The horror of being Hyde racked me (Stevenson, 1886)
The horror of being Hyde racked me, wrote Stevenson (1886), encapsulating the transformation from noble intention to monstrous outcome, a fitting metaphor for the trajectory of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Emerging as a declaration of global unity, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs from now on), were crafted to “end poverty and hunger everywhere, to combat inequalities... and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet” (Palmer, 2015). With enumerated goals of sweeping ambition and inclusivity, the Agenda called on all nations to shoulder shared responsibilities for a more equitable future.
Yet, as time has passed, the Agenda’s duality has become unmistakable. Much like Dr. Jekyll’s noble experiments gave rise to Hyde’s monstrosity, the SDGs’ lofty ideals have been distorted by political opportunism, misinformation, and neglect.
At its heart, the Agenda sought to transcend the divides of its predecessor, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were criticized for their limited focus on developing countries and narrow thematic concerns (Fukuda-Parr, 2020). Unlike the Millunum Development Goals, the new ones aimed to address the interconnected challenges of poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and governance on a global scale. However, its universality, once celebrated as its greatest strength, has also become its vulnerability. The open-ended nature of the framework, described as “an agenda of breathtaking ambition and scope,” left it susceptible to exploitation (Chasek, 2016). Politicians and organizations increasingly cherry-pick goals to justify regressive policies while neglecting the broader principles of sustainability and equity.
This evolution mirrors the descent of Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll, whose virtuous intentions gave way to Hyde’s darker impulses. Without robust accountability, the Agenda’s noble promises risk devolving into rhetorical flourishes, wielded as tools for division rather than unity.
The following sections explore this transformation, analyzing the dual nature of the SDGs and their potential for redemption. The central question remains, Can the Agenda be steered back toward its original intent, or will it remain captive to Hyde’s ambitions?
From Global Unity to Political Battlefield
This ambitious framework, initially intended to catalyze global transformation, called for unified action on poverty, inequality, and climate change (Leal Filho, 2023). Yet, the optimism surrounding Agenda 2030 has increasingly given way to contention.
Political actors have co-opted the SDGs to serve narrow agendas, a dynamic most evident in the treatment of SDG 13, “Climate Action,” and SDG 5, “Gender Equality.” The urgency surrounding climate action often prioritizes singular metrics like net-zero emissions while sidelining broader social and ecological considerations. This reductionist approach marginalizes critical concerns such as social justice, distorting the multifaceted nature of sustainability. Similarly, SDG 5, designed to advance gender equality, has been subsumed by polarized ideological debates. Is clear also that gender rights are weaponized in cultural clashes, transforming the goal from a unifying vision to a flashpoint for division.
These examples underscore a broader challenge, the SDGs’ universality, while intended as a unifying framework, has been leveraged selectively. Competing national and international priorities often result in fragmented interpretations of the SDGs, with some actors treating them as aspirational ideals and others as directives. This disjointedness undermines the integrative potential of Agenda 2030.
To counteract this fragmentation, strengthened governance mechanisms are essential. Transparent accountability frameworks could realign the SDGs with their transformative intent, ensuring that the interconnectedness of sustainable development is preserved (Leal Filho, 2023).
Misinformation and Its Consequences
Misinformation operates as Hyde’s shadow over the SDGs, distorting their promise and undermining their legitimacy. Campaigns of disinformation have particularly targeted SDG 13, “Climate Action,” and SDG 5, “Gender Equality.” Climate denial campaigns often exploit right-wing ideologies to frame climate change as a hoax, eroding trust in scientific consensus (Chmiel, 2024). Similarly, opposition to gender equality is framed as a threat to cultural traditions, exacerbating
In underdeveloped regions, where access to reliable information is limited, misinformation poses even greater risks. Sensationalist narratives fuel division among stakeholders, hindering collaborative efforts to achieve the SDGs (Raman, 2024). This erosion of trust undermines SDG 17, “Partnerships for the Goals,” which relies on cooperation for success. In summary, misinformation disrupts the holistic principles of Agenda 2030, fragmenting progress and amplifying inequalities. Addressing this challenge requires robust public education initiatives and policy interventions to counter disinformation and restore trust in the SDGs (Chmiel 2024).
The Stakes for Global Progress
The misuse of the SDGs jeopardizes the essence of global cooperation. Cherry-picking or weaponizing the goals erodes their credibility as a framework for sustainability, undermining trust in multilateral mechanisms (Bogers, 2023). This delegitimization hampers efforts to tackle urgent challenges such as poverty eradication and climate resilience. Fragmented implementation further exacerbates inequalities, diverting resources from vulnerable communities and stalling progress on interconnected priorities (Ocampo & Gómez-Arteaga, 2016). Without renewed political will and robust accountability, the transformative promise of the Agenda risks remaining unrealized.
To redeem Agenda 2030, its stakeholders must embrace its original vision of unity and equity, ensuring that the SDGs function as a genuine blueprint for a sustainable future, not a casualty of opportunism.
Conclusion
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development stands as both a testament to humanity's highest aspirations and a cautionary tale of noble intentions gone awry. In its design, the SDGs embodied a revolutionary commitment to universal equity, environmental stewardship, and shared prosperity. Yet, as their implementation falters under the weight of political expediency, misinformation, and selective application, the promise of this ambitious framework teeters on the brink of unfulfilled potential.
Much like Robert Louis Stevenson’s tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Agenda has revealed its dual nature. Its transformative goals,crafted to address interconnected crises—are too often co-opted and distorted, their virtue overshadowed by the darker impulses of opportunism ajjnd disinformation. The exploitation of goals such as climate action and gender equality, for instance, illustrates how urgency and ideological clashes can turn a unifying framework into a divisive battleground. This duality highlights the troubling trend where singular priorities are elevated at the expense of the interconnected vision needed for meaningful progress, with climate initiatives often stripped of social nuance and gender equality debates mired in ideological polarization.
The SDGs’ universality, once their greatest strength, has proven to be a double-edged sword. While its broad applicability fosters inclusivity, it also leaves the framework vulnerable to selective appropriation. As scholars have observed, pojlitical actors and institutions frequently invoke specific SDGs to bolster their agendas, neglecting the integrative approach vital for true sustainability. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the fragmented pursuit of the goals, where competing national interests and geopolitical instability exacerbate the disconnect between idealistic aspirations and practical outcomes.
Just as Dr. Jekyll sought redemption from Hyde’s destructive grip, the global community must act decisively to steer the SDGs back toward their intended path. Strengthened global partnerships and transparent governance, coupled with efforts to promote accurate public discourse, could realign the Agenda with its founding principles.
References
Biermann, F., (2017). The architecture of the SDGs. Sustainability Studies, 5(3), 456–478.
Bogers, M.,(2023). Erosion of trust in global governance. Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(7), 1–20.
Chasek, P. S. (2016). Negotiating sustainable development goals. Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
Chmiel, A (2024). Misinformation and climate action. Environmental Politics Review, 10(1), 45–67.
Eliasson, J.,(2019). Geopolitical uncertainty and SDGs. Global Policy Journal, 8(4), 567–581.
Fukuda-Parr, S., & Muchhala, B. (2020). Millennium Development Goals revisited. Development Policy Review, 38(1), 23–42.
Hulme, M. (2019). Climate urgency: Simplistic narratives and their consequences. Climate Policy, 19(7), 800–813.
Leal Filho, W. (2023). Transformative potential of the SDGs. Springer Sustainability Series.
Palmer, G. (2015). The Declaration of the SDGs. United Nations Documentation.
Ocampo, J. A., & Gómez-Arteaga, L. (2016). Fragmentation in sustainable governance. Journal of Economic Development, 21(2), 215–237.
Raman, P. (2024). Fake news in underdeveloped regions. Media and Society, 12(3), 112–130.
Stevenson, R. L. (1886). Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Longmans, Green & Co.
Verma, A., & Nayak, S. (2024). Cultural opposition to gender equality. Feminist Perspectives, 14(2), 75–92.
Manuel Pagura Ghioni is an Argentinian/Spaniard Lawyer who graduated with honours from the University of Buenos Aires Law School. He studied in depth international law, international relations, and foreign politics. He is currently pursuing a master’s degree in European Studies (MAES), at the University of Gothenburg, department of Political Science
Comentarios