The Founding Pillar of Good Governance
The capacity to do bad runs across all strata of society, from rich to poor. Every single one of us has the capacity to do bad. And this spans all organisational levels as well as the organisations themselves, be they governmental, academic, corporate, or even religious. However, we don’t all agree on what constitutes ‘bad’ - just as we don’t all agree on what it means to be ‘good’.
Doing good as opposed to bad relates to actions carried out in alignment with a moral imperative. And the execution of said moral imperative is guided by ethics.
Consequently, when speaking of ‘good’, we are inherently referring to an ethical aspect. Thus, in essence, Good Governance is Ethical Governance.
Let’s begin with a pivotal report, and then work our way through the setting, thus ultimately logically explaning how we got there. Because though I really would request readers pay attention to this particular post, I realise that some posts can appear requesting rather the investment of time to read.
So here’s Munisha Gupta’s ‘Ethics: The Founding Pillar of Good Governance‘ published in September, 20231, which begins by answering ‘What is…’ questions relating to -
Ethics provides a framework for individuals, groups and societies to make decisions and judgments about what is morally right or wrong in various situations.
Leadership refers to the ability and process of guiding, influencing and inspiring individuals or groups toward a common goal or vision.
Ethical leadership… emphasizes the importance of moral principles, integrity and responsible behavior in guiding individuals and groups toward a common goal or vision.
Sustainable refers to the ability to maintain or support something over the long term without depleting resources, causing harm, or compromising the well-being of future generations.
Governance… encompasses the mechanisms that guide and regulate the behavior of individuals or groups in positions of power and authority.
Sustainable governance… integrates the principles of sustainability into decision-making, policy development and management practices.
It then arrives at the title of the report -
‘Think of ethics as the strong base on which good governance stands. Just like a building needs a strong foundation to stay upright, good governance needs ethics to make sure decisions are fair, honest and consider the well-being of everyone‘
Ie, Good Governance is grounded in ethics. And as for leaders, they ‘do a good job’ when they tow the line of ethics -
‘… ethics are like the rules that leaders follow to make sure they’re doing a good job in managing things. These rules include being honest, treating everyone fairly and making decisions that help everyone. When leaders follow these rules, they create a strong and trustworthy way of running things, which we call good governance.‘
Next follows somewhat the redefinition of ESG -
‘Ethical behavior is a fundamental component of good governance… Social responsibility is a part of ethical behavior and good governance… Good governance ensures that ethical and socially responsible practices are followed consistently... ethics, social responsibility and governance work together, … contributing to a better and more just society.‘
And ethical dilemmas can in part be solved through enforcement mechanisms, though a more frequent solution travels through the balancing of rights and responsibilities, including -
‘Environmental Sustainability: Addressing climate change, resource depletion and pollution requires ethical considerations regarding the responsibilities of individuals, businesses and governments to protect the environment for current and future generations‘
And balancing rights and responsibilities really does travel far -
‘Social Media and Misinformation: The spread of misinformation and the impact of social media on public discourse raise ethical questions about responsibility, accountability and the potential for technology to influence public opinion.‘
… to even comprise corporate enterprise -
‘Business Ethics: Ethical challenges in the business world include issues like corporate social responsibility, fair labor practices, supply chain transparency and the balance between profit and social impact‘
The latter will probably be balanced through some conceptual, but ultimately completely arbitrary ‘fairness’, but we finally arrive with stakeholders and… even more responsibilities, all using a ‘holistic approach’ which is an Aesopian term for centralisation (as information is controlled through information clearinghouses) -
‘Addressing modernday ethical challenges requires a holistic approach that considers the perspectives of various stakeholders and seeks to balance innovation with responsible and ethical conduct‘
… thus ultimately leading to another required ‘balancing’ relating to innovation. The inclusion of accountability and transparency follows, both of which are key to unlocking solutions related to ‘ethical challenges’. But while transparency can be understood as being open and honest, thus serving a static purpose, accountability relates to responsibilities. And as these depend on their dynamic balancing against rights, and thus are inherently dynamic, all future updates related to ‘Good Governance’ must, by principles of elimination, arise from the ethical balancing of rights versus responsibilities. We then arrive with this AI sounding part -
‘So, maintaining an ethical balance means keeping both sides of the seesaw level. It’s about using technology in a way that helps us, but also making sure we follow ethical rules so that we don’t hurt others or do anything wrong‘
The paper lists various issues related to taxation, inclusive of a bullet point on ‘ethical oversight and compliance’, before listing various roles related to ethical governance, inclusive of advising and implementing a code of conduct based on ethical principles with compliance, whistleblower protections, auditing, and it even finds a space for the following note on board ethics -
‘… assist the Board in understanding their ethical responsibilities, managing conflicts of interest, and making decisions aligned with ethical principles‘
It even subtly hints that the ethical foundation might (ie, will) shift -
‘Continuous Improvement: Company Secretaries facilitate ongoing reviews of the organization’s ethical governance framework to ensure that it remains effective, relevant, and aligned with changing ethical and regulatory landscapes‘
And the conclusion finally summarises -
‘In conclusion, ethical leadership is not merely a concept but a powerful force that shapes organizations, cultures, and societies. It represents a commitment to upholding values, principles, and moral standards… ethical leadership… requires continuous self-reflection and a commitment to personal growth. Leaders must be willing to adapt and learn from their mistakes. Moreover, organizations need to create structures that support and reward ethical behavior‘
Consequently, Good Governance is rooted in Ethics and unlocked through two ‘keys’ relating to transparency and accountability. And while the former is a static call for openness, the latter emphasises ‘taking responsibility’, thus relating it to the broader, dynamic discussion on balancing rights and responsiblities.
And as both the regulatory and ‘ethical landscape’ will evolve, leaders must remain adaptable to stay effective. Consequently, changes to the ‘ethical landcape’ drive shifts in rights and responsibilities, leading to updates to ‘accountability’ practices. Thus, the core evolution of Good Governance lies in the continuous rebalancing of rights and responsibilities.
We previously discussed Good Governance, but the previous article primarily outlined its historical progression, ultimately leading to the derived principles; ‘Good Government Governance’, ‘Good Business/Corporate Governance’, and ‘Good Society Governance’ - with all three parties to trisectoral network governance covered through a derived Good Governance code.
And these are contemporarily relevant, as Keir Starmer’s first conference speech as Labour chief in 2021 made explicit mention of those three2, with plenty of supportive material on the topic in existence.
That substack post traced back the origins to 1992, and the World Bank. However, we will begin in 1994, a year which saw the ‘King’s Report on Corporate Governance’3 released in South Africa. And this document begins through -
‘The purpose of the report is to promote the highest standards of corporate governance in South Africa… guidelines of corporate governance cannot be cast in stone because of changing needs and circumstances. Hence, one of our recommendations is for the establishment of an on-going committee on corporate governance‘
… issuing a call to establish a mechanism to direct corporate governance change.
And this call is repeated through Chapter 21, first through item 2 establishing -
‘The Code of Corporate Practices and Conduct is a living document and is not intended as the law of the Medes and the Persians. It will always be a moving target with socio-political and economic circumstances changing as they do from time to time‘
… the dynamicity of the issue, item 3 then calls for the updating of the code, and the role of technology in this context -
‘The world in the 21st century is going to be a different one from the one in which we live today. Consequently, the Code must be constantly addressed and modified to meet changing circumstances - and change they will, particularly with the explosive advance of technology‘
Items 4 and 5 then issue not only the explicit call -
‘A permanent body should, therefore, be appointed to monitor The Code of Corporate Practices and Conduct and keep it up-to-date… Further, that committee must monitor how compliance with the code is progressing‘
… but also outlines the need to monitor for compliance. And Chapter 22 immediately follows on that note, outlining the role of media -
‘All stakeholders have an interest in ensuring that the corporation with which they are involved has a good system of corporate governance. The media have an important role in drawing public attention to examples of poor and good corporate governance‘
As to whom this should apply…
‘… companies listed on the main board of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange… the Code should be adopted by all the affected corporations‘
And the chapter finally concludes by linking the Cadbury Report.
Chapter 18 deals with Ethics, and this begins with the predictable draw on the previously mentioned ‘balance’ -
‘Most contracts concluded by companies involve mutual rights and obligations‘
… which will be the responsibility of the directors -
‘In a discussion document the Institute of Directors has stated: "It is the responsibility of the directors to determine the moral and ethical climate of the business.‘
And item 5 carries on, tackling the primary issue of ethics -
‘The ethical committee has tackled the question of ethics between the various stakeholders of a business enterprise... relationships between the various stakeholders and the impact of unethical behaviour by one stakeholder on the other on these stakeholders‘
… thus landing us with the philosophical ‘Other’. And this effort leads to -
‘… aspirational ethical guidelines for everyday events that may occur in business. This code of ethics is contained in a separate document and can be obtained from the IOD‘
And to that extent, ‘Companies should develop, publish and enforce codes of ethics‘.
The company further has ‘responsibilities to the community’ which appear… ripe for abuse, only to finally nail down the plan to… leave no one behind -
‘In short, it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that the company operates in a moral and ethical manner. The company can only do so if all its stakeholders operate ethically and morally as it has no mind of its own‘
‘The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance‘4 - also known as the Cadbury Report, referred to by the above - was released in 1992, and it details that the origin came through the Accounting Standards Board, through 3.11 adds that new standards will result, and that ‘it is essential, therefore, that the Code, in addition to being monitored, is kept up to date‘, making this similar to not only the South African call for monitoring, but also that it’s meant as a ‘living document’. We’re treated to several mentions of ‘good governance’ before Bank of England influence is made clear through item 4.20, while item 6.6 details -
‘While they (the shareholders) cannot be involved in the direction and management of their company, they can insist on a high standard of corporate governance and good governance is an essential test of the directors’ stewardship‘
Mention of ‘effective accountability’ is followed by several incidences of ‘good corporate governance’ in the first chapter alone, compliance with the code is outlined as a future prerequisite for LSE listing in 1.3 (thus, we here observe a third direct match with the South African equivalent).
And item 7.1 adds ‘The Committee’s proposals are mutually supportive and should be taken as a whole. The Code reflects existing best practice and few of our recommendations require legislation‘, in effect emphasising a holistic, legislative approach, before item 7.7 adds that ‘The way forward is through clear definitions of responsibility and an acceptance by all involved that the highest standards of efficiency and integrity are expected…‘
And as for those responsibilities, item 4.28 makes express -
‘So that shareholders are clear where the boundaries between the duties of directors and auditors lie, we recommend that a brief statement of directors’ responsibilities for the accounts should appear in the report and accounts, as a counterpart to a statement by the auditors about their reporting responsibilities‘
… that both parties should clarify their responsibilities. Item 4.29 then adds the fully expected call for a code of ethics -
‘We regard it as good practice for boards of directors to draw up codes of ethics or statements of business practice and to publish them both internally and externally‘
Finally, the Committee is revealed to have been launched by the Financial Reporting Council back in May, 1991… which was ‘established in 1990 with the principal aim of promoting best practice in financial reporting’56. But in 2012 the FRC took over the task of setting standards, and they now issue accounting standards in the UK7 as well… which they incidentally did in 2012, only months after having taken on the task8.
Another coincidence, it would appear.
The Greenbury report followed in 19959, which in its preface states - ‘The key themes are accountability, responsibility, full disclosure, alignment of Director and shareholder interests, and improved company performance‘, and this is followed by the January, 1998 report by the Committee on Corporate Governance10, rapidly accelerating the mention of ‘Good Governance’ and ‘Good Corporate Governance’…
… and the Combined Code11 seeking to merge the two arrived in May, 2000, subtitled ‘Principles of Good Governance and Code of Best Practice‘.
And at the 2002 request of Patricia Hewitt and Gordon Brown, the Higgs Review12 followed in 200313 which adds ‘The Review thus sets out an agenda for change that builds on the existing Code of corporate governance best practice‘, which of course was to be predicated on ‘high ethical standards’ - with ‘Principles of Good Governance’ attached in the annex.
The Higgs Review carried influence in international capacity. Here’s a Corporate Governance Charter out of Cyprus14 mentioning Sarbanes-Oxley (relating to Enron), the Higgs Report, all in context of Good (Corporate) Governance with an explicit inclusion of ‘adopting a code of business conduct and ethics‘.
But the inclusion of Sarbanes-Oxley is interesting, because what this all suggests, is that the progressive call for ‘Good Governance’ and thus ‘ethics codes’ through corporate took place… while the world was waiting for Enron.
But these efforts were further infused in somewhat unexpected ways, as the Higgs Review (and thus Good Governance principles) were also considered by the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority15 in May, 2003. Yes, the NHS.
And in a August, 2003 bulletin, courtesy of the NHS16 we see -
‘The various control systems extend down into the organisation but have high-level indicators which inform the board of progress against objectives, outcomes and risks. Clinical, organisational and financial indicators will enable the board to grip and govern wisely.‘
And speaking with hindsight - the NHS only went downhill from there17, and those promises were revealed to be nothing but hollow… but do read on before objecting on grounds of alleged health budget cuts by the Tories (who I certainly do not support either)…
Because the 2003 NHS Report to which the bulletin refers - ‘Governing the NHS‘18 - includes the term ‘Good Governance’ 12 times, draws in the Higgs Review, and speaks of monitoring the alleged progress (as outlined by the bulletin). I’m not completely sure how much was actually monitored, probably very little if anything at all initially, because the insertion of loopholes to be exploited down the road was the actual objective. Either way, the NHS expenditure around this time sharply accelerated19, while the number of beds… sharply declined20.
Set a target, measure, and penalise if target is missed. That was the template set out by Tony Blair’s ‘The Third Way’ in the chapter on ‘decentralisation’.
Which targets exactly were set, given the cost per hospital bed increased markedly?
And in 2005, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific of the United Nations21 set out to answer the crucial question - ‘What is Good Governance?‘22
I add this merely to document the timeline continuation, especially considering that octagonal chart was reused in EU capacity 6 years later23.
But let’s fast forward to a more contempory setting, and with a focus on quantity - not in-depth examination for reasons which should be obvious soon enough - we start in 2018, and the Lincoln International Business School, who publishing an article on ‘Governance, Values and Ethics in the 21st Century‘24, outlining - ‘Ethical leadership, a culture of good stewardship and embedded best values have always been essential attributes for good governance and long term success in every organisation‘
And out of South Africa in June, 2024 we have ‘Leading with integrity: Embracing ethical leadership for a better future‘25, which adds -
‘… ethical leadership in government promotes good governance, citizen participation, and social cohesion… ethical leaders on organisational level prioritise ethical decision-making, which reduces the likelihood of ethical failures, legal issues, and reputational damage‘.
The 2023 Globethics report26 titled ‘Cultivating Ethical Leadership‘ details the ‘Ethical Reframing of AI‘, ‘Higher education institutions participating in training for good governance and ethical assessment‘, and ‘African faith-based organisations trained in ethical asset management and ethical investments‘.
And we have further articles in context of spatial locality, with one titled ‘Good Governance: Reflections on Ethical Leadership and Political Transformation in Thailand‘27, ‘Citizens’ perspectives on ethical leadership for good governance in local government authorities: a case of Kinondoni municipality, Tanzania‘28, and ‘Ethical Leadership as an Imperative to Good Governance in the Public Service: The Case of Limpopo Province‘29 which is in South Africa…
… followed by ‘Ethical Leadership and Good Governance in Nigerian Local Governments‘30, a framework on ethical leadership in context of Good Governance courtesy of the Government of New Zealand31, and ‘Ethical Leadership and Good Governance‘ out of Namibia32.
And the Government of New Zealand even wrote a brief on the topic of ‘Good Governance’33, speaking of transparency, accountability, … and ‘values and ethics’.
We then have a paper courtesy of an Iranian Ethics Journal, titled ‘Relationship between Ethical Leadership & Good Governance in Public Organizations‘34, unbelievably followed by ‘Impact of Ethical Leadership on Performance of Government Parastatals in Afghanistan‘35, before rounding up this triplet through ‘Attributes of Ethical Leadership in Leading Good Governance‘36, courtesy of Malaysia.
And these are followed by ‘Ethical Leadership Between Governance and Human Nature‘37 out of Hungary, ‘Foundations of Ethical Governance: Nurturing Sustainable Leadership‘38 courtesy of India, and ‘Effective Governance through Ethical Leadership‘, brought to you by Canada39. All all these are explicit wrt Good Governance, and the role of Etical Leadership. And as is ‘Beyond Faith: Enhancing Good Governance and Leadership in Churches‘ from Kenya40, or alternatively have ‘Ethical Governance through Maqasid Shariah Perspective‘ which relates to Islam41.
And in corporate context, by 2023 Forbes had joined the call, publishing an article titled ‘The Five Pillars Of Good Corporate Governance‘42, which promotes much the same: ‘two factors (ethics and transparency) are vital to make good governance a reality‘
And as we established above - accountability relates to the dynamic, and thus serves as the driving factor of… evolutionary ethics.
Per the above, we have seen examples of Good Governance principles apply to education, local government, religion, corporate enterprise, political transformation, social justice, religion, healthcare, … what’s missing? Well, science is one… and this was addressed by UNESCO in 202143.
As for trisectoral networks, these count the public, private… and CSOs. And, yes - a set of principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practise apply to those as well44. Consequently, we have all types of stakeholders in international capacity, and partners of trisectoral network governance covered.
But we also have a UNODC education module45, stating that -
‘… based on the principle that every person or group is responsible for their actions, especially when their acts affect the public interest. It refers to the answerability or responsibility for one's actions so that systems exist for decision makers in government, the private sector and civil society organizations to answer to the public…‘
… collective responsibility in context of trisectoral networks is legitimate.
Next, we have a report from the ‘national membership association for governors, trustees, and governance professionals in England’s state schools and trusts‘46, stating47 -
‘NGA views ethical leadership as a cornerstone of good governance, and therefore good school leadership. Pathfinders tested out the resource and created the paths for other schools to follow to enable ethical leadership to flourish‘
And finally, we have a fund sourcing marketplace for NGOs48… stating that49 -
‘Leaders who are driven by strong ethical principles and values are better equipped to make sound decisions that promote the common good, protect the rights of citizens, and ensure social justice‘
I guess that marketplace is extremely convenient for the billionaire class, as they can shop for NGOs to financially support… without the NGOs necessarily grasping the genuine reason why, say, the Rockefeller Foundation forwarded said grant.
And if you failed to keep track of the above articles, here they are in list form. They all relate to Good Governance and Ethical Leadership.
Every - Single - One.
And these span academia, government (at local, regional, national and global levels), business, NGOs, education, leadership, and religion. And I could carry on listing examples, because this is a global initiative which works across all strata of society, and it applies to all stakeholders and all parties to trisectoral networks.
To say it’s been an uphill struggle to get people to latch onto the centrality of ‘ethics’ would certainly be no exaggeration. But principles of ‘Good Governance’ truly are everywhere once you look, and their implicit inclusion of the ‘ethical balancing of rights and responsibilities’… is ever the trustworthy companion50. Even on the Council of Europe’s own website.
The 12 principles outlined by the above Council of Europe link are further referenced by Illuminem’s article from May, 2024, asking the question ‘What is ethical governance and how to implement its principles?‘51. And beyond boilerplate transparency, accountability, sustainability, and openness to change (‘Planetary Ethics’ will ensure frequent updates), we also find a call for ‘ethics policies’, along with ‘a separate function that’s involved in decision-making whenever there’s a report on unethical conduct or a department that will ensure all values are implemented accordingly to promote an ethical culture‘
… ie, an ethics code with a corresponding enforcement mechanism52… and even an attempt to brainwash you through a cultural framework53.
And, by pure coincidence I’m sure, Nicholas Stern is a member of Illuminem54. The very same Stern who in 2006 penned the ‘Stern Review’55, the very report recommending that… the West commit collective suicide through Climate fanaticism.
Incidentally, the search term ‘ethics’ can be located 126 times throughout the report, which not only centers around the same ‘market-based approaches’ which so fraudulently were launched in 1992-94, but further includes mention of ‘stewardship‘, which in context of sustainability relates to Planet Earth, and thus the Earth Charter.
What I say is that there is absolutely no shortage of material, and it covers spatial matters, through the global, regional, national, and local.
It covers government at all strata of society, along with business (corporate enterprise), civil society organisations (inclusive of NGOs), and even scientific inquiry itself.
And through NGOs it covers intergenerational56 justice57, social58 justice59, and environmental60 justice61.
And as the 2020 report titled ‘The Art of Leadership in the United Nations‘62 reveals (courtesy of the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation) -
‘Management can, to a large extent, be taught, learned and implemented. Leadership, encompasses and requires management – but goes beyond it. It is an art whose quality builds on ethics, integrity and courage to uphold values and norms – and this is especially true for the UN. This nuance notwithstanding, leadership of an organisation such as the UN must also be managed, as partly articulated in the UN System Leadership Framework.‘
… principles of Good Governance - driven by ethics - are omnipresent in United Nations staff training material.
And Page 94 explicitly - and repeatedly - includes mention of this framework in context of systems thinking, but page 95 further makes clear -
‘The intent is to move away from assessing yesterday’s leaders, but foster talent that is the right fit, sent to the right place at the right time and represents UN’s diversity. The new talent pool should ‘reflect the world’ and consider talents from the private sector, government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)‘
… that they spit in the face of democratic principles. Page 114 repeats -
‘Therefore, leadership is not just good management. Whether they state it explicitly or implicitly, the contributions speak to UN leadership as uniquely grounded in integrity and personal ethics‘
… the call for the infusion of alleged ethics into UN Leadership function, before -
‘What are the implications of placing ethics and integrity at the core of leadership for UN recruitment and appointment practices? How can potential UN leaders in HQs and the field be better tested and selected for stronger, more ethical and more accountable leadership? In particular, what leadership attributes need to be better tested for with regard to the new generation of UN Resident Coordinators and UN Country Teams (UNCTs)? Consequently, if ethics and integrity are at the core of what UN leadership is or should be, how can these dimensions be further supported and safeguarded in the face of opposition and pressures?‘
… makes absolutely clear that the United Nations truly is an instrument of the planned, future totalitarian dictatorship, and that future governance centres around arbitrary definitions of Ethics, and thus -
Global Governance through Global Ethics.
Amusingly, though there’s no references to ‘Good Governance’ in the document, ‘good leader’ can be located 15 times, though I’m sure that in a future update they will eventually replace this with ‘dear leader’63. Probably around the time they rename the ‘United Nations’ the ‘The Democratic People’s United Nations’ in good autocratic fashion64.
And the alleged ethics generally come down to the ‘ethic of responsibility’, where ‘rights should be balanced with responsibilities’ as Tony Blair told us in his ‘Third Way’ Fabian Pamphlet, a message further amplified by Gordon Brown in 2020.
But this debate is deeply philosophical, and while this article draws on Martin Buber’s ‘I and Thou’65, this went challenged by Emmanuel Levinas66, whose concept of ‘Infinite Responsibility for the Other’67 prioritises the needs of ‘the Other’, effectively shifting rights to the collective, and saddling the individual with responsibilities. And Levinas inspired Hans Jonas, who through ‘The Imperative of Responsibility‘68 expanded this framework from focusing only on the collective (social justice), to also include future generations (intergenerational justice) and nature (environmental justice).
And Hans Jonas was repeatedly referenced by Hans Kung, whose life-long efforts on Global Ethics and a Universal Moral Framework cannot go ignored in this context. Similarly, Hermann Cohen’s69 neo-Kantian ‘Ethics of Pure Will’70 deserves later attention71, as it conceptually intersects with the fascist call for a ‘Will of Power’, Hitler’s call for ‘Will of Loyalty to the State’, and Stalin’s ‘Will of Common Good’.
The Cohen-Buber-Levinas-Jonas progression is particularly noteworthy. Hermann Cohen argued for Universal Moral Responsibility which from a 3rd person perspective emphasises universal and reciprocal moral obligations. Martin Buber’s ‘I and Thou’ presents a first person equivalent, but Levinas’s first person Infinite Responsibility does not assume reciprocity, thus breaking the symmetry of the reciprocal frameworks outlined by Cohen and Buber. Thus, Levinas posits that individuals have responsibilities, but not necessarily rights. And building on this philosophical asymmetry, Hans Jonas extends the concept of responsibility to include the environment and future generations, broadening the scope of ethical considerations.
Consequently, Levinas shifts individual rights to the collective (social justice), while Jonas extends this further to ecological (environmental justice), and temporal matters (intergenerational justice).
And Hans Kung then brought Global Ethics to the forefront of the global agenda, at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions.
And the three dimensions outlined above - intergenerational/social/environmental justice - you’ll find not only fully aligned with the ‘A Long-Term Vision for 2050’ outline in GEO6 by UNEP in 2019, but these three - social, economy, ecology - in fact are repeatedly outlined by the Sustainable Development Goals.
But we in fact discussed all three dimensions above, just after the Stern Review.
And as intergenerational justice relates to time, social justice relates to space (matter; individual-group), and environmental justice relates to nature we suddenly find ourselves in the company of David Tabara72 whose earlier works73 slightly rearranged descriptions, leading me to the conclusion that what he actually outlined back in 1999 was Wilber’s Integral Theory with a 3rd dimension - nature, or as this relates to (conscious) ethical evolution perhaps even Teilhard’s Omega Point by logical extension.
And, sure, I accept that you might see my speculation is perhaps a tad far-fetched. But then here’s Integral Ecology (courtesy of Laudato Si, thus the Vatican), Integral Economics (courtesy of the Pontifical Academy on Social Sciences, thus the Vatican)74, and Integral Well-Being (courtesy of an encyclical out of the Vatican)75.
Oh, did I mention that Hermann Cohen viewed religion as a vehicle for promoting ethical life, refined through scientific reasoning - and not as a source of mystical or supernatural truths? And did I mention that this logically aligns him extremely well with the Fabian Society on the topic of ethical socialism?
Herman Cohen further positioned himself on the political far left76, yet he disagreed with Marx in two key aspects - he objected to violent revolution (a stance similar to that of Alexander Bogdanov), and the complete elimination of private ownership, advocating instead for a moderated approach. But, like Marx, who often left key points undefined, Cohen did not specify the extent of this moderation, facetiously suggestive of a limit to private ownership of no more than 5 toothpicks.
But back to Wilber - here are his efforts on Integral Ecology77 and Integral Economics. And though he does not explicitly define the term Integral Well-Being, his work does comprise concepts such as Integral Life Practice78 and the Integral Guide to Healthy and Happy Living79, and his primary focus lies in mapping stages of development across all dimensions of the human experience - which supports the cultivation of human well-being.
Perhaps it’s not quite that far-fetched after all, eh?
And in 2006, Ken Wilber started his efforts to consider not 4 quadrants, but 880 zones81 introduced by his book, ‘Integral Spirituality’82. And these include a dimensional perspective - a first person versus third person view.
Thus, should you consider humanity as a whole from the third person perspective… this would allow for a conceptual balancing of humanity with nature through rights and responsibilities. Consequently, let’s return to Tabara’s figure above… leading to a description of a system through which intergenerational, social and environmental justice can be controlled… through the setting of rights (and responsibilities, though that may be silent), and consequently… Integral Ethics83?
And through the UNEP GEO-6 ‘A Long-Term Vision for 2050’ figure, it should be clear that while intergenerational, social, and environmental justice are addressed through social, economic and ecological dimensions, a fourth dimension appears to have largely escaped scrutiny. And this dimension of governance… or inductance, can be controlled through the integration of Global Ethics into every aspect of your life (including Neuroethics and AI Ethics), and the fusion of morality into not-so traditional religion and classroom Global Citizen Education.
And through the use of principles of elementary electronics, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars outlines a conceptual framework where conductance and resistance are inversely correlated. Consequently, the balancing of intergenerational (human well-being; resistance) and social justice (ecosystem service equity; conductance) is logically interconnected as expected - and these both depend upon the natural resource base.
Or you could call that environmental justice, should you prefer.
When viewed through the lens of ‘optimising the flow of ecosystem services’ - outlined as ‘conductance’ in the UNEP GEO6 figure above - the balancing of ‘human well-being’ (resistance) with the ‘natural resource base’ (capacitance) appears in perfect alignment with recommendation 3 of the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings, calling for us to ‘establish man’s balance within the environment for sakes of his health and well-being ‘in their broadest connotations‘‘.
And these three dimensions - E/S/E - perfectly align with the corporate Triple-Bottom Line84, Wilber’s 8 zones viewed through the lens of Tabara, and Sustainable Development Goals 1-15 as outlined by said UNEP GEO6 document, which further details the governance mechanism (inductance) not generally discussed, similarly outlined through conceptual ‘induction’ in Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.
And that (good) governance mechanism will be controlled through the ‘balancing of rights and responsibilities’ relating to intergenerational, social, and environmental justice.
And all this takes a solid grasp on ‘ethical leadership’.
Thank you