The system of international cooperation that emerged from the ashes of World War II is at risk. Multilateralism and the institutions that support it — including the WTO, the UN and the EU — are being called into question as more nations embrace inward-looking nationalism, leading in some cases to political instability and conflict.
So why are business and finance leaders not doing much more to combat these troubling trends?
Postwar history shows that global economic integration — including freer trade and higher cross-border investment — helps markets and societies to prosper, with health, education and life expectancy improving significantly in many parts of the world.
True, globalization has also produced major societal imbalances, which are fueling popular discontent, but rejecting it, as a growing number now do, threatens the very system that has helped to create wealth, combat poverty and expand the ranks of the global middle class.
Business and finance have arguably benefited the most from the open, rules-based international political and economic order, yet chief executives and chairpersons rarely use their influential voices to defend multilateralism and global cooperation.
This is partly because most private enterprises still focus on bread-and-butter lobbying, often via trade associations, in connection with national regulations and policies.
Similarly, corporate boards tend to deal with basic governance and risk-management issues, and seldom address broader geopolitical concerns — and when they do, directors are often unsure how to make a meaningful contribution.
However, in the face of increasing global disorder, business and finance leaders can no longer afford to be reticent. Instead, they should do three things to make a strong, renewed case for international cooperation.
For starters, they need to rediscover and recommit to the core values and principles of key multilateral organizations, principally the WTO and the UN.
These organizations embody the belief that, more often than not, countries will achieve better long-term outcomes by acting together than by going it alone.
In this regard, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made a persuasive case for a “networked multilateralism” that connects bodies such as his with important regional organizations and initiatives.
Second, corporate chiefs should formally endorse important multilateral private-sector initiatives.
The thousands of companies and investors that have signed the UN Global Compact and the Principles for Responsible Investment, for example, are still in the minority. Many more must step up and sign on.
Other important private-sector programs with a multilateral origin or orientation include the banking sector’s Equator Principles (originally from the World Bank) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
These and other similar initiatives help in two ways. Many of them — including the UN Global Compact — involve multi-stakeholder collaboration. In other words, they bring together the private and public sectors, civil society and other actors to address critical international issues such as the rule of law, global governance and climate change.
In addition, global policymakers frequently respond to these initiatives and coalitions by creating new possibilities for cooperation.
The UN, for example, launched an exercise in multilateralism with a financial twist: an annual investment forum designed to promote collaboration and deal-making between governments and institutional investors.
Finally, business and finance leaders should triple down on the new global sustainability agenda. This is arguably the best hedge against current threats, challenges and insecurities, and presents extraordinary opportunities to make a positive global impact.
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their associated targets are a blueprint for humanity and for the global economy. Achieving the SDGs would make globalization more sustainable and inclusive, while also effectively addressing the threat of climate change.
Private-sector organizations need to integrate the SDGs into their business and investment strategies, and not only for altruistic reasons.
The Business and Sustainable Development Commission previously estimated that companies and investors could unlock at least US$12 trillion in market opportunities by 2030 and create up to 380 million jobs by pursuing just a few key SDGs.
At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in January, the UN Global Compact and Pacific Investment Management Co (PIMCO) jointly urged companies, investors and governments around the world to make the SDGs a high priority and explore ways of financing progress toward them, including through new instruments such as “SDG bonds.”
Global cooperation is crucial for our common security and economic success, but it is under threat. By publicly supporting multilateralism, business and finance leaders can help to shape a more prosperous and sustainable future — for their organizations and the world.
Lise Kingo is executive officer of the UN Global Compact. Scott Mather is chief investment officer of US core strategies at PIMCO.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS