Planetary Welcare principles for just and sustainable futures: a compass for system change, trade reforms, and transformations

Abstract

International trade, a cornerstone of the global economy, has witnessed substantial growth since the start of the 21st century. This expansion, largely driven by liberalizing policies and supported by initiatives like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has deeply integrated economies worldwide, making trade a substantial part of global gross domestic product (GDP). However, this growth also spotlights cultural, social, and environmental consequences. Studies indicate that trade is responsible for up to 70% of global environmental impacts, often transferring burdens from “developed” to “developing” nations. While trade bolsters economies, it also poses risks to people, nature, and the planet. In this article, I introduce the Planetary Welcare compass, an innovative framework designed to navigate these multifaceted challenges and drive transformative change. This framework integrates diverse perspectives on development, equity, sustainability, and planetary health into five interconnected principles: enhancing well-being, promoting balanced consumption, fostering accountability with integrity, embracing rooted globalism, and championing environmental stewardship. The article delves into the foundation of this framework and applies it to the overarching strategies of both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Fair Trade Charter (IFTC), highlighting their divergent approaches and associated challenges. In conclusion, the Planetary Welcare compass offers a comprehensive set of principles to guide and assess production and consumption systems, including trade policies and agreements. It suggests a significant shift from the traditional welfare-state model toward a broader focus on planetary health, equity, and sustainability, ushering in the emergence of a “Welcare state” paradigm for a just and sustainable future.

Keywords:

• Framework
• policy reform
• welfare state
• system change
• sustainable trade
• fair trade
• trade agreements

Introduction

International trade is a cornerstone of global economic, cultural, and ecological systems. Since the inaugural United Nations environment conference in Stockholm in 1972, global export values have skyrocketed, multiplying 60-fold to US$30.77 trillion in 2022 (World Bank, n.d.-a). Large proportions of gross domestic product (GDP) have come to depend on international trade: 93% the European Union’s GDP, 80% for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 57% for the UK (and the global average), 39% for Brazil, 37% for China, and 25% for the United States (World Bank, n.d.-b).

This growth in trade can be attributed to a confluence of factors, including technological innovations, advancements in logistics, globalization, and the rise of emerging markets (Pavcnik 2017; Meng et al. 2018). Yet, trade growth can largely be linked to policies for liberalizing and reducing barriers to international trade. This has been facilitated by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was an international treaty that existed from 1947 to 1994, and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), which serves as a global body for opening trade, trade negotiations, and dispute resolution. Furthermore, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) underscore the WTO’s significance, with SDG target 17.10 emphasizing the promotion of “a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization.” (United Nations 2015). Concurrently, the SDGs advocate for robust GDP growth, emphasizing “Aid for Trade” (SDG 8, targets 8.1, 8.a) and the reduction of trade tariffs alongside export expansion, particularly among the least “developed” countries (SDG 17, targets 17.10, 17.11, 17.12).

Trade policy plays a pivotal role in determining a nation’s social and ecological impact (Wiedmann and Lenzen 2018). While trade can bolster economic growth, facilitate access to goods and services, create jobs, and reduce poverty (Bhagwati 2004; Gnangnon 2017; WTO and World Bank Group 2018), it can simultaneously lead to adverse outcomes. These implications include worsening the climate crisis, facilitating biodiversity and habitat loss, leading to a loss of ecosystem services, intensifying water pollution, and exacerbating social inequalities (Rees 2006; Holt 2012; Abman and Lundberg 2020; World Bank 2020; Schaafsma et al. 2023).

In fact, international trade has been linked by some analysts to between 10% and 70% of total global social and environmental impacts (Wiedmann and Lenzen 2018). Over time, these adverse effects have been displaced from “developed” to “developing” nations, initially moving from high-income to emerging economies and eventually reaching lower-middle and low-income nations (Meng et al. 2018). Remarkably, while international trade has enhanced the SDG performance for the majority (65%) of “developed” countries, it has adversely affected the SDG metrics for most (60%) “developing” nations, especially in areas related to resource efficiency and natural resources management (Xu et al. 2020). This pattern has been described as “cost shifting” by Muradian and Martinez-Alier (2001, 292), indicating the relocation of burdens from the global North to the global South.

In response to the unintended consequences of production and trade systems, there has been a proliferation of regulatory and voluntary instruments, including independent certification schemes; voluntary sustainability standards (VSS); environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives; and special provisions in bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTA). These measures aim to mitigate the negative impacts of production and trade (Das et al. 2019; Abman and Lundberg 2020; Abate, Basile, and Ferrari 2021; Birkbeck 2021; Agnew, Klasa, and Mundy 2022; Österblom et al. 2022). However, the outcomes of these efforts on environmental and social indicators are mixed (Fiorini et al. 2020; Hoare and Uehara 2022; Marx, Depoorter, and Vanhaecht 2022; Österblom et al. 2022).

For instance, while ESG investments may yield superior financial efficiency in some geographies (Abate, Basile, and Ferrari 2021; cf. Hartzmark and Sussman 2019), they can also sideline considerations regarding business impact on sustainable development (Adams and Abhayawansa 2022; Bhagat 2022). In general, the effectiveness of such provisions, beyond catering to niche (premium) markets or enhancing companies’ economic performance, remains limited. To truly enhance the sustainability of trade, a more profound transformation in the functioning of trade systems and their equitable distribution of costs and benefits is essential. This necessitates a fundamental rethinking of the role of trade in society and its alignment with principles of sustainability and justice, transcending the current approach to address the inherent challenges in production and trade systems.

Just and sustainable trade?

Realizing “green,” “fair,” or “sustainable” trade through FTAs’ sustainability provisions has proved difficult. For instance, no party has ever brought a formal case to address documented violations of environmental provisions in FTAs to which the United States is a party, and a recent review concluded that FTAs involving the European Union have insufficient environmental provisions (CIEL 2015; Blot and Kettunen 2021). Between 1995 and 2019, research suggests that consumption in European Union member states augmented pressures and impacts abroad, most notably on ecotoxicity, material and water consumption, and greenhouse-gas emissions (Bruckner et al. 2023). Addressing inequality, Canada exemplifies a nation striving for progressive trade stances. Yet, it grapples with achieving genuine distributive inclusion, moving beyond mere representation for certain marginalized communities (Goff 2021).

The conundrum has persisted into the 2020s, as reflected in negotiations like the European Union-Mercosur trade agreement (EMTA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Even with the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the EMTA is identified as lacking adequate measures to mitigate deforestation and prevent human-rights infringements (Imazon 2020; Kehoe et al. 2020; Fern 2023). The EMTA is projected to yield welfare benefits approximating €2.2 billion, of which the European Union stands to secure 68% of this amount (Imazon 2020). The impacts of the 2019 AfCFTA also remain to be seen. However, it is noteworthy that while anticipated to bolster economic growth and regional industrialization, “the AfCFTA contains only minimal environmental references” (Van Der Ven and Signé 2021, 7). In an environmental economics assessment by Quartey (2023), the AfCFTA’s projected environmental damages are estimated to exceed US$740 billion, a figure that surpasses the anticipated economic benefits of US$450 billion projected for realization by 2035. Despite ongoing discussions about harmonizing these agreements with sustainable development goals, there is scant evidence to suggest a departure from conventional perspectives on the role of trade in society.

Civil society organizations, as well as academic and policy papers, have called for trade to reduce environmental impacts, to observe human rights, to achieve broader governance reforms (see Akman et al. 2020; Kehoe et al. 2020; Schneider-Petsinger 2020; Birkbeck 2021; European Commission 2021; Hoekman and Mavroidis 2021), or “system change”—for instance, moving trade systems away from colonial and top-down regimes, or repositioning trade as a means instead of an end goal (see Demaria and Kothari 2017; Greenpeace 2017; ETI 2018; Galtung 2019; Kiessel 2022; Laumann et al. 2022). However, these alternatives have not (yet) gained sufficient societal or political support from national governments, other decision-makers, or influencers.

The current trajectory of international trade underscores a multifaceted interplay of economic advantages juxtaposed against significant socio-ecological and equality implications. The cost-shifting from “developed” to “developing” regions, the limited efficacy of sustainability provisions in prominent trade agreements, and the challenges evident in nations with tentatively progressive trade policies, all highlight systemic challenges within the trade paradigm. As Mathai et al. (2021, 1) aptly note, the persistent growth in “global resource extraction and corresponding socioecological degradation continue to grow,” and this underscores an urgent need for policy re-evaluation.

Introducing the Planetary Welcare compass: a framework for transformative change

Drawing upon the insights of scholars and organizations specializing in sustainability, development, ethics, and equity, I introduce the Planetary Welcare compass as a tool for transformative change (see Sharpe et al. 2016, in particular to the references to Horizon 3). Distinguished from traditional reforms that aim for incremental change—such as in efforts to reduce harm or to enhance resilience within existing systems—the Planetary Welcare framework should serve as a strategic compass for systemic or transformative change.

At its core, the Planetary Welcare compass hinges on five foundational principles, encapsulated in the Planetary Well-C-A-R-E acronym: Well-being enhancement; Consumption balanced; Accountability; Rooted globalism; and Environment stewardship. I discuss the foundations of these principles in the next section and then proceed in the third section of this article to explain the principles. The fourth section stresses the practical relevance of this article against the overarching strategies of the WTO and the IFTC. The Planetary Welcare framework serves as a comprehensive lens for scrutinizing economic and trade-related policies, as well as broader systems of production and consumption.

The Planetary Welcare framework is designed as a robust guide for legislative and policy dialogues that would lead to transformative change. The compass was developed to facilitate meaningful discussions about future transformations, utilizing a simple structure as recommended by Sharpe et al. (2016). In keeping with Narlikar’s (2022) emphasis on policies that resonate with “real people,” the Planetary Welcare compass seeks to meet this essential criterion for impactful changes in trade policy.

From reforming to transforming trade and economic relations

The idea of reframing economic systems or reforming trade is not new. Scholars, policymakers, consultancy firms, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), social movements, and international organizations have long suggested ideas and standards for trade systems to limit their negative impacts and to boost their positive impacts on economies, societies, and environments. In a scoping review of 20 trade-related institutions and frameworks (listed in Appendix 1),¹ certain challenges were found to be more frequently tackled than others.

Trade-related frameworks and institutions have often addressed labor standards, environmental degradation, participation, transparency, and accountability. These challenges are mentioned in about half of the frameworks mapped in the scoping review. For instance, the European Commission trade-policy review, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) investment-policy framework, and the Trade Justice Movement address transparency, labor standards and human rights. Elsewhere, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Greenpeace, and the negotiations for a plurilateral Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) engage with environmental protection and climate security. Yet, existing trade-related frameworks and institutions rarely address challenges related to inequality, cross-border accountability, younger and future generations, excess consumption, or cultural diversity. One framework that does consider these issues is the ITFC.

Trade-related institutions often adopt the triple-bottom line (TBL) approach, which serves to evaluate a company’s net value through its economic, social, and environmental impacts (Elkington 1998). Notable adopters include the Hinrich Foundation Sustainable Trade Index (STI), the European Commission, and the European Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance. These entities frequently enhance the TBL with criteria such as participation, transparency, and accountability. Meanwhile, institutions like UNEP and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emphasize the environmental aspect of the TBL, while considering the economic perspective. In contrast, the Fairtrade Foundation, Trade Justice Movement, and Ethical Trading Alliance focus on the social dimension of the TBL, always considering the economic perspective.

However, as Elkington (2018) puts it, the TBL “failed to bury the single [financial] bottom line paradigm.” The TBL, a forerunner to ESG and other integrated reporting initiatives, has, over time, often been misapplied or rendered obsolete. According to Elkington, its own proponent, the TBL was “captured and diluted” by reporting consultants and failed to contribute to system change (Elkington 2018). For example, the STI ranking proposed by the Hinrich Foundation with the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is underpinned by the TBL, is tilted in favor of trade expansion and high-consuming geographies such as Singapore while penalizing producing countries such as Indonesia, even when the latter produces what is demanded by the former (see The Economist Intelligence Unit 2020).

Contrary to interpretations of “sustainability” or “resilience” employed to justify business-as-usual approaches or incremental changes that mostly retain the status quo, this study adopted definitions centered on the holistic pursuit of health, well-being, environmental stewardship, and global equity. This interpretation is aligned with the emerging paradigm of “planetary health,” emphasizing a harmonious coexistence of humanity within the Earth’s natural boundaries, and the need for careful stewardship of the political, economic, and social systems that influence our collective future (see Whitmee et al. 2015).

Transcending traditional metrics: a paradigm shift toward strong sustainability and global equity

In the quest for transformative change, which involves a shift in systems thinking, the need for interdisciplinary paradigms extending beyond economics and law becomes apparent (Narlikar 2022, 1572). These paradigms are crucial as they address complex issues related to power dynamics, ethics, and sustainability (Hannah, Roberts, and Trommer 2021). This article draws upon diverse fields such as sustainability science, geography, planning, public health, political ecology and development studies to propose a new vision of successful trade and a set of principles for transformative change. Alongside pillars that are complementary to the TBL—such as technological and organizational sustainability (Khan, Ahmad, and Majava 2021), “purpose” (Mulamoottil 2019; Zinaty 2020), and “perception politics” (O’Neil 2018)—I consulted multiple stakeholders,² and explored a range of alternative concepts, such as the green economy, circular economy, community economies, social solidarity economies, doughnut economics, well-being economy, environmental and climate justice, ecomodernism, food sovereignty, neo-extractivism, development aid, development as freedom, deep ecology, degrowth, equity as sustainability, ecofeminism, new matriarchies, environmental justice, ubuntu, kyosei, buen vivir, and civilizational transitions for the pluriverse (see Kothari et al. 2019). In the course of these consultations and readings, it became apparent that a new framework should navigate a path between oversimplified concepts and excessively complex frameworks. It should consider emerging knowledge systems and practices from both the global South and North, while also possessing the vision to transcend marginal or incremental change toward transformative change.

While individual theories bring unique perspectives to the reimagining of systems, a cohesive understanding emerges when we synthesize three overlapping yet complementary theories. Together, these theories turn the narrative from merely alleviating poverty and boosting GDP to a transformative vision committed to justice and strong sustainability. They are (1) civilizational transitions for the pluriverse (Escobar 2019), which captures transcultural views and practices respectful of diverse social spaces and knowledge traditions; (2) the Doughnut-Economics model (Raworth 2017b), which excels at pinpointing environmental and social boundaries; and (3) equity principles for sustainable development (Haughton 1999), which carry strong sustainability principles into policymaking.

The first theory, “civilizational transitions for the pluriverse,” presents an alternative to the “Western civilization” model that hinges on free markets, dominant liberalism, and a pronounced human-nature dichotomy (Escobar 2019, 121–122).³ This perspective champions the idea that multiple worldviews can coexist, a concept embraced by diverse knowledge traditions such as ecofeminism and Indigenous sustainability science and ties with ideas of self-determination. Such civilizational transitions should be based on solidarity and pluralistic societies, which use market forces as a means of delivering well-being outcomes. It involves moving away from material accumulation and the promotion of one universal trading system.

The second key element of the synthesis, Raworth’s Doughnut-Economics model, is designed to create a “safe and just space for humanity” (Raworth, 2017b). This model outlines two broad categories of risks: the ecological ceiling (with indicators of climate change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, freshwater withdrawals, land conversion, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and ozone-layer depletion) and the social foundations (with indicators of food, health, education, income and work, peace and justice, political voice, social equity, gender equality, housing, networks, energy and water) (Raworth 2017a). In doing so, it challenges traditional assumptions about infinite resources and the primacy of economic growth, advocating instead for both social and environmental boundaries.

Completing this triad is Haughton’s “equity principles for sustainable development.” This perspective observes multiple dimensions of equity, including intra-generational equity (contemporary social equity), inter-generational equity (principle of ­futurity), inter-species equity (environmental stewardship), geographical equity (trans-frontier responsibility), and procedural equity (public engagement). Unlike “weak sustainability” approaches—which assume that produced capital can replace natural capital (see IPCC 2014)—Haughton’s conception brings much-needed attention to geographical equity, often overshadowed even in models like Doughnut Economics.

In summary, this article argues for a transformative approach to economic relations and trade systems, advocating for alignment with the above perspectives and principles of equity, pluralism, regeneration, and distribution. Such an approach compels a significant shift away from traditional systems that are predominantly driven and evaluated by economic indicators, such as GDP growth or trade expansion. The pressing issue now becomes how to most effectively operationalize this pivotal paradigm shift.

Five principles for the Planetary Welcare state

Building on the interdisciplinary synthesis just detailed, this section introduces the Planetary Welcare framework, designed to inform policy discussions and catalyze transformative change focused on five critical areas: well-being, consumption, accountability, policy harmonization, and environmental stewardship.

Contrary to the traditional welfare-state model, which centers on the economic and social well-being of citizens within distinct national borders, usually via cash and in-kind benefits (see Barr 2012), the Planetary Welcare state model elevates the perspective from a national or nationalistic viewpoint to a responsible global or cosmopolitan perspective. It integrates mechanisms for cross-border responsibility, accountability, and solidarity, all while caring for both universal well-being and planetary health, thereby pivoting away from the traditional focus on GDP growth and trade expansion.

The five Planetary Welcare principles are crystallized in the acronym WEL-C-A-R-E, as illustrated in Figure 1, and explained below, particularly in the context of transforming economic relations and trade systems through state action.

Figure 1. A compass for transformative change: the five Planetary WEL-C-A-R-E principles.

Note: Wel is for Well-being; C is for Consumption; A is for Accountability; R is for Rooted globalism; E is for the Environment.

Illustration: Josh Knowles, commissioned by the author.

Well-being in a Planetary Welcare economy: A guiding principle of the Planetary Welcare compass is the commitment to multidimensional well-being. This means that successful economic and trade systems in this framework aim to enrich not just material wealth and productivity, but also other aspects of life satisfaction such as safety, emotional health, and community well-being (see Cummins 1996). These systems work to satisfy universal needs, for example, nutritional food, water, healthcare, housing, non-hazardous environments, physical security, economic security, education, and significant primary relationships (see Gough 2015). By honing in on these universal needs, the framework effectively aligns with its own consumption and environmental principles, fostering sustainable lifestyles and livelihoods.⁴ Furthermore, it emphasizes the autonomy and agency of all societal segments—from rural and Indigenous communities to marginalized ethnic groups and gender and age demographics, across both the global South and North. This all-encompassing focus on well-being is attuned with the social SDGs and aligns with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Consumption in a Planetary Welcare economy: Central to the Planetary Welcare compass is the equitable balance of consumption across communities, regions, and generations. By employing a “contraction and convergence” strategy, the framework aims for a global reduction in consumption while promoting an adjustment in consumption habits among high- and low-consuming societies (convergence), ensuring alignment with planetary and social thresholds. For this balance to be realized, affluent societies, especially those in high environmental footprint countries like the United States, Singapore, and Norway (see Hickel n.d.), should spearhead efforts to reduce demand levels. In contrast, it is imperative that consumption levels in underprivileged communities rise to uplift their overall well-being. Current data indicates a “fair share” benchmark of 6.52 tonnes of materials and 1.58 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) per individual as of 2019 (Sustainable Development Index, n.d.). Crucially, it is vital to recognize that efficiency gains do not always lead to decreased resource use, as evidenced by rebound effects and the Jevons paradox (see Giampietro and Mayumi 2018). This nuanced approach not only aligns with SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production but also fills gaps in trade policies concerning under- and over-consumption.⁵

Accountability in a Planetary Welcare economy: A cornerstone of the Planetary Welcare compass is the integrity of accounting practices that transparently trace the impacts of global value chains. Take, for example, a soybean’s journey from cultivation in Brazil to consumption in the Philippines, financed by a French bank and traded by an American firm. The ripple effects of such a chain cannot be pinned to a single entity or nation, as multiple stakeholders derive value from it. In complex chains where roles overlap, the framework advises assigning accountability based on who derives the most significant benefit, whether investors, traders, consumers, or producers. Upholding integrity in accountability means embracing a sense of responsibility that transcends geographical and social boundaries. This approach aims to halt the practice of shifting costs or burdens from affluent to marginalized communities, underscoring that the protection of one group should not come at the expense of another. This principle resonates with the United Nation’s “protect, respect, remedy” framework and is in harmony with SDG 16, which focuses on justice and the establishment of strong institutions.

Rooted globalism in a Planetary Welcare economy: A lynchpin of effective economic systems in this framework is the reconciliation of international agreements with place-based policymaking, which is an approach that assumes that geographical context really matters and promotes the interaction of local groups and the external elites involved in a given policy (see Barca, McCann, and Rodríguez-Pose 2012; c.f. Costanza et al., 1995). Rooted globalism (or a “glocal” approach)⁶ allows trade systems to be diverse, ranging from local bartering systems to complex international agreements. Anchored by the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity, this principle advocates for voluntary participation in trade, prioritizing self-determination over external objectives like GDP growth. Such an approach aligns well with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention for Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Furthermore, it upholds the principle of subsidiarity, which posits that decisions should be made as close to the affected community as possible (see Hannah et al. 2021; Barrie et al. 2022, 5). In the realm of trade, this means that international policies and agreements should complement, rather than override, locally-crafted, place-based strategies.

Environmental stewardship in a Planetary Welcare state: At the foundation of a thriving economic system within this framework lies a commitment to environmental stewardship, advocating for a harmonious relationship between humanity and the broader natural world. This principle underscores the imperative of safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems, as they are crucial for providing essential resources and services like water, food, and climate stability. Adherence to planetary boundaries,⁷ gauged through metrics such as atmospheric CO₂ concentration, genetic diversity, and water flows, is non-negotiable for long-term societal well-being. This principle aligns with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s recognition of a healthy environment as a human right, as well as the rights of nature (see Kauffman and Martin 2021), and the environmental SDGs. It is imperative that environmental stewardship is practiced across various regions, ensuring alignment with all Planetary Welcare principles, such as accountability beyond borders, and the need for tailored strategies to balance out consumption levels across nations, generations, and societal groups.

Embracing the Planetary Welcare principles, both individually and collectively, is a pivotal step toward achieving planetary health, justice, and strong sustainability. While each principle plays a crucial role, their collective application, especially in international trade dialogues, is key to avoiding reinforcing systemic issues and inadvertently perpetuating current practices. These principles may involve complex tradeoffs, such as weighing immediate necessities like nutrition against other objectives such as climate-change mitigation. However, their true power emerges from their combined effect in the long run. For instance, steadfast commitment to accountability and environmental stewardship can act as a robust safeguard against unchecked consumption.

Rather than prescribing a quantifiable end-goal, the Planetary Welcare compass emphasizes the essential transformative journey toward true sustainability, justice, and planetary health. Within this transformation, governmental agencies play a central role, particularly when private sectors lack the incentive to drive meaningful change, a point illuminated by Österblom et al. (2022). Fundamentally, the Planetary Welcare principles establish a baseline for normative frameworks that catalyze transformative shifts. The framework acts as both a compass for initiating meaningful policy dialogues and a critical lens for evaluating current economic and trade systems—a theme further explored in the following section.

Analyzing institutions and strategies: the WTO and the IFTC through a Planetary Welcare lens

This section applies the Planetary Welcare compass to analyze the high-level strategies of the WTO and the IFTC. The WTO, a formal intergovernmental organization, operates under binding agreements, while the IFTC is a guiding document that represents the vision and values of the global fair-trade movement. Refer to Table 1 for an overview of their respective approaches. These institutions were chosen for their contrasting strategies, showcasing the framework’s versatility across different paradigms.

Table 1. High-level strategy elements of the WTO and IFTC.

	WTO	ITFC
Purpose	“The primary purpose of the WTO is to open trade for the benefit of all” (WTO, n.d.-d).	“Inspire people to join and support fair trade; promote collaboration across movements; and communicate the fair trade values and approaches to governments, academia and the private sector” (IFTC 2018).
Vision	“An open trading system based on multilaterally agreed rules” (WTO, n.d.-f).	“Everyone, through their work, can maintain a decent and dignified livelihood and develop their full human potential” (IFTC 2018).
Principal beneficiary	“Importers, exporters and producers of goods and services” (WTO, n.d.-f)—particularly at the nation-state level.	“Small producers, workers, artisans, farmers, and consumers” (IFTC 2018).
Objective/Goal	“The goal is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible” (WTO, n.d.-d). The goal of the WTO agreements is to “help producers of goods and services, exporters and importers to conduct their business, with a view to raising standards of living, while allowing governments to meet social and environmental objectives.” (WTO, n.d.-f). The text in italics was added to the WTO “who we are” web page after June 2021, alongside a new line of thinking that states “The fundamental goal of the WTO is to improve the welfare of people around the world” (WTO, n.d.-f).^8	“Empower artisans, farmers and workers to take more control over their own futures and secure outcomes based on justice for people and planet” (IFTC 2018).
Principle	Principles of the WTO trading system:^9 Trade without discrimination Free trade Predictability Fair competition Encouraging development and economic reform (WTO, n.d.-c).	Core components: “People-first” trade policies Thriving communities Ecological balance Sustainable livelihoods Food security Gender equity Inclusive economic growth Decent work (IFTC 2018)
Function	Main function: “to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.” Functions: “administering WTO trade agreements; forum for trade negotiations; handling trade disputes; monitoring national trade policies; technical assistance and training for developing countries; cooperation with other international organization.” (WTO, n.d.-d).	The IFTC explains the shared vision and values of the Global Fair Trade Movement (IFTC 2018).

Though the WTO and the IFTC both recognize the vital importance of trade in improving livelihoods, they diverge significantly in their foundational principles and objectives. The WTO’s strategy primarily safeguards the interests of nation-states and major trade entities, utilizing a rule-based framework to ensure smooth and predictable trade flows. This approach underscores a commitment to procedural principles, with an emphasis on a structured and rule-bound interpretation of “fairness.”

In a notable departure from this approach, the IFTC places a strong emphasis on fairness and equity, championing the rights and needs of marginalized entities, including small-scale producers and artisans. Contrary to the WTO’s focus on procedural rules, the IFTC is oriented toward the tangible outcomes and impacts of trade practices. Its foundational components are rooted in principles of justice and environmental sustainability, reflecting a dedication to “people-first” policies and the welfare of communities. This orientation underscores a strategic shift from a rules-centric view of trade to one that prioritizes equitable and sustainable results for all stakeholders involved.

In presenting the strategic orientations of the WTO and the IFTC, Table 1 provides a broad yet insightful perspective. However, it is imperative to acknowledge that this depiction, while comprehensive, is not all-encompassing; it does not encapsulate every nuanced facet or exception inherent in these strategies.

Notwithstanding this limitation, prevailing evidence within the domain of organizational studies substantiates that the articulated strategy, mission, and vision of an entity are substantive indicators of its objectives and are predictive of its performance (see Mintzberg 1987; David and David 2003). Consequently, the scrutiny of these high-level strategies, particularly within the context of the Planetary Welcare compass, becomes instrumental in elucidating the congruence between stated aims and anticipated outcomes in the realm of trade policy. Table 2 synthesizes these insights, offering a distilled summary of the alignment between the high-level strategies of the WTO and IFTC with the five Planetary Welcare principles, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of their policy orientations and potential impacts.

Table 2. Overlap between the Planetary Welcare framework and the high-level strategies of the WTO and the IFTC.

Planetary Welcare principle	WTO’s high-level strategy	ITFC
Well-being	Yes	Yes
Consumption	Not identified (NI)	Yes
Accountability with integrity	NI	Yes
Rooted globalism	NI	Yes
Environmental stewardship	Yes	Yes

The considerable differences in the high-level strategies of the WTO and the IFTC are evident in their alignment with the principles of Planetary Welcare. This analysis not only highlights the contrast in their strategic approaches but also sheds light on the varying degrees to which each institution integrates and prioritizes the tenets of Planetary Welcare and the implications for fostering just and sustainable economies.

WTO’s stance on sustainable development, fairness, and recent shifts

The WTO recognized “sustainable development” in its founding preamble as a challenge to be integrated with growing demand, production, and trade (WTO 1994). However, until mid-2021, non-economic goals remained peripheral to the WTO’s high-level strategy. This scenario appeared to show initial signs of change with the WTO’s new leadership in 2021, after the appointment of a development economist, first woman, and first African to lead the WTO. In public speeches, the WTO’s Director-General have highlighted trade’s role in potentially lifting developing countries out of poverty and helping them achieve sustainable development and robust economic growth (Chatham House 2021).

Using the Planetary Welcare methodology, it is evident that the WTO’s high-level strategy addresses, to a certain extent, the framework’s well-being and environmental principles. However, the principles of balanced consumption, cross-border accountability with fairness, and rooted globalism are less evident. While these principles do appear as exceptions in the WTO’s regime, they are not central to its overarching and public strategy.

To elucidate the preceding assessment, it is essential to consider various factors that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the WTO’s strategic orientation. Primarily, these factors encompass the organization’s historical challenges in effectively addressing the externalities and adverse spillover effects of global trade, as noted by Hoekman and Mavroidis (2021). However, it is also important to recognize the positive shifts that have occurred under the WTO’s new leadership since 2021, which potentially signal a transformation in its approach. A detailed examination of the WTO’s strategy revealed four key elements that are pivotal in understanding and contextualizing this analysis. These elements include the impact of the change in leadership, the organization’s approach to environmental objectives, the process of universalizing the WTO regime, and the concept of fairness within its system. Each of these aspects offers insight into both the strengths and limitations of its approach to global trade governance.

First, the appointment of a new Director-General of the WTO in 2021 brought about an important addition to the institution’s publicly stated objective, namely, “to improve the welfare of people around the world” (see Table 1). This is a significant departure from the previous strategy, and the chosen terminology addresses material well-being and economic security. The extent to which this renewed high-level element of a strategy will influence new and revised rules, agreements, and instruments remains to be determined. There is nevertheless an opportunity for the WTO to address non-economic aspects of life satisfaction, as outlined in the well-being principle of the Planetary Welcare compass.

Second, while environmental objectives are mentioned in the WTO’s high-level strategy, they are presented as permissions granted to governments rather than central goals. In the context of WTO jurisprudence, the environment features only as an exception, and environmental measures are framed through the lens of possible barriers to trade. Exception clauses included in WTO agreements (e.g., GATT Article XX and the General Agreement on Trade in Services Article XIV) do address environmental protection, but again, as exceptions to the WTO high-level strategy. Its Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement also frames measures aimed at health and environmental protection as potential obstacles to international trade rather than necessary safety clauses (WTO n.d.-a). As a result, the WTO’s regime of environmental exceptions is notoriously difficult to navigate, leading many stakeholders to be cautious about implementing environmental measures for fear of running afoul of WTO regulations (Birkbeck 2021, 17).

Third, the attempt to universalize one trade system is often seen as a positive feature for predictability, but it contradicts the idea of plurality and the need for reconciliation between place-based and global policymaking. In the WTO high-level strategy, exchange values of commodities are prioritized over their use values—that is, the human needs directly fulfilled by an object or service. In such a system, those who cannot pay for the provision of need-satisfiers are at a disadvantage. The WTO aims to assimilate as many individuals (as consumers, not citizens), economies, and cultures as possible into a unified global market economy by encouraging development and economic reform (Mcafee 1999; Potter and Tilzey 2007; Atalan-Helicke and Mansfield 2012; Kothari et al. 2019). The SDGs align with this top-down approach, with target 17.10 calling for “a universal … multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization.” (United Nations 2015, Paragraph 68). Besides, SDG target 8.a and target 17.11 further push “developing countries,” particularly “least developed countries,” to partake in “Aid for Trade” support and to “significantly increase exports.” The WTO’s focus on integrating global markets often overlooks the importance of diversity and place-based policymaking.

Finally, “fairness” in the WTO system is primarily concerned with procedures rather than outcomes. This is exemplified by the principles of “trade without discrimination” and “most favored nation” (MFN). The “non-discrimination” principle suggests the application of equal tariff to all trade partners, whether “rich or poor, weak or strong” (WTO n.d.-b). The MNF principle means that “every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners—whether rich or poor” (WTO n.d.). There are exceptions to this element of the WTO’s high-level strategy, with various Special and Differential Treatments (SDT) provisions, 21% of which oblige “developed” country-members to provide differential treatment to “developing” members (Hegde and Wouters 2021; Ukpe and Khorana 2021). But again, by definition, exceptions are outside the broad set of rules or the high-level strategy of the organization.

This approach potentially undermines the WTO’s ability to address the unique needs of its diverse member states, as it overlooks the importance of equitable outcomes in favor of procedural uniformity. Indeed, encouraging “developing” countries to lower tariffs before they have met the basic needs of citizens is not conducive to achieving the SDGs (Laumann et al. 2022; De Neve and Sachs 2020). Economic research has demonstrated that tariffs on imports and exports can be effective tools for nation-states to generate revenue and promote economic development—and that this kind of fiscal policy was transformative when adopted by countries such as the UK and the United States during their periods of economic consolidation (Piketty 2020). Yet, the high-level strategy of the WTO diverges from this approach. The WTO advocates for uniform treatment of member countries, adhering more to a principle of political equality rather than economic equality (Marianne Petsinger, personal communication, May 10, 2022). This stance emphasizes parity in treatment over equity, which entails fairness and the provision of equal opportunities to diverse economic actors. This difference in approach highlights a critical tension between economic strategies employed by individual nations and standardized policies promoted by international organizations like the WTO.

The IFTC’s holistic goals and advocacy for justice and place-based policymaking

Published by the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) and Fairtrade International in 2018, the purpose of the IFTC is to advance “modes of production and trading that put people and planet before financial profit” (ITFC 2018, 4). As defined in the IFTC, fair trade is “a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency, and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers—especially in the South.” (ITFC 2018, 11). While I acknowledge that the fair-trade movement is decentralized and plural, with organizations advancing selected elements of the charter, the analysis that follows focuses on the high-level strategy of the movement, as epitomized by the IFTC as an institution (for critical views on the FairTrade label or movement, see Griffiths 2012; c.f. Sirdey and Lemeilleur 2019; Ribeiro-Duthie, Gale, and Murphy-Gregory 2021).

The IFTC aligns closely with most Planetary Welcare principles. It tackles poverty eradication and inequality reduction in the provision of well-being and need-satisfiers—especially food security, sustainable livelihoods, and decent work for small producers, workers, artisans, farmers, and consumers. The IFTC advocates for civic engagement in trade policymaking and integrates environmental stewardship by recognizing the ecological limits of our planet as essential for the well-being of current and future generations (ITFC 2018, 23). Accountability beyond borders and balanced demand are also touched upon, with the IFTC acknowledging that energy consumption, greenhouse gases, and waste need to be reduced, and that transparency and accountability mechanisms for responsible consumption should be in place. The IFTC, however, does not directly address the uneven geographies of overconsumption or consumerism, nor does it call for a contraction-and-convergence strategy. Such analysis can be explained by three key features of the IFTC: on their advocacy for the underprivileged, citizen engagement in trade policy, and holistic goals.

First, the IFTC emphasizes support for those most affected by power imbalances in supply chains and the climate crisis, such as small farmers, artisans, women, and young people. It focuses on intra-generational and inter-generational equity and has been linked to outcomes like gender equality, living income generation, well-being, and breaking poverty cycles (Darko, Lynch, and Smith 2017; CIFOR 2020). Intersectionality or the needs of other minoritized groups (such as Indigenous peoples, rural and landless communities, immigrants, LGBTIQ+, minoritized ethnic groups, and racially minoritized peoples and individuals) are not directly referenced in the IFTC.

Second, the IFTC calls upon citizens to engage in trade policy. The aspiration is to establish and support democratic and participatory processes of international and national rules-making. The IFTC proposes a place-based and multi-level approach to trade rules, where local, national, regional, and global scenarios are interlinked. The idea is “to involve citizens in rewriting the rules of trade with the needs of small producers, workers and consumers at their heart” (ITFC 2018, 6). By doing so, no single top-down trade regime should overrule locally appropriate and resilient systems; instead, the approach broadens out to accommodate varied forms of place-based trade systems, formal and informal, informed by the needs and wants of citizens. Notably, production and trade systems emerging from such an approach would not prioritize the interests of international finance (banks and investors), multinational firms, or other political and economic elites. This would then create room for the development of distributive economies.

Finally, the IFTC attempts to tackle multiple goals. In its rather large scope reside the IFTC’s main strength and weakness. The strength is in considering the impacts of trade in economies, societies, and cultures, in a holistic manner. The weakness is primarily in that most powerful and influential actors have only minimal interest in changing the status quo, or in rethinking trade systems to address issues beyond the economic growth paradigm. This largely differs from the WTO’s high-level strategy, which is much more focused in its scope and is widely influential.

Adopting a Planetary Welcare approach requires institutions to fundamentally re-evaluate their systems. For the WTO, this involves shifting its focus toward ensuring fair outcomes and prioritizing the well-being of both people and the environment, while balancing these goals with its traditional roles in facilitating trade and fostering economic growth. The IFTC, which already shares many of the Planetary Welcare ideals, can re-examine its conceptualizations of inclusion and equity, particularly in the light of inter-generational equity and intersectionality, as well as deepen its commitment to promoting balanced consumption. This process involves critically assessing the factors that perpetuate overconsumption in certain regions, as well as enhancing accountability mechanisms that address the varied well-being needs across different geographies. To facilitate this transition, two primary actions are essential: initiating collaborative pilot programs that bridge the gap between these institutions and Planetary Welcare advocates, showcasing the practical advantages of these principles, and establishing or strenghtening diverse forums for stakeholder engagement to foster inclusive, equitable, and sustainable trade-policy development.

The cases of the WTO and the IFTC demonstrate the extent to which different trade-related strategies and institutions address the Planetary Welcare principles. In tracing multi-dimensional aspects of trade institutions, it becomes clear that new and emerging interdisciplinary thinking has a crucial role to play in future economic and trade systems. Such thinking will be essential to reverse unsustainable production and consumption practices and to bring about transformational change that looks beyond legal constraints and economic imperatives.

Conclusion

Recognizing the expanding impact of trade on global dynamics, the diverse perceptions and misconceptions about equity and sustainability, and the need to think beyond GDP growth, this article introduced the Planetary Welcare framework as a guiding compass for transformative change. This framework proposes a reorientation of priorities, repositioning social, cultural, and ecological objectives on an equal footing with economic goals, advocating for their integration rather than subordination.

In detailing the Planetary Welcare compass, I outlined five principles necessary for transformative change: enhancing well-being, balancing consumption, ensuring accountability with integrity, fostering rooted globalism through the reconciliation of international and local policymaking, and committing to environmental stewardship. These principles emerge from a rich tapestry of interdisciplinary thought, challenging and transcending traditional frameworks and dominant narratives. They mark a departure from traditional practices that, despite effecting change, have fallen short of the transformative shift required in how societies, businesses, and governments address societal challenges.

Significantly, this framework hints at an evolutionary leap for the concept of the welfare state, traditionally centered on economic security and social rights within national boundaries. The Planetary Welcare concept broadens this scope to embrace planetary health, equity, and strong sustainability—hinting at the emergence of a “Welcare-state” paradigm.

The analysis above, which contrasts the high-level strategies of the WTO and the IFTC, highlights the effectiveness of the Planetary Welcare compass. It emerges as a tool for evaluating and enhancing trade-related institutions, VSS and ESG initiatives, as well as for refining sustainability strategies, including the SDGs and formulating transformative agendas beyond 2030. Notably, the Planetary Welcare framework encourages place-based policymaking processes at all levels, from the community to subnational, national, and international levels.

The Planetary Welcare framework emerges as an invaluable instrument for bilateral and regional trade agreements, injecting new insights into these complex relationships. For example, the framework offers innovative perspectives for re-examining and potentially resolving stalemates like the long-drawn-out negotiations between Mercosur and the European Union. Its principles encourage stakeholders to find creative solutions and navigate deadlocks using more comprehensive and unified methods. Specifically, the framework could shed light on consumption patterns, challenge the acceptance of practices in the global South that are prohibited in the global North, and place greater emphasis on multi-dimensional well-being in policy development. This approach confronts issues such as consumption inequality, the need for greater transparency and accountability, and the challenges of multi-dimensional development, thereby offering a more holistic and fair perspective on trade dynamics.

The Planetary Welcare principles, with their integrative and forward-thinking approach, are not just for the analysis of institutions and strategies but also to inspire and catalyze a strategic realignment that benefits people, nature, and the planet, both now and in the future. Institutions like the United Nations system, the WTO, and governments stand to gain from integrating these principles into their strategies, policies, and practices. Such integration could effectively address the root causes of multiple societal crises. While the framework may not instantly transform existing rules, agreements, or practices,¹⁰ it establishes a foundation for future strategic development. Additionally, there is considerable scope for further exploration and implementation of the principles across diverse institutional and policy environments, setting the stage for significant advancements. The treatment presented in this article invites feedback on its principles and analysis. As a caveat, note that the framework offers a principled way to analyze systems, rather than step-by-step practical guidance. Such guidance should be developed on a case-by-case basis, observing the need for reconciliation between international and place-based policymaking.

The Planetary Welcare compass and discussion in this article can well inform governments, civil society, peoples’ movements, and political campaigns in linking trade policy to broader societal goals and place-based needs—which in turn can help to redefine the role of trade in societal formation. The challenge now is to mobilize peoples and institutions, improve and integrate the principles for transformative change into a coherent set of policy mixes, and design complementary pathways toward planetary health, justice, and sustainability or sustainable development. The opportunity is to go beyond voluntary and scattered approaches, to overhaul or create strong institutions to foster new patterns in trade policies and regulations aligned with Planetary Welcare principles for plural, just, and sustainable futures.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the UK Research and Innovation’s Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) as part of the Trade, Development, and the Environment Hub project (project number ES/S008160/1). The author was affiliated with Chatham House during the initial stages of this research and since has moved to UNEP-WCMC. The views and opinions expressed herein are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency or affiliated organizations. The author extends thanks to Kate O’Reilly for collaboration in the initial stages of this project, available as a pre-print with SocArXiv, and to Charlotte Thomas, Marcello De Maria, Neil Burgess, Mariana Kettunen, Jack Barrie, John Elkington, Dorothy Guerrero, Susan de Oliveira, Louise Nakagawa, James Vause, Beatriz Fernandez, Lisen Runsten, Tanya Payne, Fabiana Spinelli, Richard King, Tim Benton, and Anthony Froggatt for their contributions and insights. I also thank the five anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable feedback that significantly enhanced this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The scoping study helped to identify common threads in trade-related frameworks and institutions. It was not conducted to fulfill a systematic review, which could be the object of another study.

2 Mostly notably the Trade Hub community associated with the UK Research and Innovation’s Global Challenges Research Fund.

3 The Western civilization model entails “a project of economic, military, sex-gender, racial, and cultural dominance,” according to Escobar (2021, 121–122). Importantly, for Escobar, this civilization model is the foundation of the current multi-headed crisis of climate, energy, food, poverty.

4 “A livelihood is sustainable when it is resilient and either neutral or beneficial to the environment and other livelihoods over time and geographies, with people having opportunities to engage with processes of change.” (Kanashiro Uehara 2021, 33).

5 This oversight is evident in policy agendas of regions like the United States and the European Union, as well as in instruments such as the Sustainable Trade Index.

6 “Glocalizing” relates to redressing imbalances in the interplay between “global” and “local” imperatives in international collaboration, and between institutions in global North and global South countries (Kanashiro Uehara et al. 2023).

7 Nine planetary boundaries are currently observed: biosphere integrity, climate change, novel entities, stratospheric ozone depletion, freshwater change, atmospheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification, land-system change, and biogeochemical flows (Richardson et al. 2023).

8 The identified changes occurred between June and September 2021. Compare archive at https://web.archive.org.

9 The identified changes occurred between June and September 2021. Compare archive at https://web.archive.org.

10 The framework presented in this article may not align with the perspectives of institutions primarily focused on economic or GDP growth, or those advocating unrestricted trade. This divergence is due to the framework’s emphasis on integrating economic objectives with broader cultural, social, and ecological considerations.

Appendix 1

– Trade-related institutions and frameworks

The resources mapped in the scoping phase of this study were:

African Continental Free Trade Agreement, 2018, https://www.tralac.org/documents/resources/african-union/2162-afcfta-agreement-legally-scrubbed-version-signed-16-may-2018/file.html

Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability, by Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand, https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/trade-and-climate/agreement-on-climate-change-trade-and-sustainability-accts-negotiations/

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s economic vision, environmental vision, and framework of principles for integrating economy and development, https://www.apec.org/Groups/Other-Groups/Sustainable-Development

Ethical Trading Initiative’s base code, 2018, https://www.ethicaltrade.org/sites/default/files/shared_resources/ETI%20Base%20Code%20%28English%29.pdf

European Commission’s trade policy review, 2021, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf

Fairtrade Foundation’s agenda for policy coherence, 2015, https://www.fairtrade.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Delivering-the-SDGs-through-Trade_Five-Point-Agenda_FINAL.pdf

Finance Alliance for Sustainable Trade, https://unfss.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/fast-wto-presentation-orig.pdf

Friends of the Earth Europe’s setting course for sustainable trade, 2018, https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/eu-us_trade_deal/2018/trade_alternatives_designreport_v6_ld.pdf

Greenpeace’s 10 principles for trade, 2017, https://trade-leaks.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/201705_Greenpeace_10_Principles_for_Trade.pdf

IDH, the sustainable trade initiative’s collaborative transformation, https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/collaborative-transformation/.

International Chamber of Commerce’s Standards for Sustainable Trade, by the Boston Consulting Group, https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-standards-for-sustainable-trade-and-sustainable-trade-finance/

International Fair Trade Charter, 2018, https://wfto.com/sites/default/files/2018_FTCharter_English_SCREEN.pdf

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s trends in policy indicators on trade and environment, 2019, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/b8d2bcac-en.pdf?expires=1653904913&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=388FE49C003E37332924B119B988DBB1

The Alterative Trade Mandate Alliance, https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/trade-time_for_a_new_vision.pdf

The Hinrich Foundation Sustainable Trade Index, by the Economist Intelligence Unit, https://www.hinrichfoundation.com/research/wp/sustainable/sustainable-trade-index-2020/

Trade Justice Movement’s alternative vision for trade, https://www.tjm.org.uk/trade-issues/developing-an-alternative-trading-system

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s investment policy framework for sustainable development, 2015, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcb2015d5_en.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme’s reference manual for integrated assessment of trade-related policies, 2001, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8759/-Reference%20Manual%20for%20the%20Integrated%20Assessment%20of%20Trade-Related%20Policies-2001315.pdf?amp%3BisAllowed=&sequence=3

United States 2020 trade policy agenda, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2020_Trade_Policy_Agenda_and_2019_Annual_Report.pdf

World Trade Organization’s principles of the trading system, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/framework.htm