Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)

Published online 30 March 2016 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI:10.1002/sd.1623

The Private Sector and the SDGs: The Need to Move

Beyond ‘Business as Usual’
Regina Scheyvens,* Glenn Banks and Emma Hughes
Institute of Development Studies, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, Palmerston
North, New Zealand

ABSTRACT
In September 2015, world leaders gathered in New York to endorse the Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDGs): Ban Ki-moon asserts that the SDGs signal a ‘paradigm shift for people
and the planet’ (UN 2014: para. 24). Significantly, under this new agenda there are expecta-
tions that businesses, government and civil society actors will be equally responsible for
progressing a more sustainable path forward. Many assert that the private sector has partic-
ular strengths to bring to bear in delivering on the SDGs, including innovation, responsive-
ness, efficiency and provision of specific skills and resources. Interestingly, the business
sector had a strong role in influencing development of the SDGs. In this paper we discuss
the challenge being put forth to business actors by the SDGs, reflecting on both the potential
for more sustainable and responsible practices and on the limits to change. Copyright ©
2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Received 01 September 2015; revised 15 November 2015; accepted 18 November 2015

Keywords: sustainable development goals (SDGs); private sector; sustainable development; development policy; tourism;
extractives

Introduction

I
N SEPTEMBER 2015, WORLD LEADERS GATHERED AT A SPECIAL SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AT UNITED NATIONS
(UN) headquarters in New York to endorse 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), goals that the UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asserts signal a ‘paradigm shift for people and the planet’ (UN, 2014, para.
24; see also Moore, 2015; Scott and Lucci, 2015). Development of the SDGs potentially offers a new way forward
for development policy and practice, with an emphasis on a broad range of global goals and targets for the world to
aim for by 2030. To development scholars it is certainly refreshing to hear talk of equity, inclusion, a holistic
approach and strong environmental governance dominating discourse around the SDGs. Ban Ki-moon’s synthesis
report on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda, meanwhile, highlights a term that has not often been aired
in development circles in the past two decades and that extends well beyond providing people with their basic needs:
it is titled The Road to Dignity by 2030 (UN, 2014 – emphasis added). There has been praise too for the consultative
approach taken to developing the SDGs, as compared with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Kharas and
Zhang (2014, p. 27) stress the ‘massive’ consultation around the SDGs with, among other mechanisms, over 4.5
million online responses to the UNDP My World survey, a process that forms part of the ‘hyper-participatory’

*Correspondence to: Regina Scheyvens, Institute of Development Studies, School of People, Environment and PlanningMassey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand. E-mail: r.a.scheyvens@massey.ac.nz

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
372 R. Scheyvens et al.

approach lauded by Quint (2014, p. 114). Others are impressed with the greater integration among SDGs than
existed with the MDGs (Le Blanc, 2015). It is also noteworthy that universality of the SDGs is being pursued,
whereby it is anticipated that all countries, not just those labelled as ‘developing’, will aim for and report on progress
towards a wide range of sustainable development targets.
One of the most significant shifts with development of the SDGs has been the foregrounding of the role of the
private sector. Undoubtedly business has been involved in discussions around sustainable development policy since
the 1987 Brundtland Report and subsequent UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in
1992 (Kolk, 2005). Under the new SDG agenda, however, businesses, governments and civil society actors are
equally called upon to pursue a more sustainable path forward. Many assert that the private sector has particular
strengths to bring to bear in delivering on the SDGs, including innovation, responsiveness, efficiency and provision
of specific skills and resources (Lucci, 2012; Porter and Kramer, 2011). Hence, a recent UN Global Compact White
Paper (2014, p. 3) asserts that ‘A new paradigm in development thinking is recognizing the centrality of private
enterprise in pursuit of the development agenda – and vice versa’.
Such statements provide an opportunity for new ways of thinking about development, and the potential for
greater development gains in terms of achieving the SDGs. However they also raise questions that require a more
critical stance. Can, for example, profit-motivated businesses really make a meaningful contribution to achievement
of the SDGs or are we likely to see ‘business as usual’, which results in greater profits for some, and lost
opportunities for many?
In this article we review scholarly literature and reports associated with development of the SDGs in order to
explore the role of the private sector in shaping the post-2015 development agenda, the types of developmental
mechanism being posited for the private sector, and the potential this offers for improved social, economic and
environmental outcomes. We also critically reflect on what can and should be expected of businesses, which, as
distinct from both government and civil society organizations, have a raison d’être centred upon profit-making.
The paper draws on research the authors have conducted with companies investing in community development
in the Pacific Islands as part of their CSR strategies, in addition to commentaries on the private sector and the
SDGs. In doing so, the aim of the paper is to reflect both on the potential for the private sector to contribute to more
sustainable and responsible practices, and on the limits to this process. For all the rhetorical flourishes regarding
the potential of the private sector to transform development, we argue that there are serious impediments to this
being the transformative process that many envisage. As Adams and Luchsinger (2015) ask, ‘Can we have a
transformative development agenda without the transformation of business?’.

SDGs and the Private Sector

Sustainable Development and Business Prior to the SDGs
Since the new millennium there has been a surge of enthusiasm for ways in which the private sector can contribute
to achieving sustainable development goals. Driven in part by the global financial crisis of 2007/8 and the subse-
quent tightening up of public development budgets, along with the scale of global development challenges, attention
has turned to the private sector to boost the funds available and bring the relevant know-how to address development
issues (Clémençon, 2012; Eyben and Savage, 2012; UN, 2012). Simultaneously, progressive companies – from
Unilever to Sainsbury – are developing business models that are imbued with social values and notions of respon-
sibility, and that seek commercial success alongside more sustainable approaches and positive development
outcomes (Lucci, 2012; Franks, 2014).
Framing these developments over the past few decades have been gatherings of world leaders, both state repre-
sentatives and NGOs and private sector actors, at all three major United Nations conferences on Sustainable
Development: in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in Johannesburg in 2002 and at the Rio +20 conference in 2012. At these
meetings, an expanded role for the private sector as a development actor was highlighted. The Johannesburg
Declaration stated, for example, that ‘the private sector, including both large and small companies, has a duty to

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
The Private Sector and the SDGs: Moving Beyond ‘Business-as-Usual’ 373

contribute to the evolution of equitable and sustainable communities and societies’ (UN, 2002, para. 27), while the
outcome document of Rio +20 asserted that the private sector was an important partner in development:

We acknowledge that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on active engagement of
both the public and private sectors…. We support national regulatory and policy frameworks that enable
business and industry to advance sustainable development initiatives taking into account the importance of
corporate social responsibility. We call on the private sector to engage in responsible business practices, such
as those promoted by the UN Global Compact (UN, 2012, para. 46).

In addition to the Global Compact, initiatives to encourage business actors to promote more sustainable develop-
ment can be found in the CERES Principles (devised by a coalition of 15 major US environmental groups who
started working tougher after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill), the ICC Business Charter for Sustainable Develop-
ment (launched in 1991; over 2300 companies have signed up to this voluntary charter) and the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises (revised in 2000). When Barkemeyer et al. (2014) analysed such documents, however,
they found that business interest groups had interpreted the sustainable development principles of the signature
Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, in a rather narrow fashion, taking a managerialist focus, seeking to pursue
win–win situations and showing low interest in social sustainability such as meeting the needs of the poor. Kolk has,
meanwhile, observed that international business associations responded to increased policy activity on environmen-
tal issues by emphasizing that firms should take the lead in demonstrating environmentally responsible practice,
including voluntary codes of conduct, rather than being faced with a stronger regulatory approach (Kolk, 2005).
Clearly, interest by business in sustainable development was serving businesses’ own interests. Has anything
changed regarding the SDGs?
In 2012 the Member States attending Rio +20 launched a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) that would build upon the MDGs, due to expire in 2015. While the MDGs were primarily focused
on human development outcomes centred on poverty alleviation, the SDGs take a more holistic approach, broaden-
ing the range of goals to capture aspects of the so-called ‘triple bottom line’ approach to sustainability. What distin-
guishes the SDGs from the MDGs is the prominence given to (i) environmental sustainability, (ii) economic
development, with a focus on inclusive growth, (iii) proposed universal application to all countries and (iv) an
increasing concern with non-material aspects of development. In terms of the latter aspect, the UN Secretary
General’s Synthesis Report on the post-2015 sustainable development agenda, released on 4 December 2014,
included six ‘essential elements’ for delivering the SDGs: inclusion, dignity and justice are prominent in this.
Hence, while economic growth is still regarded as a key ‘element’ of the post-2015 development agenda, it is now
embedded within a concern for inclusive growth, and as a means to address inequalities: the private sector is seen
as ideally placed to contribute to these goals around prosperity and inclusive economic growth (UN 2014).
The convergence of attention on the private sector’s roles in development since Rio +20 has brought together in-
stitutional and government discussions on the post-2015 development agenda and the SDGs, along with business-
driven forums and sectoral initiatives aimed at more ethical, sustainable and responsible business practices. Initia-
tives have also emerged that specifically aim to highlight how businesses can contribute to sustainable development
and poverty alleviation (see, for example, businessfightspoverty.org and www.inclusive-business.org). In addition,
much attention has been focused on high profile exemplars of good business practice:

A number of successful sustainable and inclusive business initiatives have been written about in case studies
and are now well-known, including Unilever’s Shakti, ITC’s eChoupal, and Safaricom’s M-PESA. These case
studies clearly demonstrate that what is good for business can also be good for society by generating double- or
triple- bottom lines (Chakravorti et al., 2014, p. 6).

This point that ‘what is good for business can also be good for society’ receives further reflection below. For the
moment, however, it is worth noting that even those sympathetic to the private sector’s role in development do raise
serious reservations. Jeffrey Sachs, for example, observes that ‘…many large companies are also lobbyists for policies
antagonistic to sustainable development, so engagement with business has to be done cautiously…’ (2012, p. 2211).

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
374 R. Scheyvens et al.

In the sections to follow, therefore, we specify first what involvement the private sector had in developing the SDGs,
and second what is being proposed for private sector actors re the SDGs.

Influence of the Private Sector over the SDG Processes

In designing the SDGs, industry leaders sat alongside political leaders and civil society actors. Thus, for example,
Paul Polman from Unilever was part of the UN’s High Level Panel (HLP), which was asked to come up with a ‘bold
and practical’ vision for what should follow the MDGs when they end in 2015. Business and industry was a desig-
nated ‘major party’ (alongside groups representing indigenous peoples, women, children and youth, and farmers)
involved in the UN Open Working Group (OWG) tasked with developing the SDGs. The close involvement of the
private sector in the SDG process reflects a conscious shift in the past decade that has seen the private sector become
more entwined in the world of development policy and planning. The Fourth OECD–DAC High Level Forum in
Busan, Korea, in 2011 for example acknowledged the contribution of the private sector and explicitly opened up
opportunities for the sector to deepen its engagement in development policy and direction:

32 (b) Enable the participation of the private sector in the design and implementation of development
policies and strategies to foster sustainable growth and poverty reduction (OECD, 2011, p. 10; see also
Mawdsley et al., 2014).

In terms of the SDG process, while overall there has been praise for the wide consultative process, an analysis by
Pingeot (2014) points to the rather uneven involvement of private sector actors in this process. Pingeot examined
which corporations were involved in a number of post-2015 processes, namely the HLP, Global Compact, Sustain-
able Development Solutions Network, OWG and High-Level Political Forum. Of the 55 corporations identified, he
found that 11 were from the mining/oil/gas sector, five from food and beverages, four from telecommunications
and one to three from other sectors. The geographical base for 26 of the 55 companies represented was in Europe,
another six were USA based and three were from Japan.
The dominance of large Western transnational companies in the development of the SDGs and the particular sec-
toral interests represented is reflective of other trends. For example, the major players in the minerals sector began
to take an active role in seeking to shape the discourse of sustainability from the mid-1990s, and more intensively in
the build-up to the 2002 Johannesburg Summit (Danielson, 2006). In terms of the SDGs, the predominance of
European-based firms and those from the resource extraction, technology, chemical or pharmaceutical, and food
and beverage sectors might help to explain the nature of the key messages that Pingeot discerns as emanating from
business actors involved in the post-2015 process.
1. Their vision for sustainable development focuses on growth and technology: it is suggested repeatedly that to end
poverty and achieve inclusive development, it will be necessary to grow the economy, which will lead to shared
prosperity: ‘Sustainability and growth are reconciled in all the reports through new technologies, to be provided
by the private sector’ (Pingeot, 2014, p. 17). No need for trade-offs is suggested.
2. Business leaders see corporate sustainability as the main vector of sustainable development. Suggestions for
achieving this include incorporating sustainability into core business strategies, and using better measures of
business performance.
3. Business suggests that the role of governments is to create ‘enabling environments’ so that the private sector can
deliver on sustainability goals: governments are seen as having ‘a key role to play in realizing a business-friendly
trade system, pricing incentives, transparent procurement, and to encourage and support responsible business’
(Pingeot, 2014, p. 18).
4. Businesses assert a need for multi-stakeholder governance, with business actors as partners in this process: busi-
ness actors argued they had been neglected in previous processes, e.g. the first Rio summit and creation of the
MDGs, and that it was important that their voices were around the policy table now because they now realize
‘sustainability issues affect the bottom-line’ (UN Global Compact, cited by Pingeot, 2014, p. 18).
While it is pleasing to see some significant shifts in terms of rhetoric around business interests in sustainable
development, Pingeot’s analysis of the involvement of business actors in the preparation of the SDGs provides clear

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
The Private Sector and the SDGs: Moving Beyond ‘Business-as-Usual’ 375

signals as to the specific nature and extent of their interest in sustainable development. Koehler (2015) is also con-
cerned about the high level of involvement from large-scale corporations in the SDG process, and how this might
lead to corporate interests outweighing those of civil society: ‘In light of the concentration of economic wealth
and political power in the corporate private sector, there is a risk that their presence overrides the progressive trends
of not-for-profit NGOs’ (Koehler, 2015, p. 747). These points need to be kept in mind when examining what is being
expected of the private sector as a development actor.

Expectations of the Private Sector as a Development Actor

In the past, the separation of international development from the private sector was in large part the result of a dis-
trust of business by the broader development community and a reluctance to hold business accountable for devel-
opment outcomes (Blowfield, 2012, p. 415). However, businesses have more recently been strongly encouraged to
take a proactive role in international development, driven by a belief that ‘governments and their international
arms… have failed in their attempts to rid the planet of under-development, widespread inequalities and poverty’
(Hopkins, 2007, p. 2). Hence,

The post-2015 era presents an historic opportunity for the international business community to contribute to
the attainment of worldwide sustainability and development objectives (UN Global Compact, 2013).

What is being posited, however, goes beyond what Hart (2001) referred to as ‘little d’ development, that is, broad
processes of change under capitalism, which usually involve the private sector leading investment, job creation and
developing new economic opportunities. Rather, the private sector seems to be put forth now as a ‘big D’ Develop-
ment actor, which, along with donors, governments and NGOs, leads intentional development initiatives directed at
improving people’s lives. Blowfield provides a useful, related distinction between business as a development tool
and business as a development agent, noting that business is increasing being constructed as the latter – a ‘con-
sciously engaged agent of development’ (Blowfield, 2012, p. 415) – rather than simply contributing to development
through its (sometimes contested) economic contributions. This move then brings about a need for a different
mode of calculation and engagement for such businesses:

Whereas the business-as-usual approach to development emerges from managerial calculations related to
costs, returns, and competition, business as a development agent is also motivated by stakeholder concerns,
pressures and demands (Blowfield, 2012, p. 416).

Thus, for example, rather than just creating employment, a business acting as a Development agent would seek
to create quality jobs, linking in to stakeholder concerns (including potentially clients and labour organizations) re-
garding dignified and fair employment (Blowfield, 2012, p. 416).
Enthusiasm for business actors to take on Development roles is high, as seen in the Millennium Development
Goals Report (UN, 2012), which asserted that ‘Working together, governments, the United Nations family, the pri-
vate sector and civil society can succeed in tackling the greatest challenges’. The trope of ‘partnership’ in SDG dis-
cussions has been strong, and examples abound of companies working together with both governments and non-
profit organizations to deliver on development goals (Chakravorti et al., 2014, p. 6).
The business case that has emerged supporting the private sector’s role as a Development actor include argu-
ments around innovation, resources, capability and leadership. While noting that governments and NGOs have
roles to play in addressing social and environmental challenges, Mark Kramer – one of the two people behind the
concept of businesses ‘creating shared value’ (Porter and Kramer, 2011) – claims that ‘…they cannot replace the pri-
vate sector doing what it does best – innovating and delivering market-based solutions’ (Kramer, 2014). Similarly, at
Busan the outcome document stated that ‘We recognise the central role of the private sector in advancing innova-
tion, creating wealth, income and jobs, mobilising domestic resources and in turn contributing to poverty reduc-
tion’ (OECD, 2011, p. 32). The global discussions at Busan took place while the impacts of the global financial
crisis were still reverberating, thus it is not surprising that the private sector’s ability to generate resources was
identified.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
376 R. Scheyvens et al.

Kramer clearly sees the private sector as having the ability to fill this financial resource gap, but also identifies that
the contribution can be much broader:

At a time of shrinking government revenues, companies leverage vast amounts of investment capital. They
bring cutting-edge technologies, big data, and specialized skills to address unmet needs. Competition contin-
ually drives innovation and efficiency. In short, when companies decide to tackle social problems as business
opportunities, they produce results for both their shareholders and the world (Kramer, 2014).

Discussions about the private sector as a Development actor go well beyond provision of resources, innovation
and technology, however. Sachs argues that we also need the leadership of the private sector in meeting the SDGs:

…SDGs will [not] be achieved without the leadership of private companies, large and small. Multinational com-
panies bring unique strengths: a worldwide reach, cutting-edge technologies, and massive capacity to reach
large-scale solutions, which are all essential to success (2012, p. 2211).

As noted in the previous section, the discourse around the private sector in Development has broadened to take
in a more directive and governance function as well, reflecting the leadership that Sachs and others see in the private
sector. Hence we are told that businesses could, indeed should, effectively contribute to global governance around
sustainable development: there is a well-recognized trend ‘…towards an increased role of corporate actors in global
governance’ (Pingeot, 2014, p. 6), particularly apparent in some more pro-active sectors such as the extractive
industries.
The discussion above has shown that current development rhetoric certainly favours a strong role for private sec-
tor actors in terms of delivering on the SDGs. In what follows, we move on to reflect critically on the limits to what
business and the private sector might be able to achieve in the sustainable development space. In doing so we sup-
plement a review of existing literature with insights from our long-standing research agendas into large-scale private
sector involvement in development, particularly in the Pacific region (see Banks et al., 2013; Scheyvens, 2011).

Critiques of the Positioning of the Private Sector as a Development Agent in the SDG Era
Just as Tiwari (2015, p. 315) criticises the post-2015 discussions for being donor led, and urges a greater focus on
developing country participant-led language and understandings, we are concerned that discussions over the private
sector’s roles around the SDGs are dominated by the private sector, and those keen to partner with them (including,
increasingly, donors, multilaterals and some NGOs). There is little academic work that critically or directly ad-
dresses this issue, but a plethora of blogs (e.g. Business Fights Poverty) by business consultants and business sustain-
ability specialists exhorting the virtues of what the private sector has to offer. Thus below we endeavour to draw out a
number of concerns, which we believe need to be discussed more openly in order to allow a sincere and honest as-
sessment of the private sector’s limitations, as well as potential, as a sustainable Development actor.

Dominance of a Neoliberal Agenda

Considerable concern derives from a critique of the dominant neoliberal discourse around private sector interests
and their role in development. This includes corporate time horizons, the persistence of a bottom-line focus and
cooption of the language of sustainability and partnership. Taken together, such concerns produce a critique that
the emphasis on the carving out of a space and role for the private sector in addressing the SDGs does not suffi-
ciently challenge the neoliberal mechanisms that have created many inequalities and poor development results in
the first place:

…relying solely on the mechanisms of the market in governing and allocating environmental resources is nec-
essarily insufficient and problematic and therefore calls for a new approach – one which goes beyond just

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
The Private Sector and the SDGs: Moving Beyond ‘Business-as-Usual’ 377

recognizing the interdependency among social, environmental and economic goals and places issues of equity
and addressing unfavourable power relations at the centre of interventions aimed at achieving the ideals of
sustainable development (Kumi et al., 2014, p. 551).

Given that it is widely acknowledged that neoliberal mechanisms have led to social inequalities (see Murray and
Overton, 2011; Fletcher, 2012) and in some ways heightened the power imbalance between developing countries and
capitalist countries in the north (Ghosh, 2015), it follows that these same mechanisms should not be relied on to try
to solve inequalities (Kumi et al., 2014, p. 549). Yet we still find, as Luke (2013, p. 86) notes, ‘neoliberal firms, busi-
ness journals and university programs… capturing sustainability as a new growth formula. In turn, their institu-
tional agendas are reshaping it to match development designs that perpetuate the pursuit of profit in cleaner,
greener and leaner corporate activities…’.
As Pingeot cautions, ‘acknowledging corporations’ role must not mean giving them undue influence on
policymaking and ignoring their responsibility in creating and exacerbating many of the problems that the Post-
2015 agenda is supposed to tackle’ (2014, p. 6). There are risks to putting business at the heart of the sustainable
development agenda. When we look closely at what is being proposed by business actors, self-interest is a clear
driver, which is why we see a focus on voluntary change rather than regulation, and soft measures to reduce envi-
ronmental impacts rather than fundamental changes in production and consumption (Pingeot, 2014, p. 29). This
leads Luke to suggest that corporates are more interested in the ‘sustainability of profitable corporate growth’ rather
than the SDGs (Luke, 2013, p. 89).
Ghosh (2015) asserts that the Global Development Agenda post-2015 should focus, first and foremost, on benefit-
ting the citizenry, rather than putting corporate capital at the heart of endeavours.

Structural Causes of Poverty Are Not Addressed

A corollary of the critique of the promotion of the private sector as entrenching neo-liberalism is a lack of attention
and action in addressing structural conditions in the global economy. McCloskey draws attention to the MDGs’ lack
of focus on the structural causes of poverty, and recommends that the SDGs should challenge the dominant neolib-
eral economic model and engage with issues such as ‘illicit financial flows, debt, unfair trade rules and corporate
power’ (2015, p. 187). As Moore (2015, p. 801) argues, ‘…the post-2015 development agenda should go beyond just
re-writing goals and targets that adhere to “sustaining” the same old economic and social models’. Rather than soft
change, structural change is needed at a global level. As one example, Pogge and Sengupta call for structural reforms
of the global institutional order (2015). While some commentators might argue that SDG 16 does this in terms of its
aim to ‘build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels’, others state that early attempts to include
institutional reforms in the SDGs were minimized, perhaps due to the extent of involvement of the private sector in
drafting the SDGs:

The initial version of the OWG draft included a stand-alone target for global cooperation to reduce interna-
tional tax dodging; but this target was drastically cut back in the final revision of the draft, which piously calls
(on whom?) for reducing ‘illicit financial and arms flows’ (target 16.4) and asks for cooperation toward improv-
ing poor countries’ capacity for tax and revenue collection (target 17.1). If we are serious about tackling the
scourge of illicit financial flows, we should insist on stand-alone targets that name responsible agents and
specify their tasks (Pogge and Sengupta, 2015, p. 57).

A number of studies have suggested that the ‘enabling environment’ promoted under neoliberal development
policy is problematic (Barkin, 1998; Weber 2015), as this means that the development landscape ends up being
dominated by powerful corporations, financial institutions and local elites (Kumi et al., 2014). This does nothing
to challenge patterns of distributions and structural inequality. As Weber argues,

the MDG initiative and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals agenda have been presented without
any attempt to answer to decades (and more) of critical arguments that offer more rigorous and sustained

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
378 R. Scheyvens et al.

understandings of inequalities, including deprivations of basic life sustaining needs and fundamental entitle-
ments (2015, p. 660).

Problems with ‘Partnership’

The rhetoric of partnership – while reflecting the goodwill of the different parties – can often conceal a broad set of
tensions around the meaning and implications associated with this apparently affirming term: something that has
been apparent in development circles for decades (Pickard, 2010). Partnerships (between business, government, do-
nors, financial institutions and civil society) are difficult when there are competing values, goals and ways of
operating (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2011). From a development perspective, human wellbeing is of central im-
portance. For those coming from a private sector perspective, business growth and economic development goals are
likely to be of central importance, with wellbeing of community stakeholders being somewhat down the list of pri-
orities. There is a need to talk openly about where the areas of interest overlap, and where tensions are likely to arise.
Most recently, the shift from traditional development assistance to an emphasis on public–private partnerships
was in ample evidence at the Third International Conference on Financing for Development held in Addis Ababa
in 2014, with ‘partnership’ mentioned 28 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Ban Ki-moon stated that the
results ‘give us the foundation of a revitalized global partnership for sustainable development’ (UN, 2015), but civil
society remained sceptical (CSOs for the Third Financing for Development Conference, 2015).
Pogge and Sengupta (2015) argue that, before ‘big business’ can truly be a partner in Development alongside
NGOs, donors and governments, there must be acknowledgement of its role in violence, corruption and inequality
at national levels. Others also assert that various actors must be accountable for their contributions towards environ-
mental degradation and poverty if the aspirations of the SDGs are to have a chance of being realized (Kumi et al.,
2014, pp. 549–550). In this light, the notion of multi-stakeholder partnerships, as seen in Goal 17, ‘Strengthen
the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development’, is criticized as
‘rather banal’ and for lacking accountability mechanisms:

If SDG-17 fails to hold the world’s most influential agents sufficiently accountable for what they owe toward
making sustainable development work, the concepts of partnership and universalism will remain a
smokescreen for extreme global inequalities, thus weakening confidence in the goals (Pogge and Sengupta,
2015, p. 62)

In a sobering analysis of the limits to partnership, Aaronson (2011) examines the much heralded Extractive In-
dustries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which seeks to provide a means for industry, government and civil society
to work together to reduce corruption, improve governance and ultimately improve the developmental dividend
from the extractives sector. She finds that, while EITI has been effective in some instances, it has generated little
real engagement with civil society and has generally failed to address the power imbalances inherent in such part-
nerships: ‘Although EITI may empower civil society, extractive industry firms have more power and influence than
civil society members’ (2011, p. 57).

Short-Term and Flexible Business Models

There is a clash between the dominant business model, which is based upon short-term planning with a narrow fo-
cus on finances, and a longer-term sustainable development agenda. As noted by a senior manager in the tourism
industry during a meeting in London,

The bottom line is far more important to the highest level of decision makers than what they do for destina-
tions: company management of a brand want to be able to say ‘we saved this amount of money a year’ (per-
sonal communication, April 2014).

To give one example, large-scale mass tourism is dominated by businesses that have built their business models
around being short-term operators with high levels of flexibility. Thus asset-light hotel corporations own very few

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
The Private Sector and the SDGs: Moving Beyond ‘Business-as-Usual’ 379

properties but have various forms of relationship with businesses that use their brand. Niewiadomski (2013) states
that, as companies move away from operator owning to leasing, then managing, then franchising and consortium,
they become less embedded in and less committed to the host market and communities. The Intercontinental Hotel
Group (IHG) is one example of such an asset-light corporation. In 2014 they operated 4001 hotels, but owned only
nine of these (Nielson, 2014). Higher levels of ownership seem to be associated with deeper engagement in, and
commitment to, destinations: as one tourism consultant related, ‘Those “with no skin in the game” see it simply
as a finance issue and they will purposefully under-invest in destinations’ (personal communication, April 2014).
Being nimble is good for the bottom line when the business can concentrate on aspects that add value, or where
it means they can move out quickly when an investment has not proved lucrative in the short term. However it is
not good for sustainable, responsible destination planning, and rather it can actively undermine the wellbeing
and sustainable development of destination communities.

Inability to Move Beyond the Business Case: Sustainability as an Add-On

A number of big business actors appear to be only interested in the business case for responsible practice. Hence in
one study of 40 large corporations the motivation to pursue sustainable and inclusive business practices ‘ranged
from “maintaining competitive position” as the leading motivator, followed by “avoiding reputational damage,”
“avoiding future supply disruptions,” and “capturing revenues and building loyalty”’ (Chakravorti et al., 2014, pp.
2–3). Similarly, as a former manager of sustainability at a large hotel chain noted,

…at the end of the day it’s a hotel, it’s open 24/7, the guest is the king. Everything that happens on the side, be
it food safety or community investment, is always an add-on (personal communication, former hotel sustain-
ability manager, May 2015).

The social, economic and sustainable development contributions, then, do not rank highly. Even when private
sector actors talk about increasingly supporting business in emerging economies, the reality is that they are doing
this because it is good for business, providing new markets and a source of inputs: ‘Emerging markets will comprise
58% of growth in global GDP from 2010 to 2015, compared to just 32% for the economies of the G7’ (Chakravorti
et al., 2014, p. 5). In this context it is difficult to understand how private sector actors might contribute to some of the
social development objectives of the SDGs, such as more inclusive development, human dignity and overcoming
inequalities.

Lack of Coherence Within and Among Private Sector Actors’ Approaches

Associated with the above, most private sector actors will focus primarily on their core business objectives, which are
associated with making a profit. Often these objectives or the consequent models they adopt end up working against
the ‘sideline’ social and environmental initiatives that are developed. Another way of viewing this is to draw on
Utting (2005), who suggests that many CSR initiatives actually deal only with the symptoms of maldevelopment
rather than the causes, the latter including economic mechanisms that drive corporate decision-making. Thus,
for example, a locally sited multinational hotel might implement corporate policies on food safety that mean that
they forgo the produce from local markets, despite the social, economic and environmental benefits from buying
locally: e.g., shortening the supply chain saves food miles and supports small farmers. While more local purchasing
makes sense on many levels, within a hotel there are likely to be debates between chefs versus procurement officers
versus managers: there is not a coherence of views even within a single hotel property. Similarly, companies might
support free trade agreements, which provide easier access for their business to foreign markets, but which under-
mine SMEs in those markets.
A focus on the corporate business model within a particular region can also blinker the multinational to sustain-
able development benefits that could be gained by partnering with other companies, governments or civil society. At
one high-profile location in Fiji, for example, seven adjoining multinational hotel operations have found it impossi-
ble to develop a coordinated community contribution policy or programme, and each individually pursues uncon-
nected, often overlapping short-term education and community health initiatives. Likewise, in the extractives

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
380 R. Scheyvens et al.

sector, a focus on the immediate demands of surrounding communities, as well as the industry’s exposure to social
disruption and their predilection for one-off high profile ‘publicity projects’, typically produces forms of engagement
and community contributions that are disconnected from local government planning and development agendas
(Hatcher, 2014; Banks et al., 2013).

Discussion and Conclusions

This article seeks to contribute to what we believe is the need for a more open and realistic discussion about the pos-
sibilities of and constraints to what might be able to be achieved by business actors in the sustainable development
space, as encouraged by Blowfield:

…any call for more information to understand the potential of business as development agent should not be
treated as criticism or with suspicion: rather, it expresses a genuine need to know about the possibilities, lim-
itations, and conditions of business’ role, so that in turn opportunities can be exploited, hazards contained,
and the complementary contributions of different types of agent optimised (2012, p. 422).

Undoubtedly the post-2015 development era, with its emphasis on business contributing to sustainable develop-
ment globally, presents opportunities for businesses that wish to demonstrate commitment to more ethical and sus-
tainable practices. Moreover, in line with Blowfield’s quote, we acknowledge that many businesses continue to make
significant contributions to the lives of many throughout the world. However the often rosy ‘triple win’ rhetoric
around the SDGs presents a fundamentally unrealistic picture, and one that ignores the clear tensions that are likely
to arise between goals of different interest groups.
The reality is that business is not a superhero or ‘magic bullet’ (McEwan et al., in press) for development that can
simultaneously maximize profits from an enterprise while also constructing policies to regulate potentially adverse
activities and enact programmes to ensure equitable and sustainable development: it is not fair or reasonable to ex-
pect businesses to take on all of these roles and do them well. In fact, the reason why there is a lack of corporate
social coherence,1 or why there is a clear disconnect between some of what companies say and do, is that the private
sector is being put forward as offering the answers to and solving many sustainable development challenges, with-
out any acknowledgement of industry’s complicity in creating at least some of these problems in the first place. A
greater obligation towards embedding responsible and ethical practices across all aspects of company operations
and delivering corporate social coherence would go some way towards resolving this tension.
In this article a number of barriers to the private sector being a sustainable development actor have been noted,
often underpinned by the clash between the dominant business model, which is based upon short-term planning
with a narrow focus on finances, and a sideline agenda of longer-term planning with social, economic and environ-
mental goals. It was asserted by some industry managers and executives that most businesses do not respond to the
soft language of business responsibility; rather, they only make substantive changes if they are obliged to do so.
Whilst CSR has historically been seen as a voluntary, supplementary activity to core business practice (Dahlsrud,
2008; Kolk, 2005), fulfilment of the SDGs might rest on a move towards corporate social obligation. Industry players
contributing to the SDGs have enthused that governments should create an enabling environment for business to
address the SDGs; however, it will be necessary for governments to also enact appropriate legislation to oblige busi-
nesses to be more social and environmentally responsible. Another way of seeing this, to quote Gore (2015, p. 728) is
that ‘…achieving new global goals will require new global rules’.
Businesses will be forced to change more in future, as we move from a situation where CSR reporting has mainly
been driven by the needs of risk management or to provide positive publicity on a company or brand, to more com-
prehensive monitoring and evaluation of the impacts and effectiveness of CSR activities. Haffeld (2013, p. 43) as-
serts that monitoring of the SDGs should ‘include comprehensive systems evaluations, including procedural
indicators’. This is useful, as it would point to ongoing analysis of how companies are going about their business,

1
Term used by Adele Broadbent from the Council for International Development (NZ) during a seminar at Massey University, 25 March 2015.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
The Private Sector and the SDGs: Moving Beyond ‘Business-as-Usual’ 381

as well as what results from this. For this to occur comprehensively, however, it would be helpful if global institu-
tions were accountable for goals and targets, rather than the bulk of responsibility resting with national governments
as is the case at present (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill 2015).
The SDGs offer an exciting opportunity for powerful global actors to work together to achieve significant gains in
reducing poverty and securing a more sustainable future for humanity and the planet; however, as we have outlined
above the challenges for the private sector to contribute constructively to this are enormous. Nevertheless, if there is
to be any hope of achieving these goals, we must move beyond a ‘business-as-usual’ approach and towards the trans-
formation of the fundamental neoliberal agenda shaping how business and society operates.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand (MAU1206).

References
Aaronson SA. 2011. Limited partnership: business, government, civil society, and the public in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI). Public Administration and Development 31(1): 50–63.
Adams B, Luchsinger. G. 2015. Are FfD3 and Post-2015 Striking the Right Public–Private Balance? Global Policy Forum, 2015. https://www.
globalpolicywatch.org/blog/2015/04/18/ffd3-post-2015-public-private-balance/ [Accessed 4 May 2015].
Banks G, Kuir-Ayius D, Kombako D, Sagir B. 2013. Conceptualizing mining impacts, livelihoods and corporate community development in
Melanesia. Community Development Journal 48(3): 484–500.
Barkemeyer R, Holt D, Preuss L, Tsang S. 2014. What happened to the ‘development’ in sustainable development? Business guidelines two de-
cades after Brundtland. Sustainable Development 22: 15–32.
Barkin D. 1998. Sustainability: the political economy of autonomous development. Organization and Environment 11(1): 5–32.
Blowfield M. 2012. Business and development: making sense of business as a development agent. Corporate Governance 12(4): 414–426.
DOI:10.1108/14720701211267775.
Brinkerhoff D, Brinkerhoff J. 2011. Public–private partnerships: perspectives on purposes, publicness and good governance. Public Administration
and Development 31: 2–14.
Chakravorti B, Macmillan G, Siesfeld T. 2014. Growth for Good or Good for Growth? How Sustainable and Inclusive Activities are Changing Busi-
ness and Why Companies Aren’t Changing Enough. Citi Foundation–Fletcher School–Monitor Institute. http://www.citifoundation.com/citi/
foundation/pdf/1221365_Citi_Foundation_Sustainable_Inclusive_Business_Study_Web.pdf [Accessed 25 May 2015].
Clémençon R. 2012. Welcome to the Anthropocene: Rio+20 and the meaning of sustainable development. Journal of Environment and Develop-
ment 21(3): 311–338.
CSOs for the Third Financing for Development Conference. 2015. CSO Response to FfD Addis Ababa Action Agenda – 16 July 2015. https://
csoforffd.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/third-ffd-failing-to-finance-development/ [Accessed 27 July 2015].
Dahlsrud A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 15(1): 1–13. DOI:10.1002/csr.132.
Danielson L. 2006. Architecture for Change: an Account of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Project, Global Public Policy In-
stitute: Berlin.
Eyben R, Savage L. 2012. Emerging and submerging powers: imagined geographies in the New Development Partnership at the Busan Fourth
High Level Forum. Journal of Development Studies 49(4): 1–13.
Fletcher R. 2012. Using the master’s tools? Neoliberal conservation and the evasion of inequality. Development and Change 43: 295–317.
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01751.x.
Franks D. 2014. The extractive sector and the post-2015 development agenda: cross-sector cooperation to address environmental challenges. Paper
presented to the UNDP and Government of Brazil, Brasilia.
Fukuda-Parr S, McNeill D. 2015. Post 2015: a new era of accountability? Journal of Global Ethics 11(1): 10–17.
Ghosh J. 2015. Beyond the Millennium Development Goals: a southern perspective on a global new deal. Journal of International Development 27:
320–329.
Gore C. 2015. The post-2015 moment: towards sustainable development goals and a new global development paradigm. Journal of International
Development 27(6): 717–732.
Haffeld J 2013. Sustainable development goals for global health: facilitating good governance in a complex environment. Reproductive Health Mat-
ters 21(42): 43–49.
Hart G. 2001. Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths. Progress in Human Geography 25(4): 649–658.
Hatcher P. 2014. Regimes of Risk: the World Bank and the Transformation of Mining in Asia, Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
382 R. Scheyvens et al.

Hopkins M 2007. Corporate Social Responsbility and International Development: Is Business the Solution?, Earthscan: London.
Kharas H, Zhang C. 2014. New agenda, new narrative: what happens after 2015? SAIS Review of International Affairs 34(2): 25–35. DOI:10.1353/
sais.2014.0019.
Koehler D. 2015. Seven decades of ‘development’, and now what? Journal of International Development 27(6): 733–751.
Kolk A. 2005. Environmental issues and the MNE. Research in Global Strategic Management 11: 147–162.
Kramer M. 2014. Profit: the New Corporate Motivation to Do Good. https://sharedvalue.org/groups/profit-new-corporate-motivation-do-good
[Accessed 23 June 2014].
Kumi E, Arhin A, Yeboah T. 2014. Can post-2015 sustainable development goals survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable
development–neoliberalism nexus in developing countries Environment. Development and Sustainability 16: 539–554.
Le Blanc D. 2015. Towards integration at last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a network of targets. Sustainable Development 23: 176–187.
Lucci P. 2012. Post-2015 MDGs: What Role for Business?, ODI: London.
Luke TW. 2013. Corporate social responsibility: an uneasy merger of sustainability and development. Sustainable Development 21: 83–91.
Mawdsley E, Savage L, Kim SM. 2014. A ‘post-aid world’? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High
Level Forum. Geographical Journal 180(1): 27–38. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00490.x.
McCloskey S. 2015. Viewpoint. From MDGs to SDGs: we need a critical awakening to succeed. Policy and Practice 20: 186–194.
McEwan C, Mawdsley E, Banks G, Scheyvens R. In press. Enrolling the private sector in community development: magic bullet or sleight of hand?
Development and Change.
Moore HL. 2015. Global prosperity and Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of International Development 27(6): 801–815. DOI:10.1002/
jid.3114.
Murray WE, Overton J. 2011. Neoliberalism is dead, long live neoliberalism? Neostructuralism and the international aid regime of the 2000s.
Progress in Development Studies 11(4): 307–319.
Nielson S. 2014. Why InterContinental Hotels’ ‘Asset-Light’ Strategy Drives Growth. Market Realist. http://marketrealist.com/2014/08/why-in-
tercontinental-hotels-asset-light-strategy-drives-growth/ [Accessed 27 July 2015].
Niewiadomski P. 2013. Towards an economic–geographical approach to the globalisation of the hotel industry. Tourism Geographies 16(1): 48–67.
OECD. 2011. Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of
Korea. http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf [Accessed 27 July 2015].
Pickard M. 2010. Reflections on relationships: the nature of partnership according to five NGOs in southern Mexico. In Deconstructing Devel-
opment Discourse Buzzwords and Fuzzwords, Cornwall A, Eade D (eds). Oxfam GB: Oxford; 135–142.
Pingeot L. 2014. Corporate Influence in the Post-2015 Process, working paper. Misereor–GPF–Brot fur die Welt. http://www.cid.org.nz/assets/
Key-issues/Beyond-2015/Corporate-influence-in-the-Post-2015-process.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2015].
Pogge T, Sengupta M. 2015. The Sustainable Development Goals: a plan for building a better world? Journal of Global Ethics 11(1): 56–64.
DOI:10.1080/17449626.2015.1010656.
Porter ME, Kramer MR. 2011. The big idea: creating shared value. how to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth.
Harvard Business Review 89(1/2): 62–78.
Quint R. 2014. Leveraging Africa’s voice: determining the post-2015 development goals. SAIS Review of International Affairs 34(2): 113–120.
DOI:10.1353/sais.2014.0021.
Sachs J. 2012. From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 379: 2206–2211.
Scheyvens R. 2011. Tourism and Poverty, Routledge: New York.
Scott A, Lucci P. 2015. Universality and ambition in the post-2015 development agenda: a comparison of global and national targets. Journal of
International Development 27(6): 752–775. DOI:10.1002/jid.3118.
Tiwari M. 2015. Looking back to move forward: the MDGs and the road to Post-2015: introduction to Journal of International Development special
issue on reflections on the post-2015 debate. Journal of International Development 27: 313–319.
United Nations (UN). 2002. Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/Johannesburg
%20Declaration.doc
United Nations (UN). 2012. The Future We Want. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%
2019%20June%201230pm.pdf
United Nations (UN). 2014. The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. Synthesis Report of
the Secretary-General on the Post-2015 Agenda. New York. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/700&Lang=E
United Nations (UN). 2015. Countries Reach Historic Agreement to Generate Financing for New Sustainable Development Agenda. http://www.
un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/press-release/countries-reach-historic-agreement.html
United Nations (UN) Global Compact. 2013. Corporate Sustainability and the United Nations Post-2015 Development Agenda. http://www.
stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/UNGC_Post2015_Report.pdf
United Nations (UN) Global Compact. 2014. The Role of Business and Finance in Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda. https://www.
unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/9.6/Post2015_WhitePaper_2July14.pdf
Utting P. 2005. Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. Development in Practice 15(3/4): 375–388.
Weber H. 2015. Reproducing inequalities through development: the MDGs and the politics of method. Globalizations 12(4): 660–676.
DOI:10.1080/14747731.2015.1039250.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 24, 371–382 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Copyright of Sustainable Development is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.