Most of these address more the implementation processes than the conceptual
frameworks. A lot of the criticism I found could be applied to any given plan or
agreement for collective action: a proposal still allows for abuse, and some concrete
actions taken by members of the network will not live up to its declared values and
principles.
While it is important to highlight instances where thinking or declared purpose
deviate from doing or lived purpose, the locus of responsibility for this does not
necessarily lie with the founders of a movement. They cannot and arguably should
not seek to prescribe how exactly people engage in putting the joint vision and
goals into practice. The SDGs themselves are actually a great example for this:
whilst almost all governments accepted the goals and targets and indicators, they
were not made into binding commitments. Monitoring and reporting on progress is
voluntary and each country is going to prioritize meeting some goals over meeting
others. The idea is that peer reviewing will inspire commitment and mutual learning
between countries with similar challenges.
So hardly any pioneer or UN body can ensure that everyone using their ideas or
claiming to serve the SDGs will do so in the way that was originally envisioned or
intended. This is an unavoidable characteristic of movements and politics, and none
of the critiques I came across included a proposal on how, in real concrete practical
terms, the formation of movements and government of cooperation could feasibly
resolve these issues.
Others took an oppositional stance, believing that a progressive and inclusive
movement could not prescribe such detailed rules and benchmarks. Here I would
counter that without some agreement as to what this group of people stands for and
what it does not represent, it will never become a political force that can jointly
work for change. So in the end it will be the integrity, clarity, and courage of the
people involved that influences how individual freedom and collective action are
combined and thus how progressive it is. Thus, in each example I briefly pick up on
what I felt were the most common reproaches, but can only draw superficial conclusions. An empirically sound assessment was not possible but would be a great
project for which to seek funding. In reaching my conclusions, I found that the most
important characteristic of these examples was their willingness to reflect criticism
and to assess how the incremental steps taken could continue to support the radically different purpose that generated each initiative.
4.1 Pioneering Businesses: Common Good Matrix
and Balance Sheets
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility came into existence as a consequence of acknowledging the important role of business in shaping development.
Business was to take into consideration the wider setting in which it operated, and
to focus on more than simply making a profit. The approach of ‘triple bottom line’
122
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice
frameworks. A lot of the criticism I found could be applied to any given plan or
agreement for collective action: a proposal still allows for abuse, and some concrete
actions taken by members of the network will not live up to its declared values and
principles.
While it is important to highlight instances where thinking or declared purpose
deviate from doing or lived purpose, the locus of responsibility for this does not
necessarily lie with the founders of a movement. They cannot and arguably should
not seek to prescribe how exactly people engage in putting the joint vision and
goals into practice. The SDGs themselves are actually a great example for this:
whilst almost all governments accepted the goals and targets and indicators, they
were not made into binding commitments. Monitoring and reporting on progress is
voluntary and each country is going to prioritize meeting some goals over meeting
others. The idea is that peer reviewing will inspire commitment and mutual learning
between countries with similar challenges.
So hardly any pioneer or UN body can ensure that everyone using their ideas or
claiming to serve the SDGs will do so in the way that was originally envisioned or
intended. This is an unavoidable characteristic of movements and politics, and none
of the critiques I came across included a proposal on how, in real concrete practical
terms, the formation of movements and government of cooperation could feasibly
resolve these issues.
Others took an oppositional stance, believing that a progressive and inclusive
movement could not prescribe such detailed rules and benchmarks. Here I would
counter that without some agreement as to what this group of people stands for and
what it does not represent, it will never become a political force that can jointly
work for change. So in the end it will be the integrity, clarity, and courage of the
people involved that influences how individual freedom and collective action are
combined and thus how progressive it is. Thus, in each example I briefly pick up on
what I felt were the most common reproaches, but can only draw superficial conclusions. An empirically sound assessment was not possible but would be a great
project for which to seek funding. In reaching my conclusions, I found that the most
important characteristic of these examples was their willingness to reflect criticism
and to assess how the incremental steps taken could continue to support the radically different purpose that generated each initiative.
4.1 Pioneering Businesses: Common Good Matrix
and Balance Sheets
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility came into existence as a consequence of acknowledging the important role of business in shaping development.
Business was to take into consideration the wider setting in which it operated, and
to focus on more than simply making a profit. The approach of ‘triple bottom line’
122
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice