Perspective Chapter: Development, Sustainability, and Precautionary Principle – Narratives and Ambiguities

Abstract

The chapter seeks to analyze how precautionary principles and different conceptions of sustainability are evident in the main international resolutions and summits on development and the environment since the Stockholm Conference (1972). These conceptions determine different ways of conceiving individual and collective responsibility, giving rise to a kind of “virtue ethics” of diffuse contours. In this context, the aim is to discuss the ambiguities and paradoxes of sustainable development discourses and the precautionary approaches that are often associated with them. If, on the one hand, the precautionary principle can be seen as a restrictive and minimalist approach to preventive policies, which should presuppose a multidimensional articulation between anticipation, minimization, and reparation, anchored in a global debate and commitment, and on the other hand, the adoption of more protective and punitive measures (especially if they are only localized) can embody (new) (un)balances between freedoms and the common good, leading to a kind of “scientifically backed authoritarianism”. We, therefore, need a profound debate on the foundations of (global) citizenship, governance, and participatory scales, assuming the interdependence between the economy, society, politics, and the environment.

1. Introduction

Since the nineteenth century, the need to ensure ever-deeper development dynamics for the sake of progress has been one of the most solid arguments in the economic, political, and social imagination of Western societies. The definitive abolition of hunger by material abundance, the comfort provided by technology and social support and the spread of democratic values and peace have all been aspirations to be pursued ever since. Innovations in the fields of microbiology, genetic engineering, robotics, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, among others, have created the conditions for achieving these ideals. However, in contrast, they have been associated above all with a certain conception of development as prosperity (especially of a material nature) and with a certain “Promethean” vision [1] and “human exemptionalism” [2], which has proven to be profoundly linear and perverse [3, 4].

Indeed, the dominant paradigm in the evaluation of development economics has essentially focused on measuring progress in terms of comparable indicators of economic growth. One of the basic arguments behind this narrow logic is the conviction that the benefits of economic growth will eventually improve the situation of the least developed populations and countries without the need for any concrete or additional measures in this direction. The so-called trickle-down effect is based on the premise of a self-regulating system, in a context where economic actors are driven by constant rationality and make decisions that are appropriate to maintain competitive equilibrium, which gives this model an apparent perfectibility.

However, the empirical data currently available contradict this assumption of self-regulation, revealing the statistical distortion between real human experience and the readings of many economists, political scientists, and “development” experts.

The model of thought and action advocated by such approaches is based on the idea that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an adequate measure of quality of life and prosperity [3]. Indeed, the link between a country’s priorities for GDP growth and its international prestige, which is relevant in a globalized and highly competitive world, has led states to focus their efforts on economic growth, to the detriment of the living standards and real conditions of populations that are socio-economically and symbolically disadvantaged (e.g., through lack of access to quality culture and education). The focused thinking inherent in this dominant paradigm does not allow us to address structural issues in terms of substantive development, which are not necessarily or linearly related to simple economic growth. Comparative studies, such as those carried out in India by Drèze and Sen [5], have shown that an increase in economic growth does not automatically improve the quality of life in such important dimensions as health or education. Moreover, the GDP approach does not make it possible to collect information on the real quality of life of poor people, nor to identify groups that are particularly subject to situations of marginalization and deprivation within countries and territories that are considered developed according to measurable indices [6]. However, if we consider that the benefits of economic growth are only instrumental means for human life, and only to the extent that they are guided by assumptions of equity and a holistic consideration of processes and impacts, the limitations of such approaches become clear.

By accepting that poverty or environmental degradation is an unavoidable price to pay—the “costs of adjustment”—and that, ultimately, everything can be translated into economic value, we are in fact confronted with a narrow vision of well-being and progress that sidelines a practice committed to people, the environment and social justice. In fact, the pressure for structural reforms and economic adjustment processes, presented as a condition for international credibility (and the consequent access to economic aid and job-creating investment), most of the time have profound impacts on the environment, food security, integrity of communities, social justice, protection, and materialization of rights, in short, on the well-being of populations. Improving people’s lives requires a more equitable socio-economic agenda, intelligent policy choices, and the concrete participation of individuals in defining the direction of development [3, 7, 8].

It is, therefore, necessary to reflect on a concept and practice of development that considers the human being as an end in itself and that takes into account, in a holistic and complex way (interrelating the countless elements related to the diversity of human life and action), the objectives, processes, and results, making it possible to outline a new catalog of priorities and their respective order, with respect for the human being, the environment, culture, and historical heritage, and the freedom to be, to have, and to act [6].

Under these assumptions, building trust and credibility in the business world must be linked not only to the quality of the products produced, but also to upholding ethical principles translated into social and corporate responsibility.

The adoption of sustainable and socially responsible practices and policies is increasingly becoming a filter for distinguishing between companies and products that are worthy of a label of ethical coherence and trust, and those that are not. In this context, it is essential to adopt principles of decent work and respect for the rights of workers and citizens, to adopt practices of transparency and honesty, and to protect the environment by adopting environmentally friendly practices and technologies. In other words, we must adopt a worldview that does not separate the logic of economic growth and development from the dimensions of human, social, and cultural development [9].

In this context, for example, the discussion around the concept and practices of sustainability allows us to critically examine different development paradigms and reflect on the dimensions of social, human, and environmental risk that underlie them. The notion of risk is associated with human action and includes an increasingly minimal dimension of probability and calculation. In this context, the concept of a “risk society,” as proposed by Ulrich Beck [10, 11], highlights the paradoxical effects of technological and scientific development and the production of unexpected and often serious and insurmountable consequences. The “reflexivity” [10] in contemporary societies positions the notion of risk as a strategic element for the foundation of ecological citizenship and the political and cultural rationality that allows to define what does or does not fall under the category of risk. In fact, the acceptance of the appropriate level of risk requires not only a technical-scientific understanding of risk, but also a political assessment of the public acceptability (or not) of a given decision in areas, such as environment, health, or safety.

The debate on the so-called precautionary principle, which we will try to position globally in this chapter, precisely embodies a certain worldview and set of values that call for both a change in attitudes and various levels of individual and collective responsibility, as well as formal and normative changes that condition personal, social, and corporate behavior. Transversely what is questioned is the ambiguous separation between different dimensions of development, which must necessarily be thought of in terms of cross-impact feedback. This is an idea that the concept of sustainability tries to bring together, albeit with numerous inaccuracies and misunderstandings, as we will try to argue. A more complex view of development goals and means is the basis for building trust and credibility in business [9]. A trust that is not only a dimension of strategic management, but also the beginning and the end of a mission that is not reduced to the reproduction of added financial value, but that materializes a conscious ethical involvement in the construction of more balanced, deep, and fair development models.

2. Sustainable development: ambiguities and critical questions

Questions of environmental sustainability (particularly in relation to the impact of pollution and the threat to biodiversity), on the one hand, and the growing and complex economic and social disparities between regions and populations, on the other, challenge the optimism associated with economic growth as an end and clearly threaten the foundations of the fragile geopolitical and economic stability of the contemporary world.

The nexus for reflection on the assumptions of “sustainable development” is therefore how to ensure economic growth, which is relevant in a world where serious problems of inequality, poverty, and unemployment persist, and how to guarantee the preservation of essential values and fundamental resources for assure the possibilities of life and a quality existence for current and future generations (intra- and intergenerational solidarity).

2.1 The rhetoric and paradoxes of sustainability

The new conception of the world that has emerged in this century, based on the concepts of global ethos, ecology, the preservation of human history in its habitat, urbanism, longevity, and quality of life, presents us with unprecedented and fundamental questions, associated, in particular, with the finiteness and fragility of natural resources. It is true that throughout human history we have seen the decline of civilizations due to the insufficiency of these resources, but only in the current context become so plausible the possibility of extinction of the human species, other species, and the planet itself.

Thus, there is an imperative need for a prudential ethics that ensures, now and in the future, the preservation of existence. The modification of human action, boosted by technology and science, has produced profound, and in many cases irreversible, impacts on natural and social contexts. The principles of respect (for the human essence and other species) and care (in the use of resources) are, therefore, parameters of responsibility that can preserve freedom and trust in the organizations, the economy, the politics, and the fairness of decisions and interactions [9].

The notion of sustainability, often presented as an adjective for development processes that are more in line with values of equity and justice, is not univocal. It acquires different connotations depending on the, more or less, eclectic theoretical and ideological bases that support the debates [12, 13]. Assumed by advocates of often conflicting values and political interests, sometimes conventionalist (incremental development), sometimes radical (deep structural change), a recurring criticism of the notion of sustainability is in fact its problematic definition and polysemy, vulnerable to a wide variety of philosophical, political, economic, and socio-cultural interpretations, producing a sort of “intellectual void” [14].

On the other hand, although most agree with its objectives, there are strong disagreements on how to achieve them. For example, on how to resolve the contradictions between the need for economic growth and the safeguarding of environmental sustainability. For this reason, and considering the conflicting objectives, many critics of sustainable development consider it not only unattainable, but also undesirable for the necessary economic growth.

In this context, several authors [13, 15, 16] stress the need to outline a new narrative on the environment in order to reorient human behavior and ensure well-being for all. Morton [15] classifies the discourses linked to ecology as “environmental romanticism” which obscures the deeper issues to be considered. For example, the uncritical adoption of nostalgic notions of a place untouched by human intervention and a return to a time when human beings lived harmoniously with nature, tends to disregard scientific progress and modern achievements. In this way, intentions of real involvement in adopting more environmentally responsible behavior are undermined [17, 18]. Assuming that consumerism is one of the characteristics of the contemporary world, and that people do not want to disregard the achievements and comfort provided by technology, that they want economic development, and that they recognize the many advantages of modernity, it is necessary to adopt a sustainability narrative that promotes not a break with modern prerogatives, but another concept of progress and well-being.

On the other hand, what many authors [3, 18, 19] also highlight is the inequality in the production and distribution of the benefits of technology. As its unregulated use increases, social and environmental injustices increase; they create opportunities for some and growing vulnerability for others, considering the economy and geography. Redcliff [20, 21, 22], when reflecting on the assumptions of “sustainable development,” points out that, despite the current information and awareness campaigns on environmental issues, this has not only been an opportunity for public policies, but above all, a possibility for capital to apply new technologies to obtain greater financial dividends without any fundamental changes in the paradigm of environmental degradation and the squandering of natural heritage [22].

Sustainable development therefore means more than a compromise between the environment and economic growth. The thresholds of sustainability are both natural and structural and, as such, can only be understood by analyzing the systemic interconnection between the various dimensions that reinforce and explain each other [23]. The equation linking human well-being only to economic growth and consumerism is particularly pernicious, transforming, as Rees and Westra [24] state, the market into the arbiter of social values.

Even so, for sustainable development to be more than just a label associated with “benign” growth and to be an alternative to “unsustainable development,” it must immediately advocate an analytical and operational break with a linear model of growth and accumulation, which has ultimately contributed to the deterioration or suppression of the planet’s life supports [20]. This requires the affirmation of global ethics and international agreements—so that individual and corporate interests do not dictate the course of development—as well as a reorientation of public policies, renewed thinking about the civilizational model, and the affirmation of each individual as a political agent; in other words, as someone capable of revealing themselves discursively and operatively in the public space [23].

2.2 Sustainability and the precautionary principle

Several authors have pointed out that the notion of sustainability has been excessively captured in the environmental debate, which not only obscures the necessary interrelationship between the various dimensions of sustainability (social, ecological, economic, political, cultural, and axiological), which reinforces and justify each other, but also sidelines the debate on the tension between the ethical responsibilities associated with preserving life and well-being of future generations and guaranteeing balance and progress for current generations. Overcoming this impasse requires the notion of sustainability to be anchored in a cohesive set of basic principles in its various dimensions, on the one hand, and, on the other, in specific normative guidelines capable of guiding concrete decision-making processes.

Precaution could be one of these guiding principles, although it needs greater conceptual precision and a more pragmatic and analytical definition capable of guiding concrete practices and decisions. Even so, it has been increasingly accepted by states and supranational entities as a guiding principle in defining policies that should not be thought of in an immediate cost-benefit equation, often anchored in cycles of economic crisis, or in electoral processes that are necessarily short and circumstantial.

2.2.1 The precautionary narrative

Since the 1960s, the discussion on environmental issues has gone global. Rachel Carson is considered a pioneer with Silent Spring, published in 1962, which warned of the dangers to human health of chemical manipulation of ecosystems. In 1974 and 1979, respectively, John Passmore with Man’s Responsibility for Nature and Hans Jonas with Das Prinzip Verantwortung (The Principle of Responsibility) presented, with different arguments, the shortcomings of traditional ethics—anthropocentric and centered on the present time—and the need for a cosmological and future-oriented one. In this context, the principle of responsibility in managing resources and preserving a sense of the human became the categorical imperative associated with a certain development process concerned with preserving future temporality, natural resources, nonhuman species, and future generations.

The precautionary narrative originated in Germany in the 1970s. Based on the obligation (starting with the public authorities) of foresight, care and good management in environmental matters, the precautionary principle, scientifically backed, is now used as an argument for the design and implementation of potentially unpopular policies, for example in terms of controlling global warming, polluting phenomena, excesses of genetic engineering, biopolitics, among others.

Since then, the “precautionary principle” has established itself internationally as a basic guideline for defining interventions, especially in environmental and health matters, which are likely to produce potential damage, considering reasonable scientific evidence [25]. It is, therefore, a principle invoked whenever such evidence, considering current scientific knowledge and the absence of formal scientific certainties, provides good reasons to believe that a given activity, technology, or substance may be harmful, requiring anticipatory intervention.

Thus, precautionary action stems from the combination of a possibility that may occur, the impacts it may cause (cost-benefit analysis), and the trust in the source of information.

An example of precautionary action occurred with the management of COVID-19. There was no concrete data that could justify taking serious political decisions (first and foremost because they had an impact on people’s rights and freedoms), such as closing borders, moving to remote work and classes, imposing health requirements. There was only a risk assessment based on data on similar viruses and other epidemics. It was based on this data that governments and administrations took a series of precautionary decisions, which proved to be the most appropriate and avoided even more serious consequences (evident from the comparison in mortality levels between countries that adopted precaution as a rule and others that did not). In short, the precautionary approach emerges “when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain”. Thus, it appeals to actions, before harm occurs, to avoid or diminish damage. The harm “morally unacceptable” (“threatening to human life or health, or serious and effectively irreversible, or inequitable to present or future generations, or imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected”) must be grounded on ongoing scientific analysis that justifies proportional actions and plausible decisions [26] (p. 14).

The precautionary approach is anchored in an evaluation of values and levels of plausible risk, acquiring regulatory legitimacy when it is transformed into a “principle.”

The precautionary principle is, therefore, justified whenever there are plausible uncertainties about the causality, extent, and likelihood of a given risk. It therefore requires an experiential assessment anchored in previous, scientifically-backed evidence about the possibility of the occurrence of facts considered serious and/or unacceptable and their level of irreversibility. It is this possibility—which justifies intervening even before the damage occurs or the certainty that it will occur—that distinguishes precaution from prevention [26, 27]. This perspective includes assessing the threat to the preservation of future generations or the impacts of certain decisions on other contexts and population. There is therefore an underlying assessment of the plausibility of the evidence that determines a given intervention, but also an evaluative assessment of the levels of acceptability of certain damages, and the proportionality of certain interventions and the cost-investment they entail (in financial terms, but also in social and cultural terms).

“When we judge that one hypothesis is plausible, but another is not, we are not saying that the plausible hypothesis is more probable than the implausible, although we are saying the plausible hypothesis is more of a serious possibility than the other. We can only judge the relative probability when we have sufficient evidence to make this determination. When we lack sufficient evidence about both hypotheses, we should suspend our judgement about which hypothesis is true because we are ignorant about that. But we should not suspend our practical judgement, because we still must decide how to act with respect to these possible hypotheses. Thus, if I spot a new growth on my skin and my two hypotheses are ‘it’s cancerous’ and ‘it’s benign’, I do not have to determine that the growth is probably cancerous in order to go to the doctor and have it tested. I can regard the cancer hypothesis as a serious possibility even though I do not regard it as true or even minimally probable” [26].

In this sense, under the argument that repairing is more disadvantageous than anticipating and that the damage may even be irreparable, the need for political and legislative intervention prevails over obtaining scientific certainties (in dubio pro ambiente). The compatibility and compromise between growth, (intelligent) technology, and high environmental standards are now post-industrialist development tools and arguments for classifying greater or lesser modernity, value production, and social and corporate responsibility [13]. Although various perspectives highlight precautionary thinking as a delay in terms of socio-economic development based on mere possibilities, from a differentiated perspective there is evidence that precautionary measures can actually boost innovation for example in terms of clean technologies¹ [26].

The “effectiveness” of precautionary measures is largely due to the legitimacy, authority, and trust put in science. In this context, it is essential to recognize the knowledge produced, particularly in terms of its foundations and respective revisability (epidemiological studies, for example, have shown their shortcomings in the recent pandemic context), which necessarily includes, on the one hand, an appreciation of scientific independence from corporate interests and, on the other, openness to public debate, involving the relevant stakeholders and ensuring adequate communication of science (clear, incisive, factual and empathetic).

It is also important to reflect on the type of intervention to be carried out, as it can (un)balance freedoms and the common good (the example of anti-smoking laws is paradigmatic of a certain “biopower” approach), leading to a kind of “scientifically backed authoritarianism” [23].

The prominence that the debate around these issues has acquired has unequivocally put on the front page of the social, political, and educational agendas the need to generate or increase new and more effective forms of citizen participation and mobilization for the maintenance of life. A call for citizens to exercise conscious citizenship and to be able to strike a balance between freedom, solidarity, and responsibility [8]. The relevance of collective and individual actions, as well as the role of the state and society in terms of debates and immediate actions on the environmental issue, are therefore essential elements for the theorization and broad operationalization of ecological citizenship [13].

Over the last two decades, the concept of an active citizen with rights and duties has in fact become the central axis of a new generation of public policies, although the concrete rights and responsibilities of an environmentally responsible citizen have not been determined, nor the public and private dimensions of this domain. It would thus be a change brought about through the transformation of lifestyles and self-discipline, now established as a public virtue. Similarly, appears the notion of a “socially responsible company,” producing social value and assuming in its corporate culture the reduction of negative impacts on the organizational environment, on the surrounding community, and on the planet itself.

The involvement and determination of responsibility for the preservation of resources and environmental protection on the part of everyone, companies, and citizens alike, is positive in itself. However, it is also necessary to avoid the tendency to depoliticize and privatize environmental issues, obscuring the need for structural changes and debates on the framing of injustices, constraints on freedom of choice and action, and relations of power and influence. The notion of awareness, for example, which emerges in countless political and pedagogical discourses, can be potentially misleading, as it tends to emphasize the logic of changing behaviors, and can obscure the overall debate around, in particular, the responsible use of natural resources, polluting practices by economic agents or public accountability policies. It also fails to reflect on the gap that often exists between the will to act, the understanding of that need, and the real possibility of doing so.

2.2.2 Sustainability, precaution, and ethics

The study of the environmental issue has thus become relevant to understand the interrelationships between human beings and their social, economic, political, and cultural contexts [7], underlining the need for a complex reflection on the rights and duties associated with the environment, both from an individual and collective perspective. Jackson [3] highlights the importance of citizen participation in making sustainable development a reality, underlining the conditions that must be ensured in parallel to promote it: creating and sharing public spaces; facilitating and creating conditions for access to lifelong learning; creating conditions for greater participation by citizens and communities in urban planning and decision-making processes.

The interdependence between the economy, the society, and the environment, permeated by the political dimension, is in fact the nodal point in thinking about sustainability. Thus, what makes it possible to define sustainability is precisely the prism of analysis of the systemic interconnection between the various dimensions that reinforce and explain each other [23].

Therefore, the precautionary approach is also structurally based on ethics [9]. In fact, it not only presupposes choices of action or omission (individual or collective, including states and organizations), based on values, thus assuming freedom and responsibility, but also requires reflection that goes beyond the here and now, the human and the nonhuman.

Ignorance or lack of information cannot be invoked when making decisions with an intra- and intergenerational impact. Assuming responsibility in the present for potential future consequences, even if there is currently no concrete threat, requires, on the one hand, an ethical understanding that is anchored in universality, intergenerational equity, and justice, and, on the other, weighing up the different possibilities and impacts of certain decisions in different territories and for different populations.

In this respect, technology transfer is a paradigmatic and central example. Expensive for peripheral countries, it forces them to export natural resources to acquire them, thus increasing the chances of environmental and social degradation [28]. For example, the costs of technological adaptation to minimize pollution that the least developed countries are unable to meet, along with the need for mass production of products and a political-economic chessboard that is not very favorable to different rates of growth and proportional adaptability, call into question the feasibility of the various international declarations with commitments to reduce pollution levels. This relative failure is unequivocal proof of the dissociation between ideals and concrete conditions, on the one hand, and between duty and will, on the other. In other words, the policies and agreements associated with sustainable development need to be anchored in a multidimensional approach, promoting dynamic connections between environmental quality, equity, justice, and social development [12, 21, 22].

Another example of the dissociation between will and power is related to the sale prices of products classified as “organic” or recycled, which keep large numbers of people away from a collective effort to preserve natural resources. Not because they lack the will or environmental awareness, but because they are clearly economically, socially, and educationally incapable of adopting such practices.

On the other hand, several authors stress the idea that the populations that have the least political power and are the most marginalized are also the most victimized by environmental degradation. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, famously declared at the Stockholm Conference in 1972 that poverty, inequality, and extreme needs are the great polluters and that, in a world divided by inequality, the environment can only be safeguarded if poverty is eradicated, which is only possible with science and technology.

Social justice and environmental justice must therefore be two sides of the same coin. Overcoming the enormous socio-economic fractures and inequalities, both local and global, is the first step toward sustainable development that is substantive and not merely indicative.

A first step could consist of recognizing that the capacity to innovate and build the future, is also shaped by the knowledge we have about the past, namely the lessons learned along the path of civilization. In this vein, Laville [29] points out that to understand the current difficulties, we need to take a look back at the social, political, and economic history of the last two centuries so that we can outline new and/or renewed ways of linking the political and economic spheres. For the author, this task is even more important given the increasing neglect of the more recent history path.

Laville suggests that we can take advantage of capitalism’s current moment of imbalance to recognize that the idea of progress has not always guided the course of society, on the contrary, it is something very recent in human history, and admit that, for example, there were and are different types of economy that tend to be cataloged by the mercantile economy as inadequate, unregulated, obsolete, residual and ineffective in meeting human needs as a whole. As with the Aristotelian notion of economics, reflection should focus on social activity, the aim of which is to guarantee the provision of goods necessary for the “good life,” an idea that recovers the importance of human intentionality in the making of society. This means valuing the everyday dimension of life, the diversity of ways in which it can be expressed, the relationships that have a place in it, and the motivations and sources of identity, beyond consumption and work.

Although the theses associated with a “different economy” or “degrowth”² perspectives [4] in the strict sense may prove to be insufficient, idealized, or inadequate in the current context to promote a consistent transformation in the way we conceive progress and the use of resources, it is essential to integrate them into a deeper consideration of the conceptions of well-being to be built and the ways to combat hunger and poverty in the world. Perhaps the motto is not to stop growing, but rather, how to grow differently, dissociating having from being and assuming that the redistribution of surpluses (in addition to reuse and recycling) is an essential step toward preserving the common good.

Sustainable development, conceived under an integral and human matrix, holds within it the promise of incremental and systemic changes. However, for the rhetoric to be translated into effective practices, it is essential to understand global forces and their differentiated impacts on local communities, to consider time and space scales simultaneously, to plan in the short, medium, and long term, to determine priorities anchored in values and rights, and to overcome economic rhetoric at different political levels.

3. Prudence in favor of sustainable development in international discourses and regulations

The term sustainable development became known after the Brundtland Report (published in 1987). It emphasizes the principle of environmental law that advocates the reconciliation of environmental protection and economic development [28, 30, 31]. As it is a somewhat imprecise concept, as we have already explained, criticism has emerged from various quarters: on the one hand, criticism of the attempt to preserve the consumerist market economy, which is responsible for the insurmountable degradation of natural resources and the increase in inequalities between populations and territories; on the other hand, criticism associated with the attempt to overcome this model by adopting “alternative” economies that lack consistency and without the necessary guarantees of adequate levels of socio-economic growth in different parts of the world.

Reflections on sustainable development, therefore, tend to confront different and often conflicting worldviews. The true foundation of sustainability, however, must lie in reconciling these different perspectives and dimensions under aggregating and sufficiently operational principles. The precautionary principle can be understood from this perspective if it can be an analytical guide with greater precision.

3.1 Precaution as a principle

As we have seen, the precautionary principle emerges in the context of environmental concerns and constitutes an ethical-political guide for plausible choices in contexts characterized by unpredictability and the likelihood of a given phenomenon occurring even in the absence of concrete scientific evidence. It is therefore a rational decision rule, guided by ethical assumptions and available scientific data, to make the best decision in complex and ambiguous contexts. The idea is to define a solution that balances risk and prudence in every decision. The precautionary principle is the guide for reflection toward this possible balance, sometimes slowing down certain processes, and other times determining their suppression.

Although it has now acquired a broader scope, the ecological bias continues to be the fundamental axis of the ongoing debates on sustainability and the adaptations required in terms of economic and social development. These adaptations, translated into environmental policies implemented in the context of companies, public and private organizations, and social behavior, have been structured into three phases [26]. The first, policies are characterized by a curative or remedial approach to the extensive impacts of industrialization and urbanism and the realization that some damages are irreversible. For example, the Polluter Pays Principle policy. The second phase saw the need for restorative policies to be accompanied by preventive policies aimed at containing damage and quantifiable risks using scientific knowledge. The precautionary principle emerges in a third phase in the face of the growing unpredictability and uncertainty associated with natural phenomena and the impacts of technology and science (e.g., in the fields of genetic engineering, nuclear power, and health, among others). In this case, a perspective of pre-damage control of risks is assumed, which poses different challenges, from a political and ethical point of view, for its justification and acceptability, and changes the burden of proof (it is not the injured party who has to prove that she have been harmed by a given intervention; rather, it is the intervention that has to prove that it will not cause harm).

Various conceptions of precaution can be found in various international treaties and declarations³. For example, the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, in 1987 (London Declaration) highlighted: “accepting that, in order to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of the most dangerous substances, a precautionary approach is necessary which may require action to control inputs of such substances even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence”.

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [32] states: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (principle 15).

In 2000, the European Union highlighted the use of the precautionary principle whenever “scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU”.

In all three perspectives, important components are highlighted and gradually integrated into the precautionary principle: in the first case, (1987) the need to contain the effects is highlighted, even without clear scientific evidences; in the second case, (1992) it is assumed that inaction is not acceptable, but the “obligation” to act is not clearly highlighted and the relativization of the obligation is underlined (“according to the respective possibilities”) without the thresholds of these “possibilities” being made explicit. In the third case, the assumption of plausibility (“reasonable grounds for concern”) is highlighted as the basis for effective and supra-anthropological action aimed at high levels of protection.

Under these assumptions, the European Union has been encouraging initiatives to reconcile the social, economic, and ecological in a coherent way, albeit with weak practical results in the lives of populations [33]. The recognition that the Lisbon Strategy, although it has produced higher levels of growth, has failed to produce adequate responses to the pressing social issues affecting Europe and the world, has served as the basis for defining a new development strategy (Strategy 2020; Horizon 2030) which integrates economic, social, cultural, environmental, and technological (particularly digital) issues in a flexible and concrete way. Similarly, almost two decades ago, the “Renewed Social Agenda” (European Commission, 2008) redefined the necessary modernization of European social policies around three principles: opportunity, access, and solidarity, namely by promoting, alongside incentives for local employment initiatives and territorial pacts for employment, new modes of governance that facilitate participation and efficiency, and by recognizing social empowerment as one of the main guides to economic growth [34].

Concrete examples of popular participation under a precautionary approach were the protest movements in Portugal against the incineration of hazardous industrial waste in a cement factory in the Coimbra region (Souselas) in 2011, and the recent movement against lithium mining in the Romano (Montalegre) and Barroso (Boticas) mines in northern Portugal. In both cases, based on uncertainty and the potential for damage, even though there was a favorable Environmental Impact Report, political decisions, and economic interests were blocked through public protest.

The 1972 Stockholm Conference was an important moment in the affirmation of environmental protection in development processes and in the recognition of legislation and principles that are now widespread in international law. This conference has put environmental law at the forefront as a fundamental right, affirming prudentiality as a principle. A principle is not a rule. Rather, it is a guide based on scientific theories and data for defining and implementing rules and legislation. The precautionary principle is thus provided for in many instruments of international law and is perhaps one of the most controversial.

As a principle, the notion of precaution acquires legal status and reverses the burden of proof—it is no longer required to prove that a given action has caused harm, but rather to prove that the action is not harmful. The criteria for assessing the levels of potential risk inherent in certain actions and decisions are, however, diffuse and often guided by evaluative assessments of the ends to be achieved and the means of doing so.

For example, the “Summers Memorandum” (1991), named after Lawrence Summers, then head of the World Bank, advocates the following proposition: “Shouldn’t the World Bank encourage more migration of polluting industries to less developed countries?”. This proposition is anchored on arguments based on strict economic rationality and a functional-evolutionist approach that tends to emphasize (a) that environmental concerns only make sense in developed countries, the rest must prioritize production and growth; (b) that human life in developing countries is short and therefore little affected by environmental impacts; (c) that death in less developed countries has a lower economic cost. The perspectives of development and growth are therefore positioned on different moral levels and tend to leave the costs of unregulated development to a few. The awareness that the impacts would always be global was ignored which, along with the ethical gravity of the decision and the arguments invoked, led to the profound geopolitical, economic, and environmental imbalances that today affect all citizens and the planet globally.

According to Chiro [35], the notion of “environmental (in)justice” implicit in this observation had in fact already emerged in the United States of America in the 1980s, based on a questioning of the traditional environmentalist discourse, which tended to focus on residual and merely conservative logics, that is, associated with the preservation of endangered areas and species. In this context, the environmental justice movements have made it possible to change the critical perception of ecological citizenship. In fact, by emphasizing the “environmental question” as a question of humanity, that is, with a social and political dimension and not just a biological one, these movements have put the right of all beings to a quality life at the forefront, regardless of the territory they inhabit, and the duty of all citizens and rulers to respect natural goods as collective goods, for the sake of a world based on greater environmental and social justice.

In this sense, the effectiveness of the so-called ecological citizenship and the public policies that are part of it, or stem from it, presupposes the ability to weigh up the complexity of the social actors, the installed powers, and the conflicts of interest involved, in other words, understanding the inter-influences and contradictions between the individual and collective, public and private, political and economic dimensions.

3.2 The applied precautionary principle

After the Stockholm Conference in 1972, the precautionary principle began to be introduced into international legislation, based on an existing rule in Sweden (the Environmental Protection Act of 1969) which reversed the burden of proof in relation to environmentally hazardous activities. The mere risk alone justified the adoption of preventive measures, or, in more radical cases, the neutralization of a given product or activity.

From then on, this principle was enshrined in various pieces of legislation and, particularly, in the European Union’s Maastricht Treaty (signed on February 7, 1992): “the Community policy on the environment … shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies.” (Article 130R).

In international legislation, the first explicit reference to the precautionary principle associated with the discharge of pollutants, in particular, “radioactive or toxic wastes”, appeared in 1982 [36].

The emission of gases and concern for the ozone layer also underpinned the need for precautionary action enshrined in 1985 in the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. There have been many examples of the precautionary principle being applied over time. Numerous nuclear tests (e.g., the dispute between France and New Zealand over tests in the South Pacific in 1995) have been legally banned under the principles of respect for the planet’s resources and integrity, reconciling development with the protection of nature and biodiversity, guaranteeing intergenerational relationship and respect for the integrity of humanity’s natural and cultural heritage, which must serve the common good. Other examples exist in the context of international trade. For example, in the so-called “mad cow” case, meat containing hormones, and genetically modified seeds, among others.

In some cases, however, precautionary action can lead to effects contrary to the original purpose. For example, in Japan, after the 2011 nuclear disaster, most facilities were shut down in order to prevent future environmental and population damage, but the lack of a major energy source forced Japan to import fossil fuels at greater monetary and environmental costs. Another example relates to electric vehicles and the use of batteries that are unlikely to be dismantled without significant environmental costs.

3.3 Precautionary action as a basis for trust in companies

Today, society is increasingly vigilant regarding corporate performance and the level of commitment to the quality of life of populations and territories. Aware of this increased attention and of new demands for responsible and accountable development, companies are clearly positioning their ethical criteria in the context of global competition and markets. In this context, the promotion of socially and ethically responsible practices has been taken up by international organizations, which have been able to define standards of appropriate behavior in the face of globally demanding criteria that are, as such, independent of the specific conditions of each company and territory. Examples include the World Council for Sustainable Development, the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability, and the Social Accountability International. In the same way, the balance between business competitiveness indices and the environmental impact of unrestricted industrialization and the inadequate and irresponsible use of natural resources has become a priority for organizations, such as the Global Reporting Initiative or the Global Compact (UN), among others.

Companies are, therefore, required to behave ethically, which is related to an assessment of the impact that a given action or decision has or may have on the well-being and quality of life of individuals and communities, closely linked to a prudential approach that tends to anticipate these impacts and determine proactive and systemic measures [9].

The idea of precaution is very relevant for companies, not only from a strategic point of view, but also, and above all, from a cost-benefit point of view and in terms of gaining public credibility. The costs are inherent in preventing environmental damage, implementing methods that do not degrade and waste resources, and researching and innovating more environmentally friendly products are, in fact, investments with a substantial and long-term returns. In this context, the precautionary business approach is a key element in gaining and consolidating trust and credibility [19].

The assessment of the social performance of companies, including the social and environmental impacts they generate and the way in which they take responsibility for overcoming and/or minimizing them, is based on the assumption that the social, cultural, and economic spheres are interconnected and interdependent. The argument of the common good gives capitalism a “social configuration” legitimacy that goes beyond the material dimension and is oriented toward values of cooperation and responsibility.

This, framed in particular by compliance requirements, must necessarily advocate a broader and more systemic approach to the choices to be made in light of the expectations of the various stakeholders. In this way, the various guidelines must be integrated into a strategic approach that goes beyond merely meeting minimum precaution requirements. Ethical reflection is assumed to be an integral and central part of the company’s strategy and the prudential approach is a structuring element of that strategy, protecting the company from reputational and financial damage, promoting a culture of active evaluation, prospectivity, and social responsibility, generating processes for monitoring and guiding processes and procedures in order to increase levels of trust by the stakeholders and efficiency, particularly in the use of resources and internal and external communication.

The precautionary approach participates in the effort of strategic clarification and social responsibility, making it possible to anticipate possible serious effects that have not yet been made explicit. It has advantages associated with:

1. minimizing risks in contexts of great uncertainty regarding emerging and unknown risks and preventing possible penalties and more financially costly adaptations a posteriori.

2. boosting innovative solutions, ahead of the competition, given the need to replace practices and/or products with a high-risk potential.

3. assuring lower costs in the medium and long term.

4. competitive advantage, driving a higher level of socially conscious investment by investors who trust a company that demonstrates effective compliance concerns and practices.

5. dynamic monitoring and regulation, requiring proactivity and action plans anchored in scenarios, as well as regulatory requirements and responsive strategies (one size does not fit all).

6. definition of global action processes, encouraging companies to continually challenge their comfort zone, define flexible action programs, and envision cross-jurisdictional vigilance processes.

In this way, a precautionary approach adds value to the company and prepares it for long-term logic and adequate response to global competition.

Precaution also implies communicating the potential risks of certain products in a clear and understandable way to customers and other stakeholders, and duly testing and approving them before they are made available on the market. The testing processes themselves need to be ethically based and consistent with the assumptions of care and prudence. The use of animals and humans to test certain products, particularly in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, has long been discussed.

In this context, the basis for recognizing ethical and environmental responsibility is considered to be the way in which products are produced and used, namely by minimizing the risks of testing, respecting environmental resources from anywhere in the world and biodiversity, “fair” trade and respect for decent work, condemning all forms of exploitation (particularly child labor) and safeguarding consumers’ rights to freedom of use, complaints and suggestions, based on clear, reliable and well-founded information about the products and their real or potential risks.

The following are elements of a precautionary approach in the business context: (a) the company’s commitment to the environment and health (including that of its own workers); (b) the translation into the company’s own mission and management of principles of transparency, risk management in sensitive areas and corporate social responsibility; (c) the existence of communication channels with stakeholders ensuring clear information on potential risks and uncertainties, as well as mechanisms for complaints and suggestions for improvement; (d) the guarantee of environmentally friendly production practices and products based on the principle of no harm; (e) the intrinsic link with scientific research and the evaluation of practices in line with the best international evidence.

In addition to these issues, the current advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) pose new dimensions in the assessment of potential risks, not only in the social context but also in the organizational and business contexts [37, 38].

Under a precautionary principle, the European Union defined, in 2021, the Artificial Intelligence Act (the “AI Act”)⁴ which highlights not only the potential of AI but also the risks and eventual impacts it can cause. The environmental protection bias is here replaced by a broader focus on balances between technological and human ecosystems (already talking about the position to be assigned to humanoids). The fundamental question is how to identify the processes and decisions in which it is justified to apply the precautionary principle. In the AI Act, risk regulation is structured into three levels of risk—(1) unacceptable (implying banning the use of the AI system); (2) high (subjecting AI applications to strong compliance and monitoring measures); (3) low (providing for self-regulation of the system through, in particular, codes of conduct)—although the technological uses to which such assessments would be applied are not properly explained.

The argument behind the possible restrictions on technical progress is based on the consideration of “morally unacceptable harm” in the report on the precautionary principle published by UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology in 2005. Unacceptable harm is related to potential damage to life, health, physical and psychological integrity, respect for human rights, and general well-being.

The precautionary principle therefore does not reject scientific and technological advances, nor does it put obstacles in the way of innovation and business development (with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in particular). Rather, it advocates a cautious approach, monitoring rapid advances and assessing risk and cost-benefit. The ultimate care is always associated with harm reduction for society and citizens.

4. Conclusion

Absolute certainty about the impacts produced by science and technology is difficult to achieve, especially in contexts of accelerated evolution and complexity. In this context, the precautionary principle is not a decision-making tool, nor is it a structured protocol that specifies risks and unpredictable situations. Rather, it is a general and dynamic guide for policymaking in ambiguous and uncertain contexts for the protection of humans, animals, and the environment. It therefore presupposes a level of knowledge and confidence in the plausibility and reliability of scientific and technical data, even though the assumption of the precautionary principle implies the aggregation of a broader set of methods and information to frame the available data.

Contextualizing information about ecological threats in broader dimensions, relating to the way today’s societies are organized and the concrete impacts on the various areas of individual and collective life [14], is essential for promoting real personal and collective involvement in ecological terms. However, there is still a long way to go before intentions are translated into practice. There are no transformations by decree and numerous conditions must be created and consolidated as a matter of urgency if the stipulations of the various international treaties and declarations are to be put into practice.

Indeed, the debate, campaigns, and action on ecological issues cannot ignore a fundamental reflection on inequalities, power relations, and socio-economic-political structures, which tend to (re)produce the problems [12, 30]. The importance of the notion of environmental justice/injustice lies in the understanding that the exploitation and scarcity of natural resources, as well as the destabilization of ecosystems, have unequal effects on different groups and/or regions, and tend to particularly affect those who are most vulnerable in terms of economic, social, and informational resources. In fact, there is evidence to suggest not only that the most incisive forms of environmental degradation occur in contexts where low-income populations live, but also that the very “choice” of such places to live is already a product of basic socio-economic weaknesses.

In this sense, although the contribution of each citizen is indeed relevant in environmental terms, socio-political and entrepreneurial action must transcend the individual dimension, which tends to depoliticize the debate around fundamental issues. Associating ecological citizenship with political participation, for example, requires us to consider several substantial issues. Firstly, questions linked to the motivation and material conditions for exercising this participation and, secondly, questions linked to the type of information on environmental aspects and how it is produced and disseminated to build knowledge. In fact, ecological citizenship has to involve individual actions, but also collective, private, and state actions aimed at producing, firstly, the social, economic, and political conditions that make it possible to actually choose to act in a sustainable and fair way (think, for example, of the difficult access, in terms of price and availability, to green and recycled products), as well as determining the minimum international consensus around the priorities, sanctions and targets inherent in the ecological agenda, without dissociating it, therefore, from the global and local political-economic agenda.

A new movement of reflection and education for citizenship is therefore needed to base a holistic perspective on the role of each socio-politico-economic dimension, but also of each and every citizen. This presupposes the consideration of a solidary, shared, cooperative perspective on the world in which we live, or in the words of the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum [6] the realization of an “intelligent global citizenship”.

In this context, the precautionary principle can provide an adaptable framework for general analysis that allows us to balance the risk of acting and the associated losses or gains. Through the lens of precaution, it is possible to appeal to a set of legislative, ethical, and scientific principles that make it possible to achieve sustainable development while preserving the rights to a dignified life for present and future generations. The precautionary principle is therefore associated, in broader terms, with a political, social, and educational commitment to building a global ethic that must underpin a project for society based on sharing, prudence, and respect. This presupposes, first and foremost, knowledge and, substantially, understanding and action.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.