Getting down to business? Critical discourse analysis of perspectives on the private sector in sustainable development

Abstract

Critical discourse analysis is employed to examine discourses of the private sector within key texts of the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals. Taking a genealogical approach, four discourses are identified in the literature: the dominant, pro‐private sector discourse, showing unconditional support for the private sector; the sceptical discourse; the middle‐ground discourse with new approaches, specifically designed to leverage development relevance; and the antiprivate sector discourse, which considers that current approaches to the private sector will not be conducive to sustainable development of the global South. The pro‐private sector discourse was found to be predominant within the global goals, reflecting the post‐Washington Consensus as well as the role of the developed countries and the corporate sector in their formulation. All discourses on the private sector, however, place an emphasis on economic and social development at the expense of the key environmental component of sustainable development.

The imperative of embedding sustainability in business: A model for transformational sustainable development

“…Furthermore, participants were not prepared to accept ecocentric business models or the subordination of economic value to social and environmental value. This is in agreement with private sector discourses that emphasise economic and social development at the expense of the environmental goals of sustainable development (Cummings, Seferiadis, & de Haan, 2020). However, participants supported the influence of ecological society and ecological embeddedness in addressing sustainability issues.…”

Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals: The case of Tanzania

“…A major criticism of the MDGs was that they built on political priorities of development agencies and a small group of donor governments. Despite being signatories to the agreement, this implied a lack of ownership among those who were to implement the goals (Cummings et al, 2019, p. 9). Consequently, and as a way to seek legitimacy for the new goals, broad consultations were conducted worldwide from 2012 and onwards (Dodds et al, 2017; Kamau et al, 2018).…”

The impact of entrepreneurship education and students' entrepreneurial mindset: the mediating role of attitude and self-efficacy

“…In some developing countries, the lack of success in running a business can be explained by entrepreneurial mindset ( Cummings et al., 2019 ; Sihotang et al., 2020 ; Kawulur et al., 2019 ; Pfeifer et al., 2016 ; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015 ). Therefore, to foster a mindset for business startups, there are several supporting dimensions which include entrepreneurial education ( Lindberg et al., 2017 ; Solesvik et al., 2013 ), attitudes towards entrepreneurship ( Ayalew and Zeleke, 2018 ; Sowmya et al., 2010 ) and self-efficacy ( Aima et al., 2020 ; Pfeifer et al., 2016 ).…”