**6. Approach for sustainable globalization**

It may not be possible to generalize the degree of globalization that is sustainable, and it is very likely that different countries need different degrees of globalization for sustainability. However, few basic principles could be adopted to decide on the degree of globalization as guidelines. This section proposes such guidelines as below for social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability. A need for holistic approach is also highlighted.

### **6.1 Social sustainability guidelines**

There are several crucial aspects [65] of social sustainability such as human rights, equity, justice, democracy, and health and safety that cannot be compromised. Adoption of any element of globalization should not negatively impact these crucial aspects even if the globalization has other benefits. Since globalization has complex interactions with society, it may not be possible to only have positive impacts from any element of globalization. However, an element of globalization should only be adopted if it has positive or neutral effects on human rights, equity, justice, democracy, and health and safety even if other aspects of social sustainability are compromised for trade-offs.

### **6.2 Environmental sustainability guidelines**

Decision-making on the adoption of globalization from environmental sustainability perspective is not straightforward due to the nature of environmental impacts of globalization. Both positive and negative impacts of globalization on environment can be temporary and reversible. For instance, globalization can initially cause environmental degradation due to economic growth propelled by trade openness and foreign investments, but later lead to improved environment after the population has sufficiently increased average income and technical capabilities, thereby validating EKC hypothesis [66]. However, global study on EKC hypothesis is inconclusive [67] indicating the complex nature of interaction between economics, environment, and globalization. It has also been argued that while political and overall globalization improves the environment, economic globalization harms the environment [66].

In order to decide on the adoption of any element of globalization, it is first necessary to evaluate the immediate short-term and long-term positive and negative environmental effects. If short-term negative environmental impacts are identified, it is necessary to evaluate other benefits of creating the short-term negative impacts. In a situation where it is found that the short-term negative impacts are outweighed by benefits, for example, economic growth, it is necessary to identify future measures to reverse the short-term negative environmental impacts with a concrete timeframe. Therefore, careful planning is required by first evaluating whether the negative environmental impact can be reversed or not. If the negative environmental impact is reversible, the cost of reversing it needs to be weighed against the benefit of allowing it. The element of globalization may be adopted if the benefit outweighs the cost of reversing negative short-term environmental impact.

#### *Rethinking an Approach for Sustainable Globalization DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105141*

On the other hand, if the environmental impact is irreversible, it is necessary to analyze if this irreversibility compromises the livelihood, needs, and prosperity of future generations permanently. In a case where future generations need are severely compromised permanently, that element of globalization should not be adopted.

Availability and depletion rates (both in quality and quantity) of critical natural resources are other important environmental sustainability considerations. Although the current focus is primarily centered on reducing greenhouse gases emission by implementing renewable energy systems, the use of critical natural resources by these systems cannot be neglected. Renewable energy systems require huge amounts of rare earths and other minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper, manganese, cobalt, etc., and these minerals exist only in fixed quantities on Earth. A typical electric car needs six times the mineral inputs of a conventional fossil fuel car, and an onshore wind plant needs nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant [68]. From a globalization perspective, it is noteworthy that minerals required by renewable energy systems are concentrated in small geographic areas unlike fossil fuels. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was responsible for 70% of cobalt production, and China was responsible for 60% of rare earth minerals production in 2019 [68]. China alone has nearly 90% share in refining of rare earth minerals [68] such as neodymium, terbium, indium, dysprosium, and praseodymium that are required for solar photovoltaics and wind energy systems. Since critical natural resources for renewable energy are concentrated in small geographical areas, monopolization of the supply chain of these resources by few multinational corporations and nations is a real threat that needs to be addressed with urgency. This is particularly important as major fossil fuel monopolies—BP, Shell, Chevron, Total, Eni, and Exxon—are heavily investing in renewable energy [69]. Fossil fuel industry has held tremendous political power in the United States and globally [70], and if this same industry is again allowed to monopolize the new fuel, i.e., critical natural resources required for renewable energy, what are the implications for sustainability? There is an urgent need to critically tackle this question. All in all, globalization needs to tackle any potential monopolization issues associated with renewable energy systems in order to be sustainable.

Impacts of globalization on plastic pollution and e-waste are another major environmental consideration. Adoption of any element of globalization that increases plastic pollution and e-waste needs very careful cost–benefit analysis.

#### **6.3 Economic sustainability guidelines**

Green growth versus degrowth debate is still unsolved, and therefore, every country might first need to rethink whether it wants to follow green growth, degrowth, or another economic paradigm before planning its degree of globalization.

In a scenario where a country chooses green growth, a clear time-bound pathway to decoupling economic growth from environmental pressures needs to be formulated. Environmental pressure should not be measured only in terms of GHG emission but also in terms of air pollution, loss of biodiversity, plastic pollution, stress on freshwater resources, depletion of critical natural resources, land degradation, and other pertinent local pollution. In the context of globalization, a country also needs to decide if it will import products and fuels produced unsustainably from other countries to sustain its economic growth. Economic sustainability cannot be achieved if a country does not produce environmentally detrimental products and fuels on its own country but imports them from other countries, especially from low- or middleincome nations where the products and fuels were produced unsustainably.

For low-income nations with high poverty where rudimentary amenities such as food, water, shelter, and access to basic healthcare are lacking for significant number of people, economic growth propelled by globalization may be adopted even if it causes short-term environmental degradation. This is because if the preservation of present generation is being threatened by poverty and lack of basic survival needs, there cannot be any sustainability or perhaps even future generation. By the same reasoning, poor nations could also adopt infrastructural development enabled by globalization even if there is a short-term environmental damage although it may not be possible to compromise potential long-term and irreversible environmental degradation. It may be noted here that the author is not advocating for short-term reversible environmental degradation for poverty alleviation but only opining that this may be permitted as a last resort if poverty alleviation through economic growth cannot be achieved with zero environmental consequences.

On the other hand, high- and middle-income nations need to strongly embed environmental and natural resources protections in their green growth models. Circular economy may allow green growth to sustain indefinitely although this is debatable. Ideally, circular economy is a regenerative system with no waste and pollution. In a linear economy, a product finally becomes a waste, and manufacturing processes also produce wastes that need disposal. Contrastingly, circular economy uses wastes as resources by creating a cyclical regenerative system that can theoretically be sustained indefinitely. It is highly debatable whether circular economy can be sustained indefinitely with zero negative environmental consequence and yet allow growth because a stable system typically remains unchanged and does not grow indefinitely. However, many believe that circular economy can sustain economic growth indefinitely, and the European Union has a circular economy action plan [71]. Even if the circular economy may not sustain green growth indefinitely, it certainly reduces environmental pressures, and therefore, every economic globalization program should embed circular economy wherever applicable.

It could very well be possible that green growth cannot be sustained indefinitely in high-income nations without importing products and fuels that were produced unsustainably elsewhere. Consequently, high-income nations may need to rethink degrowth or other novel economic paradigms in the context of globalization. Social elements of globalization such as tourism, cultural and technological exchanges, and digital services may allow people in high-income nations to maintain existing quality of life without economic growth or even degrowth. For instance, high-income nations could reduce infrastructural development but rather focus on trading digital services with middle- and low-income nations to maintain its living standards. This is an underinvestigated topic, and further research on how globalization could allow the maintenance of quality of life without economic growth in high-income nation is needed.

#### **6.4 Holistic approach**

Holistic approach that takes into social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability collectively is needed in order to devise a sustainable globalization approach. Basic human rights and equality are prerequisites for sustainability and globalization should either have positive or neutral impacts on these prerequisites for sustainability. Likewise, globalization should not enable irreversible long-term environmental impacts that reduce opportunities of future generations to prosper or maintain the quality of life that the present generation has.

### *Rethinking an Approach for Sustainable Globalization DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105141*

Globalization cannot be sustainable if one country prospers at the expense of other countries. Therefore, sustainable globalization should enhance water, energy, and food security globally. Additionally, sustainable globalization should empower people and reduce inequality. Although, globalization requires agreements and laws that countries follow, sustainable globalization should not impinge on autonomy of any country. More specifically, sustainable globalization should not allow giant multinational companies and big tech corporations to be more powerful than any sovereign nation as this is a real risk (see Section 5).

It may not be possible for sustainable globalization to only have benefits with no negative implications at a practical level. Hence, trade-offs need to be evaluated by every country to decide on the degree of globalization it can sustainably adopt. To this end, it is necessary to realize that certain aspects of sustainability cannot be compromised. These include social aspects such as human rights, reduced inequality, livelihood, democracy, health, and safety. These also include environmental aspects such as irreversible environmental degradations that imminently threaten livelihood of present generation or reduce the ability of future generation to thrive and prosper. Once it is ascertained that globalization does not negatively impact the uncompromisable environmental and social aspects of sustainability, other trade-offs need to be evaluated. Since the priorities of every country can be different, these trade-offs evaluations cannot be generalized.
