Mission control for the blue planet

This is a reduced version of The Business Times’ ESG Insights newsletter. Sign up here to get the complete version in your inbox every week.

??This week: The 194-page report by the Global Commission on the Economics of Water (GCEW) is a landmark call to action distilled from the work and knowledge of a small army of experts.

But out of the many names in just over three pages of acknowledgements – including Singapore President and Commission co-chair Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 32 researchers, six key experts and dozens of speakers at retreats and hearings – one stood out. That would be Commission co-chair Mariana Mazzucato, whose work on mission-oriented policy underpins the report’s recommendations.

With the GCEW’s endorsement, Mazzucato’s argument for government-led direction setting and shaping markets to serve public purposes could well be one of the past decade’s most influential ideas on how to confront large sustainability challenges.

The GCEW report highlights the urgent need to conserve fresh water. About 1.4 billion people currently live in “closed river basins” where demand exceeds supply for surface freshwater, also known as blue water. It is estimated that about 4 billion people experience severe water scarcity for some part of the year. If the world warms by 2 to 4 deg C, a further 3 to 4 billion people are projected to experience water scarcity.

The water crisis could lead to GDP loss by 2050 of 8 per cent on average, and 10 per cent to 15 per cent among lower-income countries. More than half of worldwide food production would be at risk.

The report calls for water scarcity to be addressed as a global issue and as a fundamental, organising principle for sustainable development. Furthermore, water needs to be better accounted for, considering not just blue water but also green water, or usable freshwater retained in the soil.

In terms of the approach, the GCEW has embraced Mazzucato’s concept of mission-oriented policies.

The approach runs through a couple of fundamental principles.

The first is that the government must deliberately shape markets to achieve efficient, equitable and sustainable goals. This is a shift from a purer market-based approach that opposes governments “picking winners” on the basis that such interference is inherently inefficient. But mission-oriented advocates argue that unfettered capitalism tends to maximise negative externalities, which hurts society as a whole and trend towards resource hoarding, which is inequitable, unjust and unsustainable in the long term. Waiting for markets to fail and then fixing them is, in fact, an inefficient way to achieve sustainable outcomes.

The second principle is that policies must be driven by missions that are ambitious but realistic, measurable and time-bound, and mobilise cross-sector solutions. The focus is on outcomes, not outputs. Outputs are tangible products or activities, such as building water treatment plants; outcomes are broad, long-term impacts of outputs, such as improved public health or increased access to water. The distinction is emphasised because an output-centric approach could lead to spending on unimpactful infrastructure.

Many of the tools used in the Mazzucato approach, such as conditionality, aren’t new. For example, many foreign direct investment agencies, such as Singapore’s Economic Development Board, are well acquainted with extracting jobs and investment dollars in exchange for subsidies.

But what makes the approach a bold departure from previous convention is its challenge to the idea that the government should take a back seat to the market. In Mazzucato’s world, the government needs to be at the front and in the driver’s seat, holding the steering wheel while the market engine turns the wheels. Subsidies and fiscal deficits aren’t necessarily bad if they accomplish the mission.

But that’s an if that might also bear the greatest risk for this approach. Just as an empowered government can drive great positive change, it could also cause great harm if it is pursuing misguided missions.

Yet by empowering governments to shape markets in the pursuit of sustainable objectives, the approach could also be its greatest risk. Suppose a government views protecting livelihoods and cost of living as a prime priority; running deficits to maintain expensive tariffs or fossil fuel subsidies could well be justified.

To create proper missions and strategies, good data is critical. The GCEW is calling for a rethink of how much water is consumed. The current recommendation of water requirements is 50 to 100 litres per person per day, based only on basic health and sanitation. But the GCEW also considered an economy-wide accounting that looks at water use in all sectors, including food and industry, for adequate human development. That measurement yielded a sharply higher estimate of 4,000 litres of freshwater per person per day for a “dignified life”.

Fundamental values are also essential. In the case of water, for example, the GCEW urged that “justice and equity must be at the centre”.?

??Top ESG reads:

1. The US$4.6 billion of labelled bonds raised in Singapore in the first half of 2024 was the second highest in the Asia-Pacific, MSCI reports.
2. Singapore industrial conglomerate ST Engineering has bagged a S$60 million design, build and operate contract for a smart city platform for Qatar’s Lusail City.
3. Maritime hubs in Asia could be potential consumer markets for green hydrogen-based fuels, says Lloyd’s Register Maritime Decarbonisation Hub’s Ahila Karan.
4. The Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants has launched a guide to help listed companies adopt the International Financial Reporting Standards’ sustainability disclosure rules.
5. A poll by Schneider Electric finds more than half of Singapore company respondents planning to invest at least S$700,000 in sustainable transitions over the next two years.

What do you think about today’s newsletter? Let us know at [email protected]. Sign up for the full version here.