Business regulation should not stifle enterprise, BASD chief says
Globe 2002 Plenary,
Wednesday 13th March 2002 – Globalization in the 21st
Century
A contribution by Mark
Moody-Stuart
Chairman, Business Action
for Sustainable Development
An economic basis for
development
As we look at the challenges which
a globalizing world faces in the 21st century, there is one overarching
issue – how do we develop sustainably? Not just economic development, but development
which respects the environment and which delivers real social benefits. The
UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg this year will undoubtedly,
and rightly, focus on the eradication of the poverty in which so many of our
fellow humans live. But it is not just about this. It is also about how the
developed economies can grow sustainably.
Just as within our own
countries we find it necessary and desirable to develop special support programmes
for some areas or sections of our populations, so on a global scale will development
aid be essential. However, while development support is needed, the aim has
to be to develop viable businesses in areas where there is at present no economic
activity. Without this there can be no sustainable development. A key to this
is fair and equitable access to markets for both agricultural and manufactured
goods. When the great economies of the world falter, it is not just their populations
that feel the chill, but others all around the world.
Two big challenges
There are two big challenges that we need to address. First,
how to deliver the energy needed for development, given in particular the challenge
of climate change, and second how do we develop the governance structures without
which we stand no chance of sustainable development. Others would undoubtedly
highlight health issues, water, forests, agriculture, biodiversity, information
technology, or education. These are vital and pressing needs, but history shows
that given sound governance structures and a viable economic base, our societies do not make too bad a job of delivering these necessities.
Energy is only different because the most economic and convenient present forms
needed to meet growing demand are associated with an impact on the global environment.
But even here, development of governance mechanisms is a key part of the solution.
Energy and Climate Change
As someone who has spent his life in the energy
industry, let me take the energy issue first. What are the facts?
There is no doubt that energy can be used very much more efficiently
so that the demand in the developed world can be reduced. Further more, there
is clear evidence that at a certain stage we can decouple energy from economic
growth – there is currently divergence at about $15,000 p.a. per capita GDP
and the link is broken at about $25,000. Technology will bring both these levels
down. But at lower levels of per capita income there is a strong and unavoidable
correlation. Energy demand has
grown by 80% since 1970,
with developing countries taking an increasing share. With the bulk of the world’s people still climbing
the development curve, energy consumption
could grow even faster in future.
By 2030 the world could be consuming
twice as much as now – 60%
of it in today’s developing countries.
Furthermore we have an urgent need to address the needs of the almost two billion
people, one third of the world’s population, who have no access to modern sources
of energy.
The climate
threat represents a more fundamental
challenge to a world which clearly
depends on fossil energy to support rising
living standards. Anyone who has read
the scientific section of the IPCC Third Assessment Report cannot fail to be impressed by a solid
and unemotional piece of work.
I commend it to you. The summary is short and clearly written. This is the quality of work on which we in business
routinely base our investment decisions.
The range of uncertainty is clearly
identified, as are the assumptions.
And there is no emotion or hyperbole.
The upper
end of the scenario range is an simple extrapolation
from the present and is, I believe, as unlikely
as it is undesirable. The lower end results from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from pre-industrial
levels. It assumes significant –
but entirely achievable – changes
in energy patterns. It shows carbon dioxide climbing to about
550 parts per million – raising
temperatures by two degrees (range 1.4
to 3.2 degrees), and sea levels by 30 centimetres (range 10 to 55 cm), by the end of the century. The resulting changes are probably
tolerable – although we would need to adapt. Changes approaching
such levels are also probably now unavoidable, but I believe the emissions patterns which would stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide
at this level are certainly achievable.
Shell long term energy scenarios – projecting energy demand to 2050 –
show two routes by which carbon dioxide could be stabilised at around 550 ppm,
assuming normal technological rates of change. One assumes a world in which
renewable energy is developed rapidly, the other one in which the emphasis is
on an economy turning to hydrogen as an energy carrier. Both assume continued
growth of hydrocarbons, in particular gas, until the around the fourth decade
of this century. There is little doubt that technological solutions can be developed,
with changes of magnitudes and rates similar to the changes that we have seen
over the last few decades.
So
what do we, consumers, businesses, NGOs and governments need to do to achieve
ensure that we do in fact end up at the lower end of the scenarios?
Ways forward for business
As businesses we should openly accept the science,
with its error ranges, and begin to put in place sensible systems which will
allow us to work towards something like a 550ppm target. This means measuring
our emissions and setting ourselves reduction targets. The Canadian voluntary
scheme is a good start at this. Putting a shadow cost of carbon into our economic
evaluations is also an excellent way of getting up front thinking about emissions
into our organisations. The impact of the shadow costs rising to say $20 a ton
often does not have a major impact on the economics, but it does have a big
impact on thinking. Time and again we see in business that when we stop arguing
about how much, by when and how damaging and impossible it is going to be to
achieve, creativity is focussed on delivering results and surprising progress
can be achieved. Look at the experience of removing lead from gasoline, installing
seat belts or airbags in vehicles, or more generally the last time you set a
challenging cost reduction target to remain competitive in your business. For
all its shortcomings, this is the advantage of the Kyoto Treaty. Hopefully,
as the treaty is ratified, nations whether in or out will focus on achieving
results rather than the arguments over levels and mechanisms which have delayed
progress for so long.
To ensure that we achieve reductions in the most
cost effective way we clearly need cap and trade systems. Within companies if
we can agree nothing wider, but much better on a national scale – and internationally
if possible. And that must include a workable Clean Development Mechanism to
ensure we make the investments also in developing countries, where there are
some of the biggest benefits of upgrading technologies. We are also working
to bring lower carbon solutions such as natural gas to India and China, as well
as more efficient and cleaner coal technologies – for they will inevitably continue
to use some coal.
All of the things I have been speaking of are practical. All
of the corporate elements I have seen working in practice, without adverse economic
effect and with considerable benefits to morale and to the way we work.
Partnerships
But business needs to work
in partnership with governments and NGOs if we are together to really achieve
results. And we should never forget the contribution of individual citizens
as consumers and voters. If they consider that either business or government
is doing something undesirable, whether in behaviour or in trying to bring in
a product or regulation which they do not support, we will be punished. I believe
the same is true of an NGO which is perceived as being irresponsible.
Working with NGOs brings benefits to corporations in environmental
expertise and in considering the social impact of actions, as well as awareness
of emerging issues. But some NGOs need to think whether always pointing to the
extreme consequences, for example the high end of the IPCC scenarios, is a wise
tactic. From life experience, people tend to discount the apocalyptic and it
can have a counter effect. Again, in my experience, working together on stretch
but achievable targets is more satisfying all round. I
hope that the external climate panel working on Shell Canada’s oil sands
project feels that way. I know that they make a real difference to performance.
Creating regulatory frameworks
Governments have a key role to play in creating conditions
in which markets can work to deliver sustainable solutions, and this includes
creating appropriate regulatory frameworks.
At the mention of regulatory frameworks, the business
people in the audience will now be listening. We have a real sensitivity about
regulation, and nowhere is it more true than on this side of the Atlantic. But
I am not talking about the regulation that binds us hand and foot and buries
us in forms, but frameworks which make delivery of a reasonable outcome through
market forces more likely. In fact no market can operate without a regulatory
framework.
A framework for energy ….
Most obviously we need a framework to establish emission
trading systems. But we also need a framework to encourage the sensible development
of renewable energy globally. Developed countries need to give a lead on this,
for developing countries will not apply technologies which we in the developed
countries do not use. One of the findings of the G8 Task Force on renewable
energy was that the large markets of the developed countries are necessary to
bring down the costs of technologies. Consumers will see the sense, as they
have done in the example we quoted from Texas, of deriving a proportion of their
electricity from renewable energy, provided it works reliably and does not hit
them in their pockets. Because the mandated percentage of renewable energy from
unspecified sources is small and with tax breaks, the cost impact is small.
The market decides the optimum technology, in the case of Texas largely wind,
and a trading system ensures that the most cost- effective alternatives are
developed. The technique may vary from country to country, but we clearly need
frameworks of this kind to encourage the development of new energy sources.
One of the great contributions of the United States in this area is the ability
to develop simple, workable solutions. For that reason, apart from any other,
the whole hearted involvement of the United States would be of great benefit
to all.
We should look carefully at the very large amounts
of subsidy which currently flow to various forms of conventional energy and
nuclear and adjust the flows to eliminate some of the perverse outcomes. I do
not believe that we need new subsidies – the present flows are very large –
but we do need to ensure that renewable energy is not disadvantaged.
…..and for transportation
Given their contribution
to energy consumption, we must also look at building-construction and transportation,
with the target being to deliver the same levels of comfort and performance
that consumers expect and to do so in an economically effective way.
In both North America and Europe we have seen over the last
decade a significant fall in total emission levels of almost all transportation
pollutants in spite of a significant increase in total mileage. This excellent
performance by the auto and fuels industries has taken place through the market
working within a regulatory framework which is seen to drive in the direction
of cleaner engines, and has certainly not inconvenienced the consumer. The picture
is different in carbon dioxide emissions. The great steps in engine efficiency
made by the auto industry in the United States has been used in delivering larger
and heavier vehicles, so that there has been little impact on total consumption.
In a world coming to recognise the threat of climate change, this is a perverse
outcome.
It is plainly unrealistic to expect consumers in the developed
world to accept a reduction of comfort or reasonable performance, let alone
abandon their personal transportation. Equally, hundreds of millions
of people in the developing world aspire to similar access to transportation.
Progress in conventional engines, as well as the development of gasoline/electric
hybrids and fuel cell vehicles, including revolutionary models such as are being
developed by Hypercar Inc, show that the industry is capable of delivering the
necessary comfort and performance at much greater efficiency. But the market
needs the guidance of a regulatory framework. It seems strange that in an industry
where increasingly tough mandatory standards for safety and for emissions are
normal in almost every country, there is little regulatory framework for efficiency,
within which the market can work. My wife and I drive a Toyota Prius hybrid,
a beautiful piece of engineering which delivers comfort, safety, acceleration
and a top speed of a hundred mph with very low emissions and over 50 mpg. It
is not a hair shirt option, although it costs less than an upmarket saloon.
It is essential that we create frameworks in which the markets can meet consumers
expectations and needs, but at very much greater levels of efficiency.
Governance
You will notice that while I have been talking about energy
I have also been talking about regulatory frameworks within which the market
can operate. This leads to challenge of governance, which is needed to both
develop these frameworks and to ensure that such regulations and laws that exist
are respected.
I am not talking about big government,
constitutional committees or even major international agreements, but the accepted
framework within which we can develop local schools, health care and commerce;
commonly agreed frameworks for the common good. At a recent meeting celebrating
thirty years of the IIED, I heard a speaker from Porto Alegre declare “What
the world needs is not more markets but more community”. While I believe in
that in some places we actually need more markets to offer individuals choice,
in others we do indeed need frameworks to channel market activity and prevent
abuses. But I strongly agree with him on the need for more community.
The world is not short of the financial
or technical resources to address the issues of poverty and development. I believe
that wisely used we also have the natural resources. But if the finances were
made available tomorrow – and we have seen how tens of billions of dollars can
be mobilised in short order to address crises – we still could not do the job
because in much of the world there is a lack of community or effective governance
structures to deliver it. Much would be wasted or leak through corruption before
it reached its intended goal.
What is the role
of business in developing this governance? It is certainly not one of saying
– this is what needs to be done and when you have fixed it give us a call and
we will be happy to think about an investment. There is a chicken and egg situation
here – countries need economic activity to develop, it cannot be done sustainably
by development aid alone. And it is in the interests of business that that development
takes place – creating new markets and reducing instability. It is in the interests of global businesses
in energy, water, communications, information technology and many other areas
to see how they can begin to develop business to serve these customers. This
also means the development of the thousands of local small businesses which
are essential for a healthy society. This is what Prahalad and Hart referred
to as “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”.
The development of economic activity may be essential, but business
certainly cannot do it alone. We need to work with NGO’s, governments and development
agencies, as well as through our own industry groupings to deliver results together.
And that is indeed happening in the run up to Johannesburg, with a group of
business and civil society organisations working together to see how capacity
to address Sustainable Development objectives can be strengthened. If we in
business are to do that, our own governance has to be sound. To build trust
that means transparency. It means not bribing people and working together to
eliminate the practice of bribery. It means very open reporting on our activities.
The Global Reporting Initiative is an important element in this. It provides
common standards for reporting, an essential if we are to be able to benchmark
performance. But more than this it demonstrates how different players
- NGO’s, business, labour movements, international agencies – can come
together and develop the governance systems necessary to agree on global reporting.
This is a very important development in many ways.
The WSSD in Johannesburg
As we move towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development
in Johannesburg in September, we can begin to see the shape of a possible outcome
emerging: an intergovernmental agreement probably largely recommitting to what
was agreed in Rio and Agenda 21, with below that a series of partnership initiatives
which will not need to be agreed to by all, but will be acknowledged as part
of the Johannesburg package.
This is where business has much to contribute. In Business
Action for Sustainable Development, a joint initiative of the International
Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
which is supported by many business organisations, we see many initiatives linking
business, NGOs and other players such as the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative,
The Global Mining Initiative, the Marine Stewardship Council, Responsible Care
of the chemicals industry and so on. I have already mentioned the GRI and the
partnership initiative on Governance. These initiatives are all partnerships
and they should contain trackable objectives. They begin to build sound governance
of industries and issues. But there is a real battle to be fought in each country
to ensure that existing laws and structures, including the behaviour of business,
amount to sound governance. Global governance is necessary, but it will not
be effective unless there is local governance to support it. Global business
is far from perfect, but the standards applied by international companies are
almost always higher than those of purely domestic companies. To address global
governance without addressing national and local governance will lead to disappointment.
Also at Johannesburg we will illustrate the many examples of
contribution to sustainable development in normal day to day business, achieved
in partnership with others. In general they address all three legs of sustainable
development. We will emphasise the need to demonstrate measurable results and
the importance of being able to replicate successful projects. In partnership
with the UNDP we are also working on a virtual exhibition of projects from all
around the world which will be accessible globally through the internet. This
will also make activities at the WSSD more accessible to all.
In
Conclusion
In conclusion,
if we are to address the issues of energy for development and climate change,
we will need regulatory frameworks within which the market can work to find
solutions to meet the aspirations and needs of customers. With this we should
be able to achieve a result close to the lower end of the IPCC climate scenarios.
There will inevitably be change, but at a level which it should be possible
to handle.
None of this will be achievable without sound governance
frameworks at all levels. Good governance at the local and national level is
just as important as at the international level. The world is not short of the
financial and technical resources to attack its problems, but in many areas
we are desperately short of community structures in the widest sense. Business
is prepared to play its part in partnership with others both in individual countries
and internationally to address these issues. We in business realise that this
puts an onus on us to set clear targets in conjunction with others, taking into
account environmental and social effects, and to report very openly on progress
using the GRI, itself an example of how governance can work. If we do this,
I believe we can develop across the world the sound economic basis of businesses
large and small on which sustainable development depends. This is what globalisation
in the 21st Century should be about.
|