‘Sustainable’ Discourse: A Critical Analysis of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) adopted a new set of development goals in September 2015 titled Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations [UN], 2015). The Agenda is populated among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprising 169 targets, the progress of which would be measured using 232 indicators. The overarching discourse in the new development agenda and plan of actions is on the concept of sustainability. The concept of sustainability has been in the development literature for more than three decades. Sustainability is a complex construct and there is no universal definition that is agreed upon (Hopwood, Mellor, & O’Brien, 2005; Hull, 2008; Zygmunt, 2016), and for the same reason, sustainable development is ambiguous, blurred, contested and a ‘politically correct’ term (Hopwood et al., 2005; Hull, 2008). The idea of sustainable development was first recognized internationally at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Influential works such as Rachel Carson’s 1962 classic Silent Spring (1994) and Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the commons raised concerns over environmental degradation and its severe impacts on the planet. In late 1983, the UN General Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development and appointed Gro Harlem Brundtland as its chair. The commission was asked to formulate ‘a global agenda for change’ to procure long-term environmental strategies that would help achieve sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond (WCED, 1987). The commission investigated the concerns raised in earlier decades and culminated with its influential report ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED, 1987), which concluded that the development of the world would be ‘unsustainable’ if human activity having damaging impact on the planet would go unchecked. The Brundtland Commission’s report provides what is deemed a ‘classic’ definition of sustainable development: ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p. 24).

The concept of sustainable development received wide appreciation and was popularized by the Brundtland Commission Report (Sikdar, 2003). While environment was a side issue for long, this played a catalyst role in bringing the issue of environment to the centre of political decision-making. The UN General Assembly decided to convene a Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. The UNCED, which would become the Earth Summit later, was a high-level meeting as it was attended by over 100 heads of state and representatives from 178 national governments and various civil society organizations (CSOs). A massive plan of action for sustainable development under Agenda 21 was adopted at the summit. To monitor and follow up on the progress of Agenda 21, the UN also established a commission named Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) the same year. As such, a careful reading of the SDGs would show that Agenda 21 originally became the reference point for the SDGs.

The rising concerns over environmental deterioration and unsustainable development during the 1970s and 1980s brought the idea of sustainability to the fore. However, what really ‘sustainability’ is, what its forms and dimensions are and whether ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ are the same, yet remain unclear. Sikdar (2003) elaborates the fundamental concept of sustainability based on two levels of inequity derived from disproportionate resource consumption. First, the wasteful lifestyle of a minority of people living mostly in wealthy nations or in the richer enclaves of poor countries requires high amount of resources, which leave the majority to struggle with minimum resources, thus resulting in environmental degradation and creating intra-generational inequity. Second, the ever-rising rate of resource consumption would deprive the future generations of leading a standard life compared to the present, thus creating inter-generational inequity. Perhaps, for this reason, Central European scholars and researchers view sustainability in holistic way. They focus more on a ‘doer’ (subject) than on the doer’s vicinity full of resources (objects) (Zygmunt, 2016). Their argument is that a doer needs to consider all intricacies associated with the consumption of the resources. What these authors seldom offer is a viable framework of measuring sustainability.

Hopwood et al. (2005) attempted to map different approaches to sustainable development. They extended Sikdar’s (2003) equity-based conception of sustainability, which focusses on futurity (inter-generational equity) and social justice (intra-generational equity). To Hopwood et al. (2005), sustainability also included geographical equity (transfrontier responsibility), procedural equity (open and fair treatment to people) and interspecies equity (importance of biodiversity).

In the context of challenges such as unprecedented inequality and unjust distribution of progress that the world is facing today (Milanovic, 2016) along with environmental degradation, it is important to identify the nature as well as the levels of concerns expressed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, popularly known the SDGs. The author is presently conducting a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the official UN document on the SDGs in order to answer these questions related to how sustainability is conceptualized in the SDGs. The author deploys a three-dimensional analytical framework as outlined by Fairclough (1995), which examines a text or discourse at micro level, discursive practices at meso level and discursive events at macro level.

Rationale for This Study

Critical scholars contend that hegemonic values and priorities in societies are reinforced through communication. Malcom Waters (2000) argues that ‘material exchanges localize, political exchanges internationalize, and symbolic exchanges globalize’ (p. 9). Thus, the official declaration of the UN on a crucial agenda of social change like the SDGs becomes important. It guides not only the programmatic interventions of its own but also the policy formulations and implementations of national governments and other local, regional and global organizations. The implication is that, assumptions, values and beliefs embedded in certain development discourses constructed by global economic and political institutions could position the parties of development in a preferred way, and they would socially and culturally establish a set of norms and priorities and could perpetuate a new cycle of power distributions in society. In Foucauldian discourse analysis, an emphasis is given to ‘particular institutions and their ways of establishing orders of truth, or what is accepted as ‘reality’ in a given society (Goldberg, n.d.). Indeed, the dominant discourse not only shapes society, but in fact creates reality (Foucault, 1972; Gramsci, 1971). According to Gramsci (1971), the state and other institutional structures produce a society’s values and beliefs as hegemony, and since the social structures and norms have influence over all facets of daily life, the governing values and beliefs become logical and get translated into the material. Thus, individuals in society, being socialized by the ‘subtle’ and ‘seductive’ hegemonic processes, not only build imaginary relations with aspects of reality, but also become unresisting of the values entrenched in the discourses (Melkote & Steeves, 2015). The discourse in development studies has often emphasized a single story of poverty and disaster, positioning developing countries and development recipients as victims, poor, marginalized, disempowered, underprivileged and vulnerable, and Western countries and aid workers as saviours, rich, mainstreamed, empowered and privileged (Melkote & Steeves, 2015, p. 4). They commonly reveal asymmetrical power relations. The author uses this critical perspective to analyze the discursive commitment of the UN towards development and critical social change, as articulated through its 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. This study examines the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development document from a discursive perspective, since a new set of norms on major social/political programmes could exacerbate social inequalities and injustice as they could potentially become social practices through discursive articulations. This research argues that such unequal power apparatuses and unjust social structures would remain unaddressed if the discursive social practices are not deconstructed and challenged through critical lenses.

Analytical Framework

A CDA is employed as a methodological framework to study the dominant and peripheral discourses that underlie the framework of the SDGs. CDA has three interwoven tenets: discourse, culture and social structure (Fairclough, 1995). Utilizing these tenets, Fairclough has developed a three-dimensional analytical framework of discourse studies, which first explores discourse as texts (spoken or written), then discursive practices (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and finally discursive events, as instances of sociocultural practices. This approach correspondingly combines a three-level interpretation: micro level (aspects of textual/ linguistic dimension including grammar, vocabulary, structure and meaning), meso level (producers, consumers and the forms and conditions) and macro level (intertextual/ interdiscursive elements at societal levels, or the wider discourses and social practices of groups and institutions).

Using the CDA, the author first examined the UN’s official document of the sustainable agenda at the textual level, in which the author analyzed the presences and absences in the text, including what particular ideational function it plays, what categories of actors it highlights and in what ways their relationships are constructed (Fairclough, 1995, p. 58). For analyzing the discursive practices at the meso level, the author considered two facets: institutional processes (e.g., editorial) and discourse process (e.g., intertextual—how production and consumption changes texts). According to Fairclough (1995), ‘linguistic analysis is descriptive in nature, whereas intertextual analysis is more interpretive. Linguistic features of texts provide evidence which can be used in intertextual analysis, and intertextual analysis is a particular sort of interpretation of that evidence….’ (p. 16). Finally, the author examined three aspects at the macro level analysis of the text, which are the discursive events or sociocultural practices: economic (economy of the text), political (power and ideology) and cultural (issues of values) (Fairclough, 1995).

Micro Analysis of the Discourse as Text

Many critical projects employ textual analysis to reveal the dominant and resistant values embedded in mediated contents, to see if it significantly serves a ‘consciousness-raising’ function, which may challenge hegemony (Melkote & Steeves, 2015). Hence, ‘[a] careful examination of language and imagery of development certainly provides insights into values and agendas of those communicating’ (p. 13).

This micro analysis explores the presences and absences in the text, including what ideational function it plays, what categories of actors it highlights and in what ways their relationships are constructed. The analysis identifies three discourses in the presence category and two discourses in the absence category, which the author briefly discusses below.

Meso Analysis of Discursive Practices

At the meso level, the author analyzed two aspects: institutional processes of the text (e.g., editorial) and discourse processes (intertextual—how production and consumption changes texts).

Macro Analysis of Discursive Events

This level of analysis explores three sub-dimensions: economy of the texts (economic), power and ideology (political) and issues of values (cultural).

Although the central focus of development as economic growth under the framework of the MDGs (United Nations [UN], 2015) shifted to social inclusion, environmental protection and economic prosperity under the SDGs framework, yet the development process is still viewed mostly as economic growth. Based on the meaning of development as articulated by donor countries and aid organizations in the last few decades, economic and political influence of the UN and the hegemonic power structures as reinforced under these entities, economic development seems to be the priority for the trio of people, planet and prosperity. Other important factors such as people’s lack of freedom, power and opportunity to participate in the processes of the new development agenda seem to be ignored again in this economy-determined agenda.

The sustainable development plan of action in the SDGs Agenda is understood, designed and owned by those for whom the same is finally adopted. The seven-decade history and experience with development, including the MDGs implementation during the last 15 years, has already created certain texts, vocabularies and practices of development, most of which have already become natural and normative in social practices. This discourse that is repeated in the SDGs Agenda, if not theoretically and empirically deconstructed, would either reinforce the same hegemonic structures and values of neoliberal ideology, or would at least appear with some modifications to further its existing political and economic agenda. For example, the participatory model has become fundamental to development theory and practice, and it is also celebrated as a viable alternative to the modernization scheme of development. In Waters’ (2000) view, a critical perspective ‘dismantles the assumption that ‘participation’ is ‘better’ than orthodox approaches’ (p. 90). Scholars and practitioners of development communication need to carefully examine the patterns of discursive articulation in the SDGs, especially those of participation and global partnership. A more focussed analysis of this concept would enlighten us about how participation per se originally emerged, perceived and represented, and whether the processes are consistent with the promises of transforming the dominant power structures (Waters, 2000).

The assertion of long-term ‘public’ consultation and development for ‘people’ should also reveal who the ‘people’ are and what legitimacy they hold to shape the development agenda. According to Article 52 of the Sustainability Development Declaration:

We the peoples” are the celebrated opening words of the Charter of the United Nations. It is “we the peoples” who are embarking today on the road to 2030. Our journey will involve Governments as well as parliaments, the United Nations system and other international institutions, local authorities, indigenous peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, the scientific and academic community – and all people. Millions have already engaged with, and will own, this Agenda. It is an Agenda of the people, by the people and for the people – and this, we believe, will ensure its success.

Here, both the opening phrase ‘We the peoples’ and the last sentence ‘It is an Agenda of the people, by the people and for the people – and this, we believe, will ensure success’ put people at the centre. In addition, the five ‘P’ values, as stated in the preamble of the resolution, also position people at the front, followed by planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. Apparently, ‘people’ are well placed in the framing of the 2030 Agenda, which is assuring. However, critics would ask: ‘who are “we” in the “We the peoples” of the UN Charter?’ and ‘what kinds of people are represented in the Agenda ‘of, by and for the people’’’.

The SDGs resolution describes those who are labelled as ‘people’ or ‘public’ (in Articles 1, 2 and 52) as inclusive of governments, parliaments, the UN system, international institutions, CSOs, business and the private sector, the scientific and academic community, local authorities, indigenous peoples and all people. Evidently, all these actors except ‘people’ have relatively higher power and privilege, and they would enforce things upon the ordinary people even though the public does not desire certain prescriptive changes. In the following paragraphs, the author specifically discusses the role of these actors, especially the power relations between the governments, institutions, and CSOs and the people.

First, the heads of state and government and high representatives who approved and would implement the SDGs hold relatively higher power positions in society compared to those of the people they serve. While the same authorities enforce policies, laws and regulations among their people, it is the people who are unable to ward them off or make any development intervention based off of them. Beginning with World War II, the state governments have generally enforced the development agenda using their policing and magistracy powers (Melkote & Steeves, 2015), which was previously practised during the colonial era. Even today, the coercive development work is performed not very differently, which the author will show by adding some more insights about how strategically the UN system and the state governments impose development policy upon the people and how its agencies along with similar international organizations play roles in shaping the social, political and economic agenda in the developing world.

Article 1 confirms that the UN is heading the new Agenda at a time when it celebrates its 70th anniversary. The UN and its associated agencies including the Bretton Woods institutions—World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)—are not beyond scepticism. They have been criticized for their weak role in ensuring global peace, justice and order. Particularly, the UN has evolved as a highly contested system because of its biased formation, mandate and support to Western dominance and influence. Therefore, the participation and partnership of people and countries in the UN system are not necessarily symmetrical. According to Jody Waters (2000), one way to problematize our understanding of participation in development is to recognize development as a political enterprise, in which First World agencies; and institutions engage in defining problems and designing interventions aimed at effecting change in the Third World. As such, the UN system is widely known as the largest global actor that reinforces neoliberal ideology and free-market economic agenda. While the 2030 Agenda is adopted and interpreted by the UN General Assembly, it would be executed by state governments, CSOs and private sectors from which people and communities can barely escape. Here, two assumptions need to be considered carefully: the UN is a prominent agenda setter of development in the world and whatever agendas the UN brings up are arbitrarily posited as ‘comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred’. The resolution strongly calls for implementation of these goals as development priorities by all countries. This informs us that ‘people’ are not necessarily the ones put at the centre of the SDGs, meaning that they have inadequate freedom and power over their lives and decisions, especially when it comes to making choices for their own development.

Second, in the means of implementation of SDGs there are several strategies, agreements, and programmes of action (e.g., of WTO’s) that mostly deal with international economic and business operations. An overly economic dimension of development creates the conditions of inequality and injustice. One of the reasons behind this is that the means of implementation as well as the programmes of action are mainly performed in agreement with the governments and the public institutions, in which people enjoy the least share. Thus, the social problems (e.g., gender inequality, social injustice, etc.) become commodified by the social dimensions and these prejudices constitute the grounds for economic exploitations under the stewardship of the government, public institutions and private corporations. The general people become lost in this vicious circle because they accept that the government is the legitimate authority to agree, sign and enforce various policies on their behalf, notwithstanding the fact that most people do not welcome them.

Conclusion

With a pledge for a more peaceful and inclusive societies, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development goes far beyond the MDGs. It sets a wide range of economic, social and environmental objectives along with a clearly defined means of implementation. Yet, there are challenges to sustainable development, including the rising inequalities within and among countries, gender inequality, spiralling conflict, violent extremism and transnational terrorism and related humanitarian crises that could reverse the development progress made in recent decades (Article 14). While the new development declaration articulated the discourses of global equality, justice and peace, the means of implementation and the proposed structure of global partnership contradict with these stated goals. A CDA of the Sustainability Development Declaration and the goals reveals three key patterns. First, the cited challenges in Article 14 of the new Agenda have been ‘seductively’ commoditized to legitimize the newer interventions to achieve the goals of the SDGs.

Second, it seems that the people, groups and communities still seem to be vulnerable to the forces of neoliberal economy, as ‘subtly’ included within the framework of SDGs including the global partnership for sustainable development. It would not be hyperbole to view this agenda as a new way of expanding and fortifying economic globalization. For example, the SDGs has made the least developed countries (LDCs), small island developing states and the landlocked countries and the farthest remote areas the new destinations of the capitalist outreach. The articulation of this Agenda for ‘people, planet and prosperity’ is as such a new ‘hoax’ of modernization. People will still be lacking power over their lives and stories, freedom from inequality and freedom to enjoy their full potentials.

Third, although the benefits and costs of globalization are unevenly distributed among nations, the sustainable development declarations discursively omit the concerns of globalization, empowerment, equity and social justice. Benefits of globalization are distributed among the developed and developing nations in an uneven manner.