As the 2030 deadline approaches, one question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: if the world that gave birth to the Sustainable Development Goals (multilateralism, global consensus, and peace) no longer exists, what does that mean for the future of sustainable development? This dicussion was the central theme of the latest (and third) session in our What Comes After 2030? webinar series, which explored how rising geopolitical tensions, shifting economic priorities, and growing international fragmentation are reshaping the conditions for global prosperity. Rather than asking whether the SDGs have failed, the discussion challenged a more fundamental assumption. Perhaps it is not the Global Goals that are dead, but rather the context in which they are expected to be delivered, which has become completely unfit for a world where prosperity can emerge, as Xue Ng mentioned.
In the corporate world, the discussion highlighted an important shift. While businesses increasingly integrate sustainability into their strategies, they are less likely to frame their actions through the language of the SDGs and more likely to speak in terms of ESG, resilience, risk mitigation, competitiveness, and value creation. This "SDGs silence" can indeed be seen across many areas of our society. Organisations such as the OECD are reportedly "forbidden" from mentioning the SDGs, or even the word "sustainability", in some of their reports.
Is this because the SDGs have lost their salience? Probably not. Environmental (SDGs 12, 13, 14, and 15), social (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), economic (SDGs 8, 9, 10, and 11), and governance and political (SDGs 16 and 17) challenges have become even more acute. Their importance has increased, yet they have become increasingly silenced.
Indeed, the SDGs have provided a common direction for many stakeholders over the past decade. However, that alone was not enough. Real transformation requires something more: conditions and incentives that enable action, good governance, and effective change. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between implementation and transformation. Implementing targets, talking about them, and reporting on them is not the same as transforming the social, economic, and environmental reality in which we live. For that to happen, we need the right conditions, which are, in fact, increasingly scarce nowadays. As Xue Ng mentioned, companies can continue mapping the SDGs and aligning their strategies with them, but meaningful impact will only be achieved through broader global governance for change. While businesses can, and should, do a great deal, government agendas need to create the conditions that enable companies to act and contribute to a better future. Otherwise, instead of creating prosperity, companies will simply be managing risks and remediating the consequences of an environment that no longer supports long-term societal progress.
Against this backdrop, Stephen Klingebiel outlined three possible futures for the SDGs: (1) extending the current framework (which seems unlikely), (2) developing a more focused set of priorities or goals, or (3) relying on smaller coalitions of countries, regions, or even industries to advance specific agendas. We still do not know what will happen, but we need to ask a fundamental question: how do we create the conditions that motivate organisations not simply to implement sustainability initiatives, but to transform the way they create value?
In a world of increasing digital inequality, environmental catastrophes, demographic shifts, and widening social divides, some regions, for example Africa, may experience profoundly different development trajectories over the coming decades, as they are already setting ambitious prosperity agendas for 2063, as Sherif Kamel shared. Could this configuration of Stephen's third option represent a viable way out of the current global governance crisis?
As Sherif mentioned, we are much better off today than we were in 2015, when we agreed on the SDGs. But change must continue. The SDGs have been useful, and their objectives are not dead. They need to be reconfigured within private, public, and civil society agendas in innovative ways, and perhaps through new language, if necessary.
None of these objectives will be achieved without great leaders. Yet leadership, too, seems increasingly shy and silenced. We also need to create the conditions for leaders to emerge and act. As Winston Churchill said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak." We need more people willing to speak up and more Responsible Leaders willing to emerge. That is why the Center for Responsible Business & Leadership is investing deeply in two new projects: the international documentary “When the Spotlight Fades”, directed by Wim Vermeulen, and the Responsible Leadership Research Project, through which we aim to clarify what Responsible Leadership is and how it is enacted within organisations.
The SDGs are far from obsolete. Their ambitions remain as urgent as ever. What must change is not the destination, but the conditions that enable us to reach it. Meaningful transformation will depend not on new goals, but on our collective courage to create a world where those goals can finally be achieved.
To start the week in a more inspirational mood, I will leave you with two thoughts from two great - but very different - leaders: José Teixeira, CEO of DST group, and Winston Churchill.
The first, featured in the DST Annual Report, states:
"We do not need more. We do not need to create more sustainability documents. What we need is to begin tackling the first goal with determination and then continue, steadfastly, through to the seventeenth. First: end poverty. Seventeenth: strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. This is the mission that the DST group has embraced with its full commitment and conviction."
The second reminds us:
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
My question for you is: where do you stand - on the spectator's path, the follower's path, or the leadership path?
Have a great and impactful week!
Filipa Pires de Almeida, Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Business and Leadership at Católica Lisbon SBE