A wild animal displaced from its natural environment enters into contact with other animals in a crowded market. It becomes the vector of a virus, previously unknown to the human body, which is later passed on to humans and starts spreading from person to person. A simple dynamic like this one is at the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and of the unprecedented challenges that our health systems are currently facing. In modern production systems and global supply chains, the destabilization of entire ecosystems is the rule, rather than the exception. This is one of the reasons why epidemiologists and the WHO itself have long considered the outbreak of a new pandemic a matter of ‘when’, not ‘if’. Prof. Ilaria Capua elaborated the concept of “circular health” (“Salute Circolare”), premised on the idea that the world is a closed system, an ‘aquarium’, in which humans affect the environment and viceversa. I build on her reasoning to argue that the concept of responsibility, too, needs to be looked at in circular terms, as the exercise of responsibility by every organ of society influences the conduct of the others, and viceversa. Capua warns that innovation can no longer be conceived as the creation of something (e.g. economic growth) at the expense of something else (e.g. environmental degradation), but it should rather aim at the progress of the Earth system as a whole. Similarly, I argue that while we specialize in the ‘vertical’ study of the responsibilities and accountability of certain categories of actors (e.g. states or corporations) we should not lose sight of the circular dynamics of responsibility.

 

The starting point is the recognition that we have created transnational production and commercial processes that are observably incompatible with the environment, thereby disseminating the globe with ticking time-bombs. These can take the shape of floods, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, unprecedented locusts invasions (happening in East Africa, South Asia and Middle East as I’m writing), or pandemics, representing a constant threat to survival and basic human rights. In Capua’s words, the displacement of animals, “the growth of megacities, higher amounts of waste, labour exploitation and inequality” are all factors contributing to pandemic outbreaks. Under the current paradigm, objectives like economic growth, global trade or the maintenance of certain lifestyles are being pursued at the cost of environmental alterations and human rights neglect that harm the system as a whole and ultimately frustrate those same objectives. Megacities, for instance, are partly the result of migration from rural areas because of global warming-related water shortages. Our current production and distribution models rely on the cheap labour of workers employed in global supply chains under poor contractual, health and safety conditions. During the current crisis, these workers are among the most vulnerable both to the disease and to the consequences of lockdowns.

Governments, corporations, individuals, CSOs, all play a role within the current dysfunctional system. Recognizing the different but intertwined responsibilities of every organ of society for the impending environmental and human rights disaster, however, should not become yet another reason for basking in despair. Quite the contrary, the concept of ‘responsibility’ implies the notion of ‘agency’, and thus prevents us from seeing ourselves as helpless ‘victims’ of uncontrollable events, calling us to action.

 

The expressive power of a pandemic: learning the true meaning of ‘exponential’

 

The COVID-19 pandemic, in my opinion, carries a strong ‘expressive’ power, meaning the power to influence beliefs and behaviour, for at least two reasons. First, in the context of extensive lockdowns and social distancing measures, we can observe the direct effects of our lifestyles on the salubrity of the atmosphere. In the last few days, we have all seen the satellite pictures of the atmosphere over China or Italy visibly brightening shortly after the pandemic-related drastic reduction of road and air traffic. There is, indeed, some preliminary scientific evidence that the levels of noxious emissions have fallen in the midst of the lockdowns. While we are all familiar with the notion that cutting greenhouse gases emissions reduces pollution, to be able to actually observe the phenomenon could engender a novel degree of awareness.

Secondly, the COVID-19 pandemic is showing us how quickly things can fall apart when timely, drastic measures are not taken against an exponentially-growing threat. Climate change has long ago been illustrated through the ‘twenty-ninth day’ metaphor, and the exponential growth of atmospheric CO2 is well-known to experts. Yet, the long-standing scientific evidence supporting the reality of climate change has been obfuscated for decades, in the common perception, by an impressive bundle of fake news, politically-piloted messages and industry-backed studies denying its existence and gravity (see the so-called ‘tobacco strategy’). As a result of corporate capture exercised not only on governments, but also on academic research, public awareness and political action have been crippled for years.

The ‘politics of denial’ and the ‘nanny state’ rhetoric that, especially in developed countries, have long obstructed the fight against climate change and other health threats are arguably less likely to win the public opinion’s support in at least the current phase of the COVID-19 crisis. This is for at least two reasons. First, the main cause-effect dynamics of the pandemic – whose escalation happened in the span of weeks, not decades – are immediately identifiable by all of us. On the contrary, climate change denialists have long succeeded in casting doubts in the public opinion about whether certain slow-onset and rapid-onset phenomena could be actually attributed to climate change.

Denying or downplaying the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic has soon turned out to be impossible and more politically costly than facing the problem. Moreover, the fact that the pandemic hits a large number of countries at the same time in a relatively short time-span, might reduce the ‘psychological distance’ of the phenomenon in most people’s perceptions and experiences. The dramatic daily count of new infections and victims is showing us what an exponentially-growing threat means in practice, and it might make us more aware that our window of opportunity to act on climate change, too, is shrinking.

 

 ‘Circular responsibility’

 

The COVID-19 brings under the spotlight some of the dynamics that make the current systems of production and distribution socially untenable. Tax avoidance that deprived public healthcare of vital resources, the resistance of multinational corporations like Amazon or McDonald’s to guarantee sick leave for all their workers, are only some examples (see the blog post by F. Anumo in this series). The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) focus on the human rights obligations of states and on the responsibilities of business entities, whereas they address individuals and communities fundamentally as rights-holders. While the idea of human rights contains an intrinsic principle of agency that empowers the rights-holder to actively participate in the society, the UNGPs, for their very purpose and nature, do not look at individuals as duty-bearers. Internatonal human rights law itself is mostly concerned with the duties of states.

Upholding a notion of ‘circular responsibility’ means recognizing that, in a closed system where the actions and omissions of any organ of society have effects on the others and on the system itself, individuals have a part to play, too. I argue that the UNGPs’ categories of corporate involvement in human rights abuses can be usefully applied to hold that not only states and corporations, but also individuals and every other organ of society are either causing, contributing or linked to anthropogenic climate change. This does not mean that all subjects bear the same degree of responsibility, nor that they are all intentionally, or even knowingly, contributing to the worsening of the current environmental crisis. But it does mean that all of us, whether aware of it or not, are playing a role in it, even if just by apathetically tolerating the status quo. Put simply, when citizens and consumers take responsibility for the environment and human rights, they do not only change their own behaviours, but also the level of responsibility they demand from their political leaders and from businesses. This creates incentives for more responsible policies and business conducts that in turn impact positively on citizens/consumers and on the system as a whole.

As citizens of democratic states (thus able to exercise our right to vote and freedom of expression), in particular, we might have been numbed by the anti-politics, anti-expert rhetoric prevailing in recent years, coupled with rampant misinformation about the gravity of climate change, as well as by the growing feeling of our own impotence vis à vis seemingly distant global phenomena (a perception that the COVID-19 pandemic, as noted above, might help shifting). As a result, we might have failed to do everything in our power to help steer the public discourse in the right direction. As voters and consumers, we might have been resistant to changing our fossil fuel-dependent lifestyles, but most importantly we might have failed to hold governments and corporations accountable for their acts, omissions and lies over climate change. The resulting ‘business-as-usual’ course is impacting negatively not only our own lives, but those of more vulnerable communities (some of which are fighting for their own survival, e.g. in the Amazon) and of future generations.

 

Time to walk the talk – for all of us

 

Yes, as individuals, we are part of the problem. But that’s good news, because it means that we are also part of the solution. We are actors – not just victims – in this paradigm, and as such we can and should act on many levels, first of all by making it clear to political leaders that any electoral programme not including a radical environmental agenda is, at this point in history, simply irrelevant. Such an environmental agenda, to be clear, needs to promote a paradigm shift that necessarily entails the phasing out of fossil fuels as the basis of modern production. And while the groups of interests tied to these obsolete and exhausted energy sources will fight for their lives and try to argue the contrary, the ‘global transition to low emissions’, as explained by the European Commission in 2015, ‘can be achieved without compromising growth and jobs, and can provide significant opportunities to revitalise economies in Europe and globally’.

Governments, as part of their human rights obligations, have a clear duty to lead the transition to a sustainable society as a matter of priority, making use of the maximum available resources that can be pooled both within their national systems and through international cooperation, including through the international organizations to which they are members. Their responsibility for climate change mitigation is being increasingly raised in the courts (see the landmark Urgenda judgment against the Netherlands). When more proactive and aware citizens hold governments accountable, then incentives are created for businesses to also become environmentally responsible beyond any greenwashing quick-fix. Incentives might also result from the pressure of responsible investors steering their funds away from fossil fuels (see for instance here and here).

Besides states, multinational corporations and individuals, all civil society actors are included in the circular notion of responsibility here presented: amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, academic institutions, SMEs, international organizations and NGOs are experimenting innovative, less fossil fuel-dependent ways of working collaboratively across borders. Such novel approaches must be mainstreamed and ultimately reduce the excesses of mobility that have so far characterized many of our jobs.

It is important to note that we have largely moved away from the denialism prevailing until just a few years ago, also thanks to the mediatic impact of the youth climate movement. Now we need to act upon this emerging novel awareness. A ‘business as usual’ approach could not work against the COVID-19 pandemic and is not going to work in the fight to reverse climate change. The circular dynamics that allowed a virus originally living in a bat to disrupt our lives and economies in the span of weeks are still in motion, and we all have a part to play in the neutralization of the next ticking bomb.

Chiara Macchi (PhD) is a business and human rights expert. She is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Researcher at Wageningen University & Research and an associate member of the Essex Business and Human Rights Project.