Sustainable Global Value Chains

The year 2015 marked a turning point for development policies: from a period when development efforts focused on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which encapsulates a much broader—and much more ambitious—set of seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The chapter explains the process that led to these ambitious goals, including by bringing the environment, development, and human rights communities together to develop a joint agenda. The chapter starts by illustrating how the international development arena is changing now that the SDGs have been adopted by all countries and a broad range of actors including governments, private sector and civil society are working on their implementation. Key differences between the MDGs and the SDGs are highlighted in order to stress the level of ambition and coverage of the SDGs, as well as the process that led to such ambitious SDGs. The chapter then highlights the main implications the 2030 Agenda is having and will continue to have on development models, including businesses and global and regional value chains. It does so by describing the integrated nature of the SDGs and the interlinkages and potential trade-offs that result from the social, economic and environmental components of sustainable development. It also underlines some of the key elements that need to be considered by policymakers when designing their development policies to implement the SDGs, taking interdependence into account and impact on developing countries. After going over the financing gap to implement the SDGs, the chapter highlights role of the private sector and of government officials in achieving the 2030 Agenda. Policies and processes that can help accelerate implementation are offered, while acknowledging that ‘one size fits all’ will not work, especially for LDCs. The role of international trade as an enabler of economic growth and sustainable development is then presented. The implications for global value chains, not only in economic but also in the social and environmental areas is reviewed before offering some recommendations for further research.

Sustainability is here to stay, with or without high level processes such as the UN Agenda 2030 or the G7 commitments. There is no dispute that any kind of development needs to be sustainable for the planet, including its 7.4 billion inhabitants, flora, and fauna, to survive this millennium. However, the costs, risks, methods, approaches and scope of sustainability are disputable. These how-when-where-who-questions have often been determined—albeit not implemented—at the highest political levels. In that respect, the G7 summits must be seen as trend-setters for the international sustainability discourse and as tracks ensuring the big-picture continuity of the topic. By zeroing in on the G7 summit in Elmau in 2015, this chapter confronts some of the most intriguing and, at the same time, most complex themes surrounding sustainability in the past decade: voluntarism versus state control; global development versus sectoral approaches; and national versus internationalised initiatives.

This chapter aims to provide an overview of the evolution and incorporation of sustainability in international law from the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment to the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, considering the role this field of law plays regarding the delicate balance between environmental protection and socio-economic development. The World Commission on Environment and Development published “Our Common Future” also known as the “Brundtland Report” in 1987, in which it defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 41). When we examine the evolution of sustainable development from 1972 to 2002 when the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development took place, it can be described as a developmental process by which resources are deployed to meet the needs of people while ensuring preservation of the environmental quality and socio-economic growth, with an ultimate objective of meeting the needs of the present and future generations. With emphasis on intra and inter-generational equity, sustainable development is advanced as a response to the achievement of a more equitable balance between social, environmental and economic development (Cordonier Segger and Khalfan 2004; Zengerling 2013).

Sustainable development has only recently manifested itself on the political agenda of the European Union (EU). The purpose of the founding of what we now know as the EU, namely the European Coal and Steel Community and later the European Economic Community, was to create economic interdependence and peaceful relations on the post-WWII European continent. Interdependence and economic integration have led to a unique legal and political order. The EU today is significantly more than an international organisation and takes on almost nation-state-like structures; however, it cannot quite be characterised as such. Unlike any other organisation, the EU is commissioned with a large variety of competences, ranging from the customs union to a shared competence in environmental legislation. Based on these competences, the EU can be described as a “quasi-state” (Schmidt 2006). This characterisation results in obligations that other organisations may not have. As an independent legal and political body with direct influence in all EU member states as well as influence on their trade partners, the EU must act towards making a difference when the globally-defined goal is to achieve greater sustainable development in all sectors, as is intended with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This chapter will examine the links between sustainability and trade, and explore how sustainability issues are dealt with in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), with special emphasis on labour issues. Recently, the discussion of whether FTAs contribute to or rather undermine countries’ efforts to improve the sustainability of their economies has become very controversial. Sustainability issues have not been dealt with explicitly in Free Trade Agreements for a long time. Efforts by the US and the EU to put labour standards on the agenda of the world trade negotiations beginning in 2001 failed due to the resistance of developing countries. They feared at the time that the issue would be used for protectionist purposes only, and would hinder the use of their comparative advantages, namely their low labour costs.

Value chain development (VCD) is the conscious effort to address coordination failures and common environmental and social problems in a specific economic subsector. Essentially, VCD engages private enterprises and public actors in a long-term effort to build better institutional structures. “ValueLinks 2.0” is a VCD methodology and a systematic collection of tools to support this joint capacity building. It uses the experience of GIZ in tracing the boundaries of a value chain, analysing its structure and sustainability, and providing strategic orientation for its development. ValueLinks 2.0 also helps devising VC solutions, from business model innovations to agreeing on rules for markets.

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the general feeling in German industry and business sectors that the concept of sustainability is gradually moving from voluntary to mandatory. The German government is increasingly becoming directly involved in the day-to-day business operations, particularly in the fields of sustainability. As a result, the burden of compliance for companies is growing rapidly. The chapter asks the question “is sustainability becoming mandatory in Germany?” and answers this by drawing together the author’s experience-based evidence from working with a broad range of industrial and business entities in the fields of large industrial facility licensing, technical due-diligence and corporate social responsibility; as well as the development of workplace safety, quality, environmental and energy management systems.

This chapter aims to discuss sustainability in Australia with respect to its national energy policies. In particular, the chapter aims to give an introduction into what the Australian government has done to facilitate the transition towards furthering renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency, particularly by focusing on the Renewable Energy Target (RET).

This chapter will discuss the bread supply chain in countries facing the challenges of food security and sustainable development. The focus will be on the Middle East and North Africa (known as the MENA region). In this area, wheat is a dietary staple, making it a powerful tool for governmental food security policies. Based on the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), this region includes: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, the West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen. This region is the world’s most dependent on food imports, and its countries are among the world’s largest importers of wheat (Breisinger et al. 2010). Additionally, its population almost tripled in 50 years, and its freshwater and arable lands are diminishing, becoming more vulnerable to climate change. Some countries in this region have recently witnessed a series of political changes, ranging from peaceful demonstrations to civil wars; the so-called Arab Spring, political instability, and terrorism severely affected this region’s economies (Ianchovichina et al. 2015). Some countries, like Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq, are still affected by conflicts, which are considered the main drivers of food insecurity (FAO 2015). Other countries, such as Egypt, the most populated country in the region, overcame these conflicts and have started to recover. Before the uprising, Egypt’s food security had been maintained since 1956 thanks to its food and energy subsidy programme. After the uprising, however, Egypt was urged out of necessity to adopt a new development model that could deal with contemporary challenges and restore security. As a result, the new regime introduced an agenda for sustainable development known as the Sustainable Development Strategy: Egypt Vision 2030 (SDS 2030). When discussing food security in Egypt, wheat is the backbone of the food system, representing 51% of the total daily caloric intake. Therefore, a secure and stable wheat/bread supply chain is essential to maintain food security, which has forced some governments to exercise control over the supply chain. With this view, this chapter has the following objectives:

As the preceding chapters should make clear, we are still far from anything resembling sustainable production and consumption of agricultural commodities. In spite of the growth of sustainability initiatives and tools such as Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS), and the certification schemes that drive their adoption, grave sustainability problems persist. How can this be? This chapter takes a step back, and asks why our current approaches to sustainability fail to have the impact we might expect—and should demand. It describes the unsustainable nature of our global food system, and how this is a logical outcome of the way this system is organised. A transition towards sustainable agricultural sectors, we argue, can only be successful if initiatives manage to affect the broader forces which shape agricultural sectors. Adopting a more comprehensive approach is the logical next step—and a critical one. Fundamental to this approach is the understanding that there is no single ‘silver bullet’ approach, but that instead the levers for change differ based on the dynamics of a sector, and that these also change based on the progress of the sector as a whole.

An essential contribution to sustainable development is the integration of environmentally and socially responsible practices into globalised economic systems, including highly branched supply chains spread across developed and developing countries. Due to the complexity of global production networks, a further increase of social and environmental risks is to be expected. To mitigate these risks, existing sustainability governance instruments need to be analysed, evaluated and further developed; new instruments need to be generated against the background of experience and conclusions from previous initiatives. This chapter presents a systematic literature review conducted on behalf of GIZ, aiming to accumulate and expand knowledge on major governance mechanisms for sustainability in global supply chains (Fischer and Jentsch, Ergebnisse der Studie “Einflussmechanismen für Nachhaltigkeit in globalen Lieferketten”, working paper no. 29. Institut für Technologie und Arbeit e.V., Kaiserslautern, 2016). The chapter elaborates especially on private regulation as one of the governance instruments, which is currently gaining greater importance in sustainability related public, scientific and political discourse. The study findings were exemplified and interpreted taking into consideration the aspects of effectivity and legitimacy of private standards as well as the key factors of influence on their design, application and impact.

For a number of years, global value chains have been under pressure from multiple stakeholder groups to become more sustainable. Specifically, companies at the end of value chains, such as manufacturers, brands, and retailers, need to translate market needs in terms of sustainability into efforts in their sourcing strategy. Alongside price and product quality, the process of creating a product demands ever more attention. This is especially due to the fact that positive impact and progress on environmental and social aspects can be realised early in the value chain at farming, mining and processing levels.

For many years, concern about the environmental and social consequences of global production and trade was not very high on the public agenda. The collapse of once abundant natural resources, such as the Grand Bank cod fishery in 1992, the disaster at Rhana Plaza in April 2013 that led to the deaths of more than one thousand workers in the garment industry, and many other examples have increased awareness among consumers and industry. They have realised that global production and trade have unintended environmental and social effects that need to be controlled. Sustainability standards are broadly accepted as an instrument to mitigate or avoid these effects. The compliance with certain standards has become, in many sectors, a de facto ‘licence to operate’. Thus, it is not a surprise that environmental and social standards ‘pop up’ all over the world and in nearly every sector: as of October 2019, the Ecolabel Index lists 463 ecolabels in 25 industry sectors, around two thirds of which emerged in the last decade (Poynton 2015). They are set by different organisations, build on different system architectures, and often reflect individual histories. On the demand side, the need for transparent and secure value chains has become so high that a completely new business segment has developed: the offer for certification, auditing, and consultancy services around standard implementation has developed into a highly competitive and steadily growing market.

The number of sustainability standards has been steadily increasing over the last 30 years, with more rapid growth especially between the years 1990 and 2010. As of October 2019, the Ecolabel Index lists 463 ecolabelling systems in 199 countries and across 25 industry sectors. Ecolabel Index defines ‘ecolabel’ as “A sign or logo that is intended to indicate an environmentally preferable product, service or company, based on defined standards or criteria”. These schemes represent a wide range of types, from single issue, Life Cycle Assessments, to private and government standards. This chapter focuses on voluntary sustainability standards (VSS), many of which are associated with ecolabels. We define VSS as “non-governmental, voluntary, usually third party-assessed (i.e. certification) norms and standards relating to environmental, social, ethical and food safety issues, adopted by companies to demonstrate the performance of their organisations or products in specific areas”.

In this chapter, we examine the broad contours of the science of sustainability evaluation through a look at some of the dominant approaches in use today. By approaches, we mean an “integrated set of options used to do some or all of the evaluation”. While there are many elaborate ways to classify evaluations (e.g., purpose, methodology), here we restrict our review to those that are most commonly used to measure sustainability and subdivide approaches as primarily experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational. This is not intended to be a definitive guide to all evaluation approaches, but rather a concise attempt to navigate the tricky world of sustainability evaluation through a pragmatic and selective review of those that are most frequently employed within an agricultural development context.

What is transformational change? Can we define it? Can we measure it? Will we know a transformational change when it occurs? In the book Soonish (Weinersmith and Weinersmith 2017), the authors discuss transformational technologies: Ideas such as asteroid mining and cable cars that run up into space require technologies whose times have not yet come, but represent important ways in which the world’s existing woes—including the problem of resource constraints—may be solved. Most multilateral development agencies aim for change that is ‘transformational’ or that ‘shifts the paradigm’. Arguably, transformational change has become the holy grail in development assistance. Most development and environmental aid agencies aspire to support transformational change, referring in turn, at least in spirit if not in letter, to something that will change the way our work is done or the way we think about the impact of our work (Levine and Savedoff 2015). Despite this, definitions of what constitutes transformational change remain elusive, resulting in the near absence of evidence related to transformational change. In this chapter we discuss some experiences of organisations that have aimed to define and measure transformational change. We then discuss whether or not these definitions are necessary and sufficient, and explore potential ways in which measurement may occur.

This chapter aims to identify and discuss key factors that influence the effectiveness of different types of commodity standards for reaching development goals. We focus on the international value chains of tropical agricultural commodities that are characterised by a large number of smallholder suppliers and major upgrading activities located close to market outlets. Consequently, competitive relationships tend to be rather unbalanced, and value added distribution is biased towards the downstream side of the supply chain (Kaplinsky and Morris 2001). This implies that value chain dynamics is strongly influenced by (a) the contracts and rules that enable exchange relationships along the supply chain; and (b) the governance mechanisms that support stakeholder interactions within the supply chain.

Performance Monitoring has evolved as a powerful sustainability measurement tool for supply chains. It allows managers to look beyond providing services or investments to actually understand the outcomes generated in the field. COSA and WDI help organizations to apply technically functional Performance Monitoring tools within diverse supply chains. Even with the sometimes difficult circumstances in developing countries, Performance Monitoring can provide information feedback loops so that managers can track sustainability performance throughout the project lifespan and thereby improve the likelihood of having successful outcomes. This chapter examines the challenges and benefits of implementing Performance Monitoring in supply chains, offers best practices in implementation, and illustrates lessons and limitations with case studies of the tool in use.

With the passing of the 30th anniversary of the famous mile stone in the establishment of a sustainable future for our planet—the Brundtland Report—and its appeal to meet “the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 41), it is time to recapitulate on the efforts taken. The latest Living Planet Index visualises again how fragile the state of the planet still is, and which continuing losses to the natural environment this world is still facing (WWF 2016). This impact of humanity is dramatically interfering with the environment and will lead to an even higher degradation of global ecosystems in the near future. The current trend of misuse and misallocation of resources makes it clear that an urgent shift to greener management of environmental and economic activities is needed. However, while there is obviously a need for the establishment of a green economy and a transition to global sustainable development, a clear, universal path to a successful green economy has yet to be defined (Allen and Clouth 2012).

In tackling the complex sustainability challenges of any sector, we promote a systemic approach; aiming to understand the particular dynamics which drive continued unsustainable behaviour in a sector, despite seemingly disastrous social and ecological outcomes. Only through a systemic approach—working with stakeholders throughout the value chain to build local systems and an enabling environment in which farmer professionalism and sustainable production practices are rewarded—can we erode the barriers to sustainability, and transform our food systems. In this chapter we set out a conceptual framework for the development of actionable, holistic approaches towards sustainability. With it, we strive to explain the importance of determining the phase of a given sector on the path to truly responsible production, and understanding how this maturity alters a sector’s dynamics. Consequently, we have sketched out how to achieve the transitions between each of these phases in a number of real-world case studies.

At a time when I had only been engaged in the palm oil sector for a few years and had supported the establishment of criteria and certification rules for the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), I thought I could check out any time I liked and move on to a next commodity sector. It was 2007 and I couldn’t have been more wrong; more than ten years later, I feel I can never leave. The involvement of an international social/development perspective in the palm oil sector remains highly needed, despite significant progress made through the voluntary standards approach, which is reaching a fragile but critical mass in the sector. This chapter will argue that in order to achieve positive impacts for both people and sustainable development, there is a need for continued efforts and for better embedding market transformation in wider sector changes and landscapes. There are exciting and encouraging new developments, for example, the financial sector providing an extra push and governments actually taking up their responsibilities.

The coffee sector has come a long way in organising itself and driving sustainability forward. Coffee is regarded as a pioneering commodity where voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) have reached the mainstream (Reinecke et al. 2011). Today, more than one third of the global coffee production meets one or more sustainability standard.

The goal of this chapter is to discuss various implementation challenges of current cocoa certification schemes at the farm level in West Africa. To this end, the chapter presents a selection of certification criteria (requirements) from the two leading certification schemes: UTZ Certified and Rainforest Alliance. The criteria selected exemplify typical implementation problems in the West African cocoa sector, though they are by no means an exhaustive list.

Bananas are the second most frequently consumed fruit in Germany and the country is among the top four banana importing countries worldwide. Thus, Germany represent a significant market for exporters and retailers of this tropical fruit. The related consequences of production, trade and marketing of bananas are, however, familiar only to a fraction of consumers. Particularly the negative impacts caused by banana production, which farmers, workers and surrounding communities are exposed to, are manifold. They include health and labour rights issues, deterioration and erosion of soils and watercourses, as well as social and financial inequities. These challenges are addressed in different international and national initiatives, some of which have developed standardised certification systems for farms and plantations. While considerable progress has been made, many social, ecological and economic challenges in major exporting countries remain. Due to this, the multi-stakeholder initiative Action Alliance for Sustainable Bananas, which will be introduced in this chapter, was founded at the end of 2014.

This chapter aims to discuss the role, means and success of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) system in transforming the global forestry sector.

Natural rubber is grown on 12 million hectares of tropical land; about the same as coffee. Yet whereas coffee was a pioneer commodity in the sustainability movement and it has become embedded in the sector, rubber has hardly progressed beyond the inception stage. The need for improved economic, social and environmental practices is as strong as in any commodity. Major companies holding concessions have been exposed for unacceptable practices towards local communities and clearing of natural forest. A large majority of producers are smallholders, whose yields are below the potential volume and quality that could be obtained with improved harvesting and processing.

This chapter provides an in-depth overview of the concept and objectives of responsible mining. The chapter offers a system of responsibility criteria for the strategic management of extractive companies and the formulation of crosscutting management policies which would consider the multifaceted interests of major stakeholders. Following the discussion in this chapter, the authors drew a number of conclusions regarding the outlook of responsible mining in countries with economies in transition.

This chapter aims to discuss the social, health and environmental impacts of artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) in Ghana in the context of sustainability vis-à-vis voluntary sustainability standards (VSS). Mining has played a crucial role in the development of human civilisation; in part by providing precious metals such as gold and silver, which are coveted by many cultures. Such was the value placed upon them that they were used as a universal currency for almost three millennia, stimulating global trade growth (Hruschka and Echavarría 2011).

The automobile sector has been receiving clear signals to reorganise and reinvent its value chain, but the ecological impacts of vehicles remain controversial. While there is a clear trend towards environmental risks being taken into account in strategic business decisions, original equipment manufacturers in the automobile industry struggle to account for these concerns, especially in early stages of the value chain. This chapter builds on prior in-depth studies and compares the different initiatives of green supply chain management of three of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers. It discusses the underlying drivers of managing environmental issues in the supply chain and concludes with assessing their potential to transform value chains of this mega-industry. The supply chain has become the central place where competitive advantage and environmental innovations can be realized. Still, more action is needed when it comes to an industry-wide approach towards environmental responsibility covering the entire value chain, not only for manufacturers to become business leaders, but to effectively mitigate environmental impacts.

Growing demand for tourism in an age of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore 2011) and deepening concerns about the environmental, social and economic consequences of travel are threatening and transforming conventional models of global value chains (GVCs), a concept at the heart of traditional approaches to economic development. The notion of sustainability, which at its centre focuses on equity and the redistribution of political and economic power, combined with exponential changes in communication technology are at the foundation of revolutionary change in how we conceptualise GVCs in the context of tourism.

This chapter presents the localg.a.p. concept of GLOBALG.A.P. and explores why this concept represents a novel solution for the agro-food industry. Today, the world’s leading retailers trust GLOBALG.A.P.’s ‘Integrated Farm Assurance’ (IFA) standard. The IFA standard has proven to be the option of choice in Europe and its rate of adoption by members all over the world is constantly growing. Therefore, the IFA standard is viewed as the minimum food safety and sustainability requirement to be implemented and certified worldwide at the farm-gate. This is achieved by constant demand and support of all GLOBALG.A.P. Members.

The title of this chapter is “Cui bono: Who Stands to Gain?”. In the context of certification, the answer is “all participants in the value and supply chain”. However, currently not all do. If this outcome is to be achieved then a new approach within current systems is required, particularly for smallholder tree-farmers.

The group certification concept is well established and consistently implemented under various certification schemes, such as organic. There is a common understanding of scope, principles and common criteria for group certification. Implementing an Internal Control System (ICS) is the centrepiece of group certification, allowing the certifier to delegate the monitoring of standard compliance of single group members to the ICS of the group; whereas the certifier evaluates proper functioning of the ICS when conducting the annual on-site inspection of the group. Finally, and based on a well-functioning ICS, the certifier issues a certificate authorising a group’s products to be labelled in line with applicable (organic) standards. Centralised marketing is compulsory, the certificate is issued to the entire group, single group members may not use the certificate. Group certification is opening the door for small scale farmers to access specialised markets such as regulated by sustainability or other quality standards. Targeted training programmes for groups’ representatives are needed to support implementation of group certification. In addition, and to create robust ICS systems, groups need appropriate software tools to ensure that all necessary ICS procedures throughout the workflow are applied consistently and documented in a verifiable manner. These tools must be affordable for grower groups, designed for global use, and suitable to administer certification according to various standards.

Smallholder agriculture is a critical part of the global food system—making up more than 80% of all farms worldwide (FAO 2014). Yet many of these smallholders are economically vulnerable, living below the poverty line and often facing seasonal food insecurity. These smallholders are diverse, producing high value export crops such as coffee and cocoa, crops for local and regional markets, and food for home consumption. To date, companies who trade with smallholders as well as development organisations and public agencies have primarily focused on how to invest and adapt trade to increase incomes and reduce poverty. In recent years, however, more and more companies and development organisations are looking to move their work with smallholders beyond reducing poverty to something more aspirational, such as a ‘living income’ for farmers where they are able to consistently invest in their farms and family and where returns attract the next generation of farmers.

This chapter aims to give an idea of the complexity around the global discussion about zero-deforestation. The issue of eliminating deforestation from global supply chains involves everybody—from governments in producing and consuming countries, both small and large scale agricultural producers over companies all along global supply chains, to civil society organisations and consumers. Deforestation is associated with environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem integrity, and social issues such as land conflict, environmental justice and food security. About 55–80% of global deforestation is driven by agriculture. A major share of commodities stemming from recently cleared lands is exported, also to the EU. Facing serious operational and reputational risks, many international companies have therefore committed themselves to deforestation-free supply chains. These voluntary self-commitments are usually implemented through the exclusive purchasing of commodities certified according to internationally recognised sustainability standards, among them multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). At the same time, governments of both producing and consuming countries are discussing how to frame supply chain initiatives for forest protection through policies and regulations.

Meadows et al. (1972) already stated in their report ‘Limits to Growth’ for the Club of Rome that the resources that are a part of the biosphere are not endless. The authors showed that mineralogical and energetic resources as well as agricultural land would be depleted within some decades if no changes in consumption patterns occur. Even though some of the assumptions of the authors have been indicated as too pessimistic, this report was a milestone in the discussion about the global distribution and use of resources. One hypothesis of the report was that more and more resources will be distributed asymmetrically, which will lead to severe geopolitical imbalances, inequity and finally to conflicts or even wars for resources. On the other hand, it has been indicated that finite resources could be used more sustainably (Sachs and Santarius 2007). The background of this idea was the assumption that there is a direct relation between the use of resources and economic growth (Sanden et al. 2012; Atkinson and Hamilton 2003). The validity of this relationship has however been subject to increasing scrutiny. A study by von Weizsäcker et al. (1998), nicknamed ‘Factor Four’, for the Club of Rome, indicated numerous possibilities to reduce the use of resources by a factor of four. A subsequent study by Schmidt-Bleek (2000) went further and called for a factor of ten for the possible decrease in the use of resources. Decoupling the use of energy and economic growth is possible; this is proven by the example of Germany, where over the last few years less energy is being used, but relevant economic growth can still be observed (BMWi/BMU 2012). One major factor of improving the ecological balance of consumer products would be the extension of the product’s life-span. But it seems that modern consumer products last just as long as there is a product guarantee. This benefits the producers, because consumers are forced to buy new products. This phenomenon is discussed under the term ‘planned obsolescence’ and is known since the ‘Phoebus Cartel’ of light bulb producers, which existed between 1925 and at least 1942. This cartel limited the life-span of light bulbs to a maximum of 1000 h to maximise profit. Planned obsolescence just for maximising profit is ethically not acceptable in times of climate crisis and resource depletion. This may be addressed by public law and even criminal law, but also by means of civil law, which is increasingly discussed in politics and the scientific community. One crucial question is if a consumer, who is damaged by having bought a product having an unnecessary short life-span, can ask for compensation under civil law. At the moment, this seems not to be the case under German civil law. But there are legal possibilities and provisions that may allow courts to decide in favour of consumers, which would at the same time address such—not acceptable in the context of transition to sustainability—business strategies.

‘Higher Education for Sustainable Development’ (HESD) is a new social phenomenon, which has grown naturally out of global efforts to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is the result of a continuous evolution of the basic concept ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ (ESD). The aim of this chapter is to explore the main expectations and necessary changes in university education in the context of a continuously evolving understanding of EDS. To achieve this aim, the chapter analyses the underlying premises and key priorities for HESD today—the time when universities all over the world are increasingly consolidating in support of SDGs. Particular attention is paid to the problem of involving technical universities from countries with economies in transition into such transformation processes. The chapter offers a historical analysis of how the role and functions of higher education, and universities in particular, in supporting the global transition to sustainable development have been changing over time. It also discusses the obstacles and challenges that prevent technical universities in countries with economies in transition from systematic and effective implementation of the HESD principles.