Only 10 years remain to achieve all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) globally, so there is a growing need to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of action by targeting multiple SDGs. The SDGs were conceived as an 'indivisible whole', but interactions between SDGs need to be better understood. Several previous assessments have begun to explore interactions including synergies and possible conflicts between the SDGs, and differ widely in their conclusions. Although some highlight the role of the more environmentally-focused SDGs in underpinning sustainable development, none specifically focuses on environment-human linkages. Assessing interactions between SDGs, and the influence of environment on them can make an important contribution to informing decisions in 2020 and beyond. Here, we review previous assessments of interactions among SDGs, apply an influence matrix to assess pairwise interactions between all SDGs, and show how viewing these from the perspective of environment-human linkages can influence the outcome. Environment, and environment-human linkages, influence most interactions between SDGs. Our action-focused assessment enables decision makers to focus environmental management to have the greatest impacts and to identify opportunities to build on synergies and reduce trade-offs between particular SDGs. It may enable sectoral decision makers to seek support from environment managers for achieving their goals. We explore cross-cutting issues and the relevance and potential application of our approach in supporting decision making for progress to achieve the SDGs.

In 2002 the UK Department of Health and the Design Council jointly commissioned a scoping study to deliver ideas and practical recommendations for a design approach to reduce the risk of medical error and improve patient safety across the National Health Service (NHS). The research was undertaken by the Engineering Design Centre at the University of Cambridge, the Robens Institute for Health Ergonomics at the University of Surrey and the Helen Hamlyn Research Centre at the Royal College of Art. The research team employed diverse methods to gather evidence from literature, key stakeholders, and experts from within healthcare and other safety-critical industries in order to ascertain how the design of systemsequipment and other physical artefacts, working practices and information-could contribute to patient safety. Despite the multiplicity of activities and methodologies employed, what emerged from the research was a very consistent picture. This convergence pointed to the need to better understand the healthcare system, including the users of that system, as the context into which specific design solutions must be delivered. Without that broader understanding there can be no certainty that any single design will contribute to reducing medical error and the consequential cost thereof.

No abstract

Managerialism is often depicted as a key practice of neoliberalism yet relatively little has been written by scholars of neoliberalism about the actual relationship between managerialism and neoliberalism. Usually subsumed under a functional reading of neoliberalism, managerialism has too often been understood simply as a means for neoliberal ends (i.e. to promote market rule or competition). This paper challenges this perspective on the grounds that it conflates practices that stem from two different historical lineages. As we show, managerial governance not only has a very different history than neoliberal theory, but it also rests on different principles. Its development can be traced back to the US defence sector in the 1950s and the pivotal role of the RAND corporation. On the basis of this historical perspective, we argue for the need to analyse managerialism on its own terms and make the case for considering the rise of managerial science as a paradigmatic shift in governance. In doing so, we show how managerial governance represented a radical rupture from previous management practices and show how it profoundly reshaped how we have come to understand governance.