Over the course of this series, we’ve established that the UNFCCC is not the end-all of global climate politics. Through the years, numerous outside organizations have forayed into the sphere of climate governance. These groups often specialize in other regimes (that is, different spheres of focus within the international policy space), yet some sense of overlap with the climate regime compels them to assist the UNFCCC with climate policy and discourse.
Often, these organizations comprise the world’s wealthiest and most powerful actors, as is the case of the G20 and the MEF. Continuing that trend, we’ll explore the impact on climate negotiations exerted by another one of the world’s most influential groups: the World Economic Forum (WEF).
About the WEF
The WEF is a non-governmental, non-profit organization that purportedly seeks to influence the trajectory of global issues “by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.” It connects members of different governments, businesses, academic circles and civil society to address challenges facing the world over. The organization convenes its Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland (1).
As noted above, the WEF is made up of thousands of stakeholders that span different industries, from technology to transportation. The WEF organizes these stakeholders into different ‘communities,’ such as the Center for Urban Transformation, the Chief Risk Officers Community, and the Fellows of the Forum, among others. Many of these communities find themselves inextricably linked to climate policy, which we will explore further below.
The WEF and Justice
Similarly to our previous discussions on the ethics of powerful and extremely exclusive clubs that determine international climate policy, numerous questions arise when examining the role of WEF in environmental politics.
The WEF can be likened to a large meeting space for, unsurprisingly, the global elite. Discussions about the power and influence of the WEF have existed for decades. Research about the WEF and other such ‘transnational elite clubs’ around the turn of the millennium posited that they are simply “part of a much wider international process of elite familiarization and fraternization, mutual education and, broadly speaking, networking” (2).
This characterization of such clubs is charitable, to be sure; it assures onlookers that the WEF and other such delegations are simply made up of motivated and powerful elites looking out for the best interests of — in this case — the climate.
At the same time, the very nature of a far-removed gathering of elites begs the question: Whose interests are they fighting for? Marxist theorists might contend that clubs like the WEF only serve to perpetuate the large-scale inequality present between the working class and the isolated elites. Should these groups be steering a ship filled with ill-gotten gains (3)? Some researchers argue that climate policy is being steered in self-serving directions by the WEF, accusing the group of stalling renewable energy policy and skewing public perceptions of climate science (4).
WEF supporters argue that the WEF and its members’ perspectives simply serve as an extension of the general public interest unburdened by delays and large-group consensus (3).
While it is important to inquire about the motives of elite clubs, it is also worth asking whether they are effective at all.
Research on the effectiveness of the WEF is split into two groups. One holds that the WEF is a ‘social myth,’ or more smoke and mirrors. A lot of mystique surrounds groups like the WEF (sometimes approaching the point of nonsensical conspiracy theories), but the WEF’s isolation from the rest of global governance also limits its power (3). By claiming that the Annual Meeting in Davos is the ‘room where it happens,’ the group must be secretive and largely moot. Otherwise, groups that are not part of the club may rightfully sound the alarm that decisions are made unjustly.
On the other hand, despite not influencing policy decisions directly, some research indicates that the power of the WEF lies in its rhetoric. Trends indicate that the WEF is responsible, in part, for mainstreaming and expanding discussions about globalization, competition between nations and their growth, and the idea of a shared global marketplace, to the point that such ideas are now strong norms (5). Such views, however, have drastic implications for the climate. Globalization and free trade are responsible for increased emissions, the spread of invasive species, and the loss of biodiversity, among other negative effects (7).
The WEF and Climate Policy
This guiding rhetoric is largely how the WEF influences climate policy worldwide. In 2019, for instance, the WEF issued a set of eight principles that sought to streamline business practices and sustainability in the face of the climate crisis.
The specific practices themselves, found here, aren’t as important as the power they hold. Researchers have posited that the ‘soft power’ of these guidelines has far-reaching implications for businesses across the world — especially in places where direct climate policy itself is weak (6). This call for sustainability may be one factor among many that have since seemingly driven sustainability to the forefront of business governance.
The WEF also consists of numerous communities with vested interests in climate policy. These include:
The CEO Action Group for the European Green Deal: A group of business owners that seek to ensure that Europe is climate-neutral by 2050 while investing in green technology and sustainable finance.
Urban Transformation Hub: A collaborative that discusses and researches solutions for sustainable city development.
Global Future Councils: A network of 1,100 researchers that attempt to provide data on current and future issues and solutions for mitigating them.
Chief Risk Officer Community: A platform for businesses in numerous sectors to collaborate on risk management strategies, particularly during and after strong global shocks.
Most other WEF communities have significant overlap with these initiatives, such as the Expert Network, the Global Shapers Community and the Civil Society communities.
One thing’s for certain: the WEF provides a torrent of information about climate change.
The jury is still out on whether the WEF is more than just a repository of data and superficial collaboration. However, it is worth being aware (and perhaps skeptical) of the fact that numerous elite clubs hold some sway in global climate politics, far from the prying eyes of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities.
***
Reyes, Al. THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM a Partner in Shaping History. World Economic Forum, 2019.
Stephen Gill, ‘Structural change and global political economy: globalizing e´lites and the emerging world order’, in: Yoshikazu Sakamoto (ed.), Global Transformation (United Nations University Press, 1994), p. 179.
GRAZ, JEAN-CHRISTOPHE. “How Powerful Are Transnational Elite Clubs? The Social Myth of the World Economic Forum.” New Political Economy, vol. 8, no. 3, Nov. 2003, pp. 321–340, https://doi.org/10.1080/1356346032000138041.
Woodworth, Elizabeth. “How the World Economic Forum Damages the Credibility of Climate Science.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 31 July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12533. Accessed 20 Sept. 2023.
Fougner, Tore. “Corporate Power in World Politics: The Case of the World Economic Forum.” The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy, vol. 2, no. 2, 2008, pp. 97–134, repository.bilkent.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/2c10ee41-b2f8-4064-8fd3-57c10d359626/content. Accessed 20 Sept. 2023.
Bruno, Sabrina. “The World Economic Forum Principles on “Climate Governance on Corporate Boards”: Can Soft Law Help to Face Climate Change around the World?” CORPORATE GOVERNANCE and RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, no. 1, Feb. 2020, pp. 37–55, https://doi.org/10.3280/cgrds1-2019oa8509. Accessed 10 Apr. 2020.
Zhang, Lin, et al. “Globalization, Green Economy and Environmental Challenges: State of the Art Review for Practical Implications.” Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 10, 15 Mar. 2022, doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.870271, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.870271.
Comments