Effectiveness as Behavioural Change because of Global Goals

Given our focus on political effects of goal-setting we define effectiveness here not in the broadest sense, which would be the progressive attainment of the goals as measured by their targets and indicators. That is, we do not systematically assess whether the 17 Sustainable Development Goals are being achieved in terms of reductions in poverty, increases in renewable energy, reductions in harmful emissions, improvements in gender equality and so forth. Such analyses are done by several international organizations and research networks, and we do not seek to repeat their efforts.

Most such assessments offer a mildly pessimistic view. For example, the yearly report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals finds that progress has been reversed with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (United Nations 2021). While up until 2020 there was some progress regarding, for instance, declining global poverty (Goal 1), it is now estimated that the pandemic-related economic downturn has pushed an additional 119–124 million people into extreme poverty. Progress is still stalled or reversed regarding the rate of climate change (Goal 13), the rate of biodiversity loss (Goal 15) and increasing inequalities (Goal 10). A related assessment is the Global Sustainable Development Report, a quadrennial ‘assessment of assessments’ on sustainability by scientists who have been appointed for this task by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The 2019 report warned that progress made in sustainability governance over the last two decades is in danger of being reversed through worsening social inequalities and potentially irreversible declines in our natural environment (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General 2019). Beyond this, there are many other reports and assessments. One example, the reports by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Bertelsmann Stiftung, rank countries by how they achieve the goals. In 2020, this group found that Asian countries had progressed the most since 2015 (Sachs et al. Reference Sachs, Schmidt-Traub, Kroll, Lafortune, Fuller and Woelm2020). The most recent report from June 2021, however, showed the ‘first-ever reversal in progress since the [Sustainable Development Goals] were adopted’, largely due to increased poverty and unemployment related to the COVID-19 pandemic (International Institute for Sustainable Development 2021; see also Sachs et al. Reference Sachs, Kroll, Lafortune, Fuller and Woelm2021).

These broader assessments of progress towards sustainability are without a doubt important. Yet, methodologically they skirt the question of causality, that is, whether progress that we observe is causally related to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. To give an example: China has achieved in the 2000 to 2015 period several Millennium Development Goals owing to its rapid economic growth and broadening of social welfare. Many indicators related to child mortality, poverty and poor health in China have improved since 2000, and partially because of this development, statistically the poverty rate of the entire group of developing countries was halved between 1990 and 2010. However, few would argue that the Millennium Development Goals are causally related to the economic growth rates in China. In other words, China’s economic growth cannot be understood as a political steering effect of the Millennium Development Goals. China’s rapid progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals from 2000 to 2015 is a matter of correlation, not causation.

Therefore, to better understand the political steering effects of global goals we must engage in a more fine-grained analysis. This is what this assessment is designed to achieve. Our core concern is to explore whether and to what extent political, economic or societal actors have changed their behaviour because of the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015.

To give an example of global governance: one could ask whether the International Labour Organization has changed its policies and programmes after 2015 because of the Sustainable Development Goals. Such a change would need to be identified over time, with the policies of the International Labour Organization being different before and after 2015. After 2015, the policies of the organization would need to be geared more towards some of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals than before, and this would need to be because of the goals. Only if such a policy change in the activities of the International Labour Organization after 2015 could be observed and causally linked to the Sustainable Development Goals, could we be able to speak with confidence of a steering effect of the global goals (for a first assessment, see Montesano et al. 2021).

As a second example from national governance: the Netherlands has created new institutional arrangements to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (Yunita et al. Reference Yunita, Biermann, Kim and Vijge2022). Among other measures, the Dutch government has appointed a national coordinator for the Sustainable Development Goals within its foreign office, with the mandate to represent the country in international debates and to support an integrated approach in Dutch policies and society towards the goals. The appointment of this national coordinator is undoubtedly a political steering effect of the goals that we can see in national politics. The subsequent analytical question then becomes, however, whether this appointment resulted in changes in the behaviour of other actors. Because only when further policies, programmes and activities within the Dutch political system have changed after 2015 as a consequence of the activities of the national coordinator for the Sustainable Development Goals – and hence as a consequence of the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals – could we speak of a broader political steering effect of the global goals.

Types of Steering Effects

There can be countless and diverse changes in the policies, programmes and activities of political, economic and societal actors. In this book, we focus on the assessment of normative, institutional and broader discursive changes.

First, we assume that the Sustainable Development Goals might lead to normative changes when political, economic or societal actors adjust legislative and regulatory frameworks and policies in line with, and because of, the goals. This could be the adoption of their targets in national policy programmes, in sub-national policy goals of municipalities or in the accounting and self-reporting frameworks of multinational corporations. To ascertain steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals, the normative frameworks of an organization or institution – rules set for others and rules and standards set for the organization – would have changed after 2015 and become better aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. Explicit references to all or some of the goals in the new policy or regulatory framework would be a strong sign for the normative effect of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Second, we analyse whether the goals bring about institutional changes. Such institutional changes could include the creation of new departments, committees, offices or programmes linked to the achievement of the goals, or the realignment of institutional arrangements. The new national coordinator for the Sustainable Development Goals in the Netherlands, mentioned above, is a typical example (Yunita et al. Reference Yunita, Biermann, Kim and Vijge2022). Similar examples include newly created inter-ministerial coordination bodies within public administrations to implement the Sustainable Development Goals. While such an institutional realignment within political systems can be an indicator to suggest political effects of the global goals, one still needs to assess the eventual political impact of such alignment. Notably, one should entertain the alternative hypothesis of institutions and agencies engaging in only symbolic action or in the setting-up of decoy institutions (that is, pretending political action while avoiding it), or plain institutional ineffectiveness. And yet, observable institutional realignments in political systems because of the global goals are first indications that more profound changes because of the goals are at least conceivable.

Third, in addition to normative and institutional changes, Sustainable Development Goals could have discursive effects. The effects of the goals do not have to materialize only in institutions and programmes of public actors, such as international organizations, national governments or municipalities. In many places, the goals have also energized local citizens, civil society movements and initiatives in cities, districts or villages. Also here, whatever one can observe in changes towards sustainability and can relate back to inspiration by the Sustainable Development Goals, we identify in this book as a political steering effect of the global goals.

We might expect even broader discursive changes. The vision and ambition of the Sustainable Development Goals – for example in its strong support for the ending of hunger and the eradication of poverty – might bring about in the 2015–30 period a wider transformation in the way political actors understand the challenges ahead. Such discursive changes we might trace back in global and national political narratives, for example in public debates, policy platforms, or even newspapers and social media. Indications for the impact of the Sustainable Development Goals would be when terms prominently used in the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – such as the phrase ‘leaving no one behind’ – could be identified in later policy documents or public narratives around the world.

In short, the political steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals we might find in the core institutions of governments and international agencies, for instance by changing rules, standards, programmes and institutional arrangements or the creation of new institutions and programmes. We might expect such steering effects also in broader diffusions in civil society, in changes in global and national discourses, and in the slow trickling down of novel concepts and ideas from the 2015 United Nations General Assembly decision to the individual understandings and actions of citizens worldwide.

Importantly, steering effects might not always be positive in the sense of advancing sustainability. The use of the Sustainable Development Goals could be instrumental, symbolic or counter-productive (Bexell and Jönsson Reference Bexell and Jönsson2019; Mawdsley Reference Mawdsley2018). Corporations might for instance instrumentalize the goals to advance their credibility and increase market shares. Governments might announce new strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals while not engaging in structural changes, policy reforms or budgetary reallocation. Non-governmental organizations could adopt the language of the Sustainable Development Goals to attract new funding without changing their policies and programmes. Our assessment hence takes a decisively critical approach towards the possible impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Throughout our analysis we seek to separate real change from pure rhetoric claims.

Global Governance

First, the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda were expected to have a major impact on the United Nations system, which should reorient towards this agenda for the 2015 to 2030 period. All international organizations, programmes and agencies are formally committed to implementing the 17 goals and the broader 2030 Agenda. International conferences, treaty regimes and transnational partnerships and networks were called upon to refocus in the direction charted by the Sustainable Development Goals and their 169 targets. To provide for global oversight and guidance, governments created a new global forum, the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, which meets annually to review the implementation of the global goals and the national reports that countries are requested to submit (Abbott and Bernstein Reference Abbott and Bernstein2015; Beisheim Reference Beisheim2015; Bernstein Reference Bernstein, Kanie and Biermann2017). In short, the Sustainable Development Goals were to launch a new era of ‘global partnership’ – as announced under Goal 17 – that would exceed the often weak global governance mechanisms of the past (Andonova Reference Andonova2017; Chasek and Wagner Reference Chasek and Wagner2016; Kamau, Chasek and O’Connor Reference Kamau, Chasek and O’Connor2018).

And yet, can we really see any changes in the system of international agencies and programmes after 2015? Have the Sustainable Development Goals reshaped the policies of international agencies? Do we see more cooperation among international bodies to work towards the implementation of the global goals? Or do we have to conclude that the United Nations system follows a business-as-usual approach, without any discernible impact of the global goals? How can the role of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development be evaluated? Did the new forum live up to the high expectations raised in 2012 when it was set up to replace the weak Commission on Sustainable Development? These questions stand in the centre of Chapter 2 of this assessment.

Implementation at Multiple Levels

Second, the Sustainable Development Goals are expected to change domestic politics. They are supposed to be implemented by central governments and to influence national legislation, strategies and policies. Local and regional authorities are expected to join the global effort and align policies and programmes with the Sustainable Development Goals and their targets. We should find the global goals reflected in the initiatives of cities, provinces and villages, from the town halls of municipalities to school boards, city planners, university councils and public utilities. Also the private sector – from global corporations to local business – is called upon to support the global goals and their sustainability agenda. Major business associations have taken part in formulating the global goals, and the central get-togethers of the business leaders – such as the World Economic Forum in Davos – are full of references to the goals. We should thus find steering effects of the goals in corporate programmes on social responsibility, but more importantly in investment decisions and internal policies, for example on inequalities and discrimination or in policies against corruption.

Finally, civil society organizations and eventually all citizens are expected to find inspiration in the Sustainable Development Goals. Environmentalists, unions, youth organizations, farmers’ associations, political parties, along with students, universities, schools, sport clubs, faith-based organizations – all these local and transnational actors would need to rally around the 2030 Agenda. Substantial resources have been invested by international organizations, governments and local authorities into outreach and dissemination to bring home the message of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 goals. Colourful pictograms have been designed to turn the often-dry United Nations-legalese of the 2030 Agenda into a trendy checklist of societal goals that can inspire in the age of Twitter and Instagram.

And yet, have the Sustainable Development Goals been effective in achieving their aims in domestic governance? Have prime ministers, mayors, party and business leaders or school directors and governors responded to the call of the 2030 Agenda and changed their programmes, policies and strategies because of the global goals? Are there differences in domestic impact between the wealthy countries in North America, Europe, East Asia or Australia and the developing countries in Africa, Latin America or Asia? Are the Sustainable Development Goals more effective in some types of countries or are steering effects broadly similar?

Importantly and methodologically most challenging: how can we attribute positive changes and progress that we might observe ‘on the ground’ to the global agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015? Is there evidence that national or local actors, in the public or the private sphere, have changed their behaviour because of the global goals? In Chapter 3 of this volume we evaluate research and evidence on these important questions.

Interlinkages, Integration and Coherence

Third, there is little doubt about the tremendous complexity of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. The 169 more specific targets under these goals offer a mindboggling mix of aims and objectives, sometimes quantified, sometimes qualitative, in an incredibly broad range of areas. The global goals ask us to end hunger, transform our cities, reduce inequality, protect marine ecosystems, fight corruption, end discrimination, raise the living standards in least developed countries, reduce infant mortality and so on. There are complex interlinkages and interdependencies between the goals and the 169 targets. Optimizing and achieving one target might reduce progress on other targets (Le Blanc Reference Le Blanc2015; Liverman Reference Liverman2018; Lusseau and Mancini Reference Lusseau and Mancini2019; Nilsson et al. Reference Nilsson, Griggs and Visbeck2018; van Soest et al. Reference Van Soest, van Vuuren, Hilaire, Minx, Harmsen, Krey and Luderer2019; Weitz et al. Reference Weitz, Carlsen, Nilsson and Skånberg2018). Trying to advance all 169 targets easily overchallenges actors. For that reason, some experts had argued during the negotiations of the goals for a more limited number of goals, such as ten, which some believed would be the maximum to keep public focus and engagement. One early intervention by Jeffrey Sachs (Reference Sachs2012) even listed only four sustainable development goals. And yet, the complexity of the sustainability challenge, along with the negotiation dynamics in 2012–15, resulted in what we have today: a potpourri of 169 targets under 17 global goals.

Importantly, the goals were designed in a way that each would combine the three traditional ‘pillars’ of sustainable development, that is, economic growth, ecological protection, and social justice and well-being. The weight of each of these three ‘pillars’ differs per goal – there is more concern for the environment when it comes to Goal 14 (Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development) and more concern for social justice when it comes to Goal 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries). Yet at least in theory, no goal is only economic, social or environmental. This approach illustrates even more the challenge posed by the interlinkages and interdependencies of the 2030 Agenda for political and societal actors.

Given the lack of an ordering principle, some studies have expressed doubts that the goals would be effective (e.g., Allen, Metternicht and Wiedmann Reference Allen, Metternicht and Wiedmann2018). Some argued that

Such an outcome, however, would run counter to the broad ambition that governments expressed in the 2030 Agenda: that goals will add coherence and consistency, not complexity and confusion. The goals are supposed to better align the efforts of political and societal actors and to further the integration of governance instruments in support of the goals (Nilsson, Griggs and Visbeck Reference Rosche2016). Target 17.14 especially calls upon governments to ‘Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development’. And yet, is such integration of governance around the goals observable? Where do actors align their efforts, and where is this attributable to the global goals that were adopted in 2015? Even though the Sustainable Development Goals were designed to advance overall coherence in sustainability governance, often they still seem to operate in silos. But where are trade-offs between goals and targets? Where are instances and trends where actors prefer one goal over the other? Research into interlinkages between these goals is thus important to inform policy and provide evidence-based recommendations on how to resolve trade-offs, use synergies and accelerate progress across all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., Nilsson et al. Reference Nilsson, Griggs and Visbeck2018). We cover this important research in Chapter 4.

Inclusiveness

Fourth, the Sustainable Development Goals and the overarching 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasize the need to improve the life of the global poor. The goals include explicit commitments to the eradication of poverty (Goal 1), the ending of hunger (Goal 2) and the reduction of global and national inequalities (Goal 10). The protection of the poor and the most vulnerable also runs through other goals, from health to urban settlements, where special provisions address the needs of the poor and most vulnerable. A central part of the 2030 Agenda is the commitment that no one should be left behind. The ‘leave no one behind’ formula has become a very visible part in the development discourse after 2015, indicated by use of its bureaucratic acronym, ‘LNOB’ (Hathie Reference Hathie2020).

More inclusiveness is also the ambition for global governance more broadly, with the commitment to bring in, and advance the interests of, those countries that fared worst in economic globalization, especially the least developed countries, but also a few other partially overlapping categories of countries, such as the small island and landlocked developing countries (Biermann and Sénit Reference Biermann and Sénit2022). The least developed countries are mentioned twenty-seven times in the targets under the Sustainable Development Goals and thirty-eight times in the broader 2030 Agenda. Goal 10 explicitly calls for ‘achiev[ing] and sustain[ing] income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average’, to ‘promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all’, to ‘ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions’ and to ‘implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements’.

In short, global inclusiveness and the advancement of the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable are central in the 2030 Agenda and the 17 global goals. Yet, where can one observe a better inclusion and support of poor and vulnerable communities and, internationally, of the least developed countries? Did the promise of 2015 materialize in more inclusive policies and in curbing inequalities within and among countries? Research on this topic we evaluate in Chapter 5.

Planetary Integrity

Fifth, the claim behind the Sustainable Development Goals is that they help align social justice with the protection of life-supporting earth systems. In recent years, scientists have become louder in their warnings that the planetary system might be at the brink of collapse and transition to new states of operation. Johan Rockström, one of the prominent scholarly advocates, has even called for the declaration of a ‘planetary emergency’ (Rockström Reference Rockström, Steffen, Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin, Lenton, Scheffer, Folke and Schellnhuber2020). More concretely, ‘tipping points’ in the earth system have been suggested, and scientists have begun to quantify values for ‘planetary boundaries’ that need to be protected for the sake of the stability of the planetary system (Rockström et al. Reference Rockström2009; Steffen et al. Reference Steffen, Richardson, Rockström, Cornell, Fetzer, Bennett, Biggs, Carpenter, de Vries and de Wit2015). For example, a value of 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been suggested as the ‘planetary boundary’ of the climate system. However, these planetary boundaries do not consider the social and economic dimensions of sustainability and have therefore met much criticism (Biermann and Kim Reference Biermann and Kim2020).

When the Sustainable Development Goals were negotiated, they thus stood in an inherent tension with the idea of planetary boundaries and the question of the priority of either social or earth system concerns (Kotzé Reference Kotzé, French and Kotzé2018). Proponents of the ‘planetary boundary’ concept had lobbied at the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development for a reference to planetary boundaries in the conference outcomes. Some non-governmental organizations even submitted a Draft United Nations Declaration on Planetary Boundaries to the conference (Planetary Boundaries Initiative Reference Nilsson, Chisholm, Griggs, Howden-Chapman, McCollum, Messerli and Stafford-Smith2012; Fernández and Malwé Reference Fernández and Malwé2018). However, the planetary boundaries concept found no entry into the 2030 Agenda. Developing countries in particular viewed them as insufficiently concerned with the social and economic development needs of the Global South.

The Sustainable Development Goals are the political compromise between these conflicting interests and concerns. The 17 goals are to integrate social justice, economic development and the global protection of ecosystems, while the relationship of the goals remains non-hierarchical. Although one could read a prioritization in the decision to begin the list of Sustainable Development Goals with the commitments to end poverty (Goal 1) and hunger (Goal 2), it is evident from the 2030 Agenda that all goals are equal and to be achieved simultaneously. Some academics have advanced framings that would grant the more ecosystem-related goals 13–15 – climate, life on land and life under water – more prominence. Some argued that the Sustainable Development Goals should be hierarchically organized with priority to those that most closely relate to ‘staying within planetary boundaries’ (Costanza et al. Reference Costanza, McGlade, Lovins and Kubiszewski2015). One often-cited example is the ‘wedding cake’ model (Rockström and Sukhdev Reference Chasek and Wagner2016). Yet overall, such attempts of hierarchizing the Sustainable Development Goals run counter to the integrated and inclusive approach advanced in the 2030 Agenda.

Given the conflicting values, the question arises: to what extent did the goals help to navigate these dimensions? How is the vital concern of preserving the stability of planetary systems – what we describe here as ‘planetary integrity’ – reflected in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals? Did the goals advance planetary integrity in areas and policy fields that have only marginally been associated with ecological concerns? Where can we see change towards more planetary integrity in governance that can be attributed to the goals? Research insights on this topic will be evaluated in Chapter 6.

Methods for Analysing Steering Effects of Global Goals

The five core research areas of this assessment, taken together, reveal a final challenge: we are dealing with a compounding mix of novelty, complexity, uncertainty, urgency and, not least, global politics and diplomacy. The scholarly analysis of the steering effects of the goals needs to reflect such a multi-faceted nature of global goal-setting. This situation calls for novel approaches to scientific research, assessment and cooperation. Proposals for a new integrated, worldwide and transdisciplinary ‘sustainability science’ abound (e.g., Clark and Harley Reference Clark and Harley2020), and studying the Sustainable Development Goals is now a prime example where this new generation of sustainability science is needed. Consequently, this assessment includes a chapter dedicated to epistemology and methodology. While Chapters 2–6 evaluate what we know about the steering effects of global goals, Chapter 7 discusses how we can know in the first place and identifies knowledge gaps and avenues for strengthening our methodological approaches and repertoire.

Given the complexity of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 global goals, this research area has attracted scholars who specialize in quantitative, data-driven work. Scholars have set up research programmes to study the interlinkages of goals and targets through integrated assessment models (Collste, Pedercini and Cornell Reference Collste, Pedercini and Cornell2017; Van Soest et al. Reference Van Soest, van Vuuren, Hilaire, Minx, Harmsen, Krey and Luderer2019). Originating in research on climate and oceans, such models have become more complex and also cover human activities. They are used to understand interlinkages among Sustainable Development Goals and their targets, and conversely, the goals offer a testing ground for elaborating and refining the models. Another data-driven approach to cope with the complexity of the Sustainable Development Goals is social network analysis, a method to show dynamic relations among large numbers of actors, programmes or policies. The GlobalGoals Project at Utrecht University, for instance, uses network analysis to map and analyse relations among international organizations and Sustainable Development Goals.

The complexity of the Sustainable Development Goals has also given rise to new approaches in the humanities and qualitative social sciences. Also here, some scholars turn to data-driven approaches, for example in the qualitative content analysis that Galvão, Cabral and Maurer (Reference Gehre Galvão, Cabral and Maurer2020) used to track the influence of Sustainable Development Goals in texts from research projects and surveys of teachers, students and university staff in Brazilian universities. Others revert to qualitative, discursive and interpretative work to study broader questions, such as how the Sustainable Development Goals change perceptions and actions of decision-makers and societal influencers (e.g., Mert and Bäckstrand Reference Mert and Bäckstrand2020). Chapter 7 discusses these and many other methods in detail. We especially bring quantitative and qualitative work into the conversation, while keeping the space for both meta-approaches to improve and fine-tune their toolboxes.