BAM 2014 This paper is from the BAM 2014 Conference Proceedings About BAM The British Academy of Management (BAM) is the leading authority on the academic field of management in the UK, supporting and representing the community of scholars and engaging with international peers. http://www.bam.ac.uk/ The ‘Green Growth State’: an aspirational perspective ABSTRACT Following the failure to establish multilateral carbon emission reductions under the Kyoto protocol, political will is coalescing at the national and multilateral scale around the emerging discourse of Green Growth. The narratives and practices of Green Growth have already been rejected by many stakeholders as a reformulation of business as usual discourse. However, this article argues that this critique is grounded in a false conflation of distinct interpretations of the concept. In place of homogenising all associated narratives, we argue for an aspirational Critical Green Growth perspective incipiently identified - but not fully and unequivocally formed- in some Asian national policies (i.e. Korea, and Japan) and the United Nations Environment Programme. Drawing on this background, and other development insights, we then argue for the importance of the Green Growth State (GGS) in introducing fundamental change in this critical window of opportunity. Track: Sustainable and Responsible Business Word Count: 6986 1 INTRODUCTION There are clear indicators that the current trajectory of global society is not environmentally, socially or, arguably, even economically sustainable. Recent projections by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) show that if global production and consumption fail to adopt a more sustainable path in the next decade, irreversible ecological changes will jeopardise two centuries of rising living standards. Such recognition adds considerable weight to the existing cacophony of analysis critical of the current global trajectory. The power of this argument is evident in the recognition by key global actors that tweaking current trends will be insufficient to remedy growing global problems (Lane 2010; Meadowcroft 2012). Evidence of this need for radical rethought on global problems is the issue of anthropogenic influence on climate change. For example, there was lack of political appetite for the multilateral capping of carbon emissions discussed during the United Nation’s Kyoto process. In response to this more traditional cap-and-trade focus, there are increasing signs that the most likely avenue for a broad based radical rethought of political commitment is through the emerging concept of ‘Green Growth’ (Hamdouch and Depret 2010, p. 5; Huberty et al. 2011) – which has also been referred to as the Green Economy (in Germany, Norway and France ) or the Green New Deal (in the United States of America, USA). Green Growth transcends curbing of economic growth as a means for responding to environmental limits. It instead interprets climate change not as a cost, but as an opportunity (Kastrinos 1995; Mathews 2012, p. 762). Green Growth, as defined here, is about going beyond the decoupling of environmental deterioration from economic growth or trying to achieve a balance in economic, social and environmental concerns. We posit that Green Growth advocates 2 for investment in the environment as a driver for socially inclusive economic growth (Vazquez- Brust and Sarkis 2012a). Initially introduced in 2005, the green growth discourse gained momentum in supranational organizations such as the World Bank and OECD after 2008 (Meadowcroft 2012; Messner et al. 2010). By 2012, significant policy euphoria on Green Growth and Green Economy ideas had seen increased momentum. It has been considered a smart solution not only for climate change, via investment in low-carbon economic productivity, but also to crises in finance, energy and food. (UNEP 2012a). Yet, strong civil society opposition to Green Growth discourse emerged during RIO+20. As an example, one of the RIO+20 newspapers, Terraviva, boldly stated in a headline “Green Economy, The New Enemy” (Terraviva Rio+20 2012). While Rio+20 commenced with strong UN support for the Green Growth agenda , the final conference report, The Future We Want (2013), provide a slightly more cautious perspective. This report described the Green Economy as one of a set of important tools available for achieving sustainable development, downplaying its role by cautioning that although it could provide policy maker options, the Green Economy is not a rigid set of rules. The arguments against Green Growth emerging post Rio+20 clustered into two distinct categories: one of them political, the second more fundamental. In the first case, developing countries worry about the potential of Green Growth to became the Green Washington Consensus1, a new set of structural conditionalities allowing the North to constrain growth in the 1 The term ―Washington Consensus‖ refers to the agenda of neo-liberal policy reforms promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the last three decades. Such policies were first imposed on debtor countries in Latin-America in the 80s and later pressed on globally by the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization. ―Washington‖ refers to an informal policy agreement between the political Washington of the US congress and the technocratic Washington of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, US Treasury and 3 South while reinvigorating the ailing market-liberal political and economic agenda aimed to preserve the increasingly fragile supremacy of the Northern triad -US, EU, Japan (Terraviva 2012). In turn, Non-Government-Organisations (NGOs) and grassroots movements reacted against the basic assumptions about nature and human relations underpinning the Green Growth discourse and its potentially negative effects on social and environmental justice. As an example, the commoditisation of nature, privatization of the commons and control of the Green Economy by corporate interests was a fundamental scepticism (Utting 2012). In this view, Green Economy policies will postpone much needed structural transformation of the global system (Mowery et al. 2010). Green Growth criticism arises because some interpret the term to evoke neo-liberalism, westernization and corporatism, this interpretation will be part of the analysis in the paper. This critique treats the three overlapping public policy narratives of Green Growth, the Green Economy and also Green New Deal as interchangeable within a neoliberal discourse. Where the anti-Green-Growth discourse constructs them as non-radical, market liberal, corporate-led pathways to a new economy, perhaps greener, but not substantially fairer from social and environmental justice perspectives (Vazquez-Brust and Sarkis 2012b). In contrast to the above conflation of concepts and their accompanying discourses, we argue for the importance and validity of providing distinct narratives for an aspirational, radically transformative Green Growth Economy. Therefore, although disparities in the definition and scope of Green Growth exist (see for instance Meadowcroft (Meadowcroft 2012) and Messner et economic think-thanks. Underpinned by strong antipathy for state regulation and state enterprise, Washington Consensus policies include trade liberalization, fiscal discipline, privatization openness to foreign investment and financial deregulation. Critics of the Washington Consensus argue that its agenda has only served the interests of western countries and held the policies responsible for increased inequality, pauperization of middle classes in developing countries and the recession starting in 2008 [35] 4 al (Messner et al. 2010)), this paper advocates a radical and aspirational construction – significantly distinct from European (Green Economy) and North American (Green New Deal) approaches to the concept. We acknowledge that Green Growth has contested meanings and indeed there are discursive processes at work to impose a watered down, mildly reformist market liberal definition at the expense of stronger discourses. However, we argue that by coalescing support around a more critical interpretation of Green Growth, there remains the potential to influence the empirical outcomes from discourse formation. This new discourse formation will draw on the power of significant political will for advocacy and participation of vulnerable groups in knowledge creation to building broad-based coalitions for change. A key issue is the framing of economic progress. To this end, there should be strong support for a shift away from quantity to quality, the consumption of physical to non-physical outputs, and the production of environmentally harmful to environmentally enhancing goods and services. Moreover, the Critical Green Growth perspective advocated in this paper should be concerned with significantly redefining the legitimacy of growth by promoting all economic activity that is not harmful to and that can support natural capital. In turn, the quality of Green Growth can be identified by the extent to which ‘green’ economic activity contributes to enhance and preserve natural capital. Critical Green Growth goes beyond the ‘business as usual’ perspective that economic expansion should be balanced with proactive efforts to maintain and develop environmental systems. The emerging discourse incorporates quality-oriented, low-carbon, energy efficient growth, with a strong focus on creating value through new clean technology, as well as natural infrastructure and