Rio+20 and responsible capitalism: opportunities for Labour

We cannot rely on the market to create sustainable growth.

Next week, world leaders will meet in Rio de Janeiro to discuss how the global economy can tackle the joint challenges of global poverty reduction, social equity and environmental sustainability. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development marks the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit: hence the popular short-hand, "Rio+20".

For environmentalists, Rio+20 is one of the most significant events to happen for a generation. But that's precisely the problem. As long as it remains the preoccupation of the green movement, Rio+20 will deliver only a fragile consensus that will ultimately fail.

The natural environment is fundamental to supporting and supplying the basis of economic value. Yet we do not consider the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is a strategic economic priority. Part of the reason for this is because our conventional model of economic growth values short-term return and wealth creation, rather than long-term productive wealth. While we may increase GDP in the short term, our conventional approach to economic growth can actually reduce a nation’s wealth.

Ed Miliband recognised these limitations in a speech to the Social Market Foundation last year where he told the audience that rules that encourage wealth creation focus on "short-term returns not the productive creation of long-term value". A major consequence is that resource consumption and the loss of ecosystems are treated as a benefit rather than a cost. And communities, co-operation and equality are undervalued in favour of creating conditions to maximise consumption.

An important challenge for Labour is now to translate Ed Miliband's vision for a "new economy" into a shared understanding of exactly what we want, and need, from the economy - and to be clear about the measures that will ensure that this can be achieved sustainably.

For many years there has been a lively debate about how the transition to a "green economy" will happen. However, no one has successfully managed to align the green economy with the everyday priorities of people, business and politics. Nor has anyone managed to set a pro-growth agenda that is also clear about the long-term productive value of a sustainable economy.

Most would agree that our expectations for the economy include job creation; competitiveness; the fair distribution of resources and wealth; fair and affordable access to food, water and energy; and enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services. While these outcomes are complementary, much of the debate about our economic future has hitherto traded one aspect against another: green groups have one priority, business another, politicians another still.

Rio+20 provides a valuable political focus to continue work already underway on how Labour can address this. A question that the party might seek to answer is how we embed the three pillars of sustainable development - economic, social and environmental - into policy-making so that they become a natural by-product of the economy's total activities.

This would create huge economic opportunities for the UK - new green technologies, sustainable innovation, sustainability skills and sustainable investment products - all of which will also be instrumental in assisting emerging economies with the transition to a green economy.  

The Labour Party has a strong track record on the green economy. The world’s first Climate Change Act and the Climate Change Committee; the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy with its recognition of the concept of environmental limits; the Sustainable Development Commission; the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance and the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy are all good examples of the Labour government's successes.

The party's approach in government was based on an understanding that policy and regulatory intervention is necessary to correct the market failure of un-priced environmental costs and benefits - thereby reconciling the free market economy with environmental sustainability. It understood that a strong and robust economic-environmental policy framework would also encourage finance and investment in low-carbon, resource-efficient business operations and supply chains.

Green conservatism of the sought advocated by David Cameron is flawed in this respect as it fails to reconcile the free market economy with environmental sustainability. It relies heavily on "environmental stewardship", which typically values the natural world only in terms of its contribution to human well-being. It leave the environment detached from and irrelevant to the wider economy.

As Chancellor, George Osborne has resurrected the age-old argument that we need to choose between economic growth and the environment - despite stating in 2009 that he had "always considered this to be a false divide" and that "economic growth and environmental sustainability can go hand in hand". He is the cheerleader for the outdated view amongst Tory MPs that the free market alone can satisfy the long-term needs of the economy.

For the reasons Miliband identified in his speech to the Social Market Foundation, an over-reliance on free markets - and their short-term priorities - is not a viable response to the challenges we face.

He has therefore been absolutely right to distinguish between "productive" and "predatory" capitalism. If it can underline the links between economic and environmental sustainability, Rio+20 will represent a valuable opportunity for the party to develop further examples of how it would tackle predatory capitalism.

It’s a chance to challenge the limitations of Tory economic orthodoxy. Most importantly, it’s a chance to start thinking about how the next Labour government can deliver long-term growth and sustainable wealth creation, while at the same time improving human well-being, creating jobs, ensuring fair and affordable access to resources such as water and energy, reducing inequalities, and tackling poverty.

Danny Stevens is an independent environmental policy and political consultant and a Labour councillor in Hackney.
 
Tristan Stubbs works on climate change and development policy at the Overseas Development Institute.

Terena indians dance around a Brazilian national flag during the opening of the Green Games as part of the UN Rio+20 environmental summit. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Arsène Wenger: how can an intelligent manager preside over such a hollowed-out team?

The Arsenal manager faces a frustrating legacy.

Sport is obviously not all about winning, but it is about justified hope. That ­distinction has provided, until recently, a serious defence of Arsène Wenger’s Act II – the losing part. Arsenal haven’t won anything big for 13 years. But they have been close enough (and this is a personal view) to sustain the experience of investing emotionally in the story. Hope turning to disappointment is fine. It’s when the hope goes, that’s the problem.

Defeat takes many forms. In both 2010 and 2011, Arsenal lost over two legs to Barcelona in the Champions League. Yet these were rich and rewarding sporting experiences. In the two London fixtures of those ties, Arsenal drew 2-2 and won 2-1 against the most dazzling team in the world. Those nights reinvigorated my pride in sport. The Emirates Stadium had the best show in town. Defeat, when it arrived in Barcelona, was softened by gratitude. We’d been entertained, more than entertained.

Arsenal’s 5-1 surrender to Bayern Munich on 15 February was very different. In this capitulation by instalments, the fascination was macabre rather than dramatic. Having long given up on discerning signs of life, we began the post-mortem mid-match. As we pored over the entrails, the curiosity lay in the extent of the malady that had brought down the body. The same question, over and over: how could such an intelligent, deep-thinking manager preside over a hollowed-out team? How could failings so obvious to outsiders, the absence of steel and resilience, evade the judgement of the boss?

There is a saying in rugby union that forwards (the hard men) determine who wins, and the backs (the glamour boys) decide by how much. Here is a footballing equivalent: midfielders define matches, attacking players adorn them and defenders get the blame. Yet Arsenal’s players as good as vacated the midfield. It is hard to judge how well Bayern’s playmakers performed because they were operating in a vacuum; it looked like a morale-boosting training-ground drill, free from the annoying presence of opponents.

I have always been suspicious of the ­default English critique which posits that mentally fragile teams can be turned around by licensed on-field violence – a good kicking, basically. Sporting “character” takes many forms; physical assertiveness is only one dimension.

Still, it remains baffling, Wenger’s blind spot. He indulges artistry, especially the mercurial Mesut Özil, beyond the point where it serves the player. Yet he won’t protect the magicians by surrounding them with effective but down-to-earth talents. It has become a diet of collapsing soufflés.

What held back Wenger from buying the linchpin midfielder he has lacked for many years? Money is only part of the explanation. All added up, Arsenal do spend: their collective wage bill is the fourth-highest in the League. But Wenger has always been reluctant to lavish cash on a single star player, let alone a steely one. Rather two nice players than one great one.

The power of habit has become debilitating. Like a wealthy but conservative shopper who keeps going back to the same clothes shop, Wenger habituates the same strata of the transfer market. When he can’t get what he needs, he’s happy to come back home with something he’s already got, ­usually an elegant midfielder, tidy passer, gets bounced in big games, prone to going missing. Another button-down blue shirt for a drawer that is well stuffed.

It is almost universally accepted that, as a business, Arsenal are England’s leading club. Where their rivals rely on bailouts from oligarchs or highly leveraged debt, Arsenal took tough choices early and now appear financially secure – helped by their manager’s ability to engineer qualification for the Champions League every season while avoiding excessive transfer costs. Does that count for anything?

After the financial crisis, I had a revealing conversation with the owner of a private bank that had sailed through the turmoil. Being cautious and Swiss, he explained, he had always kept more capital reserves than the norm. As a result, the bank had made less money in boom years. “If I’d been a normal chief executive, I’d have been fired by the board,” he said. Instead, when the economic winds turned, he was much better placed than more bullish rivals. As a competitive strategy, his winning hand was only laid bare by the arrival of harder times.

In football, however, the crash never came. We all wrote that football’s insane spending couldn’t go on but the pace has only quickened. Even the Premier League’s bosses confessed to being surprised by the last extravagant round of television deals – the cash that eventually flows into the hands of managers and then the pockets of players and their agents.

By refusing to splash out on the players he needed, whatever the cost, Wenger was hedged for a downturn that never arrived.

What an irony it would be if football’s bust comes after he has departed. Imagine the scenario. The oligarchs move on, finding fresh ways of achieving fame, respectability and the protection achieved by entering the English establishment. The clubs loaded with debt are forced to cut their spending. Arsenal, benefiting from their solid business model, sail into an outright lead, mopping up star talent and trophies all round.

It’s often said that Wenger – early to invest in data analytics and worldwide scouts; a pioneer of player fitness and lifestyle – was overtaken by imitators. There is a second dimension to the question of time and circumstance. He helped to create and build Arsenal’s off-field robustness, even though football’s crazy economics haven’t yet proved its underlying value.

If the wind turns, Arsène Wenger may face a frustrating legacy: yesterday’s man and yet twice ahead of his time. 

Ed Smith is a journalist and author, most recently of Luck. He is a former professional cricketer and played for both Middlesex and England.

This article first appeared in the 24 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The world after Brexit