Readers' Guide Comment on “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … Transparency International’s Global Corruption Report“
In this example of institutions which that produce policy metrics, the IPPC and the TI are by far the most influential. The other bodies cited are known only within a narrow, specialized community and have had only a marginal impact on global policy in spite of their value and academic rigor (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ). WEF’s own report on competitiveness is an example of a very narrowly focused metric. It directs international policy away from sustainable environmental development and towards a rather traditional macroeconomic growth strategy.
Readers' Guide Comment on "can be highly effective at influencing the political debate“
In this context one should think about the targeted de-legitimization campaign aimed at the International Panel on Climate Change. It is an early warning of the way such multi-stakeholder scientific bodies can be prevented from effectively laying the groundwork for meaningful policy interventions. If WEF does mean that information metrics should help shape priorities, it should address how corporate-funded miseducation campaigns for self-interested market benefits impair access to sound scientific data.
Readers' Guide Comment on “the potential to enable and mobile grass roots political support”
The problem is not the lack of quality research on global problems, but rather getting countries and firms to act on available knowledge. Global elites engage in fact-dodging when the truth may require actions that are perceived in the short term to be antithetical to their own interests. In general, high-powered international information panels do not inform non-governmental organizations or cause to them to act.
The Readers' Guide welcomes comments with alternative examples or counter examples, supplemental assessments of the extracted GRI text or commentary – critical or otherwise – of the above interpretation of GRI’s perspective.