development. These are spelled out, not only in quantitative key performance
indicators, but also in qualitative details. These numbers, heuristics and principles
change the reference frameworks against which performance and proposed solutions are judged. In effect, the strategic smaller steps amount to what I have called
double-decoupling: doing better when it comes to reducing the negative impacts of
economic production processes on nature, animals, and humans (first decoupling)
and doing well when seeking to establish human need satisfaction strategies that do
not depend on exponential growth (second decoupling).
Of course, changing the benchmark changes judgments as to what is promising
or acceptable. In the newspapers we usually read that ‘productivity,’ ‘competitiveness,’ and ‘value creation’ need to be constantly increased. But these are empty
container terms that can be filled with very different interpretations: what is the
benchmark against which I am productive or competitive and create value? One
where I am doing the least harm to ecological systems and contribute most to
human need satisfaction—or one where my production costs and therefore market
prices are as low as possible and my share prices go up? The latter usually means I
seek to not account for my environmental damages and push the costs of labor per
produced unit as low as possible. These strategies are not very aligned with the
purpose of integrating environmental and social concerns with economic ones. Still,
externalization is rational if my benchmarks are standards and measures counting an
endlessly growing amount of monetary quantifications that are blind to uneconomic
real world effects.
The same holds true for politicians. One important economic tool in political
decision-making is cost–benefit analysis. In the context of the SDGs, for example,
the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, an economic think tank in Denmark, has put
forward a cost–benefit analysis of which of the proposed goals will “do the most
social good” relative to their costs. They grouped the goals into the categories
‘phenomenal,’ ‘good,’ ‘fair,’ ‘poor,’ and “not enough knowledge.” They claimed to
identify the goals in which the money spent would save most lives. This sounds like
a great idea. Yet, the analytical tool and mainstream economic mind-set they use is
totally inept for transformational strategies. Overturning deeply embedded path
dependencies will always produce higher transaction costs, at least in the short
term. And what comes across as objective number-crunching entails massive ethical
decisions and weighting. Luckily, in this case, key aims were made explicit. So the
goal of “achiev[ing] full and productive employment for all” was ranked as ‘poor’
because “some unemployment is necessary for efficient labor markets”
(Copenhagen Consensus Center 2014: 1).
This may be true under current market structures. But it falls short of any
ambition for transformational change that might ask why we accept an economic
system that necessarily renders some people superfluous. Especially since unemployment can lead to death in countries without social welfare, and is the most
important depressor on well-being and quality of life in rich countries. I am not
saying that such reasoning is necessarily unethical or wrong. I am saying that unless
we pull such assumptions and value judgments out into the light from behind the
‘economic evidence’ and its key performance indicators, we should not be surprised
4.5 Summary: System Innovations for Sustainability by Double-Decoupling
145
indicators, but also in qualitative details. These numbers, heuristics and principles
change the reference frameworks against which performance and proposed solutions are judged. In effect, the strategic smaller steps amount to what I have called
double-decoupling: doing better when it comes to reducing the negative impacts of
economic production processes on nature, animals, and humans (first decoupling)
and doing well when seeking to establish human need satisfaction strategies that do
not depend on exponential growth (second decoupling).
Of course, changing the benchmark changes judgments as to what is promising
or acceptable. In the newspapers we usually read that ‘productivity,’ ‘competitiveness,’ and ‘value creation’ need to be constantly increased. But these are empty
container terms that can be filled with very different interpretations: what is the
benchmark against which I am productive or competitive and create value? One
where I am doing the least harm to ecological systems and contribute most to
human need satisfaction—or one where my production costs and therefore market
prices are as low as possible and my share prices go up? The latter usually means I
seek to not account for my environmental damages and push the costs of labor per
produced unit as low as possible. These strategies are not very aligned with the
purpose of integrating environmental and social concerns with economic ones. Still,
externalization is rational if my benchmarks are standards and measures counting an
endlessly growing amount of monetary quantifications that are blind to uneconomic
real world effects.
The same holds true for politicians. One important economic tool in political
decision-making is cost–benefit analysis. In the context of the SDGs, for example,
the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, an economic think tank in Denmark, has put
forward a cost–benefit analysis of which of the proposed goals will “do the most
social good” relative to their costs. They grouped the goals into the categories
‘phenomenal,’ ‘good,’ ‘fair,’ ‘poor,’ and “not enough knowledge.” They claimed to
identify the goals in which the money spent would save most lives. This sounds like
a great idea. Yet, the analytical tool and mainstream economic mind-set they use is
totally inept for transformational strategies. Overturning deeply embedded path
dependencies will always produce higher transaction costs, at least in the short
term. And what comes across as objective number-crunching entails massive ethical
decisions and weighting. Luckily, in this case, key aims were made explicit. So the
goal of “achiev[ing] full and productive employment for all” was ranked as ‘poor’
because “some unemployment is necessary for efficient labor markets”
(Copenhagen Consensus Center 2014: 1).
This may be true under current market structures. But it falls short of any
ambition for transformational change that might ask why we accept an economic
system that necessarily renders some people superfluous. Especially since unemployment can lead to death in countries without social welfare, and is the most
important depressor on well-being and quality of life in rich countries. I am not
saying that such reasoning is necessarily unethical or wrong. I am saying that unless
we pull such assumptions and value judgments out into the light from behind the
‘economic evidence’ and its key performance indicators, we should not be surprised
4.5 Summary: System Innovations for Sustainability by Double-Decoupling
145