Spring, March 2006
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
The Concept and the Main Obstacles
“If the human race wishes to have a prolonged and indefinite period of material prosperity, they have only got to behave in a peaceful and helpful way toward one another.”
Introduction
At first, I had difficulty engaging with the concept of Sustainable Development (SD), as it means different things to different people. The most cited definition is perhaps from the report Our Common Future or known as the Bruntdland Report: "Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." However, it is also considered a vague and ambiguous term. The need of its appliance nowadays is known all over the world, but its meaning is still under uncertainty and has raised critiques and debates from different approaches as each emphasizes the context from different ways.
However, significant progress has been made in illuminating the many controversial issues that have emerged since the formulation of the problem in the Bruntland Report of 1987. Redclift argued that political economy and environmentalism each stood to gain from sharing an analytical perspective as the environmental crisis in the South was the outcome of an economic, structural crisis.[1] Achieving Sustainable Development is about taking action, cooperation, changing policy and practice at all levels. Understanding the concept means that inaction has consequences. We must find innovative ways to change institutional structures and influence individual behaviour to tackling the obstacles.
Before reaching the conclusion, there are three main parts of the content of this essay: the very concept and different approaches of SD; international cooperation; and main obstacles to achieving SD.
I. Sustainable Development: The Very Concept and Different Approaches
The concept of "sustainability" related to human development was originated in 1970s with books: Goldsmith's "Blueprint for Survival" (1972) containing the analysis of increasing social and environmental problems and the policy framework for solving them; Club of Rome's Report namely "Limits to Growth"[2] – LTG – (1972). The latter, published by the Meadow’s team, focused on a growing problem: “the post war rate of global economic expansion could not be sustained otherwise natural resources would be exhausted and the environment irreparably damaged”[3]. It attracted massive attention as it marked the anti-growth sentiment. It was criticized and provoked intense debate. The report suggested a deliberate move from exponential growth to global equilibrium. The world’s resources were limited, and trade-offs between human activities met absolute limits. Therefore, it was not possible to predict exactly which limits would occur first, or what the consequences would be, because of the unpredictable nature of human responses to the crisis.[4]
In the same year, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in
The significance of linking development and the environment was realized and popularized; later, the search for sustainability became the new aspect for governments and environmentalists alike. After the declaration of the Bruntdland definition concept, its actual meaning became increasingly ambiguous and vague, with different definitions being adopted across groups. Thus, it has attracted groups with very different interests as well as different perspectives. Despite its vagueness, the Brundtland definition makes an important statement. Jackson stated: despite the concern over what exactly sustainable development should mean, most varieties share common elements including: stewardship of natural resources, rights of future generations, food sufficiency, harmony with traditional cultures and greater equity between North and South.[5] Hence, to understand the very concept of SD, it is important to acknowledge and discuss them in this essay.
Sustainable Development (SD) examines the transformation of the environment. Basically, sustainable is a new term that has not yet acquired its own range of overlapping and sometimes conflicting associations.[6] ‘Development’ is defined in terms of economic growth which means that as countries experience increased growth, their productive capacity expands and they ‘develop’.[7] It is used over a wide range of contexts ranging form the world of commerce and industry to the realms of social and human welfare;[8] and is considered as an historical process which connects the use of resources in the developed countries with those of South. In 1960, Rostow developed the five stages of major historical model of economic development which has been referred to as modernization theory, namely the Rostovian Take-off Model.[9]
The term of SD suggests that ecology should be attached to economic processes since it requires a broader view of both disciplines together with a political commitment to guarantee that development is sustainable. It is concluded that economic policy is hardly concerned with ecology. Ecology tells us that the activities of all organisms are constrained by the environment, humans not excepted. Eugene Odum remarked: the science of ecology is the study of how living things and the non-living environment function together as an ecological system or ecosystem.[10]
Ecological interconnectedness is the ontology of the biosphere.[11] These ontological bonds, perhaps unfortunately, set limits on economic activity. However, societies that ignore ecological links for economic suitability do so at their peril. Yet mainstream economic thought what Herman Daly calls the ‘growthmania synthesis’ of Keynesian with neoclassical economics[12] sees the economy as perpetually expanding because it has its roots in the philosophical assumptions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which are now outdated.
To achieve a more environmentally sustainable life related to the common custom of ecology and economics is to bring economic public policy in line with the lessons of ecological science. Reviving the common origin of ecology and economics is subversive in the sense of wishing the end of expansionary capitalism. But, Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins stated: an environmental political economy is not about fomenting social upheaval. It is the consequence that will surely arise if fundamental social and environmental problems are not reasonably addressed.[13]
There are different political positions related to environmental concerns and ecological ethics in different ways. According to Steans and Pettiford, Green Thought does not constitute a unified position. There are two distinctions have been made: ‘thinking green’ (often anthropocentric), and ‘green thought’ (often ecocentric).[14] Dobson stated: environmentalism and ecologism are different partially in the context of thinking about ecologism as a political ideology and in the context of a precise demonstration of the radical green challenge to the political, economic, and social consensus that dominates contemporary life.[15] However, both are encouraged to act by the environmental degradation they observe, but their strategies for resolving it differ wildly.
According to Dobson, issues that invigorated contemporary political life are: global warming, deforestation, acid rain, species loss, ozone depletion, pesticide poisoning, and genetically modified food.[16] Two combined reasons to care for the environment: human beings ought to care for it because it is our interest to do so; and the environment has an essential value in the sense that its value is not exhausted by its being a means to human ends – even if it is not a means to human ends it still has value. Basically, concern for nature and environment actually is concern for us.
Shiva identifies ‘nature’ as a “she”; thus, as a result of today’s progress, a science, a development which destroys life and threatens survival, “she” is central to this threat to survival. All the things within “her” – forests, soils, waters, air – are dying and being burnt and destructed so we are losing life-support systems. This destruction takes place in the name of development and progress thus there must be something wrong with a concept of the progress.[17] Violence to nature is connected to the violation and marginalization of women who depend on nature for drawing support for themselves, their families, their societies – especially in the
Furthermore, ‘ecofeminism’ or ‘ecological feminism’ has become an important challenge both to mainstream sustainable development thinking and to other radical streams of thought such as deep ecology.[19] The biocentrism of deep ecology is both echoed and challenged by ecofeminism whose world is rather complex. Awareness of the importance of gender in the relations between people and non-human nature has grown apace through the 1980s and 1990s.[20] There is a series of schools of thought within which environment and gender engage, including feminist environmentalism, feminist poststructuralism and socialist feminism; as Environmentalist have begun to engage with liberal feminist agendas, to consider women as actors in environmental management.[21]
So how could we define the concept of SD? Allen defined it as a development that is likely to achieve lasting satisfaction human needs and improvement the quality of life;[22] while Redclift stated: the term suggests that the lessons of ecology can, and should be, applied to economic processes.[23] A combination of both definitions and that of Brundtland Report is perhaps, at best, the simplest and most understandable definition; while it explains the concept. I would say that different approaches above are highly significant in defining it although each emphasizes on different aspects. In my opinion, perhaps this is owing to the fact that the concept of sustainable development refers to all aspects of life. It is the linkage concerning the present and the future of humanity that what makes it so difficult to define. Some people attempt to pinpoint it in only one sector – i.e. economy – while they disregard the influence that sustainability can have in general – i.e. technology, science, everyday life, and politics. It is fair to say that the concept should cover not only about environment, but also about all activities for human needs related to environment for the continuity of a better life that requires international action and cooperation.
At this point, I would argue that it is more important to stress on how we might actually achieve it rather than arguing the definition. However, in defining the concept, it is also prominent to equally stress not just the ability of future generations but also of today’s generations as faith of the former depends and is much related to the latter.
II. International Cooperation
SD is not just an abstract concept to be left to our political leaders. It can only be implemented and achieved by collective actions of international cooperation that are highly effective. In achieving it requires action, changing policy and practice at all levels, from individual to international.
Table 1: International Cooperation on Sustainable Development
| Year | Key Events | Results | Notes |
| 1972 | UN Conference on Human Environment ( | UNEP established | |
| 1987 1989 | World Brundtland Report – Our Common Future | Focused on three fundamental components on sustainable development: - Economic growth, Equal society, Environment; - Identifying the “official” definition of Sustainable Development | Framing of what would become the 40 chapters of Agenda 21 and the 27 principles of Rio Declaration on Environment and Development |
| 1992 Dec 1992 | Earth The Commission on Sustainable Development was created. Its duties are to monitor and report the implementations of the Earth Summit agreements | Agreements on issues of environment protection and socio-economic development: Convention on Climate Change Convention on Biological Diversity Agenda 21 Responsible for reviewing progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development | Non-environmental issues emerged on the conference, such as finance, consumption rates and population growth. There was conflict of interest between developed and developing nations (North-South relations) concerning the demand of environment sustainability and the need of industrialization |
| 1997 | United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions (UNGASS) or Earth | Produced a Statement of Commitment and a programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21. The programme put emphasis on fields of finance, technology transfer, debt and trade to support international cooperation on sustainable development | In fact, there had been slow progress in implementing Agenda 21, that was why a revived commitment and programme were formed |
| 2000 | UN Millennium | Millennium Development Goals, targeted to be achieved by 2015. The Eight Goals: Fight poverty and hunger; Universal primary education; Gender equality; Reduce child maturity; Improve maternal health; Combat HIV/AIDS; Environment sustainability; Global partnership for development | |
| 2002 | The World | -Among the issues addressed: increasing demands of growing population, such as food, water, energy and economic security. -Adopted Political Declaration and Plan of Implementation | |
The progress of International Development on SD has been through a long road as illustrated by the table above. Although SD lies at the heart of the Earth Summit process, the international community met for the first time at the UN Conference on Human Environment to consider global environment and development needs.[24]
The Stockholm Conference published two documents: The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment is part of UN Institution alongside the Declaration of Human Rights – stated 26 principles and reviews those forms of human activity causing most environmental concern; Action Plan for the Human Environment – made 109 recommendations under three headings of global assessment, environmental management, and supporting measures.[25]
The urgency of making progress toward economic development that could be sustained without reducing natural resources or harming the environment was alerted by the 1987 Brundtland Report – known as Our Common Future; which offered, perhaps, the most widely used definition.[26] At the Rio Earth Summit that nations around the world came together to push for concerted action to try and reach an agreement on the best way to slow down, halt and reverse environmental deterioration.
Global environmental summits received extensive criticism and moderate success. Agenda 21 has been described as “the most thorough and ambitious attempt yet to specify what actions will be needed to reconcile development with environmental concerns.[27] The various agreements and conventions put forward at UNCED were characterized by heated debate and disagreement mainly along North-South lines. Several themes have major emphasis on Agenda 21, such as the importance of the role of national governments in promoting SD which is not only essential to the way development is implemented, but also influences the way sustainable development is understood. Moreover, the wide manipulation of the concept and the way it is practiced is largely a consequence of government needs and priorities. Current political rhetoric focuses on the inclusion of a universalistic sustainable development concept in the policy making process, but implements it according to the state's definition of what sustainable forms of development might either signify or be most suitable for their political economic interests. The ambiguity of the concept encourages varying’ interpretations of sustainable development practice.
Our Common Future, while adopting a universal form of SD, recognized that there are remain certain conditions affecting promotion of a common cause. “Our inability to promote the common interest in sustainable development is often a product of the relative neglect of economic and social justice within and amongst nations.”[28] For example, in the Southeast Asian context its meaning has been applied in several controversial areas. An area in which analysis is particularly illustrative is that of eco-tourism, which includes the issues of needs and priorities while demonstrating the continuing lack of respect for elements contained within the broader notion of the SD concept.
III. The Main Obstacles
The main obstacles need to be tackled to achieving SD. Considering the broad aspects that it covers; the obstacles constructing the SD are many. However, I would only emphasize them on the subject of North-South Issues and of the Lack of Awareness towards the issues on SD.
(i). North-South Issues
The link between environment and development in a North-South context was being formally elaborated in the Stockholm Conference.[29] In North and South, development has meant an end to old habits of frugality, and, by its emphasis on industrialization, has also frequently destroyed the community resources.[30] Among issues raised in the context of North-South are: growing inequality between the world’s rich and poor, and the need to address poverty and basic needs on global scale; the need to secure food security in the face of rising population. Developed countries managed to develop sections such as industry, health, transport, agriculture and tourism in terms of sustainability, resulting to an economical prosperity and environmental balance at the same time. Conversely, developing countries are having problems because of their instable governments, lack of education and high density of population.
The political economy of the environment has, necessarily perhaps, become increasingly heterogeneous.[31] In Political Economy, it is impossible not to acknowledge the North-South relations. It was also the most important wider issues addressed at
“The central issue with which all future attempts to promote globally sustainable development will have to grapple is…the division between rich and poor, developed and developing, North and South.”[32]
The North-South imbalance was reflected in the conference agenda. Northern concerns were given a higher priority than vitally important southern issues, such as improving the quality of water as contaminated drinking water is still the main cause of infant mortality in poorer countries.[33] In West Kalimantan, Indonesia, for instance, river water in the upper reaches of
North and South issue is basically assumed as a result of a persistent trend faced in external disparity by developing countries associated with the process of development which has caused a condition where the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer – which had led to the dependency theory advocated by Raul Prebisch. These inequities mean that life is a daily confrontation for the poorest, with a reality which is hardly imaginable to most Northerners but nevertheless exists in a massive scale.[35]
Many people in the world live in extreme poverty, lacking sufficient nutrition, access to safe drinking, water, sanitation, health care and housing with children at risk. In the South, about four million of the children before the age of five die of diseases caused by lack of safe water and sanitation.[36] The troubles of the poorest, relative to the richest, has been worsening over recent decades. Yet, in the North, there has also been an upsurge in social imbalances as the human and social costs of unsustainable trends maintain to grow. Thus, SD requires a commitment to overcoming poverty through focus in the welfare issues of the poorest society, particularly in developing countries.
Many have focused the importance to tackle poverty issues on developing countries, while the issues are also raised in developed countries. At this point, I would stress that it is important to acknowledge and tackle poverty issues in developed countries. Thus, the issues are equally important on both sides and only through a global commitment to addressing the concerns of the poor will the environment be conserved or the development aspirations of individuals and nations be secured.[37]
(ii) Lack of Awareness
Another important obstacle is Awareness – either globally, collectively (including business responsibility), or individually. The promotion of SD is everywhere as governments, TNCs, and NGOs have committed to implement the objective of SD. Global awareness has progressed via international cooperation, although the implementations have not yet been completely achieved. Collectively, ever since the Brundtland Report, recognitions have increased, denoted by the formation of many groups or organizations such as Green Peace.
But how about business responsibility? UNRISD, an autonomous United Nations agency that carries out research on the social dimensions of contemporary problems affecting development has a project: The Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development promoting research and policy dialogue on corporate social and environmental responsibility.[38]
In developed countries, various companies, some of them transnational, oppose policies protecting the environment.[39] For example, producers of artificial fertilizers and pesticides do not wish too see a shift towards an organic agriculture although their products are known to poisoning the soil and polluting rivers and lakes. Another example is that the cost of chemical firms and heavy industry would be increased if they to cut emissions contributing to pollution and acid rain. However, some companies can easily adjust to environmental measures and have proved their awareness and care concern of issues on SD such as environmental ones. One of them is The Body Shop – a company with a difference; dedicating their business to the pursuit of environmental change.[40] They are famous for their ‘against animal testing-products’. However, animal welfare activists have called for a boycott of the Body Shop after its founder and fellow shareholders sold out to French cosmetics giant L'Oreal[41] because of the fact that L'Oreal has a menacing track-record for testing their cosmetics on animals.
Moreover, one of the most obvious obstacles is self-awareness as it is difficult to measure and monitor the individual’s awareness. It is because of the lack of understanding, or simply because they do not really care. Reid suggested this, as a product of ideas that have shaped the society and dominated the culture.[42] As a loyal customer of Body Shop for about 13 years, it is not because of their dedication to the environment and their ecologically sustainable business that has attracted me, but because of the products. Yet, it makes me feel good knowing that I have participated in promoting one of the issues related to SD. But, still, how can we assure that everyone in the world aware of the issues? The only way is to promote the importance of self-awareness so people would realize and be concerned about the issues.
Conclusion
Sustainable Development is a challenge for people across the globe and should not be handled in isolation as to ensure that the relationships of all aspects of life between people and places are such that economic growth is achieved whilst the environment is also cared for. The definition remains vague and thus it is debated by different perspectives with different emphases. However, instead of debating the definition, what is more important is how we respond to the challenge and therefore achieve the implementations to make a better life for present and future generations.
The environmental challenge – in terms of rectifying the damage done through the past development, such as global warming; and ensuring future conservation of resources, such as overcoming poverties – also ensures that the future fulfillment of development aspirations in the world is dependent on collective actions of all societies across the globe. The progress of International Cooperation has been obstructed with constraints while it has also accomplished many achievements. The North-South issues as well as other main obstacles in achieving Sustainable Development need to be tackled. To embark upon them, global awareness is important to support international cooperation. Accordingly, let me wrap up this essay by quoting a line from Dalai Lama: “Today, more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of Universal responsibility, not only nation to nation and human to human, but also human to other forms of life.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books and Working Papers:
Adams, W.M. (2001) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the South.
Allen, Adriana and You, Nicholas (directed and edited) (2000) Sustainable Urbanisation: Bridging the Green and Brown Agendas,
Craige, Betty Jean (2002) Eugene Odum: Ecosystem Ecologist and Environmentalist.
Daly, Herman E. and Kenneth N. Townsend (Eds) (1993) Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics.
Dobson, Andrew (2000), Green Political Thought.
Elliott, J. (1994) An Introduction to Sustainable Development: The Developing World,
Gill, Stephen and David Law (1988) The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems, and Policies.
Grubb, M, M. Koch, A. Munson, F. Sullivan, and K. Thomson (1993) The Earth
Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovin, and Hunter Lovin (1999) Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution.
Keller, David R. and Frank B. Golley (Eds) (2000) Philosophy of Ecology: From Science to Synthesis.
Meadows, D.H.; D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens III (1972) The Limits to Growth.
Muchett, Douglas F. (Ed.), (1997) Principles of Sustainable Development.
Pearce, David and Giles Atkinson (Undated) The Concept of Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of its Usefulness Ten Years after Brundtland, CSERGE Working Paper, PA 98-02, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London and University of East Anglia.
Redclift, Michael (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions,
Reid, David (1995) Sustainable Development: And Introductory Guide,
Shiva, Vandana (1989) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development.
Steans, Jill and Lloyd Pettiford (2005) Introduction to International Relations: Perspectives and Themes.
Thomas, Caroline (1992) The Environment in International Relations.
Trainer, Ted (1989) Developed to Death: Rethinking
Turner, R.K. and D.W. Pearce Sustainable Development: Ethics and Economics, CSERGE Working Paper, PA 92-09, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London and University of East Anglia.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future.
Internet Resources:
Bider, Bambang (July 22, 2003) Mercury spells disaster in W. Kalimantan. Website of Ministry of Environment of
Booth, Robert (March 17, 2006) Activists call Body Shop boycott, Guardian, Friday, can be found at: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1733470,00.html
“Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development”, UNRISD, can be found at: http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BB128/(httpProjects)/E7F3F4A25DFB0AE980256B6100514A19?OpenDocument
Corporate Social Responsibility – A growing movement across the World, can be found at: http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/index.html
“Earth Summit 2002 Explained”, can be found at:
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/Es2002.PDF
International Institute for Sustainable Development, can be found at: http://www.iisd.org/
Introduction to Sustainable Development, SD Gateway, can be found at:
http://sdgateway.net/introsd/
Johannesburg Summit 2002, can be found at: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org
Millenium Development Goals, can be found at:
http://www.undp.org/mdg/ and http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
“Mission Statement of The Body Shop”, The Body Shop, can be found at: http://www.thebodyshopinternational.com/web/tbsgl/about_reason.jsp
Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, can be found at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/636/93/PDF/N0263693.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, can be found at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), can be found at: http://www.unep.org/
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), can be found at: http://www.unrisd.org/
Vartan, Starre Half the World is Women: But Empowerment—and Environmental Progress—Are Lagging, E/The Environmental Magazine, September/October 2004, Vol. XV, No. 5, can be found at: http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2024
[1] Michael Redclift, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions, (London: Routledge, 1987), p. 3.
[2] See Appendix 1 for the conclusion of the original document of the report.
[3] Caroline Thomas, The Environment in International Relations, (London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1992), p. 67.
[4] Redclift, p. 53.
[5] B. Jackson, Poverty and the Planet: A Question of Survival, (London: NEF, 1994), p. 119.
[6] David Reid, Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide, (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1995), p. xv.
[7] Redclift, p. 15.
[8] Reid, p. xv.
[9] See Appendix 2.
[10] Betty Jean Craige, Eugene Odum: Ecosystem Ecologist and Environmentalist, (
[11] David R. Keller, Frank B. Golley, Philosophy of Ecology: From Science to Synthesis, (
[12] Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend, Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1993), p. 13-15.
[13] Paul Hawken, et al, Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution, (London: Earthscan Publications, 1999), p. 322.
[14] See Appendix 3 for their definitions.
[15] Andrew Dobson, Green Political Thought, (
[16] Ibid, p. 1.
[17] Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development, (London: Zed Books, 1989), p. xvi.
[18] Ibid., p. 42.
[19] Karen Warren, Ecological Feminism (Environmental Philosophies S.), (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 95.
[20] W.M. Adams, Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the South, (
[21] Ibid., p. 168.
[22] Jennifer A. Elliott, An Introduction to Sustainable Development: The Developing World, (London: Routledge, 1994), p.3.
[23] Ibid.
[24] “Earth Summit 2002 Explained”, http://www.earthsummit2002.org/Es2002.PDF
[25] Reid, p. 37.
[26] Elliott, p. 5.
[27] Reid, p. 186.
[28] WCED, Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 49
[29] Caroline Thomas, p. 25.
[30] Reid, p. 141.
[31] Redclift, p. 11.
[32] M. Grubb, M. Koch, A. Munson, F. Sullivan, and K. Thomson, The Earth
[33] Reid, p. 192.
[34] Bambang Bider, Mercury spells disaster in W. Kalimantan, Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, July 22nd 2003, can be found at: http://www.menlh.go.id/eng/terbaru/artikel.php?article_id=694
[35] Reid, p. 6.
[36] Elliot, p. 22.
[37] Ibid, p. 21.
[38] See UNRISD’w website:
http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BB128/(httpProjects)/E7F3F4A25DFB0AE980256B6100514A19?OpenDocument
[39] Stephen Gill and David Law, The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems, and Policies, (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1988), p. 371.
[40] http://www.thebodyshopinternational.com/web/tbsgl/about_reason.jsp, and see appendix 6.
[41] Robert Booth, Activists call Body Shop boycott , Guardian, Friday March 17th 2006, http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1733470,00.html
[42] Reid, p. 129.
