Abstract
“There is enough for everybody's need and not for everybody's greed.”
Mahatma Gandhi
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), unanimously adopted in 2015 by the United Nations Member States, are at the center of contemporary development policy discourse and practice (United Nations, 2015). Aligning policy programs and research with the SDGs is a key strategic undertaking occurring in the world by development and environmental stakeholders.
The SDGs also advance a long-standing discourse and practice on development. In virtually every society, past and present, issues of dignity, fairness, justice, and respect, as spelled out in the SDGs, have been considered in the organization of the social, political, and economic activities of communities. This reality means that concerns about the ethical development of society is not limited to the present.
What is a good life? and What is a good society? are age-old questions associated with Aristotle (Marangos et al., 2019), but also expressed in different ways within different societies (Kinyanjui, 2021; Mbiti, 1969). As relevant today as ever, institutions and procedures have been created to help ensure that ethical principles are followed as people and nations pursue their development aspirations (North, 1990).
A criticism leveled against the SDGs is that they do not include an explicit ethical dimension. The absence of a stand-alone ethical dimension leaves the matter of ethics an implicit rather than explicit concern. As such, it remains necessary to interrogate the SDG discourse to identify and define the nature of an ethical reflection to guide the implementation of these goals. In this context, the perspective provided examines the ethical dimension of the SDGs and pursues this objective by addressing two questions:
What ethical issues are raised by the SDGs? What principles and values can guide an ethical implementation of the SDGs?
In answering these questions, the discussion furthers the sustainability and development discourse.
Ethical analysis can take one or more of three basic approaches: descriptive, prescriptive or normative, and metaethical (Njoroge & Bennaars, 1986). While the descriptive aspect presents or narrates a moral situation as it exists, the prescriptive or normative aspect presents the required or expected moral behavior and its source. It is the metaethical approach that questions the reasons behind an existing or expected moral behavior. These three approaches are utilized in this discussion to determine the ethical positions implicitly advanced or assumed in the SDGs, going beyond description to identify the core principles and values and ethical standards pursued or implied in these goals.
A close examination of the SDGs reveals a relationship to ethical issues that have been of concern for centuries. In every practical sense, the scope and language of the 17 SDGs and associated 169 targets look like a summation of the ethical questions and concerns raised by scholars, political leaders, citizens, practitioners, and philosophers over the years on key human development and environmental issues (United Nations, 2015).
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries.
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.
Goal 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.
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.
Scholars and practitioners of moral philosophy will recognize that the principles and values contained in these goals have been of central concern to ethicists of politics, society, and development, including Aristotle, Louis Lebret, Denis Goulet, Amartya Sen, and Martha Craven Nussbaum (Gasper, 2012; Marangos et al., 2019). From an ethical perspective, it can be argued that the SDGs are development aspirations, and are expected to contribute to the realization of the good life and a good society. They are underlain by fundamental ethical concerns such as inequality, social justice, poverty, human rights, freedom, and choice, which have been and remain at the center of real life, philosophical discourse, and development ethics (Gasper, 2012; Marangos et al., 2019).
Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Declaration of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development state its vision, highlighting these very ethical concerns (United Nations, 2015, p. 5). The statements demonstrate that an ethical dimension is both explicit and implicit to the SDG discourse. In lieu of an ethics dimension, what is lacking is a framework or a process for a sustained reflection, analysis, and stance on the level of achievement toward the ethical values and principles behind the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. As pointed out by Gasper (2012):
“Development”—whether understood as fundamental transformations including industrialisation, urbanisation, globalisation and more; as planned intervention; as improvement in human welfare; or as expansion of valued attainable opportunities—is correspondingly a strongly ethically-laden field. What are all the running, risk-taking and intervention for? What are improvement, welfare, the good life? Why are so many of the materially affluent spiritually poor? Who benefits, who loses? Who decides, who is consulted, who is not? Whose values count? (p. 2)
The ethical issues and questions raised by Gasper (2012) cannot be dismissed; nor can we assume that they will resolve themselves by merely rhetorically aligning national and international development programs with the SDGs. It cannot, for instance, be assumed that there is a universal morality of human goodness and care that will make all countries and individuals pursue altruism, inclusion, equity, and peace in striving to attain the SDGs. Nor is there any guarantee that stating desired ethical outcomes will ensure they are achieved.
There is a need to critically reflect on these ethical values in view of a human history in which the exploitation of other human beings has been fundamental to the development process (Easterly, 2007; Galeano, 2009; Rodney, 1972; Zinn, 2010). Human history has thousands of footprints of struggles for justice by individuals and groups when their right to life and dignity has been threatened (Easterly, 2007; Galeano, 2009; Rodney, 1972; Zinn, 2010). Thus, the implementation of SDGs requires a deep ethical reflection interrogating the values, principles, and implementation practices that will be pursued to exploit emergent opportunities and address barriers on the pathway to 2030. This reflection is necessary in view of the emerging observation that only two of the SDGs—eliminating preventable deaths among newborns and under-five-year-olds and getting children into primary schools—are closest among all the goals to being achieved (Nature, 2020). While the value of the SDGs is recognized, there is growing concern that most of them will not be achieved:
The goal to eliminate extreme poverty will not be met because some 430 million people are expected still to be living in such conditions in 2030. … Targets to end hunger and to protect climate and biodiversity are completely off track. Whereas some of the richer countries are making a degree of progress in the SDGs overall, two-thirds of poorer ones are not expected to meet those that relate even to their most basic needs.” (Nature, 2020, p. 7)
Existing frameworks found in moral philosophy, development ethics, universal declarations, and national legislation can provide direction in identifying the values and principles that will facilitate an ethical framework to guide decisions, practices, and actions in implementing the SDGs. There are different schools of moral philosophy, such as Aristotelian thought on a virtuous and good life, Jeremy Bentham's and John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism, John Dewey's pragmatism, and African ubuntuism, that can be drawn upon to appraise and clarify values and behavior related to what is just, good, bad, right, wrong, and appropriate in SDG implementation. In addition to these specific schools of moral philosophy, there are frameworks mentioned in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The new Agenda is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including full respect for international law. It is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. It is informed by other instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development. (United Nations, 2015, paragraph 10)
The essence of an ethical reflection is not so much to have an extensive list of procedures to follow. Rather, the purpose is to engage in the thoughtful and explicit examination and evaluation of ethical questions and to develop a critical awareness of the values and principles that inform choices, decisions, and actions that people take when addressing these questions (Gustavus Adolphus College, n.d.). Such a reflection is in line with an ethics of development that is devoted to “examination of ethical and value questions posed by development theory, planning, and practice, in order to diagnose value conflicts, assess policies, and assess valuations placed on development performance” (Goulet, 1997, as cited by Gasper, 2012). Examples of ethical questions, principles, and values that have been raised by the SDGs and require ethical reflection and action follow.
Ethics, like other branches of philosophy, questions and seeks to clarify definitions and assumptions underlying a proposition or a position. Therefore, a key ethical question is: Whose definition and view of development are the SDGs advancing? The aim of the SDGs to improve quality of life for all and create a better world for all humanity, one built on human rights and justice, is a commendable ethical aspiration toward a good life and humane society.
Implied within the 17 SDGs and 169 targets is the offer of a comprehensive view of development. However, development is a multidimensional concept, meaning different things to different people. An ethical approach requires an honest accounting of whose definition and measurement of development should be considered in programs designed to support the SDGs. Economic growth, measured by gross domestic product (GDP), dominates as a key indicator of development in the SDGs. However, development is a diverse field of research and practice involving the contributions of and participation by different academic disciplines and communities of practice. Different schools of thought have advanced different ideas over the years as to what constitutes development and how it can be realized.
While an emphasis on economic development dominated development discourse in the 1960s, this school of thought was challenged by those who argued that social aspects of development were also important (Seers, 1972). There also emerged a school of development that made a strong case for looking at justice in the distribution of benefits from development (Goulet, 1997). It argued that development should focus on the development of the total person and should aim at reducing or eliminating inequality and poverty as well as expanding freedoms and choice for people (Goulet, 1997; Sen, 1999). There is currently a growing interest in extending measurements of development beyond economic indicators to focus on measures of human development, such as capability, well-being, freedom, and happiness (Gasper, 2012; Sen, 1999). In addition to these broad development definitions and measures, there are experiential development realities at national and subnational levels. Global development goals therefore need to consider a more nuanced, multi-scaled definition of the values and principles that constitute a good life.
In light of the multifaceted possibilities for defining development, determining whether governments and investors will mainly measure development in terms of profit and economic growth is important as the SDG programs are rolled out. Though measures of development beyond economic indicators are difficult to implement, there have been efforts to explore alternative approaches. An example of this effort is in the human development index (HDI), which consists of economic and social indicators: education, health, and standard of living. The HDI was refined in 2010 to adjust for gender, inequality, and multidimensional poverty (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). Even as countries produce their national human development reports, they still rely on GDP as a key indicator of development (Bell & Morse, 2018).
Another effort is the Sustainable Development Analytical Grid, which has been tested in several contexts. It has ethical, social, ecological, economic, and governance dimensions with 32 themes for analysis (Villeneuve et al., 2017). This tool gives room to communities, programs, and stakeholders to vary the weights assigned to different themes, providing opportunities for entities to identify and measure what is important or what matters to them. However, it should be noted that there remain competing priorities among entities about what constitutes development. Thus, it is important for entities, including governments, investors, and communities, to define measures as they move ahead with their development objectives. To some, wealth creation is of greater importance, while to others ecological protection is foremost. In most cases, development goals are manifold, calling for a reflection on how best to define and measure development in specific contexts.
A further area of SDG implementation calling for an ethically grounded reflection is accountability. Accountability is not only about determining who is answerable when things go wrong, but also about establishing and adhering to a mechanism for owning a decision and taking responsibility for executing actions toward achieving the SDGs. As efforts are made to translate the SDGs into actionable national and subnational development programs, there is an ongoing need for reflection by and of those responsible for this translation, and to assess whether they are satisfactorily doing it. Can they be held accountable by the public for successes as well as failures in the delivery of SDGs? While the central role of countries or governments is highlighted in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, consideration of the capability of governments to deliver the agenda is required (United Nations, 2015):
We recognize that each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development. The new Agenda deals with the means required for implementation of the Goals and targets. We recognize that these will include the mobilization of financial resources as well as capacity-building and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed. Public finance, both domestic and international, will play a vital role in providing essential services and public goods and in catalyzing other sources of finance. We acknowledge the role of the diverse private sector, ranging from micro-enterprises to cooperatives to multinationals, and that of civil society organizations and philanthropic organizations in the implementation of the new Agenda. (paragraph 41)
Though countries are recognized as the key players in delivering the SDGs, a global partnership of many actors is envisaged. Hence, the need to reflect on how responsibility is shared among the different entities mentioned in the quote, and on the forces that may affect implementation arrangements. There is a need to clarify how the SDGs are to become part of the social contract between the governors and the governed, and on how the SDGs will be integrated into the diverse government planning cultures and practices around the world. Note that the ethical issue being raised here is on how responsibility and accountability will be handled to ensure that the SDGs are translated into national and local development aspirations and practices.
Maintaining responsibility and accountability gets at the heart of ensuring an ethics of practice in the implementation of the SDGs. A 2016 review of efforts to mainstream SDGs into national plans and frameworks of 16 countries showed that the main activities to date had focused on: 1.) mapping existing national plans and frameworks against the SDGs, 2.) setting up dedicated government entities to ensure policy coherence, and 3.) formulating long-term visions covering the full duration of the 2030 Agenda (United Nations Development Group, 2016). Measures defined in the SDG global indicator framework are also reported to be getting localized.
More recently, several countries are reported to have integrated the 2030 Agenda into national frameworks. However, major gaps and challenges have been identified, including lack of internationally comparable data for 13 goals for most countries, as well as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (United Nations, 2020). Even before COVID-19, assessments found that progress remained uneven and the world was not on track to meet SDGs by 2030 because global efforts have been insufficient to deliver the transformative change required (United Nations, 2020). This state of affairs points to the need to reflect on and assess the capability of governments, and the willingness of governmental and nongovernmental entities to assume responsibility for attaining the SDGs. The extent to which countries have integrated SDGs into national development frameworks is unclear. Hence, the arguable need to look deeply into accountability and mechanisms by which countries are held responsible for complying with SDGs.
As pointed out in the in the 2016 UN Development Group report, to achieve the SDGs and make progress on Agenda 2030, ethical reflection and assessment are necessary to achieve coherence between the global vision and the local context. The implication of these findings for SDGs is that without a sustained ethical reflection that guarantees realistic translation and responsible stewardship of their implementation at national and local levels, they could easily become another lost opportunity when we review our progress in 2030.