Sietse Blom – 10362770
University of Amsterdam 21 June, 2017The implementation of SDG12 in different
political landscapes
An identification of domestic institutional factors of the Netherlands and Belgium that hinder or contribute to the implementation of public policies on ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’
Master thesis Political Science
Transnational Politics of Sustainability
17949 words
Supervisor: Luc Fransen Second Reader: Philip Schleifer2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Abstract 3
1. Introduction 4-7
1.1 Theoretical and societal relevance 5-7
2. Background: Belgium and the Netherlands 7-8
3. Theoretical framework 8-16
3.1 Norm setting by international organizations 9
3.2 Previous norms by international organizations
9-10
3.3 Growing importance of CSR in the public and private sector 10-12
3.4 The importance of institutional factors 12-14
3.5 Hypotheses 14-16
4. Methodology 16-21
4.1 Sample and case selection 18-20
4.2 Reliability and validity 20-21
5. Results 21-42
5.1 Frontrunners with varying priorities 21-26
5.2 Intra-country differences 26-29
5.3 Decision-making process on the SDGs 29-33
5.4 The importance of domestic institutional factors 33-35
5.5 The politics of CSR 35-40
5.6 Salience and awareness of the SDGs 40-42
6. Conclusion 42-46
6.1 Policy recommendations . 45-46
7. Bibliography 47-51
7.1 Academic sources 47-49
7.2 Non-academic sources 50-51
8. Websites 52-53
9. Appendix: interview respondents 54-55
3
Abstract
The new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on Agenda 2030 pose as the lens for analyzing how and why countries implement international organization (IO) norms related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) the way they do. The outcomes build on the underdeveloped debate on the effects of IO norms on public policies. The comparison between the Netherlands and Belgium has resulted in an identification of factors that hinder or contribute to this implementation. The argument is made that certain political-institutional, administrative-institutional and holistic economic factors at the domestic level influence how countries implement IO norms like SDG12. The outcomes indicate support for both countries being frontrunners with differing priorities. The positions of governing political parties are essential to understand why this prioritization varies. Besides this inter-country variation, both countries experience considerable intra-country variation on their implementation. The outcomes do not support that more awareness of the SDGs or a decentralized decision-making process contribute to SDG12 implementation. The empirical patterns also do not match with a country’s implementation being strengthened by existing social and economic institutional structures. The institutional complexity of Belgium and the Dutch ‘poldermodel’ are identified as influential factors. All in all, a broad scale of domestic factors is of importance on the implementation of IO norms.
4
§1 Introduction
Since the Brundtland report of the United Nations (UN) introduced the term ‘sustainable development’ in 1987, a lot of progress has been made in the international community. 190 UN Member States have come as far as to agree upon 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030. These SDGs, combined in the Agenda 2030, are aimed at steering governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well the private sector, into the direction of developing more sustainably. This process is strengthened by the norms that the UN Human Rights Council endorsed in 2011 on including human rights in business strategies, the Ruggie Principles. The last years, these ‘Guiding Principles’ have contributed to the broadening of economic objectives of the private sector to include more non-economic objectives (Fasterling and Demuijnck, 2013). Businesses and governments increasingly take into account their social and environmental impact by installing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies. For the first time, the UN actively attempts to stimulate this development by setting norms through its twelfth Goal ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’ (UN Website, 2017). SDG12 poses as the perfect norm to analyse how the UN influences countries’ implementation of public policies related to this responsible consumption and production.
Western-European countries are frontrunners on CSR, both on government-led action and on private initiatives (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2009: 382; Steurer, 2010). However, extensive inter- and intra-country differences between these countries remain (OECD, 2016; UN Website, 2017). Therefore, it is interesting to explore what domestic factors contribute to implementing CSR related public policies and what factors hinder it. The specific targets of SDG12 are an effective lens to analyse what policy areas get priority and why experts believe this to be the case. The following research question is formulated: ‘What describes and explains the different implementation of Sustainable Development
Goal 12 of the United Nations through public policies?’. Three sub-research questions shall be
answered for this purpose. At first, a description follows of the different implementation of SDG12 in the Netherlands and Belgium, resulting in the following two sub-research questions:
- ‘How have the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the United Nations been implemented through public policies of the Netherlands?’
- ‘How have the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the United Nations been implemented through public policies of Belgium?’
Subsequently, this research attempts to explain what causes these differences in implementation, leading to the third sub-research question:
5 - ‘What causes the differences in implementation of the targets of Sustainable Development
Goal 12 of the United Nations in the Netherlands and Belgium?’
The argument is made that certain political-institutional, administrative-institutional and holistic economic factors at the domestic level influence how countries implement international organization (IO) norms like SDG12. The outcomes indicate support for both countries being frontrunners with differing priorities. The positions of governing political parties are essential to understand why this prioritization varies. Besides this inter-country variation, both countries experience considerable intra-country variation on their implementation. The outcomes do not support that more awareness of the SDGs or a decentralized decision-making process contribute to SDG12 implementation. The empirical patterns also do not match with a country’s implementation being strengthened by existing social and economic institutional structures. The institutional complexity of Belgium and the Dutch ‘poldermodel’ are identified as influential factors. All in all, a broad scale of domestic factors is of importance on the implementation of IO norms.
The next section explains why this specific question is theoretically and societally relevant. Followed by a background chapter on the Netherlands and Belgium. Then a theoretical framework is presented, in which the underdeveloped areas in this academic field are underlined and hypotheses are formulated that are based on domestic institutional factors. Subsequently, the data and methods are discussed, along with threats to the reliability and validity of this research. The results section that follows is divided into six sub-chapters based on the different hypotheses. The conclusion shall link back the results to the theoretical framework and the hypotheses, discuss shortcomings of the research and offer suggestions for future research. Lastly, three policy recommendations are made that address the Dutch and Belgian national government.
§1.1 Theoretical and societal relevance
The relatively new Agenda 2030 will probably not be fully translated into public policies and existing policy targets, because it was installed in September 2015. However, existing policies in the Netherland and Belgium overlap with the different targets of SDG12. This makes it interesting to analyse why some of the targets of SDG12 are translated into existing public policies while others are not. By doing so, this research contributes to the academic debate on how IO norms influence government policies. In the debate certain factors are identified as influential on IO norms implementation, like global institutional pressure, local receptivity, foreign economic penetration, and the national economic system (Lim and Tsutsui, 2012), the relationship between the public and private sector (Abbott and
6 Snidal, 2009) or the ‘domestic salience’ of an IO norm (Cortell and Davis, 1996). This research utilizes this prior knowledge on factors of importance to analyse whether these factors are also influential on SDG12 implementation, and to explore what their influence is. Furthermore, by identifying other domestic institutional factors that have an impact on IO norm implementation, this research builds upon the academic debate. Another addition to the academic knowledge derives from the fact that research on the relatively new SDGs in Agenda 2030 is scarce. This initial identification of how the implementation of these Goals can pose as foundation for future research. The UN for the first time actively stimulates (Western-European) governments to increase their efforts on CSR, making it highly relevant to explore the first signs of progress.
With a focus on SDG12 on Responsible Consumption and Production, the public policies on governments on CSR are subject to analysis. The Netherlands and Belgium are often categorized as frontrunners on this area (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2009: 382; Steurer, 2010), but an in-depth analysis of their intra-country variation is currently missing. The outcomes can thus further the debate by offering a narrower analysis on variation within these frontrunner states. When public policies are central, intra-country variation and rationales behind frontrunner positions are often meagre. SDG12 on Responsible Consumption and Production is a very suited IO norm to analyse more in-depth how and why governments’ CSR policies originate. Many authors agree that inter-country differences are extensive (Williamson e.a., 2014; Albareda e.a., 2007: 401), but often do not thoroughly explain these. The outcomes of this research are aimed at further developing the knowledge on explanatory factors for this variation. Institutional factors that are of importance are among others employee rights, education, market regulation, corporate governance and the state capacity, while GDP per capita and export ratio are not (Jackson e.a., 2016: 19). Moreover, because the social and economic institutions in the Netherlands are stronger than in Belgium (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2010; Jackson e.a., 2016), it is relevant to explore whether this is important to how IO norms are implemented. The effect of institutions like market regulation, state capacity and labour conditions (abroad) on installing CSR policies or IO norm implementation is unclear at this stage (Fransen, 2013). The analysis will incorporate these existing explanatory factors and explore what their influence is, while also adding factors of importance to this field.
This research shows a potential way of looking at how the SDGs are implemented or overlap with existing public policies. Future research could use the same methods, or alter the methods used to perform better research on this field. In addition, if other (European) countries experience similar approaches to IO norm implementation, the outcomes can be generalizable for like-minded countries. The conclusions can also pose as a foundation for future research, on different SDGs, on other IO norms, at other government levels and in different countries.
7 well. For one, the current formation process after the 2017 elections in the Netherlands provides a unique window of opportunity for reviewing the Dutch public policies on CSR, and on the broader implementation of the SDGs. The knowledge on how government policies, related to consumption and production, are influenced by the UN can be used to improve government policies. In the Dutch and Belgian societies, the issue of responsible production and consumption is gaining importance (MVO Nederland Website, 2017; MVO Vlaanderen Website, 2017). It is societally relevant to analyse how governments play a role in this and how they attempt to influence this development through public policies. This way, the private sector has a better overview of what governments in their country prioritize and why, and what role they can play in the implementation process. Consumers can be made aware of what happens in the international community on this field, and how their governments implement norms set by IOs. Furthermore, the progress on sustainable development through implementing Agenda 2030 of the UN is presented. Which is highly relevant, because many people nowadays question the efficiency and effectiveness of the UN (Aljazeera, 2017; The Economist, 2017). Finally, the research provides policy recommendations based on the views of the interview respondents on future implementation of SDG12 and the broader Agenda 2030.
§2 Background: Belgium and the Netherlands
Before going in-depth into both countries’ implementation of SDG12, it is important to give a brief overview of state structures, ministries dealing with the implementation and governing political parties. Belgium and the Netherlands have a broadly differing state structure, with Belgium being a federal state and the Netherlands a unitary state (Koninkrijk Nederland Website, 2017; Koninkrijk België Website, 2017). Belgium is separated into three Regions (Gewesten): Flanders, Wallonia and the Brussels Capital-Region. More specifically, the European Commission states: ‘Belgium is a federal state with decentralized authority, including over procurement, shared among the central government and the three regions: Wallonia, Flanders, and the Brussels-Capital Region’ (European Commission Website, 2017). These Regions have many competences varying from economic or employment issues to energy or environmental matters. Also, the Regions supervise the provinces, municipalities and intercommunals (cooperation of multiple municipalities) directly (Koninkrijk België Website, 2017). ‘The Federal State, the Communities (Flemish, French and German-speaking) and the Regions (Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels-Capital) are on an equal footing but have powers and responsibilities for different fields’ (Federal Institute for Sustainable Development Website, 2017). The Netherlands, on the other hand, is characterized by its decentralized governing style, with many responsibilities for the local governments: provinces, regional water authorities, but mainly for its municipalities
8 (Koninkrijk Nederland Website, 2017). The decision-making in the Netherlands is often categorized as a poldermodel, which means ‘an extensive consensus between government, employers and trade unions’ (Van Dyk, 2006: 409), that leads to extensive public-private cooperation.
In addition to a differing state structure, the implementation of the SDGS also happens through different ministries. In the Netherlands, most targets are implemented through the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFa). Around 20% of the SDG-targets have been assigned to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and another 20% at Infrastructure and the Environment (Interview Von Meijenfeldt, 2017). The Belgians have a separate Ministry for Sustainable Development. However, this relatively small ministry does not bear the full SDG-implementation, but again the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs bear most responsibilities along with the Ministry of Public Health, Food Chain Security and the Environment (Interviewee FPDO, 2017).
The current governing political parties in both countries deliver the ministers heading these Ministries. For the Netherlands, there was a coalition of the liberal right-wing Volkspartij voor Vrijheid
en Democratie (VVD) and the socialist left-wing Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) between 2012-2017. In
March this year however, the Dutch have held an election, making the coalition demissionairy. The current Belgian federal government consists of the French Mouvement Reformateur (MR) and the three Flemish parties Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie, Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams (CD&V) and the Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten (Open Vld). This means the Flemish parties are overrepresented 3-1 compared to the Wallonian parties. Furthermore, this is considered a right-wing coalition (Interviewee FRDO, 2017; Interviewee FPDO, 2017).
§3 Theoretical Framework
In this discussion of the relevant academic debates, the following fields are reviewed. First, the norm setting by IOs and its effectiveness is discussed. Second, the influence of previous IO norms of the UN as argued by academic authors is presented. Third, the importance of some of these IO norms for the growing importance of CSR at the public and private level is elaborated on. Fourth, the influence of institutional factors on this process of increasing CSR policies and on IO norm implementation follows. The last section presents the six hypotheses that follow from these academic field and from previous studies of non-academic sources.
9
§3.1 Norm setting by international organizations
In the analysis, the terms SDGs and Goals will be used interchangeably. The same goes for SDG12, SDG-targets or SDG-targets of Responsible Consumption and Production, which are all used here to mean what the UN aims to achieve with SDG12 ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’. Public policies are used here as meaning what a central government installs in terms of regulation, measures and guidelines on the area of CSR (Doh and Guay, 2006). Institutions are used here in the broadest sense, entailing ‘formal organizations, such as government institutions, institutions of higher learning, medical institutions, and legal institutions’ (Montoya, 2016: 2), but also ‘rules of the game’ and regulations, standards, norms and laws in place. Norms that are voluntary and where enforcement capacity is lacking, like the SDGs, are a form of soft law (Von Stein, 2008: 248). The UN has no capacity or mandate to force states into their desired process of sustainable development for 2030. Various authors discuss how the UN influences government policies through its norms (Runhaar and Lafferty, 2009; Goertz and Diehl, 1992). A norm entails what is seen as the ‘appropriate behaviour of states’ and organizations like the UN can attempt to ‘socialize states to adopt their preferred behaviour (Finnemore, 1993). The UN itself is no lawmaker, but instead is ‘promoting mutual understanding and common interest’, trough setting norms (Jackson and Sørensen, 2013: 253).
Governments still are the main forces behind the implementation of these norms. ‘Implementation and enforcement occurs through the state and its agencies’, with a limited role for IOs (Schleifer, 2013: 535). National bureaucracies, as well as IOs, in some cases orchestrate regulatory frameworks of the private sector, where ‘private, often incentive-based, mechanisms’ can be used by states to implement IO norms like the SDGs (Schleifer, 2013: 535). The effectiveness of IO norms and rule-guided state actions that derive from these norms, is subject to debate in this academic field. Various external factors can be of importance to influence government behaviour, making causality of the effects of IO norms on state action difficult to prove (Cortell and Davis, 1996; Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986). The effects of IO norms on government behaviour and the identification of explanatory factors of their influence, are central in this research.
§3.2 Previous norms by international organizations
Previous norms the UN has set are very differently translated into public policies. For instance, the Global Compact that was agreed upon in 2000 by the UN has contributed to the increase of CSR policies being incorporated in business strategies (Runhaar and Lafferty, 2009). ‘The most prominent example of a [public-private partnership] PPP at the global level is the Global Compact, a voluntary initiative simultaneously pursuing improvements in corporate conduct and in global problem solving created in
10 July 2000 by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’ (Fuchs, 2005: 771). The principles of this Global Compact are less ambitious than those of the SDGs. The Global Compact uses broader principles, like ‘Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges’ and ‘Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery’ (UN Global Compact Website, 2017). Moreover, the Global Compact was installed to alter and broaden the CSR agendas of the private sector, while the Agenda 2030 encompasses Goals covering all policy areas and targets for the public and private sector and civil society organizations (CSOs) (Sachs, 2012: 2206). The main difference with the Global Compact is thus that the SDGs are covering a broader spectrum, and offer clear policy targets that are set as norms for shaping government policies.
Other previous norms on development set by the UN, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), also had a much narrower focus in terms of geographical focus and development ambitions of the Goals (Sachs, 2012). With the SDGs, the UN gives clear directions to states on CSR related issues. The MDGs aimed at strengthening the Global South in terms of development, but the SDGs have an inclusive focus on the South and the North (Sachs, 2012: 2206). The above-mentioned Ruggie Principles also have a global scope. Central in these principles is the aim to make businesses ‘Protect, respect and remedy’ human rights issues (Fasterling and Demuijnck, 2013; Aaronson and Higham, 2013). The influence of these ‘Guiding Principles’ depends on how governments respond to these voluntary norms. ‘The GPs [Guiding Principles] are unlikely to have much influence unless policymakers educate their national firms and their citizens regarding the human rights responsibilities of business and press these executives to act’ (Aaronson and Higham, 2013: 333-334). Nevertheless, these norms greatly influenced, and are influencing, the way businesses are increasingly incorporating non-economic objectives into their business strategies. The Ruggie Principles meant a kickstart for the increase of CSR being included in more and more strategies in the public and private sector (Fasterling and Demuijnck, 2013). This research attempts to show whether the SDGs have a comparable effect on government policies related to CSR.
§3.3 Growing importance of CSR in the public and private sector
CSR is broadly defined here and used throughout the analysis as ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’ (Strand e.a., 2015: 2). The academic debate is characterized by descriptions of and explanations for the growing role of CSR in business and government strategies (Runhaar en Lafferty, 2009; Steurer, 2010; Jackson and Apostolakou, 2011). ‘In the context of national and international developments, CSR is becoming an increasingly important element on national and transnational policy agendas’ (Williamson, e.a., 2014). Many motives for why strategies on CSR
11 originate are distinguished by authors, from a business-case to the fear for negative campaigns of NGOs (Dauvergne and Lister, 2013; Den Hond e.a, 2015). Despite different motives underpinning the development of CSR strategies, it is clear that CSR is increasingly becoming dominant.
The Netherlands and Belgium are categorized as frontrunners or leaders with their public policies on CSR (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2009: 382; Steurer, 2010; Albareda e.a., 2007: 401). The Compendium of the European Commission endorses this view (Williamson, e.a., 2014). Albareda e.a. (2007) state that the Dutch and Belgian governments, with their various CSR measures, show their commitment to regulate businesses’ CSR efforts. Steurer observes that liberal governments are not the only governments installing public policies on CSR. Moreover, pronounced welfare states often do best, or go the furthest, in terms of installing regulations concerning CSR (Steurer, 2010: 66). Governments of Belgium and the Netherlands, both pronounced welfare states, indeed appear to be frontrunners. In the table below, the CSR scores on economic, social and environmental issues are shown. Both the Netherlands and Belgium score high on all three areas, but the Dutch are doing better. The latter scoring 67.6 as an average ‘CSR total’ score, while Belgium scores 63.1. Also on the separate areas, economic, social and environmental the Netherlands scores higher than Belgium.
Source: Jackson, G., and Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute?.
Other countries in Western Europe have experienced similar developments in terms of taking the lead on CSR policies, like the Scandinavian countries, France, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic (Williamson e.a., 2014; Gjolberg, 2010; Strand e.a., 2015). The Scandinavian ‘Nordic Model’, which supposedly originated from a ‘Nordic normative heritage’ is one of the most advanced models (Gjolberg, 2010: 219). The Nordic countries score well on all CSR-areas, while the Anglo Saxon (incl.
U.S.), Continental Europe, Mediterranean Europe en Confucian all score at least average on one of the
CSR-areas (Strand e.a., 2015: 4). These works all thus emphasize that inter-country differences remain substantial, ‘substantial differences exist with regard both to the level and kind of corporate responsibility practices observed in different OECD countries’ (Jackson and Bartosch, 2016: 10). A contribution is made to the debate on these inter-country differences in the form of explanations. And
12 the research adds upon the debate certain outcomes on intra-country differences on public policies related to CSR.
§3.4 The importance of institutional factors
The question remains what factors are identified in the academic debate as influential on the implementation of CSR public policies or IO norms. The focus in this section is on discussing political-institutional, administrative-institutional and holistic economic factors that are of influence. On institutions that influence CSR public policy implementation, Jackson, Bartosch and Rathert (2016) distinguish the following factors: education, market regulation, corporate governance, state capacity. Their analysis shows that GDP per capita and a country’s export ratio have no significant influence on CSR (Jackson e.a., 2016: 19). Doh and Guay (2006) share the views of Fransen (2013) that institutional structures are essential in shaping a state’s public policy on CSR, but add the ‘political legacies’ to the factors of influence. Another factor of importance is the relationship between the public and the private sector within a country (Abbott and Snidal, 2009). The ‘regulatory space’ of governments depends among other things on the influence the private sector exercises on the policy-making process (Abbott and Snidal, 2009: 12). Nevertheless, the state is a central actor in this area and is gaining in importance, because of its ability to install norms, regulations and laws. Abbott and Snidal indicate that ‘the state can use its competencies both directly and indirectly to shape the regulatory space’ (2009: 88).
Lim and Tsutsui (2012) distinguish the following four institutional factors as being influential on IO norm implementation: global institutional pressure, local receptivity, foreign economic penetration, and the national economic system. In their work they emphasize that these factors shape how countries, through installing CSR public policies, deal with the implementation of IO norms (Lim and Tsutsui, 2012). Furthermore, the ‘domestic salience of the international rule or norm’ is seen as influential on the implementation of this specific norm (Cortell and Davis, 1996: 451). Moreover, certain local actors can utilize IO norms to further their own interests nationally. ‘When decision-making authority is decentralized, a policy maker's appropriation of a salient international rule helps to empower her position in the national arena’ (Cortell and Davis, 1996: 457). Lastly, the state capacity or structure, as mentioned above, is analysed as factor of influence on IO norm implementation (Jackson e.a., 2016).
Steurer argues that CSR public policies ‘mirror’ the existing institutional structures in a country. ‘As several analyses suggest, CSR practices are now more popular among businesses and governments from countries with comparatively stringent social and environmental regulations than among the more neo-liberal ones’ (Steurer, 2010: 65). Stakeholders may be empowered by existing institutional
13 structures, since they can demand involvement in multi-stakeholder initiatives on CSR (Jackson e.a., 2016: 7). Another point of view is that these institutions can both mirror these existing structures, or fill the void in the case of weak institutions. ‘Corporate responsibility both mirrors institutionalized forms of business coordination and substitutes for the absence of such coordination’ (Jackson and Bartosch, 2016: 110). Although the mirroring may occur for an issue like anti-discrimination, ‘for issues that relate to business activities abroad, through export, import or Foreign Direct Investment channels, the relationship between the national political-economic configuration as identified so far by these studies and CSR practices is probably less clear-cut’ (Fransen, 2013: 218). Fransen wonders ‘to what extent CSR evolves as either an alternative to or an extension of national-institutional arrangements’ (Fransen, 2013: 214).
The importance of these national institutions on CSR public policies is central in the recent work of Jackson e.a. (2016). The authors have drawn these results from a number of institutional indicators from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Bank and other academic studies, and focused on: employee rights, education, market regulation, corporate governance and state capacity (Jackson e.a., 2016). On these indicators, the Netherlands scores higher than Belgium on its social score, with 0.57 to 0.44. This difference on their overall ‘social score’ is shown in the figure below. They argue that stronger employee rights and corporate governance contribute to a higher overall social score on CSR. Market regulation, education and state capacity negatively influence the score (Jackson e.a., 2016; Jackson and Bartosch, 2016: 20).
14
Source: Jackson, A., Bartosch, J. and Rathert, N. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility in Different Varieties of Capitalism: Exploring How National Institutions Shape CSR.
§3.5 Hypotheses
Following from this exploration of the academic debate, six hypotheses are presented in the subsequent section. As these hypotheses are based on this debate, the approach of this research is deductive. The hypotheses presented below are also based on initial knowledge gained from policy analyses and government sources. Arising from the categorization of the Netherlands and Belgium as frontrunners on CSR, one might expect them to implement many of the norms set by the UN in the form of its SDG12 ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’. The debate showed there are many inter-country differences on CSR public policies (Williamson e.a., 2014: 31; Jackson and Apostolakou, 2009; Steurer, 2010). Therefore hypothesis 1 is:
H1: Frontrunners on CSR will also be frontrunners on implementing the targets of SDG12, but prioritize different targets.
Besides these inter-country differences, both countries’ state structure and the separation of competences, potentially also result in intra-country differences. In the decentralized Netherlands,
15 provinces and municipalities hold more responsibilities, and in the federal Belgium the three Regions have competences on many areas related to ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’ (Alen and Peeters, 1995: 8-9). Moreover, a more decentralized state might steer local policy makers into strengthening their own positions on the national level by appropriating an IO norm (Cortell and Davis, 1996: 457). Resulting in hypotheses 2 and 3:
H2: Countries will experience considerable intra-country differences on the implementation of SDG12 between different regions.
H3: Countries where decision-making takes place more decentralized are ahead on the implementation of SDG12.
The academic literature showed that institutions are of importance to the implementation of CSR public policies of governments (Doh and Guay, 2006; Fransen, 2013). CSR policies can ‘mirror’ the existing institutional structures (Steurer, 2010: 65). Looking at the table presented above, the Netherlands scores better than Belgium on all three areas of CSR with 67.6 to 63.1 (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2010), and has a social score of 0.57 compared to 0.44 in Belgium (Jackson e.a., 2016: 16). Therefore, the better institutional foundation in place in the Netherlands might result in the country being ahead of Belgium on implementing the CSR-related SDG12. In addition, stringent regulations on the social and environmental areas positively influence public policies governments form on CSR (Steurer, 2010: 65), and with SDG12 overlapping with CSR, the same might apply for its implementation. Resulting in the following hypothesis:
H4: Countries with more stringent social and environmental regulations will be ahead on the implementation of SDG12.
A previous research of the author has argued that governing political parties are important in shaping how public policies on CSR are formed (Blom, 2017). It showed how different ideological preferences of the Dutch VVD and the PvdA resulted in their opposite positions on the CSR approach of the government. The PvdA is more in favour of government-led action and the VVD prefers private initiatives. As this comparative case study showed, national objectives and prioritization of issues vary between political parties, which is in line with the views of Cortell and Davis (1996: 451). It may be that these parties also prioritize different IO norms in relation to others, and thus prioritize different targets of SDG12. Leading to the following hypothesis:
H5: The prioritization of SDG12-targets will be influenced by the preferences of the governing political parties.
16 The fact that the SDGs are relatively new and a modest percentage of Europeans is aware of the Goals (Eurobarometer, 2017), might result in a lack of government attention. The level of awareness in the Netherlands and Belgium differs. The Eurobarometer shows 61% of the Dutch are aware of the existence of the SDGs, and in Belgium this is 54%. Both do score above the European Union (EU) average of 41% (Eurobarometer, 2017). Therefore, the last hypothesis is:
H6: A higher public awareness of the SDGs in a country will contribute to the implementation of SDG12.
§4 Methodology
The following section presents the methods and data used in this research, and the way these are operationalized. The research is case-centred, because it builds upon the academic debate by distinguishing how and why certain IO norms get prioritized and others do not (Rohlfing, 2012: 12). The data consists of the insights gained from experts of the Belgian and Dutch government, political parties and organizations reporting on, or advising governments. Besides interviews, policy documents, websites and external reviews and reports on implementation are utilized. The combination of both sources show triangulation is used. The insights on the Netherlands are complemented by reports of the Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL), Planning Office for the Environment, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS), Central Bureau of Statistics, the Centre for Sustainable Development Telos and the Compendium of the European Commission on the Netherlands.
For Belgium, these are reports of the Federale Raad voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling (FRDO), Federal Council for Sustainable Development, the Federale Instituut voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling (FIDO), Federal Institute for Sustainable Development and the Federaal Planbureau voor Duurzame
Ontwikkeling (FPDO), Federal Planning Office for Sustainable Development. The Compendium, the
report of the CBS, European Commission, World Bank, OECD and the Eurobarometer are unbiased sources that are used to extract how both countries performed on MDG implementation and perform on SDG implementation or on CSR. Reports of the PBL, FIDO, FRDO, FPDO and Telos have a specific political agenda and focus more on offering advices or critiques. The party programs of the analysed political parties are coloured, in that they are aimed at convincing the electorate. Beforehand, this data has been analysed to distinguish politically salient targets. The organizations are presented in the table below, with information on their role in SDG-implementation and the name of the interview respondent(s) of this organization. Although there are several relevant policy reports in both the
17 Netherlands as Belgium, the analysis will go beyond offering an overview of the current position of these countries on implementing SDG12, but instead offers an explanation for this position.
Organization
Characteristic
PBL
FRDO
FIDO
FPDO
Country of Origin Netherlands Belgium Belgium Belgium
Role in SDG- implementation
Reporting on progress and overlap between existing policy targets and SDG-targets.
Formulating opinions and strengthening the social base for the SDGs. Preparing, implementing and coordinating the sustainable development policies. Evaluates federal policies and suggests prospective scenarios through sustainable development
reports.
Interview Respondent Paul Lucas Jan Mertens, Fabrice Dehoux
Jo Versteven, Simon Callewaert
Patricia Delbaere
The data is operationalized by comparing both countries on the implementation and their prioritization on SDG12-targets. Based on this, and on insights gained beforehand from academic and non-academic sources, questions for the interview respondents have been formulated. Although certain institutional factors extracted from the academic debate are used as framework for interview questions, the main approach has been to ask open questions on what institutional factors the interview respondents believed to have an influence. The six hypotheses have been guiding in the formulation of the questions. Semi-structured interviews with experts have been conducted to gather data. During the interviews, the distinction between CSR and the broader issues covered by SDG12 has not been made very distinctively, because in the reporting of this research the focus is on broader CSR related policy areas, upon which SDG12 touches. The researcher has used his network of the UN association for the Netherlands (NVVN Website, 2017) and its sister association in Belgium, to find relevant interview respondents. The interview respondents are or were all closely involved in the implementation process of issues related to SDG12 at the national level. Therefore their testimonies utilized in this research are first-hand recordings of their experiences. For the purpose of clarity, the interview respondents are referred to as experts throughout the thesis.
For the Netherlands, one of the authors of the PBL, Paul Lucas, is interviewed. This planning office has published the report, included here, called Sustainable Development Goals in the
Netherlands, which contains an overview of overlap between existing local, national and international
18 von Meijenfeldt has offered his insights into Dutch and Belgian implementation of the SDGs. From the MoFa, like Von Meijenfeldt, are Elske van Efferink and Kirsten Kossen, both experts on CSR public policies. Van Efferink has been interviewed, but the insights of Kossen were gathered by Van Efferink beforehand to be used during the interview. On intra-country differences, former Member of Parliament (MP) for the PvdA, Roelof van Laar, is interviewed, and on regional differences Hans Buis of the Vereniging voor Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG), sharing from his role as Senior Project Manager at VNG International. For Belgium, Patricia Delbaere, expert in the Taskforce Sustainable Development for the FPDO has been interviewed. From the FIDO, interviews have been conducted with Jo Versteven, who works on responsible procurement, and with Simon Callewaert, International Policy Officer. Academic researchers Jan Mertens and Fabrice Dehoux of the FRDO were interviewed on federal public policies and on their specific advices to the federal government since the Agenda 2030 was agreed upon in 2015. These advices as well as other policy reports are used to strengthen the policy implications offered at the end of the thesis.
Lastly, results from a previous paper by the author, ‘The Role of the VVD and the PvdA in shaping the Dutch Public Policy on CSR’ are used. The insights of this work are re-evaluated for the purpose of answering the research question. The interview respondents were Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the PvdA, May-May Meijer, Member of the think tank LiberaalGroen of the Dutch VVD, Wouter Verduyn, and political advisor at De Groene Zaak, Yorian Bordes. De Groene Zaak is a network that cooperates with sustainable partners offering ‘help to transit the economy and society as rapidly as possible’ (Website De Groene Zaak, 2017).
§4.1 Sample and case selection
The unit of analysis in this research is the national government. The local, regional and sub-national governments are examined here as well, mostly to show intra-country differences in implementation. Public policies of these governments on SDG12-targets that affect the nation as a whole, certain region, or even other countries, are central. The population in this case consists of the policies that are implemented on the targets of SDG12. The interinfluence of public policies of Belgium and the Netherlands, two neighbouring countries, are taken into account as well, because best practices or failures might be shared. The sample size N is 2 here, for a comparison is made between the Netherlands and Belgium. This selection is based on both countries being most similar (Gerring, 2001) in terms of their level of development, GDP per capita, EU membership, parliamentary democracies, separation of power and strong institutions (World Bank Website, 2017; European Union Website, 2017). Because the Netherlands and Belgium are most similar, these factors could effectively be
19 extracted by using the method of difference (Rohlfing, 2012: 110). Observations include public awareness of the SDGs, the form of government and institutional structures and the coalitions of governing political parties (since the 2015). The selection of the below-mentioned targets is based on current studies on SDG implementation by the PBL, OECD, FRDO, FIDO, FPDO and the CBS. These targets also reflect the most salient political issues:
Goal Target
12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries.
12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. 12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and
reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses. 12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes
throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities.
12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.
12.A Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.
The last two of the eleven targets of SDG12 were less relevant for this research, because these were not mentioned as priority by experts and are often not included in consulted reports and studies, like the report of the PBL ‘Sustainable Development Goals in the Netherlands’ (Lucas e.a., 2016). Both countries are on the below presented goals already far ahead in comparison to other countries, and therefore no new policy targets are necessary (Interviewee PBL, 2017; Interviewee MoFa, 2017). Moreover, the indicators on these two targets are not very specific, leading to countries perhaps
20 feeling less responsibility to alter their course. It is easily argued national policies are sufficient for the indicator of target 12.B on the ‘number of sustainable tourism strategies’. And on 12.C ‘Amount of fossil-fuel subsidies per unit of GDP (production and consumption) and as a proportion of total national expenditure on fossil fuels’ countries possibly prioritize their national objectives to those of the international community (UN Website, 2017). The targets that the research has thus not focused on are:
Goal Target
12.B Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.
12.C Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities.
§4.2 Reliability and validity
The use of these methods has led to five problems concerning the reliability and validity of this research. The first concern is on ensuring there is in fact causality between what experts indicate as factors influencing countries prioritizing these SDG-targets. With the scope of this research it has not been possible to include all potentially relevant factors. The first concern is thus that the internal validity suffers from the many alternative explanations for causing countries to implement SDG12 the way they do, which shows complex causality. Secondly, with multiple possible explanations causality might have suffered from indeterminacy (Bryman, 2016: 64). Non-inclusion of relevant explanatory factors or misinterpretation of experts’ insights could not have been prevented (Bryman, 2016: 64). A third concern is that because every interview is unique, it is difficult to gain comparable insights without steering the interview respondents in a certain direction. Fourth, because interviews are the main source and every interview is different, replicating the research is difficult, leading to less reliable results (Bryman, 2016: 390). Fifth, the external validity suffers from the difficulty of arguing why conclusions on the Netherlands and Belgium apply to other countries with different contexts as well (Gerring, 2004).
21 Certain measures are taken to solve these concerns to the validity and reliability of this research. For one, by making use of triangulation the validity is increased, because the results on causality are cross-checked (Bryman, 2016: 392). However, it is impossible to guarantee that these (government) documents are unbiased and neutral. With the given amount of time and means, the research has achieved to conduct the maximum number of interviews, and has built upon conclusions of three previous interviews, which contributes to the internal validity. Indeterminacy, the second concern, is dealt with by this prior research and by including the most relevant observations in the list of questions. Because of this initial knowledge, it was easier to explore what interview respondents believed to be the rationale behind government action, instead of respondents only mentioning the current government policies. Thirdly, structuring the interview with a topic list and some open questions instead of a solid list of questions, led to less steering of the interview respondents into a desired direction, so they were better able to come up with their own explanatory factors. No leading words were used in the questions, to prevent experts from being giving desirable answers to self-fulfilling questions. Moreover, the interview questions are based on prior investigation into government action on CSR and implementation of SDG12, through an analysis of reports by the PBL, CBS, FIDO, FRDO, FPDO and the European Commission. The fourth concern on reliability is dealt with by including a variety of different sources: policy documents, reports from the above-mentioned organizations on top of the interview data. This way more methods could be used to come to this research’ outcomes and the chance on random failures of interpretation is reduced. The research is made more replicable by semi-structuring the interviews and by making use of retraceable online sources. Lastly, to increase the external validity, the research focuses on exploring general factors of countries that hinder or contribute to IO norm implementation, which might then also be valid for other (like-minded) states.
§5 Results
§5.1 Frontrunners with varying priorities
This section argues that the Netherlands and Belgium are both frontrunners on the implementation of SDG12. With their CSR public policies and various existing policy targets overlapping with those of SDG12, they are leading in comparison to other (European) countries. However, their priorities are on completely different policy areas, and thus their prioritization of SDG12-targets differs. This is the first step in describing how both countries differ on the implementation of SDG12.
Overall, most European countries experience a growing trend of CSR being incorporated in businesses’ and governments’ strategies (Jackson and Apostolakou, 2009: 382; Steurer, 2010; Albareda
22 e.a., 2007: 401). Most European countries scored around 80 per cent on average in 2015 on the percentage of businesses reporting on CSR (CBS Report, 2016). The starting position of Belgium on the SDGs appears weaker than the position of the Netherlands. In the policy report on the Belgian position, the FPDO researched 31 out of 169 of the SDG-targets in its Vooruitgang naar de duurzame
ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen (Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals). ‘By continuing current
trends, only 4 out of the 31 selected indicators would reach their assigned quantitative objective by 2030’ (FPDO Website, 2017). Looking at the Netherlands, its starting position is described as ‘very good’ on SDG implementation (OECD, 2016). More specifically on SDG12, the Dutch government already has set various own targets that are in line with what is expected by the UN. The report of the PBL SDG’s in Nederland shows that the Dutch domestic policy targets are in most cases sufficient for fulfilling what is expected in the policy targets of SDG12 (Lucas e.a., 2016: 18). Figure 2.2 below shows that on Goal 12, seven out of the eleven targets are fully or partially covered by existing policy targets. Many Dutch public policies thus are already adequate to reach SDG12, or go beyond the norms that are set. The Dutch emphasis on exporting its national CSR strategy abroad, the central role for promoting due diligence throughout global value chains and the high ranking of Dutch companies in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index point out the same (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, 2013; Interviewee MoFa, 2017).
Source: Lucas, P., Ludwig, K., Kok, M. and Kruitwagen, S. (2016). Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. Sustainable Development Goals in Nederland.
23 On the targets of SDG12 Responsible Consumption and Production, most interview respondents argued that both countries are frontrunners (Interviewee MoFa, 2017; Interviewee FRDO, 2017; Interviewee VNG, 2017). This is in line with the reporting of the European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN), which describes both countries’ advanced strategies on sustainable development (ESDN Website, 2017). All three Regions in Belgium also actively stimulate CSR to be incorporated in public and private organizations (Infos Enterprises Website, 2017; Be.Brussels Website, 2017). However, the interview respondent of the Federal Planning Office believes the Belgian state as a whole is no longer a frontrunner per se on CSR related issues (Interviewee FPDO, 2017). She argues that the positions of the three Regions in the Belgian federal state are very different on this area. Therefore, the categorization as Belgian federal government as a frontrunner on CSR public policies, is not adequate in her view. Although this points out intra-country differences can be considerable, which section 5.2 will elaborate on, it does not mean that overall both countries cannot be categorized as frontrunners. Only that they are not homogenous frontrunners. For some targets get prioritized in one of the Regions in Belgium, while another Region puts its focus on different ones.
The Dutch frontrunner position is often explained by the experts by pointing at the government’s proneness to finding public-private cooperation opportunities (Interviewee PBL, 2017; Interviewee VNG, 2017). The Senior Policy Advisor on CSR at MoFa holds that even in the rather advanced European context the Dutch are leading, and that their CSR policies are increasingly being transported to other EU member states. The government is convinced that the multi-stakeholder approach that underlies the Netherlands’ CSR policy can be an example to other countries’ (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, 2017). The Dutch approach is unique in its inclusion of a broad scale of parties when agreements are formed.
This aspect makes other countries interested in this poldermodel as well. ‘Basically, what happens is that the branch organizations of companies, together with the SER, the government, trade unions all sit together and discuss, for this sector these are the most serious risks, what can we do about them collectively. They come up with an agreement, they all sign it and they have a work plan for the next three to five years’ (Interviewee MoFa, 2017). The Social Economic Council (SER) was the initiator of this Dutch multistakeholder-approach on CSR. Momentum for these agreements occurred in these cases because of the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh and because of the banking crisis (Interviewee MoFa, 2017). Other explanations are that the Dutch NGOs are relatively vocal, the Dutch Parliament is advanced on CSR-policy and that the Dutch society demands these measures of businesses (Interviewee MoFa, 2017). The interview respondent from the Dutch MoFa thus agrees with this categorization, but argues that there is a disproportionate focus on ‘Responsible Production’ in relation to ‘Responsible Consumption’. The Dutch government currently does not have sufficient active policies to stimulate responsible consumption, or to raise awareness among the Dutch
24 population on this she believes (Interviewee MoFa, 2017).
Von Meijenfeldt, SDG Coordinator for the Netherlands, believes the Netherlands is a slow starter on prioritizing the SDGs of Agenda 2030, but that recently much progress has been made (Interview SDG Coordinator, 2017). On target 12.2 on the sustainable management of natural resources however, a lot still needs to happen Von Meijenfeldt believes. The target ‘By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources’ is measured by the indicator ‘Material footprint, material footprint per capita, and material footprint per GDP’. In the Netherlands, this footprint is currently about four times what it should be when looking at the size of the country (Interview SDG Coordinator, 2017), and it is growing (CBS, 2016). For Belgium, the situation is comparable. The FRDO respondent explains this by the fact that both the Netherlands and Belgium have a large agricultural sector, which ‘leaves a footprint’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). Within Belgium, Flanders is the leading producer in the agricultural sector. ‘It’s mainly Flanders within Belgium where the biggest problem is concerning water, ground water pollution. Having to do with agriculture’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017).
In the Netherlands, targets 12.3 on halving food waste per capita, 12.4 on management of wastes, 12.5 on reducing wastes, 12.6 on encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices and 12.7 on promoting responsible procurement are ‘fully covered’ by existing policy agreements and targets at the national, European or global level (Lucas e.a., 2016: 45-46). Two other targets, 12.1 on a 10-year framework on of programmes on sustainable consumption and production and 12.2 on the sustainable management of natural resources, are ‘partly covered’ by existing policy targets (Lucas e.a., 2016: 45). ‘The third category consists of SDG targets for which no corresponding Dutch policy targets were found […] ‘information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature’ (target 12.8)’ (Lucas e.a., 2016: 18). The Dutch are not very familiar with the kinds of 10 year-frameworks, which is the reason why they do not prioritize target 12.1 on a 10-year framework on of programmes on sustainable consumption and production (Interviewee PBL, 2017). Moreover, policies on halving food waste per capita (12.3) need to be altered or redesigned to comply with the UN’s norm, because the results of the existing policy targets are insufficient for reducing food waste at the consumer level. In comparison to other European countries, the Netherlands generates much food waste (CBS, 2016). ‘Targets aimed at reducing food wastage and environmental pressure on ecosystems require fundamental policy redesign’ (Lucas e.a., 2016: 9). Currently, the report states, there is no decreasing trend in terms of food waste at the consumer level. On waste management and waste reduction (targets 12.4 and 12.5) however, the Dutch can be considered frontrunners. Especially the policies related to the circular economy contribute to this leading position, where waste should no longer be treated as waste, but as useful material (Interviewee PBL, 2017). The Netherlands has very advanced tools for monitoring CSR (Williamson e.a., 2014: 88). The strive towards a more prominent
25 place at the international playing-field could be behind this (Interviewee MoFa, 2017).
For advancing the implementation of target 12.6 on encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices, both the Belgian Regions and the Netherlands make use of CSR promoting organizations. MVO Nederland (CSR Netherlands) coordinates policies on CSR, and there is a well-developed monitoring system. ‘The government will support the CSOs’ free and independent role as society’s CSR watchdog to remind the government and businesses about their responsibilities towards citizens and society’ (Williamson e.a., 2014: 88). ‘CSR Netherlands was founded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs as an independent CSR network to support the implementation of CSR in Dutch businesses’ (Williamson e.a., 2014: 88). In Belgium a similar organization exists, but its focus is on the Region of Flanders. This organization is MVO Vlaanderen, which was founded by the department of Work and Social Economy (MVO Vlaanderen Website, 2017). Furthermore, the Belgian federal level shows commitment to CSR stimulation. ‘Some governments have encouraged social partners to work towards CSR goals themselves (e.g. trade union involvement in CSR in Belgium)’ (Williamson e.a., 2014: 31). The culture in the Netherlands is more aimed at reviewing and monitoring, the Belgian culture more on offering advices and plans for the future. ‘We are more in the philosophy of prospects and less so on evaluation. I think you have a bigger evaluation culture’ (Interviewee FPDO, 2017).
On responsible procurement, target 12.7, the Netherlands is committed to reaching 100% sustainable public procurement (Lucas e.a., 2016: 46). This goal is set for the national level, as well as at the level of the municipalities, that agreed to achieve this goal by 2015. Currently, this goal is not met in all municipalities (Telos, 2016). Achieving this might be relatively easy however, and the government can make a strong example out of itself by fulfilling this target (Interview Former MP PvdA, 2017). ‘Well, because it’s quite easy. And also, because it’s exemplary. You make yourself an example. So, I think that’s good, but even the government itself could be more ambitious in terms of responsible procurement. Especially the way they monitor or actually check is not very sophisticated’ (Interview Former MP PvdA, 2017). In Belgium, only Flanders and Wallonia have expressed the goal of reaching a 100% responsible procurement (Interview Versteven, 2017), already showing the first signs of intra-country differences.
Different motives are mentioned for the prioritization of this specific target 12.7 on promoting responsible procurement by the Dutch government. For one, because the private sector asks for it (Interview SDG Coordinator, 2017), because of the government’s wish to portray itself as a good example, or ‘simply because it’s easy to achieve’ (Interview Former MP PvdA, 2017). The difficulty is not in reaching 100%, but lies in how this goal is met. Procurement in the Netherlands is aimed to be at a 100% responsible in the foreseeable future, but currently there is still a lot that needs to happen to achieve that. ‘The externalities of the environment and the social element are not included in the prices. Sustainable development is not included yet in procurement’ (Interview SDG Coordinator,
26 2017). The reason behind this is that the criteria can be vague, criteria can be unstrict or the procurer is not an expert on these issues, because a goal of 100% without strict criteria is still negligible (Interviewee MoFa, 2017; Interviewee FRDO, 2017). ‘In some way, it is easy. ‘What you have to do yourself as an administration is not putting demands on society as a whole’ (Interviewee FPDO, 2017).
Both countries are particularly advanced on the implementation of targets 12.6 on encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices and 12.A on supporting developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity. These international targets get prioritized because of the influential role of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the implementation process (Interviewee MoFa, 2017; Interviewee FRDO, 2017). Target 12.8 on ensuring that people have relevant information on sustainable development however, forms the exception to this rule on international stimulation being prioritized. This is the only SDG12-target that currently the Dutch government does not have a policy target on at this moment (PBL, 2017). ‘It’s something that is further away in the process. This is more general, this is about teaching, about awareness, and of course about knowledge’ (Interviewee PBL, 2017). The federal level in Belgium as well as its separate Regions are very active on the international SDG12-targets. ‘Belgium is very much in favour of supporting a sustainable green economy, in the South’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). Furthermore, The Dutch and Belgians share best practices, organize many conferences and stimulate CSR-related measures through their embassies (Interviewee MoFa, 2017; Interviewee FPDO, 2017). Currently the Dutch and Belgians are collaborating on multiple areas, for one on responsible procurement, where they share their knowledge on the monitoring of projects (Interviewee FRDO, 2017).
Overall the experts’ views and the reports on the current implementation of SDG12 show that the Netherlands and Belgium both are frontrunners on implementation, although not homogenous frontrunners. The current positions of them on the specific SDG12-targets has indicated that they prioritize different targets, which is partly caused by the intra-country differences that the next section will discuss. This shows strong support for Hypothesis 1 ‘Frontrunners on CSR will also be frontrunners
on implementing the targets of SDG12, but prioritize different targets’. The arguments in the following
section on intra-country variation also support Hypothesis 1, because these arguments indicate priorities can vary between as well as within countries.
§5.2 Intra-country differences
The previous section showed that inter-country differences between countries can be extensive. This section argues that the same is true for intra-country differences. A country’s state structure and the separation of competences contributes to this variation. The different regional governments prioritize
27 different targets and have different rationales for doing so, showing intra-country differences in the Netherlands and Belgium.
In both countries, the sub-national government levels hold many competences. The Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital Region have various responsibilities related to the implementation of SDG12-targets, and municipalities are at the centre of implementing many targets in the Netherlands. These sub-national governments are therefore central actors in deciding which targets get prioritized within the country and which do not. On the Belgian Regions, Mertens of the FRDO stated: ‘It depends on the subject, whether it’s mainly regional competences or not’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). These competences make up the most influential country factor of what targets get prioritized, because some targets fall under the responsibilities of either the federal government or the Regions (Interviewee FPDO, 2017). Many policy areas on sustainability belong to the competences of the three Regions. ‘A lot of competences are now Regional. All that has to do with recycling and material, is now Regional’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). Mertens agrees with this, ‘concerning this SDG, as we are in a federal state, I think a large part, maybe the most important part, of competences lies with the sub-national governments’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). Not only between the Regions, but also within the Regions various differences exist. The municipalities of Gent and Antwerp for example are seen as frontrunners within the country (Interviewee FRDO, 2017).
On many specific targets of SDG12, the competences of the Regions exceed those of the federal government of Belgium. ‘Waste policy, this is clearly a matter of the regional governments, the Flemish government for example’ (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). The federal government on this area of waste holds not significant competences, ‘on the issue of waste, the federal has quasi no influence’ (Interviewee FPDO, 2017). The same goes for food waste and for target 12.2 with its indicator on the footprint of a country (Interview Delbaere, 2017). On food waste, target 12.3, the Brussels Region and the Flemish Region are both frontrunners (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). Flanders is also seen as a frontrunner on waste policies, which overlap with targets 12.4 on management of wastes and 12.5 on reducing wastes (Interviewee FPDO, 2017). On reporting, Flanders is also ahead of Wallonia and Brussels. ‘What I discovered is that there is for example a big campaign for the sustainability reports in Flanders’ (Interviewee FPDO, 2017). Mertens would not go as far as to state that the Flanders Region is ahead of Wallonia and the Brussels Region on all targets of SDG12. Which he supports by stating Wallonia was always the pilot on implementing frameworks for sustainable consumption and production, overlapping with target 12.1 on a 10-year framework on of programmes on sustainable consumption and production. On target 12.7 on promoting responsible procurement, the Belgian Regions show differences in how they translate their goals into specific policy targets. Wallonia and Flanders are aiming for 100%, like the Netherlands, while the Brussels-Capital Region does not have a numbered target for their procurement policies (Interviewee FRDO, 2017). ‘It is by means of
