Suchergebnisse

Implications of non-superpower and civilian use; policy options. Existing and planned satellite systems; what they can see; implications for US national security in peacetime, crisis, and war.

AbstractThe advent of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals has refocused global attention on the roles of business and other nonstate actors in achieving global goals. Often, business involvement takes the form of collaborations with the more traditional actors—governments and non‐governmental organizations. Although such partnerships for development have been seen before, the scale and expectations are new. This paper explores how and why these cross‐sector collaborations are evolving, and what steps can or should be taken to ensure that partnerships create public and private value. The arguments are illustrated with reference to cases of market‐driven partnerships for agriculture in Southeast Asia that are intended to engage marginalized smallholder farmers in global value chains in agriculture. The aims of these cross‐sector collaborations coincide with several targets of the Sustainable Development Goals such as poverty alleviation, decreasing environmental impact, and achieving food security. This is a hard case for mechanisms intended to protect public interests, given that the target beneficiaries (low‐income smallholder farmers and the environment) are unable to speak effectively for themselves. We find that structures and processes to align interests in ways that protect the public interest are both necessary and feasible, though not easy to achieve.

The advent of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals has refocused global attention on the roles of business and other nonstate actors in achieving global goals. Often, business involvement takes the form of collaborations with the more traditional actors—governments and non‐governmental organizations. Although such partnerships for development have been seen before, the scale and expectations are new. This paper explores how and why these cross‐sector collaborations are evolving, and what steps can or should be taken to ensure that partnerships create public and private value. The arguments are illustrated with reference to cases of market‐driven partnerships for agriculture in Southeast Asia that are intended to engage marginalized smallholder farmers in global value chains in agriculture. The aims of these cross‐sector collaborations coincide with several targets of the Sustainable Development Goals such as poverty alleviation, decreasing environmental impact, and achieving food security. This is a hard case for mechanisms intended to protect public interests, given that the target beneficiaries (low‐income smallholder farmers and the environment) are unable to speak effectively for themselves. We find that structures and processes to align interests in ways that protect the public interest are both necessary and feasible, though not easy to achieve.

To have a conversation, the appropriate language is needed. The language is just starting to emerge in both Asia and the West for one of the most important conversations the world is now having—the discussion about the future of business and capitalism. Thailand's King Bhumibol refers to the sufficiency economy. Harvard's Michael Porter speaks of shared value. Ellen MacArthur's eponymous foundation supports the transition to the circular economy. John Elkington proposes breakthrough capitalism. Bhutan's call to measure progress by gross national happiness (GNH), rather than the narrow metric of gross domestic product (GDP), is now attracting attention around the globe. The explosion of terms, concepts and practices takes us far beyond the familiar corporate social responsibility. All are efforts to grapple with the same issue: capitalism as we have known it is not fit for the 21st century. What is to take its place?

The lack of global consensus on how to deal with complex energy governance challenges has led to the emergence of information disclosure initiatives as governance tools in and of themselves. This article assesses the effectiveness of disclosure mechanisms as tools of energy governance by looking at the motivations and desired outcomes behind a series of disclosure-based initiatives in the energy sector, namely: making energy markets work more efficiently; inducing corporations to internalize their climate change externalities; and improving democratic processes that lead to better energy governance outcomes. The disclosure initiatives assessed in this article adopt different strategies to achieve their objectives, mobilizing either users of information or holders of information, with varying effectiveness. Where pressures for secrecy exist, voluntary disclosures without formal sanctions to incentivize compliance have limited impact. Where users of information are primarily mobilized as drivers of change, the disclosures have to be easily understood to have impact; this is no easy task when it comes to the energy sector. Disclosure mechanisms that use a strategy of engagement and building of wide networks have perhaps the best potential to influence (or pressure) holders of information to change their behavior accordingly. However,disclosure mechanisms underpinned by western-influenced values of governmental transparency may not be as effective in countries that lack democratic systems.

Since satellites started photographing Earth from space nearly four decades ago, their images have inspired excitement, introspection, and, often, fear. Like all information, satellite imagery is in itself neutral. But satellite imagery is a particularly powerful sort of information, revealing both comprehensive vistas and surprising details. Its benefits can be immense, but so can its costs.