Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Organizational Insights, Challenges and Impact of Sustainable Development in Developing and Developed Nations

Written By

Katundu Imasiku

Submitted: 01 June 2020 Reviewed: 26 August 2020 Published: 03 February 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.93748

From the Edited Volume

Sustainable Organizations - Models, Applications, and New Perspectives

Edited by Jose C. Sánchez-García and Brizeida Hernández-Sánchez

Chapter metrics overview

1,694 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


While developed nations can fully explore various sustainable business models to achieve sustainability, this might not be easy for developing nations because of poor governance systems, characterized by inequality, patronage, and corruption and other challenges. This chapter evaluates organizations as developing and developed nation blocs by first providing insights on how organizations can contribute to the social and environmental sustainability, and second, by highlighting the challenges and approaches for sustainable development. The chapter further unravels the potential for both blocs to grow and achieve sustainability through technology and innovative strategies alongside the opportunities offered by having fast-growing populations and natural resources. To achieve sustainability, a twofold approach comprising the 360-organizational sustainability approaches and advanced sustainability system analysis approach is used. The key societal driving forces in both blocs for exploiting sustainable business practices are governance and institutions, technology and innovation, economy and society, population and behavior, and financing for development which can unlock sustainable business opportunities for sustainable development. To address the business climate challenges, it is inferred that organizations can achieve global sustainability by integrating sustainable production and consumption, biodiversity and ecosystem services, equity and resilience sectors to attain an environmentally and socially governed systems globally.


  • organization
  • sustainable development
  • models
  • challenges
  • innovation
  • technology
  • good governance
  • developing and developed nations

1. Introduction

The Brundtland Commission defines sustainable development as development which keeps in check the present generation’s needs without neglecting the future generation’s capability to address their needs [1]. In the long run, sustainable development can provide a solution to how the world plans its economic activities and growth without damaging the environment and to ensure a safer habitat is maintained for the succeeding generations, to also build up their economies and societies without neglecting the environment. Apart from sustainable development fulfilling peoples’ needs without discouraging the chances of others, it covers a lot of more extensive issues like ecological, social, and financial advancement which are critical to the social prosperity of all [2, 3].

While conceding that great advancement has been accomplished this far, yet its lopsidedness all-inclusive is as yet a stressing factor. Quick development in some developing nations has diminished high living standards and exacerbated poverty and inequalities. These inequalities sabotage the inclusiveness, social protection, and even sustainable development since it diminishes interests in health systems and training frameworks and counterbalances financial and political stability [4].

Although fast-growing population dynamics can improve the labor market, it conjointly can expand inequalities in both developing and developed nations and globally contingent upon the readiness by the country being referred to. Expanded urbanization, population growth, and population aging may likewise rise thriving in certain countries, but it might likewise cause significant stress on national infrastructures and public finance, education, and health-care systems [5].

To attend to these barriers globally and gain sustainable development positioning, there is a need to advance plans that encourage change the way governments are administered, the way products and services are delivered, employments creation, global consumption trends, and how the management of natural resources is done. Embracing the “business as usual” motto presents clear dangers because there is adequate proof that they are answerable for the worldwide megatrends that set as dangers to sustainability [6].


2. Global trends for sustainable development challenges

The challenges to sustainable development are influenced by socioeconomic, demographic, technological, and environmental trends which are seen to be the primary changes that transform society and considerably sway onto individuals. The formative advancement accomplished as of late combined with the unpredictable global economic changes have resulted in the following trends [4];

  1. In a global financial crisis, the international community needs to put up development strategies to address impoverishment and sustainable development. If the socioeconomic progress stays lopsided, more costs are likely to be incurred because of environmental degradation.

  2. The variety of socioeconomic, population, technology, and environment-driven trends causing the sustainable development challenges are inequality, globalization, environmental degradation, and population diversity.

  3. These trends complement each other in manners which pose several challenges. Rapid urbanization in developing nations, financialization, and globalization are recipes for inequality and introducing nations to high food and nutrition risks, environmental degradation, and energy security because of high demand for land and water.

  4. Since environmental degradation has so far reached a crucial stage, the casual business as usual approach is highly discouraged for transformative change to occur at a community level, country level, and even at a global level to attain sustainable development.


3. Strategies for sustainable inclusiveness

The outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development gives direction to accomplishing the progress to sustainable development as approaches for increasing the prosperity of current and future generations. Sustainable development strategies should be comprehensive and take extraordinary consideration of the requirements of the poor and vulnerable. Strategies should be goal-oriented, action- and community-based, considering distinctive national conditions [7].

The strategies should systemically transform usage and creation structures and may include, inter alia, colossal value corrections, empower the protecting of typical blessings, lessen inequalities, and strengthen the fiscal organization. Such a strategy should restrain such use and creation that have negative externalities, while at the same time trying to expand the kinds of utilization and creation that make positive externalities. Examples of restricting negative externalities include a decrease of ecological contamination, while instances of positive externalities incorporate, for instance, innovation adjustment, a decrease of food waste, and improve overall nutritional value.

Technology will positively assume a significant job in addressing the consumption patterns to drive the formation of innovations and advancements that are important for sustainability. Accomplishments in achieving these progressions will require a significant redesign of the economy and society and changes in ways of life. Economic and finance-related impetuses for the creation and reception of new technological advances will be required alongside innovative policy changes. The all-embracing objectives of the essential requirements for sustainable development comprise; combating poverty, unsustainable consumption and production, and ensuring that natural resources are well managed and protected.

In today’s global world, climate and environmental protection need to be taken as a universal goal by all. The current trend of relocating the manufacturing sector and other services to developing nations demands that developed nations will also offer both technical and financial support to the developing nations.

Sustainable development transformation entails, change involves, inter alia, noteworthy value redresses, a solid promise to safeguarding natural endowments, a decrease of inequalities, accounting for the environmental, public sector strengthening, and investment for development and profit-sharing, thereby improving poor people’s livelihood and socio-well-being.

Sustainable development strategies in developing nations will keep on offering need to human development, with a focus on reducing impoverishment. While human development needs more notice taken to toward people’s quality of life and other issues at country-level, its achievement depends to a large degree on utilizing the open doors made by globalization and on restricting its contrary effects. In this circumstance, better organization of capital streams and macroeconomic guidelines may be indispensable and sufficiency between country-specific development strategies and global decision-making is significant. Overall organizations need to oblige the novel needs of developing countries, especially those of the creating countries. The global plan will similarly need to take as being of great importance to avoidance clashes, human rights abuse, guaranteeing that great administration wins and a decreased inequality.


4. Global challenges for sustainable development

Today, it is imperative to take note of that sustainable development is similarly substantial in developing and developed nations, despite them managing polarly inverse sides of the range. Although developed nations might be developed, that does not infer that they are sustainable. However, the primary objective of these nations should be to free their general public of issues like social inequalities, poor waste management and poor environmental management [4].

  1. Having poor or no capital budget to plan and complete economic activities.

  2. Having a business climate which is characterized by civil war makes sustainable development difficult because of misplaced priorities.

  3. Natural calamities, like earthquakes, tremors and floods, can present a danger to sustainability because they can affect the flow of water and even cause damage to infrastructure or disturb arable land or habitable land. In Ramche, a rural settlement in Nepal, an earthquake struck the river that supplied water, leaving Ramche in a water crisis that forces the villagers to use E-Coli infected water. Similarly, in Canada, E. coli water contamination forced a 10-year evacuation plan of the Kashechewan area. This forced people to drink and cook out of desperation [8, 9]. For instance, the 2004 tidal waves in South East and Eastern Asia danged a lot of infrastructures and claimed close to 226,000 lives in Africa and Asia. For instance, the damage of Japan’s open-vehicle approach is a good example [10].

  4. The prevalence of clashes between long-term sustainable investment and immediate gains or profits with governments is a source of concern and worry. Although politically motivated to win votes in south Poland, a legislative orders to finance sustainable energy resources for energy production in the mining sector is approved instead of promoting dirty coal power generation which currently accounts for about 80% of the generated power in Poland [11, 12].

  5. Public goods abuse by public officers or any act of bribery that deviates from the acceptable standards of society for personal gains is corruption and one of the greatest barriers to sustainable development [13]. Nepal’s foreign grants are mainly provided by the UK unraveled that because of corruption and bureaucratic systems in Nepal, the development projects by NGOs can never pass or be approved without bribing the government ministers alongside huge administration fees demanded by the Nepal government essentially hinders progress [14].

In Africa, the UNECA reports that corruption impedes economic growth because it discourages foreign investments, distorts resource distribution public spending and market competition, increases the production costs. The consequence of these vices is that the quality of services and public infrastructure and the amount of tax returns are drastically reduced alongside a rising misappropriation and misallocation of scarce resources. Politically, it undermines the rule of law, human rights, accountability and transparency and this makes government wings weak [15].

  1. Poor municipal service delivery. Poor municipal services which include sewerage and other waste management and disposal in the cities and rural areas poses a threat to human health.

  2. Climate change is another enemy to sustainable development and needs frantic efforts to mitigate and adapt so that ecological systems are maintained to reduce the secondary effects like global warming, skin diseases, floods, drought and other extreme weather events.

  3. While hunger and malnourishment, is an issue of the past in developed nations and diminishing in developing nations, it persists in some nations, and this presents a threat to food security.

  4. The existing disparity in the per capita income within and outside inside nations is a source of possible tension and conflict.

  5. The rapid urbanization experienced in developing nations has posed large pressure on municipal services and this demands that infrastructure be improved in both public and private sectors of society.

  6. As long as the current sustainable energy demands are not met at the household level, the future and projected demands will remain neglected which even increases the energy deficit.

  7. The recurrence of global financial crises can reduce access to long-term development finance and sustainable investments.

  8. Pandemics like the 2020 COVID-19 can also retard sustainable development because it can lead to reduced access to long-term development finance and sustainable investments.

  9. Unsustainable consumption and production are a significant sustainable development challenge that has emerged and developed in developed nations, while the developing nations have progressively followed these unsustainable ways. This has made the per capita carbon emission levels in developed countries 20–40 times higher than would normally be appropriate for air steadiness or atmospheric stability and the per capita ecological footprints being 4–9 times higher than their bio-capacity in developed countries [4].

In summary, developing nations have in actuality advanced sustainability actions which are more developed than those actualized in developed countries to date. For example, Ecuador and the Plurinational territories of Bolivia honor their nature to the extent of protecting it using the constitution [16, 17]. Currently, most developing countries are building up sustainable consumption ways, through optimistic model development. Drawing on their traditional know-how, many countries can leapfrog cleaner approaches of producing goods, thereby greening agribusiness and industry sectors. All nations globally should encourage the use of suitable approaches like the deployment of technology and all the innovation and services that come with it to make both developed and developing nations go into an upright pattern of participation and commitment among all stakeholders at individual, private and public, and international levels to achieve global sustainable development. One positive strategy to achieve this is the transformation toward sustainable cities and nations globally [18].


5. A pathway to global sustainable cities

Although urbanization creates employment and other opportunities to many people globally, it has also brought about poverty because rapid urbanization increases pressure on resources, especially food, water, energy and sanitation services and public services like education and health. More than 50% of the population globally lived in the urban cities in 2007 but this percentage is projected to be greater than 70% by the year 2050. Further, 80% of the global population ramp from urbanization is expected to occur in developing nations, particularly in urban cities in Asia and Africa [18, 19].

Between 1950 and 2010, medium cities and large cities had added 632 million and 570 million people, respectively. This population ramp in cities over a 15- to 20-year period is worth noting because it has some significant policy implications. Since future rapid urbanization is expected to occur in developing nations, there is a need to prepare to boost resources, increase the developmental capacity for the municipalities to avoid being overwhelmed with the anticipated pressure. Some of the causes of this constant evolution in major cities include the individual’s mobility, a high birthrate, ecological changes, socioeconomic development alongside local, national and international policy reforms [18, 19].

The cities in developing nations have inadequate public services like health care, clean water and sanitation and electricity and this is worsened by the lack of municipal capacities to improve access decent jobs, health systems and basic infrastructure that would help reduce vulnerability to contamination, environmental degradation, diseases, climate change and natural calamities.

Although developed nations already have access to these amenities and most basic public services, they too still face challenges of sustenance and increased efficiency especially in the energy generation and water supply, which may require loss and waste management and recycling systems. Failure to manage these resource systems properly would increase the ecological footprints in cities.

Most cities globally are vulnerable to climate change impacts and this puts pressure on the poor people’s capacity to adapt, regardless of whether that nation is highly industrialized or has a higher per capita income. The recurrence of global economic crises increases unemployment rates, especially among the educated young men and women in the cities. The prevalent inequalities between urban and rural areas and within urban communities are mainly persistent in developing nations. The growing disparities between rural areas and urban areas alongside high inequality rates in urban areas have continued to exist in developing nations with more than 1 billion people still live in the inner-city slums which lack clean water, sanitation facilities, health and education and basic infrastructure. On a more saddening note, from the current trends, it is estimated that 3 billion people will still live in slums by 2050 unless sustainable measures are taken to address this issue [18, 19].

This points to the need to effectively manage the urban cities as a condition for sustainability using sustainable organization frameworks like the 360-organization sustainability model. The 360-organizational sustainability is not just an organizational performance tool and a public relations mode of disseminating organizational corporate social responsibility messages but also a vision that has a clear strategic plan with measurable employee performance objectives and shared values [20, 21].


6. 360-organizational sustainability approach

To meet the 360-organizational sustainability criteria, the management team of the organization must have “Yes” as an answer all the following series of questions [20, 21]:

  1. Is the organizational development and exploitation of human resources done sustainably?

  2. Are the worker’s socio-well-being incentives suitable for all?

  3. Are the ways of life and aspirations of the workers sustainable and achievable considering the amount of time spent outside the firm?

  4. Is the community, country or global society in which our organization operates, desirable and sustainable?

  5. Is our organization environmentally neutral concerning all our operations in the supply chain network?

  6. Is our organization achieving economic growth?

This chapter proposes that implementing a 360-organizational sustainability approach is a highly desirable type of organization needed to bring about the transformation in cities, rural area and globally. It should be every government, firm, community or persons desire to deploy the 360-organizational sustainability model. Figure 1 shows the four main elements of the 360-organizational sustainability model as modified from Mark Hollingworth [20].

Figure 1.

The 360-organizational sustainability model, adopted from Hollingworth [20].

Figure 1 shows that the sustainability analysis elements are arranged into four categories, namely: (a) the biosphere, (b) internal and external human resources, (c) the community, and (d) the organization.

The underlying response to being tested to thoroughly consider the focal point of the 360-organizational sustainability approach is to increase the phantom of the expanded expenses related to doing as such. Most likely, any endeavors to develop the 360-organizational sustainability will bring about higher monetary expenses to the firm. This might be valid on both a short and long-term basis. Notwithstanding, today, while we look to keep away from those possible costs, we incur, our firms, societies and the whole biosphere into a circular drive of non-sustainability, with an exceptionally strong block divider at its end which might occur any time [20, 21].

Although being “environmentally green” implies that the firm would incur greater expenses at the inception of the concept of environmental sustainability, most leaders in firms like Interface and Bolthouse Foods have indicated that focusing on just the biosphere sustainability can really give you a sustainable upper hand—while expanding gainfulness and decreasing business risks. Simply envision what prizes anticipate associations accomplishing 360-organizational sustainability. Further, if the markets are viable, the achievement of sustainability is reflected in a firm’s worth or share value which in the long term will be considered to be lower than firms which are not sustainable [21].

The business world is obviously deficient with regards to leadership in the area of sustainability, but the 360-organizational sustainability and former Anglican Arc-Bishop Desmond Tutu famous demands that everyone is in proximity to fill-up a leadership position in society [22]. This implies that a corporate shared value (CSV) norm is needed by those who intend to fill-up the existing leadership vacuum [23].


7. Sustainable transformational research strategies

By 2030, the two blocs—developing and developed nations will need to adopt the key transformational strategies toward developing sustainable socioeconomic frameworks and balanced ecosystem by reforming the policies and governance system; changing human behavior, societal norms, and beliefs; enhancing data analytics using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI); and making communities aware of these key drivers of sustainability [24].

Understanding the weight of addressing sustainability challenges worldwide requires coordinated investigations and integrating contradictory sectors of society like production and consumption with biodiversity and ecosystem services to build resilience at the expense of inequality. Achieving this will need an integrated strategy that brings all these sectors together. Figure 2 shows synergies across seven key driving sectors to facilitate the development of systems approach sustainability.

Figure 2.

Primary societal drivers and secondary pressures for sustainable transformations, adopted from IIASA [25].

Figure 2 shows the primary and secondary drivers of sustainability. While an adaptable multi-model approach at primary level that is concerned with conventional organizational system models, governments are expected to adapted models for theory testing, predictability models to investigate the soundness of societal system dynamics and policy assessment before deployment. Further, at a higher level, the approach may integrate the secondary pressures like equity and resilience, biodiversity and ecosystems and production and consumption to achieve total sustainability. In more detail, all the seven societal drivers that are necessary to help develop cutting-edge model approaches that are country-specific and capable of resolving the sustainability issues.

7.1 System approaches for sustainability

7.1.1 Primary approaches Governance and institutional establishment

Although the world does not view the prevalent governance and administration frameworks as inappropriate for combating the challenges that are related to the climate and the environmental pressures, it is an effective approach, as long as exceptional changes concerning scale, degree, and speed in all system characteristics are made. These characteristics or attributes include; social conduct; administrative, authoritative, and bureaucratic systems; monetary organizations and incentives; and technical or biophysical frameworks. It is evident that our current administration structures of covering and settled establishments, rules, shows, procedures, and systems by which choices are made and actualized are deficient or have been mistranslated and therefore cannot drive the necessary changes, at the national or global level [26, 27].

This acknowledgement is provoking the academic world to take part in a significant reconsideration of its logical approaches, its strategies for science communication and commitment, and its apparent job in the public arena—offering rise to the new space of “transformative science.” Innovation and technology development

New innovations and technological development, including digitalization, are now having significant effects across different thematic areas of the economy around the world. They are not just affecting equity, work, production, recreation, conduct, education, and governance, but on the other hand, are expanding cultural and social partitions. Seeing how new technologies converge with and are utilized by society, and the ensuing ramifications of this is basic to outfitting advances to assist social orders and the prosperity of residents. The key challenge is how policies can create possible advantages of innovation and technological advancement as the world transform toward total sustainability [28]. Economy and society

Modern society is concerned with how social orders sort out their economic activities and how significant this process is for sustainable transformation. The socioeconomic framework is straightforwardly embroiled in supporting a worldwide challenge as inescapable and developing societal disparities, prevalent impoverishment, and diminished social and cultural flexibility. Additionally, the manner in which the social sector designs and boosts its economic activities has solid ramifications for the change toward dematerialized production and consumption designs, just as the sustainable utilization of land, water, and natural resources [29].

The economy is profoundly inserted in both social and biophysical frameworks and consequently are examined in an integrated manner. This requires a systems examination approach and interdisciplinary exploration structures, containing a scope of different logical approaches and techniques to portray, comprehend, and clarify socioeconomic, political, and environmental progress. Given the current social issues that are driven by current predominant economic frameworks and structures, it is pivotal to find new answers for these issues and show the capability of system thinking in accelerating other socioeconomic points of views and options [29]. Population and behavioral change

The socioeconomic and technological improvement over the previous decades has contributed significantly to improving human living standards and prosperity. In any case, these advantages are not uniformly distributed across nations, locales and communities, and populace groups. Such disparities obstruct economic development, economic growth, and subsequently, the accomplishment of sustainability. Besides, a lot of the new difficulties we face today are the outcomes of past pursuit to enhance and improve the human condition. Not exclusively did socioeconomic advancement lead to declining birth rates and expanding life span bringing about populace aging; it likewise prompts ways of life and dietary changes bringing about upward or downward shifts of mortality rates from chronic, non-transmittable, and degenerative sicknesses. Such changes in way of life and consumption exacerbate global climate change, while environmental change thusly influences human and social prosperity [4].

Transformations in the economic and social structures require personal conduct change, which offers impressive potential for moving toward sustainability in cost-effective ways, wider and emerging technological advancement like those from the COVID-19 pandemic. Apparently, the best way to confront such changes is to find out how to inspire the vital wide-scale and predominant behavioral change is to explore integral and blended ways that incorporate social sciences, natural sciences and engineering [4].

7.1.2 Secondary approaches Equity and resilience

People are both the reason for most changes worldwide and are conjointly affected by these changes. This affirms the existence of system risks that are probably going to course across interconnected socioeconomic systems and force insufferable weights that are normally borne excessively by the poor and vulnerable individuals. These risks may emerge from extreme climate weather conditions, forced human movements, food and water deficiencies, pandemics, sea and air contamination, biodiversity loss, and financial disturbances that may cause a financial crisis. Projections indicate that these risks will increment considerably, and likely to bring about a foreseen decrease in societal resilience [6].

Based on this background, it is important to see how populace and socioeconomic pressures, individual and group activities (i.e., values, beliefs, norms, and cultures), and the community diversity (e.g., rural and urban) influence potential intercessions to improve versatility, equality, and the manageability of human societies. It is additionally generally perceived that the polarization of societies mostly brings about policy check or reformulation, a situation that must be resolved by improved collaborations between socioeconomic systems and governance systems [6]. Production and consumption

The patterns of resource consumption and production of goods are characterized by inequality and unsustainable consumption. The test for societies is to change the current way of producing goods and consumption of goods makes the economy to decouple the economic growth and social well-being for people from the degradation of the environment, yet in addition, diminishes the earth’s resources. This requires a principal pull together by the executives of public and private. Patterns like digitalization can positively or negatively contribute to sustainability, by making the production, transport, and trade sectors increase productivity or increase resource demand. It is important to improve the designs of end-users at large-scale worldwide. There is a need to deploy more integrated tools to cultivate circular economies that are characterized with utilizing less raw materials, components and products to reduce costs and possibly adopt renewable resources [4]. Biodiversity and ecosystems

In the specter of changing climate and high resource consumption pressure by humans and animals especially on food, fiber, fodder and other bio-products, the present-day unsustainable land use and water consumption are reducing the quality and levels of fresh-water and ground-water levels, compounding into land degradation, losses in biodiversity, unbalanced ecosystems and contributing 25% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. In the course of the most recent 40 years, both warm- and cold-blooded animals on land and in water have decreased by about 60% and may face extinction. Further, in excess of 800 million individuals are still malnourished and need access to clean water. The United Nations appraises that food creation should increment by half to fulfill the needs of anticipated populace development by 2050, which will likewise build the worldwide demand for water by over half. Creating supportable pathways to land, water, food, and biodiversity the board over all areas and strategy levels are key to overcoming the climate change-related issues that result from losses in biodiversity and ecosystems [30, 31, 32].


8. Sustainability drivers from leading firms: insights from stakeholder interviews

Some driving factors that influence sustainability in a firm include; politicking and governance issues, rapid urbanization, high population growth, societal and cultural norms and beliefs and climate change. These factors subsequently take a tore on the global socioeconomic and environmental objectives and interest to sustainably use and preserve natural resources. To successfully manage these driving factors there is need to engaging in stakeholder dialog while creating new reaction options and situations that help analyze the patterns of achieving sustainability. Figure 3 shows the driving factors of sustainability dynamics model.

Figure 3.

Driving factors for sustainability dynamics, adopted from FAO [33].

From the stakeholder interviews by Ernst and Young audit firm on a global audience of 1661 leaders and practitioners from 69 countries using a conference survey Approach showed that the trends that influential to sustainability include (a) insufficient gains from resource productivity, (b) extension of clean technologies approaches, (c) stiffer guidelines, (d) evaluating financial risks, (e) digitalization, (f) varying demands of clients, (g) war for ability, and (e) climate change, as assumed in Figure 3 [34]. To reduce the financial risks to sustainability, there is a need to improve financing mechanisms for sustainable development.


9. Financing for sustainable development: new approach and commitment

Financing for sustainable development entered another era in July 2015, when the world consented to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, a system and set of duties for financing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Since this will require unquestionably more capital funds than help, in form of grants, the World Bank Group, along with other multilateral banks and the International Monitoring Fund (IMF), resolved to utilize billions in investment financing, aid and grants, in inventive approach to catalyze trillions in financing development programs. In 2017, in Hamburg, the world’s G20 nations strengthened the task of catalyzing development finance by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), alongside public-private partnerships (PPPs) to newer forms of finance, including blended finance, as well as new bond instruments such as green bonds (GBs), social impact bonds (SIBs), and development impact bonds (DIBs). These new budgetary instruments are planned for expanding the flexibly of private cash-flow to developing countries and offer the critical potential to close the financing gap that right now exists in the developing countries. Specifically, mixed-finance is probably going to turn into a key segment in the financing for developed strategy and one of the primary mainstays of the global financing system created to help the post-2015 sustainable development agenda [35]. The Official Development Assistance (ODA), then again, is probably going to still be very important for developing nations since it gives 40% of money financial resource and, truth be told, the largest financer [36].

Notwithstanding worldwide public resources as ODA providing an essential input, nations have the essential obligation to progress and self-finance their own development. Nations must add to the progressions of Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM)—as expenses, taxes, or other accessible assets—and guarantee that local policies like (legal, tax, institutional, economic, regulative, etc.) upgrade the viability of DRM, to maximize the utilization of this subsidy through national, provincial, at the city level, and down to municipal councils.

Further, to move from the “billions” in ODA to the “trillions” required for the implementation of the SDGs, the communities worldwide and especially in developing nations need to use various types of investment—including private, public, country, and international—and exploit the particular qualities and strengths of all the sources [35]. The following seven steps can serve as key enablers of the financing for development [37]:

  1. Financial Resource Mobilization for increased impact using integrative thinking and creative approaches.

  2. Leveraging public finance by using scarce financial international and domestic resources where they have the greatest impact and this catalyzes other domestic financial resources.

  3. Overcrowding the private sector finances for development can help improve investment capacity to drive innovative programs and their delivery.

  4. Strengthening the multilateral development banks (MDBs) by utilizing their accounting reports and financial platforms catalyze private capital and other financial flows.

  5. Technology and innovative business models offer extraordinary opportunities to rethink and quicken ways to development by making conceivable, a world with all-inclusive access to financial services and government services and global financial markets.

  6. Improving investment information, using big data, and innovative diagnostic devices are capable of evaluating investment risks and investment returns in developing countries.

  7. Enhancing development finance associations and building multi-partner forums. Another degree of joint effort is required over a scope of partners to address financing challenges.


10. How to operationalize countries with integrated financing models?

The four main stages for the design and operation of financing models comprise (a) evaluation and diagnostics, (b) the financing procedure, (c) monitoring and review, and (d) governance and coordination. Figure 4 shows the stages of operationalizing financing mechanisms. Figure 4 shows the stages of operationalizing financing mechanisms.

Figure 4.

Integrated operational financing model, adopted from Addis Ababa action agenda resolution [37].

Figure 4 shows the operationalizing financing mechanisms that vary by nation, reflecting national limits and preferences. For instance, vulnerable nations may underscore the significance of possible financing choices to have the option to react to financial stuns or shocks. Nations increasingly dependent on the arrangement of concessional funding may address arrangement of the development collaboration with country-specific needs. Nations with limited capacity may need to give priority to steps to reinforce their essential institutional capacities in key financing sectors, before attempting to actualize progressively to more complex tools. Expanding domestic resource mobilization is supposed to be every nation’s priority, however, the approaches deployed are likely to vary to reflect the existing capacities and constraints [37, 38].

The stage of integrating the national finance models should be created iteratively, with each progression advising the others. The preferences communicated in the sustainable development financing procedures give the premise to the need’s evaluation. Worth noting is that this evaluation is affected by the kind of financing. For instance, the expenses of private and public finance vary, because of having different rates of financing. Likewise, the financing system also affects the requirements for evaluation. For instance, policies that enhance economic activities may raise public resources, and this helps to bring down the financing gap. The monitoring and review sector give feedback, that can educate the evaluations and lead to various preferences. Then again, feeble monitoring and review can lead to policies becoming ineffective, increased need for financing and consequently influencing future policymaking. Further, this also leaves unlearned lessons. Finally, strong and good governance is significant because it offers a coordination instrument that manages this procedure all through the entirety of its stages [37, 38].

11. Conclusions

As the world faces several difficulties within the economic, social, and environmental sectors, the number of people who are still impoverished exceeds 1 billion. As if this is not enough, inequality, unsustainable consumption, and production have also been on the increase, and this has led to large economic and social costs that pose a threat to human and plant life on earth. Accomplishing global sustainable development requires the world to act toward the global goal to drive socioeconomic development strategically through enhanced financing and business opportunities that enhance economic growth and create more employment opportunities, while emphasizing the reinforcement of environmental protection.

The strategies toward sustainable social-economic and environmental systems through drivers and pressures, such as insightful policy reforms in institutions and governance systems, changing human behavior and societal norms, having strong data innovations and systems analytic capabilities, and changing ways of consumption and production, as well as widespread societal awareness building and mobilization should be highly upscaled globally to transform toward sustainability and achieve sustainable development. Sustainable development should be comprehensive and take into consideration the needs of vulnerable and poor people. The strategies developed or deployed should be goal-oriented and community-oriented to manage various degrees of development. They should fundamentally change their consumption and production patterns, inequality, and reinforce biodiversity restoration programs and this may involve, among other things, huge price/cost adjustments, safeguarding natural resources, decreasing existing disparities, and strengthening economic growth and improved governance systems using financing models for development. This points to Environmental Social Governance (ESG) investment approach as a powerful strategy for sustainable development investment. Recently, the Environmental Social Governance investing has gained traction and entails researching and factoring in environmental, social, and governance issues in addition to the usual financials because it reduces portfolio risk, generates competitive investment returns, and makes investors feel secure about their stocks in both developing and developed nations. It is recommended that ESG, financing for development, and 360-organizational sustainability should be adopted as core strategies by global investors and countries, respectively, to cultivate corporate shared values (CSVs) among all stakeholders and desist from the “business as usual” approach, which works against sustainable development.

In summary, it can be stated that for an organization to be sustainable and meet their objectives profitably, they should adopt the mid-path that ensures an adequate balance between profitability and sustainability. Thus, companies must be innovative and agile to changes. For this, a clear set of sustainability and resilience criteria will help the companies to improve, while leaving room to respond to these pressures with different options and sustainable models. The significance of these models is that they provide insight to policymakers to achieve sustainable development change using development financing models that enhance acceptable attitudes, sustainable production and consumption, and a clean environment while ensuring that companies still operate profitably.


I recognize and acknowledge Professor Valerie M. Thomas of Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, and the African Centre of Excellence in Energy for Sustainable Development at the University of Rwanda for their support.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Brundtland Commission. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. UN Documents Gathering a Body of Global Agreements. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987
  2. 2. Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment – Australia. Ecological Sustainable Development. 1992. Available from: [Accessed: 23 July 2020]
  3. 3. Freedman B. Ecologically sustainable development. In: Environmental Science Subtitle: A Canadian Perspective. Ontario: Open Library Publishing Platform; 2018
  4. 4. United Nations. World Economic and Social Survey 2013 Sustainable Development Challenges. New York: United Nations; 2013
  5. 5. Soyka PA. Creating a Sustainable Organization: Approaches for Enhancing Corporate Value through Sustainability. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing; 2012
  6. 6. Jütting JP, de Laiglesia JR, editors. Is Informal Normal? Towards More and Better Jobs in Developing Countries. Paris: OECD; 2009
  7. 7. Sustainable Development Goals Platform. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20. 2012. Available from: [Accessed: 23 July 2020]
  8. 8. Government of Nepal - National Planning. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. Ontario, Canada: Western University in London; 2015. Available from:
  9. 9. Cultural and Survival. Water Crisis Forces Government Action. 2018. Available: [Accessed: 23 July 2020]
  10. 10. Pierre O, Longueville F. The tsunami in South-East Asia – A retrospective analysis of the management of an apocalyptic natural disaster. European Journal of Geography. [Online], Environment, Nature, Landscape, document 321. 2011. DOI: 10.4000/cybergeo.3081. Available from:
  11. 11. Kublik A. The Government Is Pouring Billions of Zlotys on Mining, Public Media and Morawiecki’s Agencies; 2018. Available from:,155287,22566805,rzad-sypnie-miliardami-zlotych-na-gornictwo-media-publiczne.html
  12. 12. Mikulska A, Eryk K. Explaining Poland’s Coal Paradox. 2018. Available from: [Accessed: 21 July 2020]
  13. 13. Andvig JC, Odd-Helge F, Amundsen I, Sissener T, Søreide T. Corruption: A Review of Contemporary Research. Bergen: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs; 2001. Available from:
  14. 14. UKaid. Development Tracker. 2020. Available from: [Accessed: 23 July 2020]
  15. 15. UNECA. Combating Corruption, Improving Governance in Africa. Addis Ababa: UNECA; 2016
  16. 16. Rapid Translation Alliance. Buen Vivir: The Rights of Nature in Bolivia and Ecuador. 2018. Available from: [Accessed: 25 July 2020]
  17. 17. Hammond JL. Indigenous community justice in the Bolivian constitution of 2009. Human Rights Quarterly. 2011;33(3):649-681
  18. 18. Cedric P. Sustainable Cities in Developing Nations: Theory and Practiceatthe Millennium. London: Earthscan PublicationsLtd; 2000
  19. 19. Peris-ortiz M, Bennett DR. Sustainable Smart Cities: Creating Spaces for Technological, Social and Business Development. Valencia: Springer; 2017
  20. 20. Mark H. Building 360 organizational sustainability. Product Number: 9B09TF07. Ivey Business Journal. 2000:1-10. Available from: [Accessed: 11 January 2009]
  21. 21. Melkonyan A, Gottschalk D, Vasanth KV. Sustainability assessments and their implementation possibilities within the business models of companies. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2017;12:1-15
  22. 22. Rensburg R. Archbishop Desmond tutu as moral sage and servantleader: A compassionate zealot. Verbum et Ecclesia. 2002;23(3):1-16
  23. 23. Chatterji M. Why is Sustainability the Need of the Hour for Businesses. Entrepreneur India. 2017. Available from: [Accessed: 20 June 2020]
  24. 24. Imasiku K, Thomas V, Etienne N. Unraveling green information technology systems as a global greenhouse gas emission game-changer. Administrative Sciences. 2019;9(43):1-29
  25. 25. IIASA. Reducing Footprints, Enhancing Resilience Systems Science for Transformations to Sustainability IIASA Strategy 2021-2030. Vienna: IIASA; 2021
  26. 26. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Meyer RE, editors. Tha SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SAGE; 2017
  27. 27. Lozano R, Garcia I. Scrutinizing sustainability change and its institutionalization in organizations. Frontiers. 2020;1(1):1-16
  28. 28. Walker J, Alma P, Gordon W, editors. Sustainable Development Goals: Harnessing Business to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals through Technology, Innovation and Law Reforms. Wiley, New Jersey: Sussex; 2019. pp. 1-432. ISBN: 978-1-119-54180-6. Available from:
  29. 29. Filho WL, de Brito PRB, Fernanda F, editors. International Business, Trade and Institutional Sustainability. Cham, Switzerland: SAGE; 2019
  30. 30. FAO. State of the World’s Forests and Agriculture: Land-Use Challenges and Opportunities State of the World’s Forests. Rome: FAO; 2016
  31. 31. FAO. World Deforestation Slows down as More Forests Are Better Managed. 2016. Available from: [Accessed: 24 July 2020]
  32. 32. Alcamo J et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC, London, Covelo: Island Press; 2003. ISBN 1-55963-403-0
  33. 33. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization: Driving Action across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Rome: FAO; 2017. p. 2020. Available from: [Accessed: 01 July 2017]
  34. 34. Ernst and Young. Sustainability Reporting — The Time Is Now. London: Ernst and Young; 2014
  35. 35. OECD. Blended Finance Vol. 1: A Primer for Development Finance and Philanthropic Funders. Cologny: OECD; 2015
  36. 36. United Nations. Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing, See Note 5, 14. United Nations; 2014
  37. 37. World Bank. Financing for Development at the World Bank Group; 2018
  38. 38. United Nations. Financing for Sustainable Development Report. United Nations; 2019. p. 2019

Written By

Katundu Imasiku

Submitted: 01 June 2020 Reviewed: 26 August 2020 Published: 03 February 2021