The Future We Get Might Not Be the Future We Want: Analyzing the Rio+20 Outcomes

Abstract

The Rio+20 Summit resulted in a policy outcome that, according to most observers, did not meet the requirements for a deep transformation of the current unsustainable practices that contribute to global environmental change. In light of this assessment, scholars and practitioners have questioned the effectiveness of intergovernmental conferences to solve environmental problems and suggested alternatives, including voluntary commitments, public–private partnerships and bottom‐up approaches. This survey article analyzes the Rio+20 outcomes and argues that, while the overtly high expectations of the public, media, NGOs and scientists have not been met, the concrete results might include the seeds for a substantive transformation of current unsustainable practices. In this context, this article also urges leaders not to abandon international agreements for governing global change prematurely.

Rainbow Wash or Rainbow Revolution? Dynamic Stakeholder Engagement for SDG-Driven Responsible Innovation

“…During the conference, the UN member states agreed on the document “The Future We Want,” which included a new set of sustainability objectives applicable to both developing and developed countries, which built on the MDGs and represented a more comprehensive framework for achieving global sustainability by 2030. Without this document, the current SDGs could not be adequately understood, as it called for different actions in preparation for the 2030 Agenda, including the inclusion of the green economy narrative in the discussion about sustainability development, the adoption of a framework for tackling sustainable consumption and production, improving gender balance, and promoting corporate sustainability reporting measures, among others (Pattberg & Mert, 2013 ; Saner et al, 2019 ; UN, 2012a ). As a means to implement these actions, Rio+20 emphasized the importance of promoting innovation—with the collaboration among different actors as its driving force—and the key role of the private sector in the progression towards sustainability (UN, 2012a ).…”

Participation(s) in Transnational Environmental Governance: Green Values versus Instrumental Use

“…At the time of Rio+20 it was established that voluntary commitments under the CSD and the Global Compact lacked public scrutiny, orchestration, democratic accountability and transparency (Pattberg et al 2012). There were no demands from civil society or epistemic communities to add similar initiatives to the existing portfolio at Rio+20 (Pattberg and Mert 2013), yet they were added to 2030 Action Agenda as the final and all-encompassing SDG 17: To strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development. However, neither the CSD nor the UN Environment Programme were upgraded into a specialised agency, as proposed in the preparatory process.…”

Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood

“…In addition, many similar agreements are in place across the globe but not formally registered with the UN system. At the 2012 Rio+20 Summit, over 700 voluntary arrangements were added to the list of similar voluntary arrangements (see Pattberg and Mert 2013 ). At the 2014 UN Climate Summit, another 50 climate actions were presented (Chan et al 2015 ) and the recent 2015 Climate Summit saw the registration of more than 10,000 voluntary climate commitments (UNFCCC 2015 ).…”