotiation between the European Union and
the United States till 2016 when it was stopped. Specifically in relation to the EU, TTIP
would allow the EU to have a greater influence on world trade rules, and to project their
values globally (EU, 2015). From the perspective of the US, TTIP would essentially
reinforce the US’s TPP agreement by ensuring no one could globally oppose it, and
would offer the US a chance to enter into some of the EU’s more sensitive markets such
as the food industry (Winters, 2014). The EU has much tighter restrictions on its food
and agriculture production than the US, and TTIP would have allowed the US to export
its produce, which includes GMOs and growth hormones (Winters, 2014). The differing
standards in health, safety and environment between the EU and the US made some feel
October18 BrookeBaldwin 32/148
that TTIP would circumvent the democratic process by combining the standards of the
two nations. This could result in loss of competitive advantage for the EU and
sovereignty. One EU politician stated:
“No EU trade agreement will ever lower our level of protection of consumers, or
food and safety, or of the environment. Trade agreements will not change our laws on
GMOs, or how to produce safe beef, or how to protect the environment,”
Cilcia Malström (EU commissioner for trade)
3.1.3.1.b. Investment
When a company decides to expand its reach beyond its borders and go
international, there are two common modes of entry, either through trade (exports) or
local production (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 49). In the case of exports,
companies can choose between exporting finished goods or the export of components,
also known as outsourcing. Outsourcing, another popular activity for MNCs, has also
been a large source in the increase of transportation across the globe and the increase in
competition in developing countries. Outsourcing, or offshoring, deals with the flow of
money across countries and job creation (Gopinath, 2008, p. 134). In the case of local
production, companies can decide between Greenfield acquisition or cross-border
acquisition (M&As) both of which provide sources of FDI into the host country. Below,
FDI will be discussed in greater detail.
3.1.3.1.b.i. Foreign Direct Investment
Both trade and FDI are often seen as important catalysts for economic growth in
developing countries (Makki & Somwru, 2004, p. 795). Foreign direct investment deals
with the flow of capital between countries in the form of portfolio investment or foreign
direct investment (i.e. M&As and Greenfield investments). FDI is becoming an
increasingly important aspect of globalization because it allows large amounts of money
to flow between developed and developing countries (Büthe & Milner, 2008, p. 741;
Makki & Somwaru, 2004, p. 795). FDI inflows bring in resources, technological
transfers, knowledge spillovers, access to markets, valuable training and improvements
in human capital; all of which are beneficial to the ‘host’ country (Makki & Somwaru,
2004, p. 795; Stiglitz, 2000, p. 1076). Greenfield acquisitions involve a parent company
building its operations in a foreign country and hence offers the company freedom to
October18 BrookeBaldwin 33/148
impose its own management policies, culture and modes of operations in its new
subsidiary (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 49). Since Greenfield acquisitions entail
building a new production site abroad, they are a slower mode of entry into foreign
markets compared to M&As. Some countries, such as China, have joint-venture laws
requiring foreign firms to partner with them rather than fully controlling their own
business (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 49). Additionally, a new production facility
can result in more intense local competition caused by the addition of new production
capacity (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p. 49). Cross-border acquisitions, M&As, differ
from Greenfield investments as they involve the purchase and or merging of a foreign
business for the purpose of production. Since M&As entail the collaboration or
ownership of a foreign firm in a new company, they can pose a much tougher challenge
to cultural transformation and post-merger integration (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Gopinath,
2008, p. 132).
Hence, when choosing a mode of entry it is essential to assess the local market
and competition. Countries in the emerging or high growth phase (such as China and
India a decade ago) are more attractive to corporations since they have low capacity and
low competition in comparison to developed countries (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000, p.
50). In his 2008 book, Gopinath claimed that there was an increasing trend among firms
to undertake cross-border M&As, particularly with developed countries. He noted that
Greenfield investments were becoming commonly undertaken in developing countries.
Trade liberalization, regional integration efforts and developments in capital markets
have allowed for massive international expansions through M&As (Gopinath, 2008, p.
132). Over the past five years, there has been an enormous increase in FDI transactions,
particularly M&As, and large shifts in the dynamics of the market (Büthe & Milner,
2004, p. 795). For instance in 2014 the UN Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2015, revealed that China had become the
world’s largest recipient of FDI with inflows reaching $129 billion U.S. dollars
(UNCTAD, 2015, p. 41). Three years later and China has become one of the world’s
largest providers of FDI; from 2015 to 2016, Chinese investments through M&As into
the US went from around $15bn to $45.6bn (White Case, 2017, p. 5). Many attribute
China’s success to the knowledge spillovers that accompany incoming FDI (Stiglitz,
2017, p. 11).
Gopinath (2008) argues that FDI through M&As suggest a need to quickly
expand and access new markets and resources rather than developing those markets,
October18 BrookeBaldwin 34/148
which is problematic because it allows for oligopolies to form (Gopinath, 2008, p. 132).
As oligopolies continue to form in the global market, it will become problematic for
policymakers since oligopolies increase competition, reduce the choice available to the
consumer, and increase the negotiation power of the firm (Gopinath, 2008, p. 132).
Gopinath emphasizes the challenges facing policy coordination amongst countries:
“While having a coordinated business policy across countries on antitrust would be
helpful for businesses planning their growth, it would restrict a country’s ability to
pursue an independent policy to suit national objectives,” (Gopinath, 2008, p. 133).
3.1.3.1.c. Short-term capital flows
According to Stiglitz, short-term capital flows refer to the freer flow of short-
term capital around the world; in other words, capital market liberalization The result of
capital market liberalization is the dismantling of barriers between nations, and is in the
eyes of Stiglitz the most controversial aspect of globalization (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 473).
When short-term capital flows into a country it appreciates the country’s exchange rate,
and can make it difficult for its export business to compete and for many businesses to
compete against cheaper imports (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 34). Bhagwati (2011) points out that
the freer flow of capital puts nation-states at serious risk of experiencing massive,
panic-fed outflows of short-term capital that would crash their economy, unless
monitoring and regulatory mechanisms and bank reforms are put in place (Bhagwati,
2011). Stiglitz (2000) argues that capital market liberalization produces instability and
not growth. In their paper Rasiah et al. (2015) argue that selective interventions in the
liberalization of markets are necessary in order to ensure that these processes can open
the path to the ‘high road to industrialization’ (Rasiah et al., 2015, p. 2). The authors
claim that the processes of globalization and industrialization have had a large impact
on the labor markets in Asia (Rasiah et al., 2015, p. 2).
Industrialization is considered to drive its own growth and that of other sectors,
to stimulate structural change from low value-added activities to high value-added
activities resulting in differentiation and division of labor, which in turn generates
employment growth (Rasiah et al., 2015, p. 2). Although industrialization may not
engender rapid economic development in poor countries, it still remains an important
route for other countries since it entails increasing returns characteristics (Rasiah et al.,
2015, p. 5). The research of Rasiah et al. (2015) has shown that sustained expansion in
October18 BrookeBaldwin 35/148
productivity and wages has been a driver in the path to high-road industrialization, and a
lack of similar policies has hindered their ability to ensure sustained productivity
growth and structural change towards higher value-added activities preventing
improvements in the material conditions (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 34).
3.1.3.1.d. The Increasing Role of MNCs in the Global Economy
The economic dimension of globalization has demonstrated the increasing role
of MNCs in the global economy. MNCs have become an increasingly important force in
the dynamics of the global economy. In his 2017 book, Stiglitz claims that the influence
and power of MNCs over the past 15 years is largely to blame for the failure of
globalization (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39). Over the past decade, we have seen more and more
corporations entering into the global market place and selling products to international
customers (Büthe & Milner, 2004 p. 795). Some of the largest global companies today
like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Apple have not just appeared in foreign markets but
have positioned themselves to appeal to foreign markets. However, unlike individuals
and countries MNCs are primarily focused on expansion and capital gain, which has
become problematic in today’s globalized world (Brondoni, 2014, p.13; Stiglitz, 2017,
p. 39).
In 1998, Crotty et al. (1998) identified five views on the likely effects MNCs
will have on the trajectory of the world. The first is the “race to the bottom” which
implies that capital will increasingly be able to play workers, communities, and nations
against one another as they demand tax, regulation, and wage concessions while
threatening to move and the increased mobility of MNCs benefit capital while workers
and communities lose; the result will be winners including highly educated and skilled
workers or those with particular MNC rent-appropriating professions and losers which
include unskilled workers and the unemployed (Crotty et al., 1998, p. 1). The “climb to
the top” is the second view and suggests that MNCs are attracted less by low wages and
taxes than by highly educated workers, good infrastructure, high levels of demand and
agglomeration effects arising from the existence of other companies that have already
located to a particular place (Crotty et al., 1998, p. 2). According to the climb to the top
view, competition among states for FDI will lead countries in the North and South to
provide well educated labor and high-quality infrastructure to retain and attract FDI.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 36/148
The third is the view of “neo-liberal convergence” which was a widely held
mainstream claim at the turn of the century that the freer mobility of MNCs, in the
context of deregulation and free trade, will produce increased living standards in all
countries (Crotty et al., 1998, p. 2). Under this view, the mobility of MNCs will allow
for capital and technology transfers abroad, increasing the standards of the poor quicker
than the wealthy resulting in a worldwide convergence in living standards (Crotty et al.,
1998, p. 2). The fourth view, “uneven development” results in the growth of one region
of the world at the expense of another and is similar to the theory of imperialism- if the
South integrated itself with the North, the North would grow at the expense of the South
(Crotty et al., 1998, p. 2). Lastly, and contrastingly the “much a do about nothing view”
implies that FDI and MNCs play a rather modest role in generating negative outcomes,
such as increases in inequality, unemployment and wage stagnation (Crotty et al., 1998,
p. 2).
The impact of MNCs on developed and developing countries in relation to FDI
is a debated topic. Some argue that MNCs provide more stable capital inflows, jobs,
technology transfer and investment to ‘host countries’ in addition to increasing growth
and employment in the ‘home’ country. While others argue that international capital
mobility in general and MNCs are creating a race to the bottom- “enhancing profits and
political power for MNCs and local elites who benefit from their presence, while
eroding wages, tax bases, social protections and the environment” (Gopinath, 2008, p.
105; Crotty et al., 1998, p. 1). Brondoni’s (2014) four periods of corporate globalization
explain how corporations have been evolving in a globalized world.
3.1.3.1.d.i. The Development of Corporate Globalization
Brondoni (2014) defines corporate globalization as the increased technological,
economic and cultural interconnectedness between global organizations (Brondoni,
2014, p. 10). This interconnectedness entails the exchange of labor forces, R&D,
knowledge, products and services. Brodoni (2014) claims that from 1980-2015 the
largest worldwide corporations made an extraordinary socio-economic and
technological development resulting in international growth and an increase in living
standards like never before (Brondoni, 2014, p. 13). “From a corporate point of view,
globalization cannot be indeed examined as a bulk process, but it requests a deeper
analysis, recognizing the key-elements of each period linked to the evolution of global
October18 BrookeBaldwin 37/148
competition,” (Brondoni, 2014, p. 14). Therefore Brondoni has categorized four
periods of corporate globalization between 1980-2020, which explains the shift in the
firm’s global investment strategies: product globalization, firm globalization, financial
globalization, network globalization.
1. Product globalization (1980-1990);
At this time large corporations made large transformations in their corporate
governance, R&D activities, production operations, and marketing policies. Sectors at
the heart of product globalization were: brand-name consumer articles, tourism,
banking, insurance, informatics, telecommunications and electronic mass media, and
aircraft production (Brondoni, 2014, p. 15). American and European firms massively
utilized M&As with the goal of creating large global firms to succeed the competition
or expand their international operations. To obtain a worldwide primacy for their offers,
corporations shifted their attention to global networks focused on specific financial
tasks to satisfy the shareholder view which demands that value creation is closely tied to
growth. Under the shareholder’s view (Karnani, 1999), growth is essential if economies
of scale in technology development, operations, capacity utilization, marketing,
distribution and network externalities are to be captured and due to the high competition
those that fail to quickly expand will experience a loss of competitive advantage in the
market (Brodoni, 2014, p. 15).
2. Firm globalization (1990-2000);
During the period of firm globalization, there was growing competition between
global networks. This competition revealed that the firm’s analytical skills at the global
level and its rapid decision making processes were the key to corporate success
(Brondoni, 2014, p. 16). Corporations were mainly focused on corporate profits during
this period and the global networks permitted new opportunities for the firm to make its
processes more efficient through ‘global outsourcing.’ Ultimately this allowed firms to
reduce production costs and produce a product anywhere in the world, allowing them to
access resources from anywhere, by a company located anywhere and allowed them sell
their products anywhere (Brondoni, 2014, p. 16; Naisbitt, 1994). The firm globalization
phase paired with an increasing importance in corporate governance, and hence there
October18 BrookeBaldwin 38/148
was a shift from the shareholder view to the stakeholder view (Huse et al., 2005) calling
for transparency and accountability of firms (Brondoni, 2014, p. 17).
3. Financial globalization (2000-2010);
While the US and some other Nation-States were able to maintain high
development of the financial economy (i.e. ‘paper economy’), there was an unbalance
between real development caused by many crises occurring over the past 15 years (i.e.
the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008). These crises changed the accumulation rules of
financial richness and increased the power of financial institutions on real economy
choices (Brondoni, 2014, p. 18). Transactions on the major securities and derivatives
markets were able to occur via phone or computer and major financial activities were
conduced in the world as a single place (Brondoni, 2014, p. 18). Profit and performance
objectives pushed firms to direct their marketing costs and R&D expenses towards
strategies of open innovation, which was able to detect, collect and interpret both strong
and weak signals of global business order to anticipate the tendencies of consumers and
the rivals (Brondoni, 2014, p. 18; Brondoni, 2012). This introduced the ‘corporate
view,’ where corporations tended to disclose ‘specific’ and ‘partial’ ‘information
guiding the public’s perception (Brondoni, 2014, p. 18; Brondoni, 2006). Hence, the
largest corporations as an ethical principle of orientation for all those required to
legitimize the content of economic communication reinterpreted the culture of
transparency during this period (Brondoni, 2014, p. 18; Mol, 2015, p. 154).
4. Network globalization (2010-2020).
The primacy of knowledge management, the worldwide localization of
production and the new policies of innovation and imitation have been modified in
opportunities for M&As, global competitive alliances and joint ventures during this
period (Brondoni, 2014, p. 19; Brondoni, 2012a). During this period, the fusion of
several industries involved a ‘mega-merger’ of corporate giants, which transformed the
competitive balance in these sectors. Globalizing capitalism, permitted by strategic
alliances and M&As brought about an increased concentration of ownership in power to
many areas of production (Brondoni, 2014, p. 19). These activities largely reflect Crotty
et al.’s (1998) “race to the bottom” view which implies that capital will increasingly be
October18 BrookeBaldwin 39/148
able to play workers, communities, and nations against one another as they demand tax,
regulation, and wage concessions while threatening to move and the increased mobility
of MNCs benefit capital while workers and communities lose (Crotty et al., 1998, p. 1).
The growth of these capital focused global networks has resulted in high corporate
competitiveness (Brondoni, 2014, p. 19). Castells (2010) has identified four sources of
competitiveness in the current global economy:
1. The technological capacity of a country or the articulation of science,
technology, management, and production
2. Access to large, integrated, affluent markets;
3. A profitable differential between production costs at the production site
and prices at the market of destination (incl. labor costs, land costs,
taxes, and environmental regulations)
4. The political capacity of national and supranational institutions to guide
the growth strategy of those countries or areas under their jurisdiction
(Castells, 2010, p. 103).
As a result, corporate competitiveness in global networks has led to: corporate
tasks of profit and growth with large expansion plans and the vision of a global
company, the development of hybrid sectors by the convergence of technologies, the
reorganization of distinctive competitive competence in search for broader boundaries
of scale economies (market-space management), and continuous changes to the
competitive base (Brondoni, 2014, p. 19). One of the most well-known
internationalization strategies, the Uppsala Model, has been updated three times since
1977 to keep up with the influence globalization and the growth of global networks has
had on the corporate environment. Johanson & Vahlne’s revisions of the Uppsala
Model second Brondoni’s description of ‘Network globalization.’ Originally in 1977
the Uppsala Model based internationalization on the experiential learning and
commitment building of a firm (Vahlne et al., 2011, p. 3).
In 2009 they updated the model to include sub-processes, most notable trust
building, opportunity identification and exploitation and placed their model in a
network context instead of a neoclassical type market because “now the business
environment is viewed as a web of relationships, a network, rather than as a neoclassical
market with many independent suppliers and customers,” (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009, p.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 40/148
1411; Vahlne et al., 2011, p. 3). A neoclassical type market is one which the firm
independently can control its own destiny (Vahlne et al., 2011, p. 3). Again in 2011, the
authors revised their model to emphasize the globalization process and defined
globalization as “an effort to optimize a business in terms of its configuration and
coordination systems,” (Vahlne et al., 2011, p. 1). These revisions emphasize the value
that networks have in the internationalization process and hence the incentive that firms
have to form these networks.
Therefore it can be said that, the past decade of globalization has largely
changed the global corporate environment and has resulted in a highly competitive and
capital focused market controlled by the powerful networks of MNCs (Castells, 2010, p.
103; Brondoni, 2014, p. 19). Crotty et al.’s (1998) ‘race to the bottom’ view claims that
such activities by MNCs will result in a division of winners and losers in the labor force
as education and skills gain value in the market, resulting in the unemployment of
unskilled workers (Crotty et al., 1998, p. 1), a current reality Stiglitz emphasizes in his
2017 Globalization and Its Discontents book. Therefore according to Brondoni’s (2014)
phases of corporate globalization and Crotty et al.’s (1998) definition, the effect that
MNCs have had on the trajectory of the world suggests the ‘race to the bottom’ view
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39).
3.1.3.1.d.ii. TBL Thinking
While business is a major source of global pollution as a result of harmful
manufacturing and production processes and global arbitrage, several authors argue that
because firms represent the productive resources of the economy, SD cannot be
achieved without the support of businesses (Bansal, 2002, p. 122; Hopewood et al.,
2005, p. 38). “We are embarking on a global cultural revolution. Business, much more
than governments or NGOs will be in the driving seat,” (Elkington, 1994, p. 2).
Business is often considered the root of the problem, but some believe that industry has
the potential to reverse the negative environmental trends by leading the world into the
‘next industrial revolution’ (Hawken et al., 1999; Senge & Carstedt, 2001, p. 24;
Braungart & McDonough, 2002). Elkington’s (2004) TBL focuses corporations on the
economic, environmental and social value that they add or destroy. He defined seven
sustainability revolutions, which will make the sustainable capitalism transition easier
October18 BrookeBaldwin 41/148
for businesses and people, these are: markets, values, transparency, life-cycle
technology, partnerships, time and corporate governance (Elkington, 2004, p. 3-6).
(1) The revolution of markets will be driven by competition of corporations; in
response businesses will operate in markets more open to competition,
domestically and internationally, resulting in economic earthquakes that will
change our world.
(2) The revolution of values driven by the worldwide shift in human and societal
values.
(3) The revolution of transparency will result with businesses having their
thinking, priorities, commitments and activities under intense worldwide
scrutiny.
(4) The revolution of life-cycle technology, which will result in a shift from
companies focusing on the acceptability of their products at the point of sale to
their performance.
(5) The revolution of partners will be the acceleration of new forms of
partnership between companies and between companies and other organizations.
(6) The revolution of time will be a profound shift in the way we understand and
manage time as the world becomes more interconnected.
(7) The revolution of corporate governance to build towards genuinely
sustainable capitalism.
Elkington (2004) argues that as companies start to be challenged by TBL
commitments and performance from stakeholders, businesses will shift to a new
approach using TBL thinking and accounting. Referring to Brondoni’s four periods of
corporate globalization, the world is still waiting for the seventh sustainability
revolution to complete Elkington’s (2004) cycle.
3.1.3.2. Environmental Globalization The economic dimension of globalization illustrated how the global flow of
goods, services, capital, knowledge and people around the world is increasing. As these
activities increase, so does the production and transportation of goods across multi-
continental distances. While science and technology have progressed and led to
innovations such as the Internet, planes, ships, and phones allowing the world to
October18 BrookeBaldwin 42/148
communicate and travel at a faster rate, they have also shed light on the harmful effects
that industrial and capitalistic activities have been having on our planet. Environmental
issues are tied to globalization and development, as poverty is a major cause and effect
of global environmental problems: As stated in Our Common Futures, “ecology and
economy are becoming ever more interwoven locally, regionally, nationally, and
globally into a seamless net of causes and effects,” (UN, 1987). Hence one of Keohane
& Nye’s (2007) forms of globalism is environmental globalism, which looks at the
harmful effects that the transportation of materials and biological substances across the
oceans and atmosphere are having on the well being of humankind (Keohane & Nye,
2007, p. 5).
One of the most fundamental aspects of environmental globalism is the concept
of environmental limits, which evolved already in1972 at the Stockholm Conference
where the Club of Rome released the concept of ‘Limits to Growth’ (Waisman et al.,
2014, p. 107; Meadows et al., 1972). The theme of ‘Limits to Growth,’ is that the earth
has limits, and exponential growth in population and industrialization are inevitable, and
make the urgency for change increasingly more vital (Meadows et al., 1972, p. 30). “If
the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food
production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this
planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years,” (Meadows et al.,
1972, p. 23). Over the next 30 years, it is expected that most of the world’s population
growth will occur in the urban areas of poor countries which makes the rapid,
unplanned and unsustainable styles of urban development, the key focal points for
emerging environmental and heath hazards (WHO, 2018).
According to WHO, environmental factors are a root cause of a significant
burden of death, disease and disability- particularly in developing countries (WHO,
2018). The main key areas of risk derive from: poor water quality, availability and
sanitation: vector borne diseases; poor ambient and indoor air quality; toxic substances;
and global environmental change (WHO, 2018). The most significant environmentally
related causes or conditions resulting in global deaths are: unsafe water; indoor smoke
from the use of solid fuels; malaria from poorly designed irrigation and water systems,
inadequate housing, poor waste disposal and water storage, deforestation and loss of
biodiversity; urban air pollution from vehicles, industries, and energy production;
traffic; lead exposure; climate change; and unintentional poisonings from inappropriate
use of toxic chemicals and pesticides (WHO, 2018). Hence, the health impacts of
October18 BrookeBaldwin 43/148
environmental risks are the worst amongst poor and vulnerable populations in
developing countries (WHO, 2018). Yet at the same time, the poor may be the most
dependent on natural resources as sources of livelihood and well-being, and thus the
most impacted by unsustainable exploitation and depletion of those resources (WHO,
2018; DFID, 2002; UNDP, 1998).
3.1.3.2.a.AirPollution
Many believe that the increased combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for the
change in the composition of the atmosphere over the past centuries and that
anthropogenic activities are the major cause of environmental air pollution (Kampa &
Castanas, 2008, p. 362; Ritchie & Roser, 2018, WHO, 2018). According to the World
Health Organization (WHO) the major causes of air pollution derived from human
activity are:
• Fuel combustion from motor vehicles (e.g. cars and heavy duty vehicles)
• Heat and power generation (e.g. oil and coal power plants and boilers)
• Industrial facilities (e.g. manufacturing factories, mines, and oil
refineries)
• Municipal and agricultural waste sites and waste incineration/burning
• Residential cooking, heating, and lighting with polluting fuels
(WHO, 2018).
Air pollutants such as ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) have acute and chronic effects on
human health and can lead to premature mortality or reduced life expectancy (Kampa &
Castanas, 2008, p. 362; WHO, 2018). According to WHO, air pollution causes 1 in 9
deaths worldwide, 9 out of 10 people worldwide breath polluted air, 24% of all stroke
deaths are attributable to air pollution, 25% of heart disease deaths derive from air
pollution, 43% of all lung disease and lung cancer deaths are from air pollution, and
80% of urban residents live in areas exceeding WHO’s guideline levels (WHO, 2018).
Additionally, while most ambient emissions of air pollution derive from local or
regional sources, they can travel long distances across borders affecting those far away
from its original source (WHO, 2018). Therefore global cooperation is needed to
address international flows and sources of air pollution (WHO, 2018).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 44/148
3.1.3.2.b.DifferingStandards
In developed countries, federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the US, and the Europe Environment Agency (EEA) in the EU set
laws, standards, regulations and policies to limit environmental pollution, and generally
implement specific acts to fight specific environmental or health burdens. However,
developing countries, are still struggling with their basic fundamental needs such as
water, food, hygiene, energy, health and education do not have the structure, capital or
capacity to implement environmental, health or labor standards (OLPC, 2008). This has
become problematic in our globalized world, as the corporations of developed countries
have been able to move across the world and benefit from the low standards and
regulations of the developing countries (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; Beck, 2016, p. 309;
Castleman, 1985, p. 60). Consequently, while the higher standards and regulations in
developed countries may have limited pollution in the home countries, the pollution has
been pushed over to the developing countries (WHO, 2018; Beck, 2016, p. 309;
Ghemawat, 2003). Increased industrial and agricultural production has intensified poor
countries’ production and use of both newer and older chemicals, including some
chemicals, which have been banned in other countries (WHO, 2018). By 2020 it is
expected that nearly one third of the world’s chemical production will take place in non-
OECD countries (compared to one fifth in 1995), and this shift of chemical production
from non-affluent to poorer countries could increase the overall health and
environmental risks arising from the production and use of such chemicals (WHO,
2018).
Studies have shown that MNCs established in developed countries regularly
export hazardous factories to developing countries due to their lower regulatory
standards (Beck, 2016, p. 309; Castleman, 1985, p. 60). MNCs are the main producers
and suppliers of international products, and it is not only the pollution from
transportation which is causing environmental harm but also the production &
manufacturing processes of MNCs in addition to the mass consumption of natural
resources and exploitation of foreign environmental and labor standards (Stiglitz, 2017,
p. 16). Because the negative impacts of environmental degradation are more severe in
developing and emerging countries than developed countries, developing countries are
more inclined to consent to environmental degradation for increased prosperity and
living standards through the dirty industries; therefore trading environmental harm for
October18 BrookeBaldwin 45/148
social and economic benefit (Ahmed et al., 2017, p. 1142; Ertugrul et al., 2016, p. 543).
This results in greater environmental degradation in developing countries as MNCs take
advantage of the situation in developing countries (i.e. economic arbitrage) and allows
MNCs to circumvent their national standards and policies (Ghemawat, 2003).
3.1.3.2.c.GlobalWarming
Apart from the harmful effects of air pollution on human health, there is another
fundamental aspect of environmental pollution. This is CO2 emissions and other
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), which are having a significant impact on the
concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). “Rather, by
polluting the Earth’s atmosphere with GHG emissions through fossil fuel combustion,
deforestation and agricultural activities, emitting countries are degrading the world’s
climate system, a common resource shared by all biodiversity, including people,”
(Althor et al., 2016, p. 1). Today CO2 emissions are spread almost equally between
coal, oil and gas (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). Since the industrial revolution, energy-driven
consumption of fossil fuels has resulted in the rapid increase of CO2 emissions and has
disrupted the global carbon cycle leading to a planetary warming impact (Ritchie &
Roser, 2018). This is known as global warming, or climate change (Ritchie & Roser,
2018; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16). Consequently, global warming, leads to extreme weather
events (such as floods, droughts, storms and heat waves), sea-levels rising, altered crop
growth, and disrupted water systems (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). A loss of biodiversity can
have health consequences by increasing disease transmission in animal populations and
can result in the depletion of genetic resources available for future/food production and
medicinal development (WHO, 2018).
However, CO2 emissions are tied to economic growth and industrialization,
which is particularly problematic in developing countries (Waisman et al., 2014, p. 104;
Stewart, 2016, p. 68, Ritchie & Roser, 2018; Althor et al., 2016, p. 1). Consequently,
developing countries are the major CO2 emitting countries to date (Ertrugul et al., 2016,
p. 543). While many high income countries have been able to limit or stabilize their
CO2 emissions, the growth of CO2 emissions in low to middle income economies
dominates the global trend- resulting in a continuous increase in CO2 emissions despite
the changes made by high income countries (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). Therefore it
becomes challenging for developing countries to limit their CO2 emissions without
October18 BrookeBaldwin 46/148
harming their economic growth (Waisman et al., 2014, p. 104; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p.
543). This has led some to feel that the largest CO2 and GHG emitting countries are
‘free riders’ that are causing others to bear the burdens of climate change, and are not
incentivized to mitigate their own emissions (Althor et al., 2016, p. 4). Developing
countries suffer the most from the effects of environmental globalism, yet they are the
largest emitters of environmental pollution (WHO, 2018, Ritchie & Roser, 2018).
Consequently, there has been much discussion on the so called ‘poverty traps’ of
developing countries (Althor et al., 2016, p. 4; Kraay & McKenzie, 2014, p. 127).
‘Poverty traps’ describe a set of self-reinforcing mechanisms whereby poor countries
start poor and remain poor because poverty itself is a direct cause of poverty in the
future (Kraay & McKenzie, 2014, p. 127; Azariadis & Stachurski, 2005). However,
recent research has concluded that ‘poverty traps’ are a rare occurrence (Kraay &
McKenzie, 2014, p. 145).
Hence, overcoming the challenges of climate change and environmental
globalism will require the cooperation and coordination from both developed and
developing countries (Althor et al., 2016, p. 4; Ritchie & Roser, 2018). “The current
generation is the first to feel the anthropogenic effects of climate change,” (Althor et
al., 2016, p. 1; IPCC, 2014). In Australia a hole has formed in the earth’s ozone layer as
a result of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but due to the action that has been taken by
humanity to limit CFCs the hole has already shrank (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; NASA,
2018). Since the realization of global warming, there has been significant action taken at
the global and national levels to limit CO2 emissions, the most recent global initiative is
the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is considered a “historic agreement to
combat climate change and unleash actions and investment towards a low carbon,
resilient and sustainable future” (FCCC, 2015). In combination with the 2030 Agenda,
the UN Secretary General concluded that,
“We are the first generation that can end poverty, and the last one that can take
steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. With the adoption of a new
development agenda, SD goals and climate change agreement, we can set the world on
course for a better future.”
October18 BrookeBaldwin 47/148
3.1.3.3. Social and Cultural Globalization Although humanity is largely affected by environmental globalism, another
aspect of social capital is the culture and traditional values of a country. According to
Keohane & Nye, social and cultural globalism refers to the movement of ideas,
information, images, and people across long-distances (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 5).
Isomorphism, the imitation of a society’s practices and institutions by another, is an
important aspect of social globalism (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 5). Similar to Keohane
& Nye’s definition of social and cultural globalism, Srivastava & Khan define cultural
globalism as the transmission of ideas, meanings and values around the world by
extending and intensifying social relations (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 20). They state
that the process of cultural globalization is visible through the common consumption of
cultures diffused through the Internet, popular culture media and international travel
(Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 18). On the one hand, social and cultural globalism would
not be possible without the flow of goods, services and capital across the world, which
allow for the global exchange of cultures. On the other hand, the flow of goods, services
and capital across intercontinental distances would not have been possible without the
“openness” of a country and its culture, allowing new cultures to mix and integrate.
Coming back to Martell’s (2010) argument, that the effects of globalization cannot be
considered in the context of single dimensions as they all overlap, relate and influence
one another.
3.1.3.3.a.ClashofCultures
Several authors claim that globalization has a negative effect on culture
(Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 20; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Gopinath, 2008, p. 28).
Globalization often implies a new culture entering into a traditional culture resulting in
a clash of cultures. As a country’s identity is defined by its culture, this has an adverse
effect on the social capital of a country (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366). This could be due to the
isomorphism involved with social and cultural globalization. If social and cultural
globalism spreads ideas, information, images and people across long-distances, then
more local cultures are exposed to foreign cultures. The more local cultures adopt the
foreign cultures they are exposed to, isomorphism, the more diluted their culture
becomes. This is similar to what happened during the colonial era, where the powerful
October18 BrookeBaldwin 48/148
colonies overtook the weak and imposed their culture, political views, and structure on
the inhabitants of the weak colonized countries:
“Psychologically, the superior attitude of the colonist who viewed the local
culture and practices as inferior, local religions as barbaric, and local institutions as
inefficient not only created a new Westernized ruling class among the natives in the
country but also had a psychological impacting the local self esteem and sense of
identity,” (Gopinath, 2008, p. 28).
Culturally, the colonial era played a large role in the sharing of knowledge on
various topics including art, literature and lifestyle between the West and the East but it
also resulted in a loss of local culture and identity (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366). Unlike the
colonial era, foreign culture is not being forcefully imposed on new cultures but is
happening as a result of globalization; herein lays the criticism of globalization on
culture. Although it is not a direct effect of globalization, globalization increases the
interconnectedness between countries and in doing so exposes people to foreign
cultures. For instance, Indian culture has been largely exposed to western culture as a
result of interconnectedness (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 18). Technologies such as the
Internet, social networking sites, television and mobile phones have catalyzed this
interconnectedness prompted by globalization (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 18).
Technological development has stimulated globalization and sparked cultural change.
Globalization has prompted the expansion of shopping malls and MNCs such as Wal-
Mart, McDonalds, Dominos and the use of online shopping in countries such as India.
This has resulted in less demand for local markets and traditions due to the advantages
they comparably provide (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 20).
3.1.3.3.b.KnowledgeandMovementofLabor
Knowledge refers to the free flow of ideas, which due to advances of the New
Economy, has increased as the costs of communication have lowered and has allowed
for a closer integration of societies (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 469). Knowledge is the basis of a
firms competencies and this knowledge is increasingly created by and held within the
firm, moving with the firm wherever it operates (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 31). Therefore,
openness to FDI into a country allows for a firm’s knowledge to flow across borders.
When knowledge is transferred across borders, spillovers can occur and the host country
October18 BrookeBaldwin 49/148
can benefit from this inflow of knowledge (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 32). One current example
of knowledge spillovers as a result of inward FDI can be seen by China. In an attempt to
take advantage of China’s comparative advantage in labor-intensive manufacturing, the
US made a large and rapid shift in its production from the US to China over the recent
years (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 11). As a result of shifting its production to China, the US
allowed China to “marry” America’s advanced technology with cheap labor and in
doing so exposed China to its advanced technologies (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 11). In turn,
China gained a comparative advantage in manufacturing as they learned from the US
and started to develop their own technological capacities, at the same time they began to
see an increase in their income levels (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 12). This gain in comparative
advantage and wealth that China has attained from inward FDI has further global
implications, as China has shifted from the largest recipient of FDI to one of the world’s
largest providers of FDI over the past five years; the new role of China in the global
economy (White & Case, 2017).
Labor flows reflect the flow or movement of people around the world, in
relation to global economic efficiency (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 473). As some areas of the
world become more productive than others, the movement of labor follows. This can be
harmful and beneficial at the same time: while it can lead to an inflow of labor in certain
areas that are lacking a labor force, it can also result in an outflow of young and skilled
workers from countries who need this labor for its economic growth (Stiglitz, 2004, p.
473).
Stiglitz claims that immigration- the movement of people across borders- in both
Europe and the US is the most controversial aspect of globalization today, even more
than trade (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 43). Coming back to the concept of globalization, “global
interactions may be associated with a deepening enmeshment of the local and global
such that the impact of distant events is magnified while even the most local
developments may come to have enormous global consequences,” (Held et al., 1999, p.
15). This implies that due to globalization, local events can quickly form into global
events. Consequently, a natural disaster and/or political change for example in one
country today, is likely to be felt and have an effect outside of that country. For
instance, if a natural disaster or political change makes it more difficult or undesirable
for its citizens to remain in their country, they may evacuate their country and
immigrate to a new country resulting in an increase in population and flood of foreign
October18 BrookeBaldwin 50/148
culture in the new country. The Global Refugee Crisis starting in 2015 and BREXIT
2016 are two recent events, which illustrate the global implications of labor flows.
3.1.3.3.c.RecentControversialEvents
The Global Refugee Crisis
In 2011 a civil war in Syria resulted in a huge outflow of immigrants into
Europe in 2015 leading to the global Refugee Crisis. This mass inflow of asylum
seekers and refugees had a considerable strain on public authorities in several Member
States, and even had effects in the US. The European Commission’s assessment of the
Refugee Crisis summarizes the implications of this labor flow:
“While heterogeneous as a group, many asylum seekers are relatively young, the
vast majority is of working age, and increasingly more people come from countries
considered unsafe. Based on the information available, the number of asylum seekers in
the EU more than doubled between 2014 and 2015 to reach about 1.26 million persons.
Given that around 70 % of asylum seekers are of working age (between 18 and 64 years
old), compared to 63 % in the EU’s population in 2014, their arrival has somewhat
altered the age distribution in the countries most concerned. More individuals are
coming from countries deemed by EU Member States to be ‘unsafe’, such as Syria. As a
result there has been an increase in the share of applicants recognized as refugees (in
2015 the first instance recognition rate was 52 % compared to 46 % in 2014). Evidence
from some recent studies suggests an average education level of asylum seekers below
that of natives, with a relatively large share of low-skilled, and the educational
attainment of the population in the country of citizenship of the asylum seeker seems to
be lower than in the EU Member States,” (EC, 2016, p. 3).
Brexit
As of March 29th 2017 the UK government will begin to formally withdraw its
membership of the EU. Since the formation of the EU in 1958, Britain is the first
member state to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which states the intention to
withdraw from the union and gives both parties two years to agree to the terms of the
October18 BrookeBaldwin 51/148
split. One of the strongest drivers of this was the UK’s desire to exit the Single Market,
which had permitted large labor flows across borders and a loss of national sovereignty.
The Single Market of the EU endorsed a truly free market, which increased market
competition and created winners and losers now that the countries could “compete”
against each other for labor and services (Matthijs, 2017). Since the wealth and
standards in all EU member states are not the same, poorer countries are able to offer
lower prices with their cheaper wages and living standards than the richer countries can,
resulting in an imbalance. This imbalance in wages and income between the Member
States also resulted in a mass influx of citizens from the poorer EU countries like
Poland and Hungary to the richer EU countries like Germany and the UK. Over a
million Poles have migrated to the UK and other western European countries since its
membership of the EU in 2004 (ADU, 2017). In turn this led to further issues and
concerns with the single market since it has no mechanisms in place to handle such
sudden influxes of people and left national governments unable to control their own
economies in such dire times (Matthijs, 2017).
3.1.3.4. New Dimensions Stiglitz (2017) has added a new dimension of globalization in his new book; this
is the fiscal paradises and tax competition dimension of globalization. According to
Stiglitz (2017), globalization has expanded opportunities for tax avoidance and made
tax evasion easier. Globalization has enabled companies to relocate their production or
intellectual property (if it’s claimed that it makes majority of the firms profits) to a low-
taxed jurisdiction, while still selling their goods globally, “with so much freedom to
locate production and to decide where the local of profits would be, tax competition and
the race to the bottom become even worse,” (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39).
Stiglitz defines fiscal paradises as places where individuals or corporations can
avoid or evade taxes, which are increasingly popping up around the globe; some of the
most famous include Luxembourg and Ireland (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 38). These fiscal
paradises provide corporations or individuals with a loophole to avoid taxes and often
remain in secrecy until there are leaks such as the Panama papers and the Luxleaks. One
of the most shocking incidents of globalization being used for tax avoidance was
revealed at a congressional hearing 2013 in the case of Apple, one of the most profitable
companies today. It came out that Apple had been doing secret deals with Ireland to get
October18 BrookeBaldwin 52/148
its tax rate down to 0.005 percent (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39). Such activities emphasize the
capitalistic agenda of corporations in the global economy.
Lastly, another new dimension of globalization is the political global economy
or the “failure to make globalization work” (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 45). The political global
economy is increasingly influenced by MNCs and the left parties have failed according
to Stiglitz (2017). He claims that the left parties have failed to speak out about
globalization and defended the interests of the working class. This allowed for the
campaigns of New Protectionism boasted by Trump in the US and Le Pen of France to
fill the void and gain the vote of the unattended working class (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 49). It
is the New Protectionism advocated by Trump and Le Pen, which Stiglitz claims will
have one of the most detrimental effects on the future of globalization (Stiglitz, 2017, p.
49; UN, 2018). He argues that in order to avoid backlash against globalization,
governments need to come forward with economic policies that push the economy
toward full employment, adjustment policies that help workers and firms adapt to new
circumstances and social protection policies protecting them against the losses to the
standards of living that they may face as they’re adjusting (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 50).
Not only will New Protectionism hinder progress in globalization, but it also has
its own implications (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 50; UN, 2018). As countries like the US continue
to withdraw from ITAs like TTP and TTIP, and international environmental agreements
like the Paris Agreement and build barriers between countries like Mexico in a time
when global support and collaboration are needed, there will be consequences. As
emerging economies like India and China continue to gain power and influence there
will be a change in the global political arena. China has been steadily increasing its
growth, investment portfolio, and expansion over the past decade and if the US
continues to deter from international relations, then unlike ever before, there will be a
new global leader there to step in and take its place in our new global economy (Stiglitz,
2017, p. 374).
A New Global Economy
Stiglitz defines four changes, which distinguish globalization today from what it
was in 2001 when he first released GAID. These changes define our current state of
globalization as the New Global Economy (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxxi). The first change has
been a heightened awareness of climate change over the past 15 years. Stiglitz claims
October18 BrookeBaldwin 53/148
that the advanced economies are the main cause of the increase in atmospheric
concentration, which is having the most harmful effects on developing countries.
Secondly, the unforeseen consequences of the East Asia crisis and the way the IMF
mismanaged it in 1977 has led to a change in the credibility of the IMF (Stiglitz, 2017,
p. xxxi). The third change is an increasing importance in intellectual property rights
(IPR) and the payments related to it. Stiglitz (2017) explains that as the world has
shifted into a more knowledge-based economy the payments on IPR increased which
has led to an inflow of capital from the South to the North since majority of the patents
resign with the North (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxxi). The fourth and last change is the
increasing economic power of emerging economies, which have been experiencing
tremendous growth in GDP with China in particular becoming a leader in the global
arena (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 374; White Case, 2017, p. 5).
3.1.3.5. Summary The concept of globalization, its definitions and its key dimensions have been
discussed throughout this chapter to generate a deep and thorough understanding of the
topic. The concept of globalization emphasized globalization as a process involving the
compression of space in such a way that distance is less of a factor than it previously
was in terms of knowledge, communication and movement (Martell, 2010, p. 12), and
which embodies trans-regional interconnectedness (Held et al., 1999, p. 15) leading to
increased interdependence through enhanced institutional velocity (Keohane & Nye,
2007, p. 10) and ultimately results in a deepening enmeshment of the local and global to
such an extent that the impact of distant events is magnified (Held et al., 1999, p. 15).
Defining globalization tied the concept to the material aspects of globalization
and emphasized its dimensions: globalization is “the closer integration of the countries
and peoples of the world which has been brought about by the enormous reduction of
costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers
to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and (to a lesser extent) people
across borders,” (Stiglitz, 2002, p. 9). The main dimensions of globalization were then
defined as economic globalization, environmental globalization and social & cultural
globalization and each section revealed the activities and parties involved and effected
by globalization. Trade, investment, and short-term capital flows made up the economic
October18 BrookeBaldwin 54/148
dimension of globalization and illustrated the implications that these activities have at
the global level.
Trade is no longer just the exchange of products and services between countries
but also affects the employment rate of a country, the income of a country, the
competition in the global market, and the innovation and knowledge in the global
market (Meyer, 2017; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37). ITAs have been expanding their scope and
starting to include policies on intellectual property rights, investment agreements, and
investor state dispute settlements (ISDS) (Meyer, 2017; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37; Tucker,
2016). With trade agreements expanding their scope to cover topics of consumer
protection, and labor and environmental standards, countries and citizens feel a loss of
sovereignty, as they must adopt the policies decided on at the global level by IGOs,
MNCs or foreign governments. Therefore the more powerful multinational enterprises
become, the more they can influence the governments of countries in which they do
business (Irwin, 2008; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37).
Brondoni’s (2014) four periods of corporate globalization showed that
capitalistic interest and competition is inherent to MNCs, and having MNCs included in
global governance decision-making is unlikely to improve the challenges currently
facing globalization (Brondoni, 2014, p. 19; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39; Gopinath, 2008, p.
132). FDI has become a vital aspect of economic globalization, as corporations are able
to move across global distances and search for the most advantageous locations, and
investment opportunities possible to expand and sustain their global power and control
in the market place. In other words globalization has allowed MNCs to search for the
most capital intrinsic loopholes in the global arena either through finding fiscal
paradises for tax avoidance or by scouting locations to minimize costs (Stiglitz, 2017, p.
39). Such exploitive behavior has resulted in economic, social and environmental harm
in developing countries (Ritchie & Roser, 2018; WHO, 2018; Kampa & Castanas, 2008,
p. 362; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39).
Both international trade and FDI have environmental and cultural & social
effects on the countries involved because the economic exchange results in an exchange
of ideas, knowledge, culture, pollution and people (WHO, 2018; Ritchie & Roser, 2008;
Gopinath, 2008, p. 23). Hence, the economic dimension of globalization is linked to the
social & cultural dimension as well as the environmental dimension. Cultural globalism
is defined as the transmission of ideas, meanings and values around the world by
extending and intensifying social relations (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 20).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 55/148
Globalization often results in a clash of cultures when new cultures enter into traditional
cultures (i.e. via trade & investment) and because a country’s identity is defined by its
culture this has an adverse effect on the social capital of a country (Stiglitz, 2017, p.
366). Environmental pollution as a result of trade, manufacturing processes, and mass
production and consumption has harmed local citizens and led to global warming and
depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; Ahmed et al., 2017, p. 1142;
Erugrul et al., 2016, p. 543). As stated in Our Common Futures, “ecology and economy
are becoming ever more interwoven locally, regionally, nationally, and globally into a
seamless net of causes and effects,” (UN, 1987). Coming back to Martell’s (2010)
argument, that the effects of globalization cannot be considered in the context of single
dimensions as they all overlap, relate and influence one another.
3.2 Sustainable Development The previous sub-chapter focused on globalization and its various dimensions,
which were: economic, environmental, and cultural & social. This chapter is dedicated
to explaining SD and its aspects, which are: economic, environmental and social. As the
aspects of globalization and SD strongly overlap, it is apparent that these two processes
strongly correlate. The previous chapter demonstrated how the activities of
globalization can have harmful economic, social and environmental effects on the
world. SD is focused on preventing and mediating these harmful effects to ensure a
peaceful and prosperous future. This section begins by introducing the concept of SD
and explaining its origin. Following the history of SD, several SD initiatives will be
discussed, including the UN’s most recent Agenda 2030. A short summary will
conclude this sub-chapter before moving on to the next: Global Governance.
3.2.1. The Concept A collapse of futurity is a troubling concern for many critics of globalization as
future people and environmental sustainability are not currently the concerns of the
world (Huebener et al., 2016, p. 250). The anxiety induced by this troubling concern for
the future is reflected in the rapidity and complexity of changes occurring across and
within the realms of culture, economy and environment which characterize
globalization (Huebener et al., 2016, p. 250). Hence, SD has become an increasingly
October18 BrookeBaldwin 56/148
important topic in our current globalized world. “SD is about protecting and conserving
the planet’s natural environment and promoting social equity and a degree of economic
equality within and between nations,” (Blewitt, 2015, p. 29).
Although SD has become a global topic of debate in recent years, it is a concept
that first gained popularity around the 1970s when it became apparent that the Earth’s
resources are not infinite (Meadows et al., 1972, p. 23; UN, 1987). Since environmental
awareness became a topic, trade and business have been at the roots (WHO, 2018; UN,
2018). Starting from the unsustainable use of timber wood for fuel and shipbuilding in
the earliest days of trade, to the use of chemical pesticides on fruit and vegetables for
larger crops already in the 1960s, the Earth has been harmed by human activity for the
purpose of business and consumption (Meadows et al., 1972, p. 23; WHO, 2018;
Ritchie & Roser, 2018). Elkington (1994) states that the first public pressure wave
responding to sustainability was ‘Limits’ which was built from the early 1960s
(Elkington, 2004, p. 7). By the mid 1970s a wave of environmental legislation swept
across the OECD region and industry went into compliance mode (Blewitt, 2015, p.
20). It was around the 1970s that activist groups fighting for better preservation of the
Earth’s ecosystem started to form such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
(Meadows et al., 1972; Blewitt, 2015, p. 20).
The landmark study, Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome was released in
1972 sparking the first serious international discussion on global environmental issues
at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (Blewitt, 2015, p. 20).
Limits to Growth (1972) provided evidence highlighting the need for a change from
contemporary trends in order to transcend environmental and demographic problems
worldwide (Blewitt, 2015, p. 20; Docalavich, 2016, p. 26). Five major trends were
investigated throughout the Club of Rome’s 1972 report: accelerating industrialization,
rapid population growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of non-renewable
resources and a deteriorating environment.
However, it was not until the World Conservation Union’s World Conservation
Strategy was published in 1980 that the first definition of SD came to be:
“Development is defined here as: the modification of the biosphere and the
application of human, financial, living and non-living resources to satisfy human needs
and improve the quality of human life. For development to be sustainable it must take
October18 BrookeBaldwin 57/148
account of social and ecological factors, as well as economic ones; of the living and
non-living resource base; and of the long term as well as the short-term advantages and
disadvantages of alternative actions,” (IUCN, 1980, p. 2).
[SD] then contained within it two key concepts:
1 The concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor,
to which over-riding priority should be given.
2 The idea of ‘limitations’ imposed by the state of technology and social
organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs (UN,
1987).
Soon after the IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy, the Brandt Commission
published the Brandt Report in 1980. In comparison, the Brandt Report focused on the
social and economic aspects of SD by emphasizing the great differences existing
between the rich and the poor countries. The Brandt Commission’s North-South: A
Program for Survival, reviews the then current international development issues and
highlights the prevalent differences in economic development between the North and
the South, called the North-South divide. The difference in the standard of living
between the rich North (US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and
developed parts of Asia) and the poor South (Africa, Latin America and developing
countries in Asia including the Middle East) is a pressing problem and cooperative
action to change is needed:
“Change and reform cannot take place in a one-way street: they must be
supported by governments and people in both industrialized and developing countries.”
(Brandt, 1980, p. 7)
In the 1980 report, North-South relations are claimed to be the greatest social
challenge of our time, and provide equal importance to counteracting the dangers of the
arms race and fostering world peace (Brandt, 1980, p. 5). People living in the South are
still dying from starvation and diseases while the North is prospering in food, medicine
and commodities. To eliminate hunger, developed countries should increase their
international food production and promote agriculture in those parts of the world
October18 BrookeBaldwin 58/148
dependent on imports (Brandt, 1980, p. 11).
“We have a change- whether we are living in the North or South, the East or
West- if we are determined to do so, to shape the world’s future in peace and welfare, in
solidarity and dignity,” chairman of the Brandt Commission, Willy Brandt, (Brandt,
1980, p. 5).
3.2.2. The Goal By 1987 the UN published the Brundtland Report also known as “Our Common
Futures”, which gained the most global reach and became the most commonly used
definition of SD today. Here SD is defined as:
"Development which meets the needs of current generations without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
(UN, 1987)
The Brundtland Report
“Our Common Futures” brought to attention the need for co-operative action
and coordination amongst nations in protecting the environment and economic and
social development of the world for future generations. The Brundtland Report set four
main goals:
1. To propose a long-term environmental strategy for achieving sustainable
development by 2000 and beyond
2. To promote greater co-operation among developing countries and between
countries at different stages of development
3. To find ways the international community can contribute to environmental
concerns
4. To help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and
solutions for future generations (UN, 1987)
October18 BrookeBaldwin 59/148
The second ‘Green’ pressure wave began with the publication of ‘Our Common
Futures’ and exposed the term ‘SD’ to the political mainstream (Elkington, 2004, p. 7).
This brought about the new movement ‘green consumerism’ and public concerns such
as ‘mad cow disease’ and genetically modified foods. Following the publication of Our
Common Futures the UN hosted the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The Rio Earth Summit
hoped to build off the foundation of the Stockholm Declaration. At this time, public
awareness and debate around environmental issues peaked with a number of new
agreements that dealt with varying issues such biodiversity and climate change
(Docalavich, 2016, p. 42). In Rio a series of twenty-seven principles were proclaimed to
establish a new international partnership through the creation of new levels of
cooperation among nations to produce international agreements respecting the interests
for all people and protect the best interests of the world’s environment and economic
systems (Docalavich, 2016, p. 43). Additionally, the UN formed the Commission on SD
(CSD) to monitor the implementation of the agreements reached in Rio (Docalavich,
2016, p. 43).
3.2.3. SD Initiatives After the Brundtland Report, the UN Conference on Environmental
Development (the Rio Earth Summit) in 1992 revealed Agenda 21 (Docalavich, 2016, p.
48). In 1998 the Assembly held a special session, Rio+5, and acknowledged that SD
progress was ‘uneven’ and identified new issues such as increased globalization,
widening inequalities in income, and a continued deterioration of the global
environment (Docalavich, 2016, p. 50). Following this discovery, several sessions took
place to develop a new SD plan leading to the creation of Agenda 21. Agenda 21
consists of twenty-seven principles designed to address every area of economic
development and its forty chapters are divided into four sections (Docalavich, 2016, p.
48). The initiative provides a plan of action for SD covering various issues such as
population control, transparency, partnership working, equity and justice, and placing
market principles within a regulatory framework (Blewitt, 2015, p. 25). According to
the UN (2016), Agenda 21 is the ‘UN Blueprint for SD’ (Docalavich, 2016, p. 47).
Local Agenda was the local approach to Agenda 21 and despite not being legally
binding gained a following of many countries by 2000 (Docalavich, 2016, p. 51). Local
October18 BrookeBaldwin 60/148
Agenda has been proven to be most successful in countries where the local government
has a high level of autonomy to raise income locally and regulate environmental matters
(Blewitt, 2015, p. 25).
3.2.3.1. The UN’s MDGs
In the literature, The Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which introduced Agenda 21, is
commonly referred to as a turning point in SD (Blewitt, 2015, p. 25; Senit et al., 2016,
p. 533; Fox & Stoett, 2016, p. 555) for two main reasons: first it instigated a movement
towards citizen participation in global governance issues, and second it revealed the
importance of establishing SDGs for the purpose of assessing improvements in SD.
Inspired by the issues and topics discussed at the Rio Earth Summit, the UN released its
first Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in 2000 to address human development
and provide a framework for the UN’s economic development efforts with a target date
of 2015. The MDGs consists of eight goals which affect economic development,
whether by alleviating poverty, creating a healthy and educated labor force, protecting
limited resources or developing a global infrastructure for industry and commerce and
were made to be measurable and achievable (Docalavich, 2016, p.10).
The UN’s MDGS:
(1) To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
(2) To achieve universal primary education
(3) To promote gender equality and empower women
(4) To reduce child mortality
(5) To improve maternal health
(6) To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
(7) To ensure environmental sustainability
(8) To develop a global partnership for development
(Docalavich, 2016, p.10)
October18 BrookeBaldwin 61/148
According to the UN’s 2014 report on the effectiveness of the MDG campaign
there has been progress in developing countries: the likelihood of a child dying before
the age of five have reduced by 50%, maternal mortality rates have dropped by 45%,
enhanced HIV treatment has saved an estimated 6.6 million lives, over 22 million have
been saved from tuberculosis, and 3.3 million have fought malaria (Docalavich, 2016, p.
14). “Fewer people are in poverty, more children are in school. We are making inroads
in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis. Families and communities have greater
access to an improved drinking water source,” remarked the Secretary General on the
MDG progress (Docalavich, 2016, p. 14).
In comparison to the MDGs, the UN’s next SD initiative aimed to formulate
SDGs that could be applicable to every country due to their concise, easy to
communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global and action orientated nature
(Blewitt, 2015, p. 27). The General Assembly of the UN convened on the 25th of
September 2015 to declare another SD initiative, the 2030 Agenda for SD. Building off
of the Millennium Development Goals issued by the UN in 2000, Agenda 2030 sets out
17 SD Goals and 169 targets to be achieved in relation to the triple bottom line
(environment, economy, social) over the next 15 years (UN, 2015).
3.2.3.2. The UN’s Agenda 2030
Similar to the notions of the Brundtland Report, the 2030 Agenda states
“eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions is the greatest global challenge and
an indispensable requirement for SD,” (UN, 2015). Again emphasizing the cause and
effect link between global social and economic matters, and the need for global
cooperation. The 17 SDGs of Agenda 2030 are as follows:
The UN’s 2030 SDGs:
1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote
sustainable agriculture
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well being for all at all ages
4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong
learning opportunities for all
October18 BrookeBaldwin 62/148
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation
for all
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for
all
8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and
productive employment and decent work for all
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialization and foster innovation
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
SD
15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems,
sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse
land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for SD, provide access to
justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions
at all levels
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global
Partnership for SD
(UN, 2015)
These 17 SDGs emphasize the three key aspects of SD (economic, social, and
environment) and the need for global cooperation in order to combat the world’s most
pressing matters (UN, 2015). Forms of measuring globalization and SD today are still a
debated topic but there has been some consensus on a few forms of measurement. The
UN has developed an indicator for measuring SD, to track the progress of their SD
initiatives. This is the human development report, which provides the UN with a means
of shaping their policies (Docalavich, 2016, p. 61). The HDI is a composite index
October18 BrookeBaldwin 63/148
measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development—a
long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living (UNDP, 2017).
3.2.4. Summary SD is the process of creating a world where social, economic and environmental
problems are shared amongst all of humanity and eventually eradicated in order to form
a world of peace, prosperity and justice for all. SD “is about protecting and conserving
the planet’s natural environment and promoting social equity and a degree of economic
equality within and between nations,” (Blewitt, 2015, p. 29). As the process of
globalization increases the flow of goods, services, people, knowledge and capital
across the world and transforms local issues into global ones through the growing
presence of trans-regional networks, the world has become tied together. This means
that the issues facing developing countries are no longer bound to these countries but
have become global problems requiring the attention and support of the developed
countries (UN, 2015; UN, 1987).
Although the world has become more interconnected and interdependent as a
result of globalization, not all countries have developed at the same pace leading to the
uneven distribution of resources, capital, and knowledge in the world. In addition to the
challenges of uneven development, the diversity of the cultures, countries and citizens
in the world makes global cooperation even more challenging as the values and
priorities of humanity differ (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 5; Meyer, 2017). Sustainability
initiatives have not only promoted awareness of global problems by instigating a single
value and priority for humanity but they have also provided a means to combating
global problems at various levels. Therefore while globalization may have increased the
urgency for resolving SD issues, it has also provided a way for these issues to be
globally acknowledged and worked towards.
3.3 Global Governance As has been demonstrated, activities of globalization take place at the global
level, above the international and national levels. This section begins by introducing
The Spatial Scale to illustrate the varying levels of influence in the world and therefore
the impact each level can have on SD. Following The Spatial Scale the main
October18 BrookeBaldwin 64/148
organizations mediating global governance will be presented to reveal the actors in
charge of global and SD activities, these include: the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and
the WTO. Although these global institutions have been formed to improve and monitor
globalization and SD activities, they have become the subject of criticism by several
scholars (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Gopinath, 2008, p. 132; Srivastana & Khan, 2016, p.
22). These opinions will be explained and a summary of global governance will
conclude this section.
“With global ecological changes, an ever more integrated global economy, and
other global trends, political activity increasingly takes place at the global level,” (GPF,
2018). Each nation has its own local governmental structure and policies by which it
leads its country and citizens. This complicates matters and has resulted in some forms
of global governance to oversee and mitigate such issues. Understanding the role of the
spatial scale in SD by Grainger (1999) in Figure 1 provides a deeper insight into the
complexity of the various levels involved when working towards a global goal (Blewitt,
2014, p. 30; Grainger, 1999.)
Figure 1: The Spatial Scale
(Blewitt, 2014, p. 30; Grainger, 1999)
On the global scale (World), international bodies (i.e. IGOs) such as the UN and
the World Bank operate. This means that the actions, policies, and treaties implemented
by these institutions affect all ecological scales. Operating at the supranational level are
institutions such as the European Union, because its power is delegated to an authority
by the governments of its Member States. The actions of institutions and organizations
at the supranational and national level have wider effects than their size, since they
control the actions of those below their level and influence the actions of others on their
level and above (at all levels) (Blewitt, 2015, p. 30). National or neighborhood
October18 BrookeBaldwin 65/148
campaigns aiming towards SD will have to rely on the actions of individual households
and citizens to attain their goal (Blewitt, 2015, p. 30).
Natural or other endowments/grants may prevent a small town or village from
being sustainable if it is isolated from the wider ecological or political processes.
Meaning, if a single town works towards becoming more sustainable it may be
practically impossible for them to do so although it could inspire others around them to
act in the same way (Blewitt, 2015, p. 29). A country’s towns and cities are the largest
consumers of its resources and hence often have a large environmental footprint. If the
towns or cities of a country make a move towards sustainability and communicate their
motive, it will have a positive impact on global sustainability (Blewitt, 2015, p. 29).
Therefore, sustainable action applied by many at the local level will be able to influence
the policy and practice at the higher levels, so “we can act locally and think globally”
(Blewitt, 2015, p. 30).
3.3.1. Intergovernmental Organizations Three multilateral institutions play an important role in setting the rules,
overseeing the global economic environment and helping nations to develop and
improve their economic capabilities; these are the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank.
These Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) offer four different types of systems:
market creating (property rights and enforcing contracts), market regulating (regulatory
agencies for different kinds of industries or financial services), market stabilizing
(central banks and policies requiring fiscal discipline of the government), and market
legitimization (such as public pension programs or unemployment schemes) (Gopinath,
2008, p. 95-99).
The UN, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, and the World
Bank are amongst the oldest and most significant intergovernmental organizations
(IGOs) existing today. With the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO being
some the most influential global IGOs and the largest players of global governance
today. By definition an IGO is an organization, comprising of sovereign states or other
IGOs, and is formed through agreements or treaties acting as a charter to form the group
(UIA, 2017). Hence, IGOs allow the world’s inhabitants to cooperate together in areas
of peace, security, and economic and social issues (UIA, 2017).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 66/148
3.3.1.1. The UN The Charter of the UN came into existence on October 24, 1945 and was then
ratified by 29 nations. As printed in the Charter of 1945, the purpose of the UN is:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to take effective
measures to prevent and remove threats to the peace
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of
an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and to promote
and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction
4. To be a center of harmonized actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends
(UN, 2017).
Today the primary function of the UN is “promoting peace and security for the
people of the world is essential to development, as armed conflict is devastating to most
individuals’ economic security,” (Docalavich, 2016, p. 19). Hence, the main aim of the
UN is to provide an environment in which development can take place.
Since its formation, the UN has designed several official programs to assist
countries in developing healthy economies. The primary body is the UN Development
Program (UNDP), which is the UN’s global development network, working to connect
countries to knowledge, experience and resources, to help them create their own
solutions to global and national development challenges (Docalavich, 2016, p. 16). One
specific task of the UNDP is helping countries integrate the MDGs into their individual
and national development strategy. Furthermore, the UNDP can help the development
of these countries to be more effective by ensuring a greater awareness of poverty,
expanding access to productive assets and economic opportunities, and coordinating aid
programs with countries’ international economic and financial policies (Docalavich,
2016, p. 18). Established in 1966, another very important UN program is the UN
Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which is responsible for promoting
industrialization throughout the developing world. They work with some of the poorest
countries and countries with economies in transition to deliver critical skills,
October18 BrookeBaldwin 67/148
information and technology to promote the growth of unemployment, a competitive
economy, and a sound environment (Docalavich, 2016, p. 18).
3.3.1.2. The IMF, the WTO and the World Bank It wasn’t until after World War II that the desire and need for a structured
international trading system began to form (WTO, 2011). Seeking prevention measures
to further international crises and depressions, institutions from all over the world
gathered to come up with a solution to trade (WTO, 2011). The Bretton Woods
conference of 1944 set the foundation necessary for a multilateral trading system
amongst the nations and envisaged three new international economic institutions: The
International Monetary Fund, the International Trade Organization, and the World Bank
(WTO, 2011).
The International Monetary Fund came into existence in 1945 to stabilize
fluctuating exchange rates between the countries. Forming in 1944 the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank, would help the
restructuring of war-torn countries by providing capital. The International Trade
Organization was responsible for the administration of an open and non-preferential
multilateral trading order. By 1947 the provisional General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) had been negotiated and signed by 23 contracting parties and went into
effect in 1948 (WTO, 2011).
The GATT included the structure of past bilateral agreements into a single
multilateral convention by reflecting and reinforcing the commitment of its members to
a wider trade cooperation than ever before (WTO, 2011). While GATT promoted
multilateralism, it did not restrict bilateral and regional approaches to trade. Between
the 1950s and 1960s regionalism remained popular, in particular in Europe where
continental integration was highly desired. In 1957 the European Economic Community
(EEC) formed with a complex network of preferential trade arrangements amongst its
members (WTO, 2011). The EEC fostered trade and integration amongst its member
states and by the 1980s was ready to board its “single market” program to demolish the
remaining physical, technical and tax barriers within the community. With the
Maastricht Treaty of 1993, the EEC became the European Community (EC), today
known as the European Union (WTO, 2011).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 68/148
As mentioned before, the IMF and the World Bank were established with the
Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, and in 2017 are still working for the same goals as
back then. Today the IMF is responsible for monitoring and ensuring stability of the
international monetary and financial system. According to their website in October
2017, the IMF has 189 members and its goals are to: promote exchange stability,
provide opportunity to correct countries’ balance of payments problems, and facilitate
the expansion and balanced growth of international trade (IMF, 2017). The objective of
the World Bank today is still to provide financial and technical assistance to developing
countries worldwide and has grown to comprise of five institutions managed by their
member countries. The World Bank Group today consists of: The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, The International Development Association, The
International Finance Corporation, The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and
the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (The World Bank, 2017).
The 1948 GATT remained until a new and legally distinct General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade replaced it in 1994 (GATT 1994). Along with the new GATT
1994, came the formation of the WTO established in 1995 (also known as the
Marrakesh Agreement 1994). The purpose of which was to “provide the common
institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters
related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included,” in the Multilateral
Trade Agreements, Plurilateral Trade Agreements and the GATT 1994 (GATT, 1994).
As stated in the Marrakesh Agreement, the WTO shall work largely in cooperation with
the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to achieve a
greater coherence in economic policymaking (GATT, 1994). The IMF and the WTO
work closely together to ensure a strong system of international trade and payments that
is open to all countries. Currently the WTO has 164 members including all the major
trading economies of the world, and its primary purpose is to ensure that trade flows as
freely as possible without creating harmful effects (Docalavich, 2016, p. 75).
NGOs or non-governmental organizations have also become large global players
in today’s society by providing a voice to the public and acting as a mediator between
citizens and the global authorities. NGOs are increasingly becoming active in policy-
making at the UN, and include the most outspoken advocated of human rights, the
environment, social programs, and women’s rights and more (GPF, 2017). CSOs have
emerged as a major force in international development over the past 30 years and the
World Bank has been working closely with CSOs on a daily basis to engage with them
October18 BrookeBaldwin 69/148
through information sharing, policy dialogue, strategy consultation, operation
collaboration, and institutional partnerships (The World Bank, 2018).
According to the World Bank, CSOs includes: “the wide array of non-
governmental and not for profit organizations that have a presence in public life,
express the interests and values of their members and others, based on ethical, cultural,
political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations,” (The World Bank, 2018).
CSOs are formed by community groups, NGOs, labor unions, charity organizations,
indigenous peoples movements, faith-based organizations, professional associations,
think thanks, charitable organizations, foundations and other not-for-profit
organizations (The World Bank, 2018).
3.3.2. Criticism of IGOs Despite the apparent good intentions of intergovernmental institutions, they have
become a topic of criticism amongst anti-globalization supporters who claim they
facilitate the needs of corporations and capitalism over the needs of citizens and the
planet (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Gopinath, 2008, p. 132). Lenin (1917) defines the
characteristics of capitalism as the form of monopolies, oligarchy, and the exploitation
of the weak by the strong nations. Gopinath (2008) explains the link between capitalism
and anti-globalization stating that globalization is in a sense the capitalistic exploitation
of the weak nations making globalization an instrument for exploitation of the weak
nations (Gopinath, 2008, p. 132). Anti-corporation attitudes towards globalization arise
from the notion of “monopolies”, some argue that MNCs are an exploitive force
delaying doomsday for capitalism in the home country while harming those abroad-
while others state that global integration without global regulation is highly
advantageous for MNCs allowing them to search for the most likely locations to exploit
workers and labors to avoid national regulations (Gopinath, 2008, p. 126-128).
Furthermore, Stiglitz (2017) states that powerful corporations like Wal-Mart are able to
impose their market power to drive down producer prices and ultimately drive out small
producers, illustrating our global state of imperfect competition (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 367;
Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 20).
According to Srivastava and Khan (2016), the emergence of intergovernmental
organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF intensified the concept of economic
globalization at the global level. In response, various developing nations were forced to
October18 BrookeBaldwin 70/148
adopt structural development policies, i.e. SAP, which had a direct effect on the social
sectors such as education and health (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 22). In the event of
economic crisis, IMF programs intervene and dictate & undermine fragile political
consensus but here lies another problem (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366). Excessively
contradictory monetary and fiscal policies imposed by the IMF can lead to further
depression in developing countries once capital market liberalization has already led to
a crisis. These interventions by the IMF can result in greater political and social turmoil
leading to greater flights of capital and human capital making recovery even more
difficult. Hence, “globalization- in the way that it has been managed- undermines social
cohesion, social consensus,” (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 481). In this case, the democratic
political processes are undermined by bribes to win concessions or to obtain protection
for investment purposes. Consequently, this leads to a poor investment environment and
therefore poor economic growth. Areas controlled by corporate interests, as is the case
with banana republics- countries dependent on the exports of limited resources, can then
almost replace governments and exert influence through international financial
institutions and the national government’s trade representatives (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 480).
Market economies require that contracts are abided by and that legal systems are
central but most contracts are rather self-enforcing dependent on reputation mechanisms
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366). Economic disruption undermines the effectiveness of these
reputation mechanisms to such an extent that the value of “cheating” exceeds that of
complying with the contract (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366). This can lead to the perception that
the poor countries feel they are not being treated fairly, as imposing policies from
outsiders (the IMF), which go unexplained, often reflect international corporate and
financial interests rather than the interests of the country (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366).
Additionally, globalization has been associated with opening up financial service
markets. This makes it more difficult for banks in developing countries to compete with
large international firms and may drive them out of business and prohibit a country
from accessing services they need (Stiglitz, 2004, p. 479). As a result and suggestion
Srivastava and Khan (2016) state that, all policies adopted by the government should be
filtered to prevent negatively affecting the marginalized section of the market
(Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 22). Since citizens are affected by the decisions made by
IGOs, there has been a growing demand for citizen participation in global governance.
Several authors claim that there is a dire need for citizen participation in the decision-
making processes of global governance (Fox & Stoett, 2016, p. 558; Melber, 2014, p.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 71/148
1087). For instance Porta (2013) argues that it is necessary for there to be multiple
spaces of participation by the citizenry in decision-making in order to balance out the
principle of representation and for a deliberative process of preference definition in
order to balance out the majoritarian decision making principle. This is because greater
citizenship participation characterized by nonhierarchical modes of direction can
contribute to greater effective global governance (Risse, 2004, p. 288). However, Grant
& Kehoane (2005) state that an effective level of accountability at the global level will
require new pragmatic approaches to be used that focus both on delegation of power
and participation.
3.3.3. Summary Similar to how each nation has its national government to ensure that its rules
and regulations are enforced; global activities require global governance to ensure
fairness and justice at the global level. Unlike a national government, which is generally
democratic and acting on the needs and demands of its economy and citizens, IGOs are
meant to act on the needs and demands of the world. For this purpose the UN is focused
on the humanitarian and environmental needs of the world while the WTO, IMF and
World Bank are focused on the economic needs. While Member States influence the
decisions made by these IGOs, many feel that these organizations have capitalistic
interests, which support corporations over citizens (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 366; Gopinath,
2008, p. 132). As many of the rules and regulations decided by IGOs have national
implications, many authors have argued that citizen participation in global governance
is becoming a necessity. NGOs have formed to fill this void and are already becoming a
valuable player in the global governance process. However, when dealing with global
problems it is difficult to establish a one size fits all policy since the values and
priorities of citizens differ. Therefore effective global governance that satisfies all
parties will be a challenging effort.
3.4. Summary “SD is about protecting and conserving the planet’s natural environment and
promoting social equity and a degree of economic equality within and between nations,”
(Blewitt, 2015, p. 29). Globalization is “a state of the world involving networks of
October18 BrookeBaldwin 72/148
interdependence at multi-continental distances. The linkages occur through flows and
influences of capital and goods, information and ideas, and people and forces, as well as
environmentally and biologically relevant substances,” (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 4).
When considering the concept of globalization in the context of its various aspects the
link between SD and globalization becomes more prominent. The concept of
globalization states that it is a process engendering trans-regional interconnectedness,
spatio-temporal processes of change, networks of intensive interdependence, and due to
velocity, including the shrinkage of space from the local to the global (Held et al., 1999,
p. 15; Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 10). The concept implies that the activities as
mentioned in the aspects of globalization (1) are global in scale, (2) have inputs from
across continents and multiple countries within them, (3) involve the elites as well as
the masses and a global consciousness must occur, and (4) entail interdependency
between global parties (Martell, 2010, p. 6-12).
Economic globalization was defined as “the integration of national economies
into the international economy through trade, FDI, short-term capital flows,
international flows of workers and humanity generally, and flows of technology,”
(Bhagwati, 2004, p. 439). Trade, investment and short-term capital flows, in the context
of globalization result in intensive economic interdependence between networks and,
“intensive economic interdependence affects social and environmental
interdependence,” meaning that economic, social and environmental activities are
linked (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 8). Since corporations, national governments, and
IGOs facilitate the flow of trade, investment, and short-term capital flows they are the
major decision makers of globalization. However, as can be seen in the below
definitions of environmental and social & cultural globalization: environmental
globalism being the harmful effects that the transportation of materials and biological
substances across the oceans and atmosphere are having on the well-being of
humankind and the earth (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 5); and social and cultural
globalization being the transmission of ideas, meanings and values around the world by
extending and intensifying social relations (Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 20); these
global economic activities have social, cultural and environmental implications. Current
events such as Brexit, the Global Refugee Crisis and the recent actions of President
Trump have illustrated that national activities can have global negative effects and that a
loss of national sovereignty is a major cause for global controversy (Stiglitz, 2004, p.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 73/148
481; Srivastava & Khan, 2016, p. 22). Furthermore, as the power in global governance
shifts to MNCs it becomes less likely that the economic, social, cultural and
environmental consequences of globalization are resolved due to the capitalistic
interests and hence immoral actions of MNCs (Gopinath, 2008, p. 126-128; Stiglitz,
2017, p. 39). The more global activities affect national social, economic and
environmental concerns, the more troublesome it becomes for citizens and countries
that global governance is largely controlled by IGOs and MNCs.
Therefore, if SD is focused on promoting social & economic equality and
conserving the earth and the activities of globalization currently harm social &
economic equality and the earth then one could say that globalization is directly harmful
to SD. However, the activities of globalization do not have to harm social & economic
equality and the earth as they currently do. Globalization detached from its activities is a
process that (through interdependent networks) connects the world in such a way that
activities and decisions in one region come to effect those in a distant region, sparking a
transformative change from the local to the global (Held et al., 1999, p. 15). In this
sense, globalization is a developed concept that, with the presence of global
interdependent networks, has the ability to initiate a global transformative change
towards SD. The largest challenge is then changing the activities of globalization from
harming SD to benefiting SD.
4. Systematic Literature Review The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the current literature on the topic of
globalization and SD. Based on the data collection, the 35 selected articles will be
analyzed and discussed and categorized into four main topics. Current progress and
challenges facing SD will be revealed and the effects of globalization on SD will
become definable. The following four main topics have been identified throughout the
academic literature, and will be discussed in the following order: (1) The Effects of
Globalization on SD (2) Global Governance (3) Education for SD (4) SD Business
Models & Solutions. Below the 35 articles selected for the literature review will be
summarized and explained. This chapter concludes with a summary of the systematic
literature review and an analysis of the main challenges facing globalization and SD
today. Based on the topics emphasized throughout the literature review the three main
October18 BrookeBaldwin 74/148
challenges facing globalization and SD today are: (1) effective global governance and
the coordination of policies; (2) gaining societal support for SD, and; (3) gaining
business support for SD.
Listofthe35sourcesassessedthroughouttheLiteratureReview:
1. Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Godemann, J., Herzig , C., Otte , I., Rieckmann , M., et al.
(2014). Emerging Areas in Research on Higher Education for SD Management
Education, Sustainable Consumption and Perspectives from Central and Eastern
Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 1-7.
2. Almeida, C., Agostinho, F., Gianetti, B. F., & Huisigh, D. (2015). Integrating cleaner
production into sustainability strategies: an introduction to this special volume. Journal
of Cleaner Production (96), 1-9.
3. Barkemeyer , R., Holt , D., Preuss , L., & Tsang, S. (2014). What Happened to the
‘Development’ in SD? Business Guidelines Two Decades After Brundtland. SD, 22 (1),
15-32.
4. Beck, M. (2016). The Risk Implications of Globalisation: An Exploratory Analysis of
105 Major Industrial Incidents (1971–2010). International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 13 (309), 1-21.
5. Bennett, E. A. (2018). Voluntary Sustainability Standards: A Squandered Opportunity
to Improve Workers’ Wages. SD, 26, 65-82.
6. Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: the
novel approach of the UN SD Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
16, 26-31.
7. Bocken, N. (2015). Sustainable venture capital- catalyst for sustainable start-up
success? Journal of Cleaner Production.
8. Brandi, C. A. (2017). Sustainability Standards and SD – Synergies and Trade-Offs of
Transnational Governance. SD, 25, 25-34.
9. Broman, I., & Robert, K.-H. (2015). A framework for strategic sustainable
development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-15.
10. Das, N. (2013). Impact of Globalization on SD in the Indian Economy. Journal of
International Economics, 99-114.
11. Ertugrul, H. M., Cetin, M., Seker, F., & Dogan, E. (2016). The impact of trade
openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from the top ten emitters
among developing countries. Ecological Indicators, 67, 543-555.
12. Frugoli , P. A., Almeida , C. M., Agostinho , F., Giannetti , B. F., & Huisingh , D.
(2015). Can measures of well-being and progress help societies to achieve sustainable
development? Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 370-380.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 75/148
13. Fura, B., Wojnar, J., & Kasprzyk, B. (2017). Ranking and classification of EU countries
regarding their levels of implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 165, 968-979.
14. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2015). Globalization and Growth. American
Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 105 (5), 100-104.
15. Hart, S., Sharma, S., & Halme, M. (2016). Poverty, Business Strategy, and Sustainable
Development. Organization & Environment, 29 (4), 401-415.
16. Herrschel, T. (2013). . Competitiveness AND Sustainability – Can ‘Smart City
Regionalism’ Square the Circle? Urban studies, 50 (7), 1-17.
17. Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2016). The Imperatives of Sustainable
Development. SD, 1-14.
18. Hong, S. (2015). Citizen Participation in Budgeting: A Trade-Off between Knowledge
and Inclusiveness? Public Administration Review, 76 (4), 572-582.
19. Huckle, J., & Wals, A. E. (2015). The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable
Development: Business as Usual in the End. Environmental Education Research, 23
(3), 491-505.
20. Jaumotte, F., Lall, S., & Papgeorgiou, C. (2013). Rising Income Inequality:
Technology, or Trade and Financial Globalization? IMF Economic Review, 61 (2), 39.
21. Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufín, C. (2014). Reviewing a Decade of Research on
the "Base/Bottom of the Pyramid" (BOP) Concept. Business & Society, (53), 338-477.
22. Lozano, R., Ceulemans , K., Alonso-Almeida , M., Huisingh , D., Lozano , F. J., Waas ,
T., et al. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable
development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 108, 1-18.
23. Meadowcroft, J. (2013). Reaching the limits? Developed country engagement with
SD in a challenging conjuncture. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 31, 988-1002.
24. Meng, T., Pan, J., & Yang, P. (2014). Conditional Receptivity to Citizen Participation:
Evidence From a Survey Experiment in China. Comparative Political Studies, 1-35.
25. Michalos, A. C., Kahlke, P. M., Rempel, K., Lounatvuori , A., MacDiarmid, A.,
Creech, H., et al. (2014). Progress in Measuring Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours
Concerning SD Among Tenth Grade Students in Manitoba. Soc. Indic Res., n.a.
26. Mol, A. P. (2015). Transparency and value chain sustainability. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 107, 154-161.
27. Ramos, T. B., Caeiro , S., van Hoof , B., Lozano , R., Huisingh , D., & Ceulemans , K.
(2015). Experiences from the implementation of SD in higher education institutions:
Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 106, 3-10.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 76/148
28. Savelyeva, T., & Douglas, W. (2017) "Global consciousness and pillars of sustainable
development: A study on self-perceptions of the first-year university students",
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (2), 218-241.
29. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing Legitimacy in Complex and
Heterogeneous Environments: SD in a Globalized World. Journal of Management
Studies, 261-284.
30. Schmitz, H., & Mitchel, G. E. (2016). Other Side of the Coin: NGOs, Rights-Based
Approaches, and Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 76 (2), 252-
262.
31. Shaikh, P. H., Nor, N. B., Sahito, A. A., Nallagownden, P., Elamvazuthi, I., & Shaikh,
M. S. (2016). Building energy for SD in Malaysia: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews.n.a.
32. Stiglitz, Joseph. E., (2017). The overselling of globalization. Business Economics. 52.
1-9.
33. Toffel, M. W., Short, J. L., & Ouellet , M. (2014). Codes in Context: How States,
Markets, and Civil Society Shape Adherence to Global Labor Standards. Regulation &
Governance, 1-36.
34. Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of
Responsibility: Governing SD in a Globalized World. Journal of Business Ethics, 227-
243.
35. Waisman, H.-D., Cassen , C., Hamdi-Cherif, M., & Hourcade, J.-C. (2014).
Sustainability, Globalization, and the Energy Sector Europe in a Global Perspective.
Journal of Environment & Development, 23 (1), 101-132.
4.1. The Effects of Globalization on SD To begin, this section of the systematic literature review will pickup from topics
discussed throughout the conceptual background to portray the current state of
globalization and SD today. The inequality gap was a key topic throughout the
academic literature with varying perspectives on the topic, and will start off this section
of the literature review. First the inequality gap will be explained and perspectives on
the topic will be discussed. The two main drivers of inequality throughout the academic
literature were defined as environmental degradation, and technological change. While
several authors focused on the drawbacks of globalization on SD, some focused on the
benefits and these contrasting views will be assessed. Furthermore, the change induced
by the UN’s SD initiatives will be discussed. While some authors argue that the UN’s
newest SDGs have enabled development through the cooperative actions prompted by
working towards common global goals, others feel that they have restrained societal
October18 BrookeBaldwin 77/148
support. These varying perspectives will be explained before concluding this section
with a summary on the effects of globalization on SD.
4.1.1. Income Inequality On the one hand, critics of globalization argue that globalization has caused an
increase in the gap between the rich and the poor and the widespread imbalances in the
social system (Beck, 2016, p. 1; Herrschel 2013, p. 15; Stewart, 2016, p. 62; Firat 2017,
p. 5; Rasiah et al., 2015, p. 6). On the other hand, supporters of globalization argue that
the increase in living standards and the reduction in poverty caused by increased trade
and capital flows, the sharing of ideas, and the extensions of democratic institutions
between nations would not have been possible without globalization (Das, 2013, p. 104;
Chia, 2015, p. 2; Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p.v100). Neither perspective is wrong; it
is just a matter of the area of focus when considering globalization and SD issues.
Income inequality, or the uneven distribution of earnings from capital, labor,
assets, transfers or other sources, is a concerning topic for many authors across the
academic literature (Bennett, 2018, p. 67; Stewart, 2016, p. 68; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14:
Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 14). Income inequality is still
prevalent in both developed and developing countries today and this reality challenges
the ability of the world as a whole to make the transition towards SD (Jaumotte et al.,
2013, p. 30; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14; Stewart, 2016, p. 68). Globalization is believed to be
the main driver of this current challenge as it has increased competition in the global
market and enabled corporations to expand across the globe (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 1;
Stewart, 2017, p. 68). Income inequality is particularly challenging to conquer in
developing countries, which are already struggling to compete in the global market
(against competitors and technology) and are living in unsustainable conditions with
poor environmental, labor and social standards (Bennett, 2018, p. 67; Beck, 2016, p. 1;
Hart et al., 2016, p. 412; Stewart, 2016, p. 68; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Shaikh et al.,
2016; Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14). The UN’s 2030 Agenda has
highlighted the protection of wages, supporting labor rights, and raising incomes for the
bottom 40% of the global population as key strategies for reducing income inequality
both within and among countries by 2030 (UN, 2015, Goals 8, 10; Bennet, 2018, p. 67).
As well, several authors claim that improving wages, especially for low-wage earners
October18 BrookeBaldwin 78/148
with little wealth, is a key to improving the prevalent income inequality both globally
and within individual countries (Bennett, 2018, p. 67; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16).
However, Stewart (2016) suggests that income inequality will present further
obstacles in achieving SD for two reasons: the issue of the “catch-up” effect and that of
fairness (Stewart, 2016, p. 68). Stewart explains that higher economic growth remains
tied to greater carbon emissions and a slow down in economic growth is likely to be an
important aspect of achieving sustainability. Inter-country distribution, or the gap
between the rich countries and the Third World, is a common concern for governments
of developing countries and catching up is a major objective of many developing
countries policy makers (Stewart, 2016, p. 68). Hence, people and countries at lower
levels will continue to push for growth and strive to reach the living standards of those
above them. The second issue Stewart (2016) emphasizes is that of fairness and the
distribution of scarce global resources. These aspects will be discussed in greater detail
below.
4.1.1.1. Environmental Degradation
Hart et al. (2016) explain the link between poverty and environmental
degradation:
“The reality, of course, is that poor communities experience the most severe
consequences of environmental unsustainability. Indeed, poverty and environment are
deeply intertwined in at least two main ways: The poor are often hardest hit by the
floods, droughts, fires, famines, and other calamities driven by environmental
degradation and climate change—witness the inundating floods in the low-lying areas
of Bangladesh, driving growing numbers of poor farmers off the land. Yet,
paradoxically, poverty is often blamed for exploitation and degradation of the natural
environment, as those in abject poverty appropriately prioritize survival over
“environmental” concerns.”
(Hart et al., 2016, p. 412)
In this regard, Beck (2016) has analyzed the relationship between
industrialization and risk exposure of developing countries. The socio-political
October18 BrookeBaldwin 79/148
amplification of risk predicts that those in developing countries are exposed to greater
risk than residents of developed nations (Beck, 2016, p. 1). Beck has empirically
assessed the socio-political amplification of risk by assessing 105 major multi-fatality
industrial disasters occurring from 1971-1980, 1981-1990, 1991-2000, and 2001-2010,
in order to determine whether there is evidence of socio-political amplification of risk in
the distribution of accident patters across industrialized nations (Beck, 2016, p. 3). His
findings show that the export of waste and hazardous waste recycling to industrializing
countries (environmental globalism) and the new patters of domestic industrialization
do increase the socio-political amplification of risk in developing countries, as they
continue to face high levels of hazard exposure and greater fatality rates per industrial
incident (Beck, 2016, p. 1). Furthermore, Ertugrul et al. (2016) has studied the
relationship between CO2 emissions, trade openness, real income and energy
consumption in the top 10 CO2 emitting countries: China, India, South Korea, Brazil,
Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand and Malysia between 1971-2011.
Their findings showed that real income, energy consumption, and trade
openness are the main determinants of CO2 emissions in the long run (Ertrugul et al.,
2016, p. 553). In majority of the countries analyzed, energy consumption stimulated
environmental pollution (Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553). Waisman et al. (2014) has
investigated this topic and emphasized some of the challenges arising from
environmental pollution in combination with the scarcity of natural resources. The
authors have analyzed the socioeconomic effects of energy sustainability challenges
arising from oil depletion and climate change at the European and global levels by
assessing the macroeconomic impacts between 1971- 2011. Oil scarcity and climate
change are two closely related sustainability challenges. They both focus on the decline
of fossil energy as the major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, they
are a key determinant of international trade flows, they are both crucial components of
the energy mix, and the moderation of fossil fuel consumption caused by an ambitious
climate policy has the potential co-benefit of lowering dependency on importations in
energy-importing countries (Waisman et al., 2014, p. 105).
The main challenge of oil scarcity derives from the heavy reliance on
international markets to satisfy oil-dependent development patters in combination with
the supply imposed by investment decisions and reserve availability (Waisman et al.,
2014, p. 104). Climate change remains a challenge since despite the implementation of
carbon-reduction policies; CO2 emissions continue to increase at a rapid rate (Waisman
October18 BrookeBaldwin 80/148
et al., 2014, p. 103). “This context is the result of both the difficulty to decouple growth
and carbon emissions in developed regions, where development styles cannot be
changed overnight, and the rapid carbon-intensive growth patterns of emerging
countries,” (Waisman et al., 2014, p. 104). The authors found that fragmented capital
markets affect the pace and direction of change while also inducing further economic
losses in the long run, and regionalized goods markets have a positive effect in the long
run, as less intense international trade moderates the effects of fossil fuel constraints
(Waisman et al., 2014, p. 101). Waisman et al. (2014) conclude their study stressing the
need to switch to sustainable energies, as Etrugul et al. (2016) and Shaikh et al.’s (2016)
articles also emphasize.
Ertrugul et al.’s (2016) study revealed that, because in majority of the top CO2
emitting countries energy consumption stimulated environmental pollution, one of the
most effective and efficient ways for developing countries to reduce their environmental
pollution without harming their economies is to limit their energy consumption
(Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Shaikh et al., 2016). Shaikh et al.’s (2016) article
highlighted some of the activities countries like Malaysia have been implementing to
reduce their energy consumption to support the SD agenda. Malaysia has tackled this
problem by focusing on the building sector, as buildings in Malaysia consume 14.3% of
the overall energy use and 53% of only electrical energy is consumed in residential or
commercial sectors- making energy consumption in buildings the leading contributor of
greenhouse gas emissions in the country and energy efficiency a main focus of the
Government of Malaysia (Shaikh et al., 2016). The key factors making building sector
sustainability possible in Malaysia are rating tools, transforming generous ownership
from the stakeholders, enhanced knowledge and awareness dissemination campaigns
amongst the public, Government of Malaysia interests and sustenance, support from
local manufacturers and suppliers and competitive market place approaches (Shaikh et
al., 2016). Hindrances include public interests and demands, status quo in rules and
regulations, developers, population, project costs and the contributing players’
awareness.
Therefore, several authors agree that energy sustainability offers a positive
outlook for limiting global environmental pollution (Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553;
Shaikh et al., 2016; Waisman et al., 2014, p. 101). Waisman et al. (2014) suggest that a
sustainable energy future will require implementing policies and measures, which can;
October18 BrookeBaldwin 81/148
(a) Provide correct incentives for long-term investments by resorting to other
signals than the current market price;
(b) Incorporate sectoral measures that act complimentary to pricing scheme
measures for sectors facing biased agents’ behaviors or strong inertias, and;
(c) Foster globalization patterns that are consistent with energy sustainability
objectives;
(Waisman et al., 2014, p.101).
To support this, policy instruments based on the synergies between different
objectives to combine the benefits of each of the instruments must be favored and the
articulation and the time sequence of policy instruments must be a focus when
designing the policy mix (Waisman et al., 2014, p. 125). Additionally, Shaikh et al.
(2016) have highlighted some of the strategies adopted to promote green aspects in the
building sector, these are: showcasing energy efficient buildings, public awareness
campaigns, incentives on less energy consumption, and use of efficient appliances; as
they target the general public and private sector with pulling strategies (Shaikh et al.,
2016). When such strategies are combined with energy efficient practices, codes and
other mandatory requirements then they become push strategies (Shaikh et al., 2016).
These push and pull strategic forms illustrated by the Government of Malaysia have
significant environmental and societal benefits (Shaikh et al., 2016). Hence, economic
globalization has increased environmental pollution and has had a negative effect on
developing countries; but these countries can overcome these challenges by focusing on
innovative solutions and gaining the support of state-governments as exemplified by the
Government of Malaysia (Shaikh et al., 2016; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553).
4.1.1.2. Technological Change
The above authors have shown how environmental degradation is closely tied to
economic globalization, and to income inequality in developing countries. However
according to several scholars in the recent literature, income inequality is not only
present in developing countries today but also in developed countries; this shift has
been attributed to technological change (Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30; Stiglitz, 2017, p.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 82/148
14). Jaumotte et al. (2013) has conducted a study assessing the effects of economic
globalization on income inequality in both developed and developing countries. The
authors’ findings showed that the globalization of trade has tended to reduce inequality
while financial globalization, especially FDI, rather intensified the trend towards rising
inequality (Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30). In both country groups inward FDI was found
to increase inequality, while outward FDI showed negative effects on developed
countries. Inward FDI occurs in higher skill and higher technology sectors which favor
relatively higher skilled and higher educated workers (Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 31). This
results in a higher demand for higher skilled workers in both developing and developed
countries, which results in the increase in inequality. Outward FDI in developed
economies reduces employment opportunities in relatively lower skill sectors (Jaumotte
et al., 2013, p. 31). Stiglitz (2017) seconds Jaumotte et al.’s (2013) findings, claiming
that the middle class has experienced a decline in income as a result of technological
change: “that answer itself is paradoxical: technical change and progress were sold as
something good for everybody; but now the middle class is told that it may be good for
those at the top, but not for the rest,” (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14).
The theme of Stiglitz’s 2017 article, is that the failures of globalization have
surpassed the benefits originally protested by the economists and politicians of our time
and thus, “globalization has been oversold.” The potentially large distributive effects,
the large adverse effects on employment in certain locales, the consequences of
imperfect competition, and the implications for dynamic comparative advantage were
not clearly analyzed and explained while the benefits of global integration were boasted
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 20). A lack of focus on the harmful effects of globalization has left
large segments of the population worse-off than before and created winners and losers,
“When globalization worked well, the winners gained enough that they could
compensate the losers so that everyone could be better off. But the theory said that they
could compensate the losers, not that they would. And typically they didn’t.”
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 13)
Overcoming the failures of globalization will require change, and Stiglitz (2017)
proposes that the government take an integral role in facilitating this change by shifting
their policies. “If government makes use of the full range of instruments at its disposal,
it can help ensure that globalization works for most citizens, smoothing the transition
October18 BrookeBaldwin 83/148
from the manufacturing economy to the service sector economy, maintaining full
employment along the way, and doing so in ways that maintain economic stability while
avoiding excessive trade or fiscal deficits,” and therefore overcome the major pitfalls of
globalization (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 19). Below is his recommended policy outline.
4.1.1.3. Stiglitz’s Inequality Reducing Policy Program
Hence, Stiglitz’s policy outline aims to shift globalization in the right direction
and allow citizens and countries to finally benefit from globalization:
(a) Improving equality of market incomes to ensure shared prosperity by:
• Curbing market power and abuses of corporate governance;
• Making the financial sector perform the functions is should be;
• Reforming corporate governance and the financial sector to encourage
long term decision making;
• Increasing the minimum wage and extending other labor market
protections, and;
• Strengthening the bargaining rights of workers and unions.
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16)
(b) Reducing the intergenerational transmission of advantage and disadvantage:
the life prospects of a young American should no longer be dependent on the
income and education of his parents;
(c) Improving equality of after tax distribution of income;
(d) Helping the economy adjust to the new reality;
(e) Social insurance: the government should ensure that globalization works for
most citizens since the market on its own cannot.
(Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16-19)
October18 BrookeBaldwin 84/148
4.1.2. Growth through Economic Globalization
Das (2013) on the other hand has focused on the positive effects that
globalization has had on SD particularly in developing economies like India. In his
2013 article, Das (2013) identifies the link between trade liberalization and poverty and
therefore between globalization and SD. Das (2013) defines globalization as “the
integration of economies and societies around the world as a result of flows of goods
and services, capital, people and ideas,” (Das, 2013, p. 101). He explains that trade
liberalization, financial integration, free flow of labor across global markets and various
technical and technological changes eventually globalize an economy (globalization)
which in response increases the overall economic growth of a particular country which
then leads to poverty reduction in that country (Das, 2013, p. 104). Das (2013) suggests
that with the appropriate domestic policies and institutions in place and if the
appropriate coordination among involved parties is organized, then globalization can
“open the door for some new opportunities even for the poor,” (Das, 2013, p. 110).
Similarly, Grossman & Helpman (2015), have also emphasized how economic
globalization can lead to economic growth through knowledge transfer and innovation
in the global market.
4.1.2.1. Knowledge Transfer
Grossman & Helpman (2015) state that the most direct link between
globalization and growth arises when knowledge in one country can be used to facilitate
research in another country; FDI and trade can facilitate this (Grossman & Helpman,
2015, p. 100). International knowledge spillovers often accelerate growth in all
countries, as the cost of further innovation declines in all the countries with advances
made, and foreign ideas can help create new products or improve existing ones
(Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 101). A country’s own cumulative research experience
is inversely tied to the cost of innovation; a country’s education and openness to
international integration affect this (Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 102). Hence, the
integration of product markets through international trade allows those who invent or
improve products a greater potential market to reap returns from, despite the additional
competition from foreign rivals, as “the extra profit opportunities that result from
October18 BrookeBaldwin 85/148
greater aggregate demand are exactly offset by the loss of market share to foreign
producers,” (Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 101).
Therefore, the incentives for innovation affect the integration of product markets
depending on whether the “scale effect” or the “competition effect” is stronger
(Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 101). The “scale-effect” generally boosts the incentive
for knowledge acquisition, while the “competition effect” of globalization presents an
offsetting disincentive for knowledge acquisition (Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 101).
However the “competition effect” can be offset as, “the intensified competition
resulting from an opening of trade can lead the country with lesser incentives for R&D
to specialize in industries that they themselves have lesser innovation prospects,”
thereby closing the innovation gap between the countries (Grossman & Helpman, 2015,
p. 102). Because the integration of world markets has general-equilibrium implications
for input prices and relative output prices, these price changes also affect the cost of
innovation (i.e. the cost of labor) (Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 100). Therefore the
authors argue that international integration affects the incentives for investment in
activities, which foster the diffusion of technologies as well as the productivity of those
activities enabling sustained growth in some environments; such as China (Grossman &
Helpman, 2015, p. 103).
4.1.3. Development through Cooperation Furthermore, several authors have highlighted the greater challenge SD imposes
on developing countries, who are already unable to meet their basic needs. The
countries of the world have not developed at the same pace, and the developed countries
are more capable of affording sustainable energies, limiting pollution and paying higher
wages than the developing countries are (Stiglitz, 2017, p. xxv). Similarly, the wealth
and the socioeconomic development status of the 28 member countries of the EU vary
(Fura et al., 2017, p. 969). Therefore, the dynamics of the EU provide an interesting
example of what a global union could potentially look like, by having member-states act
autonomously while abiding by higher global standards. With regards to SD, the Europe
2020 Strategy offers great insight into the collaborative efforts necessary to achieve SD.
In June 2010 the European Council of the EU adopted the Europe 2020
Strategy. In their article, Fura et al. (2017) observed the EU-28 member countries over
three-time intervals, 2004-2010-2015- to measure and analyze each country’s individual
October18 BrookeBaldwin 86/148
adoption of the Europe 2020 Strategy (Fura et al., 2017, p. 968). According to the
Europe 2020 Strategy, all EU countries will adopt the concept of smart, sustainable, and
inclusive growth and will improve Europe’s competitiveness. Five headline targets were
laid out in the Strategy, which included (1) employment; (2) R&D; (3) climate change
and energy sustainability; (4) education; (5) fighting poverty and social exclusion. (EC,
2010).
Fura et al.’s (2017) findings showed that there are imbalances with
implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy due to the varying wealth and socioeconomic
development levels of the EU member states. However, their study also revealed that
many EU countries have been able to improve their standards and development as a
result of joining the EU (Fura et al., 2017, p. 977). In this respect, Fura et al. (2017)
claim that it is highly unlikely that all EU member states will achieve these targets
individually, but the cumulative actions and their impacts at national levels for member
states could lead to the accomplishment of common EU objectives (Fura et al., 2017, p.
977). Furthermore, the authors brought up the issue arising from how these goals were
implemented into each country- member countries superimposed EU strategic
objectives over their national objectives by adapting them to their national specificity
and own areas of difficulty (Fura et al., 2017, p. 977).
In conclusion, Fura et al. (2017) state that the implementation of the SDG
targets into each member country will not be achievable without increasing the internal
cohesion within the EU, particularly with regards to the area of poverty and
socioeconomic status of each country (Fura et al., 2017, p. 977). Despite that, by
adopting the 2020 Strategy the EU has shown that it understands that the best chance of
coping with contemporary global challenges is acting together as a unitary EU market.
Lastly, the authors emphasized that integration, cooperation, and coordination are all
equally vital to the success of undertaking initiatives such as the Europe 2020 Strategy
(Fura et al., 2017, p. 978).
4.1.3.1. An SDG Framework
There have been mixed views on the UN’s newest SD initiative, the 2030
Agenda and its 17 SDGs. Critics like Holden et al. (2016) characterizes the UN’s SDGs
as unspecific, vague, and repetitive finding them incapable of gaining the support of
October18 BrookeBaldwin 87/148
society (Holden et al., 2016, p. 2). While advocates, like Biermann et al. (2017)
characterize the UN’s SDGs as new and unique and very capable of gaining societal
support. Holden et al. (2016) argue that there are too many SDGs (with the 17SDGs and
the 169 targets) and that this is restraining the ability of society to grasp the concept or
prioritize goals. On the contrary, Biermann et al. (2017) stress the benefit of having so
many SDGs and targets; enabling countries to choose and select which targets and goals
they can and want to commit to (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 26). Despite their contrasting
views of the 2030 Agenda, both authors have developed similar suggestions to improve
the effects of the UN’s SDGs.
On the one hand, Biermann et al. (2017) claim that the new 17 SDGs (2030
Agenda) offer a new and unique type of governance that makes use of the non-legally
binding, global goals set by the UN member-states (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 26). The
new approach to global governance by goal-setting differs from previous initiatives in
the following ways: it is largely separated from the international legal system, it
functions through weak institutional arrangements at the intergovernmental level, it
works through global inclusion and comprehensiveness of the global goal-setting
process (new SDGs have been agreed upon in a public process involving over 70
governments, and numerous CSOs; and addresses both industrialized and developing
countries), and it grants much leeway to national choices and preferences (the 169
targets leave freedom for governments to determine their own ambition of
implementation) (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 26-27). This change in the use of the SDGs
for global governance, the authors argue, offers potential for developing a global
governance strategy through goals to advance public policy and private efforts towards
an ambitious sustainability agenda (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 27).
On the other hand, Holden et al.’s (2016) criticism is fourfold: there is no
prioritization of goals and too many, the SDGs ‘are mere tautologies’ (i.e. necessity of
‘promoting agriculture’ and ‘make cities sustainable’), they are a mix of goals to be
achieved and ways to achieve them, the environmental goals (12-15) are not
quantifiable (Holden et al., 2016, p. 2). Arguing that the academic literature on SD has
taken “an ethical turn”, Holden et al. (2016) has developed a normative model of SD
based on three moral imperatives: satisfying human need, ensuring social equity and
respecting environmental limits. These three moral imperatives are the three key
constraints SD has on human behavior (Holden et al., 2016, p. 3). The authors describe
October18 BrookeBaldwin 88/148
a moral imperative as the strong, ethical or moral pronouncement of what needs to be
done.
The moral imperatives build off of the three-pillar model of SD and Our
Common Futures to provide a conceptual foundation of SD. These constraints are
equally needed as human activity is already exceeding limits, income and wealth are
still unevenly distributed and extreme poverty still remains in the world (Holden et al.,
2016, p. 4; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988). ‘Needs’ focuses on principles such as income,
education and health, and ultimately links the capability approach to the literature on
human development and SD (Holden et al., 2016, p. 6). ‘Equity’ focuses on the
principles of fairness and rich participation guaranteeing that everyone can have an
equal voice and opportunity. ‘Limits’ refers to environmental limits and has been based
off of the ‘planetary boundary approach’ which has defined nine planetary boundaries
correlating to the planet’s biophysical processes: climate change, ocean acidification,
stratospheric ozone depletion, interference with the global phosphorus and nitrogen
cycles, rate of biodiversity loss, global freshwater use, land system change, aerosol
loading and chemical pollution (Rockström et al., 2009).
Despite the progress Biermann et al. (2016) see in the UN’s 17SDGs, there are
still challenges present in implementing the SDGs into global governance and the
authors suggest that these challenges could be overcome by: further strengthening the
goals through indicators and commitment, strengthening global governance
arrangements, adapting global ambitions to national circumstances and priorities,
ensuring effective policy integration in implementation, and improving the adaptability
of governance mechanisms (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 27-29). A key to the success of
the SDGs will rely on the ability to measure genuine progress in relation to better
governance, more transparent policies, less corrupt administrations, or the better rule of
law; which currently does not exist (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 29). Additionally, the
academic support for the integration of the economic, social and environmental
dimensions of the SDGs will be essential, “integrating these aspects with their different
agendas and rationales in the implementation of the SDGs is a key challenge for
decision-makers and other stakeholders at all levels of governance,” (Biermann et al.,
2017, p. 29).
Holden et al.’s model for global SD, consists of key themes, selected indicators
of SD and certain thresholds to be met in order to globally move towards SD (Holden et
al., 2016, p. 10). The key themes defined by the authors are globally applicable and
October18 BrookeBaldwin 89/148
adhere to the moral imperatives of needs, equity and limits. Corresponding to the UN’s
17SDGs, six key SD themes were defined: eradicating extreme poverty, enhancing
human capabilities, ensuring ‘rich’ participation, ensuring fair distribution, mitigating
climate change and safeguarding biosphere integrity (Holden et al., 2016, p. 10).
Linking to the defined themes, the indicators provide a way to measure and easily
communicate the status of each goal. Each theme represents a goal, and each theme has
its own indicator with an explicit threshold value, as can be seen in Figure 2 (Holden et
al., 2016, p. 10).
Figure 2.
As Holden et al. (2016) and Biermann et al.’s (2017) articles both emphasized,
indicators, or having better forms of measurement, for SD progress is vital. Frugoli et
al. (2015) has assessed the impact of some of the most popular measurement indicators
(specifically: GDP, GDP per capita, Human Development Index, Happiness Index, Life
Expectancy, Democracy Index, Ecological footprint, Surplus Bio-capacity, Wellbeing
October18 BrookeBaldwin 90/148
index, and Environmental Sustainability Index 2002) on helping societies achieve SD
(Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 378). Both Holden et al. (2016) and Frugoli et al. (2015) have
emphasized that human decisions determine the flows of the economy and the
environment, and hence it is vital that humans have a fundamental understanding of
their actions on the environment in which they live (Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 378; Holden
et al., 2016, p. 3). The findings of Frugoli et al. (2015) suggest that a combination of
socio-economic and biophysical indictors, is essential to generating a better
understanding of the limits of economic growth while also ensuring sustainable societal
well-being (Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 379). The model proposed by Holden et al. (2016)
and its respective themes, indicators and threshold values provide a means to improve
and measure SD at the global level and gain the support of societies. However, Holden
et al. (2016) stress that policymaking must adhere to all the moral imperatives of needs,
equity and limits if it is to lead to SD by changing the behavior of society (Holden et al.,
2016, p. 2).
4.1.4. Summary The prevalence of income inequality means that there is an uneven distribution
of earnings from capital, labor, assets, transfers or other sources between people and
countries of the world. The studies of Beck (2016), Ertrugul et al. (2016), Jaumotte et
al. (2013) and Waisman et al. (2014) provided evidence of there being income
inequality present in both developed and developing countries as a result of economic
and environmental globalization. The key drivers of income inequality have been
defined as technological change, the catch-up effect (competition), and the uneven
distribution of resources (labor, capital, knowledge) (Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30;
Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Waisman et al., 2014, p. 104; Stewart,
2016, p. 68). Several authors emphasized the increasingly harmful effects that
globalization is having on developing countries who are torn between competing in the
global market place and developing their own economies (Beck, 2016, p. 1; Ertrugul et
al., 2016, p. 553). The result is that many developing countries enter the global market
at the expense of their own health and economic well-being (Waisman et al., 2014, p.
104; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Hart et al., 2016, p. 412). In this respect, globalization
is further challenging the SD agenda than supporting it. However, Ertugul et al.’s
October18 BrookeBaldwin 91/148
(2016) study revealed the value of energy sustainability and the way that it can enable
developing countries to participate in the SD agenda without harming their own
economies. Shaikh et al.’s (2016) study then shed light on how developing countries
like Malaysia are restructuring to support the SD agenda by focusing on energy
sustainability. The support of the Government of Malaysia in transitioning the building
sector of Malaysia into renewable energy solutions shows the progress developing
countries have made with respect to SD, and how the success of their actions can act as
an example for other developing countries to follow.
Technological change on the other hand, has caused income inequality to spread
across both developed and developing countries as a result of globalization. Simply put,
the advances in technology have progressed to such an extent that they have replaced
unskilled and uneducated workers leaving an increasing number of workers
unemployed and out of demand (Jaumottet et al., 2013, p. 30; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14). This
is troubling since, economic globalization has essentially hurt those who needed the
most help and benefitted those who were already doing well (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 13).
Stiglitz (2017) attributes this to the overselling of globalization, which describes how
the benefits of globalization were boasted while the consequences were not
communicated. Hence, Stiglitz’s (2017) policy outline aims to reduce the inequality
induced by globalization and allow everyone to benefit from globalization.
Contrastingly, Das (2013), Grossman & Helpman (2015), Fura et al. (2017) and
Biermann et al.’s (2017) articles focused on the progress made as a result of economic
globalization and the SD agenda. Das (2013) and Grossman & Helpman’s (2015)
articles both highlight the additional benefits economic globalization (particularly
international trade and FDI) can have on developing countries. Das’s (2013) article
emphasized how trade liberalization, financial integration, free flow of labor across
markets and various technical and technological changes has globalized India’s
economy and led to economic growth and reduced poverty. The exchange of knowledge
inherent to globalization is a part of what enables an economy to be globalized and
supports this economic growth (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 31; Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p.
100). However, several authors previously emphasized just how technological change
and competition both hinder developing countries from experiencing the benefits of
globalization. Grossman & Helpman’s (2015) article highlighted how international
integration affects the incentives for investment in activities, which foster the diffusion
of technologies as well as the productivity of those activities allowing sustained growth
October18 BrookeBaldwin 92/148
in some environments (Grossman & Helpman, 2015, p. 103); such as the growth India
and China have experienced as a result of economic globalization (Das, 2013, p. 104).
Hence some developing countries, such as India and China, have been able to overcome
the downfalls of technological change and global competition by utilizing the
knowledge shared through global activities.
Fura et al. (2017) and Biermann et al.’s (2017) articles emphasized how the
UN’s SD agendas can lead to economic development through global cooperation by
working towards common global goals. Fura et al.’s (2017) study provided evidence of
the EU member-states ability to work together towards the goals of the Europe 2020
Strategy, and despite their differences and challenges, their ability to improve their
standards and development as a result of joining the EU. Biermann et al.’s (2017) article
emphasized how the 2030 Agenda, can essentially lead to a similar result as the EU
experienced in Fura et al,’s study but between the UN member-states by working
towards global goals such as the SDGs.
Hence both authors have highlighted the impact that such SD initiatives as the
UN’s 2030 Agenda can have by providing a set of goals for the world to work towards
and in some ways acting as a global governance strategy. However, as Fura et al.’s
(2017) study pointed out, the achievement of such initiatives will not be possible
without increasing the internal cohesion within the EU and superimposing EU strategic
objectives over national ones. Therefore, increasing the varying wealth and
socioeconomic development levels of the member-countries of the UN, and working
towards integration, cooperation and coordination amongst the countries will be vital to
achieving the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. This will require greater transparency and
measurement of the SDGs and global governance, policy shifts and coordination, as
well as support from the academia on educating society (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 27-
29; Holden et al., 2016, p. 10; Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 379; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16-19;
Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988). Holden et al.’s (2016) article
has generated a new model for global coordination of the SDGs based on the three
moral imperatives (equity, needs, limits), which has prioritized six of the SDGs and
attached individual indicators and threshold values in an attempt to gain further societal
support and understanding of the SD agenda. Frugoli et al. (2015) and Holden et al.
(2016) both emphasized how better indicators, particularly socio-economic and
biophysical indicators, can help society better understand and support the SD agenda as
well. Therefore, the academic literature has revealed both progress and regress of the
October18 BrookeBaldwin 93/148
SD agenda as a result of globalization. However, several new models and outlines
proposed throughout the literature may be able to reverse this regress.
4.2. Global Governance Globalization and SD require global governance, yet many authors feel that the
current forms of global governance are insufficient to meeting the needs of the world
(Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Bennet, 2018, p. 68; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2; Fox & Stoett, 2016,
p. 558; Senit et al., 2016, p. 533). Hence two key topics have emerged on the topic of
global governance, these are citizen participation in global governance and transnational
business governance. Citizen participation will first be explained and the development
thus far on the topic will be discussed. Transnational business governance will then be
defined and the key instruments and drivers will be introduced. As global governance is
fundamental to globalization and SD, transparency is fundamental to global governance
(Mol, 2015, p. 154). However, the value attributed to transparency may have led to its
demise in our increasingly knowledge based society. While these new forms of global
governance provide resolution to the some of the key challenges of global governance,
several authors emphasize the new challenges they further induce. These topics will be
discussed in further detail below.
Senit et al. (2016) argue that one of the main challenges facing global
governance today is the growing economic deficit of the intergovernmental
policymaking system. This deficit is the result of a lack of responsiveness of
intergovernmental norms and policies to collective concerns and preferences, and a lack
of accountability of IGOs and institutions; resulting in a loss of legitimacy (Senit et al.,
2016, p. 533). The need for a change in global governance is commonly attributed to the
increasing levels of interdependence entailed in globalization, leading to a
corresponding erosion of national sovereignty; which has sparked debates on the need
for global democratic institutions or implementing some form of democracy or
accountability at the global level (Fox & Stoett, 2016, p. 558). Therefore, a common
theme throughout the academic literature has been focused on determining alternative
forms of global governance systems to fill this void; two popular topics have been
citizen participation and transnational business governance. Hence, global governance is
shifting from intergovernmental and governmental organizations to CSOs, NGOs, and
the private sector.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 94/148
4.2.1. Citizen participation In response to the lack of support from businesses, IGOs and state-governments,
several authors claim that in our age of globalization, citizen participation is vital to the
effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance (Hong, 2015, p. 572; Meng et al.,
2014, p. 1; Senit et al., 2016, p. 533; Fox & Stoett, 2016, p. 558). Citizen participation
has become a popular theme in the academic literature for fostering a more transparent,
cohesive and effective global governance system (Hong, 2015, p. 572; Meng et al.,
2014, p. 1). However, citizen participation is not a new topic but has been a popular
topic in global governance since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, where it was revealed
that sustainability required the acknowledgement of and responsiveness to the
interconnectedness of local and wider global processes (Herreschel, 2016, p. 2; Fox &
Stoett, 2016, p. 558). Despite that, the 2030 Agenda is the first UN SD initiative, which
has focused on citizen participation in global governance by aiming to foster global
cooperation through civil societies (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 27; UN, 2015). “To
conceptualize global civil society in analytical terms as a political space, in which a
diversity of political experiences, action strategies, identities, values and norms are
articulated and contested; a space of struggle and conflict over the values, norms and
rules that govern global social space(s) – and ultimately over the control of material
resources and institutions,” (Melber, 2014, p. 1087).
4.2.1.1. CSOs & NGOs
Schmitz & Mitchel (2016) have focused on enhancing the role and impact of
NGOs in both citizen participation and global governance. The authors claim that the
transformation of NGOs from traditional aid providers substituting for absent
government service, into catalysts for citizen empowerment represents a fundamental
philosophical shift with valuable implications for public administration and public
managers (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 253). In this respect, Schmitz and Mitchel
(2016) emphasize the growing importance of NGOs in the contemporary global arena:
“The role of NGOs in international development will remain influential as the
economic, social, and political significance of low- and middle-income countries
continues to grow and transnational governance challenges multiply with ongoing
globalization,” (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 253).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 95/148
Over the past twenty years, many NGOs have adopted versions of the rights-
based approach (RBA), which is a framework that conditions civil society’s interactions
with government agencies around the world (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 252). RBA
strategies include advocacy and litigation, coalition building, mobilization, and
awareness raising and emphasize the need for more holistic, cross-level activism at the
local, subnational and national levels (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 252). RBA has
changed how NGOs, local communities and government agencies understand their role
in the development process and compels them to pay greater attention to the domestic
and local political context and to facilitate the empowerment of individuals and
communities to make greater demands on public agencies (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p.
260). By implementing RBA, the focus shifts from increasing wealth and development
to determining a more fair distribution of resources (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 260).
This implementation begins with a situational analysis:
(1) It seeks to identify the social and political root causes of a condition (i.e.
poverty);
(2) It names the key rights holders and duty bearers;
(3) It identifies applicable domestic and international human rights laws as
they pertain to a particular development challenge;
(4) It focuses on the relationships between rights holders and duty bearers,
and questions what capacities both sides lack in developing a more
productive accountability relationship.
(Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 255)
As it has with NGOs, the adoption of RBA by public managers will influence
them to rethink their role in governance, their responsibility to citizens, and the
principles guiding their everyday interactions and strategic decisions (Schmitz &
Mitchel, 2016, p. 255). This shift has become an emerging idea of public value
governance emphasizing democratic theory, deliberation and dialogue (Bryson et al.,
2014, p. 447).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 96/148
4.2.1.2. Designing a System for Citizen Participation
Hong (2015) on the other hand, has pointed out several challenges with the
implementation of citizen participation. He claims that a main challenge in achieving
public deliberation and participation is incorporating both inclusiveness and
knowledgeability into a public participation system; two fundamental features desired in
the participating citizens group (Hong, 2015, p. 573). Inclusiveness reflects the
openness of the political system and the degree of the members’ participation while
knowledgeability refers to the participating citizens’ capacity to evaluate and make a
thoughtful decision on the issues under discussion (Hong, 2015, p. 573). Hong (2015)
proposes that when designing a public participation system there is a trade-off between
inclusiveness and knowledgeability, as greater inclusiveness may dilute the impact of an
individual and the necessity of knowledgeability in citizens may hinder engagement or
weaken participations’ embodiment of normative and intrinsic democratic values
(Hong, 2015, p. 574). Hence, Hong (2015) has empirically assessed this trade-off of
inclusiveness and participating citizens’ knowledge-ability, on two performance
metrics: citizen engagement and process efficiency (Hong, 2015, p. 572). His findings
suggest that citizen knowledgeability and inclusiveness both have a positive correlation
with participatory process efficiency, while inclusiveness has a negative effect on
citizen engagement (Hong, 2015, p. 579). Furthermore, his findings revealed that
including a large share of members who are openly recruited helps maintain a high level
of citizen engagement (Hong, 2015, p. 580). Hong’s (2015) findings provide
suggestions for forming an effective system of citizen participation; while Meng et al.
(2014) has focused on the impact that citizen participation can have on global
governance.
4.2.1.3. Receptiveness of Citizen Participation
Another important aspect of citizen participation is the actual effectiveness or
‘receptiveness’ of it by the decision makers of global governance topics. In their article,
Meng et al. (2014) has empirically assessed ‘receptivity’ or, the willingness of
authoritarian regimes to incorporate citizen preferences into policy. The authors have
assessed 1,377 provincial- and city-level leaders in China (Meng et al., 2014, p. 8).
Based on their findings, the authors suggest that leaders are most receptive to
October18 BrookeBaldwin 97/148
implementing citizen suggestions when these suggestions have been obtained through
formal institutions or the Internet (but only when leaders perceive there is little
opposition present between the state and citizens) (Meng et al., 2014, p. 17-25).
Furthermore the perceived quality of state-society relations is an important aspect of
quasi-democratic institutions (i.e. public administration hearings, online government
forums) being a ‘true channel of responsiveness’ or a ‘mere window dressing’; In other
words state-society relations are vital to the effectiveness of these institutions voicing
citizen preferences (Meng et al., 2014, p. 2). In this respect, Herrschel’s concept of
smart (new) city regionalism brings together the rationales, principles and legitimacies
of publicly negotiated, collaborative sectoral policy with network-based and policy-
described spatiality (Herrschel, 2013, p. 15).
4.2.1.4. Smart (New) City Regionalism
Building off of the challenges facing SD due to the globalization-driven agenda
of economic competitiveness, Herrschel (2013) introduces the term ‘smart (new) city-
regionalism’ as a form of policy coordination. He explains competitive agendas as neo
liberalism-inspired and globalization-driven place-based competitive economic policies;
and sustainability agendas as critical reflections about immediate and long-term
ecological costs of growth. Herrschel (2013) describes ‘smart (new) city-regionalism’ as
a policy-shaping mechanism and analytical framework as a solution to the clashing
policy fields of globalization and SD through collaborative governance (Herrschel,
2013, p. 1). He states that city regions have emerged as the most prominent scale for
negotiating and implementing conflicting agendas forming from sustainability and
competiveness. ‘Smart’ has been adopted from the concept of Smart Growth, which
aims to facilitate a shift in values, priorities, and perspectives to include collaborative
political processes and spatial perspectives (Herrschel, 2013, p. 15). Hence, city-regions
offer a good arena for discussing Smart Growth since they tie together political-
economic, social and governmental-administrative arrangements and agendas
(Herrschel, 2013, p. 15).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 98/148
4.2.2. Transnational Business Governance Transnational business governance, differs from traditional state and inter-state
institutions by including a variety of intuitions from the private sector, civil society, and
multi-stakeholder and hybrid public-private institutions (Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Eberlein et
al., 2014). Currently transnational business regulations have been implemented through
private voluntary programs such as certification regimes and codes of conduct (Toffel et
al., 2014, p. 2). Supply chains have extended across the globe, as a result of economic
globalization, and have shifted SD issues, such as labor standards, from states and IGOs
to MNCs, NGOs and multi-stakeholder certification regimes (Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2).
Supply chain governance initiatives, including voluntary sustainability standards, have
emerged to include standards and certification initiatives, often filling the regulatory
void created by a lack of state regulation and effective global environmental policies
(Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Bennet, 2018, p. 68; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2). Hence, voluntary
sustainability standards (VSS) can promote SD and have environmental and
socioeconomic benefits while also acting as a symbol of credibility and a proof of
sustainable business practices for those that implement them.
Bennett (2018) has specifically investigated VSS in the context of income
inequality, in relation to the impact of VSS on improving the incomes of the workers
who produce certified products. Such standards are generated by voluntary
sustainability standards-setting organizations (VSSSOs) which generally aim to enforce
national minimum wages and International Labor Organization (ILO) standards, but
currently rarely support living wages or actively bolster collective bargaining (Bennett,
2018, p. 66). Bennett (2018) argues that VSSSOs should take on a larger role in global
governance and should focus on improving workplace conditions globally, as they have
the knowledge, capacity, networks and power needed to generate this shift (Bennett,
2018, p. 68). Hence, Bennett suggests that VSSSOs can leverage their existing
capacities to improve wages and address income inequality by including wage outcomes
in their standards and supporting process rights for workers such as freedom to
associate and right to collectively bargain (Bennett, 2018, p. 68).
Brandi’s (2017) study however has pointed out some of the challenges arising
from the implementation of VSSs. He has investigated the potential trade-offs between
the socioeconomic and environmental dimensions of development and inclusive
development, within the context of transnational governance and sustainability
October18 BrookeBaldwin 99/148
standards. To determine these trade-offs, Brandi (2017) has assessed smallholder
certification in the palm oil sector of Indonesia, since there are over one million
smallholders there which amount to almost 40% of the cultivation area and 35% of the
production output (Brandi, 2017, p. 26; IPOC, 2012). Smallholders and small producers
have a considerable negative impact on the environment; such as greenhouse gas
emissions through land-use conversion or deforestation, and smallholder certifications
could be a means to mediating these negative effects (Brandi, 2017, p. 26). Specifically,
smallholder certification can generate economic benefits for smallholders by increasing
productivity and higher yields (Brandi, 2017, p. 26).
However, the potential trade-offs arising from smallholder certifications are
twofold; first, there is a concern that the diffusion of standards aimed at enhancing
environmental sustainability undermine the socioeconomic situation of smallholders by
leading to exclusion from global value chains and international markets that demand
certified commodities and require a set of financial, managerial and agronomic
capacities; that most smallholders lack (Brandi, 2017, p. 26). Second, although
smallholder certification can generate socioeconomic benefits, these potential benefits
may have contradictory and undesirable implications for environmental sustainability,
in so far as they increase incentives to expand palm oil plantations therefore
contributing to greater environmental harm (Brandi, 2017, p. 26). Brandi’s findings
show that although certification projects may create socioeconomic benefits for
smallholders, large-scale environmental benefits focused on deforestation and
greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to achieve- hence private sustainability standards
hardly provide an all-encompassing solution to all problems (Brandi, 2017, p. 31). One
major reason for this is that sustainability standards (such as RSPO) contain loopholes
and face implementation and control changes (Brandi, 2017, p. 31).
While Brandi (2017) focused on the trade-offs of implementing voluntary
sustainability standards, Toffel et al. (2014) has analyzed how transnational business
guidelines have been implemented, and what influences the adherence to these
guidelines. Toffel et al. (2014) has analyzed which international, domestic, civil society,
and market institutions promote the adherence of supply chain factories to global labor
standards expressed in codes of conduct by multinational buyers. The authors have
empirically studied this by assessing 44,838 social audits of 21,836 establishments in 12
industries and 47 countries (Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2). Their findings suggest that
adherence to global labor standards is greater when suppliers, are embedded in states
October18 BrookeBaldwin 100/148
participating actively in the International Labor Organization (ILO) treaty regime, have
stringent domestic labor laws and press freedom, and when they serve buyers in
countries where consumers are wealthy and socially conscious (Toffel et al., 2014, p.
21-23). Hence, Toffel et al. (2014) claim that overlapping state, civil society, and
market governance regimes are essential to having meaningful transnational regulation
(Toffel et al., 2014, p. 1).
4.2.3. Transparency As global governance shifts from intergovernmental and governmental
organizations to civil societies, NGOs, and the private sector, transparency practices and
developments, particularly in environmental and sustainability politics, have spread
across the globe to other nations and localities including China and Southeast Asia, as
well as to transnational networks and institutions over the past two decades (Mol, 2015,
p. 154). Transparency politics and practices in global governance are based on
normative criteria related to democracy, participation, accountability and right-to-know
(Mol, 2015, p. 154). Transparency, or the disclosure of information, is a key topic in
national and global environmental politics and governance (Mol, 2015, p. 154). “The
general idea was that through transparency powerless environmental victims and
advocates were empowered vis-à-vis the major market and state forces that failed to
protect and ruined the planet’s sustainability,” (Mol, 2015, p. 160).
Transparency in global value chains will continue to be a key topic of
globalization, but despite the positive connotations associated with greater transparency,
Mol (2015) investigates the implications of transparency in global value chains and
defines new challenges, which can arise therefrom. “What has become clear from the
analysis is that transparency as disclosure of information has lost it innocence in the
environmental politics of global value chains,” (Mol, 2015, p. 160). Mol (2015) claims
that because of the growing value attached to transparency in value chains, this
transparency becomes an object of power struggles as markets and states utilize
transparency arrangements for their own goals and motives- which may not then be
normative and in the best interests of consumers and civil society. Hence, transparency
should no longer be automatically assumed as desirable, but the specific transparency
arrangements and infrastructures should be critically examined and designed on their
social, distributional, and sustainability consequences (Mol, 2015, p. 160). This
October18 BrookeBaldwin 101/148
sentiment of transparency being utilized for ones advantage is also brought up in
Scherer et al.’s article where the authors emphasize the challenges that SD is imposing
on corporations.
Scherer et al. (2013) claim that the legitimacy of corporations is increasingly
challenged by sustainability problems with regards to the production, distribution, and
consumption of goods and services. They argue that it is because the globalization
process intensifies problems such as global warming, chemical pollution, ocean
acidification, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss, and because these are problems
manifested as negative side effects of business activities occurring along globalized
systems of production and consumption, that businesses are facing legitimacy
challenges today (Scherer et al., 2013, p. 261).
Furthermore, Scherer et al. (2013) emphasize that legitimacy in the context of
business refers to the social acceptance of actions or institutions by corporations and it
is challenged when their actions are perceived as inappropriate and undesirable within
their respective societal contexts: “Business firms are considered legitimate when their
organizational practices are perceived to satisfy the social expectations of their
environment,” (Scherer et al., 2013, p. 262). In addition, the authors argue that dealing
with SD-related legitimacy issues becomes particularly difficult when operating in
fragmented and dynamic global environments with a multitude of complex and
contradictory sustainability demands (Scherer et al., 2013, p. 262).
Legitimacy strategies of corporations are influenced by two factors: the cost of
organizational change and the heterogeneity of environmental demands (Scherer et al.,
2013, p. 262). They suggest that the opportunity to solve perceived legitimacy
challenges is the motivation of corporations to adopt sustainable practices and engage in
debates on SD (Scherer et al., 2013, p. 262). In order to overcome the current legitimacy
challenge the authors suggest employing all three legitimacy strategies: the isomorphic
adaptation strategy, the strategic manipulation strategy, and the strategy of moral
reasoning. Scherer et al. (2013) explain these three strategies as follows: isomorphic
adaptation strategy refers to corporations that can change their organizational practices
and adapt to societal expectations for the purpose of maintaining their cognitive
legitimacy. The strategic manipulation strategy describes corporations actively
influencing social expectations by swaying or manipulating the perceptions of key
actors or policy-makers. Lastly, the moral reasoning strategy is when organizations
engage in open discourse with focal stakeholders and societal groups in order to argue
October18 BrookeBaldwin 102/148
for acceptability of its status quo and behavior (Scherer et al., 2013, p. 262-264). Hence,
as Mol (2015) emphasized, transparency should be critically examined as corporations,
governments and IGOs may utilize it for self-gain as societal pressures to commit to SD
increase. The findings of Meadowcroft (2013) and Barkemeyer et al. (2014) further
emphasize the illegitimacy of transparency in global politics in their studies.
4.2.3.1. Industrialization Focus
Meadowcroft (2013) and Barkermeyer et al.’s (2014) articles both provide
evidence of the increasing attention that intergovernmental organizations and business
support bodies have been placing on the concept of SD. While Meadowcroft (2013)
focused on policy orientations, and found that they have favored environmental issues,
Barkemeyer et al. (2014) has focused on the SD business guidelines, and found that
they have also favored environmental issues. Both articles have used Our Common
Futures as a foundation for SD, and have suggested that the way SD has been
implemented does not support the original concept. Therefore, Meadowcroft (2013) and
Barkemeyer et al. (2014) both argue that SD has been reinterpreted to support the needs
of the industrialized rather than the needs of developing countries (Meadowcroft, 2013,
p. 988; Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31).
Meadowcroft (2013) argues that the largest challenge facing sustainability today
is living within environmental limits. Meadowcroft (2013) claims that the
environmental focus of SD in business practice is the result of ‘reinterpreting’ the
concept for industrial gain rather than the gain of developing countries (Meadowcroft,
2013, p. 988). He states that the strain imposing our limits is mainly the result of
continuous material growth, growth in per capita consumption of environmental
resources, the rise in population, and the increasingly disruptive character of
technological deployment (Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 990). There have been numerous
shifts in policy orientation over the past 25 years focused on limiting environmental
degradation, and there has been an increase in awareness and reactiveness to
environmental issues, yet aggregate environmental burdens are continuously growing
(Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 990).
In light of the increasing focus of businesses in the transition to SD, Barkemeyer
et al. has assessed how the original principles of SD (as conceptualized in Our Common
Futures) have been embedded within key (voluntary) business guidelines such as the
October18 BrookeBaldwin 103/148
UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ICC
Business Charter for SD, the CAUX Principles, the Global Sullivan Principles and the
CERES Principles (Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 15). Based on their findings, the authors
argue that these business guidelines focus on environmental rather than social aspects of
SD and claim that this is because environmental aspects stress win-win situations and
have a managerialist focus (Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31). Despite the environmental
focus the authors found that there has not been a focus on conceptual environmental
issues concerning systems of interdependencies, critical thresholds or systemic limits to
growth (Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 30). Therefore, the two key concepts of Our
Common Futures, which focused on prioritizing the needs of the poorest and living
within environmental limits, have been overlooked.
Policy orientation is a transparent action of IGOs and governments, while the
implementation of voluntary sustainability standards are a transparent action of the
private sector; both leading to the belief that SD is being supported. However, the
findings of Meadowcroft (2013) and Barkemeyer et al. (2014) suggest that these
activities have not only not limited environmental pollution but have also only focused
on aspects of financial return instead of on development of the world. Hence, as Mol
(2015) stated, transparency can no longer be automatically assumed as beneficial but
should be critically assessed. In fact, Meadowcroft (2013) exclaims that it is actually the
transparency of these environmental policy shifts in combination with the continuous
trend in global environmental deterioration which is hindering developed societies from
coming to terms with the realities and concept of environmental limits. In addition to
this, the disruption of existing social expectations and entitlements imposed by coming
to terms with environmental limits further challenges adoption. Hence, Meadowcroft
(2013) and Barkemeyer et al. (2014) stress the importance in gaining the support of the
private sector in order to transition towards a more sustainable society.
4.2.4. Summary Based on the academic literature, it is clear that the dynamics of global
governance are shifting and new forms are already being implemented. These two
mains forms are citizen participation and transnational business governance (Hong,
2015, p. 572; Meng et al., 2014, p. 1; Senit et al., 2016, p. 533; Fox & Stoett, 2016, p.
558; Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2; Bennet, 2018, p. 68). Global
October18 BrookeBaldwin 104/148
governance is a challenging topic, as the concept alone will require national
governments to adapt their policies and regulations to abide by the standards of a global
network. In a world where the wealth and socioeconomic development levels and the
values and cultural beliefs between countries greatly vary, the topic becomes even more
challenging as some are simply unable or unwilling to keep up with the same standards
as others.
On the one hand, citizen participation has emerged as a way for citizens to voice
their needs and preferences on decisions of global governance which effect their social,
economic or environmental well-being; CSOs and NGOs play a large role in translating
these preferences at the global level (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 252; Herreschel,
2016, p. 2; Fox & Stoett, 2016, p. 558; Melber, 2014, p. 1087). They key issues tied to
citizen participation are then educating society well enough to be trusted with global
decision making, gaining enough citizens to participate and voice their needs and
preferences, and the willingness of decision makers to adhere to citizen preferences
(Hong, 2015, p. 573; Meng et al., 2014, p. 17-25). Hong’s (2015) study then provided
suggestions on how to design a system for citizen participation which includes both
knowledgeability and inclusiveness, while Meng et al.’s (2014) study shed light on how
to increase the engagement of authoritarian regimes to respond to citizen preferences.
Meng et al.’s (2014) study highlighted the importance of enhancing state-society
relations to increase the effectiveness of citizen participation. Both, Herrschel’s (2013)
concept of ‘Smart (New) City Regionalism’ and Schmitz & Mitchel’s (2016) RBA
strategy provide ways to enhance state-society relations and therefore enhance the
effectiveness of citizen participation (Herrschel, 2013, p. 15; Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016,
p. 225).
On the other hand, transnational business governance has formed as a way for
the private sector, CSOs, and multi-stakeholder and hybrid public-private institutions to
transparently support the SD agenda; VSSSOs and their VSSs have played a large role
in the implementation of transnational business governance (Brandi, 2017, p. 26;
Bennet, 2018, p. 68; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2). Bennett’s (2018) article provided insight
on how VSSs can offer a way to improve the labor and living standards in developing
countries, and Toffel et al.’s (2014) study then shed light on what incentivizes the
adherence to global sustainability standards. These were having suppliers embedded in
states actively participating in ILO treaty regimes, having stringent domestic labor laws
October18 BrookeBaldwin 105/148
and press freedom, and serving buyers in countries where consumers are wealthy and
socially conscious (Toffel et al., 2014, p. 21-23).
However, Brandi’s (2017) study highlighted some of the trade-offs that come
with VSSs, such as undermining the socioeconomic situation of smallholders and
causing greater environmental degradation (Bennet, 2017, p. 68; Brandi, 2017, p. 26).
Additionally, Mol (2015), Barkemeyer et al. (2014) and Meadowcroft’s (2013) articles
further emphasized the drawbacks of VSSs and transparency, as they enable
corporations, organizations and governments to look like they’re supporting the SD
agenda without actually tackling the problem and making a difference (Mol, 2015, p.
160; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988; Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31). Therefore, while
citizen participation in global governance and transnational business governance both
offer solutions to some of the key problems of global governance, they also come with
their own new challenges.
4.3. Education for SD Education for SD (ESD) was a common theme throughout the academic
literature, and numerous authors agree that ESD is essential to combating the world’s
challenges (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 29; Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 3-7; Lozano et al.,
2015, p. 1; Ramos et al., 2015, p. 3). In effect, ESD has significantly developed over the
past two decades (Lozano et al., 2015, p. 5; Ramos et al., 2015, p. 3; Michalos et al.,
2014; Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 3). Gaining society’s support for SD is considered vital
in conquering the world’s challenges, and education is fundamental to forming an
understanding of SD (Ramos et al., 2015, p. 3; Lozano et al., 2015, p. 1; Biermann et al,
p. 29). Particularly because such knowledge has to be generated into effective action in
order to have a transformative impact on SD; “global citizenship education aims to be
transformative, building the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that learners need to
be able to contribute to a more inclusive, just and peaceful world,” (UN, 2015, p. 15).
Hence, the increasing number of higher education systems implementing SD education
into their curriculum is not only increasing the awareness of SD but also enables
researchers and academic systems to point out areas for improvement and work towards
generating the most effective methods for providing ESD (Michalos et al., 2014;
Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14); Ramos et al., 2015, p. 9). This section will begin by
explaining the progress made thus far in education for SD. Several studies will be
October18 BrookeBaldwin 106/148
analyzed, and current forms of implementation will be discussed. Lastly,
recommendations for more effective and better implementation of ESD will be
reviewed.
4.3.1. ESD in Higher Education Several authors agree that over the past two decades, education has increasingly
become an imperative to transforming into a more sustainable society (Ramos et al.,
2015, p. 3; Lozano et al., 2015, p. 1). In response, there have been many efforts by
higher education institutions to implement SD into their academic systems (Ramos et
al., 2015, p. 3; Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14). Lozano et al.’s (2015) article focused on the
recent adoption of SD education by higher education institutions by conducting a study
on how SD education has been implemented into the academic system. The study has
been conducted through a survey answered by 84 respondents of 70 institutions
worldwide (Lozano et al., 2015, p. 5). Their findings showed that there were multiple
examples of ESD implementation throughout the academic system (particularly in
Europe), but holistic implementation was found to be challenging and hindering
(Lozano et al., 2015, p. 1). Additionally, Ramos et al.’s article showed that SD has been
implemented into higher education systems in numerous ways. Some forms of
implementation included: implementing ESD into courses and curricula, gaining
stakeholder engagement and participation, making improvements of campus operations,
by utilizing sustainability assessment and reporting, and emphasizing the impacts of
ESD on organizational change management and curricula development (Ramos et al.,
2015, p. 9). Lozano et al.’s article showed that the academic leaderships’ commitment
to SD played a large role in the higher education systems’ adoption and commitment to
SD. The institutions commitment and implementation of SD was strongest when the
institution had signed a declaration, charter or initiative, and the academic leaderships’
commitment was the leading cause for the signing of a declaration, charter or initiative
(Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14). Ramos et al.’s (2015) article highlights some of the current
challenges higher education institutions are still having with the integration of SD, these
are: integrating ESD into curricula, research and most importantly holistically
implementing it into their systems, a main challenge Lozano et al.’s (2015) study also
emphasized.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 107/148
4.3.1.1. Implementation of ESD
Therefore, a failure to holistically implement ESD into the higher education
systems has been a main challenge found throughout the literature (Lozano et al., 2015,
p. 14; Ramos et al., 2015, p. 9; Michalos et al., 2014). Hence, Michalos et al.’s study
shed light on the impact that not compartmentalizing SD education can have. Michalos
et al. (2014) have conducted a study to assess the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors
that 10th grade students in Manitoba, Canada have concerning SD, based on the
understanding of SD concepts in the UNESCO. Manitoba has taken an integrated
approach to implementing SD across the entire curriculum of its elementary and
secondary classrooms, rather than developing a standalone/compartmentalized course
for SD (Michalos et al., 2014). Since 2004, the Ministry of Education in Manitoba has
declared ESD a priority and has developed an action plan, which has since been
committed to. There are four key points to this action plan:
1. Benchmarking of sustainability outcomes in the curriculum.
2. Integrating SD concepts into new curricula;
3. Holding in-service teacher training workshops and other projects to
enhance teaching and learning for sustainability;
4. Providing information, best practices, and learning resources on ESD.
(Michalos et al., 2014)
Hence the 10th grade students of Manitoba, Canada have had an exposure of
ESD throughout majority of their formal education. The authors’ results showed that the
students’ knowledge, attitudes and choices in relation to SD have notably improved as a
result of consistent and long-term exposure to ESD, and the holistic implementation of
SD into the curriculum (Michalos et al., 2014). Knowledge of social and environmental
dimensions of SD were stronger than the economic dimension, however some students
were challenged with formally defining SD despite understanding it (Michalos et al.,
2014). Savelyeva & Douglas (2017) have assessed the implementation of the UN-based
SD model in Hong Kong higher education systems through the formal liberal studies
curriculum, which is aimed at fostering the sustainability consciousness of students
(Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 220). Sustainability consciousness describes a way of
October18 BrookeBaldwin 108/148
constructing one’s reality through the reflectiveness process of formulating personal and
group-related systems of values, beliefs, goals and strategies that lead to sustainable
changes (Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 220). Their findings suggest that implementing
sustainability education as part of the formal compulsory liberal studies curriculum in a
continuous manner (from secondary school to formal education) increases students’
knowledge-attitude-behavior axis and fosters their sustainability consciousness through
a process of transformative learning and identity building (Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017,
p. 236). Hence both Michalos et al. and Savelyeva &Douglas’ articles have emphasized
the importance of continuous and holistic implementation of ESD in order to transform
society.
While, Savelyeva & Douglas did find the UN-based SD model to be useful, in
terms of raising sustainability awareness, and increasing the knowledge and support of
environmentally friendly behaviors in students, they also emphasized that the model has
a ‘highly anthropocentric and compartmentalized structure’ resulting in a lack of
completeness and continuity (Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 235; NAS, 2015). Several
authors have proposed adding a fourth pillar to the UN’s three pillar model of SD which
could, “consciously and systematically incorporate a deeper, at once more internal and
more contextual dimension, designated variously as cultural- aesthetic, political-
institutional, or religious-spiritual” (Velasco & Harder, 2014, p. 6554). Huckle & Wals
(2015) emphasized this notion of a fourth pillar in their new model of Global Education
for Sustainability Citizenship (GESC).
4.3.1.2. GESC
Huckle & Wals (2015) have assessed the UN’s Decade of Education for SD
(DESD 2005-2015) initiative in their article. DESD aimed, ‘to integrate the values
inherent in SD into all aspects of learning to encourage changes in behavior that allow
for a more sustainable and just society for all’ (UNESCO 2005a), and was structured to
provide oversight, advice and coordination of the efforts of member states, UN agencies
and other groups (Huckle & Wals, 2015, p. 491). Based on their assessment, Huckle &
Wals (2015) claim that the UN has failed to acknowledge or challenge neoliberalism as
a barrier to sustainability, “if key causes of the global crisis are the prevailing
geopolitical order and lack of global governance, together with a lack of ‘civic
pedagogy’, as the authors of TEWN maintain, then global citizenship education should
October18 BrookeBaldwin 109/148
lie at the heart of an international initiative on ESD, such as DESD;” but this is not the
case (Huckle & Wals, 2015, p. 493). Therefore, Huckle & Wals (2015) have identified
four dimensions of what they call “global education for sustainability citizenship”
(GESC), which will better support ESD and will lead to a more sustainable society:
(1) Scale (understanding of global society and the ways in which personal
and collective decisions have impacts on distant human and non-human
others);
(2) Ethical (recognition of sustainability as a normative notion” which
encompasses respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice
and a culture of peace);
(3) Relational (understanding of the socially constructed nature of notions
and discourses of sustainability, citizenship and globalization);
(4) Political (exploration of structural causes of social and environmental
injustice and reformist and radical solutions)
(Huckle & Wals, 2015, p. 494-495)
4.3.1.3. Focus of ESD in Higher Education
Furthermore, Adomßent et al. (2014) suggest that despite the increase in ESD in
higher education systems, there should be a greater focus in three key areas:
management education for SD, sustainable consumption in higher education
institutions, and higher education for SD in Central and Easter Europe. Adomßent et al.
(2014) argue that these are considered the three highly relevant emerging areas in
research on higher education for SD as they have the potential to make a large overall
impact on the transformation to SD (Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 3).
“A paradigm shift towards sustainability will thus greatly impact the education
and training processes of future professionals, opening up new perspectives on lifelong-
learning processes and developing new attitudes towards nature, different cultures, and
consumption patterns,” (Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 3)
Management education for SD, refers to the role of business schools and other
management education institutions, and is particularly relevant since management
education has been accused of having failed to integrate reflection on ethical values,
October18 BrookeBaldwin 110/148
social responsibility and sustainability into the curriculum in order to educate future
decision-makers to act more sustainably (Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 5). The UN’s
supported Principles and Responsible Management Education (PRME) (UN Global
Compact 2007) was the first global initiative focused on responsible management
education and has been considered an important catalyst of the transformation since
(Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 5). Management education systems have started to accept the
broader responsibility of management in society, and business schools/faculties have
made progress in educating and preparing students for future market realities
(Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 10). Sustainable consumption in higher education could
enable the shift in consumption and production systems, which is a key concern in the
SD agenda (Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 7). The authors claim that addressing the role of
students as consumer citizens should be a priority issue in research, education,
operations and community outreach that requires strategic leadership (Adomßent et al.,
2014, p. 9). Higher education for SD in Central and Eastern Europe, has been noted for
its potential impact but there is relatively little research on the matter (Adomßent et al.,
2014, p. 8). However, the European Commission has acknowledged ESD in their
adoption of the European Strategy for SD (EC, 2006; EC, 2007) and encourages
member states to develop strategic approaches to sharing knowledge and good practice
in order to stimulate ESD (Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 8).
4.3.2. Summary ESD has been a main theme throughout the recent academic literature in varying
contexts. Numerous authors agree that ESD is fundamental to transitioning into a more
sustainable society. The aim of education for SD is to change the values, beliefs and
attitudes of the youth of today in order to change the consumption patters and activities
of the leaders of tomorrow. Based on the academic literature, ESD is spreading across
the globe and becoming a standard aspect of education in many higher education
institutions (Michalos et al., 2014; Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 220; Ramos et al.,
2015, p. 3; Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14; Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 3). Several studies
showed that ESD is actually effective in changing the values, beliefs, attitudes and
actions of students towards SD (Michalos et al., 2014; Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p.
235). However, these studies also highlighted the difficulty in holistically implementing
October18 BrookeBaldwin 111/148
ESD into the curriculum and the necessity of holistic implementation, as well as
continuous implementation, in order to enhance the sustainability consciousness of
students (Michalos et al., 2014; Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 235; Ramos et al., 2015,
p. 9; Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14). A key factor found to enhance the effectiveness and
adoption of ESD by higher education systems was the academic leaderships’
commitment to SD, which was strongest when the institution had signed a declaration,
charter or initiative (Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14; Michalos et al., 2014).
Furthermore, Huckle & Wals (2015) have criticized the content of the UN’s
framework of ESD and have proposed their ‘Global Education for Sustainability
Citizenship’ model which aims to enhance society’s support and understanding of SD
by emphasizing four key dimensions: scale, ethical, relational and political (Huckle &
Wals, 2015, p. 494-495). Lastly, Adomßent et al.’s (2014) article highlighted three key
topics: management education for SD, sustainable consumption in higher education
institutions, and higher education for SD in Central and Eastern Europe, which should
be of greater focus and attention in the higher education of SD as they could have the
most efficient and effective impact on building a sustainable society and transforming
the business sector towards SD (Adomoßent et al., 2014, p. 3).
4.4. SD Business Models & Solutions Numerous authors have emphasized the integral role of the private sector in the
transition to SD throughout the academic literature (Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Eberlein et al.,
2014; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2; Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5). One major aspect in gaining
the support of the private sector is educating society on SD, as has been discussed
above. Another major aspect however is gaining the support of businesses. Businesses
do not only possess valuable assets such as financial and personnel resources,
infrastructure, innovation and technology, but they also have the ability to influence
society, their supply chain and other stakeholders, and promote good governance
(Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Bennet, 2018, p. 68; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2; Barkemeyer et al.,
2014, p. 15; Voegltin & Scherer, 2017, p. 230). Hence, gaining the support of
businesses in the SD agenda has been a popular theme throughout the academic
literature. The topic of sustainable businesses is not new, but has received much
attention over the past decades (Kolk et al., 2015, p. 353; Hart et al., 2016, p. 403).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 112/148
Despite that, several authors agree that there has been little change or adoption of SD in
the business context (Kolk et al., 2015, p. 353; Simanis, 2012; Hart et al., 2016, p. 403).
These challenges will be discussed before moving onto the topic of sustainability
strategies. The growing importance and potential impact of sustainability strategies will
be explained, followed by the introduction of several new sustainability frameworks and
concepts.
4.4.1. The SD Business Challenge Corporations have largely utilized globalization for personal and financial return
over the past decades, and the result has been increased levels of environmental
degradation and harm to humanity despite the increasing awareness of SD issues ((Hart
et al., 2016, p. 412; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Beck, 2016, p. 3; Waisman et al., 2014,
p. 104). Several authors pointed out the ‘favoring’ of addressing environmental issues
over socio-economic ones in light of sustainability pressures, and the capitalistic intent
and harm this is further causing humanity and SD (Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988;
Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31; Holden et al., 2016, p. 2). Therefore, as Hart et al.
(2016) put it, “the time is ripe for reconciling business-based poverty solutions with the
threats that growth poses to the natural environment,” (Hart et al., 2016, p. 412).
The BoP strategy is one of the most renowned sustainability strategies, and has
focuses on the socio-economic aspects of SD (Kolk et al., 2015, p. 538). In 2002,
Prahlalad & Hart introduced the concept of the BoP, which reframed the poorest four
billion people in the world as a potential market to be served rather than a large
population in need of aid (Prahalad & Hart, 2002; Hart et al., 2016, p. 403). Since then,
the concept of the BoP has evolved dramatically throughout the academic literature
(Kolk et al., 2015, p. 532). “Yet despite all this research over the past 15 years, the
unfortunate truth is that most inclusive business ventures and BoP corporate initiatives
have either failed outright, been converted to philanthropic programs, or achieved only
modest success at great cost,” (Hart et al., 2016, p. 403). Few have been able to build a
foundation, or have gathered significant commercial momentum, or achieved substantial
scale (Simanis, 2012; Hart et al., 2016, p. 403).
Hart et al. (2016) partially attribute the lack of traction and progress of BoP
ventures, to the incremental approach taken by many early BoP ventures and
corporations. Consequently there is a distinction between “BoP 1.0” and “BoP 2.0”
October18 BrookeBaldwin 113/148
approaches. On the one hand, the “BoP 1.0” focuses on adapting existing products,
reducing price points and extending distribution to previously underserved or un-served
customers, often with NGO partners to compensate for the lack of prior experience
(Hart et al., 2016, p. 403). On the other hand, the “BoP 2.0” approach stresses the
importance of co-creating products and compelling value propositions with undeserved
communities, innovating from the bottom-up, leapfrogging to environmentally
sustainable technology, and creating a dedicated set of metrics and timelines suited to
the unique features of the undeserved space (Hart et al., 2016, p. 403; Hart, 2015;
London & Hart, 2011). However, it is clear that knowledge about parameters for
successfully integrating business, poverty alleviation, and SD appear to still be rather
ambiguous (Hart et al., 2016, p. 403; Kolk et al., 2015, p. 353). With reference to the BoP concept, Kolk et al. (2015) suggest that new and
renewed frameworks of implementing BoP initiatives be created, “given the variation
that exists across BoP contexts, across products, and industries, and across consumer
needs, different BoP business models are likely to be necessary in different BoP
settings,” (Kolk et al., 2015, p. 353). Additionally, as the original BoP concept targeted
MNEs several scholars have highlighted the important role that MNEs, as well as small
companies, domestic companies, social entrepreneurs, and even non-profit
organizations and government agencies can play as well, and hence a discussion on the
role of these actors in BoP initiatives is still needed (Kolk et al., 2015, p. 353; Voegltin
& Scherer, 2017, p. 230; Bocken, 2015). In this regard, Hart et al. (2016) has generated
a conceptual map of the terrain (Figure 3.) explaining the gap between the BoP
business revolution and the knowledge of implementing BoP strategies in hopes to gain
further support (Hart et al., 2016, p. 405):
Figure 3.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 114/148
The domain, ‘Process Focus’ emphasizes the importance of co-creation and
embedding in local context, as successful innovation for the BoP requires firms to tap
into new types of knowledge in order to develop products and business models and to
meet the challenge of conflicting economic, social and ecological stakeholder demands
in these new contexts (Hart et al., 2016, p. 405). Next the domain, ‘Content Focus’ aims
to enhance international strategy, organizational design and structure, systems and
incentives, and business model innovation to launch successful BoP ventures (Hart et
al., 2016, p. 409). Lastly, ‘Outcome Focus’ emphasizes the use of new tools and
methodologies to systematically measure and track the impacts of BoP ventures on
business poverty alleviation (Hart et. al., 2016, p. 410). This framework should facilitate
the growth of more poverty alleviating business strategies in the future, as it is
becoming exponentially more vital in our world. Hart’s idea of “green leap” innovation
is one new approach of reconciliation between poverty alleviation and environmental
sustainability, as it connects BoP businesses to clean and regenerative technology
commercialization, building from the logic of disruptive innovation (Hart et al., 2016, p.
411; Hart, 2005; Hart 2011; Hart & Christensen, 2002).
4.4.2. Sustainability Strategies Consequently, new and renewed models and frameworks for integrating SD into
business practices are still needed if all three aspects and goals of SD should be
implemented. Broman & Robert (2015), Bocken (2015), Almeida et al. (2015) and
Voegtlin & Scherer (2017) all focus on changing the business environment in a way that
works towards SD instead of against it while attaining a competitive advantage. The
above authors argue that one of the largest challenges with globalization is the increase
in production, consumption and flow of goods around the world. Almeida et al.’s (2015)
article highlights the urgent need for a change from unsustainable production and
societal patterns to truly sustainable societal development and suggests that
sustainability strategies could be the solution.
Based on 54 articles presented at the 4th International Workshop Advances in
Cleaner Production, Almeida et al. (2015) analyzed numerous sustainability strategies
that integrate cleaner production and have categorized them according to the level of
strategy hierarchy and related them to Mintzberg’s strategies, as can be seen in Figure
October18 BrookeBaldwin 115/148
4. Cleaner production (CP) is a preventative integrated continuous strategy for
modifying processes to enhance efficiency, which improves environmental performance
and reduces costs (APINI, n.a.). Almeida et al.’s (2015) findings suggest that the
transition towards SD via CP has already been having an increasing impact on global
production, consumption and international trade (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 4).
Figure 4: Sustainability strategies for cleaner production in order of hierarchy
(Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3)
At the highest level of strategy hierarchy, is the global level where several
countries and cultures must share strategies and work together towards common goals.
The broader goals are established by society’s perceptions with regard to SD,
development and wellbeing (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3). Indicators should be set in
place to provide information on the status of each society and help leaders establish
priorities for action in each country (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3). However, the current
indicators of ‘progress’ misguide the elaboration of public and sectoral policies at all
levels and the weaknesses of these indicators are key stimuli for the development of
alternative indices to measure and guide the needed transition towards truly equitable
and sustainable societies (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3). Research showed that sustainable
strategies are dependent on a country’s development model, its degree of development
and its societal structure in which the plans and policies would be applied (Almeida et
al., 2015, p. 3). Additional support and influence from the academia to teach and
influence students on sustainability and CP topics is also vital to improving professional
October18 BrookeBaldwin 116/148
activities for SD. Environmental sustainability knowledge can be enhanced and spread
with the help of academic leaders through valuable recommendations, designed training
programs and eco-design models (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3).
At the National level of strategic hierarchy, actions are guided by governmental
decisions, regulatory agencies and legislation. National governments are already
developing and implementing policies to promote CP to enhance the ability of
enterprises, societies, and local administrators (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3). At the
Sectoral strategy hierarchy level, policies and actions applied for sectors can provide
direction to guide decisions and actions covering a broader territory. Management
practices improving a company’s environmental performance can quickly be
disseminated across a larger area of influence (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 3). Input and
participation from all levels of management and across all departments in support of
sectoral policies are required for an effective strategy. Integrating green supply chain
management can further support the effectiveness of sectoral strategies by influencing
different members in the supply chain to reduce their individual and joint wastage of
materials and energy (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5).
At the lowest strategic hierarchy level is the individual level. Although
individual initiatives are independent, it is imperative that a sufficient and varied
number of efforts are made to catalyze systemic changes towards SD (Almeida et al.,
2015, p. 5). Development of environmental technologies at the individual company
level can provide promising solutions to SD as can be seen by the outcomes of recent
developments in “green chemistry,” “green engineering,” and “sustainable materials.”
These developments have presented opportunities for new feedstock and intermediate
materials, alternative reuse approaches, emission reductions and production based upon
renewable approaches (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5). Furthermore, the integration of
frameworks targeted towards SD goals such as the ISO 14001, environmental
management systems, and the Sustainable Value concept and CP were found to improve
the adoption of SD activities at the individual level. The use of assessment methods and
tools to review, revise and monitor all of the firm’s SD strategies at all hierarchical
levels is also critical to successful implementation (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 7).
October18 BrookeBaldwin 117/148
4.4.2.1. FSSD Framework & RI
Broman & Robert (2015) and Voegltin & Scherer (2017) have devised
sustainability frameworks for organizations to implement into their business activities in
order to gain a competitive advantage in the market while benefiting and not harming
the environment or humanity. Broman & Robert (2015) claim that there has been a
problem with the fundamental understanding of SD in the business context, which has
restricted the support of MNCs in SD initiatives. They argue that the issue lies in two
aspects:
(1) Inability to comprehend the strain industrialization inflicts on SD;
(2) An inability to translate the definition into effective action.
(Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 5)
In response the authors have revised the FSSD, Framework for Strategic SD,
and have made additions to support businesses in understanding the concept of SD with
a step-by-step guide on how to achieve it. Their FSSD model includes the funnel
metaphor facilitating the understanding of the challenge facing sustainability, a five-
level structuring inter-relation model, a principled definition of sustainability (including
eight dimensions), and an operational procedure for creative co-creation of strategic
transitions towards sustainability.
The Funnel Metaphor:
“The systematic decline of the ecological and social systems' potential to
support the fulfillment of human needs, in combination with the growing population,
can be metaphorically illustrated as the human civilization entering deeper and deeper
into a funnel, ” (Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 5).
In Broman & Robert’s (2015) explanation of the funnel metaphor the authors
state that the inclined funnel wall clarifies the systematic character of the challenge as
well as the self-benefit of having and working towards a sustainable vision. Hitting the
wall of the funnel should be avoided while moving towards the vision at the opening of
the funnel (Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 5). Once the unsustainable basic design and
mode of operation of society has been resolved the funnel will turn into a cylinder
implying sustainability. Broman & Robert (2015) claim that the funnel metaphor is
particularly useful for illustrating the self-benefit of proactivity for sustainability and
October18 BrookeBaldwin 118/148
therefore gaining the attention of leaders. In addition to the funnel metaphor the authors
have also defined sustainability principles, which should guide organizations away from
unsustainable practices.
These eight guiding principles of SD are characterized as follows:
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing….
1. Concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust (e.g. fossil
carbons and metals);
2. Concentrations of substances produced by society (e.g. conscious
molecular designs, limited production and safeguarding);
3. Degradation by physical means (e.g. over-harvesting of forests and over-
fishing);
4. Health (e.g. dangerous working conditions or insufficient rest from
work);
5. Influence (e.g. by suppression of free speech or neglect of opinions);
6. Competence (e.g. by obstacles for education or insufficient possibilities
for personal development);
7. Impartiality (e.g. by discrimination or unfair selection to job positions);
8. Meaning-making (e.g. by suppression of cultural expression or obstacles
to co-creation of purposeful conditions).
(Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 7)
Broman & Robert (2015) claim that the FSSD framework offers numerous
benefits including enhancing the effective management of system boundaries and trade-
offs and offers the possibility for more effective collaboration across disciplines and
sectors, regions, value-chains and stakeholder groups (Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 1).
Voegltin & Scherer (2017) on the other hand do not focus as much on the business
process but more on the product or output of the business. In their 2017 article Voegltin
& Scherer (2017) argue that ‘responsible innovation’ at the organizational level
accompanied by the global governance of hard and soft law measures is a key
mechanism to globally achieving the 2030 SDGs.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 119/148
“The idea of responsible innovation is that new products should not damage the
health of consumers and the general public, new processes should be safe for workers
and everyone involved, and neither of these should pollute or harm the environment in
any way,” (Voegltin & Scherer, 2017, p. 230).
Responsible innovation is innovation that consists of three dimensions:
(1) Innovations avoid harming people the planet;
(2) Innovations ‘do good’ by offering new products, services, or
technologies which foster SD;
(3) Global governance schemes are in place to facilitate innovations that
avoid harm and ‘do’ good.
(Voegltin & Scherer, 2017, p. 227)
They have developed an model, which states that CSR fostering responsible
innovations, conveys a political role to business organizations and that SD requires
collective problem solving to encourage ‘do good’ innovations and ‘soft law’
arrangements to promote the development of innovations that ‘avoid harm’ (Voegltin &
Scherer, 2017, p. 229). Both Broman & Roberts (2015) and Voegtlin & Scherer (2017)
highlight the strategic advantage that can be achieved by producing products in different
ways or producing products different than their competitors through envisioned SD
objectives. In other words, gaining a competitive advantage (as defined by Porter) by
working towards SD. Another approach to changing the business environment is
suggested by Bocken (2015) in her 2015 article on sustainable venture capital. In her
article Bocken (2015) claims that in order to works towards solving the global
sustainability challenge the world is currently facing, venture capitalists should target
sustainable businesses that deliver triple bottom line results.
Broman & Roberts (2015), Voegltin & Sherer’s (2017), and Almeida et al.’s
(2015) approaches emphasized the importance of SD at the organizational level. While,
Bocken (2015), Holden et al. (2016), and Voegltin & Scherer’s (2017) approaches
additionally focused on the importance of external stakeholders as a support and
incentive system for encouraging sustainable businesses practices. To compare,
Voegltin & Scherer’s (2017) support system calls upon the government and non-
governmental organizations to support and incentivize entrepreneurs to invest in
responsible innovations, and Bocken (2015) focuses on the incentives venture
October18 BrookeBaldwin 120/148
capitalists can provide through targeting their investments. Based on an empirical study,
Bocken (2015) argues that venture capitalist investments play a key role in forming
sustainable start-ups. Apart from providing financial assistance, venture capitalists can
contribute to sustainable business success by helping to prove the success of sustainable
business formats, by mitigating the financial risk through co-investments and by
exercising patience through balancing financial with both social and environmental
returns (Bocken, 2015).
4.4.3. Summary Sustainability strategies in the business context are not a new topic; they have
actually been a topic of much popularity and attention over the past decades (Kolk et al.,
2015, p. 532; Hart et al., 2016, p. 403; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988). In light of the
continuous awareness of SD issues and the negative impacts that business activities
have on the environment, businesses have increasingly been adopting some sort of
sustainability initiative (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 4; Barkemeyer et al., 2017, p. 15).
Despite that, environmental burdens continue to increase and areas of extreme poverty
still remain (Holden et al., 2016, p. 10; Meadwocroft, 2013, p. 990; Hart et al., 2016, p.
412). Several authors attribute the little progress made in the support of SD in the
business sector to a lack of understanding of SD, an inability to comprehend SD and
strain of industrialization, and a lack of (universal) methods of implementation (Kolk et
al., 2015, p. 353; Hart et al., 2017, p. 403; Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 5). While others
attribute it to a lack of incentives and support from external stakeholders such as
investors, suppliers, customers, governments, NGOs, CSOs, and IGOs (Voegltin &
Scherer, 2017, p. 227; Bocken, 2015; Kolk et al., 2015, p. 353; Bennett, 2018, p. 68).
Whatever the reason may be, numerous authors agree that transforming the business
sector towards SD is vital to combating the world’s gravest SD challenges
(Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988; Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31; Adomßent et al., 2014, p.
5; Hart et al., 2016, p. 412). Furthermore, contributions from the business sector need to
alleviate environmental, economic, and as well as social burdens, all aspects of SD
(Hart et al., 2016, p. 412; Kolk et al., 2015, p. 532; Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 379:
Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31; Holden et al., 2016, p. 4; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 98).
Almeida et al.’s (2015) article emphasized how global- national- sector-
individual sustainability strategies have a positive impact and the importance in gaining
October18 BrookeBaldwin 121/148
support and cooperation from both the public and the private sector (Almeida et al.,
2015, p. 3-5). Broman & Robert’s (2015) renewed FSSD framework redefines SD in the
business context and provides a set of guidelines for businesses to follow in order to
refrain from unsustainable practices (Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 5). Voegltin &
Scherer’s (2017) concept of responsible innovation aims to foster sustainable
innovations (product output) in the market, which do not add to environmental or social
burdens but offer new solutions; and are incentivized through global governance
schemes (Voegltin & Scherer, 2017, p. 227). Bocken’s (2015) article then highlighted
how venture capitalists can play an integral role in fostering and incentivizing
sustainable start-ups, by providing financial assistance, protection and connections
(Bocken, 2015). Therefore sustainability strategies in the business context are spreading
beyond the actions of a single company, but also to the external stakeholders of the
company.
4.5. Summary & Discussion The articles assessed throughout the academic literature covered a wide range of
topics and solutions on globalization and SD. What has become clear throughout the
literature is that globalization is both beneficial and harmful to SD. This implies, as well
the findings of Das (2013), Fura et al. (2017), Shaikh et al. (2016), Ertrugul et al. (2016)
and Grossman & Helpman (2015), showed, that globalization is actually able to support
the SD agenda, and even more so if changes are made. However these changes are not
simple, but require collaborative and cohesive decision-making and implementation
across and between countries and continents (Fura et al., 2017, p. 978; Stiglitz, 2017, p.
16; Biermann et al., 2017, p. 27-29). This leads to the topic of global governance and
the coordination of policies and regulations. While new forms of global governance,
such as citizen participation and transnational business governance, have evolved to fill
the gaps of inadequate global and state regulations, they are far from encompassing a
true solution to the current challenges of global governance (Meng et al., 2014, p. 2;
Brandi, 2017, p. 31; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 1; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988; Barkemeyer et
al., 2014, p. 31). Furthermore, new and unexplored solutions do not come without new
or unknown challenges (Brandi, 2017, p. 26). Despite that, numerous sustainability
solutions have been proposed throughout the academic literature.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 122/148
Almeida et al.’s (2015) article emphasized the value of sustainability strategies
at all levels of the sustainability strategy hierarchy, so from the global to the individual
level. Throughout the academic literature, numerous sustainability strategies were
discussed and examples of sustainability strategies at each level have been presented. At
the global sustainability strategy level, Biermann et al.’s characterization of the 2030
Agenda offers global common goals for the UN member states to work towards, based
on their abilities and preferences (Biermann et al., 2017, p. 26). Holden et al.’s (2016)
renewed model of SD also functions as a global sustainability strategy focused on
gaining societal support by connecting the SDGs to specific indicators and threshold
values (Holden et al., 2016, p. 10). At the national level, Herrschel’s concept of Smart
(New) City Regionalism offers a framework for guiding policy and regulatory
preferences from the local to the national level (Herrschel, 2013, p. 15). Schmitz &
Mitchel’s proposition of RBA strategies further strengthens the communication and
support of NGOs for citizen empowerment (Schmitz & Mitchel, 2016, p. 253).
Additionally, Stiglitz’s policy program outline aims to guide national policies away
from inflicting greater harm on those suffering the most from globalization (Stiglitz,
2017, p. 16).
At the sectoral level, Voegltin & Scherer’s concept of RI incentivizes
sustainable innovations/businesses with the support of global governance schemes
(Voegltin & Scherer, 2017, p. 227). As well, VSSs and VSSSOs can play a role in
enhancing sectoral standards in countries where the governments are unable to upgrade
their standards (Bennet, 2018, p. 68). Lastly, at the individual level Broman and
Robert’s FSSD framework aims to guide businesses away from unsustainable activities
(Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 7). Additionally, Bocken’s (2015) sustainable venture
capitalist concept aims to change the initiatives and incentives of entrepreneurs at the
individual levels (Bocken, 2015). Hence, as Almeida et al.’s (2015) article emphasized,
sustainability strategies have different functions and impacts at various levels and
therefore may be necessary at various levels. What this implies is that there is no one
solution to overcoming the challenges of globalization and SD.
However, based on the content of ESD in the academic literature, it would
appear that ESD is the closest thing to a solution of globalization and SD for several
reasons. First, the studies of Meadowcroft (2013) and Barkemeyer et al. (2014) revealed
how governments and corporations have been utilizing the value attributed to
transparency in SD topics for their own economic gain (Mol, 2015, p. 160). What this
October18 BrookeBaldwin 123/148
implies is that awareness of SD has significantly increased, and hence many
stakeholders understand the implications of their actions at some level. Yet despite that
awareness and general understanding, they still choose to act unsustainably while
appearing otherwise due to the societal pressures of SD (Mol, 2015, p. 160;
Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988; Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31). This leads to the question
of ones values, beliefs and morals, which are deeply embedded within an individual and
guide their actions (Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 220). Therefore, societal pressures
guide their actions to act sustainably but their personal values, beliefs and morals do not
(Toffel et al., 2014, p. 21-23; Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14; Michalos et al., 2014; Scherer
et al., 2013, p. 262-264).
Second, ESD aims and succeeds at transforming the values, beliefs and morals
of students and fostering a sustainability consciousness (Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p.
220). ESD was found to be most effective when implemented holistically into the
academic system and continuously throughout the student’s formal education
(Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 236; Michalos et al., 2014). Hence this will require
commitment and dedication from the academic system. Third, the signing of a charter or
initiative was found to significantly strengthen ones commitment to SD by both the
business and academic contexts (Lozano et al., 2015, p. 14; Michalos et al., 2014;
Toffel et al., 2014, p. 21-23). However, the incentives for signing such a charter were
strongest when the faculty was already committed to SD or when goods were sold to
sustainability conscious consumers (Toffel et al., 2014, p. 21-23; Lozano et al., 2015, p.
14; Michalos et al., 2014). This implies that when powerful stakeholders are committed
to SD, the actions and activities around them shift to support SD even at the global
level. Therefore, if a sustainability consciousness can be fostered through ESD, then the
values, morals and beliefs embedded within students, or the society, business owners
and leaders of tomorrow, will dictate their individual actions to genuinely support SD
(Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 220; Michalos et al., 2014; Adomoßent et al., 2014, p.
3).
Therefore, ESD may be able to set the foundation needed to build a truly
sustainable society in the future. However, it is really ESD in combination with
sustainability strategies and global governance regimes, which will enable a global shift
towards SD. Global sustainability strategies such as the 2030 Agenda, and Holden et
al.’s SD framework create the outline for common global goals to work towards and act
as a reference point for humanity. IGOs set the targets, goals and indicators of SD,
October18 BrookeBaldwin 124/148
while facilitating the coordination of policies and regulations, which are fair, supportive
and responsive to the individual needs of each country; Stiglitz’s policy outline and
Herrschel’s concept of Smart (new) City Regionalism can act as a reference.
Transnational business governance in combination with citizen participation can then
guide national policies and regulations to support SD, and voice it from the national to
the global level. As well these global governance regimes can help foster the adoption
of signing SD charters and standards. Businesses can then utilize such models as the
FSSD framework, the BoP framework or the RI concept to monitor and guide their
business activities when in doubt (Prahalad & Hart, 2002; Hart et al., 2016, p. 403; Kolk
et al., 2015, p. 353; Broman & Robert, 2015, p. 5-7; Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017, p. 230).
With the foundation of ESD, incentivizing SD should not be much of a concern since
individuals are individually incentivized by their own personal beliefs, values and
morals (Savelyeva & Douglas, 2017, p. 220; Michalos et al., 2014). The above scenario
is of course hypothetical since, although ESD has gained popularity and adoption over
recent years, it is still not a global standard. Additionally, not all of the population has
access to education, and this is a major goal of the SD agenda (UN, 2015). This comes
back to one of the main issues brought up throughout the academic literature, the
uneven development of the world, or the prevalent income inequality within and
amongst countries.
The main drivers of income inequality were global governance and the
coordination of policies, and the harm inflicted by environmental and economic
globalism. These two topics strongly correlate, as many authors feel that better global
governance and policy coordination will help limit the harmful effects of economic and
environmental globalism (Das, 2013, p. 110, Biermann et al., 2017, p. 27-29; Holden et
al., 2016, p. 2; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16-19; Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 379; Meadowcroft, 2013,
p. 988; Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5; Waisman et al., 2014, p. 101). To reiterate the
harmful effects of economic and environmental globalism: FDI commonly flows from
developed to developing countries allowing developed countries to cut costs on labor,
property, and environmental standards by relocating to developing countries which are
in exchange benefitted with capital, jobs and knowledge (Grossman & Helpman, 2015,
p. 101; Das, 2013, p. 104; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16). The result is often greater
environmental pollution and continuously poor social standards (i.e. living, working,
health) in developing countries and increased capital and control in developed countries
(Hart et al., 2016, p. 412; Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 1; Stewart, 2017, p. 68;
October18 BrookeBaldwin 125/148
Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Shaikh et al., 2016; Beck, 2016, p. 3). Additionally, FDI
harms local businesses and competition in developing countries, further enabling their
own ability to develop their own economies (Chia, 2015, p. 1; Firat, 2017, p. 4;
Ampuja, 2015, p. 29; Kimatu, 2014, p. 2).
However, the developing countries endure the harmful effects of FDI and
continue to draw in foreign investment in order to compete in the global market (Hart et
al., 2016, p. 412; Stewart, 2016, p. 68; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; Ahmed et al., 2017, p.
1142; Ertugrul et al., 2016, p. 543). Again, the result is the greater suppression of
developing countries and greater capital gain and control of developed countries.
Therefore, global governance regimes come in to play to oversee global activities and
help national governments, which are unable to function on their own. A simple
example of the conflict forming from the original forms of global governance is the
WTO. When member states of the WTO enter into an ITA, a set of policies, rules and
regulations are set for all the countries of the ITA to follow (Docalavich, 2016, p. 75).
What can happen then is that the poorer countries are held to the same standards as the
richer countries, making it more difficult and expensive for the poorer countries to enter
the agreement than the richer (Meyer, 2017). Additionally, the rules, regulations and
policies imposed no longer follow the rules, regulations and policies decided on
democratically by the citizens of the country (EU, 2015; Winters, 2014; Blackwell,
2017).
Consequently, national governments feel at a loss of sovereignty in both
developed and developing countries (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 37; Tucker, 2016; Meyer, 2017).
Hence, the new forms of global governance such as citizen participation and
transnational business governance. Citizen participation aims to voice citizen
preferences at the global level so that global activities such as ITAs, and FDI, don’t
infringe the rights and well-being of citizens (Hong, 2015, p. 572; Meng et al., 2014, p.
1; Senit et al., 2016, p. 533; Fox & Stoett, 2016, p. 558). Transnational business
governance, such as VSSs, aim to enhance the social standards of countries engaging in
global activities (Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Eberlein et al., 2014; Toffel et al., 2014, p. 2).
However, an agreed upon set of rules, regulations and policies facilitates the global
activities between and amongst developed and developing countries (Meyer, 2017).
Therefore, when it comes to coordination of policies between these countries it becomes
challenging to choose between the higher standards of the developed countries vs. the
lower standards of the developing countries. Brandi’s (2017) study highlighted some of
October18 BrookeBaldwin 126/148
the trade-offs that come with even with VSSs, such as undermining the socioeconomic
situation of smallholders and causing greater environmental degradation (Bennet, 2017,
p. 68; Brandi, 2017, p. 26). Hence, one of the largest challenges facing globalization
and SD today is (1) global governance and the coordination of policies.
Furthermore, transnational business governance aims to enhance the social
standards of countries engaging in global activities but the extent thus far has not been
sufficient (Bennett, 2018, p. 66; Brandi, 2017, p. 26; Mol, 2015, p. 160; Barkemeyer et
al., 2014, p. 31). Several authors emphasized how the adoption of VSSs has been
utilized for capital gain or false transparency of SD by many businesses (Barkemeyer et
al., 2014, p. 31; Scherer et al., 2013, p. 262; Mol, 2015, p. 160). Therefore, while
increased awareness of SD and societal pressures of SD have led businesses to adopt
VSSs, they are still not supporting the SD agenda for the right reasons nor are they
contributing as much as they should (Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31; Scherer et al.,
2013, p. 262; Mol, 2015, p. 160).
Yet, several authors agree that gaining the support of the private sector is vital to
meeting the SDGs and concurring the world’s greatest challenges (Meadowcroft, 2013,
p. 988; Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31; Hart et al., 2017, p. 412). This support should
cover the social, environmental and economic dimensions of SD and will require
increased societal support of SD and increased business support of SD, which many
authors agree both facilitate each other (Hart et al., 2016, p. 412; Kolk et al., 2015, p.
532; Frugoli et al., 2015, p. 379: Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p. 31; Holden et al., 2016, p.
4; Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 98). Increased societal support will not only push businesses
to support the SD agenda, but will also guide society’s individual consumption patterns
while also enhancing their knowledge and ability to indulge in citizen participation
(Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 990; Adomßent et al., 2014, p. 3; Almeida et al., 2015, p. 4;
Huckle & Wals, 2015, p. 493). Increased business support will not only educate and
guide society’s consumption patterns, but will also limit global pollution, environmental
degradation and arbitrage in developing countries (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; Ahmed et al.,
2017, p. 1142; Erugrul et al., 2016, p. 543). Therefore, two of the largest challenges
facing globalization and SD today are (2) gaining societal support of SD, and (3)
gaining the support of business in the SD agenda.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 127/148
5. Conclusion Today’s globalization is characterized by global networks of interdependence
made up of countries, corporations, and people, which exchange products, services,
knowledge, and capital at an increasingly fast rate and frequency due to innovative
technologies permitting the metaphoric shrinkage of space (Keohane & Nye, 2007, p. 5;
Held et al., 1999, p. 15; Martell, 2010, p. 12). This motion of globalization has changed
the business environment, allowing companies to search and settle in areas of the world,
which provide them with the most financial benefit and tactic (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 39;
Gopinath, 2008 p. 132). The free flow of capital and corporations across the world in
combination with the innovations of the Internet and technology have allowed wealth
and mass production to accrue in the 21st century like never before (Brondoni, 2014, p.
13). Yet despite income levels rising, income inequality is still prevalent suggesting that
the wealth is not being fairly distributed within nations (Stiglitz, 2017, p. 16; Stewart,
2016, p. 68). As well, environmental burdens are continuously increasing (Waisman et
al., 2014, p. 103; WHO, 2018; Hart et al., 2016, p. 412).
The aim of this thesis has been to determine the effects of globalization on SD.
What has become clear is that the effects of globalization on SD are both harmful and
beneficial in both developed and developing countries. The harmful effects of
globalization on SD have been defined as: increased income inequality, increased
competition, increased unemployment, increase environmental degradation, increased
environmental pollution, increased capitalism, a loss of sovereignty of national
governments and increased control of MNCs (Ritchie & Roser, 2018; WHO, 2018;
Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 988; Waisman et al., 2014, p. 103; Bennett, 2018, p. 67; Beck,
2016, p. 1; Hart et al., 2016, p. 412; Stewart, 2016, p. 68; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553;
Shaikh et al., 2016; Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14). The key drivers
of the harmful effects have been expressed as technological change, FDI, and
competition (Jaumotte et al., 2013, p. 30; Stiglitz, 2017, p. 14; Stewart, 2016, p. 68).
The beneficial effects of globalization on SD have been defined as: knowledge transfer
and spillovers, increased income levels, increased support in supply chain networks,
increased collaboration and coordination, increased awareness of SD, increased ESD,
and increased support of SD (Das, 2013, p. 101; Bennet, 2016, p. 66; Grossman &
Helpman, 2015, p. 100; Ertrugul et al., 2016, p. 553; Shaikh et al., 2016, Lozano et al.,
2015, p. 1; Ramos et al., 2015, p. 3; Fura et al., 2017, p. 977). The most common
October18 BrookeBaldwin 128/148
solutions proposed throughout the academic literature were citizen participation in
global governance, transnational business governance, ESD, policy coordination and
sustainability strategies.
However, an interesting finding was how the drawbacks of technological
change, FDI and competition can be overcome by utilizing some of the beneficial
effects of globalization on SD; particularly with respect to developing countries. For
instance, how Das’ (2013) article highlighted how technological change and global
trade and investment activities can globalize an economy and lead to an increase in
living standards in countries like India (Das, 2013, p. 101). Additionally, how
Grossman & Helpman’s (2015) article, as well as Stiglitz’s (2017) article, emphasized
how countries like China have significantly benefitted and developed as a result of
knowledge spillovers and knowledge transfers from inward FDI. Furthermore
Grossman & Helpman’s (2015) article also emphasized the link between knowledge
transfers, innovation and competition and how developing countries can benefit despite
having low innovations and high competition.
Additionally, the findings of the systematic literature review highlighted the
value of collaboration, coordination and support of key stakeholders in the SD agenda.
This was emphasized in several different contexts throughout the academic literature.
First with regard to the SDGs, Fura et al.’s (2017) article shed light on how the 28
member countries of the EU have been working together to meet the goals of the
Europe 2020 Strategy. Due to the varying socioeconomic development status’ of the
EU member states, Fura et al. (2017) emphasized that it is unlikely that each country
individually meets all targets, but by working together many countries have been able to
increase their standards and development and together their cumulative actions could
lead to the accomplishment of EU objectives (Fura et al., 2017, p. 977). Additionally,
Shaikh et al.’s (2016) article highlighted how developing countries such as Malaysia
have been able to support the SD agenda by limiting CO2 emissions with the support of
the Government of Malaysia (Shaikh et al., 2016). Second with regards to ESD, the
findings of Michalos et al. (2015) emphasized how the government of Mantioba,
Canada has been supporting the SD agenda by implementing ESD across the entire
curriculum of its elementary and secondary classrooms since 2004; and the success that
has come therefrom (Michalos et al., 2015).
Third with regards to citizen participation, Meng et al.’s (2014) study on the
effectiveness of citizen participation revealed the importance of state-society relations
October18 BrookeBaldwin 129/148
in having authoritarian regimes incorporate citizen preferences into policy (Meng et al.,
2014, p. 2). Fourth with regards to transnational business governance, Toffel et al.’s
(2014) article shed light on how the suppliers and consumers of the value chain network
influence adoption and adherence to VSSs, and how overlapping state, civil society, and
market governance regimes are essential to having meaningful transnational regulation
(Toffel et al., 2014, p. 1). Fifth with regards to policy coordination, Stiglitz’s (2017)
article emphasized the necessity of governments to take an integral role in shifting
policies so that globalization can also benefit those who have been harmed by
globalization, since the market on its own can not facilitate this change (Stiglitz, 2017,
p. 19). Sixth and lastly, with regards to sustainability strategies, Almeida et al.’s (2015)
article defined four sustainability strategy hierarchies and the value that each one has as
well as the necessity of global cooperation and coordination from the private and public
sectors in order to achieve sustainability at each level (Almeida et al., 2015, p. 5).
Furthermore, throughout the conceptual background, several authors stated that
a major dilemma of the SD agenda in developing countries is their inability to support
the SD agenda due to their poor socioeconomic development status (Ritchie & Roser,
2008). Here the findings of Ertrugul et al. (2016) and Shaikh et al.’s (2016) articles
were particularly interesting, as they revealed how major CO2 emitting countries like
Malaysia can support the SD agenda without harming their economies by focusing on
energy sustainability. Specifically, Shaikh et al.’s (2016) article revealed how the
Government of Malaysia is working with its key stakeholders to limit energy
consumption in the building sector to support the SD agenda. These findings offer a
positive outlook for the SD agenda, as developing countries are becoming more
educated and supportive of SD despite their low socioeconomic development status.
Another finding inducing a positive outlook on the SD agenda was the increased
adoption and importance of ESD throughout the academic systems of many higher
education institutions worldwide.
The increased adoption and dedication of ESD in higher education systems
clearly shows the increased awareness, understanding and support of SD globally.
Furthermore, the findings of Michalos et al. (2014) and Savelyeva & Douglas (2017)
highlighted the transformative impact that ESD can have on the values, beliefs, morals
and actions of students. Implementing ESD into the academic system helps students
understand the importance of SD, by establishing credibility of the concept and the
necessity and urgency to change their individual habits. If ESD becomes a standard
October18 BrookeBaldwin 130/148
aspect of general education it has the potential to generate an intrinsic motivation to
support SD by the key stakeholders of the global economy. This is important since
currently, many of the pitfalls of globalization are caused by a lack of intrinsic
motivation to support SD, which results in superficial support that does not significantly
contribute to the SD agenda (Meadowcroft, 2013, p. 990; Barkemeyer et al., 2014, p.
31; Mol, 2015 p. 160).
In conclusion, the effects of globalization on SD are both harmful and
beneficial. However, the findings of the systematic literature review present a positive
outlook for combating several of the challenges facing globalization and SD today. The
increased adoption and support of the SD agenda by developing countries, the
academia, national governments, and global governance regimes exemplifies the global
progress made in working towards SD. However, due the limited scope of this study,
there are numerous effects of globalization on SD, which have not been accounted for
since there are thousands of academic articles and books on the topic, that have not been
considered throughout the study. Furthermore, the data search of this study had a large
scope and therefore may have led to more general results than if it would have pertained
more to the specific forms of globalization or aspects of SD. However the results of this
study could provide a general overview of the main topics and themes discussed
throughout the recent academic literature and provide a good foundation of knowledge
for future researchers to build off of. Particularly with respect to the three main
challenges facing globalization and SD: (1) effective global governance and the
coordination of policies; (2) gaining societal support for SD, and; (3) gaining business
support for SD.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 131/148
Bibliography
1. Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Godemann, J., Herzig , C., Otte , I.,
Rieckmann , M., et al. (2014). Emerging Areas in Research on Higher Education for SD
– Management Education, Sustainable Consumption and Perspectives from Central and
Eastern Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 1-7.
2. Ahmed, K., Rehman, M.U., Ozturk, I., 2017. What drives carbon
dioxide emissions in the long-run? Evidence from selected South Asian Countries.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 1142-1153.
3. Althor , G., Watson , J. E., & Fuller , R. A. (2016) Global
mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change.
Scientific Reports, 6 (1), 1-6.
4. Ampuja, M. (2015). Globalization and Neoliberalism: A New
Theory for New Times? . Education and Policy Research, 17-31.
5. ADU, A. (2017, February 7). Poland ‘could take migrants BACK
from UK to gain close relations with post-Brexit Britain’. Retrieved March 25, 2017,
from Sunday Express: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/764005/Poland-Kaczy-ski-
attrack-migrants-back-UK-close-relationship-Brexit-Britain-May-Merkel
6. AG-DFAT. (2017, November 20). Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from Australia Government
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/rcep/pages/regional-comprehensive-economic-
partnership.aspx
October18 BrookeBaldwin 132/148
7. Almeida, C., Agostinho, F., Gianetti, B. F., & Huisigh, D. (2015).
Integrating cleaner production into sustainability strategies: an introduction to this
special volume. Journal of Cleaner Production (96), 1-9.
8. Andrea, A. (2014). The Silk Road in World History: A Review
Essay. Asian Review of World Histories, 2 (1), 105-127.
9. Anderson, T. L., & Leal, D. R. (2001). Free Market
Environmentalism.
10. APINI. (n.a.). Introduction to Cleaner Production (CP) Concepts
and Practice. Institute of Environmental Engineering. UNEP.
11. ASEAN. (2016, October 3). Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP). Retrieved December 6, 2017, from Association of Southeast
Asian Nations: http://asean.org/?static_post=rcep-regional-comprehensive-economic-
partnership
12. Bansal, P. (2002). The Corporate Challenges of SD. The
Academy of Management Executive, 122-131.
13. Barkemeyer, R., Holt, D., Preuss, L., & Tsang, S. (2014). What
Happened to the ‘Development’ in SD? Business Guidelines Two Decades After
Brundtland. SD, 22 (1), 15-32.
14. BBC News. (2017, January 17). Brexit: UK to leave single
market, says Theresa May. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from BBC News:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38641208
15. Beck, M. (2016). The Risk Implications of Globalisation: An
Exploratory Analysis of 105 Major Industrial Incidents (1971–2010). International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13 (309), 1-21.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 133/148
16. Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2015). Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Process. Business Strategy and the Environment.
17. Bennett, E. A. (2018). Voluntary Sustainability Standards: A
Squandered Opportunity to Improve Workers’ Wages. SD, 26, 65-82.
18. Bhagwati, J. (2004). Anti-globalization: why? Journal of Policy
Modeling (26), 439-463.
19. Bhagwati, J. (2011, June 23). Why Free Trade Matters. Retrieved
May 1, 2018, from Project Syndicate: https://www.project-
syndicate.org/commentary/why-free-trade-matters?barrier=accesspaylog
20. Bhagwati, J. (2011, July 24). The Wrong Way to Free Trade.
Retrieved May 1, 2018, from The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25bhagwati.html
21. Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global
governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN SD Goals. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 26-31.
22. Blackwill, R. D. (2017, June 22). Trump’s Five Mistaken
Reasons for Withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Retrieved November 30,
2017, from Foreign Policy: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/22/trumps-five-mistaken-
reasons-for-withdrawing-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership-china-trade-economics/
23. Blewitt, J. (2015). Understanding SD (Vol. 2). Devon, UK.
24. Blue, J. (1990), Ecopreneuring: Managing for Results, Scott
Forseman, London.
25. Bocken, N. (2015). Sustainable venture capital- catalyst for
sustainable start-up success? Journal of Cleaner Production.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 134/148
26. Brandi, C. A. (2017). Sustainability Standards and SD –
Synergies and Trade-Offs of Transnational Governance. SD, 25, 25-34.
27. Brandt, W. (1980). The Brandt Report. The Brandt Commission,
1980.
28. Braungart, M., & McDonough, W., (2002). Cradle to cradle:
remaking the way we make things.
29. Broman, I., & Robert, K.-H. (2015, October). A framework for
strategic SD. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-15.
30. Brondoni, S. M. (2006) Managerial Corporate Governance
Communication, Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management (1), 8-23.
31. Brondoni, S. M. (2012) Innovation and Imitation: Corporate
Strategies for Global Competition, Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management (1),
10-24.
32. Brondoni, S. M. (2014). Global Capitalism and Sustainable
Growth. From Global Products to Network Globalization. Emerging Issues in
Management (1), 10-31.
33. Brundtland, G., & Khalid, M., (1987), “UN Brundtland
Commission Report. Our Common Future”, http://www.un-documents.net/our-
common-future.pdf (accessed 14th April 2018)
34. Bryson, A., Freeman, R.B., Lucifora, C., Pellizzari, M., &
Perotin, V., (2013). Paying for performance: incentive pay schemes and employees'
financial participation. In: Boeri, T., Lucifora, C., Murphy, K.J. (Eds.), Executive
Remuneration and Employee Performance-related Pay: A Transatlantic Perspective.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 135/148
35. Büthe, T., & Milner, H. V. (2008). The Politics of Foreign Direct
Investment into Developing Countries: Increasing FDI through ITAs? American
Journal of Political Science, 52 (4), 741-762.
36. Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society: With a New
Preface, Volume I, Second edition With a new preface (Vol. 1). Blackwell Publishing.
37. Castleman, B.I. (1985). The double standard in industrial
hazards. In The Export of Hazard: Transnanational Corporations and Environmental
Control Issues; Ives, J., Ed.; Routledge and Kegan Paul: Boston, MA, USA, 60–69.
38. Chia, S. Y. (2015). Globalization and Regionalization:
Singapore’s Trade and FDI. The Singapore Economic Review, 60 (3), 1550034-1-23.
39. Crotty, J., Epstein, G., & Kelly, P. (1998). Multinational
corporations in the neo-liberal regime. Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy,
1-25.
40. Das, D. K. (2010). Globalisation: Past and Present in: Economic
Affairs, 30 (1), 66-70.
41. Das, N. (2013). Impact of Globalization on SD in the Indian
Economy. Journal of International Economics, 99-114.
42. Docalavich, H. (2016). Economic Globalization and SD (UN:
Leadership and Challenges in a Global World). The UN. 1-88.
43. Eberlein, B., Abbot, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., & Wood, S.
(2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and
framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8, 1-21.
44. EC. (2010). Communication From The Commission To The
European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee of
the Regions. Brussels: EC.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 136/148
45. EC. (2016). An Economic Take on the Refugee Crisis. The
European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs. EU.
46. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-
Win-Win Business Strategies for SD. California Management review. 36. 90-100.
47. Elkington, J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom
Line of 21st Century Business, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada.
48. Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. The Triple
Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up? 1-16.
49. Ertugrul, H.M., Cetin, M., Seker, F., Dogan, E., 2016. The impact
of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the top ten
emitters among developing countries. Ecol. Indic. 67, 543-555.
50. European Commission. (2015). Inside TTIP. Brussels: European
Commission.
51. FCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. UN, FCCC.
Paris: Framework Convention on Climate Change.
52. Firat, A. F. (2017). Orbits of Contemporary Globalization.
Markets, Globalization & Development Review, 2 (3), 1-8.
53. Fox, O., & Stoett, P. (2016). Citizen Participation in the UN SD
Goals Consultation Process: Toward Global Democratic Governance? Global
Governance, 22, 555-574.
54. Frugoli , P. A., Almeida , C. M., Agostinho , F., Giannetti , B. F.,
& Huisingh , D. (2015). Can measures of well-being and progress help societies to
achieve SD? Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 370-380.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 137/148
55. Fura, B., Wojnar, J., & Kasprzyk, B. (2017). Ranking and
classification of EU countries regarding their levels of implementation of the Europe
2020 strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 968-979.
56. GATT. (1994). Agreements Establishing The WTO. WTO.
Geneva: WTO.
57. Ghemawat, P. (2003). The Forgotten Strategy. Retrieved
November 2017, from The Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2003/11/the-
forgotten-strategy.
58. Gibson, K., & Graham, J. (2006). The End of Capitalism as We
Know It. Minnesota, USA: Univ. Of Minnesota Press.
59. Gilpin, R. (1987). Global Political Economy Understanding the
International Economic Order. N.J.: Princeton University Press.
60. Glasner, D., & Cooley, T. F. (1997). Business cycles and
depressions: an encyclopedia. NY: Garland Pub.
61. Gopinath, C. (2008). Chapter 2: What is new about globalization?
In C. Gopinath, Globalization: A multidimensional system (7-31). CA, USA: Sage
Publications.
62. Gopinath, C. (2008). Globalization: A Multidimensional System.
Michigan, US: Sage Publications. 1-255.
63. GPF. (2017). NGOs. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from GPF:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos.html
64. GPF. (2018). Globalization of Politics. (G. P. GPF, Producer, &
Global Policy Forum) Retrieved January 10, 2018, from Global Policy Forum:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization-of-politics.html
October18 BrookeBaldwin 138/148
65. Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005), 'Accountability and
Abuses of Power in World Politics', American Political Science Review, 99, 29-43.
66. Grainger, A. (1999) The role of spatial scale in SD, International
Journal of SD & World Ecology, 6 (4), 251-264,
67. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2015). Globalization and
Growth. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 105 (5), 100-104.
68. Guillen, M. F. (2001). Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or
Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in The Social Science Literature. Annual
Review of Sociology, 235-260.
69. Gunter, B., & van der Hoeven, R. (2007). The social dimension
of globalization: A review of literature. In J. D. Daniels, & J. A. Krug, International
Business and Globalization, 1 (1), 101-135.
70. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Managing Global
Expansion: A Conceptual Framework. Business Horizons, 45-54.
71. Hakura, D. S., & Choudhri, E. C. (2000). International Trade and
Productivity Growth: Exploring the Sectoral Effects for Developing Countries. IMF
Staff Papers , 47 (1), 30-53.
72. Hart, S., Sharma, S., & Halme, M. (2016). Poverty, Business
Strategy, and SD. Organization & Environment, 29 (4), 401-415.
73. Hawken P, Lovins A, & Lovins LH. (1999). Natural Capitalism:
Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown: Boston.
74. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999).
Global Transformations. Standford, CA, USA: Standford University Press.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 139/148
75. Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2003). The Global Transformations
Reader (Vol. 2nd). Malden, MA, USA: Polity Press. 1-603.
76. Herrschel, T. (2013). . Competitiveness AND Sustainability –
Can ‘Smart City Regionalism’ Square the Circle? Urban studies, 50 (7), 1-17.
77. Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2016). The Imperatives
of SD. SD, 1-14.
78. Hong, S. (2015). Citizen Participation in Budgeting: A Trade-Off
between Knowledge and Inclusiveness? Public Administration Review, 76 (4), 572-582.
79. Hopewood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). SD: Mapping
Different Approaches. SD, 38-52.
80. Huckle, J., & Wals, A. E. (2015). The UN Decade of Education
for SD: Business as Usual in the End. Environmental Education Research, 23 (3), 491-
505.
81. Huebener, P., O'Brien, S., Porter, T., Stockdale, L., & Zhou, Y.
(2016). Exploring the Intersection of Time and Globalization, Globalizations. 13 (3),
243-255.
82. Huse, M., Minichilli, A. & Schøning, M.: (2005) “Corporate
boards as assets for operating in the new Europe: The value of process-oriented
boardroom dynamics”, Organizational Dynamics.
83. IMF. (2017, October 12). The IMF and the WTO. (IMF, Editor)
Retrieved October 20, 2017, from International Monetary Fund:
https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/The-IMF-and-the-World-Trade-Organization
84. Irwin, D. A. (2008). ITAs. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from
Library of Economics and Liberty:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/InternationalTradeAgreements.html
October18 BrookeBaldwin 140/148
85. Isaak, R. (2002). The Making of the Ecopreneur. Journal of
Greener Management, 81-91.
86. IUCN. (1980). World Conservation Strategy.
87. Jaumotte, F., Lall, S., & Papgeorgiou, C. (2013). Rising Income
Inequality: Technology, or Trade and Financial Globalization? IMF Economic Review,
61 (2), 39.
88. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala
internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of
outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 1411-1431.
89. Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.-E., & Ivarsson, I. (2011). The tortuous
road to globalization for Volvo’s heavy truck business: Extending the scope of the
Uppsala model. International Business Review, 1-14.
90. Kacowicz, A. M., & Mitrani, M. (2016). Why Don't We Have
Coherent Theories of International Relations About Globalization? Global Governance,
199-218.
91. Kampa , M., & Castanas , E. (2008). Human health effects of air
pollution. Environmental Pollution (151), 362-367.
92. Keohane, R. O. (2002), Power and governance in a partially
globalized world, Psychology Press, London.
93. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2007). Globalization: What's New?
What's not? And so what. In J. A. Krug, & J. D. Daniels, International Business and
Globalization: The Growth, Consequences, and Future of Globalization (Vol. 1, pp. 3-
15). Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 141/148
94. Kimatu, J. N. (2016). Evolution of strategic interactions from the
triple to quad helix innovation models for SD in the era of globalization. Journal of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5 (16), 1-7.
95. Knight, F. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton
Mifflin, New York.
96. Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufín, C. (2014). Reviewing a
Decade of Research on the "Base/Bottom of the Pyramid" (BOP) Concept. Business &
Society, (53), 338-477.
97. Kraay, A., & McKenzie, D. (214). Do Poverty Traps Exist?
Assessing the Evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 28 (3), 127-148.
98. London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2011). Next generation business
strategies for the base of the pyramid: New approaches for building mutual value.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
99. Lozano, R., Ceulemans , K., Alonso-Almeida , M., Huisingh , D.,
Lozano , F. J., Waas , T., et al. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of
SD in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 108, 1-18.
100. Makki, S., S., & Somwaru, A., (2004), Impact of Foreign Direct
Investment and Trade on Economic Growth: Evidence from Developing countries,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86, (3), 795-801.
101. Martell, L. (2010). Introduction: Concepts of Globalization. In L.
Martell, The Sociology of Globalization (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, UK, UK: MPG Books
Group.
102. Matthijs, M. (2017, January/February). Europe After Brexit.
Retrieved March 20, 2017, from Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe
October18 BrookeBaldwin 142/148
103. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W.W.
(1972). The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's project on the
predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.
104. Meadowcroft, J. (2013). Reaching the limits? Developed country
engagement with SD in a challenging conjuncture. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 31, 988-1002.
105. Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2009). The impact
of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental
entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 1-17.
106. Melber, H. (2014). VIEW POINT Whose world? Development,
civil society, development studies and (not only) scholar activists. Third World
Quarterly, 35 (6), 1082-1097.
107. Meng, T., Pan, J., & Yang, P. (2014). Conditional Receptivity to
Citizen Participation: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in China. Comparative
Political Studies, 1-35.
108. Meyer, K. E. (2017). Why are Free Trade Agreements
Controversial? Retrieved November 20, 2017, from CEIBS: http://www.ceibs.edu/new-
papers-columns/why-are-free-trade-agreements-controversial
109. Michalos, A. C., Kahlke, P. M., Rempel, K., Lounatvuori , A.,
MacDiarmid, A., Creech, H., et al. (2014). Progress in Measuring Knowledge, Attitudes
and Behaviours Concerning SD Among Tenth Grade Students in Manitoba. Soc. Indic
Res.
110. Mochizuki, Y. (2016). Educating for Transforming Our World:
Revisiting International Debates Surrounding Education for SD. Current Issues in
Comparative Education, 19 (1), 109-125.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 143/148
111. Mol, A. P. (2015). Transparency and value chain sustainability.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 154-161.
112. Naisbitt, J. (1994). Global Paradox. William Morrow.
113. National Association of Scholars (NAS) (2015), Sustainability:
Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism, National Association of Scholars, New
York, NY.
114. NASA. (2018, January 4). NASA Study: First Direct Proof of
Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban. Retrieved June 20, 2018, from NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-
hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban
115. OLPC. (2008). OLPC. (S. University, Producer, & Stanford
University) Retrieved June 20, 2018, from OLPC:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2007-08/one-laptop-per-
child/history/developing-countries.html
116. Porta, D. (2013). Can Democracy Be Saved?: Participation,
Deliberation and Social Movements. John Wiley & Sons.
117. Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of
the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 54-67.
118. Ramos, T. B., Caeiro , S., van Hoof , B., Lozano , R., Huisingh ,
D., & Ceulemans , K. (2015). Experiences from the implementation of SD in higher
education institutions: Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 3-10.
119. Rasiah, R., McFarlane, B., & Kuruvilla, S. (2015). Globalization,
industrialization and labour markets. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 20 (1), 2-13.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 144/148
120. Risse, T. (2004). Global Governance and Communicative Action.
Government and Opposition, 39, 288-313.
121. Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. (2018) - "Air Pollution". Published
online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved July 5, 2018, from:
'https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution'
122. Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. (2018) - "CO2 and other Greenhouse
Gas Emissions". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved Retrieved July 5,
2018, from: 'https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions'
123. Rockström et al., (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the
Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14 (2).
124. Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and
the future of the world economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
125. Savelyeva, T., & Douglas, W. (2017) "Global consciousness and
pillars of SD: A study on self-perceptions of the first-year university students",
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (2), 218-241.
126. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing
Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: SD in a Globalized World.
Journal of Management Studies, 261-284.
127. Schmitz, H., & Mitchel, G. E. (2016). Other Side of the Coin:
NGOs, Rights-Based Approaches, and Public Administration. Public Administration
Review, 76 (2), 252-262.
128. Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization. A critical introduction (2nd
ed.). New York: Palgrave.
129. Senge, P. & Carstedt, G. (2001) Innovating, Our Way to the Next
Industrial Revolution. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42, 24-38.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 145/148
130. Senit, C.-A., Kalfagianni, A., & Biermann, F. (2016).
Cyberdemocracy? Information and Communication Technologies in Civil Society
Consultations for SD. Global Governance, 533-554.
131. Shaikh, P. H., Nor, N. B., Sahito, A. A., Nallagownden, P.,
Elamvazuthi, I., & Shaikh, M. S. (2016). Building energy for SD in Malaysia: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. n.a.
132. Simanis, E. (2012). Reality check at the bottom of the pyramid.
Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 2-6.
133. Srivastava, S., & Khan , A. (2016 ). Globalization and
Development in Contemporary India: Cultural Perspective. International Journal of
Social Science Studies, 4 (3), 18-23.
134. Stewart, F. (2016). Changing Perspectives on Inequality and
Development. St. Comp. Int. Dev., 60-80.
135. Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Capital Market Liberalization, Economic
Growth, and Instability. World Development, 28 (6), 1075-1086.
136. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W.
Norton & Company, 1-304.
137. Stiglitz, J. E. (2004). Globalization and growth in emerging
markets. Journal of Policy Making, 465-484.
138. Stiglitz, J. E. (2017). Globalization and its Discontents Revisited
(Vol. 2). Great Britain: Penguin Publishing, 1-528.
139. Stiglitz, J. E. (2017). Introduction. In J. E. Stiglitz, Globalization
and its Discontents Revisited (Vol. 2, pp. xi-lii). Great Britain: Penguin Publishing.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 146/148
140. Stiglitz, Joseph. E., (2017). The overselling of globalization.
Business Economics. 52. 1-9.
141. Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (2014) Globalization and
Education: Integration and Contestation across Cultures, R&L Education.
142. The World Bank. (2017). The World Bank. (T. W. Bank, Editor)
Retrieved October 01, 2017, from What We Do:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/what-we-do
143. The World Bank. (2018). Civil Society. Retrieved May 25, 2018,
from The World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/partners/civil-society#2
144. Therborn, G. (2007). After dialectics. Radical social theory in a
post-communist world. New Left Review, 43, 63–114.
145. Toffel, M. W., Short, J. L., & Ouellet , M. (2014). Codes in
Context: How States, Markets, and Civil Society Shape Adherence to Global Labor
Standards. Regulation & Governance, 1-36.
146. Torres, C. A. (2009). Education and Neoliberal Globalization.
NY, NY, US: Routledge.
147. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Palminder, S. (2003). Towards a
methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review. British journal of management, 14 (3), 207-222.
148. Tucker, T. (2016, 09 21). How to fix the most controversial
elements of trade deals. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from The Agenda:
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/fix-isds-trade-deals-000204
149. UIA. (2017). What is an intergovernmental organization (IGO)?
(UIA, Editor, & UIA, Producer) Retrieved October 10, 2017, from Union of
International Associations: https://uia.org/faq/yb3
October18 BrookeBaldwin 147/148
150. UK-DFID/ EC/UNDP/World Bank, (2002). Linking poverty
reduction and environmental management: policy challenges and opportunities.
Washington, D.C.,
151. UNCTAD. (2015). World Investment Report 2015. The UN, UN
Conference on Trade and Developement. NY: The UN.
152. UNDP. (2017, December 20). HDR. Retrieved December 20,
2017, from HDR: http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/trends
153. UNDP. (1998). Human development report - consumption for
human development. New York and Oxford.
154. UN. (1987). Our Common Future. Geneva: UN.
155. UN. (2015). Agenda 2030. Transforming our world: the 2030
Agenda for SD (pp. 1-35). Rio de Janeiro: UN General Assembly.
156. UN. (2017). History of the UN. Retrieved September 10, 2017,
from UN: http://www.un.org/en/sections/history/history-united-nations/
157. UN. (2018). Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination.
Retrieved July 5, 2018, from UN: http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/globalization.htm
158. Van Opstal, M., & Huge, J. (2013). Knowledge for SD: a
worldviews perspective. Environ Dev. Sustain, 687–709.
159. Velasco, I. & Harder, M. (2014), “From attitude change to
behaviour change: institutional mediators of education for SD effectiveness”,
Sustainability, (6). 6553-6575.
October18 BrookeBaldwin 148/148
160. Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible Innovation
and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing SD in a Globalized World. Journal of
Business Ethics, 227-243.
161. Waisman, H.-D., Cassen , C., Hamdi-Cherif, M., & Hourcade, J.-
C. (2014). Sustainability, Globalization, and the Energy Sector Europe in a Global
Perspective. Journal of Environment & Development, 23 (1), 101-132.
162. White & Case. (2017). China’s rise in global M&A: Here to stay.
Rhodium Group. Rhodium Group.
163. WHO. (2018). Environment and health in developing countries.
(UNEP) Retrieved July 5, 2018, from The Health and Environment Linkages Initiative:
http://www.who.int/heli/en/
164. WHO. (2018). Air pollution. Retrieved July 5, 2018, from World
Health Organization: http://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
165. Winters, L. A. (2014). The Problem With TTIP. Retrieved
October 20, 2017, from VOX CEPR's Policy Portal: http://voxeu.org/article/problem-
ttip
166. WTO. (2011). World Trade Report 2011. WTO, The WTO and
Preferential Trade Agreements. Geneva: WTO.