This paper asks whether a set of global goals would be an effective tool for changing global behaviour towards meeting the requirements of sustainable development. With the next round of planning for what follows the MDGs under way, this paper considers both sides of the argument. It concludes that the discursive, realm-of-possibility setting nature of global goals should not be underestimated.

1. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
Global goals for sustainable development
1. Introduction
This paper asks whether a set of global goals would be an effective tool for changing global
behaviour towards meeting the requirements of sustainable development. This introduction
sets out the criteria used to judge effectiveness, and outlines the rest of the essay.
The ‘effectiveness’ criteria used is one of whether goals are likely to elicit any change in the
behaviour of global actors towards sustainable development. Clearly this is a low bar. To decide
whether global goals are more effective than other governance tools it would be necessary to
examine exactly what must be achieved and to perform a thorough review of the most
appropriate method to reach those outcomes. However, sustainable development is a vast
subject and a large research project would be required in order to make a robust prediction
about the likely success of various methods. Moreover, the literature on ‘global goals’ is limited
compared to that on international law or international organisations. This essay is merely a
starting point in a discussion about the effectiveness of sustainable development goals.
Following a conceptualisation of ‘global goals’ in section two, the essay goes on to consider the
arguments for and against sustainable development goals, in sections three and four
respectively. The essay concludes, in section five, that agreement on the effectiveness of global
goals is likely to require a constructivist rather than realist worldview and that further
evidence-based research is necessary.
2. An overview of global goals
This section conceptualises global goals, explains the topical nature of the issue, and then
describes how sustainable development goals are being advanced.
A global goals approach is best exemplified by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
These were agreed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2000 and were designed to focus
the world’s efforts to end poverty. They are a set of eight broad goals, divided into 21 targets,
with specific, mostly quantifiable indicators, to be met by 2015. For example, ‘MDG 6: Combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases’ has three targets, including ‘6A: Have halted by 2015 and
begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS’, which are measured by ten different indicators,
including ‘HIV prevalence, condom use, and proportion of population with comprehensive,
correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS’. Goals were used in this context in order to harmonise efforts to
end poverty and to provide a way of measuring progress.1
Global goals are not legally binding. A party that commits to them will suffer no repercussion
should they not be met. No coercive power is exercised, and no new international organisations
will be created. Instead, positive outcomes are reliant upon the commitment made by
signatories and the discursive, social power of jointly-shared goals. Global goals are deliberately
simple: in their shortest form, the MDGs are just 37 words – including all the targets and
indicators they are just over 1000 words – the antithesis of a complex international treaty.
Global goal-setting is back on the global agenda for two reasons. The first is temporal:
discussions are growing, particularly in the development field, as to what should follow the
1 United Nations, 2007.
1

2. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
MDGs in three years time. The second is that environmentalists are now considering whether
global goals might work for sustainable development. The governments of Colombia and
Guatemala proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the agenda of the UN Conference
on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012.2 They will seek agreement on the idea of a
set of SDGs and a mandate for the UN to develop the precise goals by 2015.3 It is not necessary
at this stage of negotiations to agree on the precise goals, and these shall not be discussed in this
essay. Some of the key suggestions are presented in Annex 1. It is necessary, however, to discuss
whether goals are an appropriate tool at all.
3. Why goals work
This section develops the argument that global goals, targets and indicators could be an
effective tool in changing global behaviour to meet the requirements of sustainable
development. It considers where goals lie on a spectrum of behaviour change, argues for goals’
discursive power generally, and for their particular relevance for sustainable development.
a. Goals generally
Methods of behaviour change can be seen as lying on a spectrum from norm promotion to
binding law with strong compliance mechanisms. Often the latter is considered the strongest
method. Yet the early part of the spectrum is not necessarily less effective. In the absence of law,
it is possible to use normative, behavioural or cognitive factors, such as reputation, elite group
membership or domestic pressure to create change. These might include league tables, prizes,
or citation before international panels.4 These efforts socialise concepts that come to be the
norms that change or reinforce behaviour.5 Global goals are towards the norm-promotion end
of the spectrum: their power is discursive. A small group of well-publicised goals would shape
obligations, expectations, priorities and commitments.
This discursive power lies both in the goals and the indicators. Firstly, a small group of goals can
be easily absorbed and explained by the media, far more so than a legal treaty. This has been
demonstrated with the MDGs, which are advocated by media luminaries such as Ted Turner.6
This keeps goals on the global media agenda and builds public support to maintain domestic
pressure on governments. Clear, overarching goals are not only a boon to the media, but also to
those working in the field, particularly in smaller non-governmental organisations. Those who
argue that only bottom-up policy will create sustainable development tend to neglect the power
of having a strong international norm to which to link a grass-roots policy.7 Bottom up
innovation is not generated out of nothing, but is rather a response to necessity or a call to
action. Goals give advocates for change a strong brand on which to hang their campaigns,
empowering them to succeed. Organisations working towards a global goal might be more likely
to get funding or support from larger agencies. Common goals create better opportunities to
link with other ‘roots’ doing similar things: the shared language creates an environment for
efficiency and productivity.
2 República de Colombia, 2011.
3 Ibid.
4
See, e.g. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, the Mo Ibrahim Prize for
Achievement in African Leadership, etc.
5 See, e.g. Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998.
6 Turner, 2011; Murray et al, 2007.
7 Victor, 2006, p.99.
2

3. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
Secondly, beyond the overarching goals, the indicators provide the detail required to prove
technical robustness. Moreover, setting the indicators themselves can be a useful way of
socialising demands for change. In this process, actors have to start with the outcomes they
want to see achieved. They must work together as a ‘global’ society to carefully define how they
will measure success. This stage of development may be difficult, but once established, allows
any actor who can concretely prove that an indicator is shifting due to an action they took to be
socially rewarded, or allows campaigners to prove the opposite, and to shame the actors.
Indicators could be especially powerful in the field of sustainable development, for the reasons
explained in 3b below.
The discursive power of goals also allows for the exercise of power over intransigent
institutional opposition, such as the hegemonic macroeconomic discourse found in the
international financial institutions. The single goal these institutions promote is economic
growth; an idea that has captured the discourse of ‘progress’ for decades. The extent to which
new global goals can change this was demonstrated to a greater and lesser extent by the MDGs.
These were enthusiastically adopted by the World Bank, who now work in tandem with the
United Nations to provide data on poverty. The effect on the IMF has been weaker. It argues that
GDP growth and limited state spending is still the key to the meeting MDGs.8 This demonstrates
a lack of discursive power: the IMF adopted the MDGs, but managed to place them within their
worldview, and as a result IMF policies have not changed.
Finally, though this essay has used MDG evidence to support several claims for goals, there is
the question of whether these global goals did effectively change behaviour on poverty
reduction overall. Much of the literature agrees that the MDGs changed the political debate and
galvanised support for global poverty reduction by providing clarity, a focus on implementation,
and inspiring engagement beyond traditional development sectors.9 This does not mean that
they helped to reduce poverty. It is not possible to prove that the MDGs caused a reduction in
poverty greater than would have been realised counterfactually. However, authors in the field
have concluded that the MDGs probably helped increase aid spending and probably changed
national policies to benefit poverty reduction.10
b. Goals for sustainable development
There are reasons to believe that global goals would be particularly effective for sustainable
development, including the potential for bringing together the three realms of sustainable
development, the global nature of environmental problems and solutions, and the current
movement towards a new macro-indicator of global progress.
One of the motivations for those suggesting the SDGs is to re-harmonise the three elements of
sustainable development: economic growth, social welfare and environmental protection, which
have become disparate over time.11 Sustainable development came to mean ‘the environment’
when, as clearly defined in the Brundtland report, it was meant to be the marriage of those
8 IMF, 2010; Gutner, 2010.
9 E.g. The High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012, p.72; Melamed and Sumner, 2011.
10 Melamed and Sumner, 2011.
11 República de Colombia, 2011.
3

4. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
three fields.12 A set of common goals could encapsulate all three elements, reminding people of
their interlocking nature.
Secondly, it is not only states whose behaviour requires change. Sustainable development is a
post-globalisation problem, which requires a multi-scalar reaction, going beyond the nation
state to include corporations, local governments and individuals.13 Sustainable development
problems are global in nature, and so are their solutions. It was on this basis that Agenda 21 was
created at the first Rio Summit. The SDGs could build on this, creating specific, coherent and
clear targets for sustainable development, to be pursued at various levels of governance.
It is the indicators that are particularly important. These operationalise sustainable
development, making it real for finance ministers or development banks who may have ignored
it, or left it for environmental departments to deal with, because it was perceived as a woolly
concept. Furthermore, strong indicators in this area could help establish paradigmatic shift in
two ways. Firstly, they could inspire a movement away from the primary value given to GDP
indicators towards an indicator inclusive of social and environmental measures. Secondly, they
could also to expand ideas of what sustainable development can incorporate, from a green
economy to participatory governance models to social protection, education and health.14 On
the former point, global discourse on progress continues to present an increase in income as the
end goal of society and individuals. It is difficult to understate the power of indicators of income,
which can bring down governments, remove boards from companies and are religiously
reported by the media. A more complex, holistic metric could be a powerful force in shaping
thinking around progress.
Several governments, think tanks and international organisations are already working on new
indicators for progress, whether ‘wellbeing’ or ‘happiness’ to go ‘beyond GDP.’15 The SDGs could
support these efforts, or better, bring them together to create universal metric – a global
sustainable development index.16 The idea of a regular ‘state of the planet’ report by the UN
Secretary-General will be discussed at Rio+20. This could build upon the power of this
indicator.17
4. The problems with goals
This section outlines and reviews several arguments against global goals as a means of changing
global behaviour, including the limited power of discourse versus self-interest, the problems for
local delivery and accountability, and the issue of finding agreement on the goals.
The first criticism goes to the heart of the effectiveness of goals as it regards compliance and
their universal nature. It states that the most accurate indicators and robust reporting may still
not elicit change if the powerful do not will it. Empathy, reputational costs and socialisation of
12 Drexhage and Murphy, pp.1,2.
13 See, e.g. Scholte, 2000.
14 Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011.
15 These include the ‘environmental accounting’ work of the World Bank, UNECA’s sustainable
development indicator framework for Africa, the UNECE/OECD/Eurostat Taskforce for Measuring
Sustainable development, OECD’s Better Life Index, and various national ‘wellbeing’ indexes. The majority
of these were inspired by the work of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission.
16 Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011, pp. 7-9.
17 For the ‘state of planet’ review see United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20),
2012, para. 56.
4

5. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
norms only go so far in the face of domestic political accountability, profit-making and personal
consumption. While lessons from other regimes are sometimes positive – states do, for
example, regularly submit to external monitoring and potential sanction on human rights and
trade issues – sustainable development may require far greater behaviour change and national
costs.18 The difficulty is intensified with global goals as there is no strict individual culpability if
they are not met. There is thus a strong incentive for free-riding.
Further research is necessary on whether global goals could be matched with innovative
compliance mechanisms that add to the discursive power discussed in section three. An
institution like the UN Global Compact regularly de-lists companies that fail to meet its criteria
and bans them from using its branding – this institutionalised ‘naming and shaming’ process
might still not be enough.19 To neutralise these realist arguments against global goals, it would
be necessary to find some kind of universal issue-link or lock-in mechanism that creates more
self-interested incentives beyond obedience to social norms.
The second criticism is from those who argue that the global nature of the goals is inappropriate
when sustainable development is driven by ‘resolutely local’ issues.20 Others suggest that that
while the goals could be global, national governments must have primacy on ownership and
accountability for the framework and delivery.21 This seems contradictory, but countries will
have to take different measures to ensure the world meets goals: this creates a problem when
the overall indicator of success is global, and the rewards of sustainable development may be
unevenly distributed.
While it is clear that local action must be taken to meet any SDGs, this does not necessarily
require local actors. A scaled-up Global Environment Facility would enable projects to be
initiated, financed and managed by different parties, as befits a global solution. National
governments may only be needed for their approval. Furthermore, global indicators could be
channelled into expectations for each nation, which could be monitored by a central global
body. This would still rely on the social power of goals and that nations would take action
despite the lack of coercion. The lessons from the MDGs are not particularly favourable: several
targets are likely to be missed and there will be no national or global accountability for this, just
unmet commitments. 22 Likewise, the OECD aid target of 0.7% is not met by many, suggesting
that reputation costs and domestic pressure is not enough to drive compliance.23
The third criticism deals with the process of gaining agreement on the actual goals, perhaps not
so much easier than agreeing on a comprehensive treaty. The SDGs have been proposed in an
atmosphere probably less cooperative than that of the MDGs. The latter were developed in the
late 1990s in a context of booming OECD economies and a uni-polar world, with trigger
pressure applied by faith-based campaigns providing the grass-roots support for large-scale
political anti-poverty commitments.24 Fifteen years on and power structures are changing: the
18 For example, the UN Human Rights Council, and stronger regional bodies such as the European or
Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. The WTO is exceptional at a world level in that it provides a
dispute settlement mechanism, but its sanctions are limited.
19 See www.unglobalcompact.org.
20 Victor, 2006, p.99.
21 UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (2011).
22 Melamed, 2011.
23 OECD, 2010.
24 E.g. The Jubilee 2000 campaign was a network of churches working with Oxfam et al.
5

6. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
world faces increasing multi-polar (or ‘non-polar’25) deadlock in institutions, and austerity in
the OECD region. Early meetings on the SDGs have suggested some difficulties regarding the
indicators and ‘regional particularity’.26 India is thought to be against quantifiable indicators.27
More positively, as pointed out by several NGOs, there is already much collective agreement on
the ‘goals’ of sustainable development - the next step is to prioritise them and support their
delivery.28 The original proposal by Colombia and Guatemala argues that since the Rio Summit
in 1992 set out the guiding principles and road map and the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in 2002 set out a plan of implementation, Rio+20 only needs to take the next small
step towards creating SDGs to encourage structured implementation.29
5. Conclusion
This essay described global goals and specifically the suggestion of SDGs at Rio+20. It then
developed the reasons for which goals, targets and indicators can change global behaviour, most
of which relied upon their discursive power. It argued that goals would be particularly effective
in the issue area of sustainable development, since they could help marry the tripartite realms,
reflect the multi-scalar action required and their indicators could shift the discourse of progress
beyond GDP. The essay then provided an overview of the weaknesses of global goals,
particularly with regard to free rider effects, confusion over levels of responsibility and action,
and the fact that agreement on indicators may be difficult to reach. The first of these is still the
most problematic.
Ultimately, whether global goals are perceived as effective will depend on whether a realist or
constructivist position towards international affairs is taken. However, given the growth of
‘global’ issues, which somewhat transcend nation-states (and realist theory), and given that
discursive power should not be underestimated, global goals are likely to be effective in
changing state behaviour. As Fuchs says: ‘discursive power precedes the formation and
articulation of interests in the political process...’30 While empirical evidence for behaviour
change caused by goal-setting is sparse, perhaps the fact that global goals are back on the
agenda, and have travelled between disciplines, is a sign that many people believe they are an
effective tool.
Further research into this area could investigate: the political will for the goals; the risks of
competition between development and environment activists; the legitimacy of the goals-
drafting process; the larger question of the most effective method for achieving sustainable
development; and opportunities or ideas for new methods to change global behaviour. Given
that there are merely three months to Rio+20, supporting sustainable development goals would
seem like a realistic and achievable starting point.
25 Haass, 2008.
26 Evans and Stevens, 2012; Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011, p.11.
27 Evans and Stevens, 2012.
28 World Future Council response, in UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service, 2011, p.8.
29 República de Colombia, 2011.
30 Fuchs, 2005, p.778, my emphasis.
6

7. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
6. Annex 1
Suggested sustainable development goal areas31
Theme Colombia/Guatemala (8) NGOs / CSOs (17) UN High Level Panel
(11)
Energy Energy, including Clean energy Energy
renewable
Consumption Changing consumption Sustainable Sustainable
patterns consumption and consumption
production
Commons Biodiversity and forests Biodiversity Biodiversity
Forests
Oceans Healthy seas and Oceans
oceans
Water resources Water Water
Food Advancing food security Food security
Sustainable agriculture
Social policy Green jobs
Sustainable Decent work and
livelihoods, youth and social inclusion
education
Combating poverty
Basic health
Climate Climate sustainability
Disaster risk
reduction
Resilience
Habitat Promoting sustainable Green cities
human settlement
development
Governance Subsidies and
investment
New indicators of
progress
Access to information
Public participation
Access to redress and
remedy
Environmental justice
for the poor and
marginalised
31High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012; UN Conference on Sustainable Development
Secretariat, 2012; República de Colombia, 2011.
7

8. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
7. Bibliography and works cited
Bond, Patrick, 2006, ‘Global Governance Campaigning and MDGs: From Top-down to
Bottom-up Anti-Poverty Work’. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 339-354.
Evans, Alex and Steven, David, 2012, ‘Sustainable Development Goals – a useful outcome
from Rio+20?’ New York, New York University’s Center on International
Cooperation.
Drexhage, John and Murphy, Deborah, 2010, ‘Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to
Rio 2012.’ Background Paper prepared for consideration by the High Level Panel
on Global Sustainability at its first meeting, 19 September 2010. International
Institute for Sustainable Development.
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, 1998, ‘International norm dynamics and political
change.’ International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 887-917.
Fuchs, Doris, 2006, ‘Commanding Heights? The Strength and Fragility of Business Power in
Global Politics’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.771-
801.
Global Environmental Governance Project, 2011, ‘Input to the High-level Panel on Global
Sustainability: Paradigms.’ Submission prepared in the context of Working Group II
of the High-level Panel of Global Sustainability. Available at
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/Input%
20on%20Paradigms.pdf, accessed March 28, 2012.
Gutner, Tamar, 2010, ‘When “doing good” does not: the IMF and the Millennium
Development Goals.’ In Deborah Avant, Martha Finnemore and Susan Sell, eds.,
‘Who Governs the Globe?’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haass, Richard, 2008. ‘The Age of Nonpolarity.’ Foreign Affairs, May 3. Available at
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63397/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity,
accessed March 28, 2012.
The High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012, ‘Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A
Future Worth Choosing.’ Addis Ababa, United Nations.
International Monetary Fund, 2010, ‘Reaching the MDGs: Macroeconomic Prospects &
Challenges in Low-Income Countries.’ Background Note by IMF Staff for the United
Nations MDG Summit. Available at
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/mdg/2010/091610.pdf, accessed March 28,
2012.
Melamed, Claire, 2011, ‘Creating consensus: political opportunities and barriers for a post-
2015 agreement on development’. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Melamed, Claire and Sumner, Andy, 2011, ‘A Post-2015 Global Development Agreement:
why, what, who?’ Paper produced for the ODI/UNDP Cairo workshop on a post-
2015 Global Development Agreement, 26-27 October 2011.
8

9. Joseph Mitchell Global goals for sustainable development – May 2012 @j0e_m
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, República de Colombia, 2011, ‘RIO + 20: Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) : A Proposal from the Governments of Colombia and
Guatemala.’ Available at
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/colombiasdgs.pdf,
accessed March 28, 2012.
Murray, Christopher and Frenk, Julio and Evans, Timothy, 2007, ‘The Global Campaign for
the Health MDGs: challenges, opportunities, and the imperative of shared learning.’
The Lancet, Vol. 370, Issue 9592, pp. 1018-1020, September 22, 2007.
OECD, 2010, ‘History of the 0.7% ODA Target’. DAC Journal 2002, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 9-11,
revised 2010. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/38/45539274.pdf,
accessed March 28, 2012.
Scholte, Jan Aart, 2000, ‘Globalization: A Critical Introduction’. London: Macmillan.
Turner, Ted, 2011, ‘Power in collaboration: advancing the Millenium [sic] Development
Goals.’ Harvard International Review, Spring 2011, pp. 74-77.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), 2012, ‘The Future We
Want - zero draft of the outcome document.’ Available at
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/futurewewant.html, accessed Feb 16, 2012.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Secretariat, 2012, ‘RIO 2012 Issues
Briefs No.6: Current Ideas on Sustainable Development Goals and Indicators’.
Available at
http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/218Issues%20Brief%206
%20-%20SDGs%20and%20Indicators_Final%20Final%20clean.pdf, accessed
March 28, 2012.
United Nations, 2007, ‘Millennium Development Goals Indicators: The Official United
Nations Site of the MDG Indicators’. Available at http://mdgs.un.org, accessed
March 28, 2012.
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service, 2011, ‘Summary Report: Civil Society
Consultation Conducted by the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS) for
the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability’. Available at
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/Summar
y_Report_-_UN-NGLS_Consultation_for_the_Global_Sustainability_Panel.pdf,
accessed March 28, 2012.
Vandemoortele, Jan, 2005, ‘Ambition is Golden: Meeting the MDGs’, Development, Vol. 48,
No.1, pp. 5–11.
Victor, David, 2006, ‘Recovering Sustainable Development’. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 85, No. 1
(Jan-Feb), pp.91-103.
9