Loading...
On September 25, 2015, the 193 Member States of the United Nations (UN) adopted a set of 17 global goals to “end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all” as part of a new global sustainable development agenda for 2030 (2030 Agenda). UN Member States are expected to use the goals to frame their national development agendas and policies over the coming decade. Companies, through their commercial and sustainability activities, have a crucial role to play in realizing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Because of China’s sheer size across all measures - population, production, consumption, energy use, carbon footprint, etc.—the global success of the 2030 Agenda will depend significantly on successes achieved in China and with China internationally.
Many of China’s most pressing domestic policy priorities—chief among them poverty alleviation and pollution control—are highly aligned with the goals set in the 2030 Agenda, and China has a vested interest in achieving permanent and continuous improvements in these areas. China President Xi Jinping’s long and stern speech at the recent 19th Party Congress (October 2017) strongly and repeatedly emphasized the essential role that sustainable development, spanning all aspects (environmental to social governance), will play in Chinese policy making going forward.
But for most businesses in China, including foreign firms, directly addressing the SDGs is unchartered territory. The information and analysis provided here will help companies understand and prioritize the SDGs in the context of China’s ongoing and new development policy priorities. We explain why it is so crucially important for China’s leadership to engage on many of the issues underpinning the SDGs, and why it makes good business sense for foreign firms to do likewise. We examine the approaches Chinese policy makers are adopting to implement the SDGs in China, describe the specific focal areas targeted for each of the 17 SDG goals, and identify the government resources that companies can utilize to further assess the relevance of specific focal areas and their respective aspects for their business. Our work aims to help businesses identify the high-impact points of engagement in China, where available resources and know-how, commercial interests, and sustainability priorities align with the SDGs.
At the recent 19th Party Congress, a paramount political event for China, President Xi Jinping publicly affirmed his commitment—and, by extension, the Chinese government’s commitment—to a more sustainable and inclusive growth model for China. The drivers of this pronounced shift in the government’s narrative are both economic and political in nature. China’s leadership is acutely aware that the potential for a middle-income-trap The middle-income trap describes a stage of development when a country which has made significant progress in reducing extreme poverty and raising income levels through strong economic growth cannot successfully move from a resource-intensive, cheap-labor and capital driven growth model to growth based on innovation and productivity, and thus cannot move from a middle-income into the high-income class. economic scenario looms large if China cannot successfully shift its growth model from capital-heavy investment to one based on productivity and innovation achievement. Leadership also recognizes, and no longer denies, the detrimental effects that China’s untethered industrial development over the last three decades has had (and still has) on the country’s natural environment, public health, and social welfare. Most important, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) knows that the public knows this too and expects the government to effect positive change. For the polity at large, making progress on these issues is seen to be critical to maintaining economic growth, social stability, and political legitimacy. For the corporate sector, it is crucial to fully recognize the increasingly important, perhaps soon-to-be essential, role of sustainability as a business value driver in China.
Many of the policy priorities China’s leadership has outlined for the coming decade are closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out by the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. For example, many aspects of China’s numerous industrial development initiatives aimed at upgrading its economy also support the realization of the SDGs insofar as they aim to slim down heavy industries, modernize the agricultural sector, and shift into the high-end and clean segments of the manufacturing value chain. Important social stability and security objectives of the Party are also closely aligned with the SDGs—chief among them, alleviating rural poverty, creating a clean and safe living environment, ensuring food safety, ensuring secure food and water supplies, and improving social and financial equity. It’s at these convergence points where companies can maximize the business impacts of their sustainability efforts in China and potentially magnify them to a global level. Foreign firms should be in a particularly opportune position to leverage in China the sustainability expertise they have matured elsewhere.
The numerous synergies between China’s national policy priorities and the SDGs provide “leapfrog” opportunities for MNC corporate sustainability programs in China in terms of the scale, prominence, and impact levels that can be achieved and recognized, both locally and globally. Sustainability investing in China is most effective when programs leverage a company’s recognized technology assets and/or core competencies and yield demonstrable benefits in upgrading Chinese commercial ecosystems and/or delivering improved social welfare—“living the brand” per se. To be effective, this requires a deep understanding of, and alignment with, government development objectives and priorities. The focal areas the government has outlined for the implementation of the SDGs in China, if used and prioritized correctly, provide an ideal framework to identify areas where sustainability, commercial, and political priorities converge to enable breakthrough impact levels.
China’s leadership has a vested interest in seeing the SDGs come to fruition domestically, and its sustainability agenda converges with the UN SDGs across most dimensions. The overall aim of China’s domestic implementation plan for the SDGs is to bundle its various legacy sustainability efforts and economic development plans and align them, as best as possible, with the 17 SDGs and their respective targets. At a practical level, all government objectives are not created equal in China. Choosing the right play space to exploit this emergent opportunity requires accurate information inputs, astute analysis, and the domain know-how to navigate and execute in the Chinese business environment.
China heavily emphasizes certain goals or targets, while essentially downplaying others. Some goals constitute clear policy priorities that are backed up with a set of sensible projects and implementation plans (e.g., Goal 1: “no poverty,” Goal 6: “clean water and sanitation,” and Goal 7: “affordable and clean energy”), while others are still largely aspirational, and little information is provided that would help shed light on what areas the government actually intends to focus on, and how, if at all, it intends to move forward with implementation (e.g., Goal 5: “gender equality” and Goal 16: “peace, justice, and strong institutions”). There are also political sensitives attached to certain goals and targets that may make China’s leadership reluctant to engage them in a multilateral setting. For these areas, business engagement opportunities for foreign firms may be limited and are heavily dependent on the context of engagement. Understanding how the SDGs are being “localized” and positioned is necessary to ensure an effective and realistic approach to engaging on any aspect of the SDGs in China.
At the 19th Party Congress late last year, President Xi Jinping introduced a new “principal contradiction” (zhuyao maodun) for China. The new principal contradiction is “between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people's ever-growing needs for a better life.” Those not deeply familiar with Chinese politics, and particularly with sinicized Marxism, have likely never heard of the term “principal contradiction”; if they have, they might consider it an obscure relic of ideological jargon with little relevance for contemporary China. But this is not the case. Ideology continues to play a crucial role in Party politics and China’s broader policy-making process, a role that is being massively elevated by President Xi. (See here for a recent China Center publication on revived party ideology under Xi Jinping.)
Here is how Xinhua, China’s official state news agency, describes the principal contradiction:
Marxists interpret the world through dialectical materialism. Contradictions—or “dynamic opposing forces”—are omnipresent in society and drive social change. The “principal contradiction” is what defines a society. By identifying and solving it, society develops peacefully. Left unsolved, it can lead to chaos and eventually, as Marx predicted, to revolution “Xinhua Insight: China Embraces New ‘Principal Contradiction’ When Embarking on New Journey,” Yamei (ed.), Xinhuanet.com,October 20, 2017..
The last time the principal contradiction was changed was in 1981 under then-leader Deng Xiaoping in the wake of the “reform and opening” up campaign he initiated in 1978. Deng proclaimed the principal contradiction to be “between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and backward social production,” a clear break with Mao’s ideological focus on the battle between “proletariat and bourgeoisie.” Deng’s new principal contradiction ushered in more than 30 years of unprecedented industrial growth and economic development for China, but it also brought about myriad social, environmental, and governance problems.
Although a slow, incremental shift away from China’s “growth at all costs” mentality has been ongoing for the past decade or so and is reflected in many of the official policies and plans that were crafted during that period, Xi’s introduction of a new principal contradiction in theory constitutes an official renunciation of China’s old growth model and can therefore be considered a watershed moment for Chinese politics. This shift, and its overtly personal association with Xi Jinping, will substantially inform the underpinnings of most policies going forward—assuming Xi stays the course (and stays in power).
What is causing this shift in the government’s narrative? The answer is simple: necessity. There is both an economic and a political need for China’s development to become more sustainable and equitable. From an economic viewpoint, China’s industrial investment-led growth model of the past three decades has petered out and won’t produce the type of productivity gains that are needed to avoid so-called “middle-income traps” and keep China’s economy on a stable and sustainable growth trajectoryThe middle-income trap describes a stage of development when a country which has made significant progress in reducing extreme poverty and raising income levels through strong economic growth cannot successfully move from a resource-intensive, cheap-labor and capital driven growth model to growth based on innovation and productivity, and thus cannot move from a middle-income into the high-income class. Detrimental long-term effects of the middle-income trap include loss in manufacturing competitiveness, deteriorating labor market conditions, stagnating per-capita income, a shrinking middle class, decreasing purchasing power, etc.. (See here for The Conference Board 2018 economic outlook for China, and here for an article published by The Conference Board Chief Economist Bart van Ark on China’s risks of a middle-income trap).
On the societal side of the issue, there is now also widespread awareness and concern among the general public regarding the detrimental effects of environmental pollution to public health, and growing discontent regarding the obvious and significant social inequities across Chinese society—both of which are a direct result of China’s untethered industrial development. Arguably, in its hurry for ever-rising GDP growth, China has become far less socialist than most capitalist countries, as evidenced by acute and growing income inequality, weak social security programs that largely cater to the urban middle class, and sky-rocketing education costs. The Party is acutely aware of these challenges; addressing them is seen to be critically important for maintaining economic growth, social stability, and political legitimacy. Given these realities, it is clear that the revised policy focus on sustainable and inclusive growth, and for step-level progress in these areas, is for real and will continue to intensify.
At the 2016 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) meeting in New York, the United Nation’s central platform for guiding the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, China recommended prioritizing several key areas in the global (and domestic) implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
It is readily apparent from this list that, from China’s perspective, the UN SDGs are basically reinforcing what the Chinese leadership is already trying to address domestically. Although China’s record on social justice arguably ranks low compared to most other countries, it is nonetheless true that important social stability and security objectives of the Party are all closely aligned with the SDG’s objectives—chief among them, creating a safe and clean-living environment, ensuring food safety, ensuring secure food and water supplies, and improving social and financial equity. Directly following the all-important 19th Party Congress in October last year (2017), a Xinhua article openly named quality education, accessible health care, a healthy living environment, affordable housing, and financial equality as the Party’s key challenges to address going forward. Xinhua went so far as to say, “the demand [of the Chinese people] for a better life overseas is derived from an inability to satisfy these desires at home.” Since then, Xi Jinping and his leadership team have consistently reiterated the “three tough battles” that are to be the primary policy focus for 2018 and beyond: poverty alleviation; pollution control and treatment; and mitigation of financial system risk. Two of these are directly relevant to our discussion.
Many aspects of China’s numerous industrial development initiatives aimed at upgrading its economy—chief among them the Supply-Side Structural Reform (SSSR)Supply-Side Structural Reform is a massive economic policy initiative under the purview of Xi Jinping and focuses on the elimination of excess capacity, de-stocking, de-leveraging, cost reduction, and improving efficiency primarily in the steel, aluminum, coal, and cement sectors. It aims to tackle some of the most intransigent problems plaguing the Chinese economy—including industrial overcapacity and corporate indebtedness. program and Made in China 2025 Broadly speaking, Made in China 2025 is China’s latest official initiative to upgrade its national industry and become a world leader in high-end manufacturing.—also serve to support the realization of the SDGs insofar as they envisage slimming down heavy industries, modernizing the agricultural sector, and shifting into the high-end and cleaner segments of manufacturing value chains. (See here for a recent China Center publication on industrial overcapacity, and here for commentary on SSSR.) China’s continued growth in energy consumption, shortage of domestic energy supply, and heavy dependence on imported oil make the development of renewable and alternative energy industries a top national security priority and another strong alignment point with the SDGs.
Because of the 2030 Agenda’s strong focus on global partnerships for sustainable development, engagement on the SDGs also feeds into China’s regional expansion interests and its growing geopolitical aspirations, most obviously the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)China’s “Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is China’s largest geostrategic economic policy tool. It is primarily an umbrella brand name Beijing rolled out to bring a sense of coherence to a wide-ranging effort to engage more deeply with a huge swath of countries in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa via driving, funding, and developing new infrastructure, energy, logistics, and transportation initiatives. and the South-South Cooperation (SSC)South-South Cooperation is a broad framework for collaboration among countries of the Global South (Latin America, developing Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) in the political, economic, social, cultural, environmental, and technical domains. Involving two or more developing countries, it can take on bilateral, regional, sub-regional, or interregional basis. Developing countries share knowledge, skills, expertise, and resources to meet their development goals through concerted efforts. United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, “What is South-South Cooperation?”. China is already at the forefront of fostering climate change strategies through South-South Cooperation, mainly through financial, policy, and institutional alliances. The primary aim is to strengthen collaboration among emerging markets, but also to build strategic alliances that can lead to a more unified voice in negotiations with developed countries—and if Beijing gets its way, preferably under China’s leadership. schema—both of which are stated focal areas for China’s engagement on Goal 17 of the SDGs: “Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” (See here for a recent China Center publication on the BRI, and page 31 of this report on China’s SSC efforts). The potential soft power and diplomatic benefits China can prospectively gain by linking its international development initiatives with its implementation of the SDGs are significant. This is especially true given the deep concern many countries have regarding a sizably huge China as a large investor in their comparatively small countries, the leverage and control this may avail China politically, and the potential inflow of dispositive “Chinese characteristics” it may entrain (e.g., environmental damage, graft, commercial distortions, etc.).
China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) track record so far is arguably not great from a sustainability perspective—considering, for example, China’s extensive investments in agriculture and extractive industries in Latin America, which have placed a heavy strain on water supplies, increased deforestation, and worsened greenhouse gas emissionsRobert Soutar, “China has a big role in Latin America’s environmental problems: report,” chinadialogue, April 16, 2015. . Thus far, China’s BRI emissions are shaping up to face similar challenges. Perhaps Xi Jinping’s strong leadership will effect change in this regard—it needs to. There is already substantial negative press reporting on sustainability concerns regarding numerous BRI projects, including low-end, high-polluting coal and gas power plants; environmentally disruptive dam projects, and the skirting of environmental review procedures for highway and rail construction Ke Baili, “With Huadian Deal, Bangladesh Shows It’s Fired Up about Coal,” Caixin, May 8, 2018;
Debasish Roy Chowdhury, “Nepal Leader Vows to Revive Chinese Dam Project, Open to Review Pact over Nepalese Soldiers in India,” South China Morning Post, February 19, 2018.;
Scott Patterson and Russell Gold, “There’s a Global Race to Control Batteries—And China Is Winning,” Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2018;
He Huifeng, “The ‘Belt and Road’ Projects China Doesn’t Want Anyone Talking About,” South China Morning Post, August 8, 2017;
Serajul Quadir, “One Killed in Bangladesh Protest against Chinese Backed Power Plant,” Reuters, February 7, 2017;
James Kynge, Leila Haddou, and Michael Peel, “FT Investigation: How China Bought Its Way into Cambodia,” Financial Times, September 8, 2016.
.
From a business perspective, the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a call to action for the corporate sector to help address crucial global challenges. Their agreed definitions, measures, and common-language framework can help companies more consistently and effectively structure, measure, report, and communicate with stakeholders about their impact and performance in a way that is recognized globally.
Generally speaking, business interest in the SDGs is high, but strategic alignment is still largely missing. Studies that have assessed global business commitment to the SDGs agree that many of the largest globally operating companies have already started to refer to the SDGs in their annual sustainability reporting. Only few, however, are systematically measuring their contributions to the SDGs by aligning their sustainability strategy, projects, and assessments with specific SDG goals and targets See SDG Commitment Report 100: Tracking Companies’ Efforts to Contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (UNGSII, 2017),
SDG Reporting Challenge 2017: Exploring Business Communication on the Global Goals (PwC, 2017),
WBCSD Reporting Matters 2017 (WBCSD, 2017), and
How to Report on the SDGs: What Good Looks Like and Why It Matters (KPMG, 2018)..
For most businesses in China, including foreign firms, directly addressing the SDGs is essentially uncharted territory. Many companies are still in the early stages of their sustainability journey in China, and existing programs often lack strategic intent or deep commitment. The obvious and numerous synergies between China's own national policy priorities and the SDGs may change this status quo. Simply put, there is a tremendous opportunity for foreign firms to utilize areas of SDG alignment to bootstrap and significantly elevate their sustainability programs in China by exploiting the globality of the SDGs and China's related national interests. Foreign firms, in particular, should be in an opportune position to leverage in China the sustainability expertise they have matured elsewhere.
Exploiting this opportunity requires that companies fully recognize the important, perhaps soon-to-be essential, role of sustainability as a business value driver in China In fact, governmental sensitivities regarding civil society developments are high in China, so the less NGO-like sustainability programs are conceived, the better. Government stakeholders are often distrustful of foreign firms’ motives behind purely charitable gifts. Instead, government interlocutors want to clearly understand companies’ motives behind sustainability activities, and commercial aspects (such as brand and business development) are motives they understand—much better, in fact, than simply “doing good.” (Summarized based on member discussions at a recent China Center Deep Dive Exchange member event. See here for the meeting write-up). . It's not about charity. It's not about currying favor with the government. In today's China, it's about innovative programs that leverage a company's recognized technology assets and/or core competencies to yield demonstrable benefits in both upgrading Chinese commercial ecosystems and improving social welfare.
Programs of this nature require a deep understanding of the Chinese government's development objectives and priorities, then selecting and scoping projects that maximize alignment. The focal areas the government has outlined for the implementation of the SDGs in China, if used and prioritized correctly, provide an ideal framework for businesses to identify areas where sustainability, commercial, and political priorities overlap. By mapping company resources and competencies, commercial interests, and sustainability priorities against those focal areas, companies can identify high-impact areas for engagement. This can, if fully utilized, offer companies an opportunity to move away from corporate social responsibility (CSR) and short-termism to a real transformation of current business models and socioeconomic investing in China. Exceeding that, there is potentially a significant opportunity for groups of foreign companies to work together, effectively linking ecosystems of core values and competencies around particular focal areas to achieve breakthrough levels of impact related to specific China SDG priorities. The Blockchain Food Safety AllianceIn December 2017, Walmart, JDcom, IBM, and Tsinghua University co-launched the Blockchain Food Safety Alliance, aiming to build a blockchain technology platform to increase food supply chain transparency and ensure food safety in China. appears to be a promising example of the power of such collaboration (Walmart, IBM, JD.com, and others). It is highly visible, plays to the core strengths and interests of the companies participating in the alliance, and addresses one of China's leadership's most perennial PR nightmares—food safety. It also aligns with SDG Goal 2 (“End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”), and one of China's key focal areas for this goal is to ensure food safety.
“Localizing” the SDGs can also serve as a powerful communication tool inside and outside China. Because most Chinese citizens may not yet be familiar with the SDGs or, if so, may consider them a “foreign” concept, obvious alignment of the goals with China-specific focal areas can help place the SDGs in a context that local staff, government counterparts, and other domestic stakeholders can more readily understand and relate to. By using a consistent reference framework and language for sustainability programs, global sustainability teams can better understand and support local engagement efforts.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a collection of 17 global goals set by the United Nations. They are a global call to action to “end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity.”United Nations General Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 The goals are part of a wider 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , adopted in September 2015 by the 193 countries of the UN General Assembly. The UN Member States are expected to use the goals to frame their own national development agendas and policies over the coming decade.
Each of the 17 SDGs is supported by a set of targets (a total of 169). In 2017, the UN released a global indicator framework with 232 performance indicators that enables measurement on each country’s progress in achieving the 17 goals and their respective targets United Nations, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313), Annex, released July 2017.. Of these 232 UN indicators, two are qualitativeFor example, 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex (p. 9)., 41 measure global progress (i.e., by counting the number of countries or measuring some form of global ratio/levelFor example, 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula (p.17).), while 189 indicators can be used to measure country-level progressFor example, 1.2.1: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by sex and age (p.4). .
The SDGs follow and expand on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a group of eight international development goals that was set by the UN for the 2000–2015 period. There are important differences between the old MDGs and the new SDGs. For example, the crafting of the SDGs followed a much more participatory process than that of the MDGs, involving governments, businesses, civil society, and even the general public. It involved detailed international negotiations that included middle-income and low-income countriesThe MDGs applied to all UN member countries, but they were largely determined by OECD countries and international donor agencies.. Unlike the MDGs, the SDGs’ framework applies equally to all UN member countries and does not distinguish between “developed” and “developing” nations. They also cover a much wider range of developmental issues than did the MDGs. Perhaps most important, the private sector is far more engaged in the SDGs than it ever was in the MDGs.
Unlike the MDGs, the SDGs are an "inclusive" agenda—the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development are all included and intertwine across the entire framework. Because of this, the 17 SDGs are tightly interconnected, which means that actions that contribute to achieving one goal will likely impact other goals (Table 1). Likewise, some overarching issues can cut across multiple goals, especially if that issue is of high importance for the government. For example, there is an environmental governance component to achieving almost all of the goals for China (Table 2). Likewise, the use of technology and innovation as a means to achieve the goals is threaded throughout the Chinese focal areas of the goals.
Table 1
Overlaps between Focus Areas in China
Table 2
UN Goals and China’s Focus Areas to Strengthen Environmental Governance in China
| Pollution Control and Treatment | ||
Overall Pollution |
Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being |
Reduce environmental pollution which affects public health |
Goal 5: Gender Equality |
Reduce harm from environmental pollution for women and engage women in environmental protection efforts |
|
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure |
Control water pollution and improve waste disposal to support urban infrastructure development; develop environmental protection and resource utilization technology |
|
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities |
Strengthen pollution treatment and infrastructure construction in cities |
|
Air Pollution |
Goal 13: Climate Action |
Strengthen the control of greenhouse gas emissions |
Water Pollution |
Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation |
Improve water quality, water conservation and water-use efficiency |
Goal 14: Life below Water |
Control marine pollution |
|
Soil Pollution |
Goal 2: Zero Hunger |
Control land and soil pollution to ensure food safety |
| Energy Efficiency | ||
Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy |
Optimize energy consumption and energy supply, and develop and increase the use of energy technology |
|
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure |
Develop clean and efficient modern energy technology |
|
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities |
Improve energy efficiency in cities |
|
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production |
Encourage enterprises to upgrade internal infrastructures to achieve greater resource and energy efficiency |
|
Goal 13: Climate Action Goal |
Optimize national energy structure and improve energy efficiency |
|
Goal 14: Life below Water |
Develop marine renewable energy |
|
| Ecological Conservation and Recovery | ||
Goal 1: No Poverty |
Strengthen ecological restoration in rural areas |
|
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure |
Improve recovery of the ecological system in cities |
|
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities |
Improve recovery of the ecological system in cities |
|
Goal 14: Life below Water |
Protect coastlines |
|
Goal 15: Life on Land |
Improve wetland, forest and wildlife protection |
|
| Green Manufacturing | ||
Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy |
Promote green manufacturing to reduce energy consumption |
|
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure |
Foster development of green manufacturing technology |
|
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production |
Promote green manufacturing to improve green consumption and green production |
|
Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals |
Promote green manufacturing in Belt and Road countries |
|
While this interconnectedness between goals is one key strength of the SDG framework, it also creates implementation challenges. This is because individual goal targets and focal areas not only can positively reinforce one another, but can also constrain, counteract, or even cancel one another. For example, pursuing policies to boost consumption to promote economic growth (1.4) may counteract the objectives to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions (12.3), but this counteract could be remedied by the promotion of responsible consumption (12.1) (Table 3). It is therefore crucially important to map out synergies and trade-offs between focal areas for respective goals when assessing the relevance and impact of individual goals for a business and its wider stakeholder community.
Table 3
Positive and Negative Interactions between the SDGs
TYPE |
DESCRIPTION |
EXAMPLE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| STRATEGY Identify and Maximize the Synergies | |||
Indivisible |
The achievement of one target is inextricably linked to the achievement of another target. |
Achieving “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere” (5.1) would lead to the achievement of “Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” (5.5). |
|
Reinforcing |
The achievement of one target aids the achievement of another target. |
Strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards (13.1) will directly reduce losses caused by disasters (11.5). |
|
Enabling |
The achievement of one target creates conditions that further another target. |
Providing electricity access in rural homes (7.1) facilitates the pursuit of education for all (4.1), as it allows the rural poor who have to work after school to do homework at night with the aid of electric lighting. |
|
| STRATEGY NA | |||
Consistent |
The achievement of one target has no significant positive or negative impact on another target. |
Ensuring education for all (4.1) does not interact significantly with conservation of ocean ecosystems (14.1). |
|
| STRATEGY Identify trade-offs, and remedy with alternative measures, if any. | |||
Constraining |
The achievement of one target sets a condition or a constraint on the achievement of another target. |
The climate change mitigation objective (13.1) limits the options as to how to pursue energy access Objectives (7.1). |
|
Counteracting |
The achievement of one target counteracts the achievement of another target. |
Pursuing policies to boost consumption in order to promote economic growth (1.4) may counteract the objectives to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions (12.3). But this counteraction could be remedied by the promotion of responsible consumption (12.1). |
|
Cancelling |
The achievement of one target makes it impossible to reach another target. |
National security objectives make it impossible to have fully transparent and democratically accountable decision-making in government (16.6). |
|
In 2016, China released its own national plan to implement the SDGs. It was one of the first countries to do so. The National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development serves as the overarching guidance document to prioritize and carry out implementation of the goals in China.
It is important to understand that China’s National Implementation Plan re-contextualizes China’s various existing efforts and aligns them with the SDGs to the extent that it makes sense from a Chinese political and economic development point of view. This means that:
In 2017, China further released the Progress Report on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Progress Report), its first annual progress report, which reviewed the implementation achievements at the time.
Diagram 1
Overview of China's prioritization and implementation of the UN SDGs
Source: The Conference Board, 2018.
For each SDG and its corresponding targets, the National Implementation Plan outlines broadly its high-level focal areas and implementation mechanisms. For selected SDG targets, it also includes domestic (i.e., China-specific) indicators—51 in total. The vast majority of these are not newly set but are derived from domestic indicators previously set in other national plansOf the 51 quantitative indicators contained in the National Implementation Plan, 46 overlap with domestic targets previously set in other national plans.. China’s domestic indicators are, by and large, consistent with UN indicators contained in the UN’s global indicator framework Domestic indicators are either consistent with the relevant UN indicator or they are more specific than the UN indicator, usually providing multiple domestic indicators per one UN indicator. In some instances, slight inconsistencies may also arise because China defined its indicators before the UN released the final version of its global indicator framework.. While China has identified multiple corresponding domestic indicators for a very small number of SDG targets, the majority of targets have no quantitative indicators. Indeed, there are a number of SDGs for which China has not included domestic indicators for any of the goals’ targets.
It is not always clear why China has set indicators for certain targets and goals, but not for othersBased on the SDG Indicators Global Database, a database led by the UN Statistics Division which tracks progress on the 232 UN indicators across all member countries, China is publicly reporting data on 96 of the 232 UN indicators, but has chosen to include only some of these indicators in the National Implementation Plan.. But it is important to understand that the number or type of indicators included per goal does not necessarily reflect the level of importance the government attaches domestically to that specific goal (or aspects within it) or its implementation.
The National Implementation Plan a is a high-level document, which, as standalone, doesn’t lend itself to in-depth analysis of priorities or implementation details. Its main purpose is to integrate the 17 SDGs and their targets into China’s overall mid- and long-term development strategies by linking them to preexisting planning documents on related topics. Based on the references made throughout the National Implementation Plan (and the 2017 Progress Report), it is possible to identify and review the topical documents the government considers relevant for China in the context of each individual goal and to identify more specifically the focal areas and practical implementation mechanisms. These documents are national-level government plans, policies, guidelines, and other official planning documents. For example, in the context of Goal 1 (“end poverty”), China’s “13th Five-Year Plan for Poverty Alleviation” is the main reference document to understand what types of focal areas and implementation plans the government is pursuing. For our analysis, a total of 50 such topical government documents were reviewed, and they are listed in each related goal’s section
Certain focal areas outlined by the Chinese government are far more tangible than others.For some of the SDGs, China clearly outlines focal areas and implementation mechanisms in the National Implementation Plan, Progress Report, and the supporting topical documents. For others, focal areas seem disjointed or largely aspirational in nature, and little information is provided to shed light on the government’s actual intent, much less its ways and means. More progressed areas are often supported by a (sometimes very large) number of pilot initiatives.
Sustainable Development Goals official website
By the United Nations, in English and Chinese
The official UN SDG website provides a detailed overview of the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets.
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
By the United Nations, in English
The platform provides a wide variety of information related to the SDGs.
The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017
By the United Nations, in English and Chinese
The report provides an annual assessment of global and regional progress towards the implementation of the SDGs.
SDGs Indicator Global Database
By the United Nations, click here for China targets and here for country comparisons
The database provides access to detailed data compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on "Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals".
A Guide to SDG Interactions
By the International Council for Science, in English
The report examines the interactions between the various goals and targets, determining to what extent they reinforce or conflict with each other. It provides a blueprint to help countries implement and achieve the SDGs.
SDG Resources Center
By RELX Group, in English
This online resource showcases the latest in science, law, business, events and more that can help drive forward the SDGs.
SDG Compass, A Guide for Business Action on the SDGs
By the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Global Compact, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in English and Chinese
The SDG Compass report provides guidance for companies on how they can align their strategies as well as measure and manage their contribution to the realization of the SDGs.
Inventory of Business Tools
By the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Global Compact, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in English
The inventory maps existing business tools against the SDGs.
Inventory of Business Indicators
By the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Global Compact, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in English
The inventory maps existing business indicators against the SDGs.
SDG Compass Online Information
By the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), UN Global Compact, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in English
The platform explains the role of business in achieving the SDGs, and showcases illustrative examples of business solutions, indicators and tools for each goal.
CEO Guide to the SDGs
By the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in English and Chinese
This guide sets out clear actions that CEOs can take to begin to align their organizations with the SDGs and plot a course towards unlocking the value they represent.
SDG Industry Matrix
By KPMG and UN Global Compact, in English
The report showcases industry-specific examples and ideas for corporate action related to the SDGs.
Blueprint for Business Leadership on the SDGs
By UN Global Compact, in English
The report illustrates how core leadership qualities can be applied to a business' strategy, business model, products, supply chain, partnerships, and operations to take leading action in support of the SDGs.
The Sustainable Development Goals, Integrated Thinking and the Integrated Report
By the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and ICAS, in English
The report sets out five steps for companies to take to contribute to the SDGs through embedding them in the value-creation process.
Business Reporting on the SDGs
By the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and UN Global Compact, in English
The initiative develops a harmonized set of disclosures (including qualitative and quantitative indicators) for companies to report on the SDGs.
Core Reporting Indicators
By the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts on International Standards of Reporting and Accounting (ISAR), in English
The report introduces a set of core reporting indicators and provides the criteria for answering what constitutes a sustainability report in the context of the SDG monitoring framework.
How to Report on the SDGS
By KPMG, in English
The report proposes quality criteria for SDG reporting which business can use as guide for its own reporting, and helps business to benchmark its own reporting against the global leadership group.
China’s National Plan on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2016)
By the Chinese Government, in English and Chinese
The plan describes China’s envisioned engagement on the SDGs and identifies areas it intends to focus on.
China’s Progress Report on Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2017)
By the Chinese Government, in English and Chinese
The report assesses China’s progress towards achieving the SDGs.
UNDP China SDG MOOC
By UNDP, in English and Chinese
This online course showcases UNDP experts who introduce each goal, focusing on the global SDG agenda, and Chinese experts who provide an overview of the current situation and challenges in China. It provides recommendations for actions for all stakeholders. A great resource to help employees better understand the global objectives of the SDGs and how they relate to China.
