The article highlights the inadequacies of current regulatory frameworks in addressing interconnected environmental crises such as climate disruption, biodiversity loss, and plastic pollution. It criticizes the prevalent approach of treating these issues as isolated problems solvable through regulation, stressing that this mindset has led to regulatory failures.
Key points include:
-
Regulation Failure: There is a fundamental flaw in how regulation addresses ecological damage, often viewing it as an externality rather than a systemic issue. This reliance on market solutions is misguided, as market failures are more common than expected.
-
Impact of Regulation: The proliferation of overlapping regulatory regimes creates confusion and disadvantages smaller, innovative businesses that strive for sustainability, as they face compliance challenges that favor larger, traditional companies.
-
Alternative Approaches: The article suggests responsive regulation, which includes diverse stakeholder involvement and harnesses collective influence to improve business practices. However, neither this nor the current instrumental regulation sufficiently prioritizes ecosystem limits.
-
Ecologically Responsive Regulation: This new approach emphasizes the interdependence of human economies and ecosystems. Key principles involve:
- Mitigating the risks of industrial monocultures that degrade ecosystems.
- Promoting diversity and ecological well-being in business practices.
- Redirecting financial investments to align with sustainable ecological practices.
-
Conclusion: The authors argue for a shift in regulatory purpose, embedding ecological health into all governance structures. Acknowledging the interconnected nature of social and ecological challenges is crucial for effective solutions. The proposed ecologically responsive regulation is seen as a pathway to prevent breaching the planet’s ecological boundaries, addressing multiple crises simultaneously.
